Wikivideo-l November 2014

wikivideo-l@lists.wikimedia.org

15 participants
9 discussions

Re: [Wikivideo-l] Mox file format
by Ralph Giles 04 Dec '14

04 Dec '14

Earlier, Brion Vibber wrote: > Apparently the US Library of Congress has been archiving videos as > MXF (the container format that MOX is planned to be based off) with > lossless-mode JPEG 2000 for the video payload... and they're pushing > a baseline format around that for digital video preservation. This is also the basis of the 'DCP' format used for distribution to theatres with digital projectors, so there's simplicity in standardizing that for archival of finished films. Of course JPEG 2000 and MXF both specification with gratis distribution, but I'm not aware of any patent restrictions on implementations. -r

9 14

GLAM WIKI TV?
by Sebastiaan ter Burg 23 Nov '14

23 Nov '14

Hi everyone, some of you might have seen that I've send out the first public messages about the GLAM WIKI 2015 conference <https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM-WIKI_2015>. Now, there's still a lot to arrange and loads of stuff are uncertain, but I already want to plant an idea in your heads: GLAM WIKI TV. A couple of weeks ago I went to Copenhagen with a friend to do interviews at a conference. We interviewed speakers <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDxXQy74yPNhxxKI8IiWNMmWDqWi4iYuP> after their presentation about the message they brought to the event. This formula worked great and could also be applied to visitors (what have you learned / will you take back home) and panel leaders. Most of the interviews were online before lunch the next day. Mostly it involved: 1. An interviewer 2. A camera journalist that isn't afraid of handling multiple camera's 3. A production assistent that gets the people, writes summaries, etc. I don't know if there's any budget to organise something like this at GLAM WIKI 2015, but I'm very interested in what you can/would like to do. To start myself: in any other event I could take on role 1 (I did interviews too <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXKd-5Q9GV4>) or 2 (did almost all the camera work and editing), but I will be too busy during the conference. While I'm typing this I realise that this could be an open document / wiki page to gather expertise and interests of people on this list. Oh, and yes... Wikimania TV has crossed my mind too. And if we could pull something off at Wikimedia, I'm volunteering to do the GLAM interviews and to help out with some camera work. Best, Sebastiaan -- Sebastiaan ter Burg *Projectleider Culturele Samenwerking* *Wikimedia Nederland* ________________________________ tel.: +31 30 32 00 238 gsm: +31 6 480 88 615 e-mail: terburg(a)wikimedia.nl wiki: Ter-burg <https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Ter-burg> ________________________________ www: www.wikimedia.nl wiki: nl.wikimedia.org ________________________________ *Postadres*: * Bezoekadres:* Postbus 167 Mariaplaats 3 3500 AD Utrecht Utrecht ________________________________

3 2

Feedback on content workflow?
by Sebastiaan ter Burg 22 Nov '14

22 Nov '14

Hi everyone, I thought you might be interested in a project that I'm working on: I'm preparing a trip to San Francisco to interview organisations and experts about the "Crowd Economy". We'll share the raw footage, timelines, etc. with a CC BY license. I've just posted an update about the workflow I plan to use. I'll gladly hear your suggestions to improve my workflow! Update on IndieGoGo: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/crowd-expedition-goes-san-francisco#acti… Direct link to Youtube:http://youtu.be/KDBKf8mNm4c And everyone in SF: I hope to interview someone (Lila?) form the foundation too. So let me know if you want to help out arranging that or want to meet up for coffee. Best, Sebastiaan -- Sebastiaan ter Burg *Projectleider Culturele Samenwerking* *Wikimedia Nederland* ________________________________ tel.: +31 30 32 00 238 gsm: +31 6 480 88 615 e-mail: terburg(a)wikimedia.nl wiki: Ter-burg <https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Ter-burg> ________________________________ www: www.wikimedia.nl wiki: nl.wikimedia.org ________________________________ *Postadres*: * Bezoekadres:* Postbus 167 Mariaplaats 3 3500 AD Utrecht Utrecht ________________________________

3 4

Videos for Wikipedia Articles - Ongoing vote! Who will win?
by Manuel Schneider 17 Nov '14

17 Nov '14

Dear all? disclaimer: This is a german-speaking project. I thought I should share this with you anyway, due to your affinities. "videos for wikipedia articles", short "VWA", is a project which runs for almost one year. The efforts of "primary public service 2.0" (incubator of Leuphiana University), WikiTV and the science year 2014 (digital society) have been combined. The result was a project supported by Wikimedia Deutschland and the federal ministry for education and research to foster videos in Wikipedia: * video competition on the creation of videos in the context of "digital society" for Wikipedia * workshops to train and support future video producers * intensive advertisement and outreach via banners on Wikipedia, mailinglist posts, international discussions like the video lunch at Wikimania etc. The workshops are all over now and the submission deadline for the competition is past - now it is your turn! Which videos should win? You vote! There are 44 videos in three categories, you have ten votes which you can distribute freely: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Videos_f%C3%BCr_Wikipedia-Artike… Click through the categories, choose your prefered videos, share the news! We aim at a broad participation. In parallel to the community vote there is a jury which is assessing all videos, so there will be two winners in each category, in total there will be six prices to be awarded at the ceremony at Wikimedia Deutschland on December 5th. Links: * https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiTV/VWA/Wettbewerb * https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiTV/VWA/Workshops * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:VWA_2014 A big thanks to Rillke who set up the voting tool! Thanks a lot for your participation and regards, Manuel -- Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch

1 0

Re: [Wikivideo-l] Mox file format
by George Chriss 15 Nov '14

15 Nov '14

On Tue, November 4, 2014 5:55 pm, Brion Vibber wrote: > Hmm, is Motion-JPEG no longer a thing, or does it not scale to the quality > or bitrates needed nowadays? Used to be pretty standard back in the days I > was fiddling with video editing 10-15 years ago (MJPEG would be packaged > usually in .avi or .mov depending on the platform's preferred video > container). Motion-JPEG is a thing to the extent that IP cameras deliver JPEG-over-RTSP/RTP -- a fair number of cameras on-market do, others do on-the-fly MP4 streaming, and some do both. Thus, saving the incoming M-JPEG stream is means of (virtually) lossless recording. Likewise if you have HW acceleration available to do on-the-fly JPEG conversion from raw bayer recording modes. The LibrePlanet 2013 videos hosted on media.libreplanet.org were recording in JPEG+Vorbis-in-Matroska (18FPS) then converted to WebM for upload. There's no corresponding container binding I'm aware of for JPEG-in-Ogg but in theory this can be done without much fuss. In any case the video/editing quality, command-line tools, and patent status (IANAL) is really quite suitable for use in the free software community but widespread adoption is another issue altogether. The format also works well within Pitivi. There's arbitrary JPEG-in-Matroska upload restrictions on popular video hosting services: the backend ffmpeg binary is able to decode and convert just fine but the format hasn't been explicitly whitelisted due to _______. I would be happy to see JPEG-in-Matroska adoption by the WMF and community. Sincerely, George

3 5

VP9 discussion on Bugzilla
by Andrew Lih 13 Nov '14

13 Nov '14

FYI, Some of you interested in VP9 might find this discussion thread on Bugzilla useful. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53863 -Andrew

3 4

Formats for multilayer graphics/alpha/lower thirds in video?
by Andrew Lih 12 Nov '14

12 Nov '14

Hi folks, Wondering if anyone has addressed the issue of Commons-friendly formats for exchanging on-screen graphics or lower-third graphics with alpha channels for video? Seems like the .xcf format used by GIMP is the way to go, and it's supported in Commons, but I'd like to find out if anyone has any experiences with this. -Andrew

4 5

MOX file format
by Sebastiaan ter Burg 06 Nov '14

06 Nov '14

Hi everyone, any thoughts on this IndieGoGo campaign? https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/mox-file-format/x/4029267 I'm a sucker of supporting this kind of projects (I also backed the openshot 2 kickstarter <https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/421164014/openshot-video-editor-for-wi…>), but I'm not sure if this initiative could fill the gap we experience in sharing high quality footage. What do you think? -- Sebastiaan ter Burg *Projectleider Culturele Samenwerking* *Wikimedia Nederland* ________________________________ tel.: +31 30 32 00 238 gsm: +31 6 480 88 615 e-mail: terburg(a)wikimedia.nl wiki: Ter-burg <https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Ter-burg> ________________________________ www: www.wikimedia.nl wiki: nl.wikimedia.org ________________________________ *Postadres*: * Bezoekadres:* Postbus 167 Mariaplaats 3 3500 AD Utrecht Utrecht ________________________________

4 5

Re: [Wikivideo-l] Mox file format
by bawolff 04 Nov '14

04 Nov '14

> Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 12:17:43 +0100 > From: Sebastiaan ter Burg <terburg(a)wikimedia.nl> > To: wikivideo-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: [Wikivideo-l] MOX file format > Message-ID: > <CAH=K=+ nsvBZB4SbPeU4cCQWGFSLErpb1qqS2FQakXB9EcCa2ng(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi everyone, > > any thoughts on this IndieGoGo campaign? > https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/mox-file-format/x/4029267 > > I'm a sucker of supporting this kind of projects (I also backed the > openshot 2 kickstarter > < https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/421164014/openshot-video-editor-for-wi… >), > but I'm not sure if this initiative could fill the gap we experience in > sharing high quality footage. What do you think? > > -- > Sebastiaan ter Burg > *Projectleider Culturele Samenwerking* > *Wikimedia Nederland* >From their funding page " MOX will read and play consistently on Mac, Windows, Linux, or any other platform. This is because MOX will be an open format based on open standards" Ha. If it was really that easy to get interopability we'd be living in the land of ogg and webm. (Arguably there may be less lock in in the pro market, but stil-open source is not interopability magic) So the tech summary of this (afaict. Im not a video expert so correct me if im wrong) they are taking a container format aimed at pro users named mxf, which is much like tiff in that it can contain anything and hence has interopability problems as you never know whats inside. They are taking mxf making a profile of it called mox which is limitted to free codecs, and specificly codecs that a pro would want to use (lossless or high quality lossless) as an intermediary format. The codecs are one of: Dirac, OpenEXR, DPX,PNG, and JPEG. Dirac is an interestng choice. I suppose its chosen because it has a lossless option, but from what i understand its very slow to encode, so i wouldnt think its suitable for this usage (maybe im mistaken). The other codecs are just image codecs. Dpx is an interesting choice given this groups goals as wikipedia describes it as "non-free SMPTE standard, 17 pages, USD 120" (although maybe that only refers to the standard. There exists free software implementations) The audio codecs are: flac, opus and raw pcm. Flac and pcm are lossless, opus is a high quality lossy codec. --- Im unsure what exactly the issues with sharing high quality footage are, but I assume there are three: * file size - 1gb limit on commons (and realistically >100mb is flaky) *social -some people worry about dumping source material on commons. I think this concern is overblown but one should not underestimate social problems *inconvinent formats -ogg/webm is hard to convert to. Aimed at end use not intermediary use. This could help with the third point potentially (in the far future if it becomes an industry std, which is a big "if". Open source projects fail all the time). I think there is probably more we can do on the format front. Its a complex issue, but im pretty sure not all avenues have been exhausted, or perhaps even explored. An approach that may lead to more immediate results is something like pro-res (if unpatented) which allegedly is decodable in ffmpeg (unpatented and decodable in ffmpeg is basically the criteria for enabling a new format on commons), and also has the benefit of existing right now --bawolff

3 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

Wikivideo-l November 2014