[videoblogging] Petition against Rogers Canada iPhone rates
Hey, Hopefully this isn't completely off topic but I'd like to invite my fellow Canadian wireless subscribers to come sign the petition at http://www.ruinediphone.com/ Protest has been mounting online against Rogers' recently unveiled iPhone service plans. While ATT will sell a 450 minute plan with unlimited date for 69.99$, Rogers' 66.95$ plan comes with just 150 daytime minutes (evenings starting at 9PM) and 400 megabytes of data usage. They're also the only provider in the world requiring a 3 year contract to purchase the iPhone. Rogers is already launching PR damage control over the negative press they've been receiving since disclosing their high value packages. Rogers + iPhone Google News: http://news.google.ca/news?hl=enq=rogers+iphonebtnG=Search Petition related Facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=17200078327 Patrick
[videoblogging] Converting to a Premiere Pro MS DV AVI format (with ffmpeg?)
Premiere Pro 2.0 can edit Microsoft DV AVI (or Type-2 DV AVI) without needing to do any rendering which makes editing much faster. I'm trying to figure out if I can use ffmpeg to convert my files. I'm working with FLVs, 3GPs, and standard MP4 AVIs. Does anyone know if this is possible or can anyone recommend a single tool that can accomplish this? Premiere doesn't like ffmpeg's standard DV2 AVI compression. I'm guessing I need to force the use of a codec but I'm not sure how to force the Panasonic DV codec for example. I'm trying to avoid converting anything twice. At the moment, it's possible for me to convert the FLVs and 3GPs into AVIs with ffmpeg then convert them into DV AVI Type 2 with a different AVI tool but I'd like to eliminate one of these steps. Also, does anyone know if Vegas runs any faster than Premiere? If so, i'll just switch to that. I'm working with an older computer anyway.
[videoblogging] Video Resources - primers, guides and links
Just an interesting page of links I came across today and thought I'd share. Contains links relating to camcorder hacks, Aspect ratio, Interlacing, Video resolution, Colors, gamma and sampling formats, Standards conversion, Compression, and other resources. http://www.iki.fi/znark/video/
[videoblogging] Easy Idea for NaVloPoMo
So...um...has anyone heard of the youtube phenominon of vlogging your reaction to watching '2 Girls 1 Cup' for the first time? Three things I want to mention. 1. Definitely watch the reaction videos below, they're very funny. 2. DO NOT WATCH 2 GIRLS 1 CUP! 3. *If* you do watch it, you *HAVE* to vlog yourself watching it for the first time. See below for details on where to find it. These are a couple of my favourite reaction videos, they may contain vulgarity but are otherwise safe for work. 2 Girls 1 Cup Reaction #1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtRzf_ZcM0U 2 girls 1 cup reaction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI3Km0y1jWs So *if* you do decide to watch it, you can't be mad at me. It's your own fault. Do not watch this for the first time without vlogging your reaction. To watch the very unsafe for work video go to http://www.2girls1cup.com (I repeat, NSFW) and if you vlog yourself, even it's it's for NaVloPoMo, post your video in this thread. Oh and go search youtube for more reaction videos. There are hundreds. Each is priceless.
[videoblogging] Threats and male vloggers
Hey group, The results of the Mmeiserâs Wikipedia ban are here. See what each Wikipedia Administrator had to say about it: âI fail to see why there should be any consideration of a ban. Unreferenced material is not welcome on Wikipedia.â - EdJohnston http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EdJohnston 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC) âAgreed. The argument for a ban reads exactly like âthis person won't let me put original research in the article and this is unfairââ -Amarkov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amarkov moo! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Amarkov 00:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC) âAgreed as well. I don't see a bit of misbehavior here, let alone anything that calls for a ban. We do not accept unverifiable material or original research, period, and I'll happily buy a beer for anyone that upholds that.â - Seraphimblade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade Talk to me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade 00:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC) âIs it just me, and I don't mean to sound bad faith here, or isn't User:MichaelVerdi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelVerdi very knowldgable about this situation for a user with an 11 hour old account? Maybe they editted the pages as an IP? Its just weird that User:MichaelVerdi is the only one supporting Michael Meiser's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mmeiser suggestion. I hope they're aware of WP:MEAT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT . Apologies if I'm wrongheaded hereâ --Cailil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cailil talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cailil 00:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC) âThis is almost nothing but an attack. Close, and archive. I'm going to go ahead and call a spade a spade, and point out that the poster of this complaint has failed to assume good fiath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AGF .â ââ Eagle101 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eagle_101 Need help? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eagle_101 07:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC) âSee no reason for a ban. This is retaliation to the post above. Archive and suggest they cool down and sort this issue out via dispute resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DR .â --Kzrulzuall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kzrulzuall Talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kzrulzuall ⢠Contribs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kzrulzuall 07:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Read the full proposed ban here: http://tinyurl.com/2gnhld http://tinyurl.com/2gnhld I hope that we can put the issue to rest and consider that perhaps there's a possibility that I perchance might have perhaps been trying to improve the article and not the other way around. and now ladies and gentlemen, ...your moment of zen. (please accept this as humour with only a tinge of bitterness) This user - Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry. [...] It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. -Michael Verdi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Hey everyone, I seem to be the topic of conversation today. I'm going to ignore the negative messages because I think it's great that there's renewed interest in the article. The great thing about wikipedia is everyone can edit it. Thereâs one catch though, itâs an encyclopedia which means the content must be encyclopedic. In regards to the vlog article, this means that everything we put into it has to be from a reliable source like a news article. (i.e. not blogs) Thereâs already sourced content contributed by Steve Garfield, Michael Meiser and myself in the article and I invite everyone else to contribute. Patrick D p.s. Sorry if I posted this twice. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
I'm just an Wikipedian. (a regular joe that likes wikipedia) You can read about Wikipedia policies and guidelines (which are decided by editors like you and me) in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset When I first started contributing to Wikipedia, one of the things that I found most surprising and hard to accept was this quote at the top of one of Wikipedia's core content policies: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It seems odd but it's interesting to read about why a policy like that might be a good thing. I find that particular policy super interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability and this one too! It defines a reliable source and talks about why certain sources are considered reliable and why limiting editors to those sources will make a better article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources It's also important in Wikipedia to always assume good faith in other editors which is what I've had to try very hard to do in these last couple of emails. (because no matter how upset your emails may seem, i know (or assume) that you want the best for the vlog wiki article and I keep that in mind when replying) But let's not waste any more energy here. If you really feel passionate about the article, go edit it! Be Bold! Use the Discussion page to discuss what you like, what you don't like. Great things are already happening. pd --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What credentials do you actually have in deciding what should and what should not be posted in the Vlog entry in the Wikipedia? Please cite for us those references you have. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, pdelongchamp pdelongchamp@ wrote: Hey everyone, I seem to be the topic of conversation today. I'm going to ignore the negative messages because I think it's great that there's renewed interest in the article. The great thing about wikipedia is everyone can edit it. Thereâs one catch though, itâs an encyclopedia which means the content must be encyclopedic. In regards to the vlog article, this means that everything we put into it has to be from a reliable source like a news article. (i.e. not blogs) Thereâs already sourced content contributed by Steve Garfield, Michael Meiser and myself in the article and I invite everyone else to contribute. Patrick D p.s. Sorry if I posted this twice. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin jannie.jan@ wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
