OK, this is my last post on this subject, because you haven't engaged with any of my arguments.
But I must point out that you've changed your opinion from the statement that started all this in the first place. You just said to Adam: > Once again, I was speaking about low res in general, not about you or > your circumstances personally. > and: > I did read it and I knew that you chose to downscale to 640x480. > Nothing wrong with that, that's your choice, and I'd probably do the > same thing if I deemed the quality was not acceptable at 640x480. > But the whole reason this discussion started in the first place was because your original comment was: > Adam: > > 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. > > David: > 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. Nothing about it being fine for Adam to shoot in low res. "I shoot in 320" > "why have a video blog at all". That's why I replied. I'm sort of frustrated with your implication that my response has been to take this personally - it is purely a reaction to your general statement about what people (or Adam) should not be doing. Once again (yawn) my point is that it's not enough just to tell everyone they should shoot in as high a resolution as possible. There are *many* good reasons people shoot small, which I've set out numerous times. I've taken time to spell them out. To have a discussion. Any acknowledgement? Anyway - enough already. I hope you remember that I think your vlog is awesome, and this is *not* some kind of personal thing as you implied. Just if anyone says "why have a video blog at all" to "i shoot in 320", you can bet I'm going to reply, fairly vigorously. To anyone, in whatever forum. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 11 Feb 2010, at 21:09, David Jones wrote: > > Go for your life, I can handle it, I stand by my comments. > Many people take what I say personally, or mistakenly think I'm > personally attacking them in some way, that's sad. My comments are > meant for general discussion and food for thought. > > > If you bothered to read my original post before getting your > pompous high and might knickers in a twist you'd have noticed that I > too share this marvelous thing you call CHOICE. > > I did read it and I knew that you chose to downscale to 640x480. > Nothing wrong with that, that's your choice, and I'd probably do the > same thing if I deemed the quality was not acceptable at 640x480. In > fact, from memory I think I did do that on my first blog with a web > cam. > Once again, I was speaking about low res in general, not about you or > your circumstances personally. > > > I dont 'film' at 320x240. In fact i dont 'film' at all, and > neither do you. Get your technicalities right before you bandy silly > ideas around. You shoot video, so technically you record. > > Perfectly common usage, you knew what I mean, and I'm sure everyone > else did too. > So what's your point?, that my comments somehow have less validity > because I chose to use the term "film" instead of "shoot"? > I'll call it what I want, thank you very much. > > So my idea of advising people to at least film (sorry, shoot) and if > possible upload at the best quality they reasonably can do so users > have a choice is "silly"? YouTube recommend it too, so please do > explain how that's silly... > > And as I've said I'm also an advocate of optimising your downloads for > certain needs like podcasting etc. I do it myself. But I don't *only* > upload at 320x240, because I know people like to view my blog in many > different ways, and my blog is mostly a talking head that can be > viewed adequately at 320x240. So I give them a choice and upload the > best material I have available. > > > And I RECORD my video at 640x480. I CHOOSE to downscale to 320x240 > because my expert eye has determined that the image looks better > that way. It benefits from the reduced noise and softened image. > > Sure, you'll get no argument from me. > > > My full frame 480p image is captured on a $100 flip, whereas your > image is captured on a $400 HD cam. If i were shooting content that > I thought worthy of such a camera I would certainly invest in one. I > own a professional miniDV camera that captures quite a nice full > frame image, but I dont quite fancy lugging that around with me to > the playground to shoot my son, which is what the majority of my > videoblogging contains. > > Once again you'll get argument from me, my comments were more directed > in general at those who use cameras and system capable of higher res, > but chose to use to lower resolution for whatever reason. > Would you still downscale to 320x240 if your cam was capable of good > quality 640x480? I doubt it, I bet you'd be chuffed with your 640x480 > image quality and want to show it to the world. > > > Also there is the question of bandwidth and I've had this argument > with several people, and I'm often in the minority. But i believe my > position so I stand by it. Bandwidth is not free, contrary to > popular opinion. Someone somewhere is paying for it. We wil all pay > for it if the ISPs want to throttle their networks thanks to every > tom dick and harry publishing HD video of their son on a swing, thus > choking up the networks with unnecessary bits. your content may very > well warrant the higher quality. Thats your choice. Miine does not. > Thats my choice. > > Once again, systems like YouTube are capable of displaying and using > whatever bandwidth the user desires. So in these cases it's better to > upload in the best quality you can so the user can decide what they > want. > And that's not just my personal opinion, remember, YouTube recommend > and encourage everyone to upload their *best quality* source material, > (at least 640x480 recommended). They wouldn't do they if they didn't > have the storage and processing space to do it. And as I've said, they > offer the user a choice of download sizes and bandwidths, which > defaults to the smallest 320p, so you can't argue it's a download > bandwidth issue here. > > > Its horses for courses mate. > > Always. > > > Post a link to your site. I'd like to see what you are publishing > > It's not for a general audience, but here you go: > www.eevblog.com > > Yours? > > Regards > 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/
