TOTALLY disagree, but you know this already from earlier discussions.
You are doing a very different kind of videoblog from what most people do - it's great that you love doing it in HD, but I really really strongly disagree that "Any video blogger who is filming and/or uploading in 320x240 only is doing their effort a real disservice I think." As for "If you follow that logic to its logical conclusion, then why have a video blog at all?, why not just an audio podcast? Or at least why not 160x120 for even more bandwidth saving and speed?" - RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA As someone who has posted hundreds of videos in 320x240 for just short of 5 years now, I'm not a podcaster. 320x240 videos are clearly visible and can be *great* quality - unlike 160x120. Remember, TV is only 480 lines high. It's about the *content*, not the size of the window or the number of pixels. Particularly for videoblogging. And there's actually a lot of benefit to be had from working with lofi, non HD technology - apart from aesthetically, there are benefits for file storage, cutting, upload and transmission. Especially when most people watch most video embedded somewhere between 320 and 640. For a whole bunch of reasons, I wouldn't be videoblogging if I had to do everything in HD. I'm still posting 320x240 via 12seconds every day - and other people may not see the point in what I do, but I love it. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 10 Feb 2010, at 07:49, David Jones wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:19 PM, adammerc...@att.net > <adammerc...@att.net> wrote: > > > > Call me old school, but I still publish my vlog in 320x240. For a > couple of reasons. My old Flip shoots at 640x480 and at the native > size its pretty crummy. Scaled to quarter screen it tightens up and > cleans up the noise considerably. > > > > Also theres nothing in my vlog that needs to be seen at HD > resolution. Waste of bandwidth. > > If you follow that logic to its logical conclusion, then why have a > video blog at all?, why not just an audio podcast? > Or at least why not 160x120 for even more bandwidth saving and speed? > > A video blog should be all about the video (ok audio is super > important too, but beside the point), the bigger and more glorious the > source material the better. Try watching 320x240 full screen... > I know people who watch my video blog like a TV show and put it on > full screen while having their breakfast etc. > > The beauty of modern hosts like YouTube are that it offers whatever > resolution the user desires. Defaults to 360p to save bandwidth, but > offers selectable 480p, 720p, or higher for those who chose it. > I now always shoot and upload in 1280x720 because: > a) I have the camera that can do it > b) People have different needs (and bandwidth isn't an issue for > probably the majority of people these days) > c) And you never know what the future holds. I didn't want to look > back in a few years and wish I had shot those previous hundred > episodes in HD for whatever reason. > > Any video blogger who is filming and/or uploading in 320x240 only is > doing their effort a real disservice I think. > My $400 HD cam was the best money I ever spent. > > Dave. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
