Home > All Posts > Sort by Topic
Topic #449

New Video Blog post from the DNC

By Steve Garfield | Steve Garfield <steve@...> | sgarfield
July 29, 2004 | Post #449 | Topic #449

I just posted a new video blog post from the DNC: http://stevegarfield.blogs.com/videoblog/ This one took two hours to log, capture, edit, code html, upload and test. I reverted back to the method of hosting the video on 1&1 since TypePad download performance for video is unacceptable right now. I alerted them to this fact and they are investing in new hardware to increase the speed. So that means I'm back to coding html, using FTP, etc, instead of ecto. Enjoy! --Steve [View]



Re: [videoblogging] New Video Blog post from the DNC

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
July 29, 2004 | Post #450 | Topic #449

So, for what it's worth, meaning that I don't want to be a jerk about it, if you posted the mpeg as well as the QuickTime people could watch your stuff in a lot more players. Think of it like web standards: if you use browser extensions, you eliminate a lot of page views. N.B.: I'm really enjoying your video blog postings from the DNC. Very fun. - Lucas On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Steve Garfield wrote: > I just posted a new video blog post from the DNC: > > http://stevegarfield.blogs.com/videoblog/ > > This one took two hours to log, capture, edit, code html, upload and > test. > > I reverted back to the method of hosting the video on 1&1 since TypePad > download performance for video is unacceptable right now. > > I alerted them to this fact and they are investing in new hardware to > increase the speed. > > So that means I'm back to coding html, using FTP, etc, instead of ecto. > > Enjoy! > --Steve > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > [View]



Re: [videoblogging] New Video Blog post from the DNC

By Steve Garfield | Steve Garfield <steve@...> | sgarfield
July 29, 2004 | Post #452 | Topic #449

On Jul 29, 2004, at 12:25 PM, Lucas Gonze wrote: > > So, for what it's worth, meaning that I don't want to be a jerk about > it, > if you posted the mpeg as well as the QuickTime people could watch your > stuff in a lot more players. Saving in mp4 vs. QuickTime isn't a big deal for me. It's just another button on Sorenson Squeeze. I've always just used QuickTime. I'll export one as mp4 and check out the size and quality. > Think of it like web standards: if you use > browser extensions, you eliminate a lot of page views. > What does that mean? If I change over to mp4, how does than effect he HTML I use to display the video? > N.B.: I'm really enjoying your video blog postings from the DNC. Very > fun. > Thanks! It's fun doing them. Since it's the last day of the DNC, I'm torn between, editing some more stuff that I have on tape and getting out there to film more new stuff. I want it to be timely and 'scoop' the newtworks. ;-) I might just edit another short one, maybe one of those cinema verite things so I don't have to do much editing and put it up. We'll see. [View]



Re: [videoblogging] New Video Blog post from the DNC

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
July 29, 2004 | Post #453 | Topic #449

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Steve Garfield wrote: > Saving in mp4 vs. QuickTime isn't a big deal for me. It's just another > button on Sorenson Squeeze. Great! >> Think of it like web standards: if you use >> browser extensions, you eliminate a lot of page views. >> > > What does that mean? If I change over to mp4, how does than effect he > HTML I use to display the video? You might want to link to both, if you have both, and otherwise you should be able to keep using the same HTML you're using now. Given that you're using autoplay, you obviously can't autoplay both; what I would do if I were you is upload an mp4, make a test page linking to that instead of the .mov, and see if it works. You might also want to ask people to give it a test run before you flip the switch... > Since it's the last day of the DNC, I'm torn between, editing some more > stuff that I have on tape and getting out there to film more new stuff. > > I want it to be timely and 'scoop' the newtworks. ;-) You're doing really good. Don't change a thing. :) n.b.: a big part of my motivation is to make it possible for people making video playlists on webjay.org to be able to include your videos. - Lucas [View]



Re: [videoblogging] New Video Blog post from the DNC

By Shannon Noble | Shannon Noble <sn@...> | sh7nnon
July 29, 2004 | Post #454 | Topic #449

--B_3173945707_555376 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable I just tried your link for Number 7 using the mp4 file. It didn=B9t work in= Safari or Explorer on my Mac. Shouldn=B9t QT be able to play the MP4 file?= I=B9ve had this same problem but haven=B9t figured it out yet. I quite e= njoyed this last post....especially the part about voting for any monkey th= at would stab me in the face. Nice work. Shannon Noble On 7/29/04 10:= 58 AM, "Lucas Gonze" <lgonze@...> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Stev= e Garfield wrote: >> > Saving in mp4 vs. QuickTime isn't a big deal for me.= It's just another >> > button on Sorenson Squeeze. > > Great! > >>> >> = Think of it like web standards: if you use >>> >> browser extensions, you e= liminate a lot of page views. >>> >> >> > >> > What does that mean? If I c= hange over to mp4, how does than effect he >> > HTML I use to display the v= ideo? > > You might want to link to both, if you have both, and otherwise = you should > be able to keep using the same HTML you're using now. Given t= hat you're > using autoplay, you obviously can't autoplay both; what I woul= d do if I > were you is upload an mp4, make a test page linking to that ins= tead... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] New Video Blog post from the DNC

By Steve Garfield | Steve Garfield <steve@...> | sgarfield
July 29, 2004 | Post #455 | Topic #449

How does that help people without QuickTime, when my page has the QuickTime code embedded? On Jul 29, 2004, at 1:58 PM, Lucas Gonze wrote: > You might want to link to both, if you have both, and otherwise you > should > be able to keep using the same HTML you're using now. Given that > you're > using autoplay, you obviously can't autoplay both; what I would do if I > were you is upload an mp4, make a test page linking to that instead of > the > .mov, and see if it works. You might also want to ask people to give > it a > test run before you flip the switch... --------- [ Please Note ] --------- If my email hosting service is rejecting your replies, please give me a phone call. It's not you, it's them! [View]



Re: [videoblogging] New Video Blog post from the DNC

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
July 29, 2004 | Post #456 | Topic #449

If you leave the QT embed alone but link to an mp4 then folks can dig out the mp4 URL by viewing the source. If you also expose a link to the mp4 URL in the HTML then that's even better. What do you get for all this trouble? People who prefer VLC, WMP, Real or Winamp can also watch your videos. On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Steve Garfield wrote: > How does that help people without QuickTime, when my page has the > QuickTime code embedded? > > > On Jul 29, 2004, at 1:58 PM, Lucas Gonze wrote: > >> You might want to link to both, if you have both, and otherwise you >> should >> be able to keep using the same HTML you're using now. Given that >> you're >> using autoplay, you obviously can't autoplay both; what I would do if I >> were you is upload an mp4, make a test page linking to that instead of >> the >> .mov, and see if it works. You might also want to ask people to give >> it a >> test run before you flip the switch... > --------- [ Please Note ] --------- > If my email hosting service is rejecting your replies, please give me a > phone call. > > It's not you, it's them! > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > [View]



Re: [videoblogging] New Video Blog post from the DNC

By Jay Dedman | Jay Dedman <jay@...> |
July 29, 2004 | Post #457 | Topic #449

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. Quoting Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...>: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Steve Garfield wrote: > > Saving in mp4 vs. QuickTime isn't a big deal for me. It's just another > > button on Sorenson Squeeze. > > Great! > > >> Think of it like web standards: if you use > >> browser extensions, you eliminate a lot of page views. > >> > > > > What does that mean? If I change over to mp4, how does than effect he > > HTML I use to display the video? > > You might want to link to both, if you have both, and otherwise you should > be able to keep using the same HTML you're using now. Given that you're > using autoplay, you obviously can't autoplay both; what I would do if I > were you is upload an mp4, make a test page linking to that instead of the > .mov, and see if it works. You might also want to ask people to give it a > test run before you flip the switch... > > > Since it's the last day of the DNC, I'm torn between, editing some more > > stuff that I have on tape and getting out there... [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: [videoblogging] New Video Blog post from the DNC

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
July 29, 2004 | Post #459 | Topic #449

I don't own iMovie so I can't check, but you should be able to. If not let's figure out what's up and find or make the tools to do it. I think the best advice on mp4 was that it was bandwidth hungry but well supported. On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Jay Dedman 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. > > > Quoting Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...>: > >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Steve Garfield wrote: >>> Saving in mp4 vs. QuickTime isn't a big deal for me. It's just another >>> button on Sorenson Squeeze. >> >> Great! >> >>>> Think of it like web standards: if you use >>>> browser extensions, you eliminate a lot of page views. >>>> >>> >>> What does that mean? If I change over to mp4, how does than effect he >>> HTML I use to display the video? >> >> You might want to link to both, if you have both, and otherwise you should >> be able to keep using the same HTML you're using now. Given that you're >> using autoplay, you obviously can't autoplay both; what I would do if I >> were you is upload an mp4, make a test page linking to that instead of the >> .mov,... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: New Video Blog post from the DNC

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
July 29, 2004 | Post #460 | Topic #449

Speaking as a person whose role is to popularize the stuff you guys are making, I can't emphasize enough how valuable standards are to me. If it comes to pleasing 100 listeners with work on mpeg support or 2 with work on Flash support, which it does almost every day, I choose the 100. And that means that the people making mpeg get all the benefit. On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, The Dane wrote: > --- 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... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] New Video Blog post from the DNC

By Jay Dedman | Jay Dedman <jay@...> |
July 29, 2004 | Post #461 | Topic #449

im torn. i like standards, but I understand Dane's argument about different strokes for different folks. in the end , we each do what we want. but if we do want standards, is MPEG4 it? does it look like a quicktime? what makes it different than other players? i dont think ive ever seen it. as long as it's easy. i need to SEE it to get it. Quoting Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...>: > > I don't own iMovie so I can't check, but you should be able to. If not > let's figure out what's up and find or make the tools to do it. > > I think the best advice on mp4 was that it was bandwidth hungry but well > supported. > > On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Jay Dedman 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. > > > > > > Quoting Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...>: > > > >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Steve Garfield wrote: > >>> Saving in mp4 vs. QuickTime isn't a big deal for me. It's just another > >>> button on Sorenson Squeeze. > >> > >> Great! > >> > >>>> Think of it like web standards: if you use > >>>> browser extensions, you eliminate... [View]



Re: New Video Blog post from the DNC

By Eric Rice | "Eric Rice" <eric@...> | audioblogdotcom
July 29, 2004 | Post #462 | Topic #449

It's funny, as much drama that surrounds the entire standards conversation (as a whole), no one acknowledges that everyone can see all the content. Flash=in 96% of all browsers; all movie trailers=Quicktime; as for Real, WMV are used liberally depending on publisher ideology. Yet we can all SEE it. Flash is awesome, and for streaming solutions, it works swimmingly. Most of you have seen some of my latest videos, and they're in Flash. No big deal. When I'm ready to release portable content (mpeg 4 or windows media), I will. I'm also not too crazy about standards-purity. I loved IE extensions because they made a better product in the end. For those that used IE to get online, they got a better experience. It's not like these web sites are locked in place for 50 years. Change will happen and today's standards will be different tomorrow since people develop NEW standards. Doesn't sound too standardized, does it? Heh. One more thing. MPEG4 didn't work in Windows Media or Real Player *or* WMP on PocketPC 2003. I would've thought otherwise. There is no standard. There is only variety. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@y...> wrote: > --- 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... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] New Video Blog post from the DNC

By Adrian Miles | Adrian Miles <adrian.miles@...> | adrianlmiles
July 29, 2004 | Post #463 | Topic #449

On 30/07/2004, at 8:26 AM, Jay Dedman 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. yes, see today's tutorial movie at: http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog/vlog/vlog_archive/000391.html cheers Adrian Miles ................................................................. hypertext.rmit || hypertext.rmit.edu.au/adrian interactive networked video || hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog research blog || hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog/vlog/ [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: New Video Blog post from the DNC

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
July 30, 2004 | Post #464 | Topic #449

Eric Rice wrote: > It's funny, as much drama that surrounds the entire standards > conversation (as a whole), no one acknowledges that everyone can see > all the content. Flash=in 96% of all browsers; all movie > trailers=Quicktime; as for Real, WMV are used liberally depending on > publisher ideology. > > Yet we can all SEE it. Flash is awesome, and for streaming solutions, > it works swimmingly. Most of you have seen some of my latest videos, > and they're in Flash. 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. I totally agree that Flash looks the best, integrates very nicely into the look of a page, and provides the best user experience, especially since everyone has it already. I wish Macromedia understood the web beyond surface appearence, though. Flash animations are notoriously opaque to linking, search... all the things that make the web what it is. Cheers, Ryan [View]



Re: New Video Blog post from the DNC

By Eric Rice | "Eric Rice" <eric@...> | audioblogdotcom
July 30, 2004 | Post #465 | Topic #449

Let me dare ask that 64 million dollar question: has the internet become the backbone for other things, one of which is the Web? Is it *just* about the web anymore? What about all the other internet-driven things like IM, or e-mail (google is trying really hard, i'm so over google). I suppose these are rhetorical questions, but when I ask them to myself about other devices (like my replay/TiVo box, my ringtones, etc), I haven't found answers to all of them. Maybe part of me believes it's not about *just* the Web anymore. It's about the internetwork. Insert Dennis Miller Closing Here. ;-) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@S...> wrote: > Eric Rice wrote: > > > It's funny, as much drama that surrounds the entire standards > > conversation (as a whole), no one acknowledges that everyone can see > > all the content. Flash=in 96% of all browsers; all movie > > trailers=Quicktime; as for Real, WMV are used liberally depending on > > publisher ideology. > > > > Yet we can all SEE it. Flash is awesome, and for streaming solutions, > > it works swimmingly. Most of you have seen some of my latest videos, > > and they're in Flash. > > 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... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: New Video Blog post from the DNC

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
July 30, 2004 | Post #466 | Topic #449

Eric Rice wrote: > Let me dare ask that 64 million dollar question: has the internet > become the backbone for other things, one of which is the Web? Is it > *just* about the web anymore? What about all the other > internet-driven things like IM, or e-mail (google is trying really > hard, i'm so over google). Well, I don't think the Internet has ever been just about the web, though the web (and even more so, email) certainly drove mainstream adoption. But these things aren't totally separate: people email web pages to each other, IM links, etc... I don't think any of these things would be as popular in isolation. > I suppose these are rhetorical questions, but when I ask them to > myself about other devices (like my replay/TiVo box, my ringtones, > etc), I haven't found answers to all of them. Maybe part of me > believes it's not about *just* the Web anymore. It's about the > internetwork. I agree with that. But don't you think the internetwork needs search? Ryan [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 Eric Rice | "Eric Rice" <eric@...> | audioblogdotcom
July 30, 2004 | Post #468 | Topic #449

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@y...> wrote: > 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. I just spent a good deal of time at Volvo's site for the new S40. The entire micro-site is in flash. It's an application and/or experience site. And it worked perfectly. If the content warranted it, sure a search mechanism can be built in (which is sorta there in a limited capacity). Google will, however, find the front door. Eric [View]



Re: New Video Blog post from the DNC

By Eric Rice | "Eric Rice" <eric@...> | audioblogdotcom
July 30, 2004 | Post #469 | Topic #449

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@S...> wrote: > don't you think the internetwork needs search? Not as an absolute, no. Point me to where information is, that will suffice. Flash *does& have the ability to be searchable if the content warrants it. If it's an application or cartoon, it might not *need* to be indexed in search. But search is needed to let me know where it is, and a little bit of metadata about what I'll find there. Maybe it goes along with the re-worked saying: "Information wants to be free and some information doesn't." Eric [View]