Archive for October, 2009
iMovie update reveals new Apple video format
October 13th, 2009 | 
Author: Like most companies, Apple periodically releases software updates for its applications, fixing minor issues. However, an iMovie update released on Tuesday revealed a brand new video format the company has been developing.
(Credit: Apple Dubbed iFrame, the new video format is based on industry standard technologies like H.264 video and AAC audio. As expected with H.264, iFrame produces much smaller file sizes than traditional video formats, while maintaining its high-quality video. Of course, the smaller file size increases import speed and helps with editing video files.
iMovie 8.0.5 released on Tuesday adds compatibility with camcorders using the iFrame video format. Currently there are two cameras that support iFrame: the Sanyo VPC-HD2000A and the Sanyo VPC-FH1A.
The two cameras were introduced earlier Tuesday and default to shooting video in the new format. iFrame shoots at 960×540. The cameras can also record in high-definition 1080p (1920×1080), as well as high-speed video formats for slow-motion playback, according to Sanyo.
Apple hasn’t said how long it has been working on iFrame or if other video camera manufacturers would adopt the format. The company also didn’t say when support for the iFrame format would be added to its Final Cut Pro video-editing suite.
The iMovie update can be downloaded from Apple’s Web site or from the software update mechanism in Mac OS X.
Source :
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10374263-37.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
New in Labs: Got the wrong Bob?
When’s the last time you got an email from a stranger asking, “Are you sure you meant to send this to me?” and promptly realized that you didn’t? Sometimes these little mistakes are actually quite painful. Hate mail about your boss to your boss? Personal info to some random guy named Bob instead of Bob the HR rep? Doh!
“Got the wrong Bob?” is a new Labs feature aimed at sparing you this kind of embarrassment. Turn it on from the Labs tab under Gmail Settings, and based on the groups of people you email most often, Gmail will try to identify when you’ve accidentally included the wrong person — before it’s too late.
If you normally email Bob Smith together with Tim and Angela, but this time you added Bob Jones instead, we’ll warn you that it might be a mistake. Note that this only works if you’re emailing more than two people at once.
While we were at it, we also changed the name of “Suggest more recipients” to “Don’t forget Bob” — the two related Labs features just kind of went together better this way.
If you want to test “Got the wrong Bob?” out, try faking a mistake like this:
1) Think of three people you often email together.
2) Compose a message to two of them.
3) Start typing the third member of the group (for help you can use one of the people we suggest in “Don’t forget Bob”), but then auto-complete on the wrong name.
If you have suggestions please let us know. And if “Got the wrong Bob?” happens to save you from making a really bad mistake, we want to hear about that too.
http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-in-labs-got-wrong-bob.html
Google Wave invites roll on, remain scarce
The initial hype for Google Wave invitations was massive and ended up leaving those who were left out of the first 100,000 disappointed. The good news is that Google has started to send out a larger volume of invitations again after having slowly trickled them out since the launch.
Google Wave’s Stephanie Hannon tweeted Sunday that Wave had overcome some of its stability issues over the weekend and that they were sending out a lot more invitations. As of Tuesday, “Google Wave” is the top trending topic on Twitter and the results are filled with users (including myself) bragging about receiving their invitations and not surprisingly, others begging for one.
The eBay economy for Google Wave invites has been pretty healthy, with some fetching upward of $80 to $100. This big influx of new invitees, all with 8 invitations each, will probably eliminate a lot of the demand for Wave invites on eBay, much like what happened with Gmail invites.
Full story :
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13515_3-10373785-26.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
Posted in Communication, Google, Internet | 
Tags: Google, Google Wave, invites, Twitter | 
Comments Closed
A new space race: Bing vs. Google
In 2008, Google got its logo on the rocket launching the GeoEye-1 satellite for collecting space-based imagery. This year, it’s Microsoft’s turn.
The Bing logo appeared on the side of a Boeing Delta II 7920 rocket that launched DigitalGlobe’s new WorldView-2 satellite last week from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. But where Google got sole online rights to the GeoEye-1 imagery, Microsoft will be sharing access to WorldView-2 images with Google, a Digital Globe representative said.
Bing and Nokia sponsored the rocket launching DigitalGlobe’s newest imaging satellite.
(Credit: Bill Hartenstein, Boeing
Another sponsor of the rocket is Nokia, whose Navteq subsidiary also supplies digital maps.
Bing today offers aerial and satellite imagery that looks straight down on some locations and a birds’-eye view that gives an angled view. Still, Microsoft touted its DigitalGlobe partnership as greatly expanding what’s available online.
“We now have access to one of the highest resolution global satellite imagery and aerial photography collections (460 million sq. km. + 1 million sq. km. per day moving forward) through a deal we’ve just struck with DigitalGlobe,” said Microsoft’s Chris Pendleton in a blog post. “We’ll finally be able to backfill areas around the world where people have come to my blog and complained about Virtual Earth not having good imagery or photos in their countries–Poland, Hungary, Russia, Taiwan, Mexico, to name a few–I’ve heard you loud and clear. And, now, we’re fixing that problem.”
Google, which already had a DigitalGlobe partnership, was more understated, merely offering congratulations on the launch in a blog post Monday.
DigitalGlobe expects WorldView-2 will double the company’s capacity to collect imagery. The satellite’s top resolution can detect features as small as 0.46 meter, though U.S. government regulations permit general commercial sales of imagery only of 0.5-meter resolution.
Ball Aerospace built the satellite and, as with GeoEye-1, ITT’s Space Systems Division supplied its image sensor.
Launching satellites is an expensive business, but there’s at least some funding available: GeoEye secured $400 million in a sale of debt last week.
Source with video :
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10373891-264.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
Music publishers: ‘copyright should be technology neutral’
Composers, music publishers, and songwriters have told federal lawmakers that regardless of whether music is distributed to consumers via TV, DVDs or digital download, they need legislative help to ensure they get their fair share.
Two weeks ago, I wrote a story about how some of these groups want iTunes and other Web music retailers to pay performance fees for downloads of TV shows and films. They also want online music stores to cough up fees for 30-second song previews. Those revelations didn’t go over well with many techies.
But to get a better understanding of what the artists want from Congress, I asked David Israelite, president and CEO of the National Music Publishers Association, to forward me a copy of a March 10 letter written to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a consortium of trade groups representing songwriters, composers, and publishers. He agreed.
In the letter, signed by Israelite and representatives of such groups as Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI); American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers (ASCAP); and Songwriters Guild of America, the consortium wrote: “Technology should not be used to strip rights from songwriters, composers and music publishers. The choice of certain audiovisual delivery systems or methods over others should not result in a diminution of creators’ rights or royalties.”
The group later made this statement: “There is no question that copyright should be technology neutral” and asked Congress to make “a clarification to the copyright law” that specifically says that “the public performing right is implicated in digital downloads” of audiovisual works that feature music.
“We believe Congress intended the current law to be platform neutral,” the music consortium wrote to the Senators. “The conflicting interpretations demand clarification, for without it, performing right income of songwriters, composers and publishers is seriously threatened.”
The lobbying efforts of the songwriters, composers and music publishers continues.
All of this started with the shift in the way the public consumes media. Songwriters and publishers have for a long time collected performance fees from broadcast TV networks and film studios, but now more and more consumers are watching films and TV shows downloaded to their iPods or laptops, which at this point aren’t considered public performances.
A federal district judge court ruled in 2008 that “there is no copyright protection for the public performance right when a work containing music is digitally transmitted for future playing or viewing” the consortium wrote in the March 10 letter.
The music creators have appealed the decision.
How is this the consumer’s problem?
To critics, composers, songwriters and publishers are asking for a guarantee that they will get paid for public performances even if there isn’t any public performance.
Fred von Lohmann, senior attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group for Web users and technology companies, disagrees with the argument that copyright should be technology neutral.
“The Copyright Act has never been technology neutral,” von Lohmann said. “The (Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s) Safe Harbors only applies to online services. There are areas that apply only to cable and satellite providers. The Copyright Act is always trying to strike a compromise.”
He added that music creators already collect other licensing fees, for such things as synchronization rights and he maintains, iTunes or other music retailers shouldn’t be responsible for making up losses for music creators.
“The copyright owner is going to get paid,” von Lohmann said. “Whether it’s called a performance or a reproduction the copyright owner is going to get paid. This is just a turf war between middlemen about who is going to take a piece off the top. The copyright office has tried to broker some sort of solution between the various parties for years with little success.
“We’ll get some more guidance from the courts soon,” he continued, “but I doubt that will be the last word. As (Israelite’s) letter suggests the parties can all go fight it out in Congress now.”
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-10370513-261.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
