If you have not seen this, Google has a new "lab" in their beta version and can host videos, and apparently converts them to Flash Video.

A music video I shot (edited in Vegas 6C) was uploaded by the artist from Vegas' new .mp4 render option, and despite some compression issues and the need to resize to "original size" (320x240) I thought it actually looked decent. As far as I know, there was no charge to host the video, and the artist is inserting a link to the video from his homepage.

The example may be seen at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5483758150664146397&q=%22Baghdad+Christmas%22+playable%3Atrue&pr=goog-sl

If you take a look, be sure to crank up the sound and tell me what you think. (and no, I do not know what the vocals are saying).

Brian

that's the first time i've heard of google using the flash player... thanks for the info, do you have any links for further info?

google video has always used basic mpeg4 video, which is pretty lousy... it is possible that they are still using that format, but putting it up with a flash player... the reason i say that is because the hot ticket right now is to use wmv9 video inside of a flash player wrapper, because it gives you things like a clickable layer on top of the video, which the wmv player will not do.

even if google is really converting the uploaded video to flash 7, it's still going to be better quality than the mpeg4 garbage that they have been using all along.

Dan,

Here is the video homepage. http://video.google.com/

An FAQ may be found at https://upload.video.google.com/video_faq.html#overview2

As I did not submit the music video, I wasn't sure how it was uploaded, but an interesting test would be to upload the original .avi file (in this case, 1.2 gigs) and see how it comes out.

What's cool from my standpoint is how fast it loads and plays, something I've always like about Flash files.

Google also (per the FAQ) allows you to set a price to view a given video. This could potentially be HUGE, and opens up some amazing possibilities.

Brian

If this is not Flash based, please let me know.

When you right click on the video, it brings up "About Macromedia Flash Player 7....".

Brian

Flash 7 uses On2's VP6.2 codec, which is on par with MPEG-4 & WM9. I wonder if it is possible to submit a video such that it will not be recompressed? The FAQ (https://upload.video.google.com/video_faq.html#upload5) does not directly answer the question.

Flash 7 uses On2's VP6.2 codec.

flash 8 uses the vp6 codec, not flash 7.

i am also unable to tell what is going on here with these codecs, but there is an official usenet group for google video, maybe there is an answer there?:

http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Labs-Google-Video

This looks like a very exciting program. I think it has great potential.

One thing that bothers me is it says it prefers MPG4 Video with MPG3 Audio. Maybe I've missed something, but I don't see how to do that in Vegas 6... I don't even see how you do an MPG 3 Audio with an MPG2 Video, which Google says it will alternatively accept.

Of course, I'm basically computer stupid. Maybe it's the altitude here (8,500').

Charles, they mean MPEG-1 Layer III when they say MP3. As far as I know, there is no MPEG-3 standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG3). To create a compliant video in Vegas, do the following:

Install an MPEG-4 codec such as DivX or Xvid.
Render your project as "Video for Windows"
Press Custom, then Video.
Select xvid or xvid from the Video tab's "Video Format" drop-down list.
Press Audio, then select "MPEG Layer-3" from the drop-down list.

Selecting the optimal parameters for each is something of an art, and you can obtain detailed information at forum.doom9.org, if you are interested.

On the issue of charging a fee to view a video, it looks like this program is not yet in place, and its unclear if Google accepts the payment, takes out their fee and then pays the content provider, but I would assume this is how it will work once this feature comes online.

Between Google allowing pay for play videos, and the new video IPOD with the ability to download a video for a fee from Itunes, its a perfect time to be in the business of creating content.

Brian

Emre:

Thanks very much! If I can return the favor in any way... some nice shots from the Rocky Mountains, maybe?

I've got a piece I did for CBS News' Early Show last weekend... about a young blind girl who runs on the cross country team... I might put that on the Google thing after CBS broadcasts it.

Charles

charles, xvid and divx are not legal mpeg4 formats... google will not accept either one of 'em... you have to use the real open-source mpeg4 video format, period... or else mpeg2.

Okay. But Vegas 6 doesn't do MPG4 out of the box. I'm guessing, then, there's an after-market something I need to buy, somewhere? Vegas does MPG2 (and 1); but Google seemed quite insistent they'd rather have 4.

In advance, domo arrigato for your time.

Vegas 6.0c does MPEG4. Make sure you're on the most current version.

charles, xvid and divx are not legal mpeg4 formats... google will not accept either one of 'em... you have to use the real open-source mpeg4 video format, period... or else mpeg2.
What do you mean, Dan? Are you talking about H.264? xvid is open source.

Okay, Edward... I downloaded 6.0 (c). I just bought Vegas 6 (upgrade from V5) in August. I don't have Internet on my workstation (intentionally), so Vegas doesn't check for upgrades, and I didn't think there'd be one so soon. Silly me.

Thangyew, Thagyewurymuch.

Your Tips & Tricks articles are awesome, by the way.

charles, xvid and divx are not legal mpeg4 formats... google will not accept either one of 'em... you have to use the real open-source mpeg4 video format, period... or else mpeg2.

The "real" and "legal" format?

Divx and Xvid are just as "real" as any of the other MPEG4 codecs, and Xvid is definately open source, and even has open source encoders/decoders, which makes it more open source than many others. And the fact is, if you use the most basic baseline MPEG4 features in either of those codecs (but the advanced features in these codecs make them even better), they'll play on virtually any MPEG4 decoder.

Just because they aren't accepted by Google doesn't mean they aren't "real" and "legal" (whatever that's supposed to mean) MPEG4 codecs. They certainly are. The bottom line is MPEG4 is a mess right now, and it will be for a while longer, but you make it seem like these two codecs are illegal or not up to the standard or something, which is not correct, it depends on what advanced features are used or not (which is also true for other flavors of MPEG4 that go beyond the baseline).

bill, real iso mpeg4 is NOT a mess, it's been around for years, it's a true open-source *standard* from a sanctioning body, with no confusion about the licensing rights... that's why google is using it.

the mess came about when everyone started hacking it up to suit their own purposes... pirate formats like xvid are not in the same category as real mpeg4, which is why google does not accept 'em.

end of story.

Looks pretty good Brian, thanks for sharing it. When you gonna finish your feature?

DSE,

Thanks as always for the kind comments. The feature is still trudging along in Post Production, with a goal to begin showing it in early 2006, but in the meantime, this music video has opened up some doors which may lead to a very interesting project. I'll keep you posted if something develops.

Brian

pirate formats like xvid are not in the same category as real mpeg4, which is why google does not accept 'em. end of story.

You come off as very condescending on this topic, not sure why you feel the need to be that way, but whatever...

First of all, what is a "Pirate" format anyway? Never heard of a pirate codec, but it sounds kind of fun whatever it is. Maybe that represents your own personal opinion of the codec, but that's all it represents, so you might want to tone down your retoric a little. There are perfectly legitimate uses for a codec like Xvid or Divx, the later of which is being integrated into numerous hardware players by very well-known and legitimate companies. So, I'm not sure what you're getting at with that, but I'm not buying it.

Secondly, Xvid is fully capable of producing an ISO compliant MPEG4 stream (it's also capable of producing a non-compliant stream too, but that's only if you use the advanced features). So, in your own words, I might add... "End of story." You might want to check your facts on that one. Feel free to search google on "xvid mpeg4 iso compliant" for more info.

bill, i can see that you are upset because google won't accept your pet codecs... why don't you take it up with them directly, on their official google video usenet group? i posted the link earlier in this thread.

perhaps they will clarify for you some important legal concepts, like patents, standards bodies, licensing, etc: "Some of these features are believed to be covered by software patents in a number of countries (notably United States and Japan). Because of this, XviD 0.9.x versions were not licensed in countries where these type of patents are enforceable. With the 1.0.x releases, a plain GNU GPL v2 license is used with no explicit geographical restriction. However the legal usage of XviD may still be restricted by local laws." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XviD

bill, i can see that you are upset because google won't accept your pet codecs... why don't you take it up with them directly, on their official google video usenet group? i posted the link earlier in this thread.


Who ever said anything about me wanting to or trying to submit videos to Google? If I wanted to submit a video to Google, Archive.org, or any other institution for that matter, I'd submit it in the format they require -- it's their bandwidth, therefore you play by their rules. My comments were never about that, they were a rebutal to your posts related to Divx and Xvid, which I see now have turned towards some so called patents that "may" be infringed on in "some" other countries (as if our own country doesn't have enough patent disputes of its own), and away from your comments about how Xvid doesn't produce ISO compliant MPEG4... But, whatever, my main point is every codec has its place, and calling Xvid and Dvix "pirate" codecs that are "illegal" is just plain silly. But to each his own.

Just because they aren't accepted by Google doesn't mean they aren't "real" and "legal" (whatever that's supposed to mean) MPEG4 codecs. They certainly are.

they certainly are NOT legal mpeg4 codecs, as i just proved... what part of "the legal usage of XviD may still be restricted by local laws" do you not understand?

i don't think that you should be allowed to use this forum to promote the use of illegal software.