RE: [videoblogging] how to read and compress .VOB files?
www.drdivx.com it is now open source. Just pc right now, but people are working on the other versions. I think someone finished a Swedish version also. for macs there is http://www.divx.com/divx/mac/ In the converter app if you select custom profile you can access bitrate, frame size and all those other goodies. Jim Vinson DivX, Inc. From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of gmjoyce_y Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 3:25 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] how to read and compress .VOB files? Does anyone know how to convert VOB files to a format I can read and then compress? I was able to copy the files off the DVD and onto my hard drive so I don't have to decrypt them (and it's a movie I made so I'm not violating copyright), but now I'm stuck. I just want to take the movie off the DVD and compress it into something smaller, to around 500 - 700 MB. Then I want to put clips from the movie up on the Web. But Premiere won't read the VOB files. I tried http://jmoney.byethost15.com/PARTS%202%20and%203/PART2.htm but no luck. Dr. Divx is no longer available. Thanks! --Greg htp://www.workingstiff.org SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] Re: DivX - Shameless Plug
We actually worked tightly with xvid specifically so that xvid stream would work in all DivX decoders also. Xvid obviously cant license to CE manufacturers because of mpeg-la niceties (mpeg-la is entitled to fees for just compiling the code). Competeing development towards commons goals with xvid has helped us both. We are forced to keep strong development and they are insured of hardware support. (If you look in the code you will see they include DivX certified profiles inside xvid). So for general purposes, there really isnt a functional distinction between xvid and divx. There is a good chance the browser side will come out in a few weeks (I am guessing right after everyone gets back from new years). Another arena is the online distribution. That is still very early in the game. Who is to say that there wont be a lot of paid content in avi? In fact, in italt, there is already a good market of DivX discs sold at retail establishments of current Hollywood releases. In brazil, they are included with new DVD players (sometimes three feature films per disc). And these arent obscure titles. These are new release top tier movies. I know that itunes has sold millions of music videos, but on a sheer number of minutes scale, they are still tens if not hundreds of billions of minutes behind existing (grey or not) avi content. We have already announced lower level content deals (Image Entertainment, very long tail), but dont be surprised if you see some DivX online stores in the next year. Im certainly not saying that we are trailblazers leading the pack, but dont write us off. And please, keep up the dialog. One truly unique position you have with DivX is that we are here and listening. From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 10:12 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: DivX - Shameless Plug Cheers :) My impression of things is probably a bit wrong, Im probably underestimating the number of DivX certified players etc that exist. And yes when thinking of videoblogging, Im not thinking of the billions of legacy files that consumers want to play, indeed Im avoiding talking about that stuff at all because its 'grey' to say the least. Still it is similar to how mp3 become the established standard for audio. DivX doesnt dominate to quite the extent mp3 does though, I see a lot of xvid stuff floating around, but maybe they are pretty compatible. Regarding mp4 support from the likes of Apple and Sony, it will be interesting to see what happens. Apple have actually been good about this so far, they could have limited ipod support to .mov containers only, if they wanted to keep tighter control of ipod video creation tools. They havent, theyve allowed normal m4 to work. The fact that only baseline h264 works is likely due to the choice of decoder chip, rather than a deliberate imcompatibility with PSP h264. Sony on the otherhand have either due to sloppyness or deliberate policy, messed with the PSP mp4 container, but it still hasnt stopped people creating 3rd party PSP video encoders. Did you say in the pst that DivX are working on playback in browsers? Compared to Apple's stuff thats where you are lacking most, and also lacking something like itunes and content deals. Im not so sure all those billions of legacy divx avi's will mean all that much to hardware manufacturers in the longterm. When people are buying more video online, it wont be in avi format. Couple that with phones other devices creating mp4's of one kind of another, and next-gen DVD using h264, and I am not so sure DivX compatibility will continue to be such a selling point for DVD hardware players etc in the future. Steve of Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jim Vinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve, Not to butter you up or anything, but you are very insightful. I honestly appreciate these threads. There are published specs for avi and many other codecs and encoding applications create avi's. For the longterm CE manufacturers will support this format since there are billions of legacy files that the consumers want to play. Supporting our 'certified' profile gives them a competitive advantage, therefore they put it in the box. From my side of the playground, the apple mp4 support is more of a problem than a help. If anyone is going to make a vertically integrated closed system it will be apple. I would be surprised if apple and sony came together with a compatible format out of the kindness of their hearts. The slight differences are not an accident. Recent content deals on both sides drive an even deeper wedge between the psp and ipod. That is where we are trying to be part of the solution. We do have the leverage to make CE manufacturers implement a documented standard that is verifiably interoperable by someone outside of the production process. Also, due
RE: [videoblogging] DivX - Shameless Plug
They will have to have something installed that can decode divx. I dont know about the full integration with these other decoders inside quicktime, but xvid, vlc and a fist full of other programs can decode DivX video. Jim V From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua Kinberg Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 11:40 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] DivX - Shameless Plug So if I encode with DivX, the video can be played in QT Player and Windows Media Player? But the viewer has to have DivX codec installed, right? -josh On 12/8/05, JV [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A little shameless plug http://www.divx.com/divx/mac/ There is a free trial, but if anyone needs a sn, drop me a line and I'll get you one. This is the first time we have had our mac development ahead of PC development (don't worry, the PC side is almost done ;) ) This puts a standard mpeg-4 based playback in the quicktime player, windows media player, consumer electronics devices. The converter is very easy, just drag and drop, or you can export from quicktime pro directly to DivX. We also have released the open source encoding application Dr. DivX at www.drdivx.com. It is only compiled for PC right now, but we should have Linux and Mac installers coming along. There are a few more widgets we are working on, but they are about a month out. If you have any questions, hit me up Thanks, Jim V [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] DivX - Shameless Plug
We have playback implementations in all of these areas. DivX is an mpeg-4 implementation. One mis-understanding is that because mpeg-4 is a standards based format that they all are about the same quality. For example, tests show DivX performs better than baseline h.264. That isnt to say that h.264 cant be better than DivX, but baseline implementations (i.e. h.264 for ipod) wont be as good as DivX. By standard, what I mean is that other encoders can make video streams that can be decoded by divx and vice versa. There are limitations. We are working on a simple app that can check any video to see if our decoders can play the video. If it can then it means ALL divx decoders can play the file, including the 50+ million certified DVD players out there. Im not sure if that was the question. Am I close? Jim Vinson From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua Kinberg Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 11:57 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] DivX - Shameless Plug So, can you explain a little more what does this statement means: This puts a standard mpeg-4 based playback in the quicktime player, windows media player, consumer electronics devices. The converter is very easy, just drag and drop, or you can export from quicktime pro directly to DivX. -Josh On 12/8/05, Jim Vinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They will have to have something installed that can decode divx. I don't know about the full integration with these other decoders inside quicktime, but xvid, vlc and a fist full of other programs can decode DivX video. Jim V From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua Kinberg Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 11:40 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] DivX - Shameless Plug So if I encode with DivX, the video can be played in QT Player and Windows Media Player? But the viewer has to have DivX codec installed, right? -josh On 12/8/05, JV [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A little shameless plug http://www.divx.com/divx/mac/ There is a free trial, but if anyone needs a sn, drop me a line and I'll get you one. This is the first time we have had our mac development ahead of PC development (don't worry, the PC side is almost done ;) ) This puts a standard mpeg-4 based playback in the quicktime player, windows media player, consumer electronics devices. The converter is very easy, just drag and drop, or you can export from quicktime pro directly to DivX. We also have released the open source encoding application Dr. DivX at www.drdivx.com. It is only compiled for PC right now, but we should have Linux and Mac installers coming along. There are a few more widgets we are working on, but they are about a month out. If you have any questions, hit me up Thanks, Jim V [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group videoblogging on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Typepad Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] DivX - Shameless Plug
Stay tuned for further developments (probably more than 6 weeks away though). From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jake Ludington Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:27 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [videoblogging] DivX - Shameless Plug This puts a standard mpeg-4 based playback in the quicktime player, windows media player, consumer electronics devices. The converter is very easy, just drag and drop, or you can export from quicktime pro directly to DivX. Jim, The major disadvantage I see to DivX at this point is no playback support on PSP or iPod. Yes it's perfect for PC or Mac playback and the file sizes make it interesting as a solution for software PVRs but the ideal scenario is one format for everything. MP4 comes closer than anything else at this point because it is supported on the two devices everyone wants to own in addition to being supported on all the desktop platforms. If you can get your Codec on major portable devices, then you're on to something. Jake Ludington http://www.PodcastingStarterKit.com http://www.jakeludington.com http://www.sync2play.com YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] Re: DivX - Shameless Plug
Steve, Not to butter you up or anything, but you are very insightful. I honestly appreciate these threads. There are published specs for avi and many other codecs and encoding applications create avis. For the longterm CE manufacturers will support this format since there are billions of legacy files that the consumers want to play. Supporting our certified profile gives them a competitive advantage, therefore they put it in the box. A catch-22 that arises is how to get something that is a documented standard into production consumer electronics devices. This is a tightrope walk we have been on since at least 2002 and have leveraged as much as we can to make it happen. In some ways we decided what CE manufacturers would support, in other ways there were cost barriers in silicon implementation where we helped guide the process to the best result possible. In doing so, we have made a market of devices that conform to a standard that can be accessed by anyone as a distribution endpoint. From my side of the playground, the apple mp4 support is more of a problem than a help. If anyone is going to make a vertically integrated closed system it will be apple. I would be surprised if apple and sony came together with a compatible format out of the kindness of their hearts. The slight differences are not an accident. Recent content deals on both sides drive an even deeper wedge between the psp and ipod. That is where we are trying to be part of the solution. We do have the leverage to make CE manufacturers implement a documented standard that is verifiably interoperable by someone outside of the production process. Also, due to required legacy support, even if we were evil, hand wringing, control freaks, we couldnt lock out the existing, non-DivX encoding schemes. This isnt the end of our work day or month out here. We are going to keep plugging along, and hopefully with input from people like steve we can move towards a good solution. From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 1:17 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: DivX - Shameless Plug Oops sorry I forgot the link to the divx forum post that gave me the idea .mp4 support is strongly resisted, though forums arent necessarily the best guide and I havent actually had a chance to try their latest software yet... http://tinyurl.com/au4s5 To be fair there are still some reasons why people are sticking with .mov or .wmv rather than going for .mp4, but devices such as ipod are helping. Even then, people can still use .mov, but Im hoping that there will be a wider range of alternative players that also handle .mp4 and dont do .mov, and then the theory of why .mp4 is the best choice (no single comapny controlling it) will become practical reality. This paradise also requires Sony to get rid of the stupid slight difference to the mp4 structure that it currently needs to be compatible. And unfortunately in this context, DivX is part of the problem, not the solution right now. Thats the road Im on anyway, as sufferers of my regular mpeg4 related waffle know only too well. When I no longer need to waffle in depth about the confusing subject of codecs, then it will be a sign that things are a bit better. Steve of Elbows YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] Re: DivX - Shameless Plug
Nero doesnt really have a certification program. It is self certification where the manufacturers determine if the device is good enough or not. I cant speak too much to the ipod psp work, but we do have our brightest minds working on it. We know what the chips are capable of. We are looking at combinations of modifying syntax and (only when absolutely necessary) transcoding. I can say that there are people here watching DivX files on psps, but they are not your average consumers and the files are not the average divx file. From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 1:24 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: DivX - Shameless Plug Wahey, cheers Jim. Perhaps there is more hope than I thought that DivX will rethink their strategy after seeing the ipod friends appear on the scene. Its perfectly possible I suppose to offer options in DivX to create standard mp4 files for use with ipods etc, as well as maintaining options to output stuff that requires divx decoder and may look better or compress better etc. I sincerely hope thats what happens,after all Nero have got their own silly name for mpeg4 'Nero Digital' and a certification program with matching encoder profiles, but their Nero Recode app can still spit out totally compliant .mp4's for use with Ipod, and PSP compatible ones too. Steve of Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jim Vinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stay tuned for further developments (probably more than 6 weeks away though). _ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jake Ludington Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:27 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [videoblogging] DivX - Shameless Plug This puts a standard mpeg-4 based playback in the quicktime player, windows media player, consumer electronics devices. The converter is very easy, just drag and drop, or you can export from quicktime pro directly to DivX. Jim, The major disadvantage I see to DivX at this point is no playback support on PSP or iPod. Yes it's perfect for PC or Mac playback and the file sizes make it interesting as a solution for software PVRs but the ideal scenario is one format for everything. MP4 comes closer than anything else at this point because it is supported on the two devices everyone wants to own in addition to being supported on all the desktop platforms. If you can get your Codec on major portable devices, then you're on to something. Jake Ludington http://www.PodcastingStarterKit.com http://www.jakeludington.com http://www.sync2play.com _ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS * Visit your group videoblogging http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging on the web. * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ . _ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] Re: War On Text
We recently had an exercise here at DivX where we charted global changes based on media paradigms. Starting with written words bringing about commerce in Mesopotamia through the very recent concept of mass shared experiences. It is interesting that the format of media can limit not only how you express yourself, but what is possible to be expressed. It isn't a stretch to translate the format of media into a limiting factor on what is possible to be thought as well. We obviously believe that digital media, in general, is a shift as profound as the advent of writing itself. Digital video is a very rich subset of digital media. Digital media isn't an assault on any previous craft of media, but an enabler. The limits of digital expression in text are certainly not exhausted. However, it is much more mature than personal expression through video. Innovation in technology, production and spirit are happening in digital video expression on a daily basis. Jim V From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 9:59 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: War On Text The most asinine idea ever? Wow I must be getting somewhere :) Let me expand on what I meant. For a start the term 'war on text' is supposed to be tongue in cheek, as the 'War On Terror' is one of the most stupid things Ive ever come across. Secondly Im a massive hypocrite on this issue because Ive posted about million words here over the last year but only 3 videos. But that doesnt stop me hating the downside of text, such as how arguments/debates end up going when done via text. I dont think your version if history tells the full story because its missing out the fact of just how many people were and still are illiterate. In this sense text can be great barrier, a great divider, a great unequalizer and tool of maintaining the status quo and keeping people in their place. These sorts of things along with language barriers make me dream of computers that required no understanding of the written word in order to be used, quite a challenge, but that no excuse for the world never trying this stuff. I really like this quote from the film 'A Fistful of Dynamite', which doesnt quite fit this topic but overlaps it a bit in my mind: The people who read the books, they go to the poor people, and they say we have to have a revolution. So the poor people go out and make the revolution. And then the people who read the books, they sit around the fancy tables and talk. And what has happened to the poor people ? They are DEAD !!. And then the whole fucking shit starts all over again. Dont talk to me about revolutions. OK I dot really want a war on text, as if such a thing was possible. But I do favour text being used where it works best, and as many lively discussions as possible taking place via video instead. I am currently considering whether to throw my hat into the ring of people using flash comm server (now flash media server) to deliver interesting video services on the web, I'll do anything to get rid of the text version of me which I consider to be even more of a nghtmare than the multimedia version of me lol. Steve of Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: War on Text? This is the most asinine idea that I have ever encountered. First off, we're talking about a natural evolution that will or won't occur whether or not you decide to declare a supposed war on text. Secondly, let's look at this historically, prior to the invention of the telephone, people wrote letters and many of these letters were quite eloquent; just watch a Ken Burns doc. Suddenly the telephone allowed us to communicate instantaneously and allowed us to have the banal conversations we have every day even when our loved ones were away. This point marks the decline of letter writing. Before there was radio and then TV, books were a more prevalent form of entertainment, and there is something to be said about the literary value of a well-written book that simply isn't comparable through video. I can list dozens more reasons why text is a valuable part of our culture, and the very fact that you're engaging in this dialogue through a written mailing list proves it. So please tell me why you want to embark upon a war on text? Really the whole idea is needlessly provocative and altogether spooky... Josh The Revolution Will Be Televised www.joshwolf.net On Nov 22, 2005, at 7:56 PM, Joan Khoo wrote: I'm not so keen on the war on text. Don't get me wrong, I love audio and video as a medium. But I also have a love interest with the written word. As much as I love to watch what everyone else is doing and feeling, sometimes I prefer to let my imagination take hold when reading a text. -Joan On
RE: [videoblogging] Re: mov in to wmv
And dont leave us over here at DivX out either. We have some things cooking back in the lab. First small trickles will probably reach public beta in the next month. We might not have the money that the other guys have, but we already beat everyones expectations in the DVD market. Jim DivX From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of robert a/k/a r Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 1:46 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: mov in to wmv Andrew, I wouldn't discount Flash. IMHO the quality of this VideoEgg file is quite good, have a look: http://www.thomasblard.com/thomasblard/2005/11/arroseur_arrose.html the tinyurl is: http://tinyurl.com/822zr cheers r -- URL: http://r.24x7.com Deconstructing the status quo, collaboratively On Nov 17, 2005, at 3:40 PM, andrew michael baron wrote: With all of my rejection of .wmv files combined with my hopes for a single CODEC, I have learned that the number one reason to provide .wmv files is for people who do not have the authority to install on their machines. Many people at work do not have access to install. Also people in lesser developed countries often sit at cyber cafes and can not install software from there either. Most of these people are on Windows and can by default play .wmv files. Its a lesser option, but often the only option. SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] Tivo to Computer
Mac aside, even the tivo desktop for PC doesnt yield a file ready for editing. It is DRM protected. From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kearney, Pat Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:26 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [videoblogging] Tivo to Computer This is good for PC's , any Mac love out there? -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jake Ludington Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:24 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [videoblogging] Tivo to Computer Hey everyone, how do u get Tivo'd shows off tivo and into your computer for editing? Tivo Desktop: http://www.tivo.com/4.9.4.1.asp Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM ~- Yahoo! Groups Links YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] Re: divX and apple?
We are working very hard on it http://labs.divx.com/ http://labs.divx.com/archives/62.html Jim Vinson DivX From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Nolan.ca Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 1:05 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: divX and apple? So, is divx not available for the mac (for future reference)? http://www.divx.com/divx/play/download/ ... Richard Version 6 hasn't been released yet for the Mac AFAIK. See http://www.divx.com/divx/mac/ To get the version 5 which I haven't had any problems codec wise with. Chris Nolan.ca http://ChrisNolan.ca/ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] Rocketboom sorta featured on Steve Jobs announcement...
In reference to the test part. I think it is a test with regards to old media production. I agree that it might (and hopefully will) be irrelevant. This is important because this may be where the difference in new narrative entertainment comes as well. Their excesses will open the doors for more challenging, personal an poignant shows. Production of one show I know of costs roughly 1.7 million. That is a pretty good middle number considering that was one episode salary for each actor on friends. This particular show airs on UPN. UPN pays 1.2 million for the rights to air the show first (the day after they air the rights go back to the production company). So they are at a $500,000 deficit for each episode. Traditionally the thought has been to make it to 5 seasons so you can syndicate and ride that gravy train. Recently you have started to see DVDs making a big impact with TV shows. It started with premium cable shows, but now the DVDs come out before the next season for many of the popular broadcast shows. But that is traditional media. So, this is the test.. for them. Im a believer, though. Remember it was only 10 years ago when major technology analysts said the internet would be the CB radio of the decade. When we started DivX, analysts said, I kid you not, one of our major competitors for video delivery was Enron. That is not a typo, Enron. So take it with a grain of salt and as a challenge. (would it be to cheesy to throw in a the revolution will not be televised? ;) ) From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kunga Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 5:51 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Rocketboom sorta featured on Steve Jobs announcement... Tiki Bar TV has SEVEN Episodes - missing #3. Rocketboom has about 250. Who said life was fair? Thanks Josh. My Snapz Pro X recording of the presentation crapped out at that exact moment. But I've got a still photo if anyone wants it of the menu with Rocketboom listed and Steve pointing his remote at it. I want my Front Row and I want it NOW - ala carte. By the way, I am almost ready to puke over how the mass media interprets what happened yesterday. NBC Today correspondent saying this is a 'test' to see if people will buy videos they have to watch on a two and a half inch screen. And Steve saying there is no market for video on the go today. So we're going to have to create it. I mean this is completely INSANE language they are using. Let's be clear THIS IS NOT A TEST. You do NOT have to watch videos on the 2.5 screen. There IS A GIGANTIC MARKET for video on the go today. And Apple is NOT going to have to create it. All Apple is doing is providing the solution to a long standing problem. The market has been getting PREGNANT with anticipation for years. Affordable technology and our new distribution system has just now fallen into place. so it's really synergy of pent up demand meeting technological advances - not Apple creating a market or doing a test. http://futuremediatv.blip.tv/ is where I'm putting the TV segments for now if you guys want to check them out. You'll have to bring your own barf bag though. But I really need your subscriptions please. ; ^ ) I'm just a little concerned about my HTML on the feed site. I don't want any more accidents over there that don't show up in iTunes. NBC Today is the most hilarious of the bunch. Should have it up in the next hour or so. -- Taylor Barcroft http://www.blogger.com/profile/11159903 New Media Publisher, Editor, Video Journalist, Webcaster, Futurecaster Santa Cruz CA, Beach of the Silicon Valley URL http://FutureMedia.org RSS http://feeds.feedburner.com/FutureMedia iTunes http://tinyurl.com/8ql87 On Oct 13, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Josh Wolf wrote: Hey guys, so I finally watched the vidcast of Steve Jobs announcement for the video iPod... about 13:50 into the presentation he's introducing video podcasts and shows a video from Tiki Bar TV, but Rocketboom is the only other video podcast in his chart... So you guys weren't the featured video, but they did give you a bit of advertising anyhow. Rockin! YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] Re: VIDEO IPOD!!!!!
So, these are my very unofficial first thoughts I am very excited about ABC leading the way and at least making a starting point for major media distribution. I cant wait to see where this goes over the next two weeks. It really makes me excited to go to work everyday. Actually, everything is moving so fast, I kind of dont want to leave. I am a bit disappointed in the firepower. 480x480 mpeg-4. Even if it can display it on the screen I would hope it could do full screen video on the TV out. There have been handheld mpeg-4 player capable of full DVD resolution for well over a year. I have to imagine that this limitation will be overcome with the next release. Overall a thumbs up. The more people are used to getting their video over the internet in general, the lower the barrier for common and extraordinary video _expression_. From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 12:26 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: VIDEO IPOD! Incentives to pay: 1) Ease. Its so damn easy to buy music off itunes and have it on your ipod. Once people reach a certain threshold of earnings, their time becomes more valuable to them than a few dollars. 2) Maybe there arent any adverts in the TV shows. Pay to avoid that brainrot inserted annoyingly into shows I want to watch? You bet. The TV show stuff is something Im interested in but I bet there will be global licensing issues that prevent me from being able to buy all the same itunes TV shows as you can in the USA. Hope Im wrong, but it seems a safe bet to me, considering we are often months or whole series behind with when many US ttv shows get shown on TV in the UK. Steve of Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Clint Sharp wrote: Hrm. $1.99 seems a little pricey to me for one TV show. That's $50 a season. I watch about 5 shows not in reruns and probably another 7 to 10 in syndication. Figuring 15 shows, that'd be $750/yr for the shows I watch, or about $62.50 a month. I pay less than that for cable, plus I have access to all the shit I don't watch regularly. Someone's gonna have to come up with a better business model. Not only that, but $1.99 for 320x240 versions of television shows? What's my incentive to pay? YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] Re: MPEG 4 and H.264 Licenses
That is certainly a valid reading. We do have licenses that cover everything including protected download and broadcast of video. Also, when I get an appropriate license together it will be going through the full process with the lawyers here. I promise it will be legible; I also promise that it will be full and correct. I never thought the questions were negative. I honestly was pleased at how factual and based in reality they have been. From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:03 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: MPEG 4 and H.264 Licenses Cheers and thanks for answering my previosu questions. Im afraid I usually sound a bit too negative when discussing things, I just want to get down to issues that sometimes arent all that positiv or interesting to talk about, but they have implications that get me thinking and then I start waffling and you see the results ;) Anyway yeah if I am understanding all this licensing stuff properly, the rights youve bought from MPEG-LA entitles you to do what you do with selling divx encoder/decoder, and giving DivX users limited rights to use the footage. If Im correct, the absolute most rights you could give the users, would be anything that is listed as free in the MPEG-LA mpeg4 license about content distributors. Anything that starts attracting additional mpeg4 fees, will require the user to seek an additional license. If ths is correct, then my previous moan is about whether DivX wants to give us less rights than mpeg4 license would allow. Im not trying to kill DivX as a viable business, so Id expect you to want to impose an extra term or 2, its just the indie license went too far for me. Its great to hear you are working on different license. This post is mostly just a fear that youd go too far in the other direction and give us rights that you cant actually give us. Ahh patents, dont you just love them, even if I locked myself away for 20 years and wrote a new kind of video format from scratch, it'd still end up infringing god knows how many concepts. Steve of Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, JV [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will make sure this is crystal clear in the license I'm working on (started work after your last post). I obviously can't speak to other companies, but we cover all mpeg-la licenses relating to use of DivX video with mp3 audio. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Im just bringing back this informative post because the mpeg4 license issues relate to the DivX questions Ive just been asking. Also unfortunately its of relevance to the discussion about money, its something people like Peter should strictly speaking look at when considering stuff like the PSP version stuff (as thats mpeg4 or h24) and whether it has implications for subscription. Most of the rules strike me as just perfect, they wont touch most video creators unless they get popular rich enough to afford a fee. For people running services like mefeedia, ourmedia, archive.org, blip.tv, the issue may require more attention, I dunno, I havent thought about that much yet. Anyway in addition to the excellent info by people provided previously (see below), here is a summary of the H264 agreement. http://www.mpegla.com/avc/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf The first part is of interest to people like 3ivx or divx (if they used AVC h264 stuff). Indeed you can find both these companies listed on the standard mpeg4 licensee page, along with the likes of Apple, Sony, Nero, Mainconcept, Ulead, and other companies that have products that include mpeg 4 encoders and decoders. This gives them the right to sell products using mpeg4, and to grant us users the right to make stuff for personal use. The second part deals with content creators and services that make video available, and is similar to the mpeg4 terms mentioned in the previous emails below. The very reason I dont like the DivX license is because its another layer. If I just use a straight mpeg4 or avc/h264 encoder then I know if my stuff ever got popular or I sell it, I can go to the mpeg body and buy a license that covers me, and that doesnt change terms for a reasonable number of years. Wheras DivX are far less clear, I have to contact them to get a clue what their commercial terms are, and their indie license is too short term and limited. Is .mov another licensing layer? Do apple require any licencing for heavy commercial use of mov files? At last Ive found out the reality behind why things like mpeg standards are a good idea. They still arent free, but they enable individuals or comapnies to easily understand and license the rights to use the technology. Just looking at the list of how many companies claim
