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 to d/l. This was a first to market advantage for those of us that implemented the specs. I see the same thing occurring now for iHD. Maybe it wont take off in the same way, maybe it will do nothing for those that adopt such a file for distribution, though I believe there is a great chance that it will, if people also respond to the content. Have you met anyone with an HD TV? They often become obsessed and fanatical about the quality. Its as if they put on glasses for the first time in their lives and then become disappointed at anything less. Our daily Rocketboom files are under 100mb and most people can play them right from the browser. Also, while 640x480 is also a good way to up the ante on your files for the upcoming iTV onslaught, iHD files can be in .mov format too, and thus look great on bigger screens of any kind, HD or not. On Dec 18, 2006, at 6:25 PM, Mike Meiser wrote: > 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, those xacti's are looking pretty cool to... but I'll > almost certainly stick with something a little more photog focused. > > The other thing about shooting on the cheap is it saves in other > places too. Smaller videos are easier to edit and transcode, and take > up less hard drive space and are therefore easier to manage. they also > take less time to upload to your server, and use up less bandwidth. It > also takes up less space on the Flash card so you can shoot more stuff > and experiment more freely. The bottom line is cheap and dirty is more > fun and easy. > > I read recently that something like 99% of all digital camera users > never print their photos larger than 8x10 and most no larger than 5x7. > Of which 2 megapixels is more than enough resolution. There was also > an impromptu excersize, I think it was David Pogue where most people > couldn't even tell the difference between a 3 megapixel image blown up > poster size and an 11 megapixel. > > I'm a fan of the Faux Press way of doing things. When you're just > communicating quick and dirty is always the best way to go. > > HD is vanity. > > But that just goes for communics... I think entertainment may require > a different approach. > > On the other hand... some of these vlogs tend to be more like shows or > minidocumentaries. For example... what I wouldn't give to see all Bill > Streeter's minidocumentaries on the local St. Louis culture in HD. > Roller derby girls, regional semi-professional wrestling, minidocs on > local printmakers, musicans and artists. > > I guess my point is... whatever is... most of us are not profeesional > photographers, most of us are not professional videographers... we're > not shooting TV shows, or hollywood movies. Or photos won't be > published as posters. > > I don't know what HD video camera's are going for, but you can now get > an 8 megapixel camera for under $200. > > So 99% of us will never use this extra resolution in video or photo, > but we spend dearly for it and it costs us in all areas from storage, > to editing, to uploading time, to bandwidth... and for what reason. > > Sure there's a few people on this mailing list whom could consider HD, > but it's a falacy. > > My suggestion would be screw that crap, go for the features. Go for a > better optical zoom. Go for a higher ISO, better shooting at low > light. Go for the ability to shoot more video and experiment more. > Megapixels and definition are falacy. > > Finally... this is why I love the mobilvlogging and phenom... it is > the epitome of the quick and dirty approach. It counteracts, is the > antidote to, the falacy of HD and resolution. > > The tazer incident at UCLA (it was UCLA right?) illustrates this. > > I always liked that Jan of Faux press, one of the people among us who > truely knows the value of fidelity and whom works on high budget films > and documentaries uses as her everday instrament of vlogging a video > phone. And it's exactly this approach I'd recommend. The old one two > punch. :) > > Sure... for your "studio work" or professional go ahead and use HD > cam, but just remember to leave that camera at home and carry around a > cheap phone cam, or cheaper xacti, or some compact camera like any of > the low end digital camera that shoot video. > > It's the content, that rules... the meat of the post, the words coming > out of your mouth that contain the meaning... not that one can see the > mole on your ear. > > Oh! One final suggestion. I've found that it's not the resolution > it's the size of the stage, the footprint on the screen. I think > there's a strong preference for video about 500pixels or more wide... > but it has nothing to do with resolution. It has to do with sitting > back a little from the screen and relaxing the eyes. Taking the > average 320x240 video and embedding it at 500 pixels wide is a great > trick. The eye cannot percieve every single pixel at 15 frames a > second. I think this would be the most useful think I can recommend. > > My approach is more of usability and accessibility. So.. perhaps > that helps. > > Or maybe it's just rambling. :) > > Peace, > > -Mike > mefeedia.com > mmeiser.com/blog > > On 12/17/06, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 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 > > > > > > > > -- > > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen > > <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
