Thanks for making this happen. Looks like both the seeding and leeching has quieted down, currently 3 seeders and one leecher. I'll keep seeding at least through the weekend.
Christopher: Video is good, a bit on the dark side but quite watchable. Computer projection is a bit muddy, typical of pointing a camera at a screen. Audio is mediocre - low level with some noise, but still definitely comprehensible with the volume up. I'm assuming this was using a camcorder's built-in mic. Too few camcorders have mic inputs these days, and built-in mics are generally junk.
I help oversee the recordings of government meetings in our town, and that includes many PowerPoint/Keynote presentations. Whenever possible we record the video directly out of the laptop (through a transcoder) instead of shooting the screen. When there's more control over the laptop a software screen recorder works even better, especially for text-heavy stuff. Either way the computer info is much more readable. Downside is more post-production work as you need to mix two video sources (you either don't record video of the human, or have the means to edit live). With a crisper image, you can compress the video more while retaining readability. For web streaming we crush our stuff down to 100MB/hour (200K/s video + 32K audio). I wouldn't go that low for this since code needs to be readable, but I'll bet 500-800K would be fine with good source video.
by Mitch Cohen — May 22
Christopher: Video is good, a bit on the dark side but quite watchable. Computer projection is a bit muddy, typical of pointing a camera at a screen. Audio is mediocre - low level with some noise, but still definitely comprehensible with the volume up. I'm assuming this was using a camcorder's built-in mic. Too few camcorders have mic inputs these days, and built-in mics are generally junk.
I help oversee the recordings of government meetings in our town, and that includes many PowerPoint/Keynote presentations. Whenever possible we record the video directly out of the laptop (through a transcoder) instead of shooting the screen. When there's more control over the laptop a software screen recorder works even better, especially for text-heavy stuff. Either way the computer info is much more readable. Downside is more post-production work as you need to mix two video sources (you either don't record video of the human, or have the means to edit live). With a crisper image, you can compress the video more while retaining readability. For web streaming we crush our stuff down to 100MB/hour (200K/s video + 32K audio). I wouldn't go that low for this since code needs to be readable, but I'll bet 500-800K would be fine with good source video.