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

Re: [videoblogging] YouTube FLV codec choice?

Expand Messages
  • Charles Iliya Krempeaux
    Hello, On 11/1/06, groups-yahoo-com@mmeiser.com wrote: [...] ... I can talk about this type of stuff :-) Turn keep-alive off on
    Message 1 of 18 , Nov 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello,

      On 11/1/06, groups-yahoo-com@... <groups-yahoo-com@...>
      wrote:
      [...]


      > It is the ease of the experience, not the quality of the video that
      > > should be your vector for flash video. Leave the original video stand
      > > as the high quality version with whatever quality, codec, or format
      > > the user uploaded it in.
      >
      >
      > Oh,,, and don't forget to create a whole hosting server farm... and
      > eventually standalone facilities... JUST for flash video... no other
      > part of your website, not your other downloadable media is the
      > experience SO dependant on good quality streaming. The needs of
      > streaming media are completely different than any other webserver
      > requirement.
      >
      > Seperating Flash media into it's own server farm will not only improve
      > the overall end user experience over the long term but ultimately make
      > you more flexible, scaleable and save you time and money... you might
      > look at Amazon S3 specifically for the needs of your streaming meda...
      > but now I'm talking about tech... which is outside my realm... I'm a
      > UX, accessibility, info architecture and general design guy... :P
      >

      I can talk about this type of stuff :-)

      Turn keep-alive off on your server. Because leaving it on drives up the
      number of HTTP processes/threads running on the server. Which increases the
      load.

      Also, keep scripts that handle logic and business rules on separate server
      farms from the media files.

      With the media files... keep them in their own server farm... give each file
      a unique file name that never changes and is never reused. (You could use
      UUID's or something to come up with the names.) And set the modified-date
      to be way in the past... the expires date way way in the future, and set the
      "Cache-Control" header to all the right stuff to make it cache as long as
      possble.

      Later on, you can consider creating data centers in different geographic
      locations.


      See ya

      --
      Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.

      charles @ reptile.ca
      supercanadian @ gmail.com

      developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
      ___________________________________________________________________________
      Make Television http://maketelevision.com/

      ___________________________________________________________________________
      Cars, Motorcycles, Trucks, and Racing... http://tirebiterz.com/


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mike Hudack
      Believe me, I do kick it up the chain to Adobe and On2, but I think it s unrealistic at this point to expect Flash video to play on $100 laptops. I was
      Message 2 of 18 , Nov 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Believe me, I do kick it up the chain to Adobe and On2, but I think it's
        unrealistic at this point to expect Flash video to play on $100
        laptops. I was talking to a guy from Apple (who will rename nameless)
        about this problem yesterday, and he was surprised that h.264 video
        didn't have exactly the same problem to the same extent.

        groups-yahoo-com@... wrote:
        >
        > Kick arse Mike.
        >
        > See this is what it's all about.
        >
        > That I'll get to enjoy my videos on blip larger and that they'll
        > stream more fluidly has just made the 30 minutes I spent outlining the
        > issues seem like the best ROI ever.
        >
        > Just remember... there are no quick fixes... I didn't right this for
        > lips-service or expecting a quick fix... I hope you'll continue to
        > work on this problem long term attempting to always improve it...
        > indeed bucking it up the chain to macromedia, the codec people,
        > whomever. We need flash video to play on $100 laptops... and
        > hopefully I needn't justify that.
        >
        > I hope it was as good for you as it was for me. :)
        >
        > LOL
        >
        > Keep up the good work.
        >
        > Peace and respect,
        >
        > -Mike
        > mefeedia.com
        > mmeiser.com/blog
        >
        > On 11/1/06, Mike Hudack <mike@... <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>> wrote:
        > > I just spent about twenty minutes talking with some folks who write the
        > > codec and the environment. They know all about the problem, and they
        > > had some advice for us for solving the problem that people using older
        > > PowerPCs are having. We're going to be releasing the changes tomorrow.
        > > They're optimistic that it'll really help.
        > >
        > > So we're doing that, and our release on Saturday will include video
        > > players that are about 20% larger than the actual source video.
        > >
        > > Yours,
        > >
        > > Mike
        > >
        > > groups-yahoo-com@... <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
        > wrote:
        > > >
        > > > DAMN, I should have profread.
        > > >
        > > > Corrections and additions below, sorry.
        > > >
        > > > On 11/1/06, Mike Meiser <groups-yahoo-com@...
        > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
        > > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>> wrote:
        > > > > Sorry, if I was so direct, I tend not to do that sometimes.
        > > > >
        > > > > Great response, comments below.
        > > > >
        > > > > On 10/31/06, Mike Hudack <mike@... <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
        > <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>> wrote:
        > > > > > We're using Flash 8 video at blip these days because a lot --
        > a lot --
        > > > > > of people requested it. One of the downsides of Flash 8 video
        > is that
        > > > > > it's much more CPU intensive than Flash 7 video (it's kind of like
        > > > h.264
        > > > > > in this respect).
        > > > >
        > > > > h.264 is exactly what I was getting when I said certain codecs are
        > > > > very processor intensive. H264's much more processor entensive for
        > > > > playback then mp4. Not only is the MP4, the quality difference
        > is NOT
        > > > > that significant, and the compatibility of the MP4 with a wide range
        > > > > of devices is a huge bonus and is rapidly increasing not only
        > with the
        > > > > iPod and PSP, but Nokia's newer lines of phones/media devices...
        > and a
        > > > > whole host of set top boxes. MP4 beets H264 for pretty much the same
        > > > > reason MP3 beets AAC... compatibility and accessibility.
        > > > >
        > > > > In my opinion compatibility and accessibility ALWAYS beets out
        > > > > quality. This is a theme that will play out in the discussion of
        > Flash
        > > > > below.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > So... there is the codec you're using in Flash... and it's processor
        > > > > requirements for playback and then of course then there's the
        > > > > processor requirements of Flash 7 vs. flash 8.. which is the other
        > > > > factor.
        > > > >
        > > > > The other problem is that the On2 VP6 codec (that's
        > > > > > the Flash 8 video codec) is heavily optimized for Intel CPUs.
        > So on a
        > > > > > 667 MHz PowerPC you're hit by a very low clock speed, a
        > non-optimized
        > > > > > architecture and multitasking.
        > > > >
        > > > > So what is everyone else using? Are you telling me vimeo, youtube,
        > > > > google, revver and everyone else are using flash 7? That they are
        > > > > using an inferior codec?
        > > > >
        > > > > Regardless I don't see any the quality being significantly poor on
        > > > > these videos than blip.tv's... in the case of vimeo i think it's
        > > > > actually better.... and much more importantly i see the overall size
        > > > > of the playback window, the consistency of the streaming, and
        > the lack
        > > > > of stuttering on all these far superior to youtube.
        > > >
        > > > ...all these are far superior to blip.tv
        > > >
        > > > > > The upside is of course that Flash 8 video is *MUCH* much higher
        > > > > > quality.
        > > > >
        > > > > I've got to be honest with you it's not quality of video compression
        > > > > that matters to the end user, it's quality of overall
        > experience, and
        > > > > stuttering sound is far, far more detrimental to the experience than
        > > > > poor quality.
        > > >
        > > > apple designs all it's video applications from DVD player to the QT
        > > > player, to drop frames first and to ONLY drop audio as a last resort.
        > > > Consistency of audio is THE most important point.
        > > >
        > > > Oddly enough I don't think Flash allows you to drop video frames
        > > > before audio. Would be interesting to know though.
        > > >
        > > > > To repeat the point I laid out above with mp3 vs. aac, and mp4 vs.
        > > > > h264... compatibility and accessibility are far more important than
        > > > > quality.
        > > > >
        > > > > Regardless of wether a person is using a 667mh G4 or a 2 ghz pentium
        > > > > people are always running all sorts of crap on their compter...
        > and if
        > > > > viewing videos on blip is THE most processor intensive thing they do
        > > > > in their web browser... you're going to be the low hanging beam
        > > > > everyone hits there head on.
        > > > >
        > > > > Or is that the bottleneck everyone stumbles on.
        > > > >
        > > > > You should at the very least be towing the line with
        > accessibility and
        > > > > ease of playback with all Your competitors... that blip.tv requires
        > > > > higher end computer to watch videos on is NOT the market distinction
        > > > > you want.
        > > > >
        > > > > Quite the inverse blip.tv should be of mind to be more
        > compatible with
        > > > > lowend computers all over the world... from the average american
        > > > > classroom, which are not often outfited with the best of machines...
        > > > > to the hand me down computer in the average american kids room... to
        > > > > the primitive machines all over developing coutries.
        > > > >
        > > > > Given the clippiness of this culture people want their online video
        > > > > quick, dirty and NOW. They don't expect it to be HDTV, if they do
        > > > > that's what the downloadable MP4 or .mov anyway!
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > > If you're on a 667 MHz powerbook and you're multitasking the
        > > > > > video can skip a bit because of the CPU demands of Flash 8 video.
        > > > We're
        > > > > > working to find a good compromise, and in the meantime we have
        > a FAQ
        > > > > > entry about this and we're considering offering both Flash 7 (much
        > > > lower
        > > > > > video quality, but better on slower computers) and Flash 8 video
        > > > at the
        > > > > > same time.
        > > > >
        > > > > Interesting, ultimately, I just stick to the mp4's and avoid your
        > > > > flash, which is, I would think, the exact opposite of what
        > someone with
        > > > > a slower computer should be doing. It should be the other way
        > > > > around... the flash should be the quick and dirty experience,
        > and the
        > > > > mp4 or MOV should be the high quality experience. Wouldn't you say?
        > > > >
        > > > > I would recommend just choosing one vector on flash, it's to much to
        > > > > supply two flash files for every video, and making the user choose
        > > > > would just be additional and needless complexity.
        > > > >
        > > > > Aim for quick and dirty with the flash, offer the downloadable
        > > > > original as the HQ alternative. The video creator can aim for
        > whatever
        > > > > standard they want with that.
        > > > >
        > > > > Just keep working on finding the right version of flash with the
        > right
        > > > > codec that gives optimal playback. Based on my experience, the vimeo
        > > > > guys seem to really have it down cold, with both extremely good
        > > > > quality video and extremely smooth playback and streaming. Do what I
        > > > > do... identify who the leader is in the field, pick apart their
        > > > > product, and copy whatever works. There is no copyright on what the
        > > > > optimal, size, codec, and version of flash is and they really do
        > have
        > > > > it down COLD in my opinion... better quality and smoother playback
        > > > > than anyone else.
        > > > >
        > > > > > As far as player size, the video player is the same size as the
        > > > > > originally uploaded video. So if you upload a 320x240 video
        > you'll get
        > > > > > a 320x240 player. If you upload a larger video you'll get a larger
        > > > > > video player. But we're totally open to making the player bigger
        > > > > > regardless of the source video... it's really a matter of
        > whether you
        > > > > > want a larger playback area with some pixelation and artifacts or
        > > > if you
        > > > > > want really beautiful, high quality video.
        > > > >
        > > > > As for playback size, I've got to say, that youtube has set the
        > > > > standard, and it's qite a bit bigger than blip. I find blip's player
        > > > > on the small size, and others have mentioned it to me as well.
        > > > >
        > > > > Quick side note: I LOVE how vimeo's controls disappear competely
        > from
        > > > > the plaback interface except when you mouse over it. It's brilliant.
        > > > > BTW, Mobuzz does the same thing. It's a beautiful detail.
        > > > >
        > > > > Back to the playback size. I find the larger format MUCH more
        > > > > appropriate wether on my laptop or especially my 1600x1200 monitor.
        > > > > What is it on yourtube about 500x350 ish insteady of 320x240?
        > > > >
        > > > > We've just recently moved to this larger format on mefeedia in the
        > > > > last couple days, actually stretching videos where necissary up from
        > > > > the standard 320x240, and I must say I love it. HD videos like
        > > > > rocketboom look superb, and lower quality stuff doesn't look to
        > shabby
        > > > > at all either.
        > > > >
        > > > > It's not a matter of supplying a higher res video... I find
        > stretching
        > > > > a video to 140-150% works extremely well. Even 200% is
        > acceptable, but
        > > > > that's just excessive.
        > > > >
        > > > > My recommendation would be to cut ALL videos down to approximately
        > > > > 400x300 or smaller for transcoding into flash, for obvious
        > limitations
        > > > > on streaming bandwidth.
        > > > >
        > > > > Cutting down higher res videos will actually reduce artifacts making
        > > > > them compress better and look better than simple 320x240 videos.
        > > > >
        > > > > Then display all your flash videos sitewide at the same size youtube
        > > > > does, approx 500 pixels wide. You must atleast match them, and
        > you also
        > > > > must remain consistent in your experience not switching back and
        > forth
        > > > > between 320x240, and say 400x500 from one page to the next.... which
        > > > > would be quite a distraction.
        > > > >
        > > > > You can always leave users change the size of their playback
        > viewer in
        > > > > your cross posting templates or they can simply do it when they copy
        > > > > and paste the source into the vlog.
        > > > >
        > > > > > So far everyone has asked us to provide the highest possible video
        > > > > > quality. So that's led us to do Flash 8 and not to stretch the
        > player
        > > > > > beyond what the original video file can support reasonably.
        > > > >
        > > > > And they would because ALL your users are creators unlike youtube.
        > > > >
        > > > > They're all media makers, quite a few professionals, most working on
        > > > high
        > > > > end machines... pretty much all on better than average machines.
        > > > >
        > > > > That's your demographic, creators, professional / semi professional
        > > > > videographers... as opposed to youtube which is your average kid on
        > > > > the home computer or school lab. That's a huge difference. And for
        > > > > playback you've got to side with the consumer.
        > > > >
        > > > > You've got to ask yourself... if ... as happens you aren't
        > catering to
        > > > > the creators wants to the detriment of the vast majority whom
        > will be
        > > > > consuming the video. Keep in mind, these creators on their high end
        > > > > machines might demand quality, but they haven't largely
        > compressed and
        > > > > tested videos in flash on a wide range of machines... nor can they
        > > > > know what your servers are capable of streaming. These creators and
        > > > > consumers are pretty much completely depending on YOU to find that
        > > > > fine line between quality of experience and compatibility /
        > > > > accessibily.
        > > > >
        > > > > They don't need 2 or 3 flash options... don't pull a microsoft on
        > > > > them... they only need one... the proper one.
        > > > >
        > > > > It's ultimately your call, but in my opinion it's better to have
        > lower
        > > > > quality, and better streaming / better experience with no
        > > > > stuttering.... Again, compatibility and accessibility far outweighs
        > > > > quality. This is something we've see repeated infinitely online...
        > > > > from the move away from java and flash based website to ajax and
        > > > > CSS2... We're not just talking about me... we're talking about
        > kids on
        > > > > hand me down computers... probably your core demographic and you
        > must
        > > > > consider edicational institutions facilities which are not
        > always the
        > > > > best upkept and in my opinion you must consider the other 90% of the
        > > > > world that is in developing coutries with neither the fast computers
        > > > > nor the empacible band to stream your videos.
        > > > >
        > > > > In this light quality is a far, far secondary concern.
        > > > >
        > > > > But you can have your cake and eat it to because you allow for an
        > > > > alternate downloadable format completely of the video creators
        > > > > choosing.
        > > > >
        > > > > So, don't aim for high a quality and have the playback
        > experience fail
        > > > > catostrophicly for those who would need access most.... with
        > > > > stuttering of audio which very quicky destroys the overall
        > consumption
        > > > > experience and utility.
        > > > >
        > > > > Leave the Flash serve the purpose of quick and dirty (and
        > consistent)
        > > > > realtime playback and the downloadable version serve the aim of
        > > > > quality... whatever quality the creator of the video should choose.
        > > > >
        > > > > You must admit it's an obvious and good compromise.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > To sumarise my recommendations.
        > > > >
        > > > > Flash: The flash version should be quick and dirty for realtime web
        > > > > based experience. Cut videos down to a max width of approx. 400 or
        > > > > less sno matter what size the original video is uploaded.
        > > > >
        > > > > Display all Flash videos at a width of about 500 pixels on your site
        > > > > regardless of what size format they original was. Most importantly
        > > > > choose the least processor intensive playback codec, and the least
        > > > > processor intensive and most compatible version of flash. Quality is
        > > > > of far, far secondary concern to compatibility and accessibility.
        > > > >
        > > > > It is the ease of the experience, not the quality of the video that
        > > > > should be your vector for flash video. Leave the original video
        > stand
        > > > > as the high quality version with whatever quality, codec, or format
        > > > > the user uploaded it in.
        > > >
        > > > Oh,,, and don't forget to create a whole hosting server farm... and
        > > > eventually standalone facilities... JUST for flash video... no other
        > > > part of your website, not your other downloadable media is the
        > > > experience SO dependant on good quality streaming. The needs of
        > > > streaming media are completely different than any other webserver
        > > > requirement.
        > > >
        > > > Seperating Flash media into it's own server farm will not only improve
        > > > the overall end user experience over the long term but ultimately make
        > > > you more flexible, scaleable and save you time and money... you might
        > > > look at Amazon S3 specifically for the needs of your streaming meda...
        > > > but now I'm talking about tech... which is outside my realm... I'm a
        > > > UX, accessibility, info architecture and general design guy... :P
        > > >
        > > > > I rest my argument.
        > > > >
        > > > > I hope you will find it well made. More importantly I hope all the
        > > > > people "consuming" videos will find it well made and the video
        > > > > creators as well.
        > > > >
        > > > > Peace,
        > > > >
        > > > > -Mike
        > > > > mefeedia.com
        > > > > mmeiser.com/blog
        > > > >
        > > > > Disclaimer: I'm still not awake this morning and I did not proof
        > read
        > > > > or spell check that. I hope it's not to bad. :)
        > > > >
        > > > > > Yours,
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Mike
        > > > > >
        > > > > > groups-yahoo-com@...
        > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
        > > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com> wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > BTW... I've been meaning to mention this to the blip.tv guys.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > On my 667mhz powerbook Youtubes, Vimeo's and others Flash videos
        > > > play
        > > > > > > back MUCH better. Something... wether the codec or the way the
        > > > way the
        > > > > > > Flash video has been created is causing the video to stop and
        > > > stutter
        > > > > > > and blayback generally poorly. This is interesting because
        > blip has
        > > > > > > one of the smallest Flash players.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > There is also I notice a tendency for the video to NOT precache
        > > > enough
        > > > > > > before starting playback... meaning the videos are prone to
        > starting
        > > > > > > prematurely and then stopping because the video is not
        > downlaoding
        > > > > > > fast enough.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > I as well as others I've talked to have also noticed that Blip's
        > > > Flash
        > > > > > > player window is one of the smallest on the web. I would
        > strongly
        > > > > > > suggest they figure out how to increase their player size by
        > 30-50%.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > All in all this ads up to blip's flash player being the poorest
        > > > > > > experience of all the major services... so I hope they'll
        > really,
        > > > > > > really work on it because while I love their service... to most
        > > > people
        > > > > > > the enjoyment of watching a video trumps ALL other issues.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Among other things I would hope that blip is putting all
        > their flash
        > > > > > > videos on their own seperate servers.... specially
        > configured for
        > > > > > > streaming media... and even on their own T1 to avoid
        > slowdown from
        > > > > > > other traffic, such as serving up the thousands of QT and other
        > > > video
        > > > > > > formats that don't require the streaming bandwidth of flash.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > -Mike
        > > > > > > mefeedia.com
        > > > > > > mmeiser.com/blog
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > On 10/31/06, wlight@...
        > <mailto:wlight%40weatherlight.com>
        > > > <mailto:wlight%40weatherlight.com>
        > > > > > > <mailto:wlight%40weatherlight.com> <wlight@...
        > <mailto:wlight%40weatherlight.com>
        > > > <mailto:wlight%40weatherlight.com>
        > > > > > > <mailto:wlight%40weatherlight.com>> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > Hello Rhett,
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > I don't think YouTube will accept FLV files. (I think I
        > remember
        > > > > > > someone
        > > > > > > > on
        > > > > > > > > this list stating that here.)
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Okay...so I was actually not interested in sending them FLV
        > > > files so
        > > > > > > much
        > > > > > > > as finding out what codec their transcoder chooses. FLV
        > supports a
        > > > > suite
        > > > > > > > of codecs, and I was pondering a little side project
        > that's made a
        > > > > > > billion
        > > > > > > > times easier if YouTube's transcoder always uses, say, the
        > H.263
        > > > > codec.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > --
        > > > > > > > Rhett.
        > > > > > > > http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
        > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>
        > > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
        > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>>
        > > > > > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
        > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>
        > > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
        > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>>>
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------
        > > > > > > > This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
        > > > > > > > http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
        > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/>
        > > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
        > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/>>
        > > > > > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
        > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/>
        > > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
        > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/>>>
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --
        > > > > > email: mike@... <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
        > <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
        > > > > > office: 917-546-6989
        > > > > > cell: 646-827-9773
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --
        > > email: mike@... <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
        > > office: 917-546-6989
        > > cell: 646-827-9773
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >


        --
        email: mike@...
        office: 917-546-6989
        cell: 646-827-9773
      • Zenophon Abraham
        This is fantastic news, Mike. Now -- selfishly -- the next step is installing a system where one can have their shows recognized as just that. My personal
        Message 3 of 18 , Nov 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          This is fantastic news, Mike. Now -- selfishly -- the
          next step is installing a system where one can have
          their shows recognized as just that. My personal
          feeling is that having a video show -- like "Kate On
          Sports" -- listed as a show is more of a popularity
          contest and one not excuted by the community. It
          seems that it's up to Blip staff to determine who's
          shown as the Featured show, let alone actually listed
          as a show.

          By contrast, what's needed is a simple prompt to a
          page where one can fill out a form and upload a photo
          that explains the video show. Then one can actually
          scroll throw Blip.tv's show lookup and find "Kate On
          Sports."

          Thanks,

          Z

          --- Mike Hudack <mike@...> wrote:

          > Believe me, I do kick it up the chain to Adobe and
          > On2, but I think it's
          > unrealistic at this point to expect Flash video to
          > play on $100
          > laptops. I was talking to a guy from Apple (who
          > will rename nameless)
          > about this problem yesterday, and he was surprised
          > that h.264 video
          > didn't have exactly the same problem to the same
          > extent.
          >
          > groups-yahoo-com@... wrote:
          > >
          > > Kick arse Mike.
          > >
          > > See this is what it's all about.
          > >
          > > That I'll get to enjoy my videos on blip larger
          > and that they'll
          > > stream more fluidly has just made the 30 minutes I
          > spent outlining the
          > > issues seem like the best ROI ever.
          > >
          > > Just remember... there are no quick fixes... I
          > didn't right this for
          > > lips-service or expecting a quick fix... I hope
          > you'll continue to
          > > work on this problem long term attempting to
          > always improve it...
          > > indeed bucking it up the chain to macromedia, the
          > codec people,
          > > whomever. We need flash video to play on $100
          > laptops... and
          > > hopefully I needn't justify that.
          > >
          > > I hope it was as good for you as it was for me. :)
          > >
          > > LOL
          > >
          > > Keep up the good work.
          > >
          > > Peace and respect,
          > >
          > > -Mike
          > > mefeedia.com
          > > mmeiser.com/blog
          > >
          > > On 11/1/06, Mike Hudack <mike@...
          > <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>> wrote:
          > > > I just spent about twenty minutes talking with
          > some folks who write the
          > > > codec and the environment. They know all about
          > the problem, and they
          > > > had some advice for us for solving the problem
          > that people using older
          > > > PowerPCs are having. We're going to be releasing
          > the changes tomorrow.
          > > > They're optimistic that it'll really help.
          > > >
          > > > So we're doing that, and our release on Saturday
          > will include video
          > > > players that are about 20% larger than the
          > actual source video.
          > > >
          > > > Yours,
          > > >
          > > > Mike
          > > >
          > > > groups-yahoo-com@...
          > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
          > > wrote:
          > > > >
          > > > > DAMN, I should have profread.
          > > > >
          > > > > Corrections and additions below, sorry.
          > > > >
          > > > > On 11/1/06, Mike Meiser
          > <groups-yahoo-com@...
          > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
          > > > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>>
          > wrote:
          > > > > > Sorry, if I was so direct, I tend not to do
          > that sometimes.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Great response, comments below.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > On 10/31/06, Mike Hudack <mike@...
          > <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
          > > <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>> wrote:
          > > > > > > We're using Flash 8 video at blip these
          > days because a lot --
          > > a lot --
          > > > > > > of people requested it. One of the
          > downsides of Flash 8 video
          > > is that
          > > > > > > it's much more CPU intensive than Flash 7
          > video (it's kind of like
          > > > > h.264
          > > > > > > in this respect).
          > > > > >
          > > > > > h.264 is exactly what I was getting when I
          > said certain codecs are
          > > > > > very processor intensive. H264's much more
          > processor entensive for
          > > > > > playback then mp4. Not only is the MP4, the
          > quality difference
          > > is NOT
          > > > > > that significant, and the compatibility of
          > the MP4 with a wide range
          > > > > > of devices is a huge bonus and is rapidly
          > increasing not only
          > > with the
          > > > > > iPod and PSP, but Nokia's newer lines of
          > phones/media devices...
          > > and a
          > > > > > whole host of set top boxes. MP4 beets H264
          > for pretty much the same
          > > > > > reason MP3 beets AAC... compatibility and
          > accessibility.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > In my opinion compatibility and
          > accessibility ALWAYS beets out
          > > > > > quality. This is a theme that will play out
          > in the discussion of
          > > Flash
          > > > > > below.
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > > So... there is the codec you're using in
          > Flash... and it's processor
          > > > > > requirements for playback and then of course
          > then there's the
          > > > > > processor requirements of Flash 7 vs. flash
          > 8.. which is the other
          > > > > > factor.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > The other problem is that the On2 VP6 codec
          > (that's
          > > > > > > the Flash 8 video codec) is heavily
          > optimized for Intel CPUs.
          > > So on a
          > > > > > > 667 MHz PowerPC you're hit by a very low
          > clock speed, a
          > > non-optimized
          > > > > > > architecture and multitasking.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > So what is everyone else using? Are you
          > telling me vimeo, youtube,
          > > > > > google, revver and everyone else are using
          > flash 7? That they are
          > > > > > using an inferior codec?
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Regardless I don't see any the quality being
          > significantly poor on
          > > > > > these videos than blip.tv's... in the case
          > of vimeo i think it's
          > > > > > actually better.... and much more
          > importantly i see the overall size
          > > > > > of the playback window, the consistency of
          > the streaming, and
          > > the lack
          > > > > > of stuttering on all these far superior to
          > youtube.
          > > > >
          > > > > ...all these are far superior to blip.tv
          > > > >
          > > > > > > The upside is of course that Flash 8 video
          > is *MUCH* much higher
          > > > > > > quality.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > I've got to be honest with you it's not
          > quality of video compression
          > > > > > that matters to the end user, it's quality
          > of overall
          > > experience, and
          > > > > > stuttering sound is far, far more
          > detrimental to the experience than
          > > > > > poor quality.
          > > > >
          > > > > apple designs all it's video applications from
          > DVD player to the QT
          > > > > player, to drop frames first and to ONLY drop
          > audio as a last resort.
          > > > > Consistency of audio is THE most important
          > point.
          > > > >
          > > > > Oddly enough I don't think Flash allows you to
          > drop video frames
          > > > > before audio. Would be interesting to know
          > though.
          > > > >
          > > > > > To repeat the point I laid out above with
          > mp3 vs. aac, and mp4 vs.
          > > > > > h264... compatibility and accessibility are
          > far more important than
          > > > > > quality.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Regardless of wether a person is using a
          > 667mh G4 or a 2 ghz pentium
          > > > > > people are always running all sorts of crap
          > on their compter...
          >
          === message truncated ===




          ____________________________________________________________________________________
          Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business
          (http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com)
        • Mike Meiser
          ... Why not mike? Adobe has got it working on $100 cell phones. :) The point is... I m not saying... we can do it... let s just go out and do it. I m laying
          Message 4 of 18 , Nov 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            On 11/2/06, Mike Hudack <mike@...> wrote:
            > Believe me, I do kick it up the chain to Adobe and On2, but I think it's
            > unrealistic at this point to expect Flash video to play on $100
            > laptops.

            Why not mike? Adobe has got it working on $100 cell phones. :)

            The point is... I'm not saying... we can do it... let's just go out and do it.

            I'm laying down an agenda... framing a debate... pushing for an active agenda.

            Accessibility is still one of the most important issues to videoblogging.

            Both having access to the tools for creation, production and consumption.

            This is why blip got into the game... to make videoblogging more accessible.

            Precisely what I'm saying is don't loose that vision.

            Always be an advocate for accessibility.

            Always be concerned about videoblogging being accessible on the
            cheapest devices and to the poorest people possible.

            Never compromise accessibility needlessly for other priorities.

            We get all caught up in this b.s. web2.0 hype... as I saw happen in
            the dot-com boom... it is impossible not too.

            ...and we start thinking that competing with television and such high
            brow big budget media... is more important than the value of
            accessibility and videoblogging as a communications tool.

            All we need to do is keep in mind that videoblogging is not just ask a
            ninja, ze frank and rocketboom... that's great

            we must also keep in mind that videoblogging is nata village blog,
            alive in bagdad, expidition 360, and wildcast... creating and
            uploading from conflict zones, from the bush, in the middle of nowhere
            in tibet via sattelite... and likewise that it is not just rich people
            in the us and other western coutries on broadband and powerful
            computers who need access to this media.

            In short, it's about freedom and access to communications... not "the
            right to be entertained."

            This is not critique, or preaching... (I hope) ... it's about
            advocacy, and conversation and framing the debate... to keep us
            grounded and moving in the right direction.

            To keep roads and infrastructure coming to everyone's front door, to
            keep videoblogging from slowly slipping into a new tyranny of
            hierarchy that excludes the poor and those without access to high
            capital, powerful tools and other resources.

            All I ask is the all the blipsters consider this in making mantra...
            the way steve jobs makes his mantra... the digitial lifestyle.. the
            home user... creating videos, taking pictures.. etc. etc. I know
            developing countries aren't your market... just keep them in mind...
            and recognize there's a parrellel between blip's accessibility and
            other forms of accessibility.

            Peace,

            -Mike

            > groups-yahoo-com@... wrote:
            > >
            > > Kick arse Mike.
            > >
            > > See this is what it's all about.
            > >
            > > That I'll get to enjoy my videos on blip larger and that they'll
            > > stream more fluidly has just made the 30 minutes I spent outlining the
            > > issues seem like the best ROI ever.
            > >
            > > Just remember... there are no quick fixes... I didn't right this for
            > > lips-service or expecting a quick fix... I hope you'll continue to
            > > work on this problem long term attempting to always improve it...
            > > indeed bucking it up the chain to macromedia, the codec people,
            > > whomever. We need flash video to play on $100 laptops... and
            > > hopefully I needn't justify that.
            > >
            > > I hope it was as good for you as it was for me. :)
            > >
            > > LOL
            > >
            > > Keep up the good work.
            > >
            > > Peace and respect,
            > >
            > > -Mike
            > > mefeedia.com
            > > mmeiser.com/blog
            > >
            > > On 11/1/06, Mike Hudack <mike@... <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>> wrote:
            > > > I just spent about twenty minutes talking with some folks who write the
            > > > codec and the environment. They know all about the problem, and they
            > > > had some advice for us for solving the problem that people using older
            > > > PowerPCs are having. We're going to be releasing the changes tomorrow.
            > > > They're optimistic that it'll really help.
            > > >
            > > > So we're doing that, and our release on Saturday will include video
            > > > players that are about 20% larger than the actual source video.
            > > >
            > > > Yours,
            > > >
            > > > Mike
            > > >
            > > > groups-yahoo-com@... <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
            > > wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > > DAMN, I should have profread.
            > > > >
            > > > > Corrections and additions below, sorry.
            > > > >
            > > > > On 11/1/06, Mike Meiser <groups-yahoo-com@...
            > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
            > > > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>> wrote:
            > > > > > Sorry, if I was so direct, I tend not to do that sometimes.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Great response, comments below.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > On 10/31/06, Mike Hudack <mike@... <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
            > > <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>> wrote:
            > > > > > > We're using Flash 8 video at blip these days because a lot --
            > > a lot --
            > > > > > > of people requested it. One of the downsides of Flash 8 video
            > > is that
            > > > > > > it's much more CPU intensive than Flash 7 video (it's kind of like
            > > > > h.264
            > > > > > > in this respect).
            > > > > >
            > > > > > h.264 is exactly what I was getting when I said certain codecs are
            > > > > > very processor intensive. H264's much more processor entensive for
            > > > > > playback then mp4. Not only is the MP4, the quality difference
            > > is NOT
            > > > > > that significant, and the compatibility of the MP4 with a wide range
            > > > > > of devices is a huge bonus and is rapidly increasing not only
            > > with the
            > > > > > iPod and PSP, but Nokia's newer lines of phones/media devices...
            > > and a
            > > > > > whole host of set top boxes. MP4 beets H264 for pretty much the same
            > > > > > reason MP3 beets AAC... compatibility and accessibility.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > In my opinion compatibility and accessibility ALWAYS beets out
            > > > > > quality. This is a theme that will play out in the discussion of
            > > Flash
            > > > > > below.
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > > So... there is the codec you're using in Flash... and it's processor
            > > > > > requirements for playback and then of course then there's the
            > > > > > processor requirements of Flash 7 vs. flash 8.. which is the other
            > > > > > factor.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > The other problem is that the On2 VP6 codec (that's
            > > > > > > the Flash 8 video codec) is heavily optimized for Intel CPUs.
            > > So on a
            > > > > > > 667 MHz PowerPC you're hit by a very low clock speed, a
            > > non-optimized
            > > > > > > architecture and multitasking.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > So what is everyone else using? Are you telling me vimeo, youtube,
            > > > > > google, revver and everyone else are using flash 7? That they are
            > > > > > using an inferior codec?
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Regardless I don't see any the quality being significantly poor on
            > > > > > these videos than blip.tv's... in the case of vimeo i think it's
            > > > > > actually better.... and much more importantly i see the overall size
            > > > > > of the playback window, the consistency of the streaming, and
            > > the lack
            > > > > > of stuttering on all these far superior to youtube.
            > > > >
            > > > > ...all these are far superior to blip.tv
            > > > >
            > > > > > > The upside is of course that Flash 8 video is *MUCH* much higher
            > > > > > > quality.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > I've got to be honest with you it's not quality of video compression
            > > > > > that matters to the end user, it's quality of overall
            > > experience, and
            > > > > > stuttering sound is far, far more detrimental to the experience than
            > > > > > poor quality.
            > > > >
            > > > > apple designs all it's video applications from DVD player to the QT
            > > > > player, to drop frames first and to ONLY drop audio as a last resort.
            > > > > Consistency of audio is THE most important point.
            > > > >
            > > > > Oddly enough I don't think Flash allows you to drop video frames
            > > > > before audio. Would be interesting to know though.
            > > > >
            > > > > > To repeat the point I laid out above with mp3 vs. aac, and mp4 vs.
            > > > > > h264... compatibility and accessibility are far more important than
            > > > > > quality.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Regardless of wether a person is using a 667mh G4 or a 2 ghz pentium
            > > > > > people are always running all sorts of crap on their compter...
            > > and if
            > > > > > viewing videos on blip is THE most processor intensive thing they do
            > > > > > in their web browser... you're going to be the low hanging beam
            > > > > > everyone hits there head on.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Or is that the bottleneck everyone stumbles on.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > You should at the very least be towing the line with
            > > accessibility and
            > > > > > ease of playback with all Your competitors... that blip.tv requires
            > > > > > higher end computer to watch videos on is NOT the market distinction
            > > > > > you want.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Quite the inverse blip.tv should be of mind to be more
            > > compatible with
            > > > > > lowend computers all over the world... from the average american
            > > > > > classroom, which are not often outfited with the best of machines...
            > > > > > to the hand me down computer in the average american kids room... to
            > > > > > the primitive machines all over developing coutries.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Given the clippiness of this culture people want their online video
            > > > > > quick, dirty and NOW. They don't expect it to be HDTV, if they do
            > > > > > that's what the downloadable MP4 or .mov anyway!
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > > > If you're on a 667 MHz powerbook and you're multitasking the
            > > > > > > video can skip a bit because of the CPU demands of Flash 8 video.
            > > > > We're
            > > > > > > working to find a good compromise, and in the meantime we have
            > > a FAQ
            > > > > > > entry about this and we're considering offering both Flash 7 (much
            > > > > lower
            > > > > > > video quality, but better on slower computers) and Flash 8 video
            > > > > at the
            > > > > > > same time.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Interesting, ultimately, I just stick to the mp4's and avoid your
            > > > > > flash, which is, I would think, the exact opposite of what
            > > someone with
            > > > > > a slower computer should be doing. It should be the other way
            > > > > > around... the flash should be the quick and dirty experience,
            > > and the
            > > > > > mp4 or MOV should be the high quality experience. Wouldn't you say?
            > > > > >
            > > > > > I would recommend just choosing one vector on flash, it's to much to
            > > > > > supply two flash files for every video, and making the user choose
            > > > > > would just be additional and needless complexity.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Aim for quick and dirty with the flash, offer the downloadable
            > > > > > original as the HQ alternative. The video creator can aim for
            > > whatever
            > > > > > standard they want with that.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Just keep working on finding the right version of flash with the
            > > right
            > > > > > codec that gives optimal playback. Based on my experience, the vimeo
            > > > > > guys seem to really have it down cold, with both extremely good
            > > > > > quality video and extremely smooth playback and streaming. Do what I
            > > > > > do... identify who the leader is in the field, pick apart their
            > > > > > product, and copy whatever works. There is no copyright on what the
            > > > > > optimal, size, codec, and version of flash is and they really do
            > > have
            > > > > > it down COLD in my opinion... better quality and smoother playback
            > > > > > than anyone else.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > > As far as player size, the video player is the same size as the
            > > > > > > originally uploaded video. So if you upload a 320x240 video
            > > you'll get
            > > > > > > a 320x240 player. If you upload a larger video you'll get a larger
            > > > > > > video player. But we're totally open to making the player bigger
            > > > > > > regardless of the source video... it's really a matter of
            > > whether you
            > > > > > > want a larger playback area with some pixelation and artifacts or
            > > > > if you
            > > > > > > want really beautiful, high quality video.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > As for playback size, I've got to say, that youtube has set the
            > > > > > standard, and it's qite a bit bigger than blip. I find blip's player
            > > > > > on the small size, and others have mentioned it to me as well.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Quick side note: I LOVE how vimeo's controls disappear competely
            > > from
            > > > > > the plaback interface except when you mouse over it. It's brilliant.
            > > > > > BTW, Mobuzz does the same thing. It's a beautiful detail.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Back to the playback size. I find the larger format MUCH more
            > > > > > appropriate wether on my laptop or especially my 1600x1200 monitor.
            > > > > > What is it on yourtube about 500x350 ish insteady of 320x240?
            > > > > >
            > > > > > We've just recently moved to this larger format on mefeedia in the
            > > > > > last couple days, actually stretching videos where necissary up from
            > > > > > the standard 320x240, and I must say I love it. HD videos like
            > > > > > rocketboom look superb, and lower quality stuff doesn't look to
            > > shabby
            > > > > > at all either.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > It's not a matter of supplying a higher res video... I find
            > > stretching
            > > > > > a video to 140-150% works extremely well. Even 200% is
            > > acceptable, but
            > > > > > that's just excessive.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > My recommendation would be to cut ALL videos down to approximately
            > > > > > 400x300 or smaller for transcoding into flash, for obvious
            > > limitations
            > > > > > on streaming bandwidth.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Cutting down higher res videos will actually reduce artifacts making
            > > > > > them compress better and look better than simple 320x240 videos.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Then display all your flash videos sitewide at the same size youtube
            > > > > > does, approx 500 pixels wide. You must atleast match them, and
            > > you also
            > > > > > must remain consistent in your experience not switching back and
            > > forth
            > > > > > between 320x240, and say 400x500 from one page to the next.... which
            > > > > > would be quite a distraction.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > You can always leave users change the size of their playback
            > > viewer in
            > > > > > your cross posting templates or they can simply do it when they copy
            > > > > > and paste the source into the vlog.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > > So far everyone has asked us to provide the highest possible video
            > > > > > > quality. So that's led us to do Flash 8 and not to stretch the
            > > player
            > > > > > > beyond what the original video file can support reasonably.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > And they would because ALL your users are creators unlike youtube.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > They're all media makers, quite a few professionals, most working on
            > > > > high
            > > > > > end machines... pretty much all on better than average machines.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > That's your demographic, creators, professional / semi professional
            > > > > > videographers... as opposed to youtube which is your average kid on
            > > > > > the home computer or school lab. That's a huge difference. And for
            > > > > > playback you've got to side with the consumer.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > You've got to ask yourself... if ... as happens you aren't
            > > catering to
            > > > > > the creators wants to the detriment of the vast majority whom
            > > will be
            > > > > > consuming the video. Keep in mind, these creators on their high end
            > > > > > machines might demand quality, but they haven't largely
            > > compressed and
            > > > > > tested videos in flash on a wide range of machines... nor can they
            > > > > > know what your servers are capable of streaming. These creators and
            > > > > > consumers are pretty much completely depending on YOU to find that
            > > > > > fine line between quality of experience and compatibility /
            > > > > > accessibily.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > They don't need 2 or 3 flash options... don't pull a microsoft on
            > > > > > them... they only need one... the proper one.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > It's ultimately your call, but in my opinion it's better to have
            > > lower
            > > > > > quality, and better streaming / better experience with no
            > > > > > stuttering.... Again, compatibility and accessibility far outweighs
            > > > > > quality. This is something we've see repeated infinitely online...
            > > > > > from the move away from java and flash based website to ajax and
            > > > > > CSS2... We're not just talking about me... we're talking about
            > > kids on
            > > > > > hand me down computers... probably your core demographic and you
            > > must
            > > > > > consider edicational institutions facilities which are not
            > > always the
            > > > > > best upkept and in my opinion you must consider the other 90% of the
            > > > > > world that is in developing coutries with neither the fast computers
            > > > > > nor the empacible band to stream your videos.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > In this light quality is a far, far secondary concern.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > But you can have your cake and eat it to because you allow for an
            > > > > > alternate downloadable format completely of the video creators
            > > > > > choosing.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > So, don't aim for high a quality and have the playback
            > > experience fail
            > > > > > catostrophicly for those who would need access most.... with
            > > > > > stuttering of audio which very quicky destroys the overall
            > > consumption
            > > > > > experience and utility.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Leave the Flash serve the purpose of quick and dirty (and
            > > consistent)
            > > > > > realtime playback and the downloadable version serve the aim of
            > > > > > quality... whatever quality the creator of the video should choose.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > You must admit it's an obvious and good compromise.
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > > To sumarise my recommendations.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Flash: The flash version should be quick and dirty for realtime web
            > > > > > based experience. Cut videos down to a max width of approx. 400 or
            > > > > > less sno matter what size the original video is uploaded.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Display all Flash videos at a width of about 500 pixels on your site
            > > > > > regardless of what size format they original was. Most importantly
            > > > > > choose the least processor intensive playback codec, and the least
            > > > > > processor intensive and most compatible version of flash. Quality is
            > > > > > of far, far secondary concern to compatibility and accessibility.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > It is the ease of the experience, not the quality of the video that
            > > > > > should be your vector for flash video. Leave the original video
            > > stand
            > > > > > as the high quality version with whatever quality, codec, or format
            > > > > > the user uploaded it in.
            > > > >
            > > > > Oh,,, and don't forget to create a whole hosting server farm... and
            > > > > eventually standalone facilities... JUST for flash video... no other
            > > > > part of your website, not your other downloadable media is the
            > > > > experience SO dependant on good quality streaming. The needs of
            > > > > streaming media are completely different than any other webserver
            > > > > requirement.
            > > > >
            > > > > Seperating Flash media into it's own server farm will not only improve
            > > > > the overall end user experience over the long term but ultimately make
            > > > > you more flexible, scaleable and save you time and money... you might
            > > > > look at Amazon S3 specifically for the needs of your streaming meda...
            > > > > but now I'm talking about tech... which is outside my realm... I'm a
            > > > > UX, accessibility, info architecture and general design guy... :P
            > > > >
            > > > > > I rest my argument.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > I hope you will find it well made. More importantly I hope all the
            > > > > > people "consuming" videos will find it well made and the video
            > > > > > creators as well.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Peace,
            > > > > >
            > > > > > -Mike
            > > > > > mefeedia.com
            > > > > > mmeiser.com/blog
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Disclaimer: I'm still not awake this morning and I did not proof
            > > read
            > > > > > or spell check that. I hope it's not to bad. :)
            > > > > >
            > > > > > > Yours,
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > Mike
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > groups-yahoo-com@...
            > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
            > > > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com> wrote:
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > BTW... I've been meaning to mention this to the blip.tv guys.
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > On my 667mhz powerbook Youtubes, Vimeo's and others Flash videos
            > > > > play
            > > > > > > > back MUCH better. Something... wether the codec or the way the
            > > > > way the
            > > > > > > > Flash video has been created is causing the video to stop and
            > > > > stutter
            > > > > > > > and blayback generally poorly. This is interesting because
            > > blip has
            > > > > > > > one of the smallest Flash players.
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > There is also I notice a tendency for the video to NOT precache
            > > > > enough
            > > > > > > > before starting playback... meaning the videos are prone to
            > > starting
            > > > > > > > prematurely and then stopping because the video is not
            > > downlaoding
            > > > > > > > fast enough.
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > I as well as others I've talked to have also noticed that Blip's
            > > > > Flash
            > > > > > > > player window is one of the smallest on the web. I would
            > > strongly
            > > > > > > > suggest they figure out how to increase their player size by
            > > 30-50%.
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > All in all this ads up to blip's flash player being the poorest
            > > > > > > > experience of all the major services... so I hope they'll
            > > really,
            > > > > > > > really work on it because while I love their service... to most
            > > > > people
            > > > > > > > the enjoyment of watching a video trumps ALL other issues.
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > Among other things I would hope that blip is putting all
            > > their flash
            > > > > > > > videos on their own seperate servers.... specially
            > > configured for
            > > > > > > > streaming media... and even on their own T1 to avoid
            > > slowdown from
            > > > > > > > other traffic, such as serving up the thousands of QT and other
            > > > > video
            > > > > > > > formats that don't require the streaming bandwidth of flash.
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > -Mike
            > > > > > > > mefeedia.com
            > > > > > > > mmeiser.com/blog
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > On 10/31/06, wlight@...
            > > <mailto:wlight%40weatherlight.com>
            > > > > <mailto:wlight%40weatherlight.com>
            > > > > > > > <mailto:wlight%40weatherlight.com> <wlight@...
            > > <mailto:wlight%40weatherlight.com>
            > > > > <mailto:wlight%40weatherlight.com>
            > > > > > > > <mailto:wlight%40weatherlight.com>> wrote:
            > > > > > > > > > Hello Rhett,
            > > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > > I don't think YouTube will accept FLV files. (I think I
            > > remember
            > > > > > > > someone
            > > > > > > > > on
            > > > > > > > > > this list stating that here.)
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > Okay...so I was actually not interested in sending them FLV
            > > > > files so
            > > > > > > > much
            > > > > > > > > as finding out what codec their transcoder chooses. FLV
            > > supports a
            > > > > > suite
            > > > > > > > > of codecs, and I was pondering a little side project
            > > that's made a
            > > > > > > > billion
            > > > > > > > > times easier if YouTube's transcoder always uses, say, the
            > > H.263
            > > > > > codec.
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > --
            > > > > > > > > Rhett.
            > > > > > > > > http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
            > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>
            > > > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
            > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>>
            > > > > > > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
            > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>
            > > > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
            > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>>>
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------
            > > > > > > > > This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
            > > > > > > > > http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
            > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/>
            > > > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
            > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/>>
            > > > > > > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
            > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/>
            > > > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
            > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/>>>
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > --
            > > > > > > email: mike@... <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
            > > <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
            > > > > > > office: 917-546-6989
            > > > > > > cell: 646-827-9773
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > --
            > > > email: mike@... <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
            > > > office: 917-546-6989
            > > > cell: 646-827-9773
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            > --
            > email: mike@...
            > office: 917-546-6989
            > cell: 646-827-9773
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • sull
            Here Here! Good reminder! remember all the post vloggercon optimism? the tone has changed. but the revolution is still alive. speaking of revolution.... hey,
            Message 5 of 18 , Nov 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Here Here!

              Good reminder!

              remember all the post vloggercon optimism?
              the tone has changed. but the revolution is still alive.

              speaking of revolution.... hey, Josh Wolf is still in Jail! Remember that
              too!

              sull

              On 11/2/06, Mike Meiser <groups-yahoo-com@...> wrote:
              >
              > On 11/2/06, Mike Hudack <mike@... <mike%40blip.tv>> wrote:
              > > Believe me, I do kick it up the chain to Adobe and On2, but I think it's
              > > unrealistic at this point to expect Flash video to play on $100
              > > laptops.
              >
              > Why not mike? Adobe has got it working on $100 cell phones. :)
              >
              > The point is... I'm not saying... we can do it... let's just go out and do
              > it.
              >
              > I'm laying down an agenda... framing a debate... pushing for an active
              > agenda.
              >
              > Accessibility is still one of the most important issues to videoblogging.
              >
              > Both having access to the tools for creation, production and consumption.
              >
              > This is why blip got into the game... to make videoblogging more
              > accessible.
              >
              > Precisely what I'm saying is don't loose that vision.
              >
              > Always be an advocate for accessibility.
              >
              > Always be concerned about videoblogging being accessible on the
              > cheapest devices and to the poorest people possible.
              >
              > Never compromise accessibility needlessly for other priorities.
              >
              > We get all caught up in this b.s. web2.0 hype... as I saw happen in
              > the dot-com boom... it is impossible not too.
              >
              > ...and we start thinking that competing with television and such high
              > brow big budget media... is more important than the value of
              > accessibility and videoblogging as a communications tool.
              >
              > All we need to do is keep in mind that videoblogging is not just ask a
              > ninja, ze frank and rocketboom... that's great
              >
              > we must also keep in mind that videoblogging is nata village blog,
              > alive in bagdad, expidition 360, and wildcast... creating and
              > uploading from conflict zones, from the bush, in the middle of nowhere
              > in tibet via sattelite... and likewise that it is not just rich people
              > in the us and other western coutries on broadband and powerful
              > computers who need access to this media.
              >
              > In short, it's about freedom and access to communications... not "the
              > right to be entertained."
              >
              > This is not critique, or preaching... (I hope) ... it's about
              > advocacy, and conversation and framing the debate... to keep us
              > grounded and moving in the right direction.
              >
              > To keep roads and infrastructure coming to everyone's front door, to
              > keep videoblogging from slowly slipping into a new tyranny of
              > hierarchy that excludes the poor and those without access to high
              > capital, powerful tools and other resources.
              >
              > All I ask is the all the blipsters consider this in making mantra...
              > the way steve jobs makes his mantra... the digitial lifestyle.. the
              > home user... creating videos, taking pictures.. etc. etc. I know
              > developing countries aren't your market... just keep them in mind...
              > and recognize there's a parrellel between blip's accessibility and
              > other forms of accessibility.
              >
              > Peace,
              >
              > -Mike
              >
              >
              > > groups-yahoo-com@... <groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Kick arse Mike.
              > > >
              > > > See this is what it's all about.
              > > >
              > > > That I'll get to enjoy my videos on blip larger and that they'll
              > > > stream more fluidly has just made the 30 minutes I spent outlining the
              > > > issues seem like the best ROI ever.
              > > >
              > > > Just remember... there are no quick fixes... I didn't right this for
              > > > lips-service or expecting a quick fix... I hope you'll continue to
              > > > work on this problem long term attempting to always improve it...
              > > > indeed bucking it up the chain to macromedia, the codec people,
              > > > whomever. We need flash video to play on $100 laptops... and
              > > > hopefully I needn't justify that.
              > > >
              > > > I hope it was as good for you as it was for me. :)
              > > >
              > > > LOL
              > > >
              > > > Keep up the good work.
              > > >
              > > > Peace and respect,
              > > >
              > > > -Mike
              > > > mefeedia.com
              > > > mmeiser.com/blog
              > > >
              > > > On 11/1/06, Mike Hudack <mike@... <mike%40blip.tv> <mailto:mike%<mike%25>
              > 40blip.tv>> wrote:
              > > > > I just spent about twenty minutes talking with some folks who write
              > the
              > > > > codec and the environment. They know all about the problem, and they
              > > > > had some advice for us for solving the problem that people using
              > older
              > > > > PowerPCs are having. We're going to be releasing the changes
              > tomorrow.
              > > > > They're optimistic that it'll really help.
              > > > >
              > > > > So we're doing that, and our release on Saturday will include video
              > > > > players that are about 20% larger than the actual source video.
              > > > >
              > > > > Yours,
              > > > >
              > > > > Mike
              > > > >
              > > > > groups-yahoo-com@... <groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com><mailto:
              > groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
              > > > wrote:
              > > > > >
              > > > > > DAMN, I should have profread.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Corrections and additions below, sorry.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > On 11/1/06, Mike Meiser <groups-yahoo-com@...<groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
              > > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
              > > > > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>> wrote:
              > > > > > > Sorry, if I was so direct, I tend not to do that sometimes.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Great response, comments below.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > On 10/31/06, Mike Hudack <mike@... <mike%40blip.tv> <mailto:
              > mike% <mike%25>40blip.tv>
              > > > <mailto:mike% <mike%25>40blip.tv>> wrote:
              > > > > > > > We're using Flash 8 video at blip these days because a lot --
              > > > a lot --
              > > > > > > > of people requested it. One of the downsides of Flash 8 video
              > > > is that
              > > > > > > > it's much more CPU intensive than Flash 7 video (it's kind of
              > like
              > > > > > h.264
              > > > > > > > in this respect).
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > h.264 is exactly what I was getting when I said certain codecs
              > are
              > > > > > > very processor intensive. H264's much more processor entensive
              > for
              > > > > > > playback then mp4. Not only is the MP4, the quality difference
              > > > is NOT
              > > > > > > that significant, and the compatibility of the MP4 with a wide
              > range
              > > > > > > of devices is a huge bonus and is rapidly increasing not only
              > > > with the
              > > > > > > iPod and PSP, but Nokia's newer lines of phones/media devices...
              > > > and a
              > > > > > > whole host of set top boxes. MP4 beets H264 for pretty much the
              > same
              > > > > > > reason MP3 beets AAC... compatibility and accessibility.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > In my opinion compatibility and accessibility ALWAYS beets out
              > > > > > > quality. This is a theme that will play out in the discussion of
              > > > Flash
              > > > > > > below.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > So... there is the codec you're using in Flash... and it's
              > processor
              > > > > > > requirements for playback and then of course then there's the
              > > > > > > processor requirements of Flash 7 vs. flash 8.. which is the
              > other
              > > > > > > factor.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > The other problem is that the On2 VP6 codec (that's
              > > > > > > > the Flash 8 video codec) is heavily optimized for Intel CPUs.
              > > > So on a
              > > > > > > > 667 MHz PowerPC you're hit by a very low clock speed, a
              > > > non-optimized
              > > > > > > > architecture and multitasking.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > So what is everyone else using? Are you telling me vimeo,
              > youtube,
              > > > > > > google, revver and everyone else are using flash 7? That they
              > are
              > > > > > > using an inferior codec?
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Regardless I don't see any the quality being significantly poor
              > on
              > > > > > > these videos than blip.tv's... in the case of vimeo i think it's
              > > > > > > actually better.... and much more importantly i see the overall
              > size
              > > > > > > of the playback window, the consistency of the streaming, and
              > > > the lack
              > > > > > > of stuttering on all these far superior to youtube.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > ...all these are far superior to blip.tv
              > > > > >
              > > > > > > > The upside is of course that Flash 8 video is *MUCH* much
              > higher
              > > > > > > > quality.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > I've got to be honest with you it's not quality of video
              > compression
              > > > > > > that matters to the end user, it's quality of overall
              > > > experience, and
              > > > > > > stuttering sound is far, far more detrimental to the experience
              > than
              > > > > > > poor quality.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > apple designs all it's video applications from DVD player to the
              > QT
              > > > > > player, to drop frames first and to ONLY drop audio as a last
              > resort.
              > > > > > Consistency of audio is THE most important point.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Oddly enough I don't think Flash allows you to drop video frames
              > > > > > before audio. Would be interesting to know though.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > > To repeat the point I laid out above with mp3 vs. aac, and mp4
              > vs.
              > > > > > > h264... compatibility and accessibility are far more important
              > than
              > > > > > > quality.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Regardless of wether a person is using a 667mh G4 or a 2 ghz
              > pentium
              > > > > > > people are always running all sorts of crap on their compter...
              > > > and if
              > > > > > > viewing videos on blip is THE most processor intensive thing
              > they do
              > > > > > > in their web browser... you're going to be the low hanging beam
              > > > > > > everyone hits there head on.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Or is that the bottleneck everyone stumbles on.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > You should at the very least be towing the line with
              > > > accessibility and
              > > > > > > ease of playback with all Your competitors... that blip.tvrequires
              > > > > > > higher end computer to watch videos on is NOT the market
              > distinction
              > > > > > > you want.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Quite the inverse blip.tv should be of mind to be more
              > > > compatible with
              > > > > > > lowend computers all over the world... from the average american
              > > > > > > classroom, which are not often outfited with the best of
              > machines...
              > > > > > > to the hand me down computer in the average american kids
              > room... to
              > > > > > > the primitive machines all over developing coutries.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Given the clippiness of this culture people want their online
              > video
              > > > > > > quick, dirty and NOW. They don't expect it to be HDTV, if they
              > do
              > > > > > > that's what the downloadable MP4 or .mov anyway!
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > If you're on a 667 MHz powerbook and you're multitasking the
              > > > > > > > video can skip a bit because of the CPU demands of Flash 8
              > video.
              > > > > > We're
              > > > > > > > working to find a good compromise, and in the meantime we have
              > > > a FAQ
              > > > > > > > entry about this and we're considering offering both Flash 7
              > (much
              > > > > > lower
              > > > > > > > video quality, but better on slower computers) and Flash 8
              > video
              > > > > > at the
              > > > > > > > same time.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Interesting, ultimately, I just stick to the mp4's and avoid
              > your
              > > > > > > flash, which is, I would think, the exact opposite of what
              > > > someone with
              > > > > > > a slower computer should be doing. It should be the other way
              > > > > > > around... the flash should be the quick and dirty experience,
              > > > and the
              > > > > > > mp4 or MOV should be the high quality experience. Wouldn't you
              > say?
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > I would recommend just choosing one vector on flash, it's to
              > much to
              > > > > > > supply two flash files for every video, and making the user
              > choose
              > > > > > > would just be additional and needless complexity.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Aim for quick and dirty with the flash, offer the downloadable
              > > > > > > original as the HQ alternative. The video creator can aim for
              > > > whatever
              > > > > > > standard they want with that.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Just keep working on finding the right version of flash with the
              > > > right
              > > > > > > codec that gives optimal playback. Based on my experience, the
              > vimeo
              > > > > > > guys seem to really have it down cold, with both extremely good
              > > > > > > quality video and extremely smooth playback and streaming. Do
              > what I
              > > > > > > do... identify who the leader is in the field, pick apart their
              > > > > > > product, and copy whatever works. There is no copyright on what
              > the
              > > > > > > optimal, size, codec, and version of flash is and they really do
              > > > have
              > > > > > > it down COLD in my opinion... better quality and smoother
              > playback
              > > > > > > than anyone else.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > As far as player size, the video player is the same size as
              > the
              > > > > > > > originally uploaded video. So if you upload a 320x240 video
              > > > you'll get
              > > > > > > > a 320x240 player. If you upload a larger video you'll get a
              > larger
              > > > > > > > video player. But we're totally open to making the player
              > bigger
              > > > > > > > regardless of the source video... it's really a matter of
              > > > whether you
              > > > > > > > want a larger playback area with some pixelation and artifacts
              > or
              > > > > > if you
              > > > > > > > want really beautiful, high quality video.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > As for playback size, I've got to say, that youtube has set the
              > > > > > > standard, and it's qite a bit bigger than blip. I find blip's
              > player
              > > > > > > on the small size, and others have mentioned it to me as well.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Quick side note: I LOVE how vimeo's controls disappear competely
              > > > from
              > > > > > > the plaback interface except when you mouse over it. It's
              > brilliant.
              > > > > > > BTW, Mobuzz does the same thing. It's a beautiful detail.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Back to the playback size. I find the larger format MUCH more
              > > > > > > appropriate wether on my laptop or especially my 1600x1200
              > monitor.
              > > > > > > What is it on yourtube about 500x350 ish insteady of 320x240?
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > We've just recently moved to this larger format on mefeedia in
              > the
              > > > > > > last couple days, actually stretching videos where necissary up
              > from
              > > > > > > the standard 320x240, and I must say I love it. HD videos like
              > > > > > > rocketboom look superb, and lower quality stuff doesn't look to
              > > > shabby
              > > > > > > at all either.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > It's not a matter of supplying a higher res video... I find
              > > > stretching
              > > > > > > a video to 140-150% works extremely well. Even 200% is
              > > > acceptable, but
              > > > > > > that's just excessive.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > My recommendation would be to cut ALL videos down to
              > approximately
              > > > > > > 400x300 or smaller for transcoding into flash, for obvious
              > > > limitations
              > > > > > > on streaming bandwidth.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Cutting down higher res videos will actually reduce artifacts
              > making
              > > > > > > them compress better and look better than simple 320x240 videos.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Then display all your flash videos sitewide at the same size
              > youtube
              > > > > > > does, approx 500 pixels wide. You must atleast match them, and
              > > > you also
              > > > > > > must remain consistent in your experience not switching back and
              > > > forth
              > > > > > > between 320x240, and say 400x500 from one page to the next....
              > which
              > > > > > > would be quite a distraction.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > You can always leave users change the size of their playback
              > > > viewer in
              > > > > > > your cross posting templates or they can simply do it when they
              > copy
              > > > > > > and paste the source into the vlog.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > So far everyone has asked us to provide the highest possible
              > video
              > > > > > > > quality. So that's led us to do Flash 8 and not to stretch the
              > > > player
              > > > > > > > beyond what the original video file can support reasonably.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > And they would because ALL your users are creators unlike
              > youtube.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > They're all media makers, quite a few professionals, most
              > working on
              > > > > > high
              > > > > > > end machines... pretty much all on better than average machines.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > That's your demographic, creators, professional / semi
              > professional
              > > > > > > videographers... as opposed to youtube which is your average kid
              > on
              > > > > > > the home computer or school lab. That's a huge difference. And
              > for
              > > > > > > playback you've got to side with the consumer.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > You've got to ask yourself... if ... as happens you aren't
              > > > catering to
              > > > > > > the creators wants to the detriment of the vast majority whom
              > > > will be
              > > > > > > consuming the video. Keep in mind, these creators on their high
              > end
              > > > > > > machines might demand quality, but they haven't largely
              > > > compressed and
              > > > > > > tested videos in flash on a wide range of machines... nor can
              > they
              > > > > > > know what your servers are capable of streaming. These creators
              > and
              > > > > > > consumers are pretty much completely depending on YOU to find
              > that
              > > > > > > fine line between quality of experience and compatibility /
              > > > > > > accessibily.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > They don't need 2 or 3 flash options... don't pull a microsoft
              > on
              > > > > > > them... they only need one... the proper one.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > It's ultimately your call, but in my opinion it's better to have
              > > > lower
              > > > > > > quality, and better streaming / better experience with no
              > > > > > > stuttering.... Again, compatibility and accessibility far
              > outweighs
              > > > > > > quality. This is something we've see repeated infinitely
              > online...
              > > > > > > from the move away from java and flash based website to ajax and
              > > > > > > CSS2... We're not just talking about me... we're talking about
              > > > kids on
              > > > > > > hand me down computers... probably your core demographic and you
              > > > must
              > > > > > > consider edicational institutions facilities which are not
              > > > always the
              > > > > > > best upkept and in my opinion you must consider the other 90% of
              > the
              > > > > > > world that is in developing coutries with neither the fast
              > computers
              > > > > > > nor the empacible band to stream your videos.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > In this light quality is a far, far secondary concern.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > But you can have your cake and eat it to because you allow for
              > an
              > > > > > > alternate downloadable format completely of the video creators
              > > > > > > choosing.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > So, don't aim for high a quality and have the playback
              > > > experience fail
              > > > > > > catostrophicly for those who would need access most.... with
              > > > > > > stuttering of audio which very quicky destroys the overall
              > > > consumption
              > > > > > > experience and utility.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Leave the Flash serve the purpose of quick and dirty (and
              > > > consistent)
              > > > > > > realtime playback and the downloadable version serve the aim of
              > > > > > > quality... whatever quality the creator of the video should
              > choose.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > You must admit it's an obvious and good compromise.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > To sumarise my recommendations.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Flash: The flash version should be quick and dirty for realtime
              > web
              > > > > > > based experience. Cut videos down to a max width of approx. 400
              > or
              > > > > > > less sno matter what size the original video is uploaded.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Display all Flash videos at a width of about 500 pixels on your
              > site
              > > > > > > regardless of what size format they original was. Most
              > importantly
              > > > > > > choose the least processor intensive playback codec, and the
              > least
              > > > > > > processor intensive and most compatible version of flash.
              > Quality is
              > > > > > > of far, far secondary concern to compatibility and
              > accessibility.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > It is the ease of the experience, not the quality of the video
              > that
              > > > > > > should be your vector for flash video. Leave the original video
              > > > stand
              > > > > > > as the high quality version with whatever quality, codec, or
              > format
              > > > > > > the user uploaded it in.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Oh,,, and don't forget to create a whole hosting server farm...
              > and
              > > > > > eventually standalone facilities... JUST for flash video... no
              > other
              > > > > > part of your website, not your other downloadable media is the
              > > > > > experience SO dependant on good quality streaming. The needs of
              > > > > > streaming media are completely different than any other webserver
              > > > > > requirement.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Seperating Flash media into it's own server farm will not only
              > improve
              > > > > > the overall end user experience over the long term but ultimately
              > make
              > > > > > you more flexible, scaleable and save you time and money... you
              > might
              > > > > > look at Amazon S3 specifically for the needs of your streaming
              > meda...
              > > > > > but now I'm talking about tech... which is outside my realm... I'm
              > a
              > > > > > UX, accessibility, info architecture and general design guy... :P
              > > > > >
              > > > > > > I rest my argument.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > I hope you will find it well made. More importantly I hope all
              > the
              > > > > > > people "consuming" videos will find it well made and the video
              > > > > > > creators as well.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Peace,
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > -Mike
              > > > > > > mefeedia.com
              > > > > > > mmeiser.com/blog
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Disclaimer: I'm still not awake this morning and I did not proof
              > > > read
              > > > > > > or spell check that. I hope it's not to bad. :)
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > Yours,
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > Mike
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > groups-yahoo-com@... <groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
              > > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
              > > > > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com> wrote:
              > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > > BTW... I've been meaning to mention this to the blip.tvguys.
              > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > > On my 667mhz powerbook Youtubes, Vimeo's and others Flash
              > videos
              > > > > > play
              > > > > > > > > back MUCH better. Something... wether the codec or the way
              > the
              > > > > > way the
              > > > > > > > > Flash video has been created is causing the video to stop
              > and
              > > > > > stutter
              > > > > > > > > and blayback generally poorly. This is interesting because
              > > > blip has
              > > > > > > > > one of the smallest Flash players.
              > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > > There is also I notice a tendency for the video to NOT
              > precache
              > > > > > enough
              > > > > > > > > before starting playback... meaning the videos are prone to
              > > > starting
              > > > > > > > > prematurely and then stopping because the video is not
              > > > downlaoding
              > > > > > > > > fast enough.
              > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > > I as well as others I've talked to have also noticed that
              > Blip's
              > > > > > Flash
              > > > > > > > > player window is one of the smallest on the web. I would
              > > > strongly
              > > > > > > > > suggest they figure out how to increase their player size by
              > > > 30-50%.
              > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > > All in all this ads up to blip's flash player being the
              > poorest
              > > > > > > > > experience of all the major services... so I hope they'll
              > > > really,
              > > > > > > > > really work on it because while I love their service... to
              > most
              > > > > > people
              > > > > > > > > the enjoyment of watching a video trumps ALL other issues.
              > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > > Among other things I would hope that blip is putting all
              > > > their flash
              > > > > > > > > videos on their own seperate servers.... specially
              > > > configured for
              > > > > > > > > streaming media... and even on their own T1 to avoid
              > > > slowdown from
              > > > > > > > > other traffic, such as serving up the thousands of QT and
              > other
              > > > > > video
              > > > > > > > > formats that don't require the streaming bandwidth of flash.
              > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > > -Mike
              > > > > > > > > mefeedia.com
              > > > > > > > > mmeiser.com/blog
              > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > > On 10/31/06, wlight@...<wlight%40weatherlight.com>
              > > > <mailto:wlight% <wlight%25>40weatherlight.com>
              > > > > > <mailto:wlight% <wlight%25>40weatherlight.com>
              > > > > > > > > <mailto:wlight% <wlight%25>40weatherlight.com> <
              > wlight@... <wlight%40weatherlight.com>
              > > > <mailto:wlight% <wlight%25>40weatherlight.com>
              > > > > > <mailto:wlight% <wlight%25>40weatherlight.com>
              > > > > > > > > <mailto:wlight% <wlight%25>40weatherlight.com>> wrote:
              > > > > > > > > > > Hello Rhett,
              > > > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > > > > I don't think YouTube will accept FLV files. (I think I
              > > > remember
              > > > > > > > > someone
              > > > > > > > > > on
              > > > > > > > > > > this list stating that here.)
              > > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > > > Okay...so I was actually not interested in sending them
              > FLV
              > > > > > files so
              > > > > > > > > much
              > > > > > > > > > as finding out what codec their transcoder chooses. FLV
              > > > supports a
              > > > > > > suite
              > > > > > > > > > of codecs, and I was pondering a little side project
              > > > that's made a
              > > > > > > > > billion
              > > > > > > > > > times easier if YouTube's transcoder always uses, say, the
              > > > H.263
              > > > > > > codec.
              > > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > > > --
              > > > > > > > > > Rhett.
              > > > > > > > > > http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
              > > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>
              > > > > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
              > > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>>
              > > > > > > > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
              > > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>
              > > > > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
              > > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>>>
              > > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------
              > > > > > > > > > This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
              > > > > > > > > > http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
              > > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/>
              > > > > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
              > > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/>>
              > > > > > > > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
              > > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/>
              > > > > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
              > > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/>>>
              > > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > --
              > > > > > > > email: mike@... <mike%40blip.tv> <mailto:mike% <mike%25>
              > 40blip.tv>
              > > > <mailto:mike% <mike%25>40blip.tv>
              > > > > > > > office: 917-546-6989
              > > > > > > > cell: 646-827-9773
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > --
              > > > > email: mike@... <mike%40blip.tv> <mailto:mike% <mike%25>
              > 40blip.tv>
              > > > > office: 917-546-6989
              > > > > cell: 646-827-9773
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > > --
              > > email: mike@... <mike%40blip.tv>
              > > office: 917-546-6989
              > > cell: 646-827-9773
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              >



              --
              Sull
              http://vlogdir.com (a project)
              http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog)
              http://interdigitate.com (otherly)


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Mike Hudack
              On2 has VP7 running on $100 cell phones at five frames per second at about 50x50. :) ... -- email: mike@blip.tv office: 917-546-6989 cell: 646-827-9773
              Message 6 of 18 , Nov 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                On2 has VP7 running on $100 cell phones at five frames per second at
                about 50x50. :)

                Mike Meiser wrote:
                >
                > On 11/2/06, Mike Hudack <mike@... <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>> wrote:
                > > Believe me, I do kick it up the chain to Adobe and On2, but I think it's
                > > unrealistic at this point to expect Flash video to play on $100
                > > laptops.
                >
                > Why not mike? Adobe has got it working on $100 cell phones. :)
                >
                > The point is... I'm not saying... we can do it... let's just go out
                > and do it.
                >
                > I'm laying down an agenda... framing a debate... pushing for an active
                > agenda.
                >
                > Accessibility is still one of the most important issues to videoblogging.
                >
                > Both having access to the tools for creation, production and consumption.
                >
                > This is why blip got into the game... to make videoblogging more
                > accessible.
                >
                > Precisely what I'm saying is don't loose that vision.
                >
                > Always be an advocate for accessibility.
                >
                > Always be concerned about videoblogging being accessible on the
                > cheapest devices and to the poorest people possible.
                >
                > Never compromise accessibility needlessly for other priorities.
                >
                > We get all caught up in this b.s. web2.0 hype... as I saw happen in
                > the dot-com boom... it is impossible not too.
                >
                > ...and we start thinking that competing with television and such high
                > brow big budget media... is more important than the value of
                > accessibility and videoblogging as a communications tool.
                >
                > All we need to do is keep in mind that videoblogging is not just ask a
                > ninja, ze frank and rocketboom... that's great
                >
                > we must also keep in mind that videoblogging is nata village blog,
                > alive in bagdad, expidition 360, and wildcast... creating and
                > uploading from conflict zones, from the bush, in the middle of nowhere
                > in tibet via sattelite... and likewise that it is not just rich people
                > in the us and other western coutries on broadband and powerful
                > computers who need access to this media.
                >
                > In short, it's about freedom and access to communications... not "the
                > right to be entertained."
                >
                > This is not critique, or preaching... (I hope) ... it's about
                > advocacy, and conversation and framing the debate... to keep us
                > grounded and moving in the right direction.
                >
                > To keep roads and infrastructure coming to everyone's front door, to
                > keep videoblogging from slowly slipping into a new tyranny of
                > hierarchy that excludes the poor and those without access to high
                > capital, powerful tools and other resources.
                >
                > All I ask is the all the blipsters consider this in making mantra...
                > the way steve jobs makes his mantra... the digitial lifestyle.. the
                > home user... creating videos, taking pictures.. etc. etc. I know
                > developing countries aren't your market... just keep them in mind...
                > and recognize there's a parrellel between blip's accessibility and
                > other forms of accessibility.
                >
                > Peace,
                >
                > -Mike
                >
                > > groups-yahoo-com@... <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
                > wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Kick arse Mike.
                > > >
                > > > See this is what it's all about.
                > > >
                > > > That I'll get to enjoy my videos on blip larger and that they'll
                > > > stream more fluidly has just made the 30 minutes I spent outlining the
                > > > issues seem like the best ROI ever.
                > > >
                > > > Just remember... there are no quick fixes... I didn't right this for
                > > > lips-service or expecting a quick fix... I hope you'll continue to
                > > > work on this problem long term attempting to always improve it...
                > > > indeed bucking it up the chain to macromedia, the codec people,
                > > > whomever. We need flash video to play on $100 laptops... and
                > > > hopefully I needn't justify that.
                > > >
                > > > I hope it was as good for you as it was for me. :)
                > > >
                > > > LOL
                > > >
                > > > Keep up the good work.
                > > >
                > > > Peace and respect,
                > > >
                > > > -Mike
                > > > mefeedia.com
                > > > mmeiser.com/blog
                > > >
                > > > On 11/1/06, Mike Hudack <mike@... <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
                > <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>> wrote:
                > > > > I just spent about twenty minutes talking with some folks who
                > write the
                > > > > codec and the environment. They know all about the problem, and they
                > > > > had some advice for us for solving the problem that people using
                > older
                > > > > PowerPCs are having. We're going to be releasing the changes
                > tomorrow.
                > > > > They're optimistic that it'll really help.
                > > > >
                > > > > So we're doing that, and our release on Saturday will include video
                > > > > players that are about 20% larger than the actual source video.
                > > > >
                > > > > Yours,
                > > > >
                > > > > Mike
                > > > >
                > > > > groups-yahoo-com@...
                > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
                > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
                > > > wrote:
                > > > > >
                > > > > > DAMN, I should have profread.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Corrections and additions below, sorry.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > On 11/1/06, Mike Meiser <groups-yahoo-com@...
                > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
                > > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
                > > > > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>> wrote:
                > > > > > > Sorry, if I was so direct, I tend not to do that sometimes.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Great response, comments below.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > On 10/31/06, Mike Hudack <mike@...
                > <mailto:mike%40blip.tv> <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
                > > > <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>> wrote:
                > > > > > > > We're using Flash 8 video at blip these days because a lot --
                > > > a lot --
                > > > > > > > of people requested it. One of the downsides of Flash 8 video
                > > > is that
                > > > > > > > it's much more CPU intensive than Flash 7 video (it's kind
                > of like
                > > > > > h.264
                > > > > > > > in this respect).
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > h.264 is exactly what I was getting when I said certain
                > codecs are
                > > > > > > very processor intensive. H264's much more processor
                > entensive for
                > > > > > > playback then mp4. Not only is the MP4, the quality difference
                > > > is NOT
                > > > > > > that significant, and the compatibility of the MP4 with a
                > wide range
                > > > > > > of devices is a huge bonus and is rapidly increasing not only
                > > > with the
                > > > > > > iPod and PSP, but Nokia's newer lines of phones/media devices...
                > > > and a
                > > > > > > whole host of set top boxes. MP4 beets H264 for pretty much
                > the same
                > > > > > > reason MP3 beets AAC... compatibility and accessibility.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > In my opinion compatibility and accessibility ALWAYS beets out
                > > > > > > quality. This is a theme that will play out in the discussion of
                > > > Flash
                > > > > > > below.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > So... there is the codec you're using in Flash... and it's
                > processor
                > > > > > > requirements for playback and then of course then there's the
                > > > > > > processor requirements of Flash 7 vs. flash 8.. which is the
                > other
                > > > > > > factor.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > The other problem is that the On2 VP6 codec (that's
                > > > > > > > the Flash 8 video codec) is heavily optimized for Intel CPUs.
                > > > So on a
                > > > > > > > 667 MHz PowerPC you're hit by a very low clock speed, a
                > > > non-optimized
                > > > > > > > architecture and multitasking.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > So what is everyone else using? Are you telling me vimeo,
                > youtube,
                > > > > > > google, revver and everyone else are using flash 7? That
                > they are
                > > > > > > using an inferior codec?
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Regardless I don't see any the quality being significantly
                > poor on
                > > > > > > these videos than blip.tv's... in the case of vimeo i think it's
                > > > > > > actually better.... and much more importantly i see the
                > overall size
                > > > > > > of the playback window, the consistency of the streaming, and
                > > > the lack
                > > > > > > of stuttering on all these far superior to youtube.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > ...all these are far superior to blip.tv
                > > > > >
                > > > > > > > The upside is of course that Flash 8 video is *MUCH* much
                > higher
                > > > > > > > quality.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > I've got to be honest with you it's not quality of video
                > compression
                > > > > > > that matters to the end user, it's quality of overall
                > > > experience, and
                > > > > > > stuttering sound is far, far more detrimental to the
                > experience than
                > > > > > > poor quality.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > apple designs all it's video applications from DVD player to
                > the QT
                > > > > > player, to drop frames first and to ONLY drop audio as a last
                > resort.
                > > > > > Consistency of audio is THE most important point.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Oddly enough I don't think Flash allows you to drop video frames
                > > > > > before audio. Would be interesting to know though.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > > To repeat the point I laid out above with mp3 vs. aac, and
                > mp4 vs.
                > > > > > > h264... compatibility and accessibility are far more
                > important than
                > > > > > > quality.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Regardless of wether a person is using a 667mh G4 or a 2 ghz
                > pentium
                > > > > > > people are always running all sorts of crap on their compter...
                > > > and if
                > > > > > > viewing videos on blip is THE most processor intensive thing
                > they do
                > > > > > > in their web browser... you're going to be the low hanging beam
                > > > > > > everyone hits there head on.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Or is that the bottleneck everyone stumbles on.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > You should at the very least be towing the line with
                > > > accessibility and
                > > > > > > ease of playback with all Your competitors... that blip.tv
                > requires
                > > > > > > higher end computer to watch videos on is NOT the market
                > distinction
                > > > > > > you want.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Quite the inverse blip.tv should be of mind to be more
                > > > compatible with
                > > > > > > lowend computers all over the world... from the average american
                > > > > > > classroom, which are not often outfited with the best of
                > machines...
                > > > > > > to the hand me down computer in the average american kids
                > room... to
                > > > > > > the primitive machines all over developing coutries.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Given the clippiness of this culture people want their
                > online video
                > > > > > > quick, dirty and NOW. They don't expect it to be HDTV, if
                > they do
                > > > > > > that's what the downloadable MP4 or .mov anyway!
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > If you're on a 667 MHz powerbook and you're multitasking the
                > > > > > > > video can skip a bit because of the CPU demands of Flash 8
                > video.
                > > > > > We're
                > > > > > > > working to find a good compromise, and in the meantime we have
                > > > a FAQ
                > > > > > > > entry about this and we're considering offering both Flash
                > 7 (much
                > > > > > lower
                > > > > > > > video quality, but better on slower computers) and Flash 8
                > video
                > > > > > at the
                > > > > > > > same time.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Interesting, ultimately, I just stick to the mp4's and avoid
                > your
                > > > > > > flash, which is, I would think, the exact opposite of what
                > > > someone with
                > > > > > > a slower computer should be doing. It should be the other way
                > > > > > > around... the flash should be the quick and dirty experience,
                > > > and the
                > > > > > > mp4 or MOV should be the high quality experience. Wouldn't
                > you say?
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > I would recommend just choosing one vector on flash, it's to
                > much to
                > > > > > > supply two flash files for every video, and making the user
                > choose
                > > > > > > would just be additional and needless complexity.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Aim for quick and dirty with the flash, offer the downloadable
                > > > > > > original as the HQ alternative. The video creator can aim for
                > > > whatever
                > > > > > > standard they want with that.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Just keep working on finding the right version of flash with the
                > > > right
                > > > > > > codec that gives optimal playback. Based on my experience,
                > the vimeo
                > > > > > > guys seem to really have it down cold, with both extremely good
                > > > > > > quality video and extremely smooth playback and streaming.
                > Do what I
                > > > > > > do... identify who the leader is in the field, pick apart their
                > > > > > > product, and copy whatever works. There is no copyright on
                > what the
                > > > > > > optimal, size, codec, and version of flash is and they really do
                > > > have
                > > > > > > it down COLD in my opinion... better quality and smoother
                > playback
                > > > > > > than anyone else.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > As far as player size, the video player is the same size
                > as the
                > > > > > > > originally uploaded video. So if you upload a 320x240 video
                > > > you'll get
                > > > > > > > a 320x240 player. If you upload a larger video you'll get
                > a larger
                > > > > > > > video player. But we're totally open to making the player
                > bigger
                > > > > > > > regardless of the source video... it's really a matter of
                > > > whether you
                > > > > > > > want a larger playback area with some pixelation and
                > artifacts or
                > > > > > if you
                > > > > > > > want really beautiful, high quality video.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > As for playback size, I've got to say, that youtube has set the
                > > > > > > standard, and it's qite a bit bigger than blip. I find
                > blip's player
                > > > > > > on the small size, and others have mentioned it to me as well.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Quick side note: I LOVE how vimeo's controls disappear competely
                > > > from
                > > > > > > the plaback interface except when you mouse over it. It's
                > brilliant.
                > > > > > > BTW, Mobuzz does the same thing. It's a beautiful detail.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Back to the playback size. I find the larger format MUCH more
                > > > > > > appropriate wether on my laptop or especially my 1600x1200
                > monitor.
                > > > > > > What is it on yourtube about 500x350 ish insteady of 320x240?
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > We've just recently moved to this larger format on mefeedia
                > in the
                > > > > > > last couple days, actually stretching videos where necissary
                > up from
                > > > > > > the standard 320x240, and I must say I love it. HD videos like
                > > > > > > rocketboom look superb, and lower quality stuff doesn't look to
                > > > shabby
                > > > > > > at all either.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > It's not a matter of supplying a higher res video... I find
                > > > stretching
                > > > > > > a video to 140-150% works extremely well. Even 200% is
                > > > acceptable, but
                > > > > > > that's just excessive.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > My recommendation would be to cut ALL videos down to
                > approximately
                > > > > > > 400x300 or smaller for transcoding into flash, for obvious
                > > > limitations
                > > > > > > on streaming bandwidth.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Cutting down higher res videos will actually reduce
                > artifacts making
                > > > > > > them compress better and look better than simple 320x240 videos.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Then display all your flash videos sitewide at the same size
                > youtube
                > > > > > > does, approx 500 pixels wide. You must atleast match them, and
                > > > you also
                > > > > > > must remain consistent in your experience not switching back and
                > > > forth
                > > > > > > between 320x240, and say 400x500 from one page to the
                > next.... which
                > > > > > > would be quite a distraction.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > You can always leave users change the size of their playback
                > > > viewer in
                > > > > > > your cross posting templates or they can simply do it when
                > they copy
                > > > > > > and paste the source into the vlog.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > So far everyone has asked us to provide the highest
                > possible video
                > > > > > > > quality. So that's led us to do Flash 8 and not to stretch the
                > > > player
                > > > > > > > beyond what the original video file can support reasonably.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > And they would because ALL your users are creators unlike
                > youtube.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > They're all media makers, quite a few professionals, most
                > working on
                > > > > > high
                > > > > > > end machines... pretty much all on better than average machines.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > That's your demographic, creators, professional / semi
                > professional
                > > > > > > videographers... as opposed to youtube which is your average
                > kid on
                > > > > > > the home computer or school lab. That's a huge difference.
                > And for
                > > > > > > playback you've got to side with the consumer.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > You've got to ask yourself... if ... as happens you aren't
                > > > catering to
                > > > > > > the creators wants to the detriment of the vast majority whom
                > > > will be
                > > > > > > consuming the video. Keep in mind, these creators on their
                > high end
                > > > > > > machines might demand quality, but they haven't largely
                > > > compressed and
                > > > > > > tested videos in flash on a wide range of machines... nor
                > can they
                > > > > > > know what your servers are capable of streaming. These
                > creators and
                > > > > > > consumers are pretty much completely depending on YOU to
                > find that
                > > > > > > fine line between quality of experience and compatibility /
                > > > > > > accessibily.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > They don't need 2 or 3 flash options... don't pull a
                > microsoft on
                > > > > > > them... they only need one... the proper one.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > It's ultimately your call, but in my opinion it's better to have
                > > > lower
                > > > > > > quality, and better streaming / better experience with no
                > > > > > > stuttering.... Again, compatibility and accessibility far
                > outweighs
                > > > > > > quality. This is something we've see repeated infinitely
                > online...
                > > > > > > from the move away from java and flash based website to ajax and
                > > > > > > CSS2... We're not just talking about me... we're talking about
                > > > kids on
                > > > > > > hand me down computers... probably your core demographic and you
                > > > must
                > > > > > > consider edicational institutions facilities which are not
                > > > always the
                > > > > > > best upkept and in my opinion you must consider the other
                > 90% of the
                > > > > > > world that is in developing coutries with neither the fast
                > computers
                > > > > > > nor the empacible band to stream your videos.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > In this light quality is a far, far secondary concern.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > But you can have your cake and eat it to because you allow
                > for an
                > > > > > > alternate downloadable format completely of the video creators
                > > > > > > choosing.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > So, don't aim for high a quality and have the playback
                > > > experience fail
                > > > > > > catostrophicly for those who would need access most.... with
                > > > > > > stuttering of audio which very quicky destroys the overall
                > > > consumption
                > > > > > > experience and utility.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Leave the Flash serve the purpose of quick and dirty (and
                > > > consistent)
                > > > > > > realtime playback and the downloadable version serve the aim of
                > > > > > > quality... whatever quality the creator of the video should
                > choose.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > You must admit it's an obvious and good compromise.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > To sumarise my recommendations.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Flash: The flash version should be quick and dirty for
                > realtime web
                > > > > > > based experience. Cut videos down to a max width of approx.
                > 400 or
                > > > > > > less sno matter what size the original video is uploaded.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Display all Flash videos at a width of about 500 pixels on
                > your site
                > > > > > > regardless of what size format they original was. Most
                > importantly
                > > > > > > choose the least processor intensive playback codec, and the
                > least
                > > > > > > processor intensive and most compatible version of flash.
                > Quality is
                > > > > > > of far, far secondary concern to compatibility and
                > accessibility.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > It is the ease of the experience, not the quality of the
                > video that
                > > > > > > should be your vector for flash video. Leave the original video
                > > > stand
                > > > > > > as the high quality version with whatever quality, codec, or
                > format
                > > > > > > the user uploaded it in.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Oh,,, and don't forget to create a whole hosting server
                > farm... and
                > > > > > eventually standalone facilities... JUST for flash video... no
                > other
                > > > > > part of your website, not your other downloadable media is the
                > > > > > experience SO dependant on good quality streaming. The needs of
                > > > > > streaming media are completely different than any other webserver
                > > > > > requirement.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Seperating Flash media into it's own server farm will not only
                > improve
                > > > > > the overall end user experience over the long term but
                > ultimately make
                > > > > > you more flexible, scaleable and save you time and money...
                > you might
                > > > > > look at Amazon S3 specifically for the needs of your streaming
                > meda...
                > > > > > but now I'm talking about tech... which is outside my realm...
                > I'm a
                > > > > > UX, accessibility, info architecture and general design guy... :P
                > > > > >
                > > > > > > I rest my argument.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > I hope you will find it well made. More importantly I hope
                > all the
                > > > > > > people "consuming" videos will find it well made and the video
                > > > > > > creators as well.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Peace,
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > -Mike
                > > > > > > mefeedia.com
                > > > > > > mmeiser.com/blog
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Disclaimer: I'm still not awake this morning and I did not proof
                > > > read
                > > > > > > or spell check that. I hope it's not to bad. :)
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > Yours,
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > Mike
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > groups-yahoo-com@...
                > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
                > > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
                > > > > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com> wrote:
                > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > BTW... I've been meaning to mention this to the blip.tv
                > guys.
                > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > On my 667mhz powerbook Youtubes, Vimeo's and others
                > Flash videos
                > > > > > play
                > > > > > > > > back MUCH better. Something... wether the codec or the
                > way the
                > > > > > way the
                > > > > > > > > Flash video has been created is causing the video to
                > stop and
                > > > > > stutter
                > > > > > > > > and blayback generally poorly. This is interesting because
                > > > blip has
                > > > > > > > > one of the smallest Flash players.
                > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > There is also I notice a tendency for the video to NOT
                > precache
                > > > > > enough
                > > > > > > > > before starting playback... meaning the videos are prone to
                > > > starting
                > > > > > > > > prematurely and then stopping because the video is not
                > > > downlaoding
                > > > > > > > > fast enough.
                > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > I as well as others I've talked to have also noticed
                > that Blip's
                > > > > > Flash
                > > > > > > > > player window is one of the smallest on the web. I would
                > > > strongly
                > > > > > > > > suggest they figure out how to increase their player size by
                > > > 30-50%.
                > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > All in all this ads up to blip's flash player being the
                > poorest
                > > > > > > > > experience of all the major services... so I hope they'll
                > > > really,
                > > > > > > > > really work on it because while I love their service...
                > to most
                > > > > > people
                > > > > > > > > the enjoyment of watching a video trumps ALL other issues.
                > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > Among other things I would hope that blip is putting all
                > > > their flash
                > > > > > > > > videos on their own seperate servers.... specially
                > > > configured for
                > > > > > > > > streaming media... and even on their own T1 to avoid
                > > > slowdown from
                > > > > > > > > other traffic, such as serving up the thousands of QT
                > and other
                > > > > > video
                > > > > > > > > formats that don't require the streaming bandwidth of flash.
                > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > -Mike
                > > > > > > > > mefeedia.com
                > > > > > > > > mmeiser.com/blog
                > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > On 10/31/06, wlight@...
                > <mailto:wlight%40weatherlight.com>
                > > > <mailto:wlight%40weatherlight.com>
                > > > > > <mailto:wlight%40weatherlight.com>
                > > > > > > > > <mailto:wlight%40weatherlight.com>
                > <wlight@... <mailto:wlight%40weatherlight.com>
                > > > <mailto:wlight%40weatherlight.com>
                > > > > > <mailto:wlight%40weatherlight.com>
                > > > > > > > > <mailto:wlight%40weatherlight.com>> wrote:
                > > > > > > > > > > Hello Rhett,
                > > > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > > > I don't think YouTube will accept FLV files. (I think I
                > > > remember
                > > > > > > > > someone
                > > > > > > > > > on
                > > > > > > > > > > this list stating that here.)
                > > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > > Okay...so I was actually not interested in sending
                > them FLV
                > > > > > files so
                > > > > > > > > much
                > > > > > > > > > as finding out what codec their transcoder chooses. FLV
                > > > supports a
                > > > > > > suite
                > > > > > > > > > of codecs, and I was pondering a little side project
                > > > that's made a
                > > > > > > > > billion
                > > > > > > > > > times easier if YouTube's transcoder always uses, say, the
                > > > H.263
                > > > > > > codec.
                > > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > > --
                > > > > > > > > > Rhett.
                > > > > > > > > > http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
                > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>
                > > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
                > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>>
                > > > > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
                > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>
                > > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
                > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>>>
                > > > > > > > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
                > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>
                > > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
                > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>>
                > > > > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
                > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>
                > > > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime
                > <http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime>>>>
                > > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------
                > > > > > > > > > This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
                > > > > > > > > > http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
                > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/>
                > > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
                > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/>>
                > > > > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
                > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/>
                > > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
                > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/>>>
                > > > > > > > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
                > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/>
                > > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
                > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/>>
                > > > > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
                > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/>
                > > > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
                > <http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/>>>>
                > > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > --
                > > > > > > > email: mike@... <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
                > <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
                > > > <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
                > > > > > > > office: 917-546-6989
                > > > > > > > cell: 646-827-9773
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > --
                > > > > email: mike@... <mailto:mike%40blip.tv> <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
                > > > > office: 917-546-6989
                > > > > cell: 646-827-9773
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > > --
                > > email: mike@... <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
                > > office: 917-546-6989
                > > cell: 646-827-9773
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >


                --
                email: mike@...
                office: 917-546-6989
                cell: 646-827-9773
              • Mike Hudack
                Z, This is totally coming. We re moving closer and closer to this every day. ... -- email: mike@blip.tv office: 917-546-6989 cell: 646-827-9773
                Message 7 of 18 , Nov 2, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Z,

                  This is totally coming. We're moving closer and closer to this every day.

                  Zenophon Abraham wrote:
                  >
                  > This is fantastic news, Mike. Now -- selfishly -- the
                  > next step is installing a system where one can have
                  > their shows recognized as just that. My personal
                  > feeling is that having a video show -- like "Kate On
                  > Sports" -- listed as a show is more of a popularity
                  > contest and one not excuted by the community. It
                  > seems that it's up to Blip staff to determine who's
                  > shown as the Featured show, let alone actually listed
                  > as a show.
                  >
                  > By contrast, what's needed is a simple prompt to a
                  > page where one can fill out a form and upload a photo
                  > that explains the video show. Then one can actually
                  > scroll throw Blip.tv's show lookup and find "Kate On
                  > Sports."
                  >
                  > Thanks,
                  >
                  > Z
                  >
                  > --- Mike Hudack <mike@... <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>> wrote:
                  >
                  > > Believe me, I do kick it up the chain to Adobe and
                  > > On2, but I think it's
                  > > unrealistic at this point to expect Flash video to
                  > > play on $100
                  > > laptops. I was talking to a guy from Apple (who
                  > > will rename nameless)
                  > > about this problem yesterday, and he was surprised
                  > > that h.264 video
                  > > didn't have exactly the same problem to the same
                  > > extent.
                  > >
                  > > groups-yahoo-com@... <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
                  > wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Kick arse Mike.
                  > > >
                  > > > See this is what it's all about.
                  > > >
                  > > > That I'll get to enjoy my videos on blip larger
                  > > and that they'll
                  > > > stream more fluidly has just made the 30 minutes I
                  > > spent outlining the
                  > > > issues seem like the best ROI ever.
                  > > >
                  > > > Just remember... there are no quick fixes... I
                  > > didn't right this for
                  > > > lips-service or expecting a quick fix... I hope
                  > > you'll continue to
                  > > > work on this problem long term attempting to
                  > > always improve it...
                  > > > indeed bucking it up the chain to macromedia, the
                  > > codec people,
                  > > > whomever. We need flash video to play on $100
                  > > laptops... and
                  > > > hopefully I needn't justify that.
                  > > >
                  > > > I hope it was as good for you as it was for me. :)
                  > > >
                  > > > LOL
                  > > >
                  > > > Keep up the good work.
                  > > >
                  > > > Peace and respect,
                  > > >
                  > > > -Mike
                  > > > mefeedia.com
                  > > > mmeiser.com/blog
                  > > >
                  > > > On 11/1/06, Mike Hudack <mike@... <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
                  > > <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>> wrote:
                  > > > > I just spent about twenty minutes talking with
                  > > some folks who write the
                  > > > > codec and the environment. They know all about
                  > > the problem, and they
                  > > > > had some advice for us for solving the problem
                  > > that people using older
                  > > > > PowerPCs are having. We're going to be releasing
                  > > the changes tomorrow.
                  > > > > They're optimistic that it'll really help.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > So we're doing that, and our release on Saturday
                  > > will include video
                  > > > > players that are about 20% larger than the
                  > > actual source video.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Yours,
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Mike
                  > > > >
                  > > > > groups-yahoo-com@... <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
                  > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
                  > > > wrote:
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > DAMN, I should have profread.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Corrections and additions below, sorry.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > On 11/1/06, Mike Meiser
                  > > <groups-yahoo-com@... <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
                  > > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
                  > > > > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>>
                  > > wrote:
                  > > > > > > Sorry, if I was so direct, I tend not to do
                  > > that sometimes.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > Great response, comments below.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > On 10/31/06, Mike Hudack <mike@... <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
                  > > <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
                  > > > <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>> wrote:
                  > > > > > > > We're using Flash 8 video at blip these
                  > > days because a lot --
                  > > > a lot --
                  > > > > > > > of people requested it. One of the
                  > > downsides of Flash 8 video
                  > > > is that
                  > > > > > > > it's much more CPU intensive than Flash 7
                  > > video (it's kind of like
                  > > > > > h.264
                  > > > > > > > in this respect).
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > h.264 is exactly what I was getting when I
                  > > said certain codecs are
                  > > > > > > very processor intensive. H264's much more
                  > > processor entensive for
                  > > > > > > playback then mp4. Not only is the MP4, the
                  > > quality difference
                  > > > is NOT
                  > > > > > > that significant, and the compatibility of
                  > > the MP4 with a wide range
                  > > > > > > of devices is a huge bonus and is rapidly
                  > > increasing not only
                  > > > with the
                  > > > > > > iPod and PSP, but Nokia's newer lines of
                  > > phones/media devices...
                  > > > and a
                  > > > > > > whole host of set top boxes. MP4 beets H264
                  > > for pretty much the same
                  > > > > > > reason MP3 beets AAC... compatibility and
                  > > accessibility.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > In my opinion compatibility and
                  > > accessibility ALWAYS beets out
                  > > > > > > quality. This is a theme that will play out
                  > > in the discussion of
                  > > > Flash
                  > > > > > > below.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > So... there is the codec you're using in
                  > > Flash... and it's processor
                  > > > > > > requirements for playback and then of course
                  > > then there's the
                  > > > > > > processor requirements of Flash 7 vs. flash
                  > > 8.. which is the other
                  > > > > > > factor.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > The other problem is that the On2 VP6 codec
                  > > (that's
                  > > > > > > > the Flash 8 video codec) is heavily
                  > > optimized for Intel CPUs.
                  > > > So on a
                  > > > > > > > 667 MHz PowerPC you're hit by a very low
                  > > clock speed, a
                  > > > non-optimized
                  > > > > > > > architecture and multitasking.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > So what is everyone else using? Are you
                  > > telling me vimeo, youtube,
                  > > > > > > google, revver and everyone else are using
                  > > flash 7? That they are
                  > > > > > > using an inferior codec?
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > Regardless I don't see any the quality being
                  > > significantly poor on
                  > > > > > > these videos than blip.tv's... in the case
                  > > of vimeo i think it's
                  > > > > > > actually better.... and much more
                  > > importantly i see the overall size
                  > > > > > > of the playback window, the consistency of
                  > > the streaming, and
                  > > > the lack
                  > > > > > > of stuttering on all these far superior to
                  > > youtube.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > ...all these are far superior to blip.tv
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > The upside is of course that Flash 8 video
                  > > is *MUCH* much higher
                  > > > > > > > quality.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > I've got to be honest with you it's not
                  > > quality of video compression
                  > > > > > > that matters to the end user, it's quality
                  > > of overall
                  > > > experience, and
                  > > > > > > stuttering sound is far, far more
                  > > detrimental to the experience than
                  > > > > > > poor quality.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > apple designs all it's video applications from
                  > > DVD player to the QT
                  > > > > > player, to drop frames first and to ONLY drop
                  > > audio as a last resort.
                  > > > > > Consistency of audio is THE most important
                  > > point.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Oddly enough I don't think Flash allows you to
                  > > drop video frames
                  > > > > > before audio. Would be interesting to know
                  > > though.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > > To repeat the point I laid out above with
                  > > mp3 vs. aac, and mp4 vs.
                  > > > > > > h264... compatibility and accessibility are
                  > > far more important than
                  > > > > > > quality.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > Regardless of wether a person is using a
                  > > 667mh G4 or a 2 ghz pentium
                  > > > > > > people are always running all sorts of crap
                  > > on their compter...
                  > >
                  > === message truncated ===
                  >
                  > __________________________________________________________
                  > Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business
                  > (http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com <http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com>)
                  >
                  >


                  --
                  email: mike@...
                  office: 917-546-6989
                  cell: 646-827-9773
                • Stan Hirson, Sarah Jones
                  ... every day. ... It feels to me as if the videoblogging field -- what was almost a movement -- is fragmenting into shows , stand-along video pieces, video
                  Message 8 of 18 , Nov 2, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Hudack <mike@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Z,
                    >
                    > This is totally coming. We're moving closer and closer to this
                    every day.
                    >
                    > Zenophon Abraham wrote:
                    > >
                    > > This is fantastic news, Mike. Now -- selfishly -- the
                    > > next step is installing a system where one can have
                    > > their shows recognized as just that. My personal
                    > > feeling is that having a video show -- like "Kate On
                    > > Sports" -- listed as a show is more of a popularity
                    > > contest and one not excuted by the community. It
                    > > seems that it's up to Blip staff to determine who's
                    > > shown as the Featured show, let alone actually listed
                    > > as a show.
                    > >
                    > > By contrast, what's needed is a simple prompt to a
                    > > page where one can fill out a form and upload a photo
                    > > that explains the video show. Then one can actually
                    > > scroll throw Blip.tv's show lookup and find "Kate On
                    > > Sports."

                    It feels to me as if the videoblogging field -- what was almost a
                    movement -- is fragmenting into "shows", stand-along video pieces,
                    video blogs, and video websites. Blip, in its present format,
                    looks as if it is definitely pushing "shows". Is that where it wants
                    to go? Into "show business"? I don't want to go down the black hole of
                    defining "vlog", but that's what seems to be happening.

                    I think we are losing some of our earlier idealism and diversity.

                    Stan Hirson
                    http://hestakaup.com (a video website?)
                  • Zenophon Abraham
                    Awesome! Z ... === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
                    Message 9 of 18 , Nov 2, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Awesome!

                      Z

                      --- Mike Hudack <mike@...> wrote:

                      > Z,
                      >
                      > This is totally coming. We're moving closer and
                      > closer to this every day.
                      >
                      > Zenophon Abraham wrote:
                      > >
                      > > This is fantastic news, Mike. Now -- selfishly --
                      > the
                      > > next step is installing a system where one can
                      > have
                      > > their shows recognized as just that. My personal
                      > > feeling is that having a video show -- like "Kate
                      > On
                      > > Sports" -- listed as a show is more of a
                      > popularity
                      > > contest and one not excuted by the community. It
                      > > seems that it's up to Blip staff to determine
                      > who's
                      > > shown as the Featured show, let alone actually
                      > listed
                      > > as a show.
                      > >
                      > > By contrast, what's needed is a simple prompt to a
                      > > page where one can fill out a form and upload a
                      > photo
                      > > that explains the video show. Then one can
                      > actually
                      > > scroll throw Blip.tv's show lookup and find "Kate
                      > On
                      > > Sports."
                      > >
                      > > Thanks,
                      > >
                      > > Z
                      > >
                      > > --- Mike Hudack <mike@...
                      > <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > > Believe me, I do kick it up the chain to Adobe
                      > and
                      > > > On2, but I think it's
                      > > > unrealistic at this point to expect Flash video
                      > to
                      > > > play on $100
                      > > > laptops. I was talking to a guy from Apple (who
                      > > > will rename nameless)
                      > > > about this problem yesterday, and he was
                      > surprised
                      > > > that h.264 video
                      > > > didn't have exactly the same problem to the same
                      > > > extent.
                      > > >
                      > > > groups-yahoo-com@...
                      > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
                      > > wrote:
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Kick arse Mike.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > See this is what it's all about.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > That I'll get to enjoy my videos on blip
                      > larger
                      > > > and that they'll
                      > > > > stream more fluidly has just made the 30
                      > minutes I
                      > > > spent outlining the
                      > > > > issues seem like the best ROI ever.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Just remember... there are no quick fixes... I
                      > > > didn't right this for
                      > > > > lips-service or expecting a quick fix... I
                      > hope
                      > > > you'll continue to
                      > > > > work on this problem long term attempting to
                      > > > always improve it...
                      > > > > indeed bucking it up the chain to macromedia,
                      > the
                      > > > codec people,
                      > > > > whomever. We need flash video to play on $100
                      > > > laptops... and
                      > > > > hopefully I needn't justify that.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > I hope it was as good for you as it was for
                      > me. :)
                      > > > >
                      > > > > LOL
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Keep up the good work.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Peace and respect,
                      > > > >
                      > > > > -Mike
                      > > > > mefeedia.com
                      > > > > mmeiser.com/blog
                      > > > >
                      > > > > On 11/1/06, Mike Hudack <mike@...
                      > <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
                      > > > <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>> wrote:
                      > > > > > I just spent about twenty minutes talking
                      > with
                      > > > some folks who write the
                      > > > > > codec and the environment. They know all
                      > about
                      > > > the problem, and they
                      > > > > > had some advice for us for solving the
                      > problem
                      > > > that people using older
                      > > > > > PowerPCs are having. We're going to be
                      > releasing
                      > > > the changes tomorrow.
                      > > > > > They're optimistic that it'll really help.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > So we're doing that, and our release on
                      > Saturday
                      > > > will include video
                      > > > > > players that are about 20% larger than the
                      > > > actual source video.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Yours,
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Mike
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > groups-yahoo-com@...
                      > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
                      > > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
                      > > > > wrote:
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > DAMN, I should have profread.
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > Corrections and additions below, sorry.
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > On 11/1/06, Mike Meiser
                      > > > <groups-yahoo-com@...
                      > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
                      > > > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>
                      > > > > > > <mailto:groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com>>
                      > > > wrote:
                      > > > > > > > Sorry, if I was so direct, I tend not to
                      > do
                      > > > that sometimes.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > Great response, comments below.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > On 10/31/06, Mike Hudack <mike@...
                      > <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
                      > > > <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>
                      > > > > <mailto:mike%40blip.tv>> wrote:
                      > > > > > > > > We're using Flash 8 video at blip
                      > these
                      > > > days because a lot --
                      > > > > a lot --
                      > > > > > > > > of people requested it. One of the
                      > > > downsides of Flash 8 video
                      > > > > is that
                      > > > > > > > > it's much more CPU intensive than
                      > Flash 7
                      > > > video (it's kind of like
                      > > > > > > h.264
                      > > > > > > > > in this respect).
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > h.264 is exactly what I was getting when
                      > I
                      > > > said certain codecs are
                      > > > > > > > very processor intensive. H264's much
                      > more
                      > > > processor entensive for
                      > > > > > > > playback then mp4. Not only is the MP4,
                      > the
                      > > > quality difference
                      > > > > is NOT
                      > > > > > > > that significant, and the compatibility
                      > of
                      > > > the MP4 with a wide range
                      > > > > > > > of devices is a huge bonus and is
                      > rapidly
                      > > > increasing not only
                      > > > > with the
                      > > > > > > > iPod and PSP, but Nokia's newer lines of
                      > > > phones/media devices...
                      > > > > and a
                      > > > > > > > whole host of set top boxes. MP4 beets
                      > H264
                      > > > for pretty much the same
                      > > > > > > > reason MP3 beets AAC... compatibility
                      > and
                      > > > accessibility.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > In my opinion compatibility and
                      > > > accessibility ALWAYS beets out
                      > > > > > > > quality. This is a theme that will play
                      > out
                      > > > in the discussion of
                      > > > > Flash
                      > > > > > > > below.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > So... there is the codec you're using in
                      > > > Flash... and it's processor
                      > > > > > > > requirements for playback and then of
                      > course
                      >
                      === message truncated ===


                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                      http://mail.yahoo.com
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.