Time for the quarterly video thread??
scwalter
Registered Users Posts: 417 Major grins
I think so. I've searched and read through the previous posts about video and I was just wondering if any thought has been given to supporting new formats?
From the previous threads, people are asking for mpeg-2/4 and flash movie (FLV) format. I've read and understand Baldy's comments about mpeg4 playback abilities, and also his concerns over converting everyone's movies to Flash format.
In this post Baldy says, http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=169174&postcount=20
I propose that smugmug offer some kind of beta program that will allow us to load our own flash movies. We can test out the system without burdening smugmug with converting users' videos. If everything goes well and there is enough interest from users, then smugmug can explore what is needed to support it more fully. If it doesn't work out, no harm done, those that really want to post video will figure out a way to create flash movies.
Whadya think?
-Scott
Link to full thread listed above
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=19068
From the previous threads, people are asking for mpeg-2/4 and flash movie (FLV) format. I've read and understand Baldy's comments about mpeg4 playback abilities, and also his concerns over converting everyone's movies to Flash format.
In this post Baldy says, http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=169174&postcount=20
These are all good points but what about those of us that are able to make our own Flash movies (I use Premiere Pro) and just need a place to host them?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.
I propose that smugmug offer some kind of beta program that will allow us to load our own flash movies. We can test out the system without burdening smugmug with converting users' videos. If everything goes well and there is enough interest from users, then smugmug can explore what is needed to support it more fully. If it doesn't work out, no harm done, those that really want to post video will figure out a way to create flash movies.
Whadya think?
-Scott
Link to full thread listed above
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=19068
Scott Walter Photography
scwalter.smugmug.com
scwalter.smugmug.com
0
Comments
Ouch, each time another quarter goes by and we're still just supporting MPEG-1 we wince a little, especially considering how adoption Flash and MPEG 4 are getting on the web lately. And it seems like Adobe, now that they own Macromedia, is making a strong push towards Flash (while Apple is doing nice work with MPEG 4).
Having said that, it seems that multiple photo or infrastructure-related priorities keep bumping our video efforts and unfortunately I expect that to continue for the short-term. I wish I had more details to share, but I don't.
Thanks,
Baldy
I see this being the best all-around solution for your codec dilemma. And trust me, there are a TON of mpeg4 converters available for both Mac & PC, thanks to the 5th Gen Video iPod & PSP.
I know you guys need to take care of your existing customers on the photo side, I would expect nothing less, but I just wanted to reiterate that there are people who are eagerly awaiting more extensive video support.
Thanks,
Scott
scwalter.smugmug.com
Do I wish Smugmug did it all? Of course! However, I understand WHY they don't do it all...the bandwidth costs would be through the roof if they started hosting large video files! Think about it. A medium sized picture on Smugmug is 32k, while a large sized picture is about 46k. I have videos posted that are hundreds of megabytes for only a few minutes of video. Yea us Pro users have unlimited bandwidth, but most of us won't use much with pictures taking up only 32k of space. Video is an extra in the Smugmug catalog, I'd rather have Smugmug stay profitable hosting our pictures, then go out of business trying to host our videos too.
If Smugmug does decide to allow us to use more advanced formats...they need to be careful which one they choose! Dreamhost gives me a streaming Quicktime server that I've been trying take advantage of, but I've been running into problems. Out of all of my friends who have gone to my site, none of them had Quicktime installed! Actually I think one person did, but it was too old to play my videos.
I then did some testing with some older computers at work and the video quality was horrible! It would pause for multiple seconds at a time, and was too choppy for me to consuder playable. It seems that most videocards have WMV accelleration built in, but not Quicktime acceleration. One computer couldn't play ANY of the MPEG4/Quicktime videos I posted unless I reduced the resolution/bitrate to unacceptable qualities. The same computer, however, had no trouble playing back a WMV file at better than DVD resolution. This is a BIG deal for me since I'm posting 720p and 1080i(p) videos! Even though Dreamhost has better support for Quicktime files (only if you want a streaming server), I still stick with WMV at both normal and HD resolutions.
Oh and by the way...Windows Media Player doesn't support standard MPEG4. My friends simply refused to download a new player just to watch my MPEG4 videos. "Why do I need to download something for your videos? Videos at the other sites work fine" is what I hear. I know some of you guys at Smugmug are big on Apple, but it is a fact that WMV is a better solution than standard MPEG4 if you want compatibility. If you give us WMV, then Apple users will have to download something extra to see the videos. If you give us MPEG4, then Windows users will have to download something extra to see the videos...Who is the majority here?
Anyway...If you are going to increase our video capabilities, please go for Quality! Don't go down the Youtube path and convert everything to a low quality Flash Video. Stop imposing limits and let us use whichever codec we want! If your going to do it (and I'd understand if you won't), please do it right!
And I never had a problem with streaming QT on Mac or PC, so its probably your host. And yes, if SM required videos in WMV format, it would be complete hell for Apple users. Its almost impossible to convert anything to WMV on a Mac. And for what? Just because its easier on the proprietary-laden Windows people? I dont think so. That doesnt make it right, you know.
While were at it, lets just go ahead & convert every text file, audio file, video file, & every other type of file out there known to man to an MS format & forget all about open standards. That way, none of your friends will ever have to install another app again & that would also make Mr Gates very happy as well.
We'll launch it when it's done and not before.
We also won't support something as terribly non-standard as WMV. Count on us to support something that's supported by all of the steps in the video process:
- creation (video cameras, digital cameras w/vid capabilities, camera phones, etc)
- sharing (SmugMug)
- playback (downloading to your PC/iPod/etc)
WMV fails all over the place here (nothing creates it, nothing plays it except windows PCs, and not even all of those. It's not supported by default in XP installs).
It may be quite awhile longer before we release something, but it's definitely on our short list of important items.
We think sites like YouTube do a great job, though, and aren't looking to compete with them. Our offering definitely won't be as complete as theirs - ours is to compliment our photo sharing since so many digicams now can shoot short clips.
Anyone who's serious about sharing lots of videos will likely want to use YouTube or one of their competitors in addition to SmugMug.
Don
I know it seems like I absolutly hate M$, but I honestly dont have a problem with them as a company. I actually think they make some really good products.
What I DO have a problem with is the way they treat their customers & the rest of the free internet world by setting up all these barriers to get around their proprietary BS & trying to force their own version of the "standards". Domination is the name of their game & I HATE that they dont play nice with open formats. In doing that stuff, they actually slow down overall growth because they are the #1 player right now. If Apple pulled this stuff, you can bet I wouldnt use their products either.
I actually feel really sorry for the people who use IE & are scared to try something else that actually works. I also feel sorry for the Windows users that have to reinstall their OS a few times a year to combat spyware/viruses 'cause they just plain dont know any better & think thats just the way its supposed to be.
Anyways, here is looking forward to the new video format from SM. I have complete confidence in them & I know that it'll be pretty rad.
2. If you read the last part of my post, I said " Anyway...If you are going to increase our video capabilities, please go for Quality! Don't go down the Youtube path and convert everything to a low quality Flash Video. Stop imposing limits and let us use whichever codec we want! If your going to do it (and I'd understand if you won't), please do it right!
The problems I have with Quicktime and MPEG4 have *nothing* to do with the host. The host simply serves the file, thats all. I download the file to the computer and it plays choppy and you think it has something to do with my host? The fact is, I WANTED to use MPEG4 and I WANTED to use Quicktime! After my comprehensive tests on many different computers (both at work and at user's homes), it simply didn't make sense to put my videos in that format. Case Closed.
WMV on a Mac? Simple.
http://www.microsoft.com/mac/otherproducts/otherproducts.aspx?pid=windowsmedia
All I'm asking is that you give us a choice. WMV works amazingly for me, Quicktime works amazingly for peestandingup, Just give us a choice!
After reading onethumb's response, it doesn't look like they will be going the choice route. And for the record, YouTube quality is horrible. Beyond horrible. It has to be in order to serve videos to millions of people. At first I thought you were going the Flash route, but downloading to iPod? You must be talking about going the MPEG4 route, which (unlike WMV as you stated above) *NO Windows Computer* can play by default! I already have a great solution with up to 1080p HD video, so I'm really not too concerned about it anymore...but my god, please don't make every Windows user that wants to watch Smugmug video have to download a seperate player to get the videos, just so the Apple users won't have to.
I don't even have the orgiginal Quicktime installed, but the 'quicktime alternative' pack that just installs the codec. What I love about quicktime which is used for movie trailers that it plays flawlessly from the browser. There's a good visible bar on how much has been downloaded and that's great for HQ videos as I can assume if there's enough data to play through without interruption. Apart from that I'm not to fond having to convert data into quicktime - it's also a too propertiary format with not enough free software around - at least on PC. Don't do it.
Concerning your choice issue: As Don said they're not going to be a video host and therefore there would be no point in trying to support the latest stuff like HD 720p (1280x720 px) or even 1080p (1920x1080 px) - hello?? Those clips are meant to be watched on a monitor and not on your beamer. Have you ever watched a DivX or XVid video on your pc? They're encoded with a resolution of like 640x280 px or something like that and look very good on any monitor size. Even DVDs are only 720x576 px and look even amazing on a HUGE flatscreen (seen the Ice Age DVD on an expo showing off HDTV, so I thought it was a HDTV version, but no - they had the old dvd from years ago in the player and it looked friggin awesome on the huge screen!)
So resolution means nothing and definately won't be an issue with smugmug - it's about putting the most into 8mb/16mb sized clips for their target usage - been shown off at max. full screen with decent quality and relatively long runtimes. Smugmug has to make a choice for a concrete number of formats. I hope they're going for something universal and less propertiary like mpeg4, which is more and more supported by the cameras itself.
Sebastian
SmugMug Support Hero
If I had to guess, I would say SM is gonna go the route of Google Video. Meaning, you upload the video that gets converted to flash so everyone (yes, even grandma) will be able to watch it online. Then, you will have a couple choices for downloading the video to your computer. Like this:
The Windows/Mac file is an avi/DivX file & the iPod/PSP file is a standard mp4/H264 file. It sucks that you have to make two seperate files, but thats the way it is right now.
Yeah, its true flash isnt the greatest quality on the planet, but we are talking about movies that were made with little digital cameras, not full-on HD movies. Smugmug IS a photo service, you know. Like I said, I cant speak for the guys at smugmug, but thats the path it sounds to me like they are going in.
I think this is the best all around solution for the market right now. Flash video is pretty universal & like it or not, mp4 is getting adopted as the next standard. More & more we are starting to see devices that make or require mp4 vids. Digital camera companies are catching on, iPods, PSPs, hosting services, etc. Anyone is their right mind isnt gonna go the wmv route because of all the limitations it brings. Hd-dvd, blu-ray & cable/satellite companies all use mp4 for a reason. Look for M$ to get onboard soon because they will pretty much be forced to.
BTW, how were you converting your mpeg4 files before you switched to wmv? Was the host service doing it or did you do it with some kind of software? Because, it shouldnt have played choppy if you downloaded it to your computer.
It wasn't playing choppy because of the encoding, or because of the streaming. It was playing choppy because the computer did not have the power to play the file. I'm guessing it was able to play all of the WMV files because of hardware acceleration.
As I said before, I'm not expecting Smugmug to go all out on the video side, being a photo service they don't have to and it will only create more bandwidth issues for them. I'm not expecting DVD quality videos from them. Most YouTube videos I see, however, are like 320x240, extremely low bitrate and fuzzy. Most digicams nowadays can record 640x480, I think we should get at least that! How much easier would it be to just let us use the codec we want and not treat all of us like we're not smart enough to know what are audience can and cannot play?
Edit: My home computer is pretty beefy, so it played the mpeg4 just fine. Most of the computers I tried, however, did not play it smoothly at all.
All of the HD-DVDs currently available in the US are VC-1, which is pretty much WMV9 baby
unfortunately flip4mac doesnt work on intel macs yet. so new intel mac users are out of luck (or have to run quicktime in rosetta mode which grandma definitely wont know how to do).
Yes, like everyone else, Apple has proprietary "like" formats & some full-on proprietary formats & the iTMS is proof of that. BUT, do they make AAC? No. They just adopted it as their audio standard. Do they make H264/mpeg4? No. They just adopted it as their video standard.
Does M$ make Windows Media Audo (WMA)? Yes. And they tried like hell to make it the next audio standard. Does M$ make the VC-1 video format? Yes. And currently, they are pushing it into the HD-DVD world. But, the studios also support H.264 as well.
If you need more examples, I got all night.
Are you arguing that having a choice is bad? All I'm asking for is choice! I gave some compelling reasons why WMV is better for me than Mpeg4, and ended it by saying that we would be better off if we had a choice on which codec to use. No *one* codec is going to do everything for everybody, so why force it upon us?
Are you actually arguing that we shouldn't have a choice?
But, I dont think that its Apple wanting to dominate thats keeping them from doing that. Apple has always been about giving its users the best overall experience from beginning to end. So, I think if they allowed for 3rd parties, it would definitely cheapen the experience. So, I think they should license Fairplay to others, but be VERY careful who they license it to. Like I said, they do not wanna cheapen things by letting everybody & their grandmothers get hold of it. If you havent noticed, Steve Jobs is a huge perfectionist & control freak. Not to the point of dominance, but just for the sake of making things that work well.
And as far as Apple having the record companies by the balls, thats true. Because like it or not, they know that the iTMS saved their asses from online pirating from illegal downloads. Which is why you didnt see them put up much of a fight recently when it came time to renew their contracts with Apple. The record companies wanted to do away with the 0.99 cent pricing across the board & wanted a tiered pricing structure, which was just them being the greedy bastards they are because Apple actually doesnt make that much $$ off the iTMS, most of it goes to the record companies & maintaining the store. Needless to say, the 0.99 cent pricing stayed.
BTW, is this thread still Support related?
nevermind. this is like having a conversation with a see 'n say.
Im actually not as big of an Apple fanboy as you think. Im critical as hell towards them & I DO NOT think everything Apple does is golden. But, I will choose them anyday of the week over M$. I could name you soo many instances where Microsoft tries to bully their way to the top. Ever wonder why they have been sued a million times for trying to monopolise different aspects of the industry? Not to mention *cough* OS theft *cough*
Take a look at a for real, unbiased website or book about the history of Apple & Microsoft. Peace...Kerry
My Yahoo Unlimited subscription (PlayForSure) for $60 a year lets me fill up my 30GB player with thousands of songs. All WMA at 192k bitrate. Apple would much rather take my $1 per song.
Regarding your other posts...I'm gonna go with bigwebguy and just not respond...
While I would still prefer that Smugmug not treat us like we're all stupid and don't know anything about video (let us use what we want!), Flash video COULD work just fine *if they let us control the resolution and bitrate*. If someone submits a 640x480 video thats 5 minutes long and it gets converted to 320x240 at 200k bitrate...then I don't see myself moving away from dreamhost for my video needs.
Oh yea, please go for Flash 8 instead of 7 (YouTube)!
This sounds like an excellent idea to me.
Malte
I know you guys are tight-lipped and all, but could I get a ballpark on when this change is planned for? With my photos I've always been able to max out all settings and upload to Smugmug, feels kinda wierd to downsample (already low resolution) videos to get them up there.
Malte
I wonder if smugmug should move forward with video at all.
Look at today's problems dealing with Amazon hosting of smugmug images. Revisit prior problems with our famous tennis star. Now add on top of that the demands of having to host video as well.
It seems the photo hosting business is difficult enough as is without adding video issues to the list.
Again, just my opinion.
Canon 5D Mk.2/Grip || Canon 7D Backup
17-40 f/4L || 70-200 f/2.8L IS || 100mm f/2.8L Macro || 24-70mm f/2.8L
Wedding Photographer
www.cwphotos.net
WHATEVER WORKS, AS LONG AS IT CAN TRANSITIONS FROM/TO PICTURE/VIDEO IN THE SLIDESLOW SMOOTHLY. :ivar
Keep it elegant and smoooth... you know what i'm sayn
The current solution feels "tacked on"
Roll it out soon too!:D
Peace OUT
BTW... Apple QT players need to get with the times and have full screen options.