Well, it looks like this is the end. Here is the link to the vlog that I have been working on. Remember to read the other posts of my blog since the vlog itself lacks all the depth that I want (similar to how a newspaper report might have more depth than a television news report). Start on the bottom link under archives, and work your way up!
Note: If anybody is reading this, know that this blog and the associated vlog was the result of a final project I did for a class, and I have decided to do my presentation in the form of a video, which is the reason for this post. Since the vlog is such a recent phenomenon, my research material is limited to that made by technology-related organizations and little to no scholarly works directly about the video blog. If I had more time and materials, I would like to try and contact the vloggers themselves and search for a much more in-depth and scholarly works on the video blog. I do think, however, that my posts show that the video blog is the product of a preexisting set of technologies and movements based on political and social needs, and because of this, I was able to draw my conclusions based on material that did not explicitly discuss the vlog.
Another note: I finished adding the Youtube notations and gave a better description for the video. If you watched the video before 9:50pm on Wednesday, July 1, 2009, please rewatch it! It is the way I orginally wanted it shown to everyone.
Perhaps I will post more one day, but as for now, please feel free to comment!
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
We shape our buildings; therefore, they shape us.
(That is a quote by Winston Churchill.)
As I mentioned in my very first post, I argue that vlogging is the product of a system. Now that all the pieces are together, let me make all the connections.
First of all, it is important to note that the period from 2001 to 2005 was a very important time for vlogs.
The iPod was created in 2001, allowing for the growth of the podcast, which then allowed for the jump towards video blogging.
2005 is also the important year in which Youtube was released, allowing for a broadcasting mentality that lets users broadcast themselves. Remember, the video technology was already there, but people had to look at it from a different angle in order for the vlogging community to grow. Youtube definitely recognized this amateur-hobbyist aspect of video technology.
The Creative Commons movement started during this period and grew. This backlash against current intellectual-property-right laws tries to motivate a culture with more freedom of information while still inspiring people to create their own works. In turn, it also allowed for an easier legal platform to spread and build culture. A simple license seems to have a reach beyond the scope of the license owners.
The vlog now enables people to connect to each other and spread their content all across the globe. Where you live is no longer a problem, and when you post is no longer a problem. Notions of space and time become obsolete because you can post your vlog online, and people can view it from anywhere else (provided that they have access to the internet in the first place and provided that your country of residence lets you go to such websites). Combine it with the power of social networking utilities like Facebook or Twitter, and you can show your video to everyone and anyone.
While there are all of these advantages, it is important to remember that everyone should still make real social connections. The state of mentality that we can all connect and become part of an online community with voice and facial familiarities seems to make the physical body a bit less real, creating a sort of social shortcut. Video-editing software lets vloggers filter what they want people to see, and along similar lines, trust is not one-hundred percent guaranteed. The level of expertise that a person has is not clearly defined, and in a way, it can displace professionals in institutionalized settings.
If you read this article about the Nike+, they mention an idea called the Hawthorne effect--“The gist of the idea is that people change their behavior—often for the better—when they are being observed”, and it is true that vloggers are constantly being observed. Perhaps the endless amount of feedback causes vloggers to make more and better videos. It seems as though it becomes the vloggers’ choice to make them, but because they can build a fan base with vlogs, being recognized then builds trust to an audience that vloggers do not really know. Vloggers themselves become part of this cybernetic system, and it can become hard to get detached from such technology.
All in all, however, try your hand at broadcasting yourself, and see how it goes.
As Kranzberg’s First Law of technology states, “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral” (p. 545).
As I mentioned in my very first post, I argue that vlogging is the product of a system. Now that all the pieces are together, let me make all the connections.
First of all, it is important to note that the period from 2001 to 2005 was a very important time for vlogs.
The iPod was created in 2001, allowing for the growth of the podcast, which then allowed for the jump towards video blogging.
2005 is also the important year in which Youtube was released, allowing for a broadcasting mentality that lets users broadcast themselves. Remember, the video technology was already there, but people had to look at it from a different angle in order for the vlogging community to grow. Youtube definitely recognized this amateur-hobbyist aspect of video technology.
The Creative Commons movement started during this period and grew. This backlash against current intellectual-property-right laws tries to motivate a culture with more freedom of information while still inspiring people to create their own works. In turn, it also allowed for an easier legal platform to spread and build culture. A simple license seems to have a reach beyond the scope of the license owners.
The vlog now enables people to connect to each other and spread their content all across the globe. Where you live is no longer a problem, and when you post is no longer a problem. Notions of space and time become obsolete because you can post your vlog online, and people can view it from anywhere else (provided that they have access to the internet in the first place and provided that your country of residence lets you go to such websites). Combine it with the power of social networking utilities like Facebook or Twitter, and you can show your video to everyone and anyone.
While there are all of these advantages, it is important to remember that everyone should still make real social connections. The state of mentality that we can all connect and become part of an online community with voice and facial familiarities seems to make the physical body a bit less real, creating a sort of social shortcut. Video-editing software lets vloggers filter what they want people to see, and along similar lines, trust is not one-hundred percent guaranteed. The level of expertise that a person has is not clearly defined, and in a way, it can displace professionals in institutionalized settings.
If you read this article about the Nike+, they mention an idea called the Hawthorne effect--“The gist of the idea is that people change their behavior—often for the better—when they are being observed”, and it is true that vloggers are constantly being observed. Perhaps the endless amount of feedback causes vloggers to make more and better videos. It seems as though it becomes the vloggers’ choice to make them, but because they can build a fan base with vlogs, being recognized then builds trust to an audience that vloggers do not really know. Vloggers themselves become part of this cybernetic system, and it can become hard to get detached from such technology.
All in all, however, try your hand at broadcasting yourself, and see how it goes.
As Kranzberg’s First Law of technology states, “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral” (p. 545).
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING.
Am I allowed to use that as the title? It references 1984 so I am not too sure. I guess I just cited it.
Anyway…
What I want to address is that while the FCC does not regulate the internet, the internet as a whole does have its political ramifications. If you look at this nifty map, you can see different nations of the world categorized by filters based on political factors, social factors, security, and internet tools. Click on the political filter, and you can see that a country like China is in red.
China offers a great example of internet censorship. They have been on the news recently for what I think is pretty much placing limits on the freedom that is the internet. In this CNET article, it says that “China has indefinitely delayed enforcement of a requirement that PC makers preinstall Green Dam-Youth Escort software that experts believe would have screened not just Internet pornography but also some online political content…Experts have warned that the Green Dam software poses security risks, and last week, the U.S. Trade Representative protested that Green Dam violates World Trade Organization rules.”
Political, economic, and security risks all at the same time just because China does not want people to know the truth!?! It is a good thing that we are in the United States, right?
Well, follow my directions, and decide for yourself. We are going to look for images of Tiananmen Square. If you do not know what that is, please check out this article .
First, check out the American google.com. Search for “Tiananmen square” images. What do you see? Yep, they are all pictures related to the Chinese military and the massacre.
Now, let us do the same thing on the Chinese google.cn. "Images" is still the second filter at the top by the way. Here, the results show mostly...happiness surrounding the pictures.
I will not post any of the images because I do not want to violate any copyright laws, but it also works if you do Yahoo.com versus Yahoo.cn.
It looks like somebody is deciding which types of pictures we all see first, and it is clear that there are political agendas on each side.
Anyway…
What I want to address is that while the FCC does not regulate the internet, the internet as a whole does have its political ramifications. If you look at this nifty map, you can see different nations of the world categorized by filters based on political factors, social factors, security, and internet tools. Click on the political filter, and you can see that a country like China is in red.
China offers a great example of internet censorship. They have been on the news recently for what I think is pretty much placing limits on the freedom that is the internet. In this CNET article, it says that “China has indefinitely delayed enforcement of a requirement that PC makers preinstall Green Dam-Youth Escort software that experts believe would have screened not just Internet pornography but also some online political content…Experts have warned that the Green Dam software poses security risks, and last week, the U.S. Trade Representative protested that Green Dam violates World Trade Organization rules.”
Political, economic, and security risks all at the same time just because China does not want people to know the truth!?! It is a good thing that we are in the United States, right?
Well, follow my directions, and decide for yourself. We are going to look for images of Tiananmen Square. If you do not know what that is, please check out this article .
First, check out the American google.com. Search for “Tiananmen square” images. What do you see? Yep, they are all pictures related to the Chinese military and the massacre.
Now, let us do the same thing on the Chinese google.cn. "Images" is still the second filter at the top by the way. Here, the results show mostly...happiness surrounding the pictures.
I will not post any of the images because I do not want to violate any copyright laws, but it also works if you do Yahoo.com versus Yahoo.cn.
It looks like somebody is deciding which types of pictures we all see first, and it is clear that there are political agendas on each side.
You are not alone!
Well, if you want to use work legally and not go through the hassle of looking for copyright information about the audio or visual content you would like to use, you are not alone.
One way that vloggers have gone about avoiding copyright issues is to use Creative-Commons-licensed material. CC is a nonprofit organization that “provides free licenses and other legal tools to mark creative work with the freedom the creator wants it to carry, so others can share, remix, use commercially, or any combination thereof” , It was founded in 2001 with support from the Duke Law School’s Center for the Public Domain. As of 2008, there have been over one hundred thirty million CC licensed works.
As I have mentioned before, the very foundation of the vlog seemed to stem from creative expression and sharing. More access to video technology over the past few years have increased the ability to make vlogs, and the Creative Commons movement has grown alongside it. Note that in 2003, there were three million licenses around, but in 2004, an estimated 4.7 million were around, and “licenses were also ported to 12 international jurisdictions”.
Because of the internet’s lack of boundaries and its simultaneous legal boundaries, it seems as if vlogging and the associated CC movement emerged as ways of trying to stay outside these boundaries. Unfortunately, as this fellow blogger has noted, it looks like the Creative Commons movement is still merely part of a subculture. Spread the word, everyone!
One way that vloggers have gone about avoiding copyright issues is to use Creative-Commons-licensed material. CC is a nonprofit organization that “provides free licenses and other legal tools to mark creative work with the freedom the creator wants it to carry, so others can share, remix, use commercially, or any combination thereof” , It was founded in 2001 with support from the Duke Law School’s Center for the Public Domain. As of 2008, there have been over one hundred thirty million CC licensed works.
As I have mentioned before, the very foundation of the vlog seemed to stem from creative expression and sharing. More access to video technology over the past few years have increased the ability to make vlogs, and the Creative Commons movement has grown alongside it. Note that in 2003, there were three million licenses around, but in 2004, an estimated 4.7 million were around, and “licenses were also ported to 12 international jurisdictions”.
Because of the internet’s lack of boundaries and its simultaneous legal boundaries, it seems as if vlogging and the associated CC movement emerged as ways of trying to stay outside these boundaries. Unfortunately, as this fellow blogger has noted, it looks like the Creative Commons movement is still merely part of a subculture. Spread the word, everyone!
Do I really have to follow copyright rules?
To answer that question, I would like to talk about why we have such laws in the first place. Let us look at history. I will start with the British patent system, follow it with France’s, and then end with the United States’. I will draw upon work from The Democratization of Invention: Patents and Copyrights in American Economic Development, 1790-1920, by B. Zorina Khan, and “New, Useful, and Nonobvious”, an article by Steven Lubar.
In Britain’s earlier years, patents came with a high price. This essentially limited patents to those who were wealthy or those who had connections, particularly those who were on more familiar terms with the monarch. Furthermore, obtaining a patent could mean that the inventor has a monopolistic control over the invention, but at the same time, the monarch could take away the patent out of more personal reasons. They were granted “by the grace of the Crown,” and according to the statutes, patents were to be granted if “…they be not contrary to the law nor mischievous to the State…or generally inconvenient” (Khan, p. 36). Other than the patent officers, the ones who seemed to benefit the most were patent agents and lawyers (footnoted in Khan, p 33).
France’s system had different groups of people that would judge the inventions and act as advisors on the type of award that the inventors should receive. Usually, these awards would be in the form of money, and the awards were “administered by the state on a case-by-case basis” (Khan, p. 40). The result, however, proved to be arbitrary and based on the groups’ demographics and how useful the invention might be to society. For example, “Chevalier de Gruyere requested a privilege for the manufacture of a vegetable-based cosmetic rouge…His application was supported by influential women at court” (footnoted in Khan, p. 40).
For the United States, the patent system started as a simple registration system and was based on the decisions of the secretary of state and the secretary of war, Jefferson and Knox. It became evident that this was not a sufficient means of doing this, but the patent fee was still more inexpensive compared to the systems of the Europeans. The minimal fees spurred the creation of inventions from those of the working-class people, a trait of the American patent system that resulted because of U.S. separation from the British. They did not want their industry in the hands of any higher-class group of people. Applications could even be submitted “by mail free of postage” (Khan, p. 59). As the evolution of the American patent system occurred, three, more objective means of giving out patents came into existence. The invention had to be new, useful, and nonobvious, but the degrees of how new, how useful, or how nonobvious the invention had to be have been in the hands of the courts throughout the course of U.S. history. In fact, “…between 1921 and 1973, the judges of U.S. circuit courts declared almost two-thirds of the patents they ruled on invalid” (Lubar, p. 2). The patent system in the United States, then, depends greatly on the court system.
The United States’ required that the invention be new in the world and not just within its boundaries, and the “newness” of the invention had to have come about through the vague phrase: a “flash of genius”. In terms of usefulness, when courts judged the patents, they tend to reflect the bigger issues technology plays in American society. Thus, there is a more democratic role in the way patents are issued; it was insisted that “social utility be considered along with technical utility” (Lubar, p. 5). The British had a similar “new and useful” condition for their patent laws, but “if part of an invention is found to be meritorious and part useless, the patent is likewise void” (Khan, p. 34). In the United States, to solve the problem of the vague language in the “newness” factor, the “nonobviousness” factor came about. The invention must have been something that was not obvious to someone “having ordinary skill in the art” (Lubar, p. 8).
Today, for inventions to be considered for patents, the combination of the three factors, “newness, usefulness, and nonobviousness,” makes up the United States’ patent system. For the Vlog, intellectual property rights, the ones that are the most controversial, are the ones that govern music, photos, writing, and other original works. As patent attorney David Pressman defines in his book Patent it Yourself, intellectual property “refers to any product of the human mind or intellect, such as an idea, invention, expression, unique name, business method, industrial process, or chemical formula, which has some value in the marketplace, and that ultimately can be reduced to a tangible form” (p. 17). One subcategory of intellectual property rights is the copyright. For works published after 1977, the copyright may last between 95 and 120 years or even longer. Unless vloggers want to use material published before 1923, it is safe to say that most vloggers need permission if they want to use any modern pieces and not infringe upon anybody’s rights. As a side note, material published before 1923 is in the public domain, a term used to describe work that can be used without permission from the copyright owner.
To gain permission, a person must obtain a license by identifying the owner or owners, clearly specifying the way the material is to be used, and determining whether or not payment is necessary. It is a timely process, and anybody should expect to spend months during this permissions process. Costs can amount to over a hundred dollars just for the U. S. Copyright Office to determine who the owners are. All in all, however, the complex intellectual property laws seem to prevent the use of other people’s works, but it does inspire people to create their own works, part of the reason why the government allowed for such laws to exist in the first place.
All the “Circulars” that the Copyright Office directed me to for more information do not work by the way....
(If that never gets fixed and you do want more information about all of this, refer to the copyright overview on the Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center’s website.)
Oh, and obviously, the answer to my title is “YES”.
In Britain’s earlier years, patents came with a high price. This essentially limited patents to those who were wealthy or those who had connections, particularly those who were on more familiar terms with the monarch. Furthermore, obtaining a patent could mean that the inventor has a monopolistic control over the invention, but at the same time, the monarch could take away the patent out of more personal reasons. They were granted “by the grace of the Crown,” and according to the statutes, patents were to be granted if “…they be not contrary to the law nor mischievous to the State…or generally inconvenient” (Khan, p. 36). Other than the patent officers, the ones who seemed to benefit the most were patent agents and lawyers (footnoted in Khan, p 33).
France’s system had different groups of people that would judge the inventions and act as advisors on the type of award that the inventors should receive. Usually, these awards would be in the form of money, and the awards were “administered by the state on a case-by-case basis” (Khan, p. 40). The result, however, proved to be arbitrary and based on the groups’ demographics and how useful the invention might be to society. For example, “Chevalier de Gruyere requested a privilege for the manufacture of a vegetable-based cosmetic rouge…His application was supported by influential women at court” (footnoted in Khan, p. 40).
For the United States, the patent system started as a simple registration system and was based on the decisions of the secretary of state and the secretary of war, Jefferson and Knox. It became evident that this was not a sufficient means of doing this, but the patent fee was still more inexpensive compared to the systems of the Europeans. The minimal fees spurred the creation of inventions from those of the working-class people, a trait of the American patent system that resulted because of U.S. separation from the British. They did not want their industry in the hands of any higher-class group of people. Applications could even be submitted “by mail free of postage” (Khan, p. 59). As the evolution of the American patent system occurred, three, more objective means of giving out patents came into existence. The invention had to be new, useful, and nonobvious, but the degrees of how new, how useful, or how nonobvious the invention had to be have been in the hands of the courts throughout the course of U.S. history. In fact, “…between 1921 and 1973, the judges of U.S. circuit courts declared almost two-thirds of the patents they ruled on invalid” (Lubar, p. 2). The patent system in the United States, then, depends greatly on the court system.
The United States’ required that the invention be new in the world and not just within its boundaries, and the “newness” of the invention had to have come about through the vague phrase: a “flash of genius”. In terms of usefulness, when courts judged the patents, they tend to reflect the bigger issues technology plays in American society. Thus, there is a more democratic role in the way patents are issued; it was insisted that “social utility be considered along with technical utility” (Lubar, p. 5). The British had a similar “new and useful” condition for their patent laws, but “if part of an invention is found to be meritorious and part useless, the patent is likewise void” (Khan, p. 34). In the United States, to solve the problem of the vague language in the “newness” factor, the “nonobviousness” factor came about. The invention must have been something that was not obvious to someone “having ordinary skill in the art” (Lubar, p. 8).
Today, for inventions to be considered for patents, the combination of the three factors, “newness, usefulness, and nonobviousness,” makes up the United States’ patent system. For the Vlog, intellectual property rights, the ones that are the most controversial, are the ones that govern music, photos, writing, and other original works. As patent attorney David Pressman defines in his book Patent it Yourself, intellectual property “refers to any product of the human mind or intellect, such as an idea, invention, expression, unique name, business method, industrial process, or chemical formula, which has some value in the marketplace, and that ultimately can be reduced to a tangible form” (p. 17). One subcategory of intellectual property rights is the copyright. For works published after 1977, the copyright may last between 95 and 120 years or even longer. Unless vloggers want to use material published before 1923, it is safe to say that most vloggers need permission if they want to use any modern pieces and not infringe upon anybody’s rights. As a side note, material published before 1923 is in the public domain, a term used to describe work that can be used without permission from the copyright owner.
To gain permission, a person must obtain a license by identifying the owner or owners, clearly specifying the way the material is to be used, and determining whether or not payment is necessary. It is a timely process, and anybody should expect to spend months during this permissions process. Costs can amount to over a hundred dollars just for the U. S. Copyright Office to determine who the owners are. All in all, however, the complex intellectual property laws seem to prevent the use of other people’s works, but it does inspire people to create their own works, part of the reason why the government allowed for such laws to exist in the first place.
All the “Circulars” that the Copyright Office directed me to for more information do not work by the way....
(If that never gets fixed and you do want more information about all of this, refer to the copyright overview on the Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center’s website.)
Oh, and obviously, the answer to my title is “YES”.
Become a Youtube Celebrity!
As I mentioned in my last post, vloggers are a subculture, particularly for Mac users, but in a broader sense, they are a part of cyberculture. Because of the vlogs’ simplicity (once you get past all the technological barriers of course), they are easy to make. While it might take a bit of time, it becomes easier for anyone to become a celebrity in cyberculture, and if you get thousands of views, you become eligible for a Youtube partnership program in which users can earn money from their videos. Perhaps this is a type of incentive for those who are lower on the socioeconomic scale. They can use all the free tools available, and with the power of social networking, a person might be able to start earning money from their videos! (Are there wealthy people doing this? I am too sure.)
One criterion for this program, however, is that the user’s audio and visual content, both key for the type of content shown, are original works of the user, or the user must have express permission from the owner. Thus, while vloggers seem to have a sort of sovereignty in their internet domain (remember that the FCC does not regulate it), they are still subject to copyright laws and other systems. Unless a vlogger wants to get his or her video removed or face legal action, please use copyrighted material properly!
One criterion for this program, however, is that the user’s audio and visual content, both key for the type of content shown, are original works of the user, or the user must have express permission from the owner. Thus, while vloggers seem to have a sort of sovereignty in their internet domain (remember that the FCC does not regulate it), they are still subject to copyright laws and other systems. Unless a vlogger wants to get his or her video removed or face legal action, please use copyrighted material properly!
Vlogging 101
One of the most basic tasks that a vlogger must accomplish is learning to use video-editing software. To use such software, the vlogger needs some way of capturing video—a camera. Any type of camera—webcam, digital camera, cell phone—works as long as it can upload videos. The type of camera, however, affects the quality of the video, and a video uploaded with adverse quality might not generate many views. The same concern can also apply to video-editing programs; a poor video-editing program (or poorly edited video) can also amount to poor vlogs.
In fact, as I work on this blog, I am actually on my way towards creating a vlog. More importantly, this experience will show me how technologies limit my ability to create a vlog. It will show the limitations that I will face due to the technologies available to me as a consumer in terms of the type of software I use, the type of camera I use, and the type of music or photos I choose to put in the vlog.
Let us start with the camera. Last summer, I took an online class, and it required me to purchase a webcam. After consulting the professor, he said that it does not matter what kind of camera it is, as long as it shows your face and as long as it allows you to speak to the class through the internet. Being the poor college student that I am, I took his advice and bought a $20 webcam. The quality is definitely poor.
Here’s a picture taken with my webcam.
Here’s a picture taken with my digital camera, which I had to go borrow from home.
On a side note, I cannot connect it to the screen, meaning I cannot use it as a webcam, and thus, I have to record myself and then upload it onto my laptop before I get to see it. Viewing it on the camera itself does not help much because it does not have any speakers. Ah, the limits of technology.
The first time I used my webcam out of class, I used it to post a video on a friend’s social networking site, and of course, my response was that the video’s quality was horrible. Extrapolate that to other situations with audio equipment and video software, and it is easy to see that socioeconomic differences effect consumers—thereby affecting their video quality and hence, the quality of a vlog. Concerning video-editing software, by the way, my laptop comes with one called Windows Movie Maker, and of course, it is the only one I can use because anything else costs money. I actually went to CNET, a popular technology website if you did not already know about it, and found a video that taught me how to make vlogs. It advised me to use Windows Movie Maker.
Because of the advice I was given, I realized that there exists a certain type of infrastructure that technologies are built upon. As a PC user, I was advised to use Windows Media; the CNET video in facts advised Mac users to use iMovie. Among the many free software programs to use, the video chose the ones that are most common among users. These are the standards of each brand of laptop, and users benefit because the software is already included in their hardware.
While deleting and incorporating special effects with the included software is supposed to be easy, it is also important to note the learning curve associated with using such a program. When I tried to import a video to Windows Media Player, I could import many different types--.avi, .mpg, .m1v, .mp2, .mp2v, .mpeg, .mpe, .mpv2, .wm, .wmv, and .asf. None of these, however, were what my digital camera used! Instead, my digital camera uses the .mov video format. As Jake Ludington explains, “The QuickTime MOV format is the video output format for many digital still cameras. MOV is also becoming very popular as the distribution format for video bloggers; primarily because many video bloggers are also Mac users.” If you didn’t know, QuickTime is an Apple product. I wonder if there is a relationship between the camera industry and Apple. A subculture of Mac users apparently makes up a portion of the vlogging community. With Ludington’s help, I converted the .mov file to the .avi file.
After figuring out how to edit everything, I also needed to figure out what format Youtube accepts. It actually accepts quite a few, but once I saw .avi, that is all I really cared about. If you look at the Youtube page on file formats though, you can see that each video file format corresponds with certain recognizable names: Windows, Mac, iPod, PSP, and Adobe Flash.
Maybe there are capitalistic tendencies associated with not standardizing all the file formats.
I bet the video-converting industry benefits from this.
In fact, as I work on this blog, I am actually on my way towards creating a vlog. More importantly, this experience will show me how technologies limit my ability to create a vlog. It will show the limitations that I will face due to the technologies available to me as a consumer in terms of the type of software I use, the type of camera I use, and the type of music or photos I choose to put in the vlog.
Let us start with the camera. Last summer, I took an online class, and it required me to purchase a webcam. After consulting the professor, he said that it does not matter what kind of camera it is, as long as it shows your face and as long as it allows you to speak to the class through the internet. Being the poor college student that I am, I took his advice and bought a $20 webcam. The quality is definitely poor.
Here’s a picture taken with my webcam.
Here’s a picture taken with my digital camera, which I had to go borrow from home.
On a side note, I cannot connect it to the screen, meaning I cannot use it as a webcam, and thus, I have to record myself and then upload it onto my laptop before I get to see it. Viewing it on the camera itself does not help much because it does not have any speakers. Ah, the limits of technology.
The first time I used my webcam out of class, I used it to post a video on a friend’s social networking site, and of course, my response was that the video’s quality was horrible. Extrapolate that to other situations with audio equipment and video software, and it is easy to see that socioeconomic differences effect consumers—thereby affecting their video quality and hence, the quality of a vlog. Concerning video-editing software, by the way, my laptop comes with one called Windows Movie Maker, and of course, it is the only one I can use because anything else costs money. I actually went to CNET, a popular technology website if you did not already know about it, and found a video that taught me how to make vlogs. It advised me to use Windows Movie Maker.
Because of the advice I was given, I realized that there exists a certain type of infrastructure that technologies are built upon. As a PC user, I was advised to use Windows Media; the CNET video in facts advised Mac users to use iMovie. Among the many free software programs to use, the video chose the ones that are most common among users. These are the standards of each brand of laptop, and users benefit because the software is already included in their hardware.
While deleting and incorporating special effects with the included software is supposed to be easy, it is also important to note the learning curve associated with using such a program. When I tried to import a video to Windows Media Player, I could import many different types--.avi, .mpg, .m1v, .mp2, .mp2v, .mpeg, .mpe, .mpv2, .wm, .wmv, and .asf. None of these, however, were what my digital camera used! Instead, my digital camera uses the .mov video format. As Jake Ludington explains, “The QuickTime MOV format is the video output format for many digital still cameras. MOV is also becoming very popular as the distribution format for video bloggers; primarily because many video bloggers are also Mac users.” If you didn’t know, QuickTime is an Apple product. I wonder if there is a relationship between the camera industry and Apple. A subculture of Mac users apparently makes up a portion of the vlogging community. With Ludington’s help, I converted the .mov file to the .avi file.
After figuring out how to edit everything, I also needed to figure out what format Youtube accepts. It actually accepts quite a few, but once I saw .avi, that is all I really cared about. If you look at the Youtube page on file formats though, you can see that each video file format corresponds with certain recognizable names: Windows, Mac, iPod, PSP, and Adobe Flash.
Maybe there are capitalistic tendencies associated with not standardizing all the file formats.
I bet the video-converting industry benefits from this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
