Rejected for lack of audio?

[Ryanr4449]

Ok, around December 9th, I uploaded a video of Rock Island 4300 running the Avon Turn in Des Moines, IA while it had the strobes on top flashing:

http://www.rail-videos.net/video/rejected.php?id=10002577&key=0

It was rejected due to "We can't accept videos with no audio."

As of December 30th, I checked the new videos and found not one, but THREE videos lacking sound in the database:

http://www.rail-videos.net/video/view.php?id=1572&nseq=49
http://www.rail-videos.net/video/view.php?id=1570
http://www.rail-videos.net/video/view.php?id=1571

So here's my question: Why is it that the videos taken and uploaded in todays time without sound are accepted, yet videos taken 31 years ago are declined and told that videos without audio aren't accepted when they clearly are?

[JimThias]

Do you even know what those videos ARE? They are time-lapse vids...sound is usually not possible. What kind of sound would you expect to hear in a video like that?

[Ryanr4449]

I'm well aware of the fact that they're time lapse videos. What I'm trying to get at is the lack of audio in general.

[JimThias]

I'm well aware of the fact that they're time lapse videos. What I'm trying to get at is the lack of audio in general.

But do you understand WHY they don't have audio? How about giving an example of a normal video that was accepted without audio? The above are exceptions to the rule.

[Ryanr4449]

Oh, alright then. So should I speed it up by about 20X and re-submit it? :roll:

[raider-15]

But do you understand WHY they don't have audio? How about giving an example of a normal video that was accepted without audio? The above are exceptions to the rule.

Is there a reason for your rudeness? Maybe you're having a bad day? All he did was ask a simple question and you have to come in and act all smart. He obviously knows what a time-lapse video is. :roll:

[JimThias]

Is there a reason for your rudeness? Maybe you're having a bad day? All he did was ask a simple question and you have to come in and act all smart. He obviously knows what a time-lapse video is. :roll:

I'm not being rude. I simply asked him a question. He said he knew it was a time lapse video and I again asked him if he understood WHY it didn't have video, and also stated those videos were exceptions to the rule. Perhaps you could give me some advice on how to sugar coat a post so you don't think it sounds rude?

On the contrary, I'm having a GREAT day. :-D

[raider-15]

I'm not being rude. I simply asked him a question. He said he knew it was a time lapse video and I again asked him if he understood WHY it didn't have video.

On the contrary, I'm having a GREAT day. :-D

Well then, I think you should choose your words a bit more careful, and maybe not capitalize some of them. :wink:

Anyway, I do see where he is coming from and now I also wonder why the video was not accepted. Older photos are accepted to RailPics although the quality isn't always as great as that of digital photos, so why can't older videos be accepted without audio? Just thought I'd bring up that point too.

[JimThias]

Well then, I think you should choose your words a bit more careful, and maybe not capitalize some of them. :wink:

I capitalized them as a point of emphasis, not to sound rude. But I can understand how that can be misinterpreted. :o


Anyway, I do see where he is coming from and now I also wonder why the video was not accepted. Older photos are accepted to RailPics although the quality isn't always as great as that of digital photos, so why can't older videos be accepted without audio? Just thought I'd bring up that point too.

That's a good point. Video cameras with audio weren't a common thing 30+ years ago. I remember watching my family's home movies in the 70's that didn't have any audio, and many other "home movies" from that time period that I've seen are silent. Based on that, it WOULD make sense to be a little more lenient with videos that are that old.

[Bicot]

We may miss out on lots of interesting stuff, especially vintage, if the videos are rejected because of the "no sound" reason. I'd be willing to watch every videos without sound prior to the camcorder era. My 0.02 dollar.

Bicot (Marc Caya)

[trainboysd40]

That's a good point. Video cameras with audio weren't a common thing 30+ years ago. I remember watching my family's home movies in the 70's that didn't have any audio, and many other "home movies" from that time period that I've seen are silent. Based on that, it WOULD make sense to be a little more lenient with video that are that old.
My sentiments exactly.
Sure, audio is nice, but when there's a subject like this, do you really need it?