Home > All Posts > Sort by Author
Ryan Shaw

Re: [videoblogging] Jay's entry for Day 4

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
June 24, 2004 | Post #98 | Topic #97

Jay Dedman wrote: > where can we get some of those phone cameras? > did you post from the phone itself? i use a nokia 3650. you can take a (crappy) video, and then mail it from the phone--a friend of mine has procmail set up on a server that will receive the email and put it into a blog, captioned with the subject/body of the email. 1-click (OK maybe few-click) videoblogging. if you have a cameraphone that does video and email and you want to try it then read this page: http://dream.berkeley.edu/~jtowle/mbot/faq.php and then email jtowle@... for an account. tell him ryan shaw told you about it. of course there is no editing--but then there isn't much to edit in a 20-second shot. it would be interesting to try to plan out a sequence of shots to be taken by various people and then combined into a longer scene--sounds like this is what aisling is trying to do (haven't had a chance to look at the paper yet)? ryan [View]



Re: [videoblogging] what we're trying to do….

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
June 26, 2004 | Post #132 | Topic #110

Jay Dedman wrote: >> What if you could just push a button on the camera and have it >> posted to the web? > > so you'd put the phone(ability to connect to the internet) in the > camera... instead of the camera in the phone... has anyone here ever played with an MPEG-4 camera? (see links below if you don't know what i'm talking about) i feel like these would be the ideal videoblogging tools if they 1) had wifi and 2) could run java (or python or whatever) they record to solid state, in a size and format perfect for the web, but much higher quality+storage than cell phones, yet a similar size/weight form factor. even without the wifi and scriptability i'm thinking about getting one to enable daily video production. ryan MPEG-4 cameras: http://tinyurl.com/24eob http://tinyurl.com/2th7x [View]



Re: [videoblogging] formats

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
June 26, 2004 | Post #143 | Topic #140

Lucas Gonze wrote: > This is a general comment for the sake of starting a conversation about > file formats. > > There are four, WMV, mpeg, Real and mov. The three proprietary formats > have limited support outside of their dedicated rendering tools, WMP for > WMV, Real for Real, QuickTime for mov. mpeg is supported by all video > renderers as far as I know. > > I don't know enough to compare video quality and compression. > > Open standards are a very good thing for bloggish collaboration. My guess > is that mpeg video is more likely to be watched than any of the other > formats, and more likely to lead to a healthy collaborative environment. I agree. MPEG-4 is the way to go, plus it is likely to be the default format for the coming wave of cheap networked tapeless camcorders. Also from a syndication/content management point of view it has superior metadata support. > Real is the format I've used the most. In my experience, SMIL support is > Real's edge. Real's video format is nothing special. There is a fully open source SMIL player now: http://www.cwi.nl/projects/Ambulant/distPlayer.html It's pretty exciting that open multimedia standards seems to be gathering momentum: SVG, SMIL, MPEG-4... I hope to soon see the day when someone can throw together a video production app as quickly as hackers roll their own blogging tools today. Ryan [View]



Re: [videoblogging] deeplinking considered n/a

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
June 27, 2004 | Post #171 | Topic #140

The issue of "deep linking" is an important one. I started thinking about this a couple of weeks ago, when I was describing Webjay to several managers at the company I'm working at for the summer. Their reaction was: "That's really cool, but it must be illegal! They're stealing bandwidth!" Now, these are pretty smart and savvy folks at one of the world's foremost internet companies. They are very web-centric, and would laugh anyone out of the room who suggested that linking to a page "within" a site (like a particular archived blog post) rather than the "top page" was somehow "stealing." So I wondered why their thinking changed when it came to multimedia. As we've mentioned, there are two issues at work here: bandwidth and context. The first is a technical issue, probably best addressed by things like freecache.org or bittorrent. The second is perhaps more interesting. People want to control the context within which their work is seen. At a fundamental level this means proper accreditation--if I put your photos on my website it implies that I took those photos, unless I specifically mention otherwise. It gets more complex that that, though. An image or a video shot, unlike a blog post or a news article, has no intrinsic meaning. These forms of expression get their meaning from the context in which they are presented. In film this phenomenon is known as the Kuleshov effect[1]. On the web,... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: deeplinking considered n/a

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
June 27, 2004 | Post #173 | Topic #140

Andreas Haugstrup wrote: > Movies aren't hypertexts. The movies we're making now aren't > hypermedia either. They are dead ends on the world wide web and as > you say: Alone they have no context. > > The context is provided in the videoblog entry. The HTML page that > describes the video and either displays a video window or has a link > to the video file. There's another possibility, I think, though it is not currently well supported by either production or consumption tools: embed the context in video metadata. Then you can set the file free from the confines of your HTML page (as is bound to happen anyway if the file gets popular) and have some confidence that the context of its creation is not totally lost. This doesn't totally address the issue of presentation, though. I would be wary of looking to copyright law for solutions--in my country, at least, copyright law appears to be broken beyond repair. I like the idea of establishing etiquette, as Peter has suggested. Social norms can be quite powerful. But will they scale as videoblogging goes mainstream? Past experience with email, mailing lists, etc. seems to indicate no... Ryan [View]



Re: [videoblogging] MPEG-4 (was: deeplinking considered n/a)

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
June 29, 2004 | Post #217 | Topic #140

alan wrote: > Do you mean mpeg1 or 4? Mpeg1 is too bandwidth inefficient, mpeg4 is > not in wide enough use and does not look like it will be for a couple > years, if ever. Encoders are costly and users are not switching quickly > from WMV and Sorenson. Mpeg4's promise was that it could be the mp3 of > video, I think WMV is likely to prevent that from happening. I think you're dismissing MPEG-4 too quickly. XviD (http://www.xvid.org) is an ISO MPEG-4 compliant video codec that is free and open source. I think we're likely to see more open-source MPEG-4 codecs in the future. Moreover new media appliances like videophones, tapeless camcorders and portable video players are standardizing on MPEG-4, not WMV, as the format of choice. It make take a while for professional media producers to make the switch, but I don't expect videobloggers to necessarily be pros. I agree that the consumer is poorly served by the current bewildering array of competing formats. But at least an open standard exists and seems to be catching on. Ryan [View]



Creative Commons Metadata Streaming

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
July 1, 2004 | Post #225 | Topic #225

This is interesting. Something like this could be used to implement some of the things we've been talking about regarding re-distributability of videoblog feeds. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: CC-OMS now available (metadata streaming) From: J.C. De Martin <demartin@...> To: cc-metadata@... Dear all, We are very glad to announce the first release of the Open Media Streaming (OMS) software suite with support for CCPL metadata. The streaming server (Fenice) now may send licensing information to the client (NeMeSI), which displays it graphically to the user using the CC logo and the CC icons, and then take the appropriate action (i.e. accept or refuse the stream depending on its license, as specified by the user). More information available below or at the OMS web site, http://streaming.polito.it. Please feel free to distribute and publicize. Suggestions, questions, etc. are -of course- very welcome. Best regards, Juan Carlos Juan Carlos De Martin IEIIT-CNR Partner Institution iCommons Italy --------------------------------------------------------------- 29th June 2004 - OMS-Server Fenice 1.5 "Creative Commons" released A new release featuring Creative Commons licensing meta-data support. * Added support for Creative Commons licensing meta-data for audio/video streaming. * Preliminary live audio support via named-pipe. * A brand new source tree structure. * Various improvement and bug-fixes. * New subversion repository (https://gemelli.polito.it/svn/fenice/trunk) 29th June 2004 - OMS-Client NeMeSI 0.3.0 'Creative Commons' released An experimental branch supporting Creative Commons licensed audio/video streaming. Please note that the CC stuff in the NeMeSI source code is in... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] videoblogging research (was: deeplinking considered n/a)

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
July 2, 2004 | Post #247 | Topic #140

Andreas Haugstrup wrote: > Lastly, I will get my BA in Communication whenever the administration > deems it right to publish my last grade. That means I'll start my Master's > work in September and I'm think about making my first project about > videoblogs. If I do can I mail you some questions? I suspect that it'll > mostly be asking for references I can start reading. I'd like to request that you ask/answer questions through the list (unless your project has to remain secret). Might as well share the knowledge. Ryan [View]



Video on Wikipedia

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
July 6, 2004 | Post #270 | Topic #270

I cam across a page this morning on the Wikimedia meta-wiki about video policy for Wikipedia. It covers some of the same issues we've been discussing re: standards, formats, caching, etc. He suggests that Ogg Theora is the only suitable format for Wikipedia as it is the most free. Interesting read. http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_policy [View]



Re: [videoblogging] videoblogging paper

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
July 6, 2004 | Post #271 | Topic #258

Adrian Miles wrote: > He's working with the people I originally worked with in Bergen where > we developed 2 prototype SMIL systems. One was using Potemkin's > Odessa Steps sequence. Every shot was given metadata about scale, > direction, movement and so on. You could then search for (eg) close > ups with left to right movement. The engine found all shots, and > could then play them all for you in sequence, regardless of where > they occurred in the original. > > The second used the entire length of John Ford's The Searchers. I > added metadata about doors in the film. If there was a door then was > the camera inside/outside, looking inside/outside. you then searched > for, say, doors inside looking inside. Every shot that met the > criteria was pulled out and formed a comic strip panel. selecting any > of those showed you the shot in context (and we were going to add > roll back features so you could nominate how much surrounding context > you wanted, the default was, from memory 15 seconds). This could have > strung them all together but that wasn't the point of this system. My > proposal at the time was to use this to build a documentary engine. > > Good to see that Jon's continuing the work, this needs to be done. Are you familiar with Mediastreams[1]? This was a system developed in... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] good article on p-2-p video

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
July 26, 2004 | Post #417 | Topic #405

Jay Dedman wrote: > Steve emailed me this essay on videoblogging. real good by Drazen Pantic. > he's kind of a pioneer in getting people to become producers of content. > his latest project is about viewing. > he wants to make a box which is connected to your computer and your TV > You can then store and watch the videos we make on your TV. > The thinking is that more people are more comforatble watching "TV" than a > computer screen. > > http://journal.planetwork.net/article.php?lab=pantic0704 This link seems to be dead--it leads to a blank page. Is it mirrored anywhere? Ryan [View]



Revogging

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
July 27, 2004 | Post #424 | Topic #424

Hello, Do any of you know of people doing revogging, i.e. creating videoblogs that are re-edits or remixes or even just clips + commentary of existing web content? I'm aware of Kenyatta's browseTV, Rich Persaud and Jon Udell's experiments with stream linking, and WebJay video playlists, but in general it seems that this genre of videoblog is underrepresented... Do you think this is this because of technical difficulties or a lack of interest in this approach? Cheers, Ryan [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Revogging

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
July 27, 2004 | Post #427 | Topic #424

I think Kenyatta coined it... Lucas Gonze wrote: > Whoa. "revogging" is the coolest word ever. > > On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Ryan Shaw wrote: > > >>Hello, >> >>Do any of you know of people doing revogging, i.e. creating videoblogs >>that are re-edits or remixes or even just clips + commentary of existing >>web content? I'm aware of Kenyatta's browseTV, Rich Persaud and Jon >>Udell's experiments with stream linking, and WebJay video playlists, but >>in general it seems that this genre of videoblog is underrepresented... >>Do you think this is this because of technical difficulties or a lack of >>interest in this approach? >> >>Cheers, >>Ryan [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Revogging

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
July 27, 2004 | Post #428 | Topic #424

I wrote: >> in general it seems that this genre of videoblog is underrepresented... >> Do you think this is this because of technical difficulties or a lack of >> interest in this approach? Andreas Haugstrup wrote: > I think it's copyright issues. Really? Copyright issues don't stop people from liberally quoting the New York Times in their blogs. And they haven't slowed P2P adoption. Somehow I doubt that people are getting revved up to do this kind of thing, and then stopping because of legal fears. Ryan [View]



Re: [videoblogging] mix n' mash

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
July 27, 2004 | Post #431 | Topic #424

Hi Mica, Nice links! I was interested by charlene's comment: "I was just discussing how weird it is to put an idea out on the internet and know that someone else will somehow ...possibly make money on it." Imagine if people thought this way about posting to a mailing list. Think how impoverished net discussion would be. Probably people did think this way about publishing their thoughts and ideas once, back when publishing meant extraordinary time and expense invested in printing and distributing pamphlets. Maybe people think this way about video because it's too damn hard to do. If we could post videos like we send emails... By the way, the two of the three "grand challenges" of multimedia research, as laid out in a report from academics in the field this spring[1], are: 1) make authoring multimedia as easy as using a word processor 2) make capturing, storing, finding, and using multimedia an everyday occurrence You guys are making #2 a reality today. Ryan [1]http://www.acm.org/sigmm/main/events/sigmm_retreat/sigmm-retreat03-final.pdf [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: Revogging

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
July 29, 2004 | Post #451 | Topic #424

Andreas Haugstrup wrote: > Ryan and Jay both want to disregard copyrights. Ryan put it like this > (Jay used stronger language :p): > >> Really? Copyright issues don't stop people from liberally quoting >> theNew York Times in their blogs. And they haven't slowed P2P >> adoption.Somehow I doubt that people are getting revved up to do >> this kind ofthing, and then stopping because of legal fears. Actually, I wasn't advocating disregarding copyright. I was claiming that people *will* disregard copyright, based on their current, widespread behavior. Since people clearly *are* disregarding copyright, I was questioning "legal fears" as a reason people aren't doing more revogging. > Disregarding copyright issues is naive when it comes to a concept > like videoblogging. The analogies are not comparable: Liberally > quoting the NY Times is okay in many cases provided it's for > commentary, critique or the like (it's covered more clearly by Fair > Use)... Why are they no comparable? Is re-editing video content not a way of commenting on or critiquing it? The Outfoxed documentary is a good example of this. > ...and P2P is a completely different matter. With P2P you are - to an > extent - anonymous. You are certainly hidden from the public eye. > With videoblogging you would be the exact opposite: Actively trying > to get an audience for your works. With videoblogging you are > actively trying to distribute the works,... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: New Video Blog post from the DNC

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
July 30, 2004 | Post #464 | Topic #449

Eric Rice wrote: > It's funny, as much drama that surrounds the entire standards > conversation (as a whole), no one acknowledges that everyone can see > all the content. Flash=in 96% of all browsers; all movie > trailers=Quicktime; as for Real, WMV are used liberally depending on > publisher ideology. > > Yet we can all SEE it. Flash is awesome, and for streaming solutions, > it works swimmingly. Most of you have seen some of my latest videos, > and they're in Flash. Well, one thing to think about is that Flash video, unlike other video formats, won't be indexed by multimedia search engines. That might not seem like a big deal right now, but it will be a huge deal pretty soon. Just as Google killed search-unfriendly content management systems dead, multimedia search will kill search-unfriendly video formats. I totally agree that Flash looks the best, integrates very nicely into the look of a page, and provides the best user experience, especially since everyone has it already. I wish Macromedia understood the web beyond surface appearence, though. Flash animations are notoriously opaque to linking, search... all the things that make the web what it is. Cheers, Ryan [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: New Video Blog post from the DNC

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
July 30, 2004 | Post #466 | Topic #449

Eric Rice wrote: > Let me dare ask that 64 million dollar question: has the internet > become the backbone for other things, one of which is the Web? Is it > *just* about the web anymore? What about all the other > internet-driven things like IM, or e-mail (google is trying really > hard, i'm so over google). Well, I don't think the Internet has ever been just about the web, though the web (and even more so, email) certainly drove mainstream adoption. But these things aren't totally separate: people email web pages to each other, IM links, etc... I don't think any of these things would be as popular in isolation. > I suppose these are rhetorical questions, but when I ask them to > myself about other devices (like my replay/TiVo box, my ringtones, > etc), I haven't found answers to all of them. Maybe part of me > believes it's not about *just* the Web anymore. It's about the > internetwork. I agree with that. But don't you think the internetwork needs search? Ryan [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: New Video Blog post from the DNC

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
August 2, 2004 | Post #512 | Topic #449

Lucas Gonze wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, The Dane wrote: > >>--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles >><adrian.miles@r...> wrote: >> >>> no, the metadata is standard metadata that >>> is in the html page. things like movable >>> type write this automagically, on my site i >>> added a pile of dublin core metadata to >>> boot. google doesn't read qt metadata... >> >> So then, really, there doesn't need to be any media standard so long >> as the surrounding HTML is properly informatory? I hope this is the >> case, because really, I think this is how The Net should be - we >> don't want to artificially stagnate progress on the web by forcing >> an unnatural standard (i.e., one that isn't a de facto standard). > > But once you move the metadata from the QT object to the HTML, you're > using the standard. I just wanted to point out that multimedia search engines do more than look at the surrounding HTML--they also parse the media objects themselves for embedded metadata and do some content analysis. Some formats (WMV for instance) have hundreds of embedded metadata fields defined. Others (Real) have hardly any. Content analysis (things like extracting keyframes, looking at color distributions, etc.) can be very difficult with things like Flash, because instead of a standalone movie file to be analyzed you now have an application in which video is embedded in some... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: bit torrent is too confusing

By Ryan Shaw | Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@...> | ryan_b_shaw
August 9, 2004 | Post #628 | Topic #545

Deirdre Straughan, class of 81 wrote: > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "petertheman" <peter@p...> wrote: >>> There will never be enough bandwidth. > > Why not? There are places in the world where you can already get 2 > MBits via fibre optic, plenty for video transmission. Improvements in > compression algorithms and technology will also soon reduce the > bandwidth needed to transmit high-quality video. There will certainly be enough bandwidth tomorrow for what we want to do today. But, just as with processing power, our desires grow with our capability. 2 MBps is fine for MPEG-2 or 4 but not for HDTV. Ryan [View]