[videoblogging] Re: Who Uses "V Cast"?

[mjcarrasquillo2002]

Hey Bill! I use V-Cast, Ptt yeah right... I have Verizon but
V-Cast is practically useless.

Michael Carrasquillo
http://www.michaelcarrasquillo.com
http://www.thetrialsofbeingmike.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I haven't been able to find anyone that has it.  According to their
> list of V Cast compatible phones,
>

> or , you can't get it on the iPhone OR the
> Blackberry series.
> 
> The V Cast user FAQ is here =>
> .
> 
> According to the wiki , "V CAST
> is a 3G EV-DO network created by Verizon Wireless to deliver audio,
> video, and entertainment content. The typical download speed is
> between 400 and 700 kilobits per second with burst speeds of up to 2
> megabits per second. V CAST provides music downloads and streaming
> video clips, which can be saved to the phone or a removable memory
> card, though they cannot be read by other phones or computers, since
> they are heavily protected by digital rights management software based
> on Windows Media Video 9 and developed by PacketVideo".
> 
> So, yeah, we know there are tons of Verizon Wireless customers, and
> I'm sure there are lots of people who bought phones that work with V
> Cast... but most people that I randomly ask don't even know what "V
> Cast" is.
> 
> Bill Cammack
> http://billcammack.com
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "schlomo rabinowitz"
>  wrote:
> >
> > But the question I really want answered: Who the heck actually uses
> V-Cast?
> > 
> > Enquiring minds want to know!
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Bill Cammack  wrote:
> > 
> > >   Yeah, man. I saw that. The resurgence is due to Loren stepping
> > > outside of the Echo Chamber with his Verizon deal and exposing
himself
> > > to people who don't give a damn about Social Media AT ALL, but
DO CARE
> > > who companies that they patronize associate with... as well as what
> > > those people appear to stand for.
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > Bill Cammack
> > > http://billcammack.com
> > >
> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> ,
> > > Sull  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > which just came back to bite him a year later.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/07/07/1938-media-loses-verizon-deal-over-racism-charges/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2007/8/3 Bill Cammack :
> > > >
> > > > > Loren Feldman = Technigga

> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > sull.outputs.it
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Schlomo Rabinowitz
> > http://schlomolog.blogspot.com
> > http://hatfactory.net
> > AIM:schlomochat
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

[videoblogging] Re: help with streched letterboxed video?

[mjcarrasquillo2002]

Lauren:

So let me understand? You have a 4:3 delivery of 16:9 footage (which
shows bars on top and bottom) and within it there is 4:3 footage being
stretched to 16:9? 

OK, basically it's like this...They need to go into the motion tab (of
the clip) in FCP and change the dimensions of the 4:3 footage itself
to make it look "pillar bars" in the 16:9 frame. First they should
check to see, if for some reason, the 4:3 footage had the option of
"anamorphic" checked in the browser by accident. Sometimes this
happens and un-checking this is the answer for it. Otherwise they will
have to manually change the dimensions in the motion tab of the clip
itself!

I added a 4:3 clip into my 16:9 timeline and made that issue happen
and here's what I got...

"Anamorphic" (in Browser) checked
The clips motion tab settings are:
Basic Motion
 Scale is 112.5%
Distort
  Upper Left  -320 -240
  Upper Right -320 -240
  Lower Right -320 -240
  Lower Left  -320 -240
   Aspect Ratio   -12.5

Within a 16:9 project the 4:3 clip settings SHOULD be:

"Anamorphic" (in Browser) UN-checked
The clips motion tab settings are:
Basic Motion
 Scale is 100%
Distort
  Upper Left  -320 -240
  Upper Right -320 -240
  Lower Right -320 -240
  Lower Left  -320 -240
   Aspect Ratio   -18.52

With this you should still have a 16:9 deliver on 4:3 (letterboxed)
and your 4:3 footage within the 16:9 frame should be "Pillar Boxed."

Please let me know if you didn't understand this. I can address this
in a live session of my newsletter!

That one was free...

___
Michael J. Carrasquillo
Director | Filmmaker | Musician
michael [at] michaelcarrasquillo.com
MY SITECAST: http://www.michaelcarrasquillo.com
MY VIDEOCAST: http://www.thetrialsofbeingmike.com




--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Lauren Galanter"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At work today one of our shows was delivered but the video is distorted.
> They did send it as 640x480, but it's letterboxed and the video *within*
> that is streched (too wide--like how video looks with square pixels at
> 720x480). Almost a double-letterboxing effect.
> 
> I need to figure out what they did wrong to produce this (using FCP)
so I
> can tell them how to export it correctly. Unfortunately I don't know
what it
> was shot in, but I think it was on a pd 150.
> 
> I'm kind of at a loss and would appreciate any help. If you think
you might
> know I can send you a screen grab privately.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> -- 
> Lauren Galanter
> 
> www.laurengalanter.com
> www.linkedin.com/in/laureng
> Skype: lgalanter
> 610-761-4435
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: 1920x1080 conversion for web video???

[mjcarrasquillo2002]

My pleasure.

___
Michael J. Carrasquillo
Director | Filmmaker | Musician
MY SITECAST: http://www.michaelcarrasquillo.com
MY VIDEOCAST: http://www.thetrialsofbeingmike.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Caleb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Big help, thanks. The video's aspect ratio is intact and it looks  
> better (http://www.lakeplacidfilmforum.com/)
> 
> ~
> ~ Caleb J. Clark
> ~ Portfolio: http://www.plocktau.com
> ~ "The problem with communication is the assumption it has been  
> accomplished." - G. B. Shaw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[videoblogging] Re: 1920x1080 conversion for web video???

[mjcarrasquillo2002]

Hello everyone,

Caleb, great to meet you, digitally...  Instead of memorizing everything and 
just get things 
done, you could grab the aspect ratio calculator...

http://www.wideopendoors.net/design/aspect_ratio_calculator.html

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Caleb J. Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Does does anyone have online resource for the math, or dimensions that
> will scale correctly so I can pick any size I want and change it. And
> is putting letter box into normal res smarter? etc. 
> 
> I've been feeling like such an idiot working with getting my new Canon
> 1920x1080 footage to the web (YouTube, Blip) without messing up the
> aspect ratio. Using FCE 4, the drop down compression is
> confusing...There's 16x9 and 4x3 settings for 720x480, etc. Then
> there's the "preserve aspect ratio" options, and more often then not
> my video ends up squeezed. 
> 
> I just came up this post here, and I'm trying it. 
> 
> http://www.foureyedmonsters.com/distributing-your-videos-on-the-web/
> Heath Says:
> November 11th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
> Thanks, Arin, you rock. If anyone is using ***HDV 1080i/p footage,
> your frame size in QuickTime Pro/Conversion can be 600 x 338.*** This
> was given to me by Jon Fordham, who shot parts of Four Eyed Monsters
> and my feature film 9:04 AM. It's been GREAT!
>