Just a few comments.
One possible solution to the 1080 issue will be (soon to be
released, released?) Flash Player 9, which will support up to 1920 x
1080. It
will not run in full screen mode at this setting unfortunately.
It will be in H.264 format, as used in MPEG 4. FLV files are FLV files
- which may not be the panacea everyone desires but it may allow some of
the high-res content to get out in the wild, sooner than later.
The choice to use Youtube over Google was an easy one. Youtube
allows one to embed the video in an html page, Google Video does not.
My feeling is that the supplemental information surrounding the video
can aid in familiarity for the user. The more images available to a user
trying to make a determination of an unknown taxon, the better.
However, Youtube, and Google for that matter, may (read will) switch to
an ad based format. Ads appearing on/in vouchers are not appealing for
obvious reasons.
Scientific video services are coming into being - Sci-Vee, for one.
Not sure whether they offer an embed feature, have emailed them and
will hopefully know shortly.
Metadata - if anyone can send me a template that I can employ now,
even something rudimentary, I will use it and re-post the species pages
prior to the conference. The data are there/here.
Thanks to all on the list that have offered suggestions and solutions to
clarify and improve the previously posted Carices pages.
Still working on clustering Google points and getting kml to run in Gmaps,
Tim
Latest page with all recommended improvements so far-
http://utc.usu.edu/factsheets/CarexFSF/new/carex_oligosperma_species.htm
Richard Pyle wrote:
Thanks Bob,
I'm still waiting to hear back from them (Google) on related stuff
(mostly concerning bulk uploading). I know they prefer that I upload
the full-res version, even though they shrink it down when streaming.
I'd actually rather them have the full-res versions, so that as future
internet bandwidth paradigms allow higher-res streaming, they can
automatically step it up without input from me. Of course, uploading
a 178MB file compared with a 3.5MB file -- multiplied several thousand
times -- is another factor that cannot be completely ignored.
The ideal would be a JPEG2K-ish standard as you describe with
user-specified resolution. Rather than get Google to build another
stand-alone app, I'd rather see them come out with their own browser
with built-in support for Earth (and customized/optimized video
streaming, Google Base access, Co-op features, etc.) all built in.
So far, no NDAs....
Aloha,
Rich
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Bob Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 28, 2007 5:34 PM
*To:* Richard Pyle
*Cc:* Eamonn O Tuama; Timothy M. Jones; [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [tdwg] Species pages and video
JPEG2000 video standards---which are generally mp4--- probably
address this problem, because JPEG2K can decompress at arbitrary
resolution, that is you can tell the remote server what resolution
you want the stuff sent at. I think, but am not certain, that this
would be the case for the video standards too, since it should be
doable frame at a time. Indeed, I vaguely recall a demo at a
JPEG2K meeting in which video was streamed at resolutions which
varied with time. There are lots of questions, but apparently few
answers, of the form "does Flash support JPEG2000. Of course
rendering in the current browsers remains a problem if it doesn't,
though people certainly tolerate standalone Google Earth, for
example---so why wouldn't they tolerate standalone video viewers.
Ask your Google video pals what's up. Preferably not under an NDA.
:-)
Bob
On 8/28/07, *Richard Pyle* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Dear all,
I've been meaning to jump in on this conversation several
times, but I keep
getting side-tracked.
For over two years now, we have been developing a protocol and
associated
software tools (I use the pronoun "we" loosely as far as the
software
development goes -- that has been entirely the work of Rob
Whitton) to allow
us to harness the power of video for our scientific
purposes. We conduct
surveys of coral-reef fishes in the Pacific, and the use of
hi-definition
underwater video cameras allow us to make dozens of "video
vouchers" (as we
call them) of fish species in the context of their natural
habitat on every
single dive (again, I use the pronoun "we" loosely, as John
Earle is the
primary videographer on our surveys). Though perhaps not as
ideal as
specimens, the video is much better than in-situ still photos
(especially at
hi-def resolution), because it gives us multiple angles on the
subject
(increasing the probability of capturing that elusive but
diagnostic small
black spot near the anus), as well as behavior (which can
sometimes aid in
confirming identifications). And it's a LOT better than just
an un-imaged
observation record. It also allows us to document many more
species on a
given dive than we could by collecting alone.
The software that Rob Whitton has developed is optimized for
field-based
capturing of metadata. We ( i.e., John) will generally
catalog the video
clips on the same day the video was taken. Metadata is
robust, with full
locality/habitat data (including depth and other parameters),
as well as
rich content cataloging (multiple identifications of the same
imaged
organism, etc.) At the moment, we (i.e., John & Rob) have
something on the
order of 7,000 video clips cataloged -- representing nearly a
terabyte of
video files (a mix of both standard-resolution DV and
HDV). Very soon we
will have an initial website online to allow searching/etc.,
and we have a
couple of major regional checklists in the works that will
cite these "video
vouchers" in addition to more traditional means of documenting
species at
localities.
So...the reason I am posting this now (rather than wait until
the site is
online) is to ask others who are exploring the use of video
content for
similar purposes how they plan to implement it.
Our current plan is to maintain an archive of full-resolution
digital video
files on our local SAN, but the files are much too large to
stream in
real-time over almost any typical internet connection, and
moreover would
completely choke our bandwidth if the site ever became
popular. For this
reason, we want to use a video hosting service to stream the
content, which
we will link to from our own web databases (which themselves
will serve only
keyframes from the clips).
We've been working with Google to sort out a way to do batch
uploads onto
Google Video. I generally prefer the Google Video environment
over YouTube,
but I'm not familiar with other video hosting services that
are out there.
Here is a sample clip:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=153611051098248174
Google Video allows me to dump all of the metadata into the
Description
field. Unfortunately, this is not very structured. However,
Google Video
allows you to link back to your own web page for each clip, so
I can have
that link go to an LSID resolver, or some other web interface
where more
structured metadata can be served. Another feature I like is
that you can
lay as many subtitle/caption files as you want. For example,
if you go to
the link above, in the lower right corner you'll see a little
"CC" icon.
Click on the drop-down button to the right of the "CC" button,
and you can
choose from any number of subtitle tracks. In the example
above, there are
two different tracks: "Audio Dialog" transcribes the spoken
words you hear
on the clip's soundtrack, and "Species List", which names the
species as
they appear in the clip. Rob Whitton is developing his
software to
automatically generate the text for the metadata and multiple
CC tracks, so
that we can (eventually) automate the upload process.
The main problem -- which I think will be true of any of these
video hosting
services -- is the limited resoloution of the clips as they
are streamed.
For example, here is a frame from the original HDV clip in the
above link:
http://www2.bishopmuseum.org/testvideo/Frame01.jpg
Here is the same frame at the resolution that the video is
rendered on
Google Video:
http://www2.bishopmuseum.org/testvideo/Frame02.jpg
Obviously, the full-resolution video contains a LOT more
information. The
problem is that an MPG (i.e., compressed) copy of the
full-resolution HDV
clip is 172MB, whereas the compressed version that Google
streams is 3.5MB.
The problem is not with Google Video -- it's with the
internet. Most people
will not have access to the badwidth necessary to stream video
at the full
HDV resolution.
So...what we'd like is a service that will allow people to
view the clips at
a resolution that is reasonable to stream over the internet
(Google Video,
YouTube, etc.), but then have the option of downloading the
full-resolution
file (in this case, 178MB) if they want to see it on their own
computer, and
are willing to wait for the full download. Obviously, we'll
have to somehow
regulate the downloading so that we don't choke our bandwidth
-- but we want
to allow people to have access to the full-resolution imagery.
My hope is that Google (or whoever) itself would offer the
service of
streaming content at an appropriate resolution, but then
allowing people to
download the full resolution clip as a file, if they want
(i.e., using
Google's or whoever's bandwidth, and not ours). But for the
time being, we
mostly see Google as a way to: 1) Manage streaming of video
content at low
resolution, and 2) increase visibility (through Google
searches_ of the
content we do have.
Of course, the latter depends heavily on how well the metadata
are fleshed
out and structured -- which brings me back to Éamonn's post.
Like him, I am
very-much looking forward to conversations at the upcoming
meeting in
Bratislava.
Meanwhile, I guess the main point of this message is to ask
whether others
know of analagous projects, and how they have dealt with issues of
bandwidth, bulk uploading to video hosting services, and
metadata structure
and content.
Aloha,
Rich
Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences
and Associate Zoologist in Ichthyology
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] On Behalf Of Eamonn O Tuama
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 5:20 AM
> To: 'Timothy M. Jones'; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: [tdwg] Species pages and video
>
> Dear Timothy,
>
> I think the use of video is valuable even if there is not
> much motion involved - combining a series of stills with
> voice over can be very effective - and the many video hosting
> services makes it relatively easy to get online. However,
> unlike text which can be mined for information, video (and
> images) require good metadata to describe what the content is
> about - to aid in searches, etc.
>
> Your species pages with their general facts and interactive
> taxonomic keys span the task areas covered by SDD (Structure
> of Descriptive Data) and SPM (Species Profile Model) TDWG
> interest groups. I look forward to fruitful discussions
> between the two at the forthcoming meeting in Bratislava that
> will lead to standardised ways of marking up your species
> content so that it is more easily discoverable, accessible
> and re-usable (assuming permissions
> granted) across what GBIF has labelled "The Universal
> Biodiversity Data Bus".
>
> Best regards,
>
> Éamonn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] On Behalf Of Timothy M.
Jones
> Sent: 10 August 2007 16:48
> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: [tdwg] Species pages and video
>
> Hello,
>
> I will not be attending the meeting this fall but thought
> that this may be of interest to those interested in species
> pages models.
> I am working on species pages that include the use of video.
> The videos were only added a month ago and are a bit
> rudimentary (with budget-conscious equipment) but the
> potential now seems truly limitless.
>
> Examples -
>
http://utc.usu.edu/factsheets/CarexFSF/new/carex_eburnea_species.htm
<http://utc.usu.edu/factsheets/CarexFSF/new/carex_eburnea_species.htm>
>
> http://utc.usu.edu/factsheets/CarexFSF/new/carex_nebrascensis_
> species.htm
>
> http://utc.usu.edu/factsheets/CarexFSF/new/carex_mitchelliana_
> species.htm
>
> Comments appreciated,
> Timothy M. Jones
> http://utc.usu.edu/keys/Carex/Carex.html
<http://utc.usu.edu/keys/Carex/Carex.html>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg
<http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg
_______________________________________________
tdwg mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg
--
Robert A. Morris
Professor of Computer Science
UMASS-Boston
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/
http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram <http://www.cs.umb.edu/%7Eram>
http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html
<http://www.cs.umb.edu/%7Eram/calendar.html>
phone (+1)617 287 6466
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
tdwg mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg
_______________________________________________
tdwg mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg
