Re: [videoblogging] SMIL Question

2005-12-13 Thread Michael Sullivan
Just remember not to look at SMIL as a replacement to other methods of delivery.SMIL is very powerful and am glad it is starting to get more attention these days...So many years it was just ignored and dusty but now with all this Internet Media booming around... it has refreshed interest.  Maybe

Re: [videoblogging] SMIL Question

2005-12-13 Thread Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:30:42 +0100, Frank Carver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So it seems to me that what's needed is a smart aggregator (um, like > that six-legged one that crawls around here from time to time) which > can recognize SMIL, prefetch the resources it refers to, and rewrite > the S

Re: [videoblogging] SMIL Question

2005-12-13 Thread Markus Sandy
LOL! i think this maybe happening a LOT more than you think!!! Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote: >Contrary >to the belief of nerds everywhere dial-up users don't leave their computer >online all day and night to download video (or porn). > > -- My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.eti

Re: [videoblogging] SMIL Question

2005-12-13 Thread Markus Sandy
i am under the impression that broadband usage had crossed the 50% mark in the US earlier this year David Meade wrote: >b) despite this audience the majority of the US is still on dial-up > > -- My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us http://apperceptions.org http://digitaldojo.blo

Re: [videoblogging] SMIL Question

2005-12-13 Thread Frank Carver
Tuesday, December 13, 2005, 2:36:21 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote: > The advantage is SMIL is that it can be easily automated where interactive > native Quicktime movies have to be created manually. If you don't mind > taking the time to create the files using eZedia then do that - I would >

Re: [videoblogging] SMIL Question

2005-12-13 Thread Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:06:55 +0100, David Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah I think that's what I'm going to do. eZedia is pretty cool and > takes me all of 5 seconds to edit the link URL, export frame, and > paste to end of vlog before I upload a new vid. One other advantage of native QT

Re: [videoblogging] SMIL Question

2005-12-13 Thread bertrand
Hello,a) not everyone uses iTunesoups, 85% of my audience using video aggregators softwares is using iTunes. :(( but that's not a reason to make iTunes centric solutions...f) (dont get me wrong here I really like what SMIL can do ... just playing devil's advocate) Just putting a link back and a

Re: [videoblogging] SMIL Question

2005-12-13 Thread David Meade
On 12/13/05, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dial-up users have far bigger problems than SMIL in this regard. 4MB/min > compression and dial-up just don't match. It doesn't matter if local > playback is better if it takes 40 minutes to download the video. Contrary > to the b

Re: [videoblogging] SMIL Question

2005-12-13 Thread Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:44:52 +0100, David Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> uhm, uhm, I may be too much positive :)) Any drawbacks ? > > Well, I dunno. But > > a) not everyone uses iTunes Thankfully SMIL works fine in the regular Quicktime Player (and browser plugin). :o) My browser caches

Re: [videoblogging] SMIL Question

2005-12-13 Thread David Meade
On 12/13/05, bertrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - Links and server side interaction (comments, display number of > comments, popularity, sponsors, tracking...) > - Fast Start that works in iTunes (you can start to play a movie > before the whole download is finished) > - Bandwith economy (maybe

Re: [videoblogging] SMIL Question

2005-12-13 Thread bertrand
Hello, I have set up a SMIL feed for my VJ Bertranol vlog. I made it first to add a comment functionnality to iTunes, and it works great : http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=78491663 There is some good points with SMIL : - Links and server side interaction (comments

Re: [videoblogging] SMIL Question

2005-12-12 Thread Michael Sullivan
If you use SMIL, great... but dont let it be some sort of replacement for serving the video files directly too.SMIL can be fun to experiment with and is also used for playlists (ie. vlogdir videoblog playlists). sullOn 12/12/05, David Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So a previous post got me th

Re: [videoblogging] SMIL Question

2005-12-12 Thread Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:24:57 +0100, David Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So my question is this ... If I wanted to use this SMIL stuff on my > vlog, arent aggregators going to download just the xml file and not > really the movie file itself? (the linkubator tool references a > remote hoste

[videoblogging] SMIL Question

2005-12-12 Thread David Meade
So a previous post got me thinking and I started to do some research into SMIL. I figured this must be how the image overlay worked from the linkubator tool and opened up the mov it saved me in a text editor. Sure enough ... xml :-) So my question is this ... If I wanted to use this SMIL stuff o