If, on the other hand, most of your current initiatives are things like GPS/Google Maps gee-wiz things, I think many of us here would argue that we have hundreds of things we think are more important to our photo sharing experience than those type of things.
I think it's important to keep in mind that dgrinners are primarily advanced amateur photographers and, less frequently, working pros. Both of those groups are very important to us but we believe it's critically important to remember that our biggest category is travel, making Google Maps one of our most popular features.
Our most popular uploader which made the cover of PC World is hardly mentioned here and many of our most popular features such as RSS feeds and keyword tags, which put Flickr on the map, weren't asked for. We do pay very close attention to requests here and many of the things we're working on are only appealing to the dgrin audience, but I hope you can bear with us when we serve the travelers, families, and digerati whose voices aren't heard here.
I think it's important to keep in mind that dgrinners are primarily advanced amateur photographers and, less frequently, working pros. Both of those groups are very important to us but we believe it's critically important to remember that our biggest category is travel, making Google Maps one of our most popular features.
Our most popular uploader which made the cover of PC World is hardly mentioned here and many of our most popular features such as RSS feeds and keyword tags, which put Flickr on the map, weren't asked for. We do pay very close attention to requests here and many of the things we're working on are only appealing to the dgrin audience, but I hope you can bear with us when we serve the travelers, families, and digerati whose voices aren't heard here.
Baldy,
In one way i'm totally with you. I'm a software engineer and i know what you guys are dealing with : . You have only so many people working at smugmug and many many many more wishes from all of us. You got to make priorities.
But now i'm on the other side. I'm the user and i can complain and i'm excersizing this right.... ... just kidding (or not?).
Me upgrading to a Power User level was not guided by the ability to upload videos, but i thought it was a very nice feature. Now i'm just a little disappointed that i effectively can not use it, since only videos using the old and bloated MPEG1 format can be uploaded (MPEG1's compression is poor & only 8Mbyte max upload size). But all in all, i'm still a very happy SmugMugger. Keep up the good work!
I think it's important to keep in mind that dgrinners are primarily advanced amateur photographers and, less frequently, working pros. Both of those groups are very important to us but we believe it's critically important to remember that our biggest category is travel, making Google Maps one of our most popular features.
Our most popular uploader which made the cover of PC World is hardly mentioned here and many of our most popular features such as RSS feeds and keyword tags, which put Flickr on the map, weren't asked for. We do pay very close attention to requests here and many of the things we're working on are only appealing to the dgrin audience, but I hope you can bear with us when we serve the travelers, families, and digerati whose voices aren't heard here.
Yea I've noticed how much publicity adding Google Maps has giving Smugmug and I'm happy about that! ...And honestly, the current video system isn't THAT bad really.
For video under a minute long I can use 2000k bitrate at 640x480.
between a minute and 2.5 minutes long I use 1000k bitrate at 320x240.
and for 2.5-4 minutes I use 500k at 320x240.
Totally acceptable for what I'm using it for, races at track meets. Bottom line...I'd rather have customizable watermarks first, or a fix for anyone with the guest password having FULL ACCESS to ALL of my pictures, or a way to have 1 picture in more than 1 gallery without having to upload it again......so for now I can wait. Its just annoying cause all of the other fixes I want seem like they'd take time to fix...but it seems very simple to take off the limitation that stops us from uploading anything but Mpeg-1 vivdeos!
Oh Well
0
Options
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
so for now I can wait. Its just annoying cause all of the other fixes I want seem like they'd take time to fix...but it seems very simple to take off the limitation that stops us from uploading anything but Mpeg-1 vivdeos!
I wish that one was easy... And everyone's right, we can do better with video clips. Right now we think the three most important things we can do are themes, beefing up the datacenter, and establishing a new help center in Utah.
But we are working on something for pros that's been asked for that's a long, hard slog that we don't want to talk about because it could have setbacks.
We have that now, right? Make 2nd copy from the photo tools menu?I wish that one was easy... And everyone's right, we can do better with video clips. Right now we think the three most important things we can do are themes, beefing up the datacenter, and establishing a new help center in Utah.
But we are working on something for pros that's been asked for that's a long, hard slog that we don't want to talk about because it could have setbacks.
Well, technically "make 2nd copy" works, but only one photo at a time. I like to keep an archive of all the pics I take, so I upload ALL of the pics I take all day to my Archive (private) folder. Then I select the pics which I want to share, and put them in a public folder. Its easier to upload 50 pics again then click on "make 2nd copy" on each one. Again, just a minor annoyance.
hhhmmm...I wonder what you guys could be adding, that pros have been aksing for...that might have setbacks...Anyone care to guess?
Why not let us encode our own flash videos for upload?
Hi Dodge,
Just from my perspective, I would argue that Flash was a more dangerous game to play than using more sophesticated MPEG Codecs.
It's standards are dubious, it contains a much larger executable code base which has had fairly nasty vulnerabilities, it requires updating to meet Macromedia (and now Adobe's) demands. If you don't it annoys you every time you look at a webpage.
It's performance intensive and often used for deeply annoying purposes on badly designed websites, so many people I know have conciously disabled it to decrease the ammount of 'visual spam', and for security concerns. (I know they exist in JPEG and MPEG as well, but not to the same degree (IMHO))
I would also imagine that the Flash player versioning/upgrade is not that much less scarey to grandma than the MPEG codec issue. Perhaps a little as they all come from a centralised source, and at least there's only 1 Flash player, but the 'only do this if you trust Adobe' might look scarey. At least with the uploaders they can always just go to a 'safer' one.
Personally I would prefer to see Smugmug stay 'Flash free', but that's just my 2 cents. If I was more concerned about videos then perhaps I'd lean the other way.
Personally I would prefer to see Smugmug stay 'Flash free', but that's just my 2 cents. If I was more concerned about videos then perhaps I'd lean the other way.
Luke
Nah, you are right to think that Luke, even if you dont do many videos.
Many people consider Flash to be an annoyance, and thats why you are starting to see many browsers that have built in the option to disable flash content.
And yes, I hope Smugmug NEVER converts anything to flash. There are just too many problems with that. For one, I dont know many people that can convert their own video to flash. You would pretty much be at the mercy of Macromedia, since its a properiatary format, ala Windows Media (which I hope never EVER gets used by SM either). And, SM couldnt be left with the responsibility to convert everyones videos to Flash like Google does, because SM isnt as big as Google & it would cost them many hours, trouble & lots of $$.
And plus, the videos wouldnt be downloadable because Flash is meant to be viewed within a browser, not on someones desktop. It is possible to do, but its not very easy and many people would have trouble. Everything should stay downloadable across the board at SM.
Everyone here pretty much knows my stance on this and that I think MPEG-4 (preferably using the H.264 codec) is the next logical step for videos at Smugmug. Thanks...Kerry
I agree with everything you two just said (I don't have a problem with WMV though, I find it very convenient and a useful codec. I used it for over a year with no problems on my home server). MPEG-4 WOULD be much better than Flash...but I'd choose Flash over MPEG-1! Smugmug seems more inclined to use Flash over MPEG-4, so I'd rather have that than nothing!
...I know I've said this about 8 times now...but seriously. Show me one computer that can't play MPEG-4. Windows Media 6.4 supports it, and that has been on every Windows computer since 98! I really couldn't care less if someone's Windows 95 computer can't play my videos.
I haven't been around here long, but another poster said Smugmug dropped support for IE5 saying anyone who has it needs to just get with the program and upgrade...Why have that stance against a Browser, but not against an old outdated (older than IE5) video codec? It HAS to be more than just "your grandma can't watch the videos".
BTW my Grandma is running Windows XP with a 2.6GHZ processor...she can handle MPEG-4.
Video and other Improvements Flash is the way, youtube/google uses it... Tried and trued... Simple and Fast!thumb
Flash would be best since if one doesn't have the latest flash.. the browser simply prompts you for updated flash. if not, they could at least provide a free tool (not linked to another software site)... or just simply built it into the upload program.
It's better than making people install codeccs or apple quicktime/media player on their computer (i had to resort to IE since firefox needed quicktime plugin (if apple didn't include so much other junk with quicktime than i'd install).
I just coughed up a year of pro with smugmug so i can get the video feature.. and i'm quite dissappointed. I'm only staying because smugmug is such an elegant site (where as some of the free sites have really trashy content).
The only other improvement I'd like to see is: I WANT TO UPLOAD AND SAVE ALL MY PICTURES AND FILES... and THEN manage the albums online.
Don't want to have to upload the SAME FILE TWICE.
Would be nice if smugmug be a onestop-shop for backing up all my photos and sharing pix and vids at the same time.:D
I'll have to switch if nothing's done by next year.:cry
No one reacted to my comment about converting what we receive to Flash? At least with Flash, 92% of computers have Flash 6, which can handle pretty good video. You could argue that Flash 8 has better video than MPEG4. Flash has it's major downsides and I don't want to propose it without hearing what Onethumb has to say, but it'd be interesting to get your feedback.
Comments
Our most popular uploader which made the cover of PC World is hardly mentioned here and many of our most popular features such as RSS feeds and keyword tags, which put Flickr on the map, weren't asked for. We do pay very close attention to requests here and many of the things we're working on are only appealing to the dgrin audience, but I hope you can bear with us when we serve the travelers, families, and digerati whose voices aren't heard here.
In one way i'm totally with you. I'm a software engineer and i know what you guys are dealing with
But now i'm on the other side. I'm the user and i can complain and i'm excersizing this right....
Me upgrading to a Power User level was not guided by the ability to upload videos, but i thought it was a very nice feature. Now i'm just a little disappointed that i effectively can not use it, since only videos using the old and bloated MPEG1 format can be uploaded (MPEG1's compression is poor & only 8Mbyte max upload size). But all in all, i'm still a very happy SmugMugger. Keep up the good work!
-- Anton.
When I hear the earth will melt into the sun,
in two billion years,
all I can think is:
"Will that be on a Monday?"
==========================
http://www.streetsofboston.com
http://blog.antonspaans.com
For video under a minute long I can use 2000k bitrate at 640x480.
between a minute and 2.5 minutes long I use 1000k bitrate at 320x240.
and for 2.5-4 minutes I use 500k at 320x240.
Totally acceptable for what I'm using it for, races at track meets. Bottom line...I'd rather have customizable watermarks first, or a fix for anyone with the guest password having FULL ACCESS to ALL of my pictures, or a way to have 1 picture in more than 1 gallery without having to upload it again......so for now I can wait. Its just annoying cause all of the other fixes I want seem like they'd take time to fix...but it seems very simple to take off the limitation that stops us from uploading anything but Mpeg-1 vivdeos!
Oh Well
But we are working on something for pros that's been asked for that's a long, hard slog that we don't want to talk about because it could have setbacks.
hhhmmm...I wonder what you guys could be adding, that pros have been aksing for...that might have setbacks...Anyone care to guess?
Thanks, Dodge - for the suggestion!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Just from my perspective, I would argue that Flash was a more dangerous game to play than using more sophesticated MPEG Codecs.
It's standards are dubious, it contains a much larger executable code base which has had fairly nasty vulnerabilities, it requires updating to meet Macromedia (and now Adobe's) demands. If you don't it annoys you every time you look at a webpage.
It's performance intensive and often used for deeply annoying purposes on badly designed websites, so many people I know have conciously disabled it to decrease the ammount of 'visual spam', and for security concerns. (I know they exist in JPEG and MPEG as well, but not to the same degree (IMHO))
I would also imagine that the Flash player versioning/upgrade is not that much less scarey to grandma than the MPEG codec issue. Perhaps a little as they all come from a centralised source, and at least there's only 1 Flash player, but the 'only do this if you trust Adobe' might look scarey. At least with the uploaders they can always just go to a 'safer' one.
Personally I would prefer to see Smugmug stay 'Flash free', but that's just my 2 cents. If I was more concerned about videos then perhaps I'd lean the other way.
Luke
SmugSoftware: www.smugtools.com
Many people consider Flash to be an annoyance, and thats why you are starting to see many browsers that have built in the option to disable flash content.
And yes, I hope Smugmug NEVER converts anything to flash. There are just too many problems with that. For one, I dont know many people that can convert their own video to flash. You would pretty much be at the mercy of Macromedia, since its a properiatary format, ala Windows Media (which I hope never EVER gets used by SM either). And, SM couldnt be left with the responsibility to convert everyones videos to Flash like Google does, because SM isnt as big as Google & it would cost them many hours, trouble & lots of $$.
And plus, the videos wouldnt be downloadable because Flash is meant to be viewed within a browser, not on someones desktop. It is possible to do, but its not very easy and many people would have trouble. Everything should stay downloadable across the board at SM.
Everyone here pretty much knows my stance on this and that I think MPEG-4 (preferably using the H.264 codec) is the next logical step for videos at Smugmug. Thanks...Kerry
...I know I've said this about 8 times now...but seriously. Show me one computer that can't play MPEG-4. Windows Media 6.4 supports it, and that has been on every Windows computer since 98! I really couldn't care less if someone's Windows 95 computer can't play my videos.
I haven't been around here long, but another poster said Smugmug dropped support for IE5 saying anyone who has it needs to just get with the program and upgrade...Why have that stance against a Browser, but not against an old outdated (older than IE5) video codec? It HAS to be more than just "your grandma can't watch the videos".
BTW my Grandma is running Windows XP with a 2.6GHZ processor...she can handle MPEG-4.
Flash is the way, youtube/google uses it... Tried and trued... Simple and Fast!
Flash would be best since if one doesn't have the latest flash.. the browser simply prompts you for updated flash.
if not, they could at least provide a free tool (not linked to another software site)... or just simply built it into the upload program.
It's better than making people install codeccs or apple quicktime/media player on their computer (i had to resort to IE since firefox needed quicktime plugin (if apple didn't include so much other junk with quicktime than i'd install).
I just coughed up a year of pro with smugmug so i can get the video feature.. and i'm quite dissappointed. I'm only staying because smugmug is such an elegant site (where as some of the free sites have really trashy content).
The only other improvement I'd like to see is: I WANT TO UPLOAD AND SAVE ALL MY PICTURES AND FILES... and THEN manage the albums online.
Don't want to have to upload the SAME FILE TWICE.
Would be nice if smugmug be a onestop-shop for backing up all my photos and sharing pix and vids at the same time.:D
I'll have to switch if nothing's done by next year.:cry
My 2 cents
========================================================
No one reacted to my comment about converting what we receive to Flash? At least with Flash, 92% of computers have Flash 6, which can handle pretty good video. You could argue that Flash 8 has better video than MPEG4. Flash has it's major downsides and I don't want to propose it without hearing what Onethumb has to say, but it'd be interesting to get your feedback.
http://www.npost.com/interview.jsp?intID=INT00183
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter