Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [videoblogging] question

Expand Messages
  • Adrian Miles
    ... chicken and egg sort of question Jay :-) 1. you can make the video present at twice its current size. this is pretty common when using something like
    Message 1 of 18 , Aug 28, 2004
      On 27/08/2004, at 4:08 AM, Jay Dedman wrote:

      > Let's say I want to make a bigger screen for my videos.
      > how do i do it without making the file size too big?

      chicken and egg sort of question Jay :-)

      1. you can make the video present at twice its current size. this is
      pretty common when using something like Cleaner. you capture/compress
      at, say, 320x240 but then indicate that the video is to be displayed at
      640x480. If you do the compressing right then it can look fine when
      blown up, but you need to pay attention to black and white levels and
      stuff. (Because rather than trying to preserve details in shadows just
      make it black, otherwise it tends to make compression artefacts very
      visible. Also frees up space for detail in the more important parts of
      your images.)

      2. qt player pro does all this too. not sure why the free player
      doesn't (though keep in mind thre are lots of applications that can
      play qt. you don't need to use qt player if you don't want to. just get
      a free player that supports full screen and multiscale playback.)

      3. trivial to script if you script quicktime. as is full screen
      presentation.

      now most of this can present the videos larger with no change in file
      size. but of course you can go bigger with change in file size. keep in
      mind that doubling dimensions does not double amount of info. needed:
      320x240=76800 pixels per frame, 640x480=307200 pixels per frame. It
      quadruples the amount of info needed. Here you seriously wnat to tweak
      frame rate, compression rates, and so on. once upon a time, might still
      be the case, apple engineers would spend up to a week compressing those
      clips from starwars and stuff that they provided. And they're the
      people who write quicktime from the inside out. in other words black
      art where settings for clip 1 will not work for clip 2.

      general simple advice: if you seriously want to be able to do this
      easily get Cleaner. expensive but this is one of the things that it is
      designed for.

      >
      > you know, is there anyway we can double the image size that most of us
      > have
      > right now?
      > from 320x480 to ????
      > how big can we make the screen?

      up to you. QT's full screen mode goes full screen in relation to
      current screen resolution.
      >
      > my last video was 10MB which is probably too big for most people.
      > but is this true?

      no it isn't. yes it is :-) If they want it, they'll survive it. But
      does it need it? Lots of questions in there.

      at the moment i reckon 1mb=1minute is a good approximate rule of thumb,
      but that requires broadband, but on homeband a 2min movie would take
      only a few minutes to arrive, which is doable. in this scenario 10mb is
      a long wait.

      on broadband it isn't. but if i've got a cheap Australian broadband
      deal (AUD30.00 month *but* only for 200MB - I know, it's immoral), then
      watching your video has used up 5% of my monthly limit. From that point
      of view I'd like to think it was 5% :-)

      > what's the limit going to be?
      >

      varies. People happily downloaded gigabytes of a Star Wars clip at
      highest quality that I think was an 80MB file. But what can you afford?
      I've got a pdf on my server (a computer games essay) that got
      slashdotted over 18 months ago. it still clocks up 50+ downloads a day
      and in the first 3 days after slashdotting clocked up 3 or 4gig of
      downloads. file size is only 150kb, but at that point the limit is not
      what do my clients want to pay but how much am I willign to pay.

      cheers
      Adrian Miles
      .................................................................
      hypertext.rmit || hypertext.rmit.edu.au/adrian
      interactive networked video || hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog
      research blog || hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog/vlog/
    • The Dane
      Regarding the size/bandwidth question, I think we re currently trapped in this strange middleland where a good chunk of people are on broadband but,
      Message 2 of 18 , Aug 29, 2004
        Regarding the size/bandwidth question, I think we're currently
        trapped in this strange middleland where a good chunk of people are
        on broadband but, simultaneously, another (sizable) chunk are still
        in dial-up no man's land.

        My family lives in Romania and they're stuck at a 56k. They value
        not tying up the phone and so being on the net for more than fifteen
        minnuts at a time is out of the question (or at least rare). They
        are willing to occassionally download my videos (which range from 1
        to 3 MB), but while I was visiting, I wanted to show them the
        exploding whale movie (at 10 MB) and they laughed at me. And if my
        family - who is in the medium realm of tech-savvy - still uses dial-
        up and mostly sees the net as a place to collect email and get
        sports scores and shop Amazon, then there's likely a fair amount of
        the internet-using world out there that feels the same.

        Here's where the middleland dichotomy comes in though. The town
        where my parents and brother live is in the midst of change. My
        parents apartment is now in the section of town that is at least
        offering cable connections. My brother, across town, still has no
        choice. While many of the more (I hesitate to say it) first world
        nations are making broadband almost normative, other regions that
        are very net-active still have to suffer through with dial-up. And
        so, currently, to post 5, 10, 20, and 30 MB videos is to marginalize
        those regions.

        Now personally, I don't have a problem with doing this, but I know
        other people who certainly do.

        The bright side is that this middleland dichotomy is not going to be
        a permanent state. Soon, only a negligible amount of users will
        hesitate before downloading a 30 MB file. The question, I guess, is
        what to do in the five to ten years while we're waiting.

        p.s., I'm apartment-shopping right now as my current home will be
        demolished by the State of California in December (ah, the ups and
        downs of living in a State Park) and interestingly, all of the newer
        complexes are touting that they are cable-internet-ready as a
        selling point.
      • Lucas Gonze
        Is it legal to add attributes to an (X)HTML tag? For example, could I do this: foo
        Message 3 of 18 , Sep 16 7:51 AM
          Is it legal to add attributes to an (X)HTML tag? For example, could I do
          this:

          <a href="foo.mov" mynamespace:inresponseto="bar.mov">foo</a>
        • Andreas Haugstrup
          On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:51:30 -0400 (EDT), Lucas Gonze ... I couldn t find anything on attributes, but I there is a section in the spec on
          Message 4 of 18 , Sep 16 7:59 AM
            On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:51:30 -0400 (EDT), Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...>
            wrote:

            > Is it legal to add attributes to an (X)HTML tag? For example, could I do
            > this:
            >
            > <a href="foo.mov" mynamespace:inresponseto="bar.mov">foo</a>

            I couldn't find anything on attributes, but I there is a section in the
            spec on using elements from other namespaces:

            <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#well-formed>

            - Andreas

            --
            Personal: <http://www.solitude.dk>
            File Thingie - PHP File Manager <http://www.solitude.dk/filethingie/>
          • Lucas Gonze
            So, leaving aside details, consider this message a manual trackback to say that I have *finally* posted a response to your pingback proposal; it is:
            Message 5 of 18 , Sep 16 8:20 AM
              So, leaving aside details, consider this message a manual trackback to say
              that I have *finally* posted a response to your pingback proposal; it is:

              <a href="http://gonze.com/weblog/index.cgi/9-16-4.ongoing"
              response:to="http://www.solitude.dk/archives/2004_09.php#t20040907-12:02">foo</a>

              On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Andreas Haugstrup wrote:

              > On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:51:30 -0400 (EDT), Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...>
              > wrote:
              >
              >> Is it legal to add attributes to an (X)HTML tag? For example, could I do
              >> this:
              >>
              >> <a href="foo.mov" mynamespace:inresponseto="bar.mov">foo</a>
              >
              > I couldn't find anything on attributes, but I there is a section in the
              > spec on using elements from other namespaces:
              >
              > <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#well-formed>
              >
              > - Andreas
              >
              > --
              > Personal: <http://www.solitude.dk>
              > File Thingie - PHP File Manager <http://www.solitude.dk/filethingie/>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • Andreas Haugstrup
              On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:20:56 -0400 (EDT), Lucas Gonze ... Man, and I just enabled pingbacks on my website yesterday. You could ve just sent
              Message 6 of 18 , Sep 16 8:45 AM
                On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:20:56 -0400 (EDT), Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...>
                wrote:

                > So, leaving aside details, consider this message a manual trackback to
                > say
                > that I have *finally* posted a response to your pingback proposal; it is:
                >
                > <a href="http://gonze.com/weblog/index.cgi/9-16-4.ongoing"
                > response:to="http://www.solitude.dk/archives/2004_09.php#t20040907-12:02">foo</a>

                Man, and I just enabled pingbacks on my website yesterday. You could've
                just sent a pingback to notify me. ;o)

                I'll type up a reply later. I think we're talking past each other.

                - Andreas
                --
                Personal: <http://www.solitude.dk>
                File Thingie - PHP File Manager <http://www.solitude.dk/filethingie/>
              • Lucas Gonze
                ... I was all over the irony. :) ... I hope we re not! I spent a stupidly long time absorbing your writing and generating a non-stupid response. In the end
                Message 7 of 18 , Sep 16 8:54 AM
                  On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Andreas Haugstrup wrote:
                  > Man, and I just enabled pingbacks on my website yesterday. You could've
                  > just sent a pingback to notify me. ;o)

                  I was all over the irony. :)

                  >
                  > I'll type up a reply later. I think we're talking past each other.

                  I hope we're not! I spent a stupidly long time absorbing your writing and
                  generating a non-stupid response. In the end I don't think I articulated
                  my main point, which was something about the pressing need to gain the
                  benefits of hypertext for these non-hypertext objects we're working with
                  here.

                  ...When it came to audio, my answer was playlists...
                • Andreas Haugstrup
                  On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:54:26 -0400 (EDT), Lucas Gonze ... Okay, not completely past each other, but with a different focus at least. ...
                  Message 8 of 18 , Sep 16 10:07 AM
                    On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:54:26 -0400 (EDT), Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...>
                    wrote:

                    >> I'll type up a reply later. I think we're talking past each other.
                    >
                    > I hope we're not! I spent a stupidly long time absorbing your writing
                    > and
                    > generating a non-stupid response.

                    Okay, not completely past each other, but with a different focus at least.
                    :o)

                    > In the end I don't think I articulated
                    > my main point, which was something about the pressing need to gain the
                    > benefits of hypertext for these non-hypertext objects we're working with
                    > here.

                    Yes, that's at the core of it. The problem isn't that movies aren't
                    hypertext, the problem is to make movies hypermedia. But this is also
                    where we're talking past each other. There are two different 'problems'.

                    One is that audio/movies created right now aren't hypermedia. You can't
                    put links in your mp3 files. You *can* put links into your quicktime
                    movies, but people aren't *doing* it. So at least quicktime movies (and
                    SMIL presentations) are hypermedia, but noone except Adrian Miles and his
                    cronies are taking advantage of it.

                    The way I read your entry that's the problem you're trying to solve with
                    the HTML extension... ?

                    The trouble is that it's an overly complex solution. You would need to
                    wrap an HTML document around all your video content. This is bad compared
                    to the alternative (having links embedded directly in the video file).

                    The video has an URL, but by getting the URL you can't see which sites the
                    video are making references to. In order to get those you would need to
                    find the HTML document with the response:to links, and to find that you
                    need to be able to have a link inside the video file anyway. No, the links
                    should be inside the video/audio file - this isn't a job for HTML
                    documents or pingbacks (since pingbacks handle incoming links only, not
                    outgoing links).

                    The other problem is incoming links - the tapping on the shoulder. This is
                    the problem pingbacks are meant to solve - and I'm having trouble seeing
                    how a reponse:to structure would solve this issue. Or at least how it can
                    solve the problem well.

                    The problem is that without pingbacks it's impossible to take an URL and
                    get a list of incoming links (other sites that refer to our URL). A
                    response:to structure wouldn't solve this, because a response:to is just
                    another outgoing link (an outgoing link with a special meaning, but still
                    an outgoing link). You can't take an URL and see who is linking to that
                    URL, you can only see that this URL is a response to something else. You
                    can see that this *is* a comment, not who is *commenting*.

                    With pingbacks it's different. You can take an URL (of an mp3 or a
                    quicktime file or an HTML document) and then get a list of incoming links.

                    You mention the two other ways solve this problem with incoming links:
                    Referrers and Technorati. Referrers are bad because the signal to noise
                    ratio is obscene. It's a very unreliable way of finding incoming links.
                    You can read about that at: <http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1033171507&count=1>

                    Technorati is cool and all, but it's also worse than pingbacks for one
                    simple reason: It's a centralized system. Pingbacks are distributed and
                    that makes them faster and more flexible (and less subject to failure).
                    Technorati has to contain all "pingbacks" for the entire internet and
                    that's expensive, slow and time consuming. Pingback servers are only
                    recording pingbacks from their own resources and that's faster (and if it
                    fails it doesn't take down the whole house).

                    You mention that pingbacks take too much work for the user, but I
                    disagree. It is (or will be) transparent for the user. Only in my simple
                    tests users are required to manually send pingbacks to the people they are
                    linking to. In reality this will be automatic. Take Wordpress for example:
                    When you post a new entry Wordpress finds all your outgoing links and
                    sends pingbacks for you. Total transparency.

                    The same should (will be) true for audio and video content. When you post
                    a new audio/video file you blogging system should extract all outgoing
                    links in your audio/video file and send off pingbacks to those URLs.

                    Your blogging system should of course assign the permalink to the actual
                    audio/video file, and not the containing HTML. Unless your post is mixed
                    media (text and video together. Like most of Lisa Harper's posts where the
                    video shouldn't stand alone). Only then we'll have a hypermedia network.

                    Until we get that there is a temporary solution. There are two issues: 1)
                    We need to extract links to pingback and 2) We need a way to tell that a
                    video entry is a video entry and not an HTML entry (nor a mixed media
                    entry).

                    1) Is solved by putting all your outgoing links in the description of the
                    video entry. That way your blogging system will see them (because it
                    cannot yet extract links from a quicktime file) and send off pingbacks.

                    2) Is solved by the <link rel="alternate"> I proposed in my blog entry.
                    That way any computer who is trying to find videos will know that this
                    HTML is really just an alternate version of the video file (thus it can
                    safely reported as a video entry instead of an HTML entry).
                    Mixed media entries should be reported as what they are - HTML with
                    embedded audio/video content. They shouldn't be automatically included in
                    playlists for example because the playlist would not contain all the
                    information of the entry (it would only contain the audio/video and not
                    the text).

                    That's why I think we're talking past each other. I'm trying to solve the
                    last problem, not the first. I see the first problem as being a problem
                    that should be solved by those who create audio/video formats. They should
                    allow for links to be made (and if they're good for a way for computers to
                    extract those links, just as you can look for <a href=""> in an HTML
                    document).

                    > ...When it came to audio, my answer was playlists...

                    Don't confuse playlists with a hypermedia system. Playlists are cool
                    because they allow you to save a path through a hypermedia system, but
                    playlists don't make a hypermedia system.

                    You tricked me into replying before supper, and man am I hungry now.

                    - Andreas

                    --
                    Personal: <http://www.solitude.dk>
                    File Thingie - PHP File Manager <http://www.solitude.dk/filethingie/>
                  • Lucas Gonze
                    ... I think that I don t know the difference between hypertext and hypermedia. Can you enlighten me? ... Yes. ... The general algorithm I m using is say that
                    Message 9 of 18 , Sep 16 10:29 AM
                      On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Andreas Haugstrup wrote:
                      > > In the end I don't think I articulated
                      > > my main point, which was something about the pressing need to gain the
                      > > benefits of hypertext for these non-hypertext objects we're working with
                      > > here.
                      >
                      > Yes, that's at the core of it. The problem isn't that movies aren't
                      > hypertext, the problem is to make movies hypermedia. But this is also
                      > where we're talking past each other. There are two different 'problems'.

                      I think that I don't know the difference between hypertext and hypermedia.
                      Can you enlighten me?

                      >
                      > One is that audio/movies created right now aren't hypermedia. You can't
                      > put links in your mp3 files. You *can* put links into your quicktime
                      > movies, but people aren't *doing* it. So at least quicktime movies (and
                      > SMIL presentations) are hypermedia, but noone except Adrian Miles and his
                      > cronies are taking advantage of it.
                      >
                      > The way I read your entry that's the problem you're trying to solve with
                      > the HTML extension... ?

                      Yes.

                      >
                      > The trouble is that it's an overly complex solution. You would need to
                      > wrap an HTML document around all your video content. This is bad compared
                      > to the alternative (having links embedded directly in the video file).

                      The general algorithm I'm using is say that you want to publish a document
                      containing an assertion that FOO is a response to BAR. I picked HTML as
                      the most trivial way to do that.

                      >
                      > The video has an URL, but by getting the URL you can't see which sites the
                      > video are making references to. In order to get those you would need to
                      > find the HTML document with the response:to links, and to find that you
                      > need to be able to have a link inside the video file anyway. No, the links
                      > should be inside the video/audio file - this isn't a job for HTML
                      > documents or pingbacks (since pingbacks handle incoming links only, not
                      > outgoing links).

                      Well, here I think there's no answer that really grabs me. Requiring
                      Quicktime parsers all over the place just to find out this simple issue of
                      what the video is responding to is a tough path to take. I appreciate the
                      reason why you're thinking of including metadata with the file itself, but
                      at the same time I believe that needing to parse each and every potential
                      wrapper format is very very unlikely to work.

                      > The other problem is incoming links - the tapping on the shoulder. This is
                      > the problem pingbacks are meant to solve - and I'm having trouble seeing
                      > how a reponse:to structure would solve this issue. Or at least how it can
                      > solve the problem well.
                      >
                      > The problem is that without pingbacks it's impossible to take an URL and
                      > get a list of incoming links (other sites that refer to our URL). A
                      > response:to structure wouldn't solve this, because a response:to is just
                      > another outgoing link (an outgoing link with a special meaning, but still
                      > an outgoing link). You can't take an URL and see who is linking to that
                      > URL, you can only see that this URL is a response to something else. You
                      > can see that this *is* a comment, not who is *commenting*.

                      Sure you can. You search on response:to="URL of my video", then view the
                      HTML of the page containing that link.

                      >
                      > With pingbacks it's different. You can take an URL (of an mp3 or a
                      > quicktime file or an HTML document) and then get a list of incoming links.
                      >
                      > You mention the two other ways solve this problem with incoming links:
                      > Referrers and Technorati. Referrers are bad because the signal to noise
                      > ratio is obscene. It's a very unreliable way of finding incoming links.
                      > You can read about that at: <http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1033171507&count=1>

                      But pingbacks have no better noise (read "spam") control than referrer
                      logging. There's no s/n problem right now because there's so little
                      actual usage.

                      > Technorati is cool and all, but it's also worse than pingbacks for one
                      > simple reason: It's a centralized system. Pingbacks are distributed and
                      > that makes them faster and more flexible (and less subject to failure).
                      > Technorati has to contain all "pingbacks" for the entire internet and
                      > that's expensive, slow and time consuming. Pingback servers are only
                      > recording pingbacks from their own resources and that's faster (and if it
                      > fails it doesn't take down the whole house).

                      Well, any search engine can do the job. Google, Feedster, etc. The data
                      remains decentralized, it's only the access points (like Technorati) that
                      are centralized.

                      >
                      > You mention that pingbacks take too much work for the user, but I
                      > disagree. It is (or will be) transparent for the user. Only in my simple
                      > tests users are required to manually send pingbacks to the people they are
                      > linking to. In reality this will be automatic. Take Wordpress for example:
                      > When you post a new entry Wordpress finds all your outgoing links and
                      > sends pingbacks for you. Total transparency.
                      >
                      > The same should (will be) true for audio and video content. When you post
                      > a new audio/video file you blogging system should extract all outgoing
                      > links in your audio/video file and send off pingbacks to those URLs.
                      >
                      > Your blogging system should of course assign the permalink to the actual
                      > audio/video file, and not the containing HTML. Unless your post is mixed
                      > media (text and video together. Like most of Lisa Harper's posts where the
                      > video shouldn't stand alone). Only then we'll have a hypermedia network.
                      >
                      > Until we get that there is a temporary solution. There are two issues: 1)
                      > We need to extract links to pingback and 2) We need a way to tell that a
                      > video entry is a video entry and not an HTML entry (nor a mixed media
                      > entry).
                      >
                      > 1) Is solved by putting all your outgoing links in the description of the
                      > video entry. That way your blogging system will see them (because it
                      > cannot yet extract links from a quicktime file) and send off pingbacks.
                      >
                      > 2) Is solved by the <link rel="alternate"> I proposed in my blog entry.
                      > That way any computer who is trying to find videos will know that this
                      > HTML is really just an alternate version of the video file (thus it can
                      > safely reported as a video entry instead of an HTML entry).
                      > Mixed media entries should be reported as what they are - HTML with
                      > embedded audio/video content. They shouldn't be automatically included in
                      > playlists for example because the playlist would not contain all the
                      > information of the entry (it would only contain the audio/video and not
                      > the text).

                      This is an interesting solution. I'm sort of buzzed at the idea of
                      considering the HTML and video different representations of the same
                      resource. At the same time I don't yet buy it, since I doubt that in
                      reality the video and HTML will really represent the same resource.

                      That said, there's an insight there, which is why I generated so much text
                      responding!

                      - L


                      >
                      > That's why I think we're talking past each other. I'm trying to solve the
                      > last problem, not the first. I see the first problem as being a problem
                      > that should be solved by those who create audio/video formats. They should
                      > allow for links to be made (and if they're good for a way for computers to
                      > extract those links, just as you can look for <a href=""> in an HTML
                      > document).
                      >
                      > > ...When it came to audio, my answer was playlists...
                      >
                      > Don't confuse playlists with a hypermedia system. Playlists are cool
                      > because they allow you to save a path through a hypermedia system, but
                      > playlists don't make a hypermedia system.
                      >
                      > You tricked me into replying before supper, and man am I hungry now.
                      >
                      > - Andreas
                      >
                      > --
                      > Personal: <http://www.solitude.dk>
                      > File Thingie - PHP File Manager <http://www.solitude.dk/filethingie/>
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • Andreas Haugstrup
                      I m going to cut away my own words in this reply. I hope people can still follow the thread. On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:29:40 -0400 (EDT), Lucas Gonze
                      Message 10 of 18 , Sep 16 11:32 AM
                        I'm going to cut away my own words in this reply. I hope people can still
                        follow the thread.

                        On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:29:40 -0400 (EDT), Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...>
                        wrote:

                        > On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Andreas Haugstrup wrote:
                        > I think that I don't know the difference between hypertext and
                        > hypermedia.
                        > Can you enlighten me?

                        Adrian probably has some nice definitions at hand, but I'll have to do
                        with Wikipedia. Hypertext is just a subset of hypermedia. See:
                        <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext>
                        <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermedia>

                        Hypermedia in the sense of video and audio would mean that the audio/video
                        would have the "hyper" qualities of hypertext (ie. linking).

                        > The general algorithm I'm using is say that you want to publish a
                        > document
                        > containing an assertion that FOO is a response to BAR. I picked HTML as
                        > the most trivial way to do that.

                        Relying on HTML when we are talking audio and video content is something I
                        don't like to do. If nothing else the because you run into the permalink
                        trouble. You would have one URL for the HTML and one for the video. And
                        how do you find the correct video in the HTML file? It's best just to get
                        rid of the wrapper all together (ie. assign the permalink directly to the
                        video file).

                        > Well, here I think there's no answer that really grabs me. Requiring
                        > Quicktime parsers all over the place just to find out this simple issue
                        > of
                        > what the video is responding to is a tough path to take.

                        But think of the possibilities! The data would be located along with all
                        the other metadata at the begining of a file so you would only need to
                        fetch the first couple of kilobytes of a video. It would be no different
                        than fetching an HTML file.

                        > I appreciate the
                        > reason why you're thinking of including metadata with the file itself,
                        > but
                        > at the same time I believe that needing to parse each and every potential
                        > wrapper format is very very unlikely to work.

                        You need that for text also. The difference is that there is only one
                        format of text (HTML). I would love to have everyone use SMIL for example
                        as it would make parsing files for links just as easy as it is with HTML.
                        So all that's needed is one common format to present audio and video
                        hypermedia. W3C says it's SMIL, but hardly anyone is using it.

                        > Sure you can. You search on response:to="URL of my video", then view the
                        > HTML of the page containing that link.

                        And that's the problem in a nutshell. A response:to solution would be a
                        waste of computing power, time and money on an immense scale.

                        With pingbacks you simple ask the URL to return a list of incoming links.
                        It's simple and easy. The workload is on the content creator since he has
                        to send pingbacks whenever he creates new content. For the person this
                        would only costs a little bit of time, and whatever bandwidth it costs to
                        send the small pingback packages.

                        With a response:to solution you would have to seach *the entire world wide
                        web* every time you wanted to see incoming links to an URL. The workload
                        is on whoever requests the list (or whoever he asks to compile the links
                        [eg. Google]). Compared to the work required to send pingbacks this
                        requires a vast amount of power. Only the big players with factory halls
                        filled with servers would be able to handle this.

                        Each document on the world wide web is only created once, so the
                        time/energy it requires to send pingbacks is not really anything worth
                        talking about. But requesting a list of links is likely to happen many
                        many times more, and that's why it's such a complete waste to search
                        through every single URL everytime someone asks for such a list.

                        > But pingbacks have no better noise (read "spam") control than referrer
                        > logging. There's no s/n problem right now because there's so little
                        > actual usage.

                        Yeah, they do. Pingbacks are requested from the author of a document.
                        Already there they are better (no webmail system referers, not useless
                        referers like URLs without a required query string, no duplicates [eg.
                        with and without a trailing slash]).

                        > Well, any search engine can do the job. Google, Feedster, etc. The data
                        > remains decentralized, it's only the access points (like Technorati) that
                        > are centralized.

                        But with pingbacks *everyone* can be an accesspoint. With solutions like
                        response:to or technorati only big players can be an accesspoint. I can't
                        make a system that finds incoming links in a response:to system, but I can
                        take advantage of pingbacks in a second.

                        > This is an interesting solution. I'm sort of buzzed at the idea of
                        > considering the HTML and video different representations of the same
                        > resource. At the same time I don't yet buy it, since I doubt that in
                        > reality the video and HTML will really represent the same resource.

                        I thought about that for a long time. It works on paper, no doubt about
                        that. You only add the <link> if the HTML presentation and the video file
                        contains the same information. On the other hand I don't think authors are
                        aware of the differences between HTML and video file being the same
                        resource, and an HTML file with a video file embedded. Because the
                        difference seems insignificant when you glance over it, but it has far
                        reaching consequences.

                        - Andreas

                        --
                        Personal: <http://www.solitude.dk>
                        File Thingie - PHP File Manager <http://www.solitude.dk/filethingie/>
                      • Ryan Shaw
                        ... Lucas, your idea reminds me of the ScholOnto project, which attempts to do something very similar to what you propose: namely, turn implicit relationships
                        Message 11 of 18 , Sep 16 11:39 AM
                          Lucas Gonze wrote:

                          > The general algorithm I'm using is say that you want to publish a
                          > document containing an assertion that FOO is a response to BAR. I
                          > picked HTML as the most trivial way to do that.

                          Lucas, your idea reminds me of the ScholOnto project, which attempts to
                          do something very similar to what you propose: namely, turn implicit
                          relationships among linked documents into machine-readable assertions:

                          "The ScholOnto Project is a 3 year effort (2001-2004) to build and
                          deploy a prototype infrastructure for making scholarly claims about the
                          significance of research documents. 'Claims' are made by making
                          connections between ideas. Any claim is of course open to
                          counterarguments. The connections are grounded in a
                          discourse/argumentation ontology, which makes possible innovative
                          services for navigating, visualizing and analysing the network as it grows."

                          http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/scholonto/

                          ScholOnto is focused on scholarly claims, but the general idea can be
                          applied to video, by replacing the discourse/argumentation ontology with
                          something else. I am particularly interested in replacing it with an
                          ontology of cinematographic relationships, so one could say, make an
                          assertion like

                          <a href="wide_angle_overhead.mov" establishes="closeup.mov"></a>

                          I would probably use RDF rather than HTML, but whatever--the main point
                          is to come up with something that allows coherent paths through the
                          network to be constructed semi-automatically.

                          Anyway, my master's project will be investigating this sort of
                          hypervideo structure-building--probably not immediately practical for
                          videoblogging like the ideas you guys are throwing around, but maybe
                          interesting nonetheless.

                          Cheers,
                          Ryan
                        • Jay Dedman
                          you guys need to bang this out I need 10 CC s of Video comments, stat. Marc Canter just posted a comment about how i dont post video enough... but recording
                          Message 12 of 18 , Sep 16 12:08 PM
                            you guys need to bang this out
                            I need 10 CC's of Video comments, stat.

                            Marc Canter just posted a comment about how i dont post video enough...
                            but recording myself sitting in front of my computer talking doenst seem right
                            to me...
                            but with video comments...it'd become a conversation and would make sense.

                            any tests we can do?


                            Quoting Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...>:

                            >
                            >
                            > On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Andreas Haugstrup wrote:
                            > > Man, and I just enabled pingbacks on my website yesterday. You could've
                            > > just sent a pingback to notify me. ;o)
                            >
                            > I was all over the irony. :)
                            >
                            > >
                            > > I'll type up a reply later. I think we're talking past each other.
                            >
                            > I hope we're not! I spent a stupidly long time absorbing your writing and
                            > generating a non-stupid response. In the end I don't think I articulated
                            > my main point, which was something about the pressing need to gain the
                            > benefits of hypertext for these non-hypertext objects we're working with
                            > here.
                            >
                            > ...When it came to audio, my answer was playlists...
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >


                            --
                            Jay Dedman
                            Manhattan Neighborhood Network
                            537 West 59th
                            NY NY 10019
                            212 757 2670 ext.312
                            www.mnn.org
                          • Jay Dedman
                            ... i obviously have no clue here... but how about enclosures... im researching how to make my posts show enclosures for the future when RSS aggregators need
                            Message 13 of 18 , Sep 16 2:15 PM
                              > The video has an URL, but by getting the URL you can't see which sites the
                              > video are making references to. In order to get those you would need to
                              > find the HTML document with the response:to links, and to find that you
                              > need to be able to have a link inside the video file anyway. No, the links
                              > should be inside the video/audio file - this isn't a job for HTML
                              > documents or pingbacks (since pingbacks handle incoming links only, not
                              > outgoing links).

                              i obviously have no clue here...
                              but how about enclosures...
                              im researching how to make my posts show enclosures for the future when RSS
                              aggregators need to read the video only in the RSS feed so it knows what to
                              download overnight...
                              can this be used somehow with video comments?


                              Quoting Andreas Haugstrup <videoblog@...>:

                              > I'm going to cut away my own words in this reply. I hope people can still
                              > follow the thread.
                              >
                              > On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:29:40 -0400 (EDT), Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...>
                              > wrote:
                              >
                              > > On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Andreas Haugstrup wrote:
                              > > I think that I don't know the difference between hypertext and
                              > > hypermedia.
                              > > Can you enlighten me?
                              >
                              > Adrian probably has some nice definitions at hand, but I'll have to do
                              > with Wikipedia. Hypertext is just a subset of hypermedia. See:
                              > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext>
                              > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermedia>
                              >
                              > Hypermedia in the sense of video and audio would mean that the audio/video
                              > would have the "hyper" qualities of hypertext (ie. linking).
                              >
                              > > The general algorithm I'm using is say that you want to publish a
                              > > document
                              > > containing an assertion that FOO is a response to BAR. I picked HTML as
                              > > the most trivial way to do that.
                              >
                              > Relying on HTML when we are talking audio and video content is something I
                              > don't like to do. If nothing else the because you run into the permalink
                              > trouble. You would have one URL for the HTML and one for the video. And
                              > how do you find the correct video in the HTML file? It's best just to get
                              > rid of the wrapper all together (ie. assign the permalink directly to the
                              > video file).
                              >
                              > > Well, here I think there's no answer that really grabs me. Requiring
                              > > Quicktime parsers all over the place just to find out this simple issue
                              > > of
                              > > what the video is responding to is a tough path to take.
                              >
                              > But think of the possibilities! The data would be located along with all
                              > the other metadata at the begining of a file so you would only need to
                              > fetch the first couple of kilobytes of a video. It would be no different
                              > than fetching an HTML file.
                              >
                              > > I appreciate the
                              > > reason why you're thinking of including metadata with the file itself,
                              > > but
                              > > at the same time I believe that needing to parse each and every
                              potential
                              > > wrapper format is very very unlikely to work.
                              >
                              > You need that for text also. The difference is that there is only one
                              > format of text (HTML). I would love to have everyone use SMIL for example
                              > as it would make parsing files for links just as easy as it is with HTML.
                              > So all that's needed is one common format to present audio and video
                              > hypermedia. W3C says it's SMIL, but hardly anyone is using it.
                              >
                              > > Sure you can. You search on response:to="URL of my video", then view
                              the
                              > > HTML of the page containing that link.
                              >
                              > And that's the problem in a nutshell. A response:to solution would be a
                              > waste of computing power, time and money on an immense scale.
                              >
                              > With pingbacks you simple ask the URL to return a list of incoming links.
                              > It's simple and easy. The workload is on the content creator since he has
                              > to send pingbacks whenever he creates new content. For the person this
                              > would only costs a little bit of time, and whatever bandwidth it costs to
                              > send the small pingback packages.
                              >
                              > With a response:to solution you would have to seach *the entire world wide
                              > web* every time you wanted to see incoming links to an URL. The workload
                              > is on whoever requests the list (or whoever he asks to compile the links
                              > [eg. Google]). Compared to the work required to send pingbacks this
                              > requires a vast amount of power. Only the big players with factory halls
                              > filled with servers would be able to handle this.
                              >
                              > Each document on the world wide web is only created once, so the
                              > time/energy it requires to send pingbacks is not really anything worth
                              > talking about. But requesting a list of links is likely to happen many
                              > many times more, and that's why it's such a complete waste to search
                              > through every single URL everytime someone asks for such a list.
                              >
                              > > But pingbacks have no better noise (read "spam") control than referrer
                              > > logging. There's no s/n problem right now because there's so little
                              > > actual usage.
                              >
                              > Yeah, they do. Pingbacks are requested from the author of a document.
                              > Already there they are better (no webmail system referers, not useless
                              > referers like URLs without a required query string, no duplicates [eg.
                              > with and without a trailing slash]).
                              >
                              > > Well, any search engine can do the job. Google, Feedster, etc. The
                              data
                              > > remains decentralized, it's only the access points (like Technorati)
                              that
                              > > are centralized.
                              >
                              > But with pingbacks *everyone* can be an accesspoint. With solutions like
                              > response:to or technorati only big players can be an accesspoint. I can't
                              > make a system that finds incoming links in a response:to system, but I can
                              > take advantage of pingbacks in a second.
                              >
                              > > This is an interesting solution. I'm sort of buzzed at the idea of
                              > > considering the HTML and video different representations of the same
                              > > resource. At the same time I don't yet buy it, since I doubt that in
                              > > reality the video and HTML will really represent the same resource.
                              >
                              > I thought about that for a long time. It works on paper, no doubt about
                              > that. You only add the <link> if the HTML presentation and the video file
                              > contains the same information. On the other hand I don't think authors are
                              > aware of the differences between HTML and video file being the same
                              > resource, and an HTML file with a video file embedded. Because the
                              > difference seems insignificant when you glance over it, but it has far
                              > reaching consequences.
                              >
                              > - Andreas
                              >
                              > --
                              > Personal: <http://www.solitude.dk>
                              > File Thingie - PHP File Manager <http://www.solitude.dk/filethingie/>
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >


                              --
                              Jay Dedman
                              Manhattan Neighborhood Network
                              537 West 59th
                              NY NY 10019
                              212 757 2670 ext.312
                              www.mnn.org
                            • Adrian Miles
                              ... Except that most of my stuff is just playing around with stuff, not a lot of the movies I make have urls embedded. Though I am beginning to make some work
                              Message 14 of 18 , Sep 22 4:22 PM
                                On 17/09/2004, at 3:07 AM, Andreas Haugstrup wrote:

                                > Yes, that's at the core of it. The problem isn't that movies aren't
                                > hypertext, the problem is to make movies hypermedia. But this is also
                                > where we're talking past each other. There are two different
                                > 'problems'.
                                >
                                > One is that audio/movies created right now aren't hypermedia. You can't
                                > put links in your mp3 files. You *can* put links into your quicktime
                                > movies, but people aren't *doing* it. So at least quicktime movies (and
                                > SMIL presentations) are hypermedia, but noone except Adrian Miles and
                                > his
                                > cronies are taking advantage of it.
                                >
                                Except that most of my stuff is just playing around with stuff, not a
                                lot of the movies I make have urls embedded. Though I am beginning to
                                make some work that does this.

                                What you're doing is fantastic, and is so important I can't say LOUDLY
                                enough how important it is.

                                [snip]
                                >
                                > You mention that pingbacks take too much work for the user, but I
                                > disagree. It is (or will be) transparent for the user. Only in my
                                > simple
                                > tests users are required to manually send pingbacks to the people they
                                > are
                                > linking to. In reality this will be automatic. Take Wordpress for
                                > example:
                                > When you post a new entry Wordpress finds all your outgoing links and
                                > sends pingbacks for you. Total transparency.
                                >
                                > The same should (will be) true for audio and video content. When you
                                > post
                                > a new audio/video file you blogging system should extract all outgoing
                                > links in your audio/video file and send off pingbacks to those URLs.
                                >
                                > Your blogging system should of course assign the permalink to the
                                > actual
                                > audio/video file, and not the containing HTML. Unless your post is
                                > mixed
                                > media (text and video together. Like most of Lisa Harper's posts where
                                > the
                                > video shouldn't stand alone). Only then we'll have a hypermedia
                                > network.

                                off top of my head. QT has a text track type. This is just plain old
                                text. Could be an xml file, for example. Wouldn't it be cool if your
                                vog application extracted links automagically into a text track,
                                wrapped it up as XML, and then then made this available.

                                What you and Lucas are discussing are way past my technical
                                competencies, but the sort of movies that David Wolf has been making
                                are potentially interesting. They read XML and display content
                                accordingly. So you could have a QT movie that reads a RSS feed (or any
                                other XML file) and that could display the other QT movies (or jpegs or
                                mpeg 4's, not windows media though) that are trackbacks, or pings. HTML
                                pages could just be text links since they'd be turned into text tracks
                                inside this QT movie.

                                Not sure if that makes sense, sort of day dreaming through these ideas,
                                and the possibilities. But yes, i want pings in my video that are
                                automatically extracted.
                                >
                                > Until we get that there is a temporary solution. There are two issues:
                                > 1)
                                > We need to extract links to pingback and 2) We need a way to tell that
                                > a
                                > video entry is a video entry and not an HTML entry (nor a mixed media
                                > entry).
                                >
                                > 1) Is solved by putting all your outgoing links in the description of
                                > the
                                > video entry. That way your blogging system will see them (because it
                                > cannot yet extract links from a quicktime file) and send off pingbacks.

                                Do you mean in the metadata for an entry? Where, how would i put this?
                                In MT would it go within the rdf that is attached to each post?
                                >
                                cheers
                                Adrian Miles

                                +++++++++++++++++++++
                                http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog/vlog/
                              • Andreas Haugstrup
                                ... That s a thing I would like very much. With HTML documents it s very easy to find links - just look for elements that have an href-attribute. With QT
                                Message 15 of 18 , Oct 2, 2004
                                  > off top of my head. QT has a text track type. This is just plain old
                                  > text. Could be an xml file, for example. Wouldn't it be cool if your
                                  > vog application extracted links automagically into a text track,
                                  > wrapped it up as XML, and then then made this available.

                                  That's a thing I would like very much. With HTML documents it's very easy
                                  to find links - just look for <a> elements that have an href-attribute.
                                  With QT it's as far as I know not possible to automatically extract links
                                  from the movie.

                                  As far as displaying links inside a QT movie I'm using SMIL right now.

                                  > What you and Lucas are discussing are way past my technical
                                  > competencies, but the sort of movies that David Wolf has been making
                                  > are potentially interesting. They read XML and display content
                                  > accordingly. So you could have a QT movie that reads a RSS feed (or any
                                  > other XML file) and that could display the other QT movies (or jpegs or
                                  > mpeg 4's, not windows media though) that are trackbacks, or pings. HTML
                                  > pages could just be text links since they'd be turned into text tracks
                                  > inside this QT movie.

                                  That's sortof what I'm doing with a SMIL playlist right now. Movies and
                                  audio are played directly in QT, and to the right of the movie there are
                                  links to HTML comments because HTML comments shouldn't/can't be played in
                                  QT.

                                  I must admit I'm a bit confused about the use for David Wolf's flickr QT
                                  movie. I can't see the use for using QT for a service that HTML is much
                                  better suited to handle. QT is better left to just handling audio/video
                                  content. Images and hypertext are best handled by browsers - after all
                                  that's what they're made to handle. :o)

                                  But I guess I would be less confused if the flickr viewer fetched movies
                                  instead of photos. :o)

                                  > Not sure if that makes sense, sort of day dreaming through these ideas,
                                  > and the possibilities. But yes, i want pings in my video that are
                                  > automatically extracted.

                                  Yeah, a couple of weeks ago I was browsing around Apple's Quicktime
                                  section, but I can't seem to figure this out. You would need to somehow
                                  write an application that opens and parses a QT movies and looks for any
                                  outgoing links. I would love to do this because then we could get this
                                  videoblogging started for real. Right now all outgoing links has to be in
                                  some HTML container document (that serves as the permalink). It's not
                                  ideal. The ideal would be to have the permalink assigned directly to the
                                  QT file.

                                  > Do you mean in the metadata for an entry? Where, how would i put this?
                                  > In MT would it go within the rdf that is attached to each post?

                                  Ideally it would go directly in the QT file, but that's not possible right
                                  now? For now normal links in the entry body in MT will suffice.

                                  - Andreas
                                  --
                                  Personal: <http://www.solitude.dk>
                                  File Thingie - PHP File Manager <http://www.solitude.dk/filethingie/>
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.