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
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
________________________________
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
________________________________
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
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
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
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
________________________________
> 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