Raymund wrote:
So let's forget our G5's and Pentium 4's with Adobe Premiere Pro or
iMovie for a moment. Let's talk about videoblogging without the
computer, without the webcam.
So this got me thinking. And playing around.
Sunday, 24 July 2005.
Ten years ago, there was Dogme 95.
Now,
On 7/24/05, Clark ov Saturn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So this got me thinking. And playing around.
Sunday, 24 July 2005.
Ten years ago, there was Dogme 95.
Now, there is Vlogme 05 ((r), adapted and adopted: clark ov saturn, 05)
Vlogme05 ... That sounds awesome!
I don't have a clue what
Can you explain this one?
Can you have credits?
The way video moves around the web these days having credits embedded
in the video seems like a requirement.
--Steve
On Jul 24, 2005, at 3:37 PM, Clark ov Saturn wrote:
10. The director must not be credited in the vlog clip. (but may be in
around the 24/7/05 Clark ov Saturn mentioned
about [videoblogging] Vlogme 05 that:
So this got me thinking. And playing around.
Sunday, 24 July 2005.
Ten years ago, there was Dogme 95.
Now, there is Vlogme 05 (®, adapted and adopted: clark ov saturn, 05)
From this day forward, Vloggers have
hmmm.. not wanting to piss on anyones fire but this seems like a bit
of a redundant idea...
the original dogme manifesto was partly about getting away from the
styles of film-making predominant in hollywood, and bringing some
energy back into the filmic form (there was more to it of course.
I'm in agreement with Duncan, that this seem redundant, but I can comment
a bit on Steve.
In the original Dogme movies the director was not credited in the film. Of
course you still knew that Vinterberg did 'The Celebration', Von Trier did
'The Idiots' and so on. But that was because you
