Home > All Posts > Sort by Profile
lucas_gonze

introduction

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
June 25, 2004 | Post #110 | Topic #110

Hello, videoblogging world. I am the developer of a web application for music playlists at webjay.org. By accident this turns out to be a good platform for videoblogging, so there is a groundswell of videoblogging among the users. The lucky accident is that the SMIL editor and infrastructure for swapping links work almost as well for video as it does for music. A couple sample videologs: http://webjay.org/by/webjaybs/newsvideo-daily http://webjay.org/by/pomona4/violenceiniraqandsaudiarabia Because the Webjay playlist editor wasn't designed with video in mind, it has a lot of flaws in that regard. If there is anything I can do to support the videoblogging community with technology, please don't hesitate to ask. The bugs are getting fixed and the features are being added, and eventually I think it'll be a fine tool. - Lucas Gonze [View]



RE: [videoblogging] introduction

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
June 25, 2004 | Post #112 | Topic #110

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Philippe Antoine wrote: > Hello Everybody, > > OK, = this is my first post so I present myself: I am a french guy working > in D= ominican Republic. I have made with a friend some web videos, and I > will = start a vlog when I will come back in France (in 2 month). Hello Philippe,= I am a belgian-american from New York living in Montreal for the summer. = > I am trying for some time now to have a regular flow of video > producti= on, and with a firend, I think we can handle to create a video > at least e= very week. A very interesting thing about what you're doing is that it's s= o complementary to what others are doing. The P2P hackers are decentralizi= ng distribution. The musiclogging community that I am a part of is decentr= alizing taste. The videoblogging community is decentralizing production. = It's great to see this last leg come into being with the work that you and = other videobloggers are doing. > > For the technic, Lucas Gonze, you made = a great job ! This is exactly > what I was expecting. Do you think you can = explain to us how you develop > that ? Sweat. :) I have been working on = playlist-related tech for over a year now. My interest began with the ques=... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] introduction

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
June 25, 2004 | Post #115 | Topic #110

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Jay Dedman wrote: > very cool if it works... That's the trick. :) > have you tried to do video with this application? Yes. There are several people doing video on a daily basis with it. My nightly news show, after work, is a news playlist, and it works well enough. The flaws are usually annoying rather than fatal. > Can you briefly explain to us how we could use this to edit video? Browse webjay a bit to get a feel for the ideas. Create a webjay account. Hit the "create" tab and then the "create playlist" button. Fill in the song field with the URL of a video. If you want to add more than one video, hit the "add song" button and fill in the video URL in the song field. When you're done, play the playlist in Real (for SMIL) or Windows Media Player (for ASX), depending on whether your clips are Real or WMV. If your clips are mpegs, you can also view them in Winamp or VLC (M3U). This more advanced functionality only works in Real/SMIL for now: you can have two separate but parallel "tracks" with video, audio, or a GIF. To do that you need to know a hidden feature -- in SMIL it doesn't matter whether you call something audio, video or img; Real will figure out what to do on its own. How to do... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: introduction

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
June 25, 2004 | Post #116 | Topic #110

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, petertheman wrote: > I think I can answer some of those questions. Jay, that application > lets you easily create playlists of video already on the web. So you > pick from the news videos and other video available on the web, and > create a playlist. The application doesn't let you edit video (in the > classic sense) or optimize video or upload video. > > (Did I get that correct?) Yup. The application is useful for assembling collections of media on the web. It allows you to put several videos together or to layer audio+video+images in a client-side remix. Client-side remixing is a crude but surprisingly powerful way of doing things. [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: introduction

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
June 25, 2004 | Post #119 | Topic #110

Wow. This videoblogging thing you guys are doing is mindblowing when I see it in action. Fantastic. On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, petertheman wrote: > My videoblog entry today is about me trying out viewing webJay with > video. > > http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/003050.html > > Peter > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > [View]



RE: [videoblogging] Re: introduction

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
June 25, 2004 | Post #122 | Topic #110

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, PeterV wrote: > > > > Wow. This videoblogging thing you guys are doing is > > mindblowing when I see it in action. > > I guess you liked it :) Can you explain what you liked about it? It's > really a fairly stupid entry, in and by itself... I want to find out > what the strenghts of videoblogging are... The thing that killed me is seeing video, which is almost always reserved for a priesthood, get cranked out in such a trivial way. The medium just isn't that fluid usually. - Lucas > > Peter > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: introduction

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
June 25, 2004 | Post #125 | Topic #110

Lest anyone think webjay is ready for prime time, I have to warn you that I think QT media may not be supported. I'll have to check it out. The trick is that QuickTime itself is the only player that supports QT embedded in a playlist, and there's no way to flag a SMIL playlist so that QT grabs it instead of Real. ...all of this tech is embryonic, there's a long way to go before it's smooth. On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Andreas Haugstrup wrote: > > It'd be cool to have a webjay page collecting all the video's we > have > > posted this week. (pretty much all of them seem to be Quicktime). I > was > > thinking of handcoding a SMIL containing all of them, but if webJay > can > > do it, even better! Maybe someone can set that up? > > I will do some kind of page with all the videos from the week Monday > before you guys wake up. Both for my own site and my own personal > pleasure and for the wiki. I don't mind doing a SMIL also - not that > I've figured out how to handcode such a thing yet. If I can use that > webjay thing that would rock - it's been bookmarked. :o) > > You were wondering about the strength of videoblogging. As I pointed > out on my... [View]



RE: [videoblogging] Re: introduction

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
June 25, 2004 | Post #131 | Topic #110

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, PeterV wrote: > > > > The trick is that QuickTime itself is the only player that > > supports QT embedded in a playlist, and there's no way to > > flag a SMIL playlist so that QT grabs it instead of Real. > > But there is a way to save a SMIL file as a .mov quicktime movie. Just > add a small code before the first SMIL tag (it's in the quicktime docs). > I'm no SMIL expert either by the way... That's an intensely useful hack. Thanks! - Lucas > > Peter > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > [View]



formats

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
June 26, 2004 | Post #140 | Topic #140

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. 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. - Lucas [View]



SMIL->.mov conversion.

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
June 26, 2004 | Post #141 | Topic #110

According to http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/quicktime/SMIL-quicktime.html#conversion it may be that I have to do a binary-level conversion to go from SMIL to .mov. That would be a fair amount of work, so would take a while to get done. - Lucas On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Lucas Gonze wrote: > > > On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, PeterV wrote: > > > > > > > > The trick is that QuickTime itself is the only player that > > > supports QT embedded in a playlist, and there's no way to > > > flag a SMIL playlist so that QT grabs it instead of Real. > > > > But there is a way to save a SMIL file as a .mov quicktime movie. Just > > add a small code before the first SMIL tag (it's in the quicktime docs). > > I'm no SMIL expert either by the way... > > That's an intensely useful hack. Thanks! > > - Lucas > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > [View]



deeplinking considered n/a

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
June 27, 2004 | Post #164 | Topic #140

In the playlist community, we are very careful to respect the etiquette of providing backlinks whenever possible. For example, Webjay has not one but three routes back to the host. That said, deeplinking is the native mode of audio/video on the web. If you object to deep linking, the web is not for you. All audio/video hypertext is made of deep links. Playlists are not HTML. They are not browser applications. In the context of web audio/video, the concept of deep linking is not applicable. There is a canard that one might be stealing bandwidth from the host. This is pure silliness. On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, PeterV wrote: > > > I'm concerned about the precedent of deep linking to all the videos, > > out of context from their original pages. > > And come to think of it, I'm glad you raised that question Steve. It > seems to me there is no technical solution right now, but we can come up > with some be-nice standards... I started a wiki page, because I think > it's an important topic: > > http://www.me-tv.org/wakka.php?wakka=DeepLinkingToVideoEtiquette > > Feel free to make changes/... > > Cheers, > Peter > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > [View]



deep linking #2

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
June 27, 2004 | Post #165 | Topic #140

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Steve Garfield wrote: > I'm concerned about the precedent of deep linking to all the videos, > out of context from their original pages. > > That means anyone could grab my videos, use my bandwidth, and display > my video. I don't understand. Why are you hosting videos if you don't want people to watch them? That said, what you should do is constantly change your video URLs, so that stored links to them become invalid. It is still easy to extract the URLs and use them in e.g. SMIL, but it will not be possible for them to become popular, so you will prevent the bulk of linking. - Lucas > > Maybe we should create a highlight reel that shows clips of everyones > video? > > On Jun 27, 2004, at 10:01 AM, PeterV wrote: > > > One thing I can do in the next version of that SMIl file is include > > links :) > --------- [ Please Note ] --------- > If my email hosting service is rejecting your replies, please give me a > phone call. > > It's not you, it's them! > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > [View]



Re: [videoblogging] deep linking #2

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
June 27, 2004 | Post #168 | Topic #140

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Steve Garfield wrote: > That's why we all did it. To see what issues we'd all come up against. Ah! That's good stuff. > > I want people to watch my videos, I just don't want them to get > popular. ;-) :) Exactly. Seriously, bandwidth killing is a real problem for all non-profit video/audio on the web. Potential solutions are to try to generate revenues, go Creative Commons so you can host at archive.org, or to buy bandwidth in bulk. Also, DO put a rate limiter on your uploads so that the ISP shuts them off rather than charging you a fortune when you go past quota. I got learned that when I got burned for bandwidth on a dumb web hit I created (at gonze.com/alpha.cgi). I wonder how doable it would be to create a co-op hosting service? Bandwidth is cheap enough if you buy in bulk. - Lucas > > No. > > Wait. > > I guess I'd like them to get popular, but I don't want to end up with a > huge hosting bill at the end of the month. > > At the end of this month I'll take a look at my bill and see how this > experiment effected my bandwidth usage. > > Maybe it's not a problem. we'll see. > > On Jun 27, 2004, at 12:29 PM, Lucas Gonze wrote: > > >... [View]



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

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
June 28, 2004 | Post #186 | Topic #140

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Ryan Shaw wrote: > 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. The (still embryonic) XSPF playlist format has explicit support for this etiquette. See the playlist/trackList/track/info element in the draft spec at http://gonze.com/xspf/xspf-draft-2.html - Lucas 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... [View]



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

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
June 28, 2004 | Post #191 | Topic #140

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, petertheman wrote: > > > The (still embryonic) XSPF playlist format has explicit support for > this etiquette. > > I like that. It looks like they haven't really considered video > though? Not sure if that would make a difference. Whether video would work depends on the player. However the spec requires players to fail gracefully if a link is bad or media format is not supported, so you can put video in playlists without worrying about the player's capabilities. -L > > Peter > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > [View]



XSPF and metadata

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
June 28, 2004 | Post #193 | Topic #140

I should say that XSPF is a lot more like RSS than anything else. It's a container for metadata about a set of media objects. Using that metadata you can construct any and all of HTML, RSS, M3U, SMIL, or Soundblox. As an example, I created XSLT to perform those conversions -- see http://gonze.com/weblog/story/6-11-4 for details. For example, these: http://gonze.com/xspf/organism.smil http://gonze.com/xspf/organism.html Both come from this: http://gonze.com/xspf/organism.xspf - Lucas On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Andreas Haugstrup wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:16:18 -0000, petertheman <peter@...> > wrote: > > >> So keep the world wide web alive by linking to the HTML page and > > not > >> the video file. It is only fair to the author. > > > > But then you're saying we can't do playlists (as in SMIL playlists in > > a player)... Which would be too bad because the videowatching > > experience in a playlist is very different from clicking around from > > site to site... I'm not sure what the solution is... > > That would depend (this is still my personal opinion of course). The way > it is now I wouldn't like SMIL playlists at all for the simple reason that > there isn't any metadata at all. I'll have to read more about SMIL to find > out what kind of metadata can be added. Lucas' XSPF format looks alright > when it comes to... [View]



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

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
June 28, 2004 | Post #195 | Topic #140

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Andreas Haugstrup wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:22:19 -0400 (EDT), Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> > wrote: > > > The (still embryonic) XSPF playlist format has explicit support for this > > etiquette. See the playlist/trackList/track/info element in the draft > > spec at http://gonze.com/xspf/xspf-draft-2.html > > It looks pretty good after a first read. I have a couple of questions: > > There are a couple of references containing xspf://. Are you planning to > use this pseudo-protocol when referring to XSPF playlists? I hope not, > it'd be the same mistake as serving RSS over a feed:// protocol. You're > just serving XML over http so it should use the http:// protocol. :o) That's a (slightly broken) XPath expression referring to an element in the xspf namespace. I have changed the spec document to get rid of the source of the confusion. > I would like to see the license element available to tracks as well as the > playlist. It's pretty uninteresting to know which license the playlist is > released under. I'm not even sure a playlist is copyrightable (under > Danish law anyway) - I doubt it constitutes a 'work'. What's important > though is the license of each track. To declare the license of a referenced URL, use the Creative Commons spec defined at http://creativecommons.org/technology/nonweb. Namespace it in as xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/&quot;, then add an element in //playlist/trackList/track like this:... [View]



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

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
June 29, 2004 | Post #206 | Topic #140

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Andreas Haugstrup wrote: > Not necessarily. If they are bundled the visitor can download the package > (meta+video) once and have it on their harddrive for later viewing. If > they come seperate the visitor will only download the SMIL file (meta), > but every time he wants to see the video he would open the SMIL file and > then redownload the video file. > > It's not a problem if every visitor only views a video once, but more than > that it's extra bandwidth. The fix for this is for media players to do web caching properly, which they don't. We badly need a new generation of players. - Lucas [View]



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

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
June 29, 2004 | Post #208 | Topic #140

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, alan wrote: > Quick rant. If you have multiple video formats to support, SMIL is no > good given how fractured the video market is. Real and QT support SMIL > but you can't mix the two in a SMIL file, and that doesn't even take > into account WM. Mpeg4 was supposed to save us but it will be years if > ever its widespread enough. I think that mpeg video is supported by all major vendors. At the least, Real, Winamp, and WMP. That said, if you export video to *both* Real and WMV, Webjay will do the work of keeping them sorted out. A user with WMP will get only WMV, a user with Real will get only Real. - Lucas [View]



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

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
June 29, 2004 | Post #211 | Topic #140

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, alan wrote: > > > I think that mpeg video is supported by all major vendors. At the > > least, Real, Winamp, and WMP. > > 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 have to admit that I don't know whether I mean mpeg1 or 4. :) How bad is mpeg1? It's really unusable? That's a big loss. > > > That said, if you export video to *both* Real and WMV, Webjay will > > do the work of keeping them sorted out. > > Well, Webjay can't tell if they are the same video. They may be, but > one version may be a longer version at a lower bitrate, part two, or a > different video entirely. You need metadata for that, either from the > user or potentially from Atom's alternate mechanism. Not a a problem. What Webjay does is make sure that only Real media goes in Real playlists and only Windows media goes in WMP playlists. If a videoblogger posts both a Real and... [View]