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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.