Vodcast standards poll

Howdy, all! I’ve just got a couple quick questions about the future of the Diary of a Mad Filmmaker vodcast.

From the beginning, I’ve been committed to keeping the vodcast compatible with the video iPod, primarily to appeal to a wider audience and get a jump on the whole video podcasting stampede that I saw headed my way. This is why I chose to author videos at half-resolution (320×240 pixels). I retain this commitment because I know for a fact that some viewers do, in fact, watch the vodcast on their iPods. I also was committed to keeping file sizes down (I’ve done badly in that respect recently), which is why I chose Quicktime 7 over MPEG-4 encoding. However, something new and exciting happened when Apple announced their new products this month. A new iPod update allows users to download full-resolution (640×480) videos from iTunes and play them back on their iPod (not just new iPods; any video-capable iPod ever made).

Here’s one of the questions: how would people feel about having a separate feed for high(er)-definition vodcasts? I don’t want to release the vodcasts only in 640×480 resolution because I know not all of you have blazing internet connections (I didn’t either until last month). Instead I would offer a separate URL for the high-resolution vodcast that subscribers could use instead of the current URL.

Please comment on this post with your opinions. Would you subscribe to a high-res feed (even if it meant an average download size of 100 megs)? Do you prefer that I just work on keeping downloads small? Do you fear change and just wish I’d keep on doing things exactly the same way I have been (inconsistently)?

Also, if you wish, please let me know what you’d like to see in the future of the vodcast. I feel a bit boring coming to you every couple of weeks to show you a new clip and tell you that there might be light at the end of the tunnel. What do you want to see? Short films? Guests? Roundtable discussions? Personal drama? Shorter vodcasts? Longer vodcasts? Tall, arrogant vodcasts? Tell me what you want! The customer is always right!

12 thoughts on “Vodcast standards poll

  1. I have no compunctions about changing the resolution. What I would like to see is a twelve-foot-tall plywood cow outfitted with building squibs.
    I would (being a being with a modem) like to see the smaller vodcasts published anyway, but my main experience with the apple update is the annoying fact that half of the videos I have downloaded from the Music Store predate the upgrade, and so my personal rant comes to the conclusion that iTunes is annoying. More so, with that inane MiniStore.
    Perhaps I should have left the majority of this comment out of the comment I posted.

  2. Hmm… I guess I have no need for high res videos. Are you really important enough to spend more time on? I don’t think so. If you so desire, I guess I don’t care, but it seems a little pointless, unless there are secrets in those extra pixels… secrets about gold, maybe? Anyway…
    I want to see crazy film stuff, whether it be effects or guests or other odd things.

  3. …Evan, you can turn OFF the mini-store. And the new, high-res downloads now available are what we in the business call a “free upgrade.” Stop complaining.

    As for Parker, to whom might we be referring here? To us (me), to us (Greg), to us (Evan), to us (you), or some combination?

    And stop being so crass, all of you! Or I’ll be forced to instate martial law! And marital law! And if you’re good little children, EXTRAmarital law!

    …I should get some sleep.

  4. Well, am certainly fine with the size and definition of the vodcasts. If you so wish, I would be quite happy with higher rez ones, but I don’t know how much trouble it is, so I can’t gauge if it is worth the trouble. I will enjoy them regardlessly, so I say do what you want.
    As for the rest of you, this has generally been a pretty…”crass” (to put it nicely) series of posts. Why has this been happening? Is there some need to express distaste and unkindness veilded as a pass at intellecual criticism?
    Oh well…

  5. I sense no crassness in anything but Evan and Parker’s posts. Mine was full of wit and clever… um… witicisms… Seriously, though, I re-read it and it sounded kinda mean. I meant to be funny… crap.

  6. Greg!
    Firstly, they are ‘witticisms’. That second T contains all the wit. Without that, you’re just coming off as a phonetic intellectual.
    Secondly, your post was not mean, but pandering and gratuitous. We all know Andrew hasn’t the budget for golden secrets. He can barely afford the everyday nickel-plated secrets. May I remind you that he is now PAYING for his education?
    Regardlessly isn’t a word. It seems that a large number of this site’s constituents have difficulty with adverbs. I suggest removing the suffix -ly from the English language entirely.
    You would choose a clumsy and ineffectual format for your comments, you fucker. Why can’t you skewer your friends with creative invective in iambic pentameter like the rest of us?

  7. I am honestly surprised I said regardlessly…I don’t remember typing it, and I know it isn’t a word. I need to stop doing this shit when I am tired.
    Overall, Evan: you often seem to be a dick on things like this, though not always (your last post, for example).
    Greg: I feel I have seen a downward spiral in your kindness here and your respect for those here, and I can’t figure out what we have ever done to earn such.
    But perhaps I shouldn’t try and turn this in to a therapy session, forgive me.

  8. I’m so confused! I feel tension but I don’t know why! I love you all and I have nothing against anyone here. I agree with Andrew’s statement, “Wait, what the hell is happening?”

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Esquire by Matthew Buchanan.