Wednesday, April 09, 2008

flickTube (do not want)

flickTube (do not want)
Originally uploaded by
Of all the things to implement in Flickr, the last thing I needed was flickTube. If I wanted YouTube I'd go to, well.. YouTube. I guess Yahoo! Corp felt the need to compete. This is just plain sad really.

It would have been really nice for the flickr dev team to have been working on something that really DOES need improvement. Like maybe the horrible message board system? Or allowing people to see the site on black backgrounds which traditionally make photos look better? Or any of the other enhancments users have hacked together using javascript as standard features?

(P.S. school + work has made me too busy to post here often)


Steve said...

Photo snob!

I love the idea. Keep it short, make use of the higher-quality flickr community and contacts ... it's good to me!

Plus flickr has the ability to limit viewings to just friends+family, and youtube doesn't.

iPhoto views short movies as being mostly the same as photos, within events; why not flickr too?

Paul T. said...

This has nothing to do about snobbery. This has everything to do with me not having interest in Video.

Is this wrong? Is the fact that I don't want to make or view videos (the latter being the important part) when I go to flickr?

Is the fact that I signed up to a "Photo sharing site", and wanting only photos so crazy?

Sure, Flickr has the potential of being a better video site than youtube. That doesn't change the fact that I don't think the two should mix. They are so different in so many ways. Yahoo could have as esily just taken the flickr architecture and copied it for a video version with maybe some interconnection. Instead they're forcing video onto all their users.

Steve said...

I still think they'll converge. I'm thinking of things like vacation photosets, with a mix of short videos and photos.

Have you seen sites like or the flip video ultras? Video is getting really portable and simple now, just like cameras became a while back!

You don't have to hit Start on the videos, you know. Maybe they'll add a filter in the future, so you don't have to see them. I still see video+photo convergence as the future, though, and I'm waiting for an SLR that can do video or a video camera that can take high-quality photos.

Paul T. said...

What will converge? Sites that handle different type of media? Sure. There is definitely a market for this. Yahoo isn't stupid. They know what they're doing.

"Multimedia" has been around for a long time. This is nothing new. Again, I have no interest. I want to focus on one and share and talk about one of those mediums.

Convergence can make things more convenient, but it doesn't make things better all around.

"You don't have to hit Start on the videos, you know."
I have flash block. I don't even see the videos. That's not the point. Now when I look at my contacts page I have a bunch of crap screen grabs from some point in a video clip instead of photographs.

If you're waiting for an SLR that takes video (which I'm sure will happen), you're missing the point of an SLR. The moment you have one specialized device morphed to do something else, it's no longer a specialized device. You get all the consequences of compromise.

Steve said...

I think the hardware's going to converge, at least for the unwashed masses. Same for the storage and file mgmt, I think.

Really, if I could get a magical black box that can take high-quality photos that have a decent depth of field, and can also take up to 5 min videos, I think I would be very happy. The point of the DSLR for me was not some abstract concept of a "specialized device" ... it was purely the task-focused "make better photos that have depth of field and good exposure control". I'm very mercenary about my photography, which maybe you aren't.

I think I'm going to try to counter your anti-video thing with a counteracting agent, to protect the new flickr feature!

Steve said...

Ooh good, looks like I got the last word. I win!

Paul T. said...

I really don't understand then, based on what you said why you don't have one of these:

It is the perfect convergence camera. I have one friend who is on his 3rd (keeps upgrading the models).

Steve said...

4mpix! No depth of field! Ew.

My ideal is this:

a) 10mpix absolute minimum
b) depth of field (I've been thinking a neat point-and-shoot feature would be digitally-created depth of field)
c) fast lens (i.e. no flash indoors)
d) shoots HD video
e) embedded in my eye, or on a watch or something

Any suggestions?

Paul T. said...

a) why? Do you print posters? (Sanyo does make one that's 7.1mp)

b) your primary lens is the slow 18-200 Sigma. Did something change since last we talked about this?

c) Some of the sanyos support up to ISO 3200

d) Most of the Sanyos do.

e) now you're being silly.

Seriously. You don't care about control, you just want it to work. The Sanyos have good (not great) High ISO performance (indoor shooting), good macro support with nice shallow DOF, give you the convenience of one lens as you've stated before that you want, shoot HD video and are available in different resolutions.

You claim you're looking for a specific product, and here is one that's very close.

Steve said...

a) I'd like to have large framed items now and then. actually, I was happy with the k10d's resolution until last week when I saw one of my photos on a 30" monitor ... ick.

b) no, I took your advice and got a 50mm f1.4, remember? that's my primary lens, as most shots are indoors, and I love it. I do find it too narrow, though, and I'm planning to get a fast 30mm.

e) that's where things are going to be, I swear! I also think the next big killer feature for point and shoots should be DoF, which will act as a stopgap measure until I can attach a camera to my body somehow.

I'll check out the Sanyos. That said, I really feel that depth of field is very important to me. I finally have that now, and don't feel I can give that up.

No sense in settling ... if I settle for anything, it will be with video. Maybe one of those little "fun" cameras like the Flip Video Ultra.

Paul T. said...

a) A lot of factors could have gone into this. I seriously dought it was the 10mp and not "not totally in focus", "motion blur", "variance in lens productions", etc.

b) Ahhh, you have learned well then.

e) Sadly, Physics is going to get in the way. Shallow DOF is a result of
1. large aperture
2. large imaging area.

Both of these are directly related to size.
2 is especially problematic. I've seen point and shoots with f/2.8 lenses. They do not have shallow DOF. The reason is the sensor is super small. f/2.8 on a Medium Format camera has ridiculously shallow DOF. This is not only a physics problem but a cost one. Yes, sensor prices are going down. But a large sensor will always cost much more than a smaller one. This will change over time, but not as fast as general electronics.

The other option you mentioned is doing it in software. Maybe in some distant future. But how is the camera going to automatically detect what it is you wanted to be in focus or not?

"I really feel that depth of field is very important to me. I finally have that now, and don't feel I can give that up."

So you like the results of your specialized tool, but wish it was more generalized.

There is a way for you to have ALMOST what you want in a very different direction from the Sanyo cameras. Canon EF lenses are interchangeable between their Cameras and a few of their top end Video Cameras. If you switch to Canon you can have one set of fast lenses for both your camera and your video camera. However, if you thought your camera was inconvenient to take with you :)