There is only one way to see it.
That's what I thought too but apparently Z saw it a little differently.
The judge was quite clear.
The bail increase was prior to the criminal contempt and the increase was due to what he perceived as Ms. Soto's inability to appreciate the seriousness of the situation - as such the increase in the amount of bail was to bring home the serious nature of the proceeding to her and ensure her attendance at subsequent court sittings.
When she gave the judge the finger and swore at him, that constituted the facts upon which the judge acted to hold a hearing in respect of the criminal contempt. He then proceeded summarily as is the process in criminal contempt in the face of the court. He called her before him and questioned her to determine if she had in fact acted in that manner and she admitted that she had done so. At that point having held the requisite summary hearing he cited her for criminal contempt in the face of the court and gave her 30 days in county jail. He further specified that the 30 days was NOT to count as "time served" meaning that any jail time she might receive as result of the trial for possession of Xanax would be separate and added to the 30 days for contempt.
In the extended version of the video the public defender sought appointment to act as counsel for Ms. Soto for the limited purpose of speaking to the criminal contempt citation and 30 day jail sentence and the judge so appointed him. The public defender made submissions asking the judge to re-consider his decision and the judge after listening to the submissions declined to do so.
It may well be that bail in this case may never be posted as Ms. Soto may have a disposition of the substantive criminal charge for drug possession prior to completing her 30 days for criminal contempt. That of course will depend upon the case load before the court.