Re: [videoblogging] Re: WebM Project
Just catching up after week away, reading the various breakdowns speculations. So WebM only matches h.264 baseline profile for quality, and is bulkier and slower and uses more power? But surely the point is that this is just the beginning of an open development process? And isn't the most important thing that we now have something open that rivals h.264, which weakens MPEG-LA's position when they come to review the patent fees in 5 years. Even if it's not quite as good. The market cares more about cost than quality (VHS vs Betamax, etc). I'm sure that Google must have seen that alone as worth the $120m they spent on ON2. And then smart of them to realise that the best hope for VP8 to survive was to open source it. Who's going to choose another proprietary codec instead of h.264, especially if it's not as good? Speculations about the patents seem pointless - a patent pool will no doubt emerge and the risks will have been reviewed ad nauseam by Google. Similarities with h264 will have been obvious to them and are surely arguable by prior art, as noted by the x264 developer in his breakdown updates the comments. Google will deal with challenges the same way they've dealt with people like Viacom. Depressing to see Steve's notes about WebM CPU use though. Had hoped video might be lighter greener in all its post-Flash incarnations. Re full page video: Odd how few cool tools have been made with HTML5 video so far. It'll be interesting to see what the HTML5 version of Navigaya.com looks like, which they say is coming soon. Recently launched as Flash only - nice full page video/web TV, social media browsing interface - a bit like the interfaces Elbows has mused about a few times over the years here. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 22 May 2010, at 14:22, elbowsofdeath wrote: At this stage by biggest problem is how much CPU it uses to playback, quality seems ok to me but CPU use is not. As for the whole page as a canvas for videos, I guess there is quite a lot of potential there, either through multiple videos or different parts of the page playing back different periods of time from a single video file. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: Interesting to read, but I would make note of the source. anyone invested in H264 will obviously do what they can to lay down fear. Remember when Google bought Youtube and there was all the fear of copyright lawsuits? Google has the lawyers to figure it out. The more important issue to research is how well WebM works. Hows it look, how smooth is it, how well does it compress and transcode? If Google gives developers all the resources they need, let's give people 3 months before we see some cool expeirments. In my mind, the whole idea is to break out of the idea of the video in the player. What if you could use the whole page as a canvas for your videos? Stan is right that creators need the tools to do this. As Verdi said, http://www.mirovideoconverter.com/, is a nice free tool to transcode to WebM for tests. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: WebM Project
Re full page video: Odd how few cool tools have been made with HTML5 video so far. It'll be interesting to see what the HTML5 version of Navigaya.com looks like, which they say is coming soon. Recently launched as Flash only - nice full page video/web TV, social media browsing interface - a bit like the interfaces Elbows has mused about a few times over the years here. This is the missing link. We need more tools for creators to take advantage of the promise of HTML5 video. We need dead easy ways to play with presentation and interactivity. Dont forget about proposing workshops at http://www.openvideoconference.org/proposals/ I can imagine just a brainstorming session about what these tools might look like. Jay
Re: [videoblogging] Digest Number 5846
The Antiques Roadshow Open Call has been extended through Memorial Day Weekend, until June 1st. You can submit, comment, and rate antique videos at: http://lab.wgbh.org.roadshow . Thank you again for contacting the WGBH Lab. We will return your message shortly. On May 29, 2010, at 10:10 AM, videoblogging@yahoogroups.com wrote: VideoBlogging Messages In This Digest (2 Messages) 1a. Re: WebM Project From: Rupert Howe 1b. Re: WebM Project From: Jay dedman View All Topics | Create New Topic Messages 1a. Re: WebM Project Posted by: Rupert Howe rup...@twittervlog.tv aitia Sat May 29, 2010 4:13 am (PDT) Just catching up after week away, reading the various breakdowns speculations. So WebM only matches h.264 baseline profile for quality, and is bulkier and slower and uses more power? But surely the point is that this is just the beginning of an open development process? And isn't the most important thing that we now have something open that rivals h.264, which weakens MPEG-LA's position when they come to review the patent fees in 5 years. Even if it's not quite as good. The market cares more about cost than quality (VHS vs Betamax, etc). I'm sure that Google must have seen that alone as worth the $120m they spent on ON2. And then smart of them to realise that the best hope for VP8 to survive was to open source it. Who's going to choose another proprietary codec instead of h.264, especially if it's not as good? Speculations about the patents seem pointless - a patent pool will no doubt emerge and the risks will have been reviewed ad nauseam by Google. Similarities with h264 will have been obvious to them and are surely arguable by prior art, as noted by the x264 developer in his breakdown updates the comments. Google will deal with challenges the same way they've dealt with people like Viacom. Depressing to see Steve's notes about WebM CPU use though. Had hoped video might be lighter greener in all its post-Flash incarnations. Re full page video: Odd how few cool tools have been made with HTML5 video so far. It'll be interesting to see what the HTML5 version of Navigaya.com looks like, which they say is coming soon. Recently launched as Flash only - nice full page video/web TV, social media browsing interface - a bit like the interfaces Elbows has mused about a few times over the years here. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 22 May 2010, at 14:22, elbowsofdeath wrote: At this stage by biggest problem is how much CPU it uses to playback, quality seems ok to me but CPU use is not. As for the whole page as a canvas for videos, I guess there is quite a lot of potential there, either through multiple videos or different parts of the page playing back different periods of time from a single video file. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: Interesting to read, but I would make note of the source. anyone invested in H264 will obviously do what they can to lay down fear. Remember when Google bought Youtube and there was all the fear of copyright lawsuits? Google has the lawyers to figure it out. The more important issue to research is how well WebM works. Hows it look, how smooth is it, how well does it compress and transcode? If Google gives developers all the resources they need, let's give people 3 months before we see some cool expeirments. In my mind, the whole idea is to break out of the idea of the video in the player. What if you could use the whole page as a canvas for your videos? Stan is right that creators need the tools to do this. As Verdi said, http://www.mirovideoconverter.com/, is a nice free tool to transcode to WebM for tests. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post Messages in this topic (17) 1b. Re: WebM Project Posted by: Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com kinshasa2000 Sat May 29, 2010 4:32 am (PDT) Re full page video: Odd how few cool tools have been made with HTML5 video so far. It'll be interesting to see what the HTML5 version of Navigaya.com looks like, which they say is coming soon. Recently launched as Flash only - nice full page video/web TV, social media browsing interface - a bit like the interfaces Elbows has mused about a few times over the years here. This is the missing link. We need more tools for creators to take advantage of the promise of HTML5 video. We need dead easy ways to play with presentation and interactivity. Dont forget about proposing workshops at http://www.openvideoconference.org/proposals/ I can imagine just a brainstorming session about what these tools might look like. Jay Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post Messages in
Re: [videoblogging] Re: WebM Project
Not familiar with navigaya.com. Dont see info on site and requires login to go deeper but no signup. Care to elaborate? On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Rupert Howe rup...@twittervlog.tv wrote: Just catching up after week away, reading the various breakdowns speculations. So WebM only matches h.264 baseline profile for quality, and is bulkier and slower and uses more power? But surely the point is that this is just the beginning of an open development process? And isn't the most important thing that we now have something open that rivals h.264, which weakens MPEG-LA's position when they come to review the patent fees in 5 years. Even if it's not quite as good. The market cares more about cost than quality (VHS vs Betamax, etc). I'm sure that Google must have seen that alone as worth the $120m they spent on ON2. And then smart of them to realise that the best hope for VP8 to survive was to open source it. Who's going to choose another proprietary codec instead of h.264, especially if it's not as good? Speculations about the patents seem pointless - a patent pool will no doubt emerge and the risks will have been reviewed ad nauseam by Google. Similarities with h264 will have been obvious to them and are surely arguable by prior art, as noted by the x264 developer in his breakdown updates the comments. Google will deal with challenges the same way they've dealt with people like Viacom. Depressing to see Steve's notes about WebM CPU use though. Had hoped video might be lighter greener in all its post-Flash incarnations. Re full page video: Odd how few cool tools have been made with HTML5 video so far. It'll be interesting to see what the HTML5 version of Navigaya.com looks like, which they say is coming soon. Recently launched as Flash only - nice full page video/web TV, social media browsing interface - a bit like the interfaces Elbows has mused about a few times over the years here. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 22 May 2010, at 14:22, elbowsofdeath wrote: At this stage by biggest problem is how much CPU it uses to playback, quality seems ok to me but CPU use is not. As for the whole page as a canvas for videos, I guess there is quite a lot of potential there, either through multiple videos or different parts of the page playing back different periods of time from a single video file. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: Interesting to read, but I would make note of the source. anyone invested in H264 will obviously do what they can to lay down fear. Remember when Google bought Youtube and there was all the fear of copyright lawsuits? Google has the lawyers to figure it out. The more important issue to research is how well WebM works. Hows it look, how smooth is it, how well does it compress and transcode? If Google gives developers all the resources they need, let's give people 3 months before we see some cool expeirments. In my mind, the whole idea is to break out of the idea of the video in the player. What if you could use the whole page as a canvas for your videos? Stan is right that creators need the tools to do this. As Verdi said, http://www.mirovideoconverter.com/, is a nice free tool to transcode to WebM for tests. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.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]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: WebM Project
If you can get past the presenter's weird boob jiggling, this demo video shows it off quite well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lp8aMhluDs It's a closed, walled-garden Flash deal. More like a set top box interface. But pretty and full of features - more on the way. Will be interesting to see how they rebuild it in HTML5. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 29 May 2010, at 15:20, Michael Sullivan wrote: Not familiar with navigaya.com. Dont see info on site and requires login to go deeper but no signup. Care to elaborate? On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Rupert Howe rup...@twittervlog.tv wrote: Just catching up after week away, reading the various breakdowns speculations. So WebM only matches h.264 baseline profile for quality, and is bulkier and slower and uses more power? But surely the point is that this is just the beginning of an open development process? And isn't the most important thing that we now have something open that rivals h.264, which weakens MPEG-LA's position when they come to review the patent fees in 5 years. Even if it's not quite as good. The market cares more about cost than quality (VHS vs Betamax, etc). I'm sure that Google must have seen that alone as worth the $120m they spent on ON2. And then smart of them to realise that the best hope for VP8 to survive was to open source it. Who's going to choose another proprietary codec instead of h.264, especially if it's not as good? Speculations about the patents seem pointless - a patent pool will no doubt emerge and the risks will have been reviewed ad nauseam by Google. Similarities with h264 will have been obvious to them and are surely arguable by prior art, as noted by the x264 developer in his breakdown updates the comments. Google will deal with challenges the same way they've dealt with people like Viacom. Depressing to see Steve's notes about WebM CPU use though. Had hoped video might be lighter greener in all its post-Flash incarnations. Re full page video: Odd how few cool tools have been made with HTML5 video so far. It'll be interesting to see what the HTML5 version of Navigaya.com looks like, which they say is coming soon. Recently launched as Flash only - nice full page video/web TV, social media browsing interface - a bit like the interfaces Elbows has mused about a few times over the years here. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 22 May 2010, at 14:22, elbowsofdeath wrote: At this stage by biggest problem is how much CPU it uses to playback, quality seems ok to me but CPU use is not. As for the whole page as a canvas for videos, I guess there is quite a lot of potential there, either through multiple videos or different parts of the page playing back different periods of time from a single video file. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: Interesting to read, but I would make note of the source. anyone invested in H264 will obviously do what they can to lay down fear. Remember when Google bought Youtube and there was all the fear of copyright lawsuits? Google has the lawyers to figure it out. The more important issue to research is how well WebM works. Hows it look, how smooth is it, how well does it compress and transcode? If Google gives developers all the resources they need, let's give people 3 months before we see some cool expeirments. In my mind, the whole idea is to break out of the idea of the video in the player. What if you could use the whole page as a canvas for your videos? Stan is right that creators need the tools to do this. As Verdi said, http://www.mirovideoconverter.com/, is a nice free tool to transcode to WebM for tests. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.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] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
