Converting and Uploading Those Old VHS Videos April 20, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : Making Videos, Online Video , 9commentsI’ve got two or three plastic bins in my basement, packed with hundreds VHS tapes. Among a lot of junk (Simpsons episodes, SNL reruns) lies some of the first video shorts I’ve made… um… two decades ago. So I spent hours this morning researching ways to convert them, and it comes down to a few complex choices with big tradeoffs:
- Ship your tape to a service provider (I found AMB Media Services via a Google text ad). For the price of $5 to $9, you can transfer VHS, VHS-C, Mini-DV, or Hi-8/8mm tapes. If you only have a few tapes, and want a low-maintenance solution (because your VHS still blinks 12:00), this is your best option. But when you add the shipping (about $9), converting a few tapes will cost more than buying a device. Some pharmacy and photo shops offer this service, and maybe shipping is less expensive.
- Use a camcorder with an analog input. Then you can connect your ol’ VHS to your camcorder and record it digitally. Next, you simply convert your digital tape to your computer as you would any new footage. Unfortunately my high-end Canon HV20 doesn’t have analog in. But I used an earlier camcorder to convert and upload “Woodblock Doll,” “Mint and Treats,” and “Attack of the Killer Slinky.”
- Buy a “Black Box” Device. Pinnacle’s Dazzle was the first device I bought to convert my Mini-DVs to digital footage more than 8 years ago. I researched the space, and paid maybe $200 for the device and editing software. Now there’s an AV-to-digital converter that’s selling for less than $50. There are other “black box” solutions like the Canopus ADVC-1110, but it’s pricey at $200 plus. Here’s one of the highest-rated VHS/DVD devices on Amazon (the Sony VRDMC5 DVDirect DVD Recorder). This Sony device got a favorable review from PC Magazine as well as CrunchGear, but a few customers have complained about audio problems.
- DVD/VHS Combination Units. Wired’s “Gadget Review” compares a number of other solutions, that include simple consumer decks that have both DVD and VHS. Some of these allow you to dub a VHS to a DVD… but this appears oddly complicated. Further, you’ll need software to “rip” that DVD signal to something you can edit, compress and upload. This ‘DVD/VHS combo option leaves you with a full DVD copy of your tape without all the editing and manual work.
- Additional Options and Sources. In researching this post, I did find a nice review of options by “AskBobFranklin.” And two reviews worth mentioning: Video converter software compared and Video editing software compared. I also like this post by SignVideo that describes the method and gives you tips on preserving the quality.
So what’s the bottom line? I’d go with a service (online or at a local store) if you just have a few tapes. But if you have six or more then it’s much more affordable to get a device. While writing this post, I bought the Pinnacle Dazzle DVD Recorder ($44 at Amazon.com). Then I realized that it had a few bad reviews on Amazon, and… oh… it’s not Mac compatible. D’oh. So now maybe I’ll spring for the Sony VRDMC5. Or maybe I’ll tell wifeofnalts it’s on my birthday-wish list. The black box is convenient but it’s another darned device that has limited functionality beyond this purpose.
Here’s my description of “the perfect device,” but I doubt it exists:
- It costs less than $200, and has a VHS deck and a DVD burner.
- The DVD is playable on a regular DVD player, but it also automatically chunks the video into segments that can be viewed via thumbnails. Or you can set it to chunk in 5/10-minute increments.
- You’d store the entire DVD as a safeguard against the deteriorating VHS tapes (although obviously burned DVD are far from permanent archives). Still, I suppose we’d actually watch our wedding tape more than once a decade if it was on DVD.
- But the DVD would also allow for easy exporting in the form of Quicktime, .mov or .mp4 files… so that you don’t need to use software to “rip” the entire DVD, convert, edit and upload. Too many steps!
Would appreciate any feedback if this device does exist. I’d love to dust off some of the videos in the basement, like these vintage Nalts clips (see “more” for details).
Want to Be Seen and Paid on YouTube? Your Relatives Matter… April 16, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : Making Money, Making Videos, Online Video, Viral Video, YouTube, popular videos , 21comments
As many as 25% of the views of a video may come from people finishing a related video. This chart shows the percentage of views that come from various sources to my “The Best of Naked Vlogs.” This is not a representative example, but look at the percent of traffic that comes from “related video” (more than 50 percent). That means someone watched another nude vlogger and then saw mine show up as “related video” and stopped by. Or it means they saw one of the other nude vlogger videos that was posted as a response to mine (or vice versa).
So what’s this mean? Please don’t jam your tags with the same words of popular videos, because that used to game the system but frustrates people. YouTube/Google also has means for penalizing this trick if overused. But do try to make videos about things that are of high interest or topical, and you’ll get some help from relatives…
In other news — as you might have read — YouTube announced that it has paid out $1 million in cash to video creators that are part of its Partners program. Excerpt from NewTeeVee article…
YouTube said today it has paid out more than $1 million to its user partners through its partner program. The figure came as part of an announcement that YouTube is expanding the program to users in Japan, Australia and Ireland. YouTube doesn’t disclose how it splits its revenue, but we’ll make do with what scraps of numbers we have. The site currently lists 100 partners, though that also includes entities that we’d think would be designated as professional partners rather than “user partners,” such as Universal Music Group and CBS.
Media Stereotypes Online-Video Clichés April 5, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : Blogs on Video, Killer Video, Making Videos, Online Video, Video, Video Business, Viral Video, YouTube, popular videos , 23commentsThere’s no question that traditional media tends to characterize online video — and YouTube in particular — as a cute fad. Certainly the bulk of the stories are about the “one hit wonders,” Internet clichés, and sensational hits like Chris Crocker, Sneezing Pandas, laughing babies and Star Wars Kid.
When I saw some recent Comedy Central parodies, I actually got a little frustrated that comedy writers are captivated with the drama prairie dog, and misses the more interesting trends:
- Amateurs are gaining very active, loyal audiences. Watch the “highest rated” videos of the day, and you’ll see a collection of creators that live on this list. They have relatively small but extremely devoted audiences.
- Artists that create paintings and eBay them. Communities meeting together. Daily webisodes that are more succinct and appealing than much of television.
- Some creators, despite conventional wisdom, aren’t on a rapid pursuit of scoring television shows either. A few are making comfortable livings (six figure and up) and enjoy the creative freedom that only online video can provide.
The boys on Southpark were right that the distribution channel is still far from a mature monetization model. But it’s getting more interesting and obviously an important trend and not a fad.
As I was thinking about all this, I felt compelled to spoof my somewhat defensive reaction. So here’s me taking this argument to an absurd extreme. Attacking media for stereotypes, only to resort to groveling for an SNL deal with Lauren Michaels.
Brilliant Ad Placement or Luck April 4, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : Making Videos, Online Video, Video Advertising, YouTube, advertising , 8commentsHere’s my video about LisaNova (a prominent YouTuber that broke her streak of sketch comedies by vlogging). I fake an accident in my Toyota.
And how appropriate. A Toyota ad right there. Maybe it’s time to buy a Corrolla.
Any discounts if I promise to show it on camera?
Southpark on Monetization of Digital Content April 4, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : Future of Online Video, Killer Video, Making Money, Making Videos, Online Video, Profit, Viral Video, popular videos , 5commentsKyle from Southpark puts it well in this 30-second clip from “Canada on Strike.” The clip’s called “The Promise of Future Revenue.” Thanks to Jan for finding it.
Boy I’m sure glad that’s over with. Me too. Yeah, but you know I learned something today. We thought we could make money on the Internet. But while the Internet is new and exciting for creative people, it hasn’t matured as a distribution mechanism to the extent that one should trade real and immediate opportunities for income for the promise of future online revenue. It will be a few years before digital distribution of media on the Internet can be monetized to an extent that necessitates content producers to forgo their fair value in more traditional media.
In this part of “Canada on Strike,” the Southpark folks meet some YouTube weblebrities (the cliche one-hit wonders). There’s something pervursely symbolic to see all of the Internet stars — laughing baby, sneezing panda, gopher, Chris Crocker, Chocolate Rain, Tron guy, Numa Numa — end up in a bloody mess on the floor.
Exclusive, Leaked BS: How to Manipulate YouTube April 2, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : Making Videos, Online Video, Viral Video, YouTube, advertising, popular videos , 3comments
All the bad advice on how to manipulate YouTube in one handy video. Where do I start?
Buried in this, actually, is some good advice… Like being creative about tagging with less competitive terms. And keeping a video shocking and fast, and coming up with clever names and thumbnails.
But much of it is futile (pay blogs to post, create fake accounts, use fake and misleading headlines with “exclusive” and “leaked”). I am hoping it’s subtle satire.
Some of the ideas are based on Dan Ackerman Greenberg, who received notoriety last November in TechCrunch for revealing his tricks (and some legitimate strategies) that help marketers spread viral videos. Here’s Dan on CNN discussing his tricks o’ the trade from San Francisco. I was so amused and perplexed by Dan that I created a special URL for him last year (per this post): www.viralvideovillain.com. I still want to meet you, Dan. We can pretend we’re the witches from The Wizard of Oz.
That said, the creator (RunawayBox) made this video a reply to CakkeTeam’s beloved “Internet Stars are Viral.” And I kinda like that video because I’m in it. Dang shame it never went very viral…
How Much Money Does a YouTube Partner Make? April 2, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : Making Money, Making Videos, YouTube , 20commentsOh how’s THAT for a blog title, when you’ve signed a confidentiality document that precludes you from talking about your revenue as a YouTube partner?! Don’t worry, YouTube. I’m not breaking rank. But I’m very interested in what people THINK partners are making.
Before YouTube, I’ve always been transparent about my revenue related to online video. I feel that’s part of my role on this blog… to give creators a realistic sense of what they can make in online video (beyond food). Alas, YouTube prohibits it for reasons that aren’t quite clear to me — are there tiers? If compensation varies, then I can be sure I’m at the bottom based on my complete lack of negotiation skills.
I do believe that some prominent YouTube partners are beginning to earn what amounts to a full-time job through the site. But I also understand that some of the early Partner contracts are up for renewal about now.
- Could some be overstating their earnings? Yes. But some partners are doing $10K a month, especially those that already had an audience and moved them to YouTube. And some creators get millions of views consistently.
- When some say they’ve quit their day jobs, is that beacuse their costs are so low that even a couple grand a month can sustain them? Maybe.
- Could the earnings be based on a point of time where, say, they had a video featured that was monetized? Sure.
While there’s no question that many could still earn more money per hour doing something else (like consulting or bartending), I am happier with my income from YouTube than what I was making from YouTube before I became a partner (zero). And while I’m not sure whether the per-view profit is as strong as Revver’s and Metacafe’s (I don’t even have access to any such metrics), I’m not getting any significant views on those sites anymore. So YouTube is far outperforming them.
My advice remains: if you’re looking to get rich, create a bunch of mortgage blogs and sell adsense. Or go into financial services or recruiting like the former co-worker that just called me to “network.”
But if you love video and the community around it, then it’s nice to get an income subsidy that helps you justify the time commitment to yourself, wife and family. I remain optimistic that more of the top creators of YouTube will be able to quit their day jobs, but that’s partially because amateurs will slowly get trumped by the semi pros (whose day job is performing or video creation). It’s already happening. While the amateur vloggers are holding top positions, we’re seeing more semi-professional content done by comedy troups, bands or known offline celebrities.
Now here’s the purpose of my post. I’m curious what people THINK partners make. I can tell from a lot of comments that people WAY over estimate what creators make: “You get paid for this shit?” “You’re asking us for ideas? You’re the one who gets paid.” I can’t participate in this thread, but it will be fun to watch.
And if you’re not a Partner yet, don’t let it upset you unless you have hundreds of thousands of monthly views. Grow the audience and reapply later. Even if YT did make you a partner, it’s not worth it unless you have some views. Take it from a guy that tried Google ads on his blog for a while, and quickly realized that it wasn’t worth the cosmetic interference.
Hey, That Creepy Unibrow Songwriter on YouTube is Actually Weezer! April 1, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : Making Videos, YouTube , 13commentsRivers Cuomo, the lead singer and writer for rock band Weezer, is employing YouTubers to help him write a song in steps. The first step was the mood, the second was the title, the third was chord progression. Yesterday he posted this video about the arrangement.
We give this effort an A plus for a creative use of the online-video medium — collaborating with fans. And extra credit for the established musician using YouTube instead of dragging people to weezer.com to engage.
Cuomo’s unibrow and mustache, however, look like props from a Jon LaJoie rapist glasses or pedophile beard video. Speaking of which… after a day of work, I can actually feel my back and chest untighten when I watch Jon LaJoie videos. You get a guilty laugh when seeing his “masturbating in public trench coat” humor, but it does the trick. I feel like I’ve seen him on TV somewhere, but maybe he just reminds me of the dude from Stella.
News courtesy of Zack Scott, who called the videos “creepy,” even though he doesn’t have much room to talk. But neither do I, really.
“Sorry, Partner” says YouTube March 26, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : Google, Making Money, Making Videos, YouTube, google video , 31comments
Sorry, Partners. Seems a few YouTubers have been getting the following response when trying out for YouTube’s Partner Program.
“The current level of viewership of your account has not met our threshold for acceptance.”
- Should they announce what that threshold is on the “who qualifies” page?
- Or provide a message that is a little more human?
- Maybe let people know that the ad revenue would be laughable if views are at x level?
- Give applicants a banner and credits to the Google store, which would be enough for many?
Nah, I think they should just send this clip without any text.
Is Yahoo TV Closing or Widening Chasm Between Online Video & Television? March 25, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : Making Money, Making Videos, Online Video, Video Advertising, Video Business, Yahoo Video, YouTube, advertising , 13comments
Which online-video site is mostly likely to be part of the bridge between television and the Internet? You can fault the model, and question it’s sustainability. But Yahoo TV is well poised to leverage its partnerships with Verizon and TiVo to start serving its bite-sized video content via television sets equipped with broadband boxes.
Take, for example, Yahoo TV’s “Prime Time in No Time,” a show hosted by Frank Nicotero that recaps the prior evening’s television shows. It’s interesting on at least two levels:
- It appeals to TV junkies. I’m not sure there’s a market for general prime-time recaps (since audiences tend to form around tighter niches). But it’s clearly targeted at TV viewers who maybe need some hand holding to start consuming via Yahoo’s mini-TV play. With some prime time promotion, I can see this audience growing.
- The ad model is interesting. Verizon gets a brief intro (not a preroll that I noticed), some banner wrap-arounds, and even a logo tucked nicely in the host’s corner frame. It’s dominant without being obtrusive.
So we’re still in the infancy of the “TV and online video” collision, which is clearly going to take much more time than we hoped. I’m far less interested in television administered in once-a-day pills (instead of intravanious drips). I find the more fascinating side to be the amateur creators gaining broader exposure than they currently get (assuming they’re good enough, and have consistent content that appeal to steady audiences even if relatively small).
While YouTube is still better poised for the latter, Yahoo comes at the web more like AOL: looking more like TV on the computer than web video as most consume it now. So we see less and more polished content, but fairly superficial interaction between the content and its audience. It’s still “one to many” unlike the magic of online video “many to many” play.
It’s Amazon not eBay.
As an example, one of my few popular videos on Yahoo has 90K views but just 90 comments. While one in a thousand comment on Yahoo Video, most of my YouTube videos get 1-2 percent of viewers commenting. My Mac Air spoof got 27K views with 13 comments, while the same Mac Air spoof on YouTube got 374K views and 1564 comments.
Typically the initial online successes are “pure plays” and not an offline entity moving in. This is true with almost any industry: gaming, retail, travel and media. But it will take a few failures along the way. YahooTV is bringing TV and online video ever so slightly closer together — even if it ends up being a log over the river.
Note that Yahoo Video (the quasi amateur section) still exists, but it’s not part of the primary menu on Yahoo. In fact, I almost gave up in my search for it, so it’s not likely drawing in many Yahoo users (Alexa won’t let me isolate http://video.yahoo.com/ from Yahoo.com, so I don’t know how it’s fairing). The featured videos seem to get paltry views relative to YouTube features, and even the Yahoo Video Awards blog post has just 35 comments 4 days after announced (by contrast, most top 100 YouTubers get that kind of views and interactions within an hour of posting).
P.S. Updated 3/27: Check out what InsideOnlineVideo has to say about Yahoo.
