Hi all,
Click this link: http://www.openwetware.org/wiki/SynBERC:MIT/Lab_video_tours
It's far different from most video on Commons: it's Flash streaming video and it works in 99% of web browsers. (The VLC web browser plugin is supoosed to support Flash video too, though I've never tried it. Also I don't know if Flash video is based on patented codecs or not. But assuming that no such problems come up...) Perhaps we should put in a MediaWiki feature request:
MediaWiki should convert all our videos to low-rez Flash Video format for streaming previewing as soon as the .ogg original is uploaded. This way, more people will be able to view our videos, so we'll get more uploads.
Agree or disagree?
Cheers, Jason
I'm an outspoken fan of fixing and improving Theora, and I think this sounds like a fantastic idea. We should do similar low-res versions of audio into something other than .ogg -- but make sure that the high-res version we archive and strongly encourage is, in both cases, the free-format Ogg version.
There is *no* widely-used completely free audio or video format. We should not allow our strong support for Ogg to prevent our media from being used by the overwhelming proportion of our audience that cannot (or don't know how to) play those formats.
At the same time, we should use our extra free-format-friendly energies to promote those formats, educate our audience about how to play them, develop and host instruction manuals and documents to help with that last point, and regularly survey users to find out how many of them can and do play free format media... to know, for instance, when we can start deprecating in-browser flash in favor of in-browser theora plugins.
Oh, yes -- and we can push the Mozilla Foundation to integrate ogg players into the default firefox distribution. <pokes MozFound about writing in libtheora support>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Firefox_Ogg_Support
-- SJ
On 9/28/06, Jason Spiro jasonspiro2@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Click this link: http://www.openwetware.org/wiki/SynBERC:MIT/Lab_video_tours
It's far different from most video on Commons: it's Flash streaming video and it works in 99% of web browsers. (The VLC web browser plugin is supoosed to support Flash video too, though I've never tried it. Also I don't know if Flash video is based on patented codecs or not. But assuming that no such problems come up...) Perhaps we should put in a MediaWiki feature request:
MediaWiki should convert all our videos to low-rez Flash Video format for streaming previewing as soon as the .ogg original is uploaded. This way, more people will be able to view our videos, so we'll get more uploads.
Agree or disagree?
Cheers, Jason
-- Jason Spiro: computer consulting with a smile. I also provide training and spyware removal services for homes and businesses. Call or email for a FREE 5-minute consultation. Satisfaction guaranteed. 416-781-5938 / Email: info@jspiro.com / MSN: jasonspiro@hotmail.com _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
If I understand the popular sentiment correctly, it is that:
a) the foundation is committed to preserving knowledge it gathers in open formats, and b) knowledge should be presented by foundation projects using exclusively open formats
Some people assume that a) and b) are inseparable. I would beg to differ. Let's:
- allow uploads only of ogg files, or other open formats, and - allow downloads of these ogg files AS WELL as transcode into flash-presentable formats
We say we want to encourage adoption of open formats. That's fine and dandy -- let's only allow open formats in uploads. But a large part of our mission is delivering content and I feel that we've been burying our head in the sand by pretending that there's no problem with access. I would venture to say that the vast majority of our users cannot watch or hear any multimedia files off of our websites. I would also suggest that they are not likely to, in the next several years at best.
I suggest that if we change our attitude and allow alternative, actually-workable presentation of our media, we will be more correctly fulfilling our mission. Let's allow Flash for audio and video.
-ilya haykinson
On 9/28/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
I'm an outspoken fan of fixing and improving Theora, and I think this sounds like a fantastic idea. We should do similar low-res versions of audio into something other than .ogg -- but make sure that the high-res version we archive and strongly encourage is, in both cases, the free-format Ogg version.
There is *no* widely-used completely free audio or video format. We should not allow our strong support for Ogg to prevent our media from being used by the overwhelming proportion of our audience that cannot (or don't know how to) play those formats.
At the same time, we should use our extra free-format-friendly energies to promote those formats, educate our audience about how to play them, develop and host instruction manuals and documents to help with that last point, and regularly survey users to find out how many of them can and do play free format media... to know, for instance, when we can start deprecating in-browser flash in favor of in-browser theora plugins.
Oh, yes -- and we can push the Mozilla Foundation to integrate ogg players into the default firefox distribution. <pokes MozFound about writing in libtheora support>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Firefox_Ogg_Support
-- SJ
On 9/28/06, Jason Spiro jasonspiro2@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Click this link:
http://www.openwetware.org/wiki/SynBERC:MIT/Lab_video_tours
It's far different from most video on Commons: it's Flash streaming video and it works in 99% of web browsers. (The VLC web browser plugin is supoosed to support Flash video too, though I've never tried it. Also I don't know if Flash video is based on patented codecs or not. But assuming that no such problems come up...) Perhaps we should put in a MediaWiki feature request:
MediaWiki should convert all our videos to low-rez Flash Video format for streaming previewing as soon as the .ogg original is uploaded. This way, more people will be able to view our videos, so we'll get more uploads.
Agree or disagree?
Cheers, Jason
-- Jason Spiro: computer consulting with a smile. I also provide training and spyware removal services for homes and
businesses.
Call or email for a FREE 5-minute consultation. Satisfaction guaranteed. 416-781-5938 / Email: info@jspiro.com / MSN: jasonspiro@hotmail.com _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- ++SJ _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
2006/9/29, Ilya Haykinson haykinson@gmail.com:
I suggest that if we change our attitude and allow alternative, actually-workable presentation of our media, we will be more correctly fulfilling our mission. Let's allow Flash for audio and video.
-ilya haykinson
And of course YOU will pay patent fees to Macromedia for using Flash ? Second thing that those flash movies (like eg. on youtube) are disgusting - it's impossible to simply download it, it' working to slow on my machine, the player is wrong designed, etc.
I think that the right way is to teach people how use free tools and force them to use it, then force everybody to use properiaty software, couse it's easier for windows users...
AJF/WarX
One does not need to pay "patent fees" -- whatever those are -- to Adobe for using Flash. Just like people some people can create PDF files and read those (open office can create PDF files, for example) without paying royalties to Adobe, same can happen with Flash.
-ilya
On 9/29/06, Artur Fijałkowski wiki.warx@gmail.com wrote:
2006/9/29, Ilya Haykinson haykinson@gmail.com:
I suggest that if we change our attitude and allow alternative, actually-workable presentation of our media, we will be more correctly fulfilling our mission. Let's allow Flash for audio and video.
-ilya haykinson
And of course YOU will pay patent fees to Macromedia for using Flash ? Second thing that those flash movies (like eg. on youtube) are disgusting - it's impossible to simply download it, it' working to slow on my machine, the player is wrong designed, etc.
I think that the right way is to teach people how use free tools and force them to use it, then force everybody to use properiaty software, couse it's easier for windows users...
AJF/WarX _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
"Ilya Haykinson" wrote: One does not need to pay "patent fees" -- whatever those are -- to Adobe for using Flash. Just like people some people can create PDF files and read those (open office can create PDF files, for example) without paying royalties to Adobe, same can happen with Flash.
-ilya
Yes, i remember to see some programs creating very basic flash... we should research the programs and patent status.
On 9/29/06, Artur Fijałkowski wiki.warx@gmail.com wrote:
I think that the right way is to teach people how use free tools and force them to use it, then force everybody to use properiaty software, couse it's easier for windows users...
While I'm sure you have the best of intentions, when given the option between "not using free tools" and "being forced to use it" most people will opt for the former. Enforcing a de-facto "only computer geeks are welcome" sort of rule is not going to really help the long-term interest of our projects.
I really love MediaWiki's support of SVG -- you can upload and download an open format, but it always renders it to be viewed in any old browser. I think we should take this as something of a model -- the goal should be to combine maximum usability with maximum freedom, and as has been pointed out these are not and should not be incompatible. We shouldn't have to "force anyone" to learn anything to use our resources, if freedom is really a goal.
FF
On 01/10/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/29/06, Artur Fijałkowski wiki.warx@gmail.com wrote:
I think that the right way is to teach people how use free tools and force them to use it, then force everybody to use properiaty software, couse it's easier for windows users...
While I'm sure you have the best of intentions, when given the option between "not using free tools" and "being forced to use it" most people will opt for the former. Enforcing a de-facto "only computer geeks are welcome" sort of rule is not going to really help the long-term interest of our projects.
Have you been following the discussions and the mention of the Java player? That would be much the same as a Flash player in terms of what people would have to download, etc. And there are Free Software java players it works with.
I really love MediaWiki's support of SVG -- you can upload and download an open format, but it always renders it to be viewed in any old browser. I think we should take this as something of a model -- the goal should be to combine maximum usability with maximum freedom, and as has been pointed out these are not and should not be incompatible. We shouldn't have to "force anyone" to learn anything to use our resources, if freedom is really a goal.
The trouble is the profound lack of unencumbered video formats. It's the [[dancing pigs]] problem except with freedom instead of security.
- d.
Better yet, let's allow uploads of material in any format -- and offer a conversion service, storing the result in a free format. Then allow downloads in that base free format and (at least temporarily) in other formats as well.
The current system, under which almost no video is uploaded or downloaded, is surely not the best one... for wikipedia readers or for xiph.org.
--SJ
On 9/29/06, Ilya Haykinson haykinson@gmail.com wrote:
If I understand the popular sentiment correctly, it is that:
a) the foundation is committed to preserving knowledge it gathers in open formats, and b) knowledge should be presented by foundation projects using exclusively open formats
Some people assume that a) and b) are inseparable. I would beg to differ. Let's:
- allow uploads only of ogg files, or other open formats, and
- allow downloads of these ogg files AS WELL as transcode into
flash-presentable formats
We say we want to encourage adoption of open formats. That's fine and dandy -- let's only allow open formats in uploads. But a large part of our mission is delivering content and I feel that we've been burying our head in the sand by pretending that there's no problem with access. I would venture to say that the vast majority of our users cannot watch or hear any multimedia files off of our websites. I would also suggest that they are not likely to, in the next several years at best.
I suggest that if we change our attitude and allow alternative, actually-workable presentation of our media, we will be more correctly fulfilling our mission. Let's allow Flash for audio and video.
-ilya haykinson
On 9/28/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
I'm an outspoken fan of fixing and improving Theora, and I think this sounds like a fantastic idea. We should do similar low-res versions of audio into something other than .ogg -- but make sure that the high-res version we archive and strongly encourage is, in both cases, the free-format Ogg version.
There is *no* widely-used completely free audio or video format. We should not allow our strong support for Ogg to prevent our media from being used by the overwhelming proportion of our audience that cannot (or don't know how to) play those formats.
At the same time, we should use our extra free-format-friendly energies to promote those formats, educate our audience about how to play them, develop and host instruction manuals and documents to help with that last point, and regularly survey users to find out how many of them can and do play free format media... to know, for instance, when we can start deprecating in-browser flash in favor of in-browser theora plugins.
Oh, yes -- and we can push the Mozilla Foundation to integrate ogg players into the default firefox distribution. <pokes MozFound about writing in libtheora support>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Firefox_Ogg_Support
-- SJ
On 9/28/06, Jason Spiro jasonspiro2@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Click this link:
http://www.openwetware.org/wiki/SynBERC:MIT/Lab_video_tours
It's far different from most video on Commons: it's Flash streaming video and it works in 99% of web browsers. (The VLC web browser plugin is supoosed to support Flash video too, though I've never tried it. Also I don't know if Flash video is based on patented codecs or not. But assuming that no such problems come up...) Perhaps we should put in a MediaWiki feature request:
MediaWiki should convert all our videos to low-rez Flash Video format for streaming previewing as soon as the .ogg original is uploaded. This way, more people will be able to view our videos, so we'll get more uploads.
Agree or disagree?
Cheers, Jason
-- Jason Spiro: computer consulting with a smile. I also provide training and spyware removal services for homes and
businesses.
Call or email for a FREE 5-minute consultation. Satisfaction guaranteed. 416-781-5938 / Email: info@jspiro.com / MSN: jasonspiro@hotmail.com _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- ++SJ _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 29/09/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Better yet, let's allow uploads of material in any format -- and offer a conversion service, storing the result in a free format.
This is a *fantastic* idea. Where would the server need to be hosted? Hungary?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 29/09/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Better yet, let's allow uploads of material in any format -- and offer a conversion service, storing the result in a free format.
This is a *fantastic* idea. Where would the server need to be hosted? Hungary?
Probably Iran...
On 29/09/06, Ilya Haykinson haykinson@gmail.com wrote:
We say we want to encourage adoption of open formats. That's fine and dandy -- let's only allow open formats in uploads. But a large part of our mission is delivering content and I feel that we've been burying our head in the sand by pretending that there's no problem with access. I would venture to say that the vast majority of our users cannot watch or hear any multimedia files off of our websites. I would also suggest that they are not likely to, in the next several years at best.
I suggest that if we change our attitude and allow alternative, actually-workable presentation of our media, we will be more correctly fulfilling our mission. Let's allow Flash for audio and video.
I think we all recognise that there is a problem with access, but I do not think that the solution to this problem is the use of non-free formats. The most important reason for this is that I'm not sure we could be considered to be delivering "free content" if it is delivered in a patent-laden format.
It is important that we (the project) do not sacrifice our ideals and aims for the problems of this particular year. We should focus our energy on finding solutions which enable us to continue delivering truly free content to users. The suggestion that we convince Mozilla to bundle OGG with Firefox sounds good to me. Another possibility is that we could also come up with methods for delivering the codecs to the end user more easily.
On 9/29/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I think we all recognise that there is a problem with access, but I do not think that the solution to this problem is the use of non-free formats. The most important reason for this is that I'm not sure we could be considered to be delivering "free content" if it is delivered in a patent-laden format.
Why not? If files are offered in a commonly-playable format, alongside a free unencumbered format, we have the best of both worlds. We both deliver "free content" as well as deliver content in a format useful to our users.
I think that so long as we insist that the storage of data has to happen in a free format, and that there must always be a way to get the highest quality version of material possible in the same free format, we should have the freedom to offer it in other, less pure but more useful formats.
I guess my main point is that as long as we satisfy the core requirement (free content), our next guidance should be usability and our users in general. And not some theoretical spread of open formats, in general, usability be damned. I guarantee you that most users have no clue what a codec is, and no amount of explanation and instruction will get the point across. A single "play" button in the middle of the screen will.
-ilya haykinson
On 9/30/06, Ilya Haykinson haykinson@gmail.com wrote:
Why not? If files are offered in a commonly-playable format, alongside a free unencumbered format, we have the best of both worlds. We both deliver "free content" as well as deliver content in a format useful to our users.
Why don't we just offer something that is both easy to use and which does not lock the content in encumbered formats?
Ease of use is something that everyone should have, not just people who can afford commercial propritary systems.
The effort spend arguing that we should use propritary software X could be better applied into finding a better solution that doesn't require such a compromise.
It's fine to me having automated ogg2flash for clients, similar to what we already do providing "adapted" images.
I don't really know how youtube and such webs internally handle videos, but i think the most important bit is not if they provide the proper "software" (being flash) but that users choose to play it and it plays. If i choose on commons to play a file, i need to wait until my browser downloads the whole file to get Videolan started.
On the other hand, if i ask videolan to open it, it can start playing it almost inmediatly, as the same program is getting and playing. It's the streaming part. A flash ogg player (what we ideally'd need, though probably deserves its own project) must be able to show as it receives, otherwise it will be "too slow". And it is able to do it as it is embedded on the browser. Optionally making the urls with another pseudo-protocol such that the browser passes the url to the target app instead of a downloaded file would also be nice, even if users had to install another app for it. (there's no need for another app, should bug the mozilla guys with this...)
Finally, my opinion of such "alternative" and "embedding options" for videos is that it must be up to the user. So we wouldn't embed into our web a java applet nor a flash player (ugh!) to show it, but give them a box "Here there's XXXX.ogg {video|sound} You can [[media:download it]], [[play it on your broser]] (needs xyz plugin) or [[play it with flash]] <sup>[[Help:flash|help]]</sup>."
The "play it" links would activate javascript in order to convert the box into the proper code to insert it (yes, we're adding another requeriment: javascript but i really doubt un-javascriptted users being able to use an activex flash plugin, they're fine with the download link). Our users are smart enough to try each of it until find one suitable for their system. And they can even install them (most of them probably won't care on what plugin they install, the internet is full of sites installing crap...).
But from the smart user, we give the user the options; our web is fast-to-download (extra stuff is on demand), and we don't ask for extra plugins (how's that plugins are required to see wikipedia?? / what has launched the java VM??).
Note 1: Yes, we still need the 'magic solution'. Note 2: I have recently found some ogg audio files made with audacity that not all ogg players correctly played (none or part of it). Any comment?
[snip]
Finally, my opinion of such "alternative" and "embedding options" for videos is that it must be up to the user. So we wouldn't embed into our web a java applet nor a flash player (ugh!) to show it, but give them a box "Here there's XXXX.ogg {video|sound} You can [[media:download it]], [[play it on your broser]] (needs xyz plugin) or [[play it with flash]] <sup>[[Help:flash|help]]</sup>."
It's funny...
I added a java (GCJ compatible) audio player on enwiki a while back and I've been mostly unable to get people to even comment it (although it has been used by tens of thousands)...
It makes me sad to see this thread where so many people are willing to expend energy talking about how we need to compromise our commitment to free content in free formats when I can't even get people to help out with simple free solutions which don't require much compromise.
I guess it's just another example of the meta-pedian illness of talk over action, and that I probably should just ignore this thread...
But I do want to point out, for the record:
1) The majority of video formats used on the web require some degree of installation, although some of them can be autodownloaded into Windows Media Player or use a popular client which many users installed long ago (Real, for example). Our instructions (on enwiki at least) for installing video support are effectively a single step, and if there is room for improvement... {{sofixit}}
2) I'm not aware of any computer make thats ships with flash installed. So all these flash video sites do require an install.. although it's one install providing for many forms of webcruft. :)
3) There are free software java codecs for both Ogg/Theora and Ogg/Vorbis. I haven't worked too much with the Theora plugin because it was a bit buggy under GCJ six months ago, but the java vorbis codec is very mature and robust. We couldn't ask for a better framework from which to build a video player (and there is even a SOC project to deeply integrate this support with MediaWiki).
Gregory Maxwell schreef:
It's funny...
I added a java (GCJ compatible) audio player on enwiki a while back and I've been mostly unable to get people to even comment it (although it has been used by tens of thousands)...
Yes, indeed. There is no need to convert the files to other formats or use flash or so.
For Ogg Vorbis there is; http://www.jcraft.com/jorbis/
And with that you can play a Ogg Vorbis file without a player at the client side.
The software is free to download. I can not be very difficult to inclued this in the wiki so that you have the option to listen to by a webbased player. A user good in templates can probably do that in in a couple of minutes. The only thing that really needs to be done is install JOrbis on the WMF server so that not an external hosted service must be used for this.
Also for Ogg Theora is there a java-player that can be used; http://www.flumotion.net/cortado/
On 9/30/06, Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be wrote: [snip]
For Ogg Vorbis there is; http://www.jcraft.com/jorbis/
And with that you can play a Ogg Vorbis file without a player at the client side.
The software is free to download. I can not be very difficult to inclued this in the wiki so that you have the option to listen to by a webbased player. A user good in templates can probably do that in in a couple of minutes. The only thing that really needs to be done is install JOrbis on the WMF server so that not an external hosted service must be used for this.
It's already setup on enwiki, linking to a modified copy on toolserver.
I set it up weeks ago and have been able to gather fairly little interest in it... thus my frustration with people insisting that we must use proprietary formats for ease of use.
Hours to talk abour unfree tools but not a second to build something real...
On 30/09/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/06, Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be wrote:
For Ogg Vorbis there is; http://www.jcraft.com/jorbis/ And with that you can play a Ogg Vorbis file without a player at the client side.
I set it up weeks ago and have been able to gather fairly little interest in it... thus my frustration with people insisting that we must use proprietary formats for ease of use.
I, and I assume most of those who saw it, thought it was an early demo - not something ready to roll. I also wasn't aware it ran under GCJ as well as proprietary Java.
As such, WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR? ROLL IT OUT! SOMETHING USABLE! IT SHOULD BE ON EVERY OGG IMAGE PAGE!
(The "about" will have to mention it works fine under GCJ and is Free-As-In-Stallman Software all the way down.)
cc: to wikitech-l in case there's some technical hiccup to doing so
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 30/09/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/06, Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be wrote:
For Ogg Vorbis there is; http://www.jcraft.com/jorbis/ And with that you can play a Ogg Vorbis file without a player at the client side.
I set it up weeks ago and have been able to gather fairly little interest in it... thus my frustration with people insisting that we must use proprietary formats for ease of use.
I, and I assume most of those who saw it, thought it was an early demo
- not something ready to roll. I also wasn't aware it ran under GCJ as
well as proprietary Java.
As such, WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR? ROLL IT OUT! SOMETHING USABLE! IT SHOULD BE ON EVERY OGG IMAGE PAGE!
(The "about" will have to mention it works fine under GCJ and is Free-As-In-Stallman Software all the way down.)
cc: to wikitech-l in case there's some technical hiccup to doing so
- d.
The Vietnamese-language projects currently link to JOrbisPlayer on all its OGG description pages. [1] We use a hack in order to make this work: we have [[MediaWiki:Fileinfo]] call [[MediaWiki:Playfile]], passing the MIME type as a parameter. If anyone creates another OGG player on the Wikimedia Toolserver, we'd be happy to link to that as well.
[1] See, for example, the JOrbisPlayer link at: http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%ACnh:SCA_approach.ogg
There's already code in branch from one of our Summer of Code projects for this, using the Java player from Fluendo and optionally also a Firefox extension / IE plugin based on the VLC player.
If you'd like to help Michael continue work on this, great.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
So at last it is here? Congratulations!
However... *It doesn't work for me (start & stop buttons do nothing). *I can't find how the applet gets the file to play. I guess the above problem has to do with the applet may need to get passed the file location on jorbis.player.play.0 instead of http://tools.wikimedia.de/media/wikipedia//d/d4/ *The link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_help. is not very useful, it redirects to [[Wikipedia:Media_help]] where there's no reference to it. Neither from [[Wikipedia:Media]] *The page (/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php as per Minh Nguyen msg) shows too Beta. Not like a finished and usable tool (well, it seems it isn't).
Thanks fo the reference. Java is quite the same as the Flash solutions.
On 10/1/06, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
So at last it is here? Congratulations!
However... *It doesn't work for me (start & stop buttons do nothing). *I can't find how the applet gets the file to play. I guess the above problem has to do with the applet may need to get passed the file location on jorbis.player.play.0 instead of http://tools.wikimedia.de/media/wikipedia//d/d4/
That is the file location: Unsigned java applets can only build connections to the server which sourced them, so toolserver runs a proxy which makes all the media available under that directory.
What is the file you are attempting to play? I've had a few cases where bizarre characters were breaking the MD5 generation.. although I believe most of them have been solved.
The single most common cause of failure to play is that around 20% of the users whom have Java have a version of java which is so old that it doesn't have JavaSound (which is needed to produce anything other than 8bit, 8khz audio). Microsoft clients appear to be the most frequent victims of this. Note that the issue is no better in the flash world: folks with flash 7 and older can't watch any of the video sites.
*The link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_help. is not very useful, it redirects to [[Wikipedia:Media_help]] where there's no reference to it. Neither from [[Wikipedia:Media]] *The page (/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php as per Minh Nguyen msg) shows too Beta. Not like a finished and usable tool (well, it seems it isn't).
Hm. I missed that the media page is a redirect, but it makes no difference... Please read rather than skim: "f you are unable to use this player you will need to install a program to play Ogg format audio. Please see the Wikipedia directions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_help"
I.e. if this doesn't work for you, you'll have to install a local player. I don't think it would be wise of us to instruct people on how to install a newer version of Java for three reasons:
1) If the user has enough permissions and patience to upgrade java then they can install a native player. 2) The user expirence with a local native player will always be better. 3) Right now the Java implimentations which are easily installable for Windows/Mac are non-free software.
In any case, the player has been used successfully by tens of thousands of people. I'm aware of no standing cases where it does not work so long as you meet the basic requirement of a new enough java implimentation.
By calling it beta I was hoping to solicit additional feedback (and perhaps discourage the propagation of its use: it will be replaced by a system with tighter mediawiki integration once that work is done)... ... But I've had very little feedback overal, so perhaps calling it beta was a mistake.
Thanks fo the reference. Java is quite the same as the Flash solutions.
Quite the same for the user ease, yes... but not at all the same in terms of keeping our content in formats which respect the free nature of the content.
The single most common cause of failure to play is that around 20% of the users whom have Java have a version of java which is so old that it doesn't have JavaSound (which is needed to produce anything other than 8bit, 8khz audio). Microsoft clients appear to be the most frequent victims of this.
the problem is that many IE users will be using it with the msjvm, which as you say is rather aged (due to the ms v sun legal issues).
maybe make the player downsample to 8 bit 8khz audio and put up a warning banner saying "you are using a very old version of java, sound quality will be degraded", or find a ms specific way to play audio (if that is possible from an unsigned applet without breaking use on more modern jvms).
On 10/1/06, peter green plugwash@p10link.net wrote:
maybe make the player downsample to 8 bit 8khz audio and put up a warning banner saying "you are using a very old version of java, sound quality will be degraded", or find a ms specific way to play audio (if that is possible from an unsigned applet without breaking use on more modern jvms).
I'd rather not.
1) The time it would take to code the downsampling and switching could be better spent on other parts of the code. 2) As a contributor I would be upset that users are being given a poor quality version of my contribution rather than being asked to install improved software.
Or put another way, *I* won't be working on that. :) You can if you really think it would be useful.
I've also found that about 18% of the people who try the play in browser link don't have any form of Java installed. I think it's clear that it isn't a magic bullet in any case.
One of the nice things about the Michael Dale's SOC project is that it will magically use the best method available, only falling back to java if there is no VLC plugin available. This way we can ask users to perform the installation who can (which is the vast majority of the users) but still provide java for some of the ones who can't.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 10/1/06, peter green plugwash@p10link.net wrote:
maybe make the player downsample to 8 bit 8khz audio and put up a warning banner saying "you are using a very old version of java, sound quality will be degraded", or find a ms specific way to play audio (if that is possible from an unsigned applet without breaking use on more modern jvms).
I'd rather not.
- The time it would take to code the downsampling and switching could
be better spent on other parts of the code.
Cortado (which is used in Michael's work) is claimed to work on the old MS VM. If you have access to a computer with this limitation, can you please test and confirm?
- As a contributor I would be upset that users are being given a poor
quality version of my contribution rather than being asked to install improved software.
Well, that's pretty silly.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On 10/2/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
Cortado (which is used in Michael's work) is claimed to work on the old MS VM. If you have access to a computer with this limitation, can you please test and confirm?
Last I checked it worked without sound in javasound less VMs. I don't personally have access to anything with that VM
- As a contributor I would be upset that users are being given a poor
quality version of my contribution rather than being asked to install improved software.
Well, that's pretty silly.
I don't think so.
I've been aggravated, and I think rightfully so, when someone complained about an image I spent hours getting right being low quality when it really was just an artifact of our image handling. This happens all the time due JPEG artifacts, which are often visible even on the image page depending on the users's display... or the image appearing being blurry because straight filtered downsampling can be unflattering.
It is perfectly reasonable to adapt to the users environment to an extent, but it can be carried too far: For example, we could 'help' uses with browsers without image support by converting images to text using [[AAlib]].
I think t we'd be helping users more by spending our efforts on: 1) Having a really good set of instructions for one click installation of support software. 2) Encouraging browser vendors to ship support with their browsers. (The reference Theora and Vorbis codecs are BSD licensed, so there shouldn't be too much of a license-political issue there).
... instead of dishing out a hacked up player that will have a much lower audio quality on their system than the flash based sites.
Some food for thought:
Latest stats (from the last days logs) from the toolserver java audio player (linked from enwiki and other places): 27,828 unique IPs loaded the PHP page 23,327 unique IPs loaded the JAR 16% have no java enabled. 17,789 unique IPs loaded an Ogg 19% have Java but it failed Overall it worked for about 64% of the IPs.
As far as I know, lack of javasound API (i.e. old MS JVM) is the only significant cause of loaded but failed right now.
These numbers are a bit different from when I first introduced the player.. Perhaps client side caching is influencing the results. ... It also could be because folks without Java have either installed it, or they have learned not to try the player.
Hm. The above numbers to make a greater argument for extending support to uses with the old JVM.
On 02/10/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. The above numbers to make a greater argument for extending support to uses with the old JVM.
Perhaps a note with why they're getting crappy sound. "You can improve your sound by installing software - either a media player that plays Ogg Vorbis (e.g. [[VLC]]) or a later version of Java." Or something. Or something. Then there's not only something they want, there's the seductive offer of a software install to make their dancing pigs dance even better.
- d.
"Gregory Maxwell" gmaxwell@gmail.com escribió en el mensaje news:e692861c0610011437ydb0f8f1yd39e62e79a988fdc@mail.gmail.com...
On 10/1/06, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
So at last it is here? Congratulations!
However... *It doesn't work for me (start & stop buttons do nothing). *I can't find how the applet gets the file to play. I guess the above problem has to do with the applet may need to get passed the file location on jorbis.player.play.0 instead of http://tools.wikimedia.de/media/wikipedia//d/d4/
That is the file location: Unsigned java applets can only build connections to the server which sourced them, so toolserver runs a proxy which makes all the media available under that directory.
What is the file you are attempting to play? I've had a few cases where bizarre characters were breaking the MD5 generation.. although I believe most of them have been solved.
I get that *exactly location* no file appended to it. I went to http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%ACnh:SCA_approach.ogg as per Minh Nguyen mail, there i followed teh link so i arrived to http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?play=http://comm...
Page source is: <applet code="JOrbisPlayer.class" codebase="http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/" archive="JOrbisPlayer.jar" width="600" height="35" align="baseline"> <PARAM NAME="jorbis.player.play.0" VALUE="http://tools.wikimedia.de/media/wikipedia//d/d4/"> <PARAM NAME="jorbis.player.icestats" VALUE="no"> <PARAM NAME="jorbis.player.playonstartup" VALUE="yes"> </applet>Then i tried url http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?play=http://uplo... day's featured multimedia)Page source has:<applet code="JOrbisPlayer.class" codebase="http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/" archive="JOrbisPlayer.jar" width="600" height="35" align="baseline"> <PARAM NAME="jorbis.player.play.0" VALUE="http://tools.wikimedia.de/media/wikipedia//d/d4/"> <PARAM NAME="jorbis.player.icestats" VALUE="no"> <PARAM NAME="jorbis.player.playonstartup" VALUE="yes"> </applet>...and no soundhttp://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?play=http%3A%2F%... equal output and silence.If i call simply the .php http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.phpit is<applet code="JOrbisPlayer.class" codebase="http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/" archive="JOrbisPlayer.jar" width="600" height="35" align="baseline"> <PARAM NAME="jorbis.player.play.0" VALUE="http://tools.wikimedia.de/media/wikipedia//d/d4/"> <PARAM NAME="jorbis.player.icestats" VALUE="no"> <PARAM NAME="jorbis.player.playonstartup" VALUE="yes"> </applet>i.e. the ?play= parameter is being clearly ignored. I tried to check if it was indeed the correct parameter, but as i said, there's no doc reference to it.There isn't any a text on the java console.It is not a Java problem as on the jcraft page the same works after two warnings: 'Application will run without usual security restrictions' and 'certificate has expired'.
http://www.jcraft.com/jorbis/player/JOrbisPlayer.php?play=http%3A%2F%2Fuploa... works fine (not www.jcraft.com/jorbis/player/JOrbisPlayer.php?play=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Monteverdi_-_non_si_levav... )
The single most common cause of failure to play is that around 20% of the users whom have Java have a version of java which is so old that it doesn't have JavaSound ....
As jcraft works, it's not it. I'm not using msjvm neither.
(......)
Hm. I missed that the media page is a redirect, but it makes no difference... Please read rather than skim: "f you are unable to use this player you will need to install a program to play Ogg format audio. Please see the Wikipedia directions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_help"
I.e. if this doesn't work for you, you'll have to install a local player. I don't think it would be wise of us to instruct people on how to install a newer version of Java for three reasons:
Well, it's a better aproach, but there's nowhere saying "You can point users to this, it works like that". I was expecting docs about the java, not about how to install an ogg player. Seems i misunderstood. I find references to "continually improved", "if it doesn't work try in a few days" a bit frustrating. But hell, this may be me ;-)
In any case, the player has been used successfully by tens of thousands of people. I'm aware of no standing cases where it does not work so long as you meet the basic requirement of a new enough java implimentation.
How did they do? :-)
I am using Versión 1.5.0 (build 1.5.0_06-b05) by Sun.
Setting the console output to 5 (all) it seems the error may came because your applet is unsigned and thus JavaSound is directly denied?
I paste you the output (spanish output):
basic: Modalidad de receptor registrada basic: Referencia a cargador de clases: sun.plugin.ClassLoaderInfo@1dfafd1, contador de referencia=1 basic: Receptor de progreso agregado: sun.plugin.util.GrayBoxPainter@998b08 basic: Cargando miniaplicación... basic: Inicializando miniaplicación... basic: Iniciando miniaplicación... network: Conectando http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.jar con proxy=DIRECT basic: Carga de http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.jar desde la antememoria basic: No certificate info, this is unsigned JAR file.
I was waiting to catch you on irc, easier to explain and feedback, instead of filling a long bug on the ml, but well... here you have it.
PS: I was going to propose filling a bug into hemlock's bugzilla but it seems it disappeared / is unreachable.
On 10/2/06, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
I get that *exactly location* no file appended to it. I went to http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%ACnh:SCA_approach.ogg as per Minh Nguyen mail, there i followed teh link so i arrived to http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?play=http://comm...
The vi folks are aparently using the player in entirely the wrong way, and based on that I'd be shocked if it worked for any file. This is what happens when people set things up without talking to others. :)
Try the play in browser from any audio example on enwiki. There are some here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bassoon#Audio_examples
[snip]
As jcraft works, it's not it. I'm not using msjvm neither.
The jcraft plugin on the jcraft is signed and thus can reach third party servers. Signed applets however add an additional layer of failure (and require that you have a signing certificate, etc). Also, the Special:Filepath/ method of calling it will not work for a mixture of commons/local media.
All of that is why the tool on toolserver works entirely differently than the stock jcraft stuff. It (mostly) works for a mixture of local and commons content, and does not need to be signed.
Seems i misunderstood. I find references to "continually improved", "if it doesn't work try in a few days" a bit frustrating. But hell, this may be me ;-)
Why would it tell you how to call it? The calling conventions are embodied in the enwiki templates that use it (at the moment). Since I don't consider this a long term solution (I consider it just a toy to lear about things like java compatibility) I have not made an effort to get it spread to other wikis. If people would like to set it up on otherwiks, thats fine.. but don't complain to me if you call it wrong and it doesn't work as a result. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Listen for an example.
Setting the console output to 5 (all) it seems the error may came because your applet is unsigned and thus JavaSound is directly denied?
Nope. That it's not signed only prevents connections to outside webservers,
I was waiting to catch you on irc, easier to explain and feedback, instead of filling a long bug on the ml, but well... here you have it.
I've been really busy. You won't have much luck catching me on IRC.
PS: I was going to propose filling a bug into hemlock's bugzilla but it seems it disappeared / is unreachable.
Close: Notabug/Wontfix :)
"Gregory Maxwell" wrote:
Seems i misunderstood. I find references to "continually improved", "if it doesn't work try in a few days" a bit frustrating. But hell, this may be me ;-)
Why would it tell you how to call it?
To have the vi folks know? So i can know they are calling it badly? ;-)
The calling conventions are embodied in the enwiki templates that use it (at the moment).
Well, as i don't go too much by en: i didn't know.
BTW: Do you know that if you follow (on the template which link to your free and gnu-compilable sound tool) the [[beta]] link referring to it you get a Vista screenshot?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Listen for an example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bassoon#Audio_examples
Thanks. This sounds² much better. :-)
Bugging you again: If i stop a music while it is being played, the sound which was hearing keeps vibrating... i needed to kill java (i.e. the browser). Seems like sending "Start note" and -as stopping it- missing "Stop note"
Platonides
² On both senses :D
On 2006-09-30, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
- The majority of video formats used on the web require some degree
of installation, although some of them can be autodownloaded into Windows Media Player
[snip]
Ah, I remember what you mean. Sometimes when you view a file in WMP it says "Downloading codecs..." for a short time, then the file plays. It's quite a good system.
How could the Ogg codecs be made auto-downloadable into WMP?
On 13/10/06, Jason Spiro jasonspiro4+news@gmail.com wrote:
How could the Ogg codecs be made auto-downloadable into WMP?
By, through a global popular revolution, stripping Microsoft of their intellectual property rights and, upon copylefting Windows Media Player, making it compatible with open and free formats.
On 10/14/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/10/06, Jason Spiro jasonspiro4+news@gmail.com wrote:
How could the Ogg codecs be made auto-downloadable into WMP?
By, through a global popular revolution, stripping Microsoft of their intellectual property rights and, upon copylefting Windows Media Player, making it compatible with open and free formats.
Um. Or ... we could get a contact and point out that the formats we're using are open speced with BSD licensed reference implimentations, and er.. unlikely to compete with their formats due to a lack of support for DRM.
:)
I won't hold my breath, but there is no glaring reason beyond lack of demand that they wouldn't support it in the codec installer. There are many non-msft codecs which are installed that way, ... I would expect there is a procedure for getting supported. I haven't had time to research it yet.
It would be quite amusing to see MSFT with support for Ogg/* in IE before firefox gained any open video format support. :)
Cortado (http://www.flumotion.net/cortado/) is a GPLd implementation of Vorbis/Theora in Java. It would be useful to have this on all .ogg pages.
Ed.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I added a java (GCJ compatible) audio player on enwiki a while back and I've been mostly unable to get people to even comment it (although it has been used by tens of thousands)...
...
- There are free software java codecs for both Ogg/Theora and
Ogg/Vorbis. I haven't worked too much with the Theora plugin because it was a bit buggy under GCJ six months ago, but the java vorbis codec is very mature and robust. We couldn't ask for a better framework from which to build a video player (and there is even a SOC project to deeply integrate this support with MediaWiki).
On 9/28/06, Jason Spiro jasonspiro2@gmail.com wrote:
MediaWiki should convert all our videos to low-rez Flash Video format for streaming previewing as soon as the .ogg original is uploaded. This way, more people will be able to view our videos, so we'll get more uploads.
Agree or disagree?
100% agree. I still haven't figured out how to get OGG files to play correctly on any of my computers, and I'm more computer savvy than most. I look forward to the day when OGG is a well-supported and easy-to-play format but until then, I don't think playing a little lowest-common-denominator is a bad thing when it comes to tech things, with the always-available option of linking up with the full file for those who really want to monkey with it.
FF
On 10/1/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
100% agree. I still haven't figured out how to get OGG files to play correctly on any of my computers, and I'm more computer savvy than most.
On which step of the Media help page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_help which should be linked next to almost every mediafile on enwiki) did you encounter problems?
I look forward to the day when OGG is a well-supported and easy-to-play format but until then,
I look forward to when media in general works without installation for most users.. but that isn't the case for Video at least: Flash, Realvideo, Quicktime, etc.. all require an installation on most PCs out there.. And in most of those cases the installation is more complex than following our media help.
Even with WMV a huge amount of the video out there is encoded with codes which Windows does not naively include... although Windows Media does have an autoinstlation facility which makes this painless for most users.
I don't think playing a little lowest-common-denominator is a bad thing when it comes to tech things, with the always-available option of linking up with the full file for those who really want to monkey with it.
Our content would not be free if we were distributing it inside proprietary and patented formats.
Fortunately free and easy to use are not at all mutually exclusive. ... although carrying out these silly arguments and getting actual word done are mutually exclusive .. so...