perhaps if people create a lot of voice overs & ~Kens burns~ effects on commons images with the occasional inter-spliced video clip with lots of back and forth editing... and we are constantly creating timely derivatives of these flattened sequences that ~may~ necessitate such a system.. because things will be updating all the time ...
... but anyway... yea for now will focus on flattening sequences...
Did a basic internal encoder committed in r54340... Could add some enhancements but lets spec out want we want ;)
Still need to clean up the File:myFile.mp4 situation. Probably store in a temp location write out a File:myFile.ogg placeholder then once transcoded swap it in?
Also will hack in adding derivatives to the job queue where oggHandler is embed in a wiki-article at a substantial lower resolution than the source version. Will have it send the high res version until the derivative is created then "purge" the pages to point to the new location. Will try and have the "download" link still point to the high res version. (we will only create one or two derivatives... also we should decide if we want an ultra low bitrate (200kbs or so version for people accessing Wikimedia on slow / developing country connections)
peace, michael
Brion Vibber wrote:
On 7/31/09 6:51 PM, Michael Dale wrote:
Want to point out the working prototype of the Wiki@home extension. Presently it focuses on a system for transcoding uploaded media to free formats, but will also be used for "flattening sequences" and maybe other things in the future ;)
Client-side rendering does make sense to me when integrated into the upload and sequencer processes; you've got all the source data you need and local CPU time to kill while you're shuffling the bits around on the wire.
But I haven't yet seen any evidence that a distributed rendering network will ever be required for us, or that it would be worth the hassle of developing and maintaining it.
We're not YouTube, and don't intend to be; we don't accept everybody's random vacation videos, funny cat tricks, or rips from Cartoon Network... Between our licensing requirements and our limited scope -- educational and reference materials -- I think we can reasonably expect that our volume of video will always be *extremely* small compared to general video-sharing sites.
We don't actually *want* everyone's blurry cell-phone vacation videos of famous buildings (though we might want blurry cell-phone videos of *historical events*, as with the occasional bit of interesting news footage).
Shooting professional-quality video suitable for Wikimedia use is probably two orders of magnitude harder than shooting attractive, useful still photos. Even if we make major pushes on the video front, I don't think we'll ever have the kind of mass volume that would require a distributed encoding network.
-- brion
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l