On iHD and high bit rate files:
One of the things that helped popularize Rocketboom initially was
that I was one of the first to regularly distribute video content
with enclosures.
At the time, the audience (audio podcasters) was growing a great
rate, but there was almost no video content t
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan / The Faux Press"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> :) Just found this, MM. Thanks for the kudos.
>
> Use the proper medium for the job.
>
> Then break that rule.
>
> I don't understand why folks insist on doing long interviews on camera.
> Television is o
:) Just found this, MM. Thanks for the kudos.
Use the proper medium for the job.
Then break that rule.
I don't understand why folks insist on doing long interviews on camera.
Television is one thing, where eyeballs-to-ads count.
Sure, we want to see a bit of the subject, but that doesn't mean w
I just checked out Jay & Ryanne's "Podtech Deal" ( http://blip.tv/file/118131/
). I'll assume
that was shot on the exacti hd camera, and I'll assume that I've seen stuff
that they've shot
in that same room and posted from a different camera, and potentially with
different
compression.
I hav
I have been using the Sanyo HD1A... The smallest video camera with HD..
To check out what it look like check my website and click on the
Quicktime in High Definition..
or..
http://blip.tv/file/get/NickSchmidt-OhioStateVsIllinois420.MP4
http://blip.tv/file/get/NickSchmidt-OhioStateVsIllinoisPart
Well said andreas.
I love my $150 a520. It shoots video just fine and is one of the most
popular camera's on Flickr.
It's cheap, effective, I don't have to worry about destroying it
because it doesn't cost much, and it's very portable and convienient
so I can always cary it on me.
Then again, t
Thanks for the head's up...fixed.
On Dec 18, 2006, at 12:42 PM, videoblogging@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> Posted by: "Jan / The Faux Press" [EMAIL PROTECTED] thefauxpress
> Date: Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:35 am ((PST))
>
> Oh, heck, went to leave you a comment but the captcha wasn't
> generating an
> im
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Streeter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> basically the same as what you get from digital cable--same old
> channels, same old content etc. I don't think that consumer media
>or
> micro media or video blogs are even on their radar.
you are correct sir.. ;)
Yeah I agree. As near as I can tell though, the service that most of
the telcos are rolling out is a set-top box that just substitutes
the cable part ot cable tv with a telco internet connection. The
service and content they will(or are--in test markets) offer will be
basically the same as what
Oh, heck, went to leave you a comment but the captcha wasn't generating an
image.
Commenting here: rockin'.
Jan
On 12/17/06, Joshua Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Not completely on topic, but not off either. I just posted an entry
> on my blog. In a nutshell, I don't care about HD...just
Yeah, going through the same decision. 24p or HD. Can't we just have
both on the same camera for under $2k? :( Maybe someday.
My brother shot most of his short films using the DVX, and it looks
fantastic, but the stuff out of the HC1 and other Sony HD cameras
looks wonderful in their own way.
Are you still watching videoblogs? Does it really matter that
Galacticast (or, insert favorite vlog here) isn't HD?
I completely agree that HD is beautiful, but I have yet to experience
it at home day in and day out. But in the end, I personally am more
interested in the content. I've heard
Give it up for content y'al!
I certainly lust after an HD television. Our friend has a sweet 42" Panasonic
and we're always in awe of the HD experience.
So... what does that have to do with videoblogging? Not a whole lot today,
not something most vloggers need to worry about. But tomorrow is com
1) Shoot using the cheapest camera you can find.
2) Embrace compression artifacts.
3) Rejoice, send me a link and spend the money you save on things that
actually matter (hint: it's not a green screen).
- Andreas
Den 18.12.2006 kl. 01:58 skrev Joshua Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Not completely
ogging] Re: Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet?
Not completely on topic, but not off either. I just posted an entry
on my blog. In a nutshell, I don't care about HD...just good content.
http://www.joshpaul <http://www.joshpaul.com/?p=250> .com/?p=250
--
joshpaul
[Non-text por
Not completely on topic, but not off either. I just posted an entry
on my blog. In a nutshell, I don't care about HD...just good content.
http://www.joshpaul.com/?p=250
--
joshpaul
>
I was getting quite keen on the idea of a Z1 until I
saw the following, on the DV list:
>I wonder if any of you have heard or have experience of this problem:
>
>I work for a hire shop that has about 20 Z1s (we are mostly Betacams but
>these little handycams are very popular with broadcasters
Which bugs? The Indian ones or the worms? He loves to make me squirm
remotely.
All good points. Okay, I'll stop saying mean things about HD.
And the Xacti, eh? I'll have to look again. I have had two nice Sony
cameras in a row, but I'm up for investigating.
--Chris...
Robert et al., write in favor of shooting HD and I'll concur.
Here's my summary of reasons for my own preference to shooting HD,
even when the "deliverable" is 320x240 iPod or web video.
1. Shooting in an HD format like HDV is more "future-proof" that SD
DV. If you edit using a editor that al
Yeah thats true. Some of your figures are slightly out, and its no
longer only top-of-the-range machines that meet the spec, but yeah.
And then there is the monitor - most of the computer lcd displays that
can do 1920x1080 are still rather pricey and usually at least 23" in size.
When I used to go
Bill,
Your comments on the phone companies PLANS are insightful and accurate and
really get to the core of the whole net neutrality debate (another
bizzillion channels of TV controlled by one source - or free/open network)
... but, just a couple of things I would add
1) The phone companies have "
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "[chrisbrogan.com]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> All really good points. Well, okay. Maybe I'll switch to HD in 2007.
> My personal production is for small screen only, so I'm not really
> thinking much about it, but if I'm doing field work FOR someone else,
Yeah, Bill - a bit off-topic - but the Verizon installation tech must have
said, "They're rolling out FIOS TV next month, so we're all jumping around
like crazy, learning..." at least half a dozen times. Verizon sent me a
FedEx announcement of the fiber optic rollout. They're creaming in their
jean
the xacti HD is pretty kick ass
compared to the regular ones.
(jay just got one for xmas from yours truly)
but obviously you don't upload the HD version
because it would be way too big.
the reason to use it is for overall better quality footage
that will then be shrunk down.
jay shoots a lot of m
All really good points. Well, okay. Maybe I'll switch to HD in 2007.
My personal production is for small screen only, so I'm not really
thinking much about it, but if I'm doing field work FOR someone else,
I should have a decent rig for them.
Robert- you're NOT the Discovery Channel? I discover s
I tend to agree with much of what Robert says here. Even if you don't post
video online
now in HD it is great to have the HD masters you can always go back to. I'm a
little
dubious about internet distro of HD content in the short term. Even with
broadband
penetration as broad as it is now, it
We switched completely to HD last year (we were doing short docs,
application videos, stuff for fashion companies and AOL - lots of
requirements and the clients cared less about format and more about
results). We were also doing a lot of greenscreen work, and doing it on HD
worked out really well -
Id say it depends on their budget, how long they are expecting to go
before buying another camera, and what sort of content they make.
Im sure that SD and the current below-SD 320x240 type resolutions that
vlogging often uses will be around for a long time. For all the
poo-pooing of video on the n
28 matches
Mail list logo
