Re: [videoblogging] Re: Open Video Ideas
But to get back on topic, I am still just not sure if it's the software or the hardware that needs to be open or if it's just us as artists...allowing our works to be a part of another work to create a storyengine that tells a whole new story. You are correct. Creators just need to keep pushing their own work. I forget sometimes that most videobloggers (and anyone who puts video on the web)are doing it in addition to having jobs, families, problems, etc. It's been said again and again: There is no longer a priest-caste to make movies, videos, stories, journalism etc. But along with this opening up, there also isn't a clear pattern/format for us to follow. Infinite possibilities means infinite anxiety. Might have been have easier when you knew you had to make a 22-minute TV show, or a 90-minute movie, that was based on very narrow genre expectations? The process of bureaucracy and obtaining approval/money was almost comforting in a solid excuse for not creating? The chase of the festival circuit was a predictable struggle? Anyway...i still do think that an open video/story engine would help. The fact that you use Sony Vegas and I use iMovie/FCP...makes it a little more difficult for us to work together without having to figure out the technical aspects in between. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Open Video Ideas
is h264 not ok as master source video codec (and final output) for both vegas and fcp/imovie? On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote: But to get back on topic, I am still just not sure if it's the software or the hardware that needs to be open or if it's just us as artists...allowing our works to be a part of another work to create a storyengine that tells a whole new story. You are correct. Creators just need to keep pushing their own work. I forget sometimes that most videobloggers (and anyone who puts video on the web)are doing it in addition to having jobs, families, problems, etc. It's been said again and again: There is no longer a priest-caste to make movies, videos, stories, journalism etc. But along with this opening up, there also isn't a clear pattern/format for us to follow. Infinite possibilities means infinite anxiety. Might have been have easier when you knew you had to make a 22-minute TV show, or a 90-minute movie, that was based on very narrow genre expectations? The process of bureaucracy and obtaining approval/money was almost comforting in a solid excuse for not creating? The chase of the festival circuit was a predictable struggle? Anyway...i still do think that an open video/story engine would help. The fact that you use Sony Vegas and I use iMovie/FCP...makes it a little more difficult for us to work together without having to figure out the technical aspects in between. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Open Video Ideas
the open part of video editing tools should prob just be that of an XML format that lays out the instructions for an edited and produced video... with all effects, cuts, layers, paths, filenames and other metadata etc defined. then the software out there SHOULD be compatible as handlers and allow for import of these instructions. since proprietary apps will not care and also may have their own XML format for such things, open source apps would be created in tandem and eventually, some of the popular editing tools may support the standard in the future which can include supporting ogg or other open codecs. imagine if we all made videos using SMIL? sull On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Heath heathpa...@msn.com wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... Anyway...i still do think that an open video/story engine would help. The fact that you use Sony Vegas and I use iMovie/FCP...makes it a little more difficult for us to work together without having to figure out the technical aspects in between. Jay In that I completely agree...having a standard or open video editing/processing platform would be great for collaborations and I think we need to remember that open doesn't have to mean free...because at some point that people making all this I am sure would like to have some compensation for their time, effort, etc...So some of being open to open standards is for us as storytellers editors, etc is to embrace these new techs and share the knowledge... Although I will admit, it's hard to balance the creative and tech sides of me Heath http://heathparks.com -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Open Video Ideas
is h264 not ok as master source video codec (and final output) for both vegas and fcp/imovie? Sure, that's doable. But if we're really talking about collaboration, lets shoot for the stars. We should be able to swap project files, compression settings, fonts, make music together, sceensharing...and IM within the editing project. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Re: Open Video Ideas
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Richard (Show) Hall rich...@... wrote: I've been teaching this digital media class the last three semesters, and technology is a huge barrier to creativity. First, we only have PCs, so we can't go with FCP, so we go with Premiere Pro, which is functionally find, but has all sorts of issues dealing with different types of files/codecs. Just use Sony Vegas Richard, it's much better :-) Heath Parks http://heathparks.com/blog1
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Open Video Ideas
- Original Message - From: Heath I've been teaching this digital media class the last three semesters, and technology is a huge barrier to creativity. First, we only have PCs, so we can't go with FCP, so we go with Premiere Pro, which is functionally find, but has all sorts of issues dealing with different types of files/codecs. Just use Sony Vegas Richard, it's much better :-) I've used the consumer version of Sony Vegas for *years* ... it is a *very* capable and *very* stable program. Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
[videoblogging] Re: Open Video
thanks Steve very interesting -- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins st...@... wrote: It will be tough to displace h.264... Its everywhere now, new DivX for Windows is h.264 based (though uses .mkv file wrapper format). And from what I can tell both Windows 7 and Silverlight 3 will support h.264. Increasingly, hardware that we record and watch video on supports h.264. And as you point out, its hard sell the open stuff because of lack of practical advantage to most, an even tougher problem now than when we had these discussions a few years back. Mozilla want an open standard because one of the most interesting aspects of the new generation of browsers, based on new standards for html and friends, is embedded video tags. But there needs to be a good format available that browsers support, for there to be much reason for developers to use such tags. It would have been easier for them to get somewhere with that if Flash had not come to support h.264. But it does, so its likely to remain the dominant in-browser way to deliver video to the widest range of users, different operating systems browsers. Its a mess. And the codec itself will struggle to beat h.264 for quality/filesize/cpu use balance, because so many of the things that made h.264 better than mpeg4 are patented, which defeats the whole point of the open codec. And its not like the license fee issues of h.264 trap enough people to cause a large enough stink and legal inconvenience / something that feels like the trampling of our freedoms. Youtube didnt get where it is today because of h.264 licensing issues preventing the competition from existing. If something beyond normal video, eg interactivity, genuine multi media, really captured the public imagination, there would be a chance to try to fight that battle in that space. But it hasnt really happened, and even if it did, flash h.264 platforms run by some web 2.0 startup would move quickly to provide the winning user experience on that front. Personally the only battle I think is worth the effort in the browser video space, is the issue of energy consumption. There is some sizeable waste here that can be eliminated by sane use of existing technology, whether open or not. h.264 decoding built into computer chipsets exists, but needs to be pushed harder, especially for netbooks. And I havent seen an implementation thats working in-browser, I know flash tries to use some GPU for certain parts of the decoding but much more needs to be done. Theora will struggle to get dedicated decoding stuff for their format into chipsets, but they might be able to harness GPU's really well with their browser video players, if they choose to go in that direction. I might investigate pushing that agenda. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Brook Hinton bhinton@ wrote: My only concern is that we don't have ANY high quality web video codecs yet, and I fear the results of settling for mediocrity as a standard prematurely. I mean h.264-level quality in an open video format would be great for now, but even h.264 has to be carefully encoded to get acceptably mediocre results for anything beyond news, straight documentation, and talking head videos, and even that's at data rates many people can't download. As a video artist who looks to the web as a new format and venue, this concerns me. Yep...the video creators are WAY ahead of the developers. But I think we just got to jump in. we need a community of FOSS (free and open source) developers who become as passionate about video codecs as you do, Brook. it's going to probably take 5 years for a solid foundation is built so open source codecs can be at the cutting edge. I know a big question is simply: why should I care about open codecs? aren't codecs free now? Flash and quicktime are monetarily free for the most part. Its difficult to find arguments for this now. The concern is when either/both these codecs become totally dominant...and web video is the new TV for lack of a better word. We need an open codec to either challenge the status quo...or be a solid alternative. Ars has a good summary of today's news: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/01/mozilla-contributes-10-to-fund-ogg-development.ars Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Open Video
i try to look at how things might be in 5 years if x happens or y doesnt happen etc. i wouldnt discourage any efforts to make a premium open standard especially if a widely popular web browser will give you native support of that format. look back, and what did we have for video on the web? RealMedia ( http://real.com). they owned audio/video on the web. back then, flash was a joke. now barely anyone thinks about Real and all focus is on Flash. point is, anything can change. the future wont show us flash being obsolete. but it certainly can give us a competing open format that can co-exist and like i said, potentially be a critical component for open media producers to leverage if/when the current crop of formats that are not open become costly to use for profit. sull On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Steve Watkins st...@dvmachine.com wrote: It will be tough to displace h.264... Its everywhere now, new DivX for Windows is h.264 based (though uses .mkv file wrapper format). And from what I can tell both Windows 7 and Silverlight 3 will support h.264. Increasingly, hardware that we record and watch video on supports h.264. And as you point out, its hard sell the open stuff because of lack of practical advantage to most, an even tougher problem now than when we had these discussions a few years back. Mozilla want an open standard because one of the most interesting aspects of the new generation of browsers, based on new standards for html and friends, is embedded video tags. But there needs to be a good format available that browsers support, for there to be much reason for developers to use such tags. It would have been easier for them to get somewhere with that if Flash had not come to support h.264. But it does, so its likely to remain the dominant in-browser way to deliver video to the widest range of users, different operating systems browsers. Its a mess. And the codec itself will struggle to beat h.264 for quality/filesize/cpu use balance, because so many of the things that made h.264 better than mpeg4 are patented, which defeats the whole point of the open codec. And its not like the license fee issues of h.264 trap enough people to cause a large enough stink and legal inconvenience / something that feels like the trampling of our freedoms. Youtube didnt get where it is today because of h.264 licensing issues preventing the competition from existing. If something beyond normal video, eg interactivity, genuine multi media, really captured the public imagination, there would be a chance to try to fight that battle in that space. But it hasnt really happened, and even if it did, flash h.264 platforms run by some web 2.0 startup would move quickly to provide the winning user experience on that front. Personally the only battle I think is worth the effort in the browser video space, is the issue of energy consumption. There is some sizeable waste here that can be eliminated by sane use of existing technology, whether open or not. h.264 decoding built into computer chipsets exists, but needs to be pushed harder, especially for netbooks. And I havent seen an implementation thats working in-browser, I know flash tries to use some GPU for certain parts of the decoding but much more needs to be done. Theora will struggle to get dedicated decoding stuff for their format into chipsets, but they might be able to harness GPU's really well with their browser video players, if they choose to go in that direction. I might investigate pushing that agenda. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Brook Hinton bhin...@... wrote: My only concern is that we don't have ANY high quality web video codecs yet, and I fear the results of settling for mediocrity as a standard prematurely. I mean h.264-level quality in an open video format would be great for now, but even h.264 has to be carefully encoded to get acceptably mediocre results for anything beyond news, straight documentation, and talking head videos, and even that's at data rates many people can't download. As a video artist who looks to the web as a new format and venue, this concerns me. Yep...the video creators are WAY ahead of the developers. But I think we just got to jump in. we need a community of FOSS (free and open source) developers who become as passionate about video codecs as you do, Brook. it's going to probably take 5 years for a solid foundation is built so open source codecs can be at the cutting edge. I know a big question is simply: why should I care about open codecs? aren't codecs free now? Flash and quicktime are monetarily free for the most part. Its difficult to find arguments for this now. The concern is when either/both these codecs become totally dominant...and web video is the new TV for lack of a
[videoblogging] Re: Open Video
This is a great initiative. Will this help me play my old BetaMaxes. I'd like to see this get some momentum, and it is a battlefield out there. Or it could be one more codec to have to transcode and render in %*%%*%*%Final Cut. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:26 AM, @sull sullele...@... wrote: net video is the new tv. steps need to be made now to assure that we can all play/work within this venue in the coming years. can't just assume corporate interests wont step in and make things difficult. I just want to clearly link to Chris Blizzard's post: http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/?p=977 I love the idea of a FOSS, end-to-end, video workflow. This especially makes sense when you start thinking outside industrialized nations whose citizens can afford to spend 5k a year on updating and maintaining tech gear. The strategy to get there is still unclear, but I'm glad the developers are now looking at web video. I know many of them just dont quite get what we need and why. People love a good challenge, and an open source video initiative is a HUGE challenge. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Open Video
My only concern is that we don't have ANY high quality web video codecs yet, and I fear the results of settling for mediocrity as a standard prematurely. I mean h.264-level quality in an open video format would be great for now, but even h.264 has to be carefully encoded to get acceptably mediocre results for anything beyond news, straight documentation, and talking head videos, and even that's at data rates many people can't download. As a video artist who looks to the web as a new format and venue, this concerns me. Brook __ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Open Video
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Brook Hinton bhin...@gmail.com wrote: My only concern is that we don't have ANY high quality web video codecs yet, and I fear the results of settling for mediocrity as a standard prematurely. I mean h.264-level quality in an open video format would be great for now, but even h.264 has to be carefully encoded to get acceptably mediocre results for anything beyond news, straight documentation, and talking head videos, and even that's at data rates many people can't download. As a video artist who looks to the web as a new format and venue, this concerns me. Yep...the video creators are WAY ahead of the developers. But I think we just got to jump in. we need a community of FOSS (free and open source) developers who become as passionate about video codecs as you do, Brook. it's going to probably take 5 years for a solid foundation is built so open source codecs can be at the cutting edge. I know a big question is simply: why should I care about open codecs? aren't codecs free now? Flash and quicktime are monetarily free for the most part. Its difficult to find arguments for this now. The concern is when either/both these codecs become totally dominant...and web video is the new TV for lack of a better word. We need an open codec to either challenge the status quo...or be a solid alternative. Ars has a good summary of today's news: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/01/mozilla-contributes-10-to-fund-ogg-development.ars Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Re: Open Video
It will be tough to displace h.264... Its everywhere now, new DivX for Windows is h.264 based (though uses .mkv file wrapper format). And from what I can tell both Windows 7 and Silverlight 3 will support h.264. Increasingly, hardware that we record and watch video on supports h.264. And as you point out, its hard sell the open stuff because of lack of practical advantage to most, an even tougher problem now than when we had these discussions a few years back. Mozilla want an open standard because one of the most interesting aspects of the new generation of browsers, based on new standards for html and friends, is embedded video tags. But there needs to be a good format available that browsers support, for there to be much reason for developers to use such tags. It would have been easier for them to get somewhere with that if Flash had not come to support h.264. But it does, so its likely to remain the dominant in-browser way to deliver video to the widest range of users, different operating systems browsers. Its a mess. And the codec itself will struggle to beat h.264 for quality/filesize/cpu use balance, because so many of the things that made h.264 better than mpeg4 are patented, which defeats the whole point of the open codec. And its not like the license fee issues of h.264 trap enough people to cause a large enough stink and legal inconvenience / something that feels like the trampling of our freedoms. Youtube didnt get where it is today because of h.264 licensing issues preventing the competition from existing. If something beyond normal video, eg interactivity, genuine multi media, really captured the public imagination, there would be a chance to try to fight that battle in that space. But it hasnt really happened, and even if it did, flash h.264 platforms run by some web 2.0 startup would move quickly to provide the winning user experience on that front. Personally the only battle I think is worth the effort in the browser video space, is the issue of energy consumption. There is some sizeable waste here that can be eliminated by sane use of existing technology, whether open or not. h.264 decoding built into computer chipsets exists, but needs to be pushed harder, especially for netbooks. And I havent seen an implementation thats working in-browser, I know flash tries to use some GPU for certain parts of the decoding but much more needs to be done. Theora will struggle to get dedicated decoding stuff for their format into chipsets, but they might be able to harness GPU's really well with their browser video players, if they choose to go in that direction. I might investigate pushing that agenda. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Brook Hinton bhin...@... wrote: My only concern is that we don't have ANY high quality web video codecs yet, and I fear the results of settling for mediocrity as a standard prematurely. I mean h.264-level quality in an open video format would be great for now, but even h.264 has to be carefully encoded to get acceptably mediocre results for anything beyond news, straight documentation, and talking head videos, and even that's at data rates many people can't download. As a video artist who looks to the web as a new format and venue, this concerns me. Yep...the video creators are WAY ahead of the developers. But I think we just got to jump in. we need a community of FOSS (free and open source) developers who become as passionate about video codecs as you do, Brook. it's going to probably take 5 years for a solid foundation is built so open source codecs can be at the cutting edge. I know a big question is simply: why should I care about open codecs? aren't codecs free now? Flash and quicktime are monetarily free for the most part. Its difficult to find arguments for this now. The concern is when either/both these codecs become totally dominant...and web video is the new TV for lack of a better word. We need an open codec to either challenge the status quo...or be a solid alternative. Ars has a good summary of today's news: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/01/mozilla-contributes-10-to-fund-ogg-development.ars Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Re: OPEN VIDEO PROJECTS for BLUEROOM
Hi Lynn perhaps you would like to send your works to or participate in VernissageTV. It's an open nonprofit network that takes a look at the social side of the world of art, design and architecture, covering opening receptions and talking to the protagonists of the art world. We are looking for correspondents who would like to contribute to VernissageTV. We would like to cover the major art fairs like Art Basel Miami or the Armory Show New York and the major art venues. Have a look at http://www.vernissage.tv. If you are interested: Let us know and we will send you detailed information. Heinrich --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Lynn Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess we missed the first round of submissions. I'm 55 minutes late! Lynn Lynn Lane Coal River Pictures/SKILLZ DVD Magazine website: www.CoalRiverPictures.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vlogs: Docmaker on the Go vlog: http://docmaker.blogspot.com feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/docmaker Hip-Hop Vlog vlog: http://hiphopvlog.blogspot.com feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/hiphopvlog Coming Soon: www.Vlogumentarian.com www.VlogReporter.com AIVF/IDA Ring 8 Member NYC On Nov 15, 2005, at 9:17 PM, Michael Sullivan wrote: interdigitate, baby! On 11/15/05, ryanne hodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Open Call for the New Season of Open Video Projects OPEN VIDEO PROJECTS for BLUEROOM (Rome, Italy / New York, NY ) OPEN VIDEO PROJECTS BLUEROOM OPEN CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS Blueroom ( www.blue-room.it) is a collective dedicated to producing and promoting all forms of media experimentation including electronic music, video, sound art, and cinematic exploration. Blueroom organizes a weekly evening of audio-visual interaction at Rialto Santambrogio, a contemporary cultural center in Rome's historic district. Featuring a dynamic mix of live experimental electronic music, a rotating DJ line-up, live video-mixing, site-specific video installations and 3500 cm_ (a weekly exhibition of poster art specially designed by a contemporary artist for free distribution at the event), Blueroom has become a vital component of Roman nightlife. The overwhelming public interest has brought an average weekly attendance of more than 800 guests. For its upcoming season, Blueroom kicks off with a new program, Open Video Projects. We are looking to develop an international network of artists working with film and video. All artists working in these media are invited to submit work to be part of Open Video Projects. All submitted materials will be evaluated for inclusion however, only selected pieces will be screened as part of the Blueroom evening. Lorenzo Benedetti, Sarra Brill and Andrew Cappetta are responsible for the selection of all video entries and will curate the weekly selections. All submitted materials will be collected in a searchable database, accessible on the program's website, www.openvideoprojects.org In addition to the database, the site will also feature a program guide, screening times, and links to the websites of participating artists (if provided). The same information will also be posted on the Blueroom site, www.blue-room.it. GUIDELINES FOR SUBMITTING VIDEO-WORKS - subject matter is unlimited; - each submitted video must include the name of the artist, title, duration, year of production, contact information (e-mail and home address), biography, and any additional information; - the sender is responsible for mailing costs of submission; - works will not be returned to the senders from Italy and the United States unless a stamped, self-addressed envelope is included in the package. For submissions outside these two countries, please contact Blueroom by email for return postage instructions. -acceptable formats Dvd Mini DV CD The deadline for the first round of submissions is November 15, 2005. Please confirm your submission with an e-mail. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Submissions can be sent to: Blueroom c\o H3E Via Vitorchiano 81 00189 Roma Italy or: Blueroom c/o Andrew Cappetta 20 Herbert Street #2 Brooklyn, NY 11222 USA We look forward to hearing from you! Lorenzo Benedetti is an independent curator, Project Curator of Volume! non-profit gallery, and curator of the Sound Art Museum, RAM, in Rome. Sarra Brill is co-director of the New York-based art collective, Aviate, organizing audio/visual events in New York and Rome. Andrew Cappetta is a co-founder of the experimental video label, RAYR, as well as a co-founder of New No York, a collective that organized shows of experimental electronics at the New York club Tonic and other venues across New York. Application/Entry Fee: no fee / cost of shipping and return (if desired) -- me: http://ryanedit.blogspot.com educate in person: http://nyc.node101.org educate online:
