Re: Ben Thatcher (Manchester City) - Killer foul

<amadan1006@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1156636024.079655.138280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
John Shocked wrote:
<amadan1006@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1156618228.858214.23260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
John Shocked wrote:
<amadan1006@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1156562299.736228.223740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
John Shocked wrote:
<amadan1006@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1156512946.824278.135460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
John Shocked wrote:
"Diabolik" <Diabolik@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:12esrqlm89h3l2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"John Shocked" <jshocked@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Q7uHg.1209$nL2.854@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Diabolik" <Diabolik@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:12esebv70nc5be1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH5MyVrCXbE
Ben Thatcher (Manchester City) knocks out Pedro Mendes (Portsmouth).
The quality of the video you post on YouTube is seriously compromised
by the processing that YouTube performs on the video you upload, so
that YouTube can save Hard Disk Storage space.
Does the elbow movement of Ben Thatcher change if the quality of the video
isn't the same?
Does Ben Thatcher see if Pedro is ok in the good quality video?
In this case, it looks like the forearm hit the player but it is unclear.
To see more clearly, the viewer needs to go full screen or the 800 options
available on the www.Putfile.com playback capability.
When you go to a bigger picture is where you see a huge difference
in the quality of the picture and it is clear that YouTube.com is throwing away
a lot of the data you Uploaded to them.
I especially do not like the fact that YouTube deletes much of your data
without the courtesy of telling you they are doing it and asking permission.
John
Another PutFile.com PR hack here for one reason only...
I said www.putfile.com or some other site which does not delete
the data the user Uploads.
YouTube is the only site I know of which performs this destructive
lossy compression on the users' data.
However, I have not checked them all.
Here is some information on Other Sites you can try:
http://www.free-webhosts.com/free-video-hosting.php

The www.putfile.com site has major advantages over YouTube apart from
huge playback video quality difference.
Putfile allows double-clicking in the display window to alternate
between Full-Screen and Normal like most legit video players,
it has several other pixel size option which can be selected from a
list box, readable file names, Rewind and Fast_Forward buttons,
and the audio even sounds better,
though I could not prove that one.

The problem for guys like me is that if you are successfully being played
for a chump be con artists like YouTube, then what will result is that
in order for sites like www.putfile.com to compete with YouTube and
save costs on Hard Disk space, they will begin to throw away my data,
just like YouTube.
There is a huge undertow for the stronger minds out here, when weak minds
are played for chumps in large masses, as is the case here.
It is only a matter of time before what YouTube is doing spreads across
their competitors.
The only solution is to come to public forums like this one and state the truth.
After that, it is up to the chumps to decide whether they like being treated that way.
And certainly, some do not mind that at all.
Only someone working for YouTube would come here and
defend YouTube destroying users' data.
Can you think of anyone else who would want to expend their time defending
a company which is treating them like a piece of trash
without being paid for it ?
John
A very simple suggestion and a very different solution. Since both
YouTube.com and PutFile.com are free publishing services and you don't
want to be subject to their chump end-user policies regarding control
of whatever you post to their free web site, pay for your own web site
and publish your own video there. In the latter situation, you are in
control, despite still being a chimp. Kind of like paying to see
professional football in the USA. If you want it, you pay for it.
Otherwise you get what you pay for. No? Understood by most as
a very simple rule in a capitalistic society.
Amadan
Again, we hear from the profiteers here, who are only here because
they are being paid to be on this public forum and just cannot figure
why anyone else would want to participate in a public forum for anything
other than personal profit.
As far as they are concerned, those people are chumps
to be exploited.
On these sites, YouTube definitely seeks advertisers and thus
will like generate income.
How these sites gain access to the large amount of upload and download
bandwidth necessary to provide these services is still a mystery to me.
John
What are you talking about? I simply stated if you don't like either
YouTube or PutFile, which are free with restrictions (they might delete
your content, etc.), pay for a site of your own so you can manage
content without someone else imposing restrictions. How does that make
me a profiteer? I'm not affiliated with YouTube, PutFile, or any other
company which offers web publishing services. However, for all we know,
you are. Maybe you are a Public Relations hack for PutFile.com or
Insanity.com? In any case, you clearly have issues, so let me help you.
OK? Take a look at these references and learn, you may find something
useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putfile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_video_services
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_video_services#Alternatives_that_Maintain_Video_Quality
Amadan

You claimed that I ought to invest money into a supposedly profit making operation
to establish a service comparable to Putfile or YouTube which does not compromise
file content. I do not engage in discussions in a public forums in order to engage
in business ventures.

It is always a silly response to any critique of a business, that the critic should
start his own business and do it better, if he does not like the service provided.
If any person listened to that nonsense, they would be starting a business
every month in business ventures in which they have no experience, beyond
the role of consumer (which of course is the most important role).
The best solution is for those who work in that business to fix the problem.
And this problem with YouTube will not be fixed without users refusing to Upload
to YouTube until they renounce degradation of video quality of Uploads
they receive.

I do not know if you are in the US, but it is not the case that one is required
to pay to see NFL National Football League football.
Most parts of the country see 3 matches every Sunday and another on Monday
on broadcast over-the-air free TV, at no cost besides watching commercials.

The last Wiki article again documents that YouTube as well as Google Video
degrade video quality of the Uploads they receive.
I do not see any degradation of the other providers I have tried.
It is outrageous to throw out large amounts of the Uploaders video data
without explicit permission.
I do not expect there will be a lot of offenders doing this.
The problem is that YouTube has a huge marketing apparatus which
has news stations like CNN talking them up like they are the video upload
only choice and a gold standard. That is absolutely not the case, and these
stations ought to use video from other providers within this business
niche at least until YouTube renounces video degradation.
John
Whatever.

I should also clarify that when I refer to the carrier deleting the Uploader's
data, I am referring to the process that YouTube has of converting
the video file you upload into a much smaller file which has severely
deteriorated video playback quality.

You might Upload a 1 Mbit per second data rate file at 640 x 480
video resolution, and they might convert that into a file into 320 x 280
video resolution at 200 Kbit per second.
This results in a much smaller file as it sits on the YouTube hard disk.

Of course, all of these services claim they will delete your file after 30 days
or 45 days and/or based on non-use of the file.

John


.

Relevant Pages

  • [kde] Interested in contributing to KDE
    ... KMplayer by writing a separate KMplayer interface-plugin that can be ... be used to watch the video in foreground process. ... KMplayer player while the upload happens in the background.ontent: ... I plan to design an interface for Youtube integration with KMplayer by ...
    (KDE)
  • Re: Finding a suitable file format to upload to YouTube
    ... upload YouTube. ... I also used the build-in upload to YouTube that this video editor ... Is there some way of deleting the poor quality video ...
    (rec.video.desktop)
  • Re: Flip Video Cameras
    ... a good quality is upload is still possible but it's a hit or miss ... We need a video guru to lead us - could you be the one? ... things I used to put on my own web site, I just now upload to YouTube ...
    (rec.music.classical.guitar)
  • Re: Finding a suitable file format to upload to YouTube
    ... upload YouTube. ... I also used the build-in upload to YouTube that this video editor ... Is there some way of deleting the poor quality video ...
    (rec.video.desktop)
  • Possibly OT question about uploading to YouTube
    ... When I upload my videos to YouTube, the quality is pretty poor, however if I ... Video: ...
    (rec.video.desktop)