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

Re: [videoblogging] Let's chat about the Open Video Conference....

Expand Messages
  • Lauren Galanter
    Thanks for posting my writeup, Jeffrey, and for stimulating discussion here. Two things I got excited about were - 1) giving developers of FOSS video editing
    Message 1 of 15 , Jul 1 9:41 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for posting my writeup, Jeffrey, and for stimulating discussion
      here.

      Two things I got excited about were -

      1) giving developers of FOSS video editing apps feedback and advice about
      UI, workflows and the like. They really need video creators to tell them
      what they want and need. I know Ryanne and Verdi talked with a few of them
      (and gave a great presentation on the same).

      2) how remixing continues to become more mainstream, especially "fan"
      remixes and mashups - most notably evidenced by John McIntosh's
      Buffy/Twilight mashup - which is getting really popular. (
      http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/2009/buffy-vs-edward-twilight-remixed)

      It also got me thinking about what else we can do to really help people
      become more video-literate in general.

      Lauren Galanter

      www.laurengalanter.com
      www.linkedin.com/in/laureng
      610-761-4435


      On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Taylor
      <thejeffreytaylor@...>wrote:

      >
      >
      > I'm surprised we're over a week out and people haven't brought back their
      > takes to the list, but Lauren G. just put up a blog post with her take:
      >
      > http://laurengalanter.com/2009/06/30/open-video-round-up/
      >
      > What did the other attendees think about the Conference, and what is there
      > to tell people beyond the <video> tag and OGG Theora? I'll chime in later,
      > but I just wanted start the conversation.
      >
      > --
      > Jeffrey Taylor
      > 912 Cole St, #349
      > San Francisco, CA 94117
      > USA
      > Mobile: +14157281264
      > Fax: +33177722734
      > http://twitter.com/jeffreytaylor
      > http://organicconversations.com
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • hamish
      We made a video about the subject for http://visionontv.org this is part one: http://plugandplay.visionon.tv/ Part 2 coming soon. Hamish
      Message 2 of 15 , Jul 1 1:08 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        We made a video about the subject for http://visionontv.org this is part
        one: http://plugandplay.visionon.tv/

        Part 2 coming soon.

        Hamish
      • t. whid
        very relevant: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Message 3 of 15 , Jul 1 1:16 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          very relevant:
          http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html

          On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:08 PM, hamish <hamish@...> wrote:

          > We made a video about the subject for http://visionontv.org this is part
          > one: http://plugandplay.visionon.tv/
          >
          > Part 2 coming soon.
          >
          > Hamish
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jay dedman
          ... Good find. Ill add some context to Tim s link. Because the different browsers cant agree to support the same codecs, video creators must fight to figure
          Message 4 of 15 , Jul 1 1:47 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            > very relevant:
            > http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html

            Good find. Ill add some context to Tim's link. Because the different
            browsers cant agree to support the same codecs, video creators must fight to
            figure out how to work across all browsers if they want to use the <video>
            tag in html 5.

            Apple refuses to implement Ogg Theora in Quicktime by default (as used
            > by Safari), citing lack of hardware support and an uncertain patent
            > landscape.
            >
            > Google has implemented H.264 and Ogg Theora in Chrome, but cannot
            > provide the H.264 codec license to third-party distributors of
            > Chromium, and have indicated a belief that Ogg Theora's quality-per-bit
            > is not yet suitable for the volume handled by YouTube.
            >
            > Opera refuses to implement H.264, citing the obscene cost of the
            > relevant patent licenses.
            >
            > Mozilla refuses to implement H.264, as they would not be able to obtain
            > a license that covers their downstream distributors.
            >
            > Microsoft has not commented on their intent to support <video> at all.
            >


            Jay

            --
            http://ryanishungry.com
            http://jaydedman.com
            http://twitter.com/jaydedman
            917 371 6790


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jay dedman
            ... The conference confirmed several things I already thought....and introduced some surprises. Many people discussed the need for independent creators to
            Message 5 of 15 , Jul 1 2:07 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              > I'm surprised we're over a week out and people haven't brought back their
              > takes to the list, but Lauren G. just put up a blog post with her take:
              > http://laurengalanter.com/2009/06/30/open-video-round-up/
              > What did the other attendees think about the Conference, and what is there
              > to tell people beyond the <video> tag and OGG Theora? I'll chime in later,
              > but I just wanted start the conversation.

              The conference confirmed several things I already thought....and introduced
              some surprises.

              Many people discussed the need for independent creators to become more
              decentralized. As we see more and more free commercial hosting sites close
              down, creators need to think about hosting their own content IF they care
              about it lasting online. Many people just throw a video up like disposable
              graffiti, but others will want to make sure their videos live on. So
              archiving is a big issue.

              Creators (me included) are still confused as to what the <video> and
              <canvas> tags will do for our own creativity. We need more examples to get
              inspired by the fact that we can now use video in html like any other
              element. No more trapped in a player. If you could make videos do anything,
              what would you want to do? Here are some links to see where we're at. Sull
              says he's share his experiments.

              - http://people.mozilla.com/~prouget/demos/
              - http://blog.mozbox.org/
              -
              http://blog.mozbox.org/post/2009/04/12/Firefox-35%3A-a-new-experiment-with-Canvas-Video

              The codec wars rage on. Still a lot of confusion among creators why they
              should care about Ogg/Theora instead of flash, mp4, or h264. What is an open
              source codec? Tim linked to a good explanation here:
              http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html A
              FOSS (free and open source) standard helps innovation.

              The most surprising thing was the state of FOSS video editors. I had no idea
              how far they had come along the past 3 years. I learned that much work has
              been put into building the libraries, transcoders, etc. Now each project is
              more just dealing with interface. This is a huge win. Pitivi (
              http://www.pitivi.org) and VLC (http://www.videolan.org/vlc/) are the main
              ones we saw. Unlike the editors we all use, you can throw any codec into it,
              and the program should know how to play it. I'm still a couple years from
              dumping iMovie/FCP, but I like the idea of more capability rather than less.

              All in all, the train rolls on. Commercial companies has baked in a lot of
              innovation and provided stability to web video...while the greassroots
              continue to do the advanced research and push the envelope of what we want
              to do.

              Jay


              --
              http://ryanishungry.com
              http://jaydedman.com
              http://twitter.com/jaydedman
              917 371 6790


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • t. whid
              Great post Jay. Some thoughts below... ... We need to be decentralized but centralized. We need to be semantically centralized but physically decentralized.
              Message 6 of 15 , Jul 1 2:19 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Great post Jay. Some thoughts below...

                On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...> wrote:

                > > I'm surprised we're over a week out and people haven't brought back their
                > > takes to the list, but Lauren G. just put up a blog post with her take:
                > > http://laurengalanter.com/2009/06/30/open-video-round-up/
                > > What did the other attendees think about the Conference, and what is
                > there
                > > to tell people beyond the <video> tag and OGG Theora? I'll chime in
                > later,
                > > but I just wanted start the conversation.
                >
                > The conference confirmed several things I already thought....and introduced
                > some surprises.
                >
                > Many people discussed the need for independent creators to become more
                > decentralized. As we see more and more free commercial hosting sites close
                > down, creators need to think about hosting their own content IF they care
                > about it lasting online. Many people just throw a video up like disposable
                > graffiti, but others will want to make sure their videos live on. So
                > archiving is a big issue.


                We need to be decentralized but centralized. We need to be semantically
                centralized but physically decentralized. People use YouTube because that's
                where they can find an audience. We need a YouTube of independent video --
                something that can aggregate an audience without relying on one
                legal/physical choke point.


                >
                >
                > Creators (me included) are still confused as to what the <video> and
                > <canvas> tags will do for our own creativity. We need more examples to get
                > inspired by the fact that we can now use video in html like any other
                > element. No more trapped in a player. If you could make videos do anything,
                > what would you want to do? Here are some links to see where we're at. Sull
                > says he's share his experiments.
                >
                > - http://people.mozilla.com/~prouget/demos/
                > - http://blog.mozbox.org/
                > -
                >
                > http://blog.mozbox.org/post/2009/04/12/Firefox-35%3A-a-new-experiment-with-Canvas-Video
                >
                > The codec wars rage on. Still a lot of confusion among creators why they
                > should care about Ogg/Theora instead of flash, mp4, or h264. What is an
                > open
                > source codec? Tim linked to a good explanation here:
                > http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.htmlA
                > FOSS (free and open source) standard helps innovation.


                As that post on WHATWG points out, the FOSS codec theora, according to
                Apple, isn't actually free of legal constraints (Apple sites patent issues).
                Perhaps Apple is using this as a smokescreen since they can't easily support
                theora on the iPod so it makes no sense for them to push the codec... But
                there do seem to be both legal and structural issues (the hardware decoder
                issues) that are preventing big vendors (Apple, MS) from adopting the codec.
                And though Google put it in Chrome, they still won't commit to using <video>
                with theora on YouTube.


                >
                >
                > The most surprising thing was the state of FOSS video editors. I had no
                > idea
                > how far they had come along the past 3 years. I learned that much work has
                > been put into building the libraries, transcoders, etc. Now each project is
                > more just dealing with interface. This is a huge win. Pitivi (
                > http://www.pitivi.org) and VLC (http://www.videolan.org/vlc/) are the main
                > ones we saw. Unlike the editors we all use, you can throw any codec into
                > it,
                > and the program should know how to play it. I'm still a couple years from
                > dumping iMovie/FCP, but I like the idea of more capability rather than
                > less.
                >
                > All in all, the train rolls on. Commercial companies has baked in a lot of
                > innovation and provided stability to web video...while the greassroots
                > continue to do the advanced research and push the envelope of what we want
                > to do.
                >
                > Jay
                >
                >
                > --
                > http://ryanishungry.com
                > http://jaydedman.com
                > http://twitter.com/jaydedman
                > 917 371 6790
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Jay dedman
                ... This is the discussion of codec nerds, but I would put money down that Apple/Nokia are using scare tactics when it comes to the submarine patents of
                Message 7 of 15 , Jul 1 2:43 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  > As that post on WHATWG points out, the FOSS codec theora, according to
                  > Apple, isn't actually free of legal constraints (Apple sites patent issues).
                  > Perhaps Apple is using this as a smokescreen since they can't easily support
                  > theora on the iPod so it makes no sense for them to push the codec... But
                  > there do seem to be both legal and structural issues (the hardware decoder
                  > issues) that are preventing big vendors (Apple, MS) from adopting the codec.
                  > And though Google put it in Chrome, they still won't commit to using <video>
                  > with theora on YouTube.

                  This is the discussion of codec nerds, but I would put money down that
                  Apple/Nokia are using scare tactics when it comes to the "submarine"
                  patents of Ogg/Theora. It's bulllllllllll-shit.

                  Michael Dale, who I have crazy respect for, lays it down here:
                  http://metavid.org/blog/2007/12/11/the-attack-against-ogg-theora-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-proprietary-web/

                  As the WHATWG email points out
                  (http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.htmlA),
                  all is takes is for Google Chrome to adopt Ogg/Theora to prove it's
                  not a big deal. It's all about strategy. Google didnt have any issues
                  taking in Youtube's copyright problems because they felt it was a win.

                  The main point for all creators to understand is this: H264 and Flash
                  feel very free (as in cost) to us. But for developers of browsers or
                  editing software, there is a cost to be able to use those codecs. So
                  the cost comes in headaches and lack of innovation. This is why 50% of
                  the emails on this list are always about compression... and why your
                  "x" camera files dont work on your "y" editing program on your "z"
                  operating system.

                  Jay

                  --
                  http://ryanishungry.com
                  http://jaydedman.com
                  http://twitter.com/jaydedman
                  917 371 6790
                • Michael Sullivan
                  ah man! they removed the video element from latest draft? i ll have to read up on this later. that s annoying news. hopefully the browsers keep supporting it
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jul 1 4:17 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ah man! they removed the video element from latest draft?
                    i'll have to read up on this later.
                    that's annoying news. hopefully the browsers keep supporting it though.

                    On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:16 PM, t. whid <email.t.whid@...> wrote:

                    >
                    >
                    > very relevant:
                    > http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html
                    >
                    >
                    > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:08 PM, hamish <hamish@...<hamish%40undercurrents.org>>
                    > wrote:
                    >
                    > > We made a video about the subject for http://visionontv.org this is part
                    > > one: http://plugandplay.visionon.tv/
                    > >
                    > > Part 2 coming soon.
                    > >
                    > > Hamish
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > ------------------------------------
                    > >
                    > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Michael Sullivan
                    i feel like i m voting for nader all over again ;) ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jul 1 4:19 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      i feel like i'm voting for nader all over again ;)

                      On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Michael Sullivan <sulleleven@...>wrote:

                      > ah man! they removed the video element from latest draft?
                      > i'll have to read up on this later.
                      > that's annoying news. hopefully the browsers keep supporting it though.
                      >
                      >
                      > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:16 PM, t. whid <email.t.whid@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> very relevant:
                      >> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:08 PM, hamish <hamish@...<hamish%40undercurrents.org>>
                      >> wrote:
                      >>
                      >> > We made a video about the subject for http://visionontv.org this is
                      >> part
                      >> > one: http://plugandplay.visionon.tv/
                      >> >
                      >> > Part 2 coming soon.
                      >> >
                      >> > Hamish
                      >> >
                      >> >
                      >> > ------------------------------------
                      >> >
                      >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >> >
                      >> >
                      >> >
                      >> >
                      >>
                      >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      >


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Jay dedman
                      ... No, the element still exists. But the standards body is not recommending a specific codec that will be standard. So each browser seems to be
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jul 1 4:23 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > ah man! they removed the video element from latest draft?
                        > i'll have to read up on this later.
                        > that's annoying news. hopefully the browsers keep supporting it though.

                        No, the <video> element still exists. But the standards body is not
                        recommending a specific codec that will be standard. So each browser
                        seems to be choosing the codec that is most politically convenient.
                        http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html

                        Jay


                        --
                        http://ryanishungry.com
                        http://jaydedman.com
                        http://twitter.com/jaydedman
                        917 371 6790
                      • Michael Sullivan
                        i see. ok. A codec agnostic implementation of the *video* tag is next to worthless. A ... via
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jul 1 4:48 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          i see. ok.

                          "A codec agnostic implementation of the *video* tag is next to worthless. A
                          > simple javaScript library<http://metavid.ucsc.edu/blog/2007/06/07/html5-video-the-future-is-now/>could accomplish the same thing. Codec agnostic video tag represents no
                          > significant difference from the object/embed tags that we already have
                          > today. If web developers can�t count on a given codec being supported the
                          > video tag is likely to go nowhere fast. If that approach is taken video will
                          > remain a second class web citizen wrapped up in proprietary encapsulations.
                          > The whole point of the w3c is to promote/develop interoperable<http://www.w3.org/>technologies. In the current
                          > browser environment<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers>non-free implementations are simply
                          > *not interoperable*. The w3c would be going against their own position<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-essential>and obsoleting themselves in the process if they take the codec agnostic
                          > approach."
                          >

                          via
                          http://metavid.org/blog/2007/12/11/the-attack-against-ogg-theora-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-proprietary-web/

                          On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...> wrote:

                          >
                          >
                          > > ah man! they removed the video element from latest draft?
                          > > i'll have to read up on this later.
                          > > that's annoying news. hopefully the browsers keep supporting it though.
                          >
                          > No, the <video> element still exists. But the standards body is not
                          > recommending a specific codec that will be standard. So each browser
                          > seems to be choosing the codec that is most politically convenient.
                          > http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html
                          >
                          > Jay
                          >
                          > --
                          > http://ryanishungry.com
                          > http://jaydedman.com
                          > http://twitter.com/jaydedman
                          > 917 371 6790
                          >
                          >


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Jay dedman
                          ... Verdi posted about how you can code the page with the element....using fallbacks for the different browsers:
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jul 1 6:02 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > "A codec agnostic implementation of the *video* tag is next to worthless. A
                            >> simple javaScript library<http://metavid.ucsc.edu/blog/2007/06/07/html5-video-the-future-is-now/>could accomplish the same thing. Codec agnostic video tag represents no
                            >> significant difference from the object/embed tags that we already have today. If web developers can’t count on a given codec >being supported the video tag is likely to go nowhere fast. If that approach is taken video will
                            >> remain a second class web citizen wrapped up in proprietary encapsulations.
                            >> The whole point of the w3c is to promote/develop interoperable<http://www.w3.org/>technologies. In the current
                            >> browser environment<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers>non-free implementations are simply
                            >> *not interoperable*. The w3c would be going against their own position<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-essential>and obsoleting themselves in the process if they take the codec agnostic
                            >> approach."
                            > via
                            > http://metavid.org/blog/2007/12/11/the-attack-against-ogg-theora-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-proprietary-web/

                            Verdi posted about how you can code the page with the <video>
                            element....using fallbacks for the different browsers:
                            http://reports.graymattergravy.com/2009/06/02/video-tag-embed-with-fallbacks/

                            The obvious question is: why not just embed a stupid-simple flash video?

                            Well, I'm still looking to see if using the <video> tag will allow for
                            more creative possibilities. Maybe it can just be more than a static
                            video in a page. Still not a whole lot in the wild yet, but this is
                            cool: http://blog.gingertech.net/2009/06/12/cool-html5-video-demos/

                            Ive heard other people say they may just do video experiments with a
                            warning: "you must use Firefoc 3.5 to see this project".

                            Jay



                            --
                            http://ryanishungry.com
                            http://jaydedman.com
                            http://twitter.com/jaydedman
                            917 371 6790
                          • Jay dedman
                            ... This Australian artists did a good round up of the conference: http://thequality.com/people/michela/weblog/archives/002830.html Jay --
                            Message 13 of 15 , Jul 1 7:06 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > What did the other attendees think about the Conference, and what is there
                              > to tell people beyond the <video> tag and OGG Theora? I'll chime in later,
                              > but I just wanted start the conversation.

                              This Australian artists did a good round up of the conference:
                              http://thequality.com/people/michela/weblog/archives/002830.html

                              Jay

                              --
                              http://ryanishungry.com
                              http://jaydedman.com
                              http://twitter.com/jaydedman
                              917 371 6790
                            • Adrian Miles
                              reminds me of the early days of making interactive QT blog posts where I d have it works on OS 9 on Mac, latest QuickTime, no promises for anything else :-)
                              Message 14 of 15 , Jul 2 3:20 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                reminds me of the early days of making interactive QT blog posts where
                                I'd have "it works on OS 9 on Mac, latest QuickTime, no promises for
                                anything else" :-) the point was the experimenting rather than reach.


                                On 02/07/2009, at 11:02 AM, Jay dedman wrote:

                                > Ive heard other people say they may just do video experiments with a
                                > warning: "you must use Firefoc 3.5 to see this project".


                                cheers
                                Adrian Miles
                                adrian.miles@...
                                bachelor communication honours coordinator
                                vogmae.net.au
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.