Windows Movie Maker is a video editing program included in Microsoft Windows that allows users to easily edit and develop videos/ movies. Making a movie using Windows Movie Maker can be divided into three easy steps: import, edit, and publish.
When using Windows Movie Maker, you first import the videos or pictures you wish to use to make your movie. Then you arrange them in the order you would like them to play on the timeline at the bottom of the screen.
The next step is to edit. There are several ways you can edit: split and combine clips, trim a video clip, add transitions between clips, add effects to parts of your movie, or add titles in certain parts of your movie. By adding transitions between clips, a transition controls how your movie plays from one video clip/ picture to the next. There are several different types of transitions and the transition length is determined by the overlap of the 2 clips. Effects on the other hand are special effects you apply to the clips. There are also several different choices for these special effects. You may also want to add a title, or titles, to your movie. Windows Movie Maker allows you to do this by giving you the option of putting a title anywhere you would like. You can also add special effects to these titles to add character to your movie.
The final step in completing a movie on Windows Movie Maker is to publish it. When you finish working on a project, you can publish the project as a movie. You can share your movie with others in a number of ways—through your computer, on a recordable CD, as an attachment in an e‑mail message, or on videotape in a DV camera. And Ta Da! You’re finished!
Windows Movie Maker has been in existence for about 9 years now. It was first created in 2000 with Windows Millennium. This version, version 1.0, was much simpler and had more basic features than the most recent version on Windows 7. There are 8 versions of Windows Movie Maker in all:
- 2000 : Windows Movie Maker 1.0 (Windows Me)
- 2001 : Windows Movie Maker 1.1 (Windows XP)
- 2002 : Windows Movie Maker 2.0 (Windows XP)
- 2004 : Windows Movie Maker 2.1 (Windows XP SP2)
- 2004 : Windows Movie Maker 2.5 (Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005)
- 2006 : Windows Movie Maker 2.6 (Windows Vista)
- 2007 : Windows Movie Maker 6.0 (Windows Vista)
- 2009: Windows Movie Maker 7.0 (Windows 7)
When Windows Movie Maker was first introduced to users, it was not really given too much attention because of the lack of special features it had compared to the iMovie (for Macs.) These shortcomings were realized and Microsoft decided to upgrade WMM in 2001 with version 1.1 which debuted with Windows XP. Version 1.1 featured DV AVI and WMV 8 video files creation. In 2002, another free upgrade that included many new features was given to users called Windows Movie Maker 2. This was again updated in 2004 with WMM 2.1 and integrated in Windows XP SP2. Next, version 2.5 arrived, released in the same year which came with Windows XP Media Center Edition. This version featured additional transition effects as well as DVD burning functionality. Then in 2006, Windows Vista was released, along with another new version of WMM. This time the video making program came with even more features including new effects and transitions. A year later, Windows Movie Maker 6.0 was released. This version of the program supported DVR-MS and also has added support for HD video format. WWM6 came with a capture wizard that creates DVR-MS type files from HDV tapes. Most recently, a new version of WMM on Windows 7 has just been released. This version includes a new layout and many special effects the older versions did not have. Knowing Microsoft’s track record with this program, another version with new improvements is bound to come out soon!
Like I mentioned earlier, there has been a debate about whether iMovie or Windows Movie Maker is the better video editing program. I read many blog posts and various other articles about this topic. The most repeated statements that kept appearing were these: “iMovie is too complicated; Windows Movie Maker is much simpler,” “Windows Movie Maker doesn’t have as many effects as iMovie does; iMovie is much better”, “Both are good programs and easy to use for being free.” My conclusion from these many arguments is that both programs are appreciated by users because they are free yet valuable. If you are looking for a simple program to make a basic video then Windows Movie Maker is your key. If you are looking to do more special effects and add “bling” to your video then iMovie is for you. It’s all about user preference.
Unlike with film used in the film industry, when a user makes a movie using a medium such as Windows Movie Maker or iMovie “…an edit doesn’t cause a physical change,” as Dr. C pointed out. With these free programs, special effects are much easier to add and scenes are much easier to tweak. Like Bill Viola says, “Life without editing, it seems, is just not that interesting.” In Will There Be Condominiums in Data Space, Viola, a high-profile video artist, encouraged artists to create “defamiliarizing forms of interaction” that would benefit the advancement of technology and possibly create new mediums. Viola says that digital computers and software technologies are holistic, which by definition means “thinking as something as a whole; not by the many parts that make up the whole.” WMM is holistic software that can take complete videos and turn that medium into parts by adding them together making one long video like I did for my project. Or, it can take one video and break it into parts and edit them one by one turning them into something completely different.
Just like McCloud was able to write a comic about writing comics, I attempted to make a movie about making a movie using the new medium Windows Movie Maker. Like McCloud, I discuss the various features of my medium. He portrays the ways comics can be changed and altered to mean different things. Editing film or video can also have the same effects. Lengthening a box can mean more time is passing by in a comic; in film, a longer scene can also be edited to also portray that time is passing by. By adding special effects to video using mediums like WMM, you can make a video look like it is from a different time period, being filmed underwater, etc. Editing a comic relates in many ways to editing film because these alters can result in different meanings of the overall message of the medium.
This project turned out to be more complicated then I had originally thought. I had to film myself making a movie on Windows Movie Maker. I then had to make another movie using WMM to show myself making a movie. I ended up with 2 movies. The first shows how to make a movie using Windows Movie Maker, and the second is the movie I actually made (which is a movie describing WMM’s history.) So, in conclusion, I made a movie using Windows Movie Maker about making a movie using Windows Movie Maker about Windows Movie Maker. Whew. Complicated.
My Video: Windows Movie Maker
I was reading a couple of nights ago about Objective-C, the programming language that the physical portion of my final project deals with and I reached an eye-opening point in that reading, a point that can be compared, in feeling, to finding an oasis in the middle of a desert, a moment of clear understanding [...]
So I was having a discussion with a friend and somehow the conversation turned to music. Surprise surprise Anyway, (and this might seem a little silly at first) he mentioned that some of Coldplay’s older songs, such as Clocks and Speed of Sound make him think of the color blue–or better stated, the [...]
Hi everyone, this is my conclusive post of this year’s thoughts and ideas in terms of podcasting/RSS, my final project. As you may have noticed, iTunes has yet to publish my video nor audio podcasts, so I will simply show them from my computer for you tomorrow. Thanks for a great year with many interesting people and wonderful opinions. Following this you will find my written component of the project, an essay of approximately 1000 words summing up what I found to be notable.
Meta-Podcasting
It is no longer the how, what, or where, but the why and when which dictate the norm of media in the Age of Information. In a rapid emergence, beginning only around fifty years ago , thinkers like Douglous Englebart (1952), Jorge Luis Borges (1941), and Vannevar Bush (1944), revolutionized the idea of a dynamic-kind of data. In his essay, “As We May Think,” Bush grapples with the practicality of such a capable medium, saying “A record if it is to be useful…must be continuously extended…it must be consulted” (Bush 38) in ways that were not yet available to the Gutenberg generations. In a short time, however, the computer came to be—and the Internet could not help but to follow. In conjunction with Moore’s Law, which states, basically, that as technology gains more memory and becomes more advanced, it will, as a whole, become cheaper. This has held true and has been the most likely cause of the rise of Podcasting. Although Podcasting is a comparably rare service with respect to giants such as Youtube, it represents a significant bound into the Age of Information. Podcasting is a medium which symbolizes the shift from the past’s fully Professional information processing to a more integrated, 21st century form of media.
The podcast has humble beginnings, rooted mainly in linguistics. In February of 2004 writer Ben Hammersley, for The Guardian Newspaper of London, wrote an article analyzing the newest medium to gain recognition. He struggles with a name, asking readers “But what to call it? Audioblogging? Podcasting? GuerillaMedia?” Obviously, one of these terms stuck and continually permeates into the world of media, bringing conflict with it. Later that year, in September, a company named iSpider attempted to release the free aggregation software titled iPodder. Soon, Apple sent a “cease and desist letter” to the company, requiring a prompt renaming of the aggregator. Since then, many similar issues have arisen for Apple but are not documented publicly, according to iSpider’s own conflict report. Notwithstanding, Apple has become highly involved in the medium, producing software such as Garageband, iMovie, and Photobooth with built-in podcasting tools. These have led to the creation of over 125,000 free podcast subscriptions available on iTunes and to the increasing number of “hits” on Google when “podcast” is searched (over twenty-eight million). To travel back a bit more, beyond the naming of the medium, the desire for and idea of such a service is not so young.
I believe the best example of the first idea of a podcast medium is the essay of Alan Kay’s, “Personal Dynamic Media.” Kay saw the computer as “a medium for expression,” a place to “materialize thoughts,” and ultimately, an “interaction of humans with their media…[which] change in response to the viewer’s wishes” (Kay 393). The premise of a podcast could be no better explained; although Kay is speaking of his vision for the next computer, he accurately captures an evolving and adaptive hope which has followed new media from its beginnings. Podcasting is merely a poster-child for a greater wish, one that may be fulfilled even farther in the future. Despite this inherent change and want, podcasting meets the current expectations for self-expression.
The creation and management of podcasts are two very different, though essentially integrated components. For two years I have listened to BBC radio broadcasts through the iTunes podcasting service, delivered directly to my iPod each morning. This service is convenient, simple, and keeps me connected to the larger world around me—in short, it is education. And this is exactly what Ivan Illich proposes in his book Deschooling Society: Chapter 6 Learning Webs. He laments the current educational foundations, arguing that there is some “hidden curriculum,” which undoubtedly leads to “an illusory” sense of the world (Illich 74). Podcasting, a medium of completely independent production and education, promotes a more stable, Illichian form of schooling, wherein one may “make free speech,” create “free assembly, and” synthesize “a free press truly universal and, therefore,” be “fully educational” (Illich 76). Creating podcasts meets this very definition—the process is, at first, difficult but is immensely rewarding as well. This experience is one of individual performance, one must write script, interview, direct, edit, and probably act or speak in the video/audio to make a podcast. It is a full job, and the results are just as real. This bolsters self-confidence and provides a valid feedback of aptitude—with no teacher involved.
Sadly podcasting, like Illich, is not a very popular method among the larger majority of users. In fact, according to a Pew Internet Project Survey in May 2008, only a total of nineteen percent of Internet users (1,550 users) had ever downloaded or listened to a podcast, and of these, only seven percent had actually downloaded one or more. It is only valid, then, to assume that podcasting is not even reaching its full potential, as it is an inherently social medium. To be more effective, podcasting requires the extra push of higher quantity without sacrificing the variable quality. Subscription distinguishes podcasting from other video/audio services, which many assume weakens its appeal to the younger generation (ages 18-24), who as a whole, find the idea of commitment daunting. The lack of advertisement is also a direct contributer to this regrettable phenomenon—and not many are doing anything about it. Those podcasts which are popular remain so, but newer ones are becoming less and less common in the face of competitors like Youtube, where single videos may be posted in a string called a “channel.” Unlike Podcasts, these do not promote subscription and have nothing to do with Really Simple Syndication (RSS), the backbone of podcast distribution.
It is regrettable that podcasts are, though fun and effective, not reaching a larger audience. The power of podcasts to educate and empower, when measured against the oft-repeated regurgitation of memorized articles in traditional schools, seems altogether more promising and desirable. The numbers are yet to speak for this opinion, however one should note that the future is dynamic, and so will be our minds.
Final Project!
Meta-Podcast
<?xml version=”1.0″ encoding=”UTF-8″?>
<rss xmlns:itunes=”http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd” version=”2.0″>
<channel>
<title>Candid Shots</title>
<description>The day-to-day’s of life, when we feel like it</description>
<link>http://courseblogs.gardnercampbell.net/thdrummer/</link>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright N/A</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:30:00 -0500</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:30:00 -0500</pubDate>
<webMaster>thdrummer@gmail.com</webMaster>
<itunes:author>thdrummer</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle>Candid Shots are the day-to-day’s of life, when we feel like it.</itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>Candid Shots is about the day-to-day’s of life and the intricacies of how we handle them. This podcast was begun during an introduction to new media course at Baylor University . </itunes:summary>
<itunes:owner>
<itunes:name>Troy H</itunes:name>
<itunes:email>thdrummer@gmail.com</itunes:email>
</itunes:owner>
<itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
<itunes:image href=”http://courseblogs.gardnercampbell.net/thdrummer/”/>
<itunes:category text=”Technology”>
<itunes:category text=”Podcasting”/>
</itunes:category>
<item>
<title>Candid Shots Episode 1: Meta-podcast</title>
<link>http://courseblogs.gardnercampbell.net/thdrummer/</link>
<guid>FIX ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</guid>
<description> Welcome to the show it is November 23rd and this is our 1st
show. Today we’ll be analyzing the medium of podcasting. Please visit this podcast at http://courseblogs.gardnercampbell.net/thdrummer/ </description>
<enclosure url=”http://www.filefactory.com/file/a1d7d7e/n/MetaPodcast.m4v” length=”75523466″ type=”video/mp4″ />
<category>Podcasts</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:30:00 -0500</pubDate>
<itunes:author>thdrummer</itunes:author>
<itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
<itunes:subtitle> Welcome to the show it is November 23rd and this is our 1st
show. Today we’ll be analyzing the medium of podcasting. Please visit this podcast at http://courseblogs.gardnercampbell.net/thdrummer/ </itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>Welcome to the show it is November 23rd and this is our 1st
show. Today we’ll be analyzing the medium of podcasting. Please visit this podcast at http://courseblogs.gardnercampbell.net/thdrummer/ </itunes:summary>
<itunes:duration>00:10:25</itunes:duration>
<itunes:keywords>candid, podcast, podcasting, podcaster, Interviews, Media, Meta</itunes:keywords>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
Our second virtual class meeting held in SecondLife last Thursday was a refreshing experience for me considering my first one was not as engaging as I would have liked all at the expense of assisting a friend… apparently the past likes to repeat itself…….. -_-
However, I said that this experience was a better one and [...]
Haha, well at least in SecondLife they do. A three-dimensional subreality for users to experience at their own expense. However, FYS class has become introduced to this “world” to observe virtual interaction and ultimately the change that the internet and social networking has introduced.
Today was my first time to experience SecondLife (the main grid) personally. Age had caused previous prevention…..but as the class knows that was resolved this past weekend. I really enjoyed creating my avatar, the choices seem to be unlimited. This was a neat personalizing tool for me!
SecondLife communication really embraces meta-communication. Not only can you interact through your avatar physically, but obviously through dialogue whether it is vocal or keyboard-chat. The exchange of ideas and thoughts are far from limited on SL. You are not isolated to one way of discussion. It does a great job of embracing real life interaction, but in a SecondLife kind of way!
I really enjoyed class in SL, even with the few complications that we encountered. Overall, it seemed to be quite a success. It was just like the tangible classroom that we conduct learning in; however, it allowed for us to experience the core of our material in a first-hand manner. Instead of just talking about the web and networking, we were in it (sounds a little recursive). Probably because it is! We were in a network talking about networks.
What better way to learn than to not only discuss the material but experience it?
I. Introduction
II. Podcasting from a consumer’s POV
· A. Survey and Analysis of results: Do you listen or make podcasts regularly?
o 1. Survey
§ 10-15 subjects
§ Results:
o 2. Analysis
§ What does this say about the technology?
ú Could it be more convenient or is it just not exposed enough?
· B. Brief history of the podcast
· C. Case study of podcast users
o 1. —
III. Podcast Production
· A. The Basics
o 1. Theme
o 2. Resources
§ a. Sets
§ b. Camera/Voice recorder
§ c. Computer
o 3.
· B. Resources explained—with relation to money
o 1. Camera/Audio Equipment
§ a.
o 2. Sets
o 3. Computer
· C. Answer the “wh’s?”
o 1. Why do you want to make the podcast?
o 2. Who is the intended audience?
o 3. What is the purpose?
IV. Podcasting dissimilation
· A. The Basics
o 1. XML
o 2. RSS
o 3. Platforms
· B. Preferred platform: iTunes
o 1. This is why…
§ a. Ease of use
§ b. Integration
§ c. Large audience
V. Conclusion
Feel free to comment–My plan is to publish this, along with others on iTunes and a website/blog dedicated to it. I would really appreciate a quick comment from everybody declaring whether or not they use podcasts regularly. I would also like to get a quick video interview from all of you after class, if possible.
This essay was intended to give the reader of what the World Wide Web is, what it does compared to other systems, and what the future holds for it.
These authors say that the “World Wide Web was developed to be a pool of human knowledge, which would allow collaborators in remote sites to share their ideas and all aspects of a common project.” The Web we know today is definitely a pool of human knowledge and millions of humans share their knowledge and ideas every single day (sometimes with a common project….)
They then go on to describe what W3 defines. The first is Universal Resource Identifiers which “…are the strings used as addresses of objects on the Web.” The second is Hypertext Transfer Protocol, known more conventionally to us as “HTTP” which we see every time we get on the internet at the top of our browser. HTTP is ‘…a protocol for transferring information with the efficiency necessary for making hypertext jumps.” This data can be anything from images to just text. Following HTTP, the authors explain HTML. This came from the Web’s need of a common basic language for hypertext. HTML became that language and a lot of the Web was constructed from it.
The rest of the essay is comparing W3 to other systems and then the future of the Web. Regarding the future, in 1994 the Web was already a place of communication and learning, along with a marketplace, but it was not as easy to read and update as the designers would have liked it to be. They had many hopes for the future including a “easy-to-use servers for low-end machines to ease publication of information by small groups and individuals” among many other things. Since then, any human can confirm that the Web has improved light years in compared to what it was when it first began. The fact is that the Web is amazing; we talk about its uses and benefits every day in class. There’s way too many to list in one blog.
This incredible diversity of information that we have access to at the tip of our fingers and the promise of better technology in the future gives us a very good reason to be excited about what’s going to be available next.
Are you afraid of change? I am. It just feels… unfamiliar, uncomfortable… like the very core of my world, my “bubble,” has been ripped from me, leaving me cold and surrounded by an alien world. Suitable for this story isn’t it? Alien… I think this was the primary cause of Maxine’s actions in Clifford Simak’s [...]
