Home > All Posts > Sort by Author
Lucas Gonze

Re: [videoblogging] Torrents/rss enclosures (was re: vlogging script)

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 3, 2004 | Post #529 | Topic #514

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Eric Rice wrote: > The notion of RSS enclosures scare me and confuse me all in the same capacity. I mean, it > really does *sound* good, but I think it can be potentially abused. The other thing is I can't > find anything practical to GET enclosures. BitTorrent has promise, but as a tech tool, like > p2p. Kids and Nerds (that pretty much sums up 'tech' today). I can't begin to fathom how > to explain the torrent notion to the world at large. I'm still workin on getting them to > understand blogging. > > Are these (enclosures/torrents) just slated to be transparent technologies that will never > be visible to the general public and absorbed IN to some bigger product? For now enclosures really only exist for Radio Userland users, so there isn't really an answer to that, but my guess is that it would be invisible to the general public. There's a very small number of people interested in what, if anything, we should do about enclosures. I disabled enclosures (temporarily? don't know) in webjay feeds because of the bandwidth abuse. > I'm finding that I want to deal less and less with figuring these things out. Maybe I'm > getting old and tired (haha), but I don't want to hassle with 'em. I can get them other ways > and deal with the slight inconveniences. it's okay. Really. There's... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] MPEG4 not Supported

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 6, 2004 | Post #568 | Topic #567

--0-1708582966-1091832360=:17601 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sigh. Well, if it was all easy, there wouldn't be so much new turf to ha= ve fun with. :) I can compile a listing of corrected mime types if it's u= seful to people. You'll need permission to drop it into your hosting direc= tory. On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Shannon Noble wrote: > MP4 mime type documented = here: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3640.txt > > The right mime type w= ould be either video/mpeg or video/mpeg4-generic. > > The fix is in the con= fig for your web server.=A0 Create a file called > .htaccess in your video = directory and put this in it: > AddType video/mpeg4-generic mp4 > > > > So = I tried this out and got invalid error messages from the server and then > = started poking around the support forum for my web host where I found this = > dated June 6,2004 > > > I've noticed that HostRocket doesn't have ".mp4" = or any mpeg 4 extension > defined in their server mime-types. > > Having as= ked about this, the response I received was: > > "While mpeg4 is in use, it= is not yet ubiquitous on the internet. In the > future, we may consider en= abling it on our servers. However, the reason > mpeg4 is not in the system = defined types is because it is considered by > others... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] MPEG4 not Supported

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 6, 2004 | Post #571 | Topic #567

--0-17707706-1091833472=:28780 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE The quick fix -- Create a file named .htaccess in the directory where you= keep your videos. Put this one line in it: AddType video/mpeg4-generic m= p4 The real fix is to compile a standard .htaccess that doesn't blow chu= nks, but I won't have time today. On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Shannon Noble wrot= e: > That would be outstanding! > > Thanks. > > .s > > > On 8/6/04 3:46 PM= , "Lucas Gonze" <lgonze@...> wrote: > >> >> Sigh. Well, if it was al= l easy, there wouldn't be so much new turf to >> have fun with. :) >> >> I= can compile a listing of corrected mime types if it's useful to people. >>= You'll need permission to drop it into your hosting directory. >> >> On Fr= i, 6 Aug 2004, Shannon Noble wrote: >>>> MP4 mime type documented here: >>>= > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3640.txt >>>> >>>> The right mime type w= ould be either video/mpeg or video/mpeg4-generic. >>>> >>>> The fix is in t= he config for your web server.=A0 Create a file called >>>> .htaccess in yo= ur video directory and put this in it: >>>> AddType video/mpeg4-generic mp4= >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So I tried this out and got invalid error messages fro= m the server and then >>>> started poking around the support forum for my w= eb host where I found this >>>>... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] MPEG4 mime type

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 6, 2004 | Post #572 | Topic #567

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, M. Sean Gilligan wrote: > Don't know what to tell you about your webhost, but I've generally used the following line in mime.types for webservers that I have configured: > > video/quicktime qt mov mp4 > > Of course, this most likely forces the mp4 to play with QT, but that has generally been what I've wanted to do. Ack! Argh! !@#$! The choice of player should be up to the client rather than the server. [View]



Re: [videoblogging] MPEG4 mime type

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 6, 2004 | Post #575 | Topic #567

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, M. Sean Gilligan wrote: > I knew you were going to say that :) I knew you knew. Couldn't help myself. > , and I agree with you in principle. However, I would guess that 95% of > the MP4-capable clients out there are QT, so it was a pragmatic move. > Do you know if video/mpeg4-generic works with QT? (It probably does if > its in an RFC.) If you give me a URL, and it works with QT, I'll begin > switching over my servers... Hm, well, it absolutely should work with QT, but that depends on how your mime type preferences are set. What do you think of hooking up one test mp4, then having people here open it and report what happened? (That's how we figured out mime types in webjay -- polling people to see what worked on average.) [View]



Re: [videoblogging] MPEG4 not Supported

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 6, 2004 | Post #578 | Topic #567

--0-658271423-1091839911=:28780 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Shannon Noble wrote: > So.... > > Also....why does t= he mpeg4 file not act like the .mov file? The .mov file > begins streaming = in the browser window but the mpeg4 file has to download > completely befor= e it opens and begins to play. > > Questions questions questions A good qu= estion. The quicktime plugin on your machine isn't grabbing the URL, but t= he quicktime application *is*. The quicktime plugin can see the mov as th= e bytes come down, but the quicktime application doesn't even know the mp4= is there until all the bytes are downloaded. ...this is because of the = way that browsers interact with helper applications. The quick fix is to m= ake a playlist and put in it nothing but the url of the mp4 file. - Lucas= > > Thanks, > > Shannon > > > > On 8/6/04 5:00 PM, "Shannon Noble" <sn@= nnon.tv> wrote: > >> Ok... >> >> I=B9m starting to understand a little bit = now. I=B9d previously tried creating >> the file and now realized I=B9d mad= e a minor mistake and that is remedied so >> now the mpeg4 file is a direct= download to my machine. Hmm. I=B9m not sure >> about the chunks blowing th= ough 8*) . I still have lots of questions. I >> don=B9t know what... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] MPEG4 not Supported

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 6, 2004 | Post #581 | Topic #567

--0-865145333-1091842759=:28780 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Hang loose and I'll crank out a tool to auto-generate a playlist, Shannon.= I'll try to get it done this weekend. On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Shannon Noble = wrote: > Ok, > > Now I=B9m starting to get it. > > One last question. Um..= ..uh..... What is a =B3playlist=B2? > > Thanks again Lucas. > > shannon > >= > > On 8/6/04 5:51 PM, "Lucas Gonze" <lgonze@...> wrote: > >> >> >> = On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Shannon Noble wrote: >> >>>> So.... >>>> >>>> Also....w= hy does the mpeg4 file not act like the .mov file? The .mov file >>>> begin= s streaming in the browser window but the mpeg4 file has to download >>>> c= ompletely before it opens and begins to play. >>>> >>>> Questions questions= questions >> >> A good question. >> >> The quicktime plugin on your machin= e isn't grabbing the URL, but the >> quicktime application *is*. The quick= time plugin can see the mov as the >> bytes come down, but the quicktime ap= plication doesn't even know the mp4 >> is there until all the bytes are dow= nloaded. ...this is because of the >> way that browsers interact with help= er applications. >> >> The quick fix is to make a playlist and put in it no= thing but the url of >> the mp4 file. >> >> -... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] MPEG4 not Supported

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 6, 2004 | Post #582 | Topic #567

--0-440109080-1091842819=:28780 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=X-UNKNOWN; FORMAT=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.60.0408062140291.28780@...> Try hooking up the HTML so that it has the standard embedded qt player in = the browser window, but the URL of the item it plays is the MP4. You can = get sample HTML from Steve Garfield's site. On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Shannon N= oble wrote: > One last one. > > Why does the mp4 not access the plugin for= display in the browser window? > > > > > > On 8/6/04 6:00 PM, "Shannon Nob= le" <sn@...> wrote: > >> Ok, >> >> Now I=B9m starting to get it. >> >> = One last question. Um....uh..... What is a =B3playlist=B2? >> >> Thanks aga= in Lucas. >> >> shannon >> >> >> >> On 8/6/04 5:51 PM, "Lucas Gonze" <lgonz= e@...> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Shannon Noble wrote:= >>> >>>>> So.... >>>>> >>>>> Also....why does the mpeg4 file not act like = the .mov file? The .mov file >>>>> begins streaming in the browser window b= ut the mpeg4 file has to download >>>>> completely before it opens and begi= ns to play. >>>>> >>>>> Questions questions questions >>> >>> A good questi= on. >>> >>> The quicktime plugin on your machine isn't grabbing the URL, bu= t the >>> quicktime application *is*. The quicktime plugin can see the mov= as the >>> bytes come down, but the quicktime... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] MPEG4 not Supported

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 6, 2004 | Post #583 | Topic #567

--0-1600090067-1091843760=:28780 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Try: http://webjay.org/scraper?url=3DLINK-TO-YOUR-MP4 That's very quick a= nd dirty. I'll tidy up when my wife isn't glaring at me for working on th= e computer late on friday night. :) Thanks to Steve G. for the HTML for e= mbedding QuickTime, which comes from: http://s95130335.onlinehome.us/video/= dnc_sam_adams.html (Which is a really funny and excelling bit of vogging, = BTW). On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Lucas Gonze wrote: > > Hang loose and I'll cran= k out a tool to auto-generate a playlist, Shannon. > I'll try to get it don= e this weekend. > > On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Shannon Noble wrote: > >> Ok, >> >>= Now I=B9m starting to get it. >> >> One last question. Um....uh..... What = is a =B3playlist=B2? >> >> Thanks again Lucas. >> >> shannon >> >> >> >> On= 8/6/04 5:51 PM, "Lucas Gonze" <lgonze@...> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On = Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Shannon Noble wrote: >>> >>>>> So.... >>>>> >>>>> Also....= why does the mpeg4 file not act like the .mov file? The .mov file >>>>> beg= ins streaming in the browser window but the mpeg4 file has to download >>>>= > completely before it opens and begins to play. >>>>> >>>>> Questions ques= tions questions >>> >>> A good question. >>> >>> The quicktime plugin on yo= ur machine isn't grabbing the URL, but the >>> quicktime application *is*. = The... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] MPEG4 not Supported

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 7, 2004 | Post #595 | Topic #567

On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Adrian Miles wrote: > > On 07/08/2004, at 10:51 AM, Lucas Gonze wrote: > >> The quicktime plugin on your machine isn't grabbing the URL, but the >> quicktime application *is*. The quicktime plugin can see the mov as >> the >> bytes come down, but the quicktime application doesn't even know the >> mp4 >> is there until all the bytes are downloaded. ...this is because of the >> way that browsers interact with helper applications. > > you sure about this Lucas? if the movie is quick start and the plug in > knows about it then it should be able to show before it is all > downloaded. Shouldn't it? Yup. I'm only talking about the situation where the file is being viewed by the application rather than the plugin. :) In that case you need a playlist. -L > > perhaps you need to check the local mime settings (inside the QT > configuration panel) so that mpeg4 goes to QT. From there it ought to > be up to what the embed tag or movie settings are, but if it isn't > quickstart then all data has to arrive whether in player or plug in. > >> >> The quick fix is to make a playlist and put in it nothing but the url >> of >> the mp4 file. >> >> > > cheers > Adrian Miles > .................................................................... [View]



proprietary media types

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 7, 2004 | Post #596 | Topic #567

On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Adrian Miles wrote: > > On 07/08/2004, at 9:06 AM, Lucas Gonze wrote: > >> The choice of player should be up to the client rather than the server. >> > in an ideal world :-) but what client should .wmv go to? :-) If VLC doesn't play .wmv yet, it's only a matter of time. The generic nature of mime types accomplishes a lot of practical work. In particular, that's what allows new software to be used with old mime types. - Lucas [View]



Re: [videoblogging] vBlog Alpha tests

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 13, 2004 | Post #674 | Topic #667

Another vBlog issue: entries don't have URLs. The HTML has a URL, but the video URL is obscured and is a one-use thing designed to prevent linking. [View]



Re: [videoblogging] video permalinks (was vBlog Alpha tests)

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 13, 2004 | Post #680 | Topic #667

>> Another vBlog issue: entries don't have URLs. The HTML has a URL, but the >> video URL is obscured and is a one-use thing designed to prevent linking. On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, M. Sean Gilligan wrote: > Since vBlog Central allows you to post in multiple formats/speeds, a > permalink mechanism should allow for the user (or an app they run) to > choose a format that they can actually play. For the most part the HTTP accept header is the place for this, however there will be situations when a client needs a format-specific URL. > Another issue is that some > vbloggers may only want the video to be viewable with the text from > their post and others won't mind the video being deep-linked. Agreed. > We think the videoblogging community would be best served by a standard > mechanism for doing this within the context of RSS and/or Atom. Can > anyone provide links to any existing work in this area? Well, in most ways *we* are the standardizing force for web multimedia. It's up to us to figure out what we need from an application perspective, then dig into the standards to figure out how to apply them. Can you talk a bit more about what functionality you're looking for from RSS and/or Atom, Sean? My guess is that you're thinking about the method of pointing to videoblog media in an entry element,... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] vogroll correction

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 16, 2004 | Post #707 | Topic #705

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Adrian Miles wrote: > the only problem with the above is that as it grows longer (more users) > the dimensions will change. So Lucas, or Andreas, or ?? what is the > easiest way to distribute the above so it automatically gets embedded > even where the dimensions may change over time? Does the QT plugin auto-size correctly? [View]



conventions vs. standards

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 19, 2004 | Post #762 | Topic #733

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, M. Sean Gilligan wrote: >> we need to do something about this different codec bullshit. >> why is this such a hassle? >> is there a solution? > > I think a set of conventions can minimize the hassle. First off, yes. Conventions do good. But conventions are not the same as standards. Word is a convention, TCP/IP is a standard. TCP enables global communication, Word enables communication within a restricted pool of users. There exist all kinds of conventions. QuickTime is one, certainly on Macs. But QT doesn't play in Real (which was the main video convention for Windows machines in the 90s), Real doesn't play in QT, Windows Media (coming on very strong now) doesn't play in QuickTime or Real, and QuickTime and Real don't play in Windows Media Player. All of these play MP4, needless to say, because it's a standard rather than a convention. Imagine if you could only swap emails with other Mac users, and how much smaller your internet would be. That's the difference between a standard and a convention. - Lucas [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Polluting the list with standards discussions

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 19, 2004 | Post #769 | Topic #733

>> B) At what point should I, Lucas, and other interested people move >> these kind of technical discussions to another location? For myself I will try to not be strident. It's a lot harder -- takes more writing talent and more drafting time -- to express things in shades instead of absolutes. If I seem confrontational it's partly that I'm writing fast, partly that we haven't yet established common ground, and partly that this is genuinely a time of change. That said, I think that extremely detailed technical discussions need to happen. We need to build an interest group of people with backgrounds in a/v tech*, HTTP, MIME, and syndication, figure out and write down best practices, then build a new generation of software. Lots of work! - Lucas * which excludes me. I know nothing about the guts of a/v files. [View]



Re: [videoblogging] conventions vs. standards

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 20, 2004 | Post #791 | Topic #733

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, M. Sean Gilligan wrote: > Not to defend/promote MS, but Word enables global communication. I > exchange Word documents with people all over the world. I have no > choice -- Word is what people use and send to me. My sense is that this issue of standards vs. conventions is going to become a standard flame attractor as our work goes on. ...better to punt on it for now. > There is no single standard called "MP4". There is a collection of > evolving standards called "MPEG-4". There is an .mp4 file format (based > on QuickTime .mov and almost identical.) Within an .mp4 file there can > be a variety of codecs, such as H.263, MPEG-4 Video, H.264/AVC for video > and "MP3", AAC, etc. for audio. Within the MPEG-4 video standard there > are a variety of "profiles" such as "Simple Profile" and "Advanced > Simple Profile". QuickTime can't play "Advanced Simple Profile" (yet) > "3GPP" format is a subset of MPEG-4 defined for cellular phones that can > only play a subset of MPEG-4 files. Some "MPEG-4" implementations such > as DivX put MPEG-4 encoded media in .avi format files. Excuse me -- I didn't absorb this when you posted it the first time. What we have have to do, as a community, is to try out every plausible export format on every plausible player. Your other message this morning was... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] MPEG-4 mime type on "42 Steps "

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 20, 2004 | Post #792 | Topic #768

Wicked pissa, boyz. IANA documentation on canonical mime types is here: http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/video/ A seemingly relevant type is here: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3640.txt That defines a mime subtype of mpeg4-generic, meaning that the bit after the slash would be mpeg4-generic, meaning that the complete thing would be something like video/mpeg4-generic. However mpeg4-generic is surely wrong for our purposes (yup, I was wrong before) because it is only for mp4 items served via the RTP protocol: File extension(s): None. A file format with the extension .mp4 has been defined for MPEG-4 content but is not directly correlated with this MIME type for which the sole purpose is RTP transport. Obviously I'm only talking about what is canical there, not what works in real life. See http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/08/16/specs (if you haven't already) on morons, assholes, angels and experts to keep this all in perspective. I need to spend more time browsing the specs and maybe talking to The Committee before I figure out what type we should be using. But I swear this is worth doing -- get it right and life becomes easier. - Lucas On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Adrian Miles wrote: > > > On 20/08/2004, at 5:36 PM, M. Sean Gilligan wrote: > >> Is that Australian for "works great"? >> > > too right cobber. strewth, can't ya tell I'm fair dinkum? > > cheers > Adrian Miles > ................................................................. > hypertext.rmit || hypertext.rmit.edu.au/adrian > interactive networked video || hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog > research... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] linking within video – why?

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 20, 2004 | Post #799 | Topic #798

--0-1250583255-1093028666=:7425 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE You'd have to use either SMIL or RAM to specify the start and end time of = the target frame. - Lucas On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Deirdre Straughan, class = of 81 wrote: > The use cases on > http://www.me-tv.org/wakka.php?wakka=3DD= eskTopTool&v=3D15x7 mention the > ability to link to a frame within a video= . Why would you want to do > this? Can anyone point me to examples? > > > b= est regards, > Deirdr=E9 Straughan > > http://www.straughan.com > > > > > >= Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > --0-1250583255-1093028666=:7425-- [View]



Re: [videoblogging] conventions vs. standards

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 20, 2004 | Post #808 | Topic #733

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Jay Dedman wrote: > Like Lucas says that MPEG4 is a good standard to adopt. > so im in, but it is correct? It'll take a week or two before we have usable consensus, sorry my dude. > i also want to make WEBJAY playlists of videos being made... > right now i cant do that. In progress: fevered coding to fix this. More Jolt, please. (When it works, it's hair-raisingly cool to start a whole set of vogs going and sit back to watch em all without getting up. *So* worth the work.) [View]