On 10 Feb 2010, at 23:57, David Jones wrote:
> Sure, but that whole argument is such a big red herring and so
> entirely beside the point it's not funny!
>
His argument was not beside the point.  It was about people using  
videoblogging for more than talking to the camera.  Which is what  
quite a lot of people here do.

> Almost every video blogger *wants* the best possibly quality video
> they can get, they aren't keeping it small for some artistic reason.
> They keep it small because they are (or think they are) constrained by
> some technical limitation.
>
Almost every video blogger?  Care to back this up a little?  It's just  
not true.  In my experience, most people videoblogging are using  
what's convenient to them.  Whether it's an iSight or their phone  
camera or the camera they happen to have.   And a balance of cost to  
convenience.  Remember all the trouble you had cutting H264 MP4

And then there are the many many filmmakers you dismiss as 'arty  
farty', quite a few of whom (like me) do not just want to rack up the  
pixel count so that we can have massive resolution.  As I explained  
before (no response?) - for a *lot* of reasons.  Aesthetics, ease,  
storage, bandwidth, cutting, etc etc ETC.

>
> Deliberately limiting your source material because you have some
> preconceived notion about how it should be viewed, is in my view a
> silly thing to do.
>
?!

> But hey, if you want to go all arty-farty and shoot
> small, be my guest, just don't argue that's even close to what most
> video bloggers want, you'd be way off the mark.
>
Equally, please don't argue that you know what most video bloggers  
want.  You'd be way off the mark.  And 'arty farty'??

>
> > All power to full screen video, but please don't make an argument  
> that
> > this is the only way to approach video online.
>
> I'm not.
> I'm simply saying that any videoblogger should be making use of the
> best possible resolution they can easily do.
>
Finally - everything Adrian and I have said is about why they can do  
whatever they want - not because they *should* be doing anything.   
There are a lot more things at play here than just shooting at the  
best possible resolution.

Rupert
http://twittervlog.tv

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to