On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Ian Forrester <[email protected]>wrote:
> The reason why we would like to Tar the files together is because of things > like subtitles, artwork, cuts of music, other metadata pieces, etc. We're > not just talking a collection of video files. I guess we're also thinking > about the 5% of the audience who would actually do a remix with the raw > project files. This would be on going rather that a one off, so we need the > ability to handle everything from low rez 3gp files to ultra high rez > animations at stupid frame rates For reach, I'd look at which formats can be quickly and easily imported into some of the popular and free/cheapish video editors (iMove, Windows Movie Maker, Final Cut Express, Adobe Premier Elements). For a lot of people, who just want to have a play (myself include) - ultra high resolutions aren't required, and will just make working with the footage a bit harder. I'd look at using resolutions more or less equivalent to standard definition digital TV, or perhaps 720p, with h.264 encoding. One really important thing is seperated audio - so that dialogue, ADR, sound effects, wild tracks, music and so on can all be edited seperately. This was one of my frustrations with the original Creative Archive project. It'd also be really fun to include audio tracks that aren't mixed into the final edit - such as directors shouting instructions. > Delivery, > > Seems BitTorrent, P2Pnext (tribler) and the internet archive are the best > solutions by a long way. I did speak to people about how we pass footage > around internally and the answer was via hard drives. There was some thought > in the past about having drop off points in major cities where you can get > all the footage in one go by bringing your 1TB drive for example. > Sneakernet, or what ever they now call it. BitTorrent is great, but there really should be a way to download the component files (especially the smaller ones) via HTTP too. More importantly, you should be able to preview audio and video online via embedded media players - that way people know what they're downloading. > Licensing, > > I think we'll use something like CC-BY-NC (although I totally understand > the arguments against NC, Dave) CC-BY-NC-SA is tempting due to the nature of > the content. I do wonder how we keep the licence in tack even when the > assets are broken up and reused? Maybe we should be looking into > watermarking or some adobe xmp type system? This would also be useful for > figuring out reach. Would be nice if the BBC could help people figure out an appropriate way of crediting people. Say you mix up some BBC footage with (similarly CC-licenced) footage from anywhere between 5-100 other people, what's the best way of crediting them all? Scrolling end-credits is fine for feature-length movies (or even short films), but a bit of an overkill for 2-3 minute videos. What about audio? Is it good practice (or even required) to list URLs with all the credits, or are names ok? Do the credits have to be directly embedded within the published media file, or can they just be on a webpage where the file is embedded? Tricky questions... The BBC doesn't have to provide a definitive answer, but if you can help people to do 'the right thing', then it's more likely they will. > Lots to think about... But once I got the footage cleared and sorted you > guys will be first to know. We're planning to be as open as possible about > the whole experience. Good luck. As someone who followed the Creative Archive project closely (see the interview I did: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Interview_with_BBC_Creative_Archive_project_leader), I'm excited to hear that plans may be afoot to do something again! Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com
