Home > All Posts > Sort by Profile
thedaneof5683

Whattup!

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
July 14, 2004 | Post #323 | Topic #323

Yo, 'sup. That's lingo I picked up from life on the street in the OC. You know how it is in "the hood." Anyway, introductions... My name is The Dane and I am a vidblogger. After blogging for three years, things began to seem slightly stale (to myself if not also to my longtime readers). Therefore, I decided to expand in a different direction and so began to offer brief snips of video (from my Sony Mavica - yeah, it records to floppy!) to enhance the overall experience of my site. Never having heard of video blogging before, I decided to call what I was doing vidblogging (real inventive, I know). In retrospect, I probably ought to have called them oblogs (following convention, if web logs are blogs, then it serves reason that video weblogs should be oblogs - or at the least, ologs, which doesn't sound nearly so cool). So. For five months I wasn't at all aware of any other videobloggers out there. Comfortable in my isolation, I plodded along offering my one-minute clips (remember, I record to floppy) and simply doing exactly what I wanted to do with them. My one great disappointment was that I had no adequate means of editing my video - I tried Quicktime but it was bouncing my filesizes from 1.4 MB all the way up to 15-30 MB. Eventually I hit on the idea of using Flash MX, but just before... [View]



Re: Whattup!

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
July 16, 2004 | Post #346 | Topic #323

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay Dedman <jay@m...> wrote: > Welcome the Dane. Glad you jumped in. > everyone check this guy out. > he's been videoblogging before I even knew what videoblogging was. > plus, his voice is much different than the ones we have in this > group(that Ive seen so far). > > So the Dane, what's your process when you videoblog? > is everything done in Flash? > how long does the process take? > you post every week, right? > if you had a perfect tool to videoblog, what would it be? > Jay, It depends on exactly what I have in mind for the vid, but essentially it boils down to this: 1) I shoot any footage I plan on using (in the early days, I shot more spontaneously, but after people began to expect a certain level of entertainment in every episode (yes, I post a new vid every Tuesday), I felt the pressure to plan at least a little bit more (though spontaneous moments still creep in). Shooting will be anywhere between one and four disks worth (I'm shooting all this on a Mavica, which was never intended for any valuable video creation). 2) Next I open up a Flash template I created to give my vidblogs a uniform feel. Initially, as I said, I just put up raw videos as straight mpegs (which some of my users still prefer as they were able... [View]



Re: my second video

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
July 22, 2004 | Post #374 | Topic #364

I also enjoy the instantaneous initialization of the vlog. I've toyed with the idea for my own, but since I frequently have multiple vidblogs featured on the same page, it would becaome a noisy cacophany rather quickly. As well, several of my users complain if I take over their audio control without their asking (the pansies). But I do find the in-window display of the vlog refreshing - as I don't always have the patience for QuickTime or WMP to load. Good jorb out there. The Dane --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay Dedman <jay@m...> wrote: > ive never seen anyone post like this. > maybe the Dane. > you use flash in Dreamweaver. > its kind of cool how the video plays as soon as you load the site. > unstoppable. > > > Quoting "Deirdre Straughan, class of 81" <lists@s...>: > > This one's a bit more bloggy, see > > http://www.straughan.com/vlog/072004.htm [View]



Re: my second video

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
July 22, 2004 | Post #375 | Topic #364

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Deirdre Straughan, class of > Actually, I'd like it to be stoppable, rewindable, etc. - > I'd like to have a full array of VCR buttons on the screen. > I need to learn Flash better, which I will be doing > (hopefully) over the next month or so. Deidre, I should also be working on standard VCR-style buttons over the next month. If I beat you to the punch, I'll send you the appropriate .fla with all the necessary Action Scripting. Currently, I only have simplistic controls that appear at the end of my vidblogs. The Dane [View]



Re: BloggerVision

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
July 23, 2004 | Post #399 | Topic #12

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles > Ted Nelson had a vision of this in the 60s > which largely consisted of micropayments for > *all* content. each time you view my content > i earn, let's say .00001 cent per byte. When > I view yours, I pay the same. at some point > some equity arises but the main point was > that valuable (viewed/used) content would > be rewarded with increased payment. There are currently companies out there providing micropayment services and I've though of instituting micropayments on some of my own material, but the trick is becoming popular enough to merit people paying for your content. Most of the videoblogs I watch, I watch because the only thing they cost is my time - and I probably wouldn't watch them if I had to pay even a small amount. And I'm an interested party. This is where programming concepts come in (not computer programming, but market programming). It's like it's cool that there are public access channels on television, but nobody would ever pay to see the kind of stuff on public access. So really the trick is, build a market of people who would pay a nickel to watch your videoblogging and then you can charge. If you charge before the market exists, it'll be much more difficult to even get it off the ground. [View]



A misapprehension

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
July 23, 2004 | Post #400 | Topic #364

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay Dedman <jay@m...> wrote: > The DANE has been posting video once a week for 4 > years. he seems to have gathered a pretty good crowd. > if you build it, they will come. mad corny but true. Just to clear something up, though I have been blogging for four years, I have only been actively posting video for a year now. My model resembles, in small fashion, that of television programming. I'm posting a new vidblog every week for thirty episodes. This consistency will account for one season. After a break - so I don't go crazy - I begin a new season of thirty episodes. So yeah, like tv seasons - but with more consistency and no repeats. [View]



One difficulty with my current Flash model

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
July 23, 2004 | Post #401 | Topic #401

One of the biggest problems with my current model for publishing weblogs is Flash. Though Flash allows me to do all sorts of neat little things that would otherwise be impossible for me to accomplish, it stifles any spontanaeity my vidblogging once engendered. This becomes notable when I am abroad. In August, I'll be spending two weeks in Romania (a perfect opportunity for footage), yet I won't be able to post any of that footage until returning to home (where I have Flash). This wouldn't be so much an issue if I had a laptop - but I doesn't. The need for an all-in-one vidblog editing and publishing application is apparent (one with good scripting versatility). - The Dane [View]



Re: Revogging

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
July 27, 2004 | Post #432 | Topic #424

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@S...> wrote: > Do any of you know of people doing revogging, i.e. > creating videoblogs that are re-edits or remixes > or even just clips + commentary of existing web content? One of my upcoming vidblog episodes (probably episode 39), coming in maybe a month will feature just this. I'll be utilizing footage from the Sixties. It's likely copyrighted, but hopefully, no one will hassle me about it (it's not like I'm making any sort of money from anything in my vidblogging adventures). Really, the only reason I've shied from utilizing pre-existing content is that its just plain easier to write an episode from scratch than to incorporate something already shaped and formed. The only way I can think of doing it in a manner that suits my audience is to completely tear the original work out of its original context :-) This should prove to be fun. Much Love, The Dane http://nowheresville.us [View]



Re: mix n' mash

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
July 27, 2004 | Post #433 | Topic #424

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "contactmica" <contactmica@y...> wro= te: > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay Dedman > <jay@m...> wrote:= > > screw copyrights. > > my thoughts exactly! Personally, I try to res= pect copyrights on any material that's current or is saleable. I don't fee= l too bad, though, about posting rare footage from Fifties educational fil= ms or pages from a long out- of-print book from the 30s. I'm more spirit of= the law than letter. However, when it comes to my own material that I pla= ce online for the world to steal, my official copyright statement: "All c= ontent property of The Dane and NekoNoir Designs =A92004 Use at your leisur= e, pleasure, or any other 'zhoor' word of which you can think; you can eve= n say that its yours =97 I don't care." Pax out, The Dane http://nowheresv= ille.us [View]



Re: Revogging

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
July 29, 2004 | Post #445 | Topic #424

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay Dedman <jay@m...> wrote: > for me, "copyright issues" become an issue > when $$$$$$ is involved. Metallica getting > angry because college kids arent paying for their albums. > This isnt how I see videoblogging. we arent making > Movies you buy and sell in stores. I really do think that this aspect is key. And for me, it's not just a one-way street. I won't steal something I plan on selling and I won't offer for free the content that other people are selling. I think it'd prolly be unethical to do otherwise. My solution is that I keep my marketable stuff separate from the costless. If someone steals my free stuff, I don't mind. I think it's kinda funny if they do it without the slightest attribution. However, if I find someone stealing my livelihood, then I will be quick to bring down the Danish hammer upon them. I think Metallica's right to be angry, but I don't see any easy solutions to piracy. Pax out, The Dane [View]



Re: Revogging

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
July 29, 2004 | Post #447 | Topic #424

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Shannon Noble <sn@n...> wrote: > Here is a good source of copyright free material that is ripe for poaching > > http://www.archive.org/movies/movieslisting-browse.php? collection=prelinger& > PHPSESSID=4d9a0dc3aa7005fd11a45743e6a17c5f Actually yes, I've already culled some great stuff from the Prelinger Archives. Great stuff, that! [View]



Re: New Video Blog post from the DNC

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
July 29, 2004 | Post #458 | Topic #449

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay Dedman <jay@m...> wrote: > if Im exporting to Quicktime in Imovie, can i > export to MPEG4? it'd be good if we all agreed > on a standard. we discussed this once...but the > other conversations came up. Personally, I'm not all that excited about a standard. I enjoy using Flash because I adore the ability to load my vidblogs apart from the running of QuickTime, WMP, or especially that devil, RealPlayer. Plus, I can do things in Flash that I wouldn't have the faintest idea how to do in other programs. And I wouldn't want to draw people into the web of Flash if they're competent in another format. I also think that protmotion of a standard format works counter your desire to make vidblogging broadly accessible to a range of content producers. My camera shoots MPEG1 and comes with a very rudimentary editor. If I didn't have Flash available to me through my occupation, I would be locked out of the vidblogging discussion, trapped by the low level of my tech. No, I think diversity at this point is a bonus - as it lets more people become involved. At least until the point when vidblogging becomes more ubiquitous. [View]



Re: New Video Blog post from the DNC

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
July 30, 2004 | Post #467 | Topic #449

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@S...> wrote: > Well, one thing to think about is that Flash video, > unlike other video formats, won't be indexed by > multimedia search engines. That might not seem like > a big deal right now, but it will be a huge deal > pretty soon. Just as Google killed search-unfriendly > content management systems dead, multimedia search > will kill search-unfriendly video formats. This is really too bad and I think both Google and Macromedia should find a solution (and I'm sure they will) - especially as more and more companies begin taking advantage of the the CF/XML/Flash mix available (it's amazing what site's implementing these technologies will be able to do that was previously unavailable to anyone on any sane basis). A friend and I are working on a conversion of a 200,000+ page site into a single page that holds a Flash program allowing a completely moldable and customizable interface that will increase the joy of user experience a hundredfold. It's a shame to think that under present conditions, Google doesn't have the means to index something so cool. As both Google and Macromedia have a lot at stake in this, I think it'd behoove them both to work together to find a solution. As far as standards go, Lucas, I don't see why it has to be an either/or sort of thing in the realm of video promotion. Pretty much... [View]



Re: New Video Blog post from the DNC

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
July 31, 2004 | Post #479 | Topic #449

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Lucas Gonze <lgonze@p...> wrote: > > It's not the video format, it's the HTML. > You'll have to not do any of the typical > weirdness that accompanies video, which > means: > > * Put the video on the page with the metadata. > Most of the time people will link to your > intro page because it has all the metadata. > For example, Steve Garfield mainly gets links > to his blog, but videos are played as embeds > within a new window. What happens is that > nobody links to the video page, and since > the video page doesn't contain much metadata > Google wouldn't know how to index it if they > did link directly. So okay, I don't know much about how Google goggles sites, but doesn't Flash already publish metadata along with each swf in its natively produced html? Isn't that why all the text I use in the swf appears in comments before the OBJECT call? Example: <!--url's used in the movie: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging --> <!--text used in the movie: vidblog tutorial discussion metadata Lucas The Dane--> <object classid=blahblahblah... Just echoing Deirdre in curiosity how Flash is more a black box than Quick, Real, or WMV. Do those formats have some sort of Google- readable data that Flash doesn't provide? Pax out, The Dane [View]



Re: Inner workings

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
August 1, 2004 | Post #488 | Topic #481

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Rice" <eric@e...> wrote: > I made a videoblog about videoblogging. Doh! Eric, you're a model citizen and I would love you if I swung that way. But I don't. So instead of love, I'll give you admiration. I know - small consolation, huh? I think all tutorials should be as entertaining. OC represent. The Dane [View]



Re: Revogging

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
August 1, 2004 | Post #502 | Topic #424

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles <adrian.miles@r...> wrote: > there's probably an aesthetic and theoretical > difference between reusing old clips (the found > and appropriated footage tradition) and what I > understood Ryan to be asking. He's asking more > specfically not about found footage but about > work that reappropriates each others footage. I think you're probably right. The difficulty is that there is so little vidblog content currently available for revogging. I think we may see more definitionally accepted revogging as archives grow and flourish. Interestingly, Eric Rice's recent tutorial almost accomplishes this - though technically, it's more two vidblogs overlapping than an instance of revogging. Pax, The Dane [View]



Re: New Video Blog post from the DNC

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
August 2, 2004 | Post #510 | Topic #449

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles <adrian.miles@r...> wrote: > no, the metadata is standard metadata that > is in the html page. things like movable > type write this automagically, on my site i > added a pile of dublin core metadata to > boot. google doesn't read qt metadata... So then, really, there doesn't need to be any media standard so long as the surrounding HTML is properly informatory? I hope this is the case, because really, I think this is how The Net should be - we don't want to artificially stagnate progress on the web by forcing an unnatural standard (i.e., one that isn't a de facto standard). Pax, The Dane [View]



Re: New Video Blog post from the DNC

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
August 2, 2004 | Post #513 | Topic #449

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@S...> wrote: > I just wanted to point out that multimedia search > engines do more than look at the surrounding HTML-- > they also parse the media objects themselves for > embedded metadata and do some content analysis. > Some formats (WMV for instance) have hundreds of > embedded metadata fields defined. Others (Real) > have hardly any. Content analysis (things like > extracting keyframes, looking at color distributions, > etc.) can be very difficult with things like Flash, > because instead of a standalone movie file to be > analyzed you now have an application in which video > is embedded in some non-standard way. Trying to > determine where the video is involves decompiling > the Flash application and parsing through the > source... yuck. Thanks Ryan. This was really the kind of answer I was looking for. I wasn't aware that search engines could do that! It makes sense though - in the same way that I accept that gravity sorta makes sense. And you're right that this issue should not be the problem of the end user or the content creator, but that of the tool-maker and, I think, of the search masters (as I earlier suggested, I think that this is something it behoove both Macromedia and Google to work together on). In my experience, Macromedia's always been pretty good at listening to the requests of their users, so... [View]



You guys are way prolific

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
August 24, 2004 | Post #891 | Topic #891

Crap. I leave for two weeks and I miss 300 posts. You guys have been waaaaay to busy. I hope I'm not expected to go back and read all these. *sigh* I posted the three minnut version of my trip, entitled, "2 Weeks in 3 Minnuts." http://nowheresville.us/arch/2004_08_01_old1.php#109332307807363381 [View]



Re: Flash

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
August 25, 2004 | Post #909 | Topic #906

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Garfield <steve@o...> wrote: > Just read this on the Userplane website: > - Flash is installed on nearly 90% of all browsers... > nothing to down load, install, or hassle with. > Hmm... why then are we working with QT, WMV and Real? Got me *GRIN* Love, The Dane [View]