DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Flash / Web Video (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/flash-web-video/)
-   -   Internet video (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/flash-web-video/27729-internet-video.html)

Jim Giles June 17th, 2004 09:50 PM

Internet video
 
I suggest you create a separate forum for Internet video.

I discovered playerless audio and video software today. I've taken a crash course in video streaming for the past week. It's complicated and costly if you must rely on quicktime, windows media player or real player. Someone told me that I had to buy a new video streaming server.

I don't even have my minidv yet but I've returned one. Before I returned it, I made a video, captured and converted it with Pinnacle to a 80 MB wmv file. 80 MB? I could never get the right file size. Anyway I took it back and began trying to figure out how I'm going to be able to get video on my website at an affordable price. So today I come across Clipstream. It sounds too good to be true. Seriously. The rep told me the following:

Target Reach:
Clipstream: 97.8%; Windows Media Player: 57.5%; Real Player: 37%; Quicktime: 12%.

Again, unbelievable. What am I missing? Why would anyone bother with those players anymore? Are these playerless software programs as good as they sound? Who are the top 3 software makers in this area?

Thank you. Glad to have found y'all.

Rob Lohman June 18th, 2004 07:04 AM

Welcome aboard Jim. Please try to structure your questions a bit
better in the future. You are jumping all over the place.

Why did you return your miniDV camera? Because you couldn't
get the WMV file small enough? That has nothing to do with
your camera, but everything with knowledge, the right tools
and settings.

I haven't checked out clipstream but it is probably working with
flash if they claim such a market penetration.

It has been discussed a couple of times before already. See these
two threads in particular:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=7738&
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=27405

Keith Loh (a member on this board) actually works for Clipstream.

Jim Giles June 18th, 2004 07:27 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : Welcome aboard Jim. Please try to structure your questions a bit
better in the future. You are jumping all over the place.-->>>
You got me sized up pretty good. I've got both windows rolled down, the pedal to the metal, tryin' to keep it between the ditches and often don't.

I'll try harder to be more structured. Thanks for the welcome.

<<<-- Why did you return your miniDV camera? Because you couldn't get the WMV file small enough? That has nothing to do with your camera, but everything with knowledge, the right tools
and settings. -->>>
I bought a Canon Optura 30 MiniDV but got concerned that it could not perform in low light settings and I plan to video in the late afternoon a lot. I have temporarily suspended my MiniDV purchase UNTIL I can confirm that I can get the video I 'shoot' on my website easily and cost effectively. If I can't I'm not going to buy any MiniDV.

<<<-- I haven't checked out clipstream but it is probably working with flash if they claim such a market penetration.-->>>
I sure would like some confirmation on this and whether or not clipstream is indeed as good as it appears.

<<<-- Keith Loh (a member on this board) actually works for Clipstream. -->>>
I'm looking forward to Keith's response.

Thank you for the links.

Rob Lohman June 18th, 2004 01:31 PM

You seem to be mentioning two things in regards to a possible
camera purchase. Low light capability and your ability to compress
the footage.

The latter does not depend on your camera (there are some
exceptions, but normal DV is ALL the same in that regard). It
depends on a whole lot of other things.

Ofcourse low-light is directly tied to your camera. The best thing
to say about that is: add light! Ofcourse this is not always
possible depending on what you do. But if you want to make
fiction work you will need to invest in more than just a camera.

There are a lot of other things like lights, audio equipment,
support gear (tripod etc.), filters etc. etc. etc.

Ofcourse if you do event shooting or some other type of shooting
this might not be applicable. Just remember that a camera is
much less sensitive than your eyes in regards to darkness. Don't
expect to see a high quality picture with no noise in low or no
light conditions. Ofcourse one camera will do better than the
other (no I don't know which ones because I've always shot
with enough light thusfar).

Dan Euritt June 19th, 2004 07:33 PM

jim, windows media player came with pretty much every single pc that's ever been sold, and right now windows operating systems make up at least 92% of the operating systems on the internet.

so the windows media player will be on over 92% of the pc's on the internet... in one version or another... it's the only media player you need to use.

i find the clipstream business model, whatever it is, to be rather irritating... you can't find any pricing on their website, it appears to me that they do that because they want a piece of everything you do on the web... that sort of thing can be very expensive.

the other problem with the clipstream approach is that, in my opinion, the quality of clipstream video is vastly inferior to that of wmp... which is especially apparent in high-action sequences.

the cheapest way to put video on the web is to do what's called http streaming, which basically means that your video clips are served up in the same manner as all the rest of your website files.

that approach is almost always far cheaper than using a streaming web server, which can give slightly faster and more reliable service... you'll have to look at your business model and decide for yourself.

Jim Giles June 19th, 2004 07:43 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Euritt : jim, windows media player came with pretty much every single pc that's ever been sold, and right now windows operating systems make up at least 92% of the operating systems on the internet.

so the windows media player will be on over 92% of the pc's on the internet... in one version or another... it's the only media player you need to use.

i find the clipstream business model, whatever it is, to be rather irritating... you can't find any pricing on their website, it appears to me that they do that because they want a piece of everything you do on the web... that sort of thing can be very expensive.

the other problem with the clipstream approach is that, in my opinion, the quality of clipstream video is vastly inferior to that of wmp... which is especially apparent in high-action sequences.

the cheapest way to put video on the web is to do what's called http streaming, which basically means that your video clips are served up in the same manner as all the rest of your website files.

that approach is almost always far cheaper than using a streaming web server, which can give slightly faster and more reliable service... you'll have to look at your business model and decide for yourself. -->>>
Dan,

I'm new to video and so my standards are not like a pro's. Consequently, I have been very impressed with Clipstream's quality. I've downloaded their evaluation software and encoded some video and then uploaded it to my website and it looks fine.

As to the Windows Media Player install base, you quote much large saturation than I've heard from a variety of sources and too there is the upgrade issue. But I guess THE most attractive thing about Clipstream is that it DETECTS your connection speed and streams the video to you at your connection speed automatically. IOW, I don't have to adjust endlessly video file sizes, resolution, etc., etc., etc.

I know it sounds like I'm working for Clipstream but their people have been extraordinarily professional with me, i.e., in being straight forward about the costs.

It seems to me that the entire MiniDV market is simply not up to speed on streaming video. It seems totally focused elsewhere, DVD, etc.

There is some cost but when you compare it to all the rest it looks inexpensive.

Thank you.

Jim Giles June 19th, 2004 07:46 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : You seem to be mentioning two things in regards to a possible
camera purchase. Low light capability and your ability to compress
the footage.

The latter does not depend on your camera (there are some
exceptions, but normal DV is ALL the same in that regard). It
depends on a whole lot of other things.

Ofcourse low-light is directly tied to your camera. The best thing
to say about that is: add light! Ofcourse this is not always
possible depending on what you do. But if you want to make
fiction work you will need to invest in more than just a camera.

There are a lot of other things like lights, audio equipment,
support gear (tripod etc.), filters etc. etc. etc.

Ofcourse if you do event shooting or some other type of shooting
this might not be applicable. Just remember that a camera is
much less sensitive than your eyes in regards to darkness. Don't
expect to see a high quality picture with no noise in low or no
light conditions. Ofcourse one camera will do better than the
other (no I don't know which ones because I've always shot
with enough light thusfar). -->>>
Rob,

I have suspended my MiniDV focus until I get the Internet video resolved.

Dave Perry June 19th, 2004 08:02 PM

Jim,

In Rob's response to your post he mentions you are focused on 2 issues: low light and video compression for web delivery. He is also correct in that your camera has nothing to do with how you prepare video for web delivery. I use DV footage for my own web video but at work we use beta SP and convert it for web delivery for client proofs.

Forget about the camera in regards to the web. Buy the camera that gives you the best quality for the money you have to spend, learn how to use it, learn how to edit and compose scenes.

formatting video for the web is another subject ll together. My boss has been shooting beta SP for 20 yeras but knows very little about posting video to a web site. I have taught him what I know about it and he is teaching me how to edit, use a camera, and compose scenes.

As for the cost of putting video on a web site, the easiest way to do it does not involve a streaming server. As mentioned ealier, just uploading the file to your server anbd providing a link to it is the cheapest and easiest way. I also suggest using QuickTime over any other formats. Most computers have it installed and from my experience, I get the best file size to quality ratio. I go by the general rule of thumb of 3 megs/minute for file size and I don't worry about dial up users.

If you do go the streaming server route, Apple has a FREE QuickTime streaming server that runs on NIX based servers.

Jim Giles June 19th, 2004 08:11 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Dave Perry : Jim,

In Rob's response to your post he mentions you are focused on 2 issues: low light and video compression for web delivery. He is also correct in that your camera has nothing to do with how you prepare video for web delivery. I use DV footage for my own web video but at work we use beta SP and convert it for web delivery for client proofs.

Forget about the camera in regards to the web. Buy the camera that gives you the best quality for the money you have to spend, learn how to use it, learn how to edit and compose scenes.

formatting video for the web is another subject ll together. My boss has been shooting beta SP for 20 yeras but knows very little about posting video to a web site. I have taught him what I know about it and he is teaching me how to edit, use a camera, and compose scenes.

As for the cost of putting video on a web site, the easiest way to do it does not involve a streaming server. As mentioned ealier, just uploading the file to your server anbd providing a link to it is the cheapest and easiest way. I also suggest using QuickTime over any other formats. Most computers have it installed and from my experience, I get the best file size to quality ratio. I go by the general rule of thumb of 3 megs/minute for file size and I don't worry about dial up users.

If you do go the streaming server route, Apple has a FREE QuickTime streaming server that runs on NIX based servers. -->>>
Dave,

In my rush to get info I've not stated clearly my intent. For me, the camera and the web are inseperable. IOW, I'm not at all interested in shooting video for any other reason than to put it on the web. I went out and bought a miniDV captured the video and then started to view it on my website. It was not easy and simple at all.

I have discovered Clipstream (Playerless video streaming) and it seems great. It seems to fit the bill, i.e., something that can get my vidoe on the web quck and fast without a bunch of bother. I've already downloaded an evalution version of their product and it's easy and works great. I'm about to buy it and then I'll be back in the market for a MiniDV (another thread).

I'm still surprised at how few people are excited about Clipstream. I know some of y'all are perfectionists, me too but not when it comes to video. I've looked at the encoded video in Clipstream and it looks dang good. And if I can figger it out you know it's easy.

Thank you.

Keith Loh June 19th, 2004 10:51 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Euritt : jim, windows media player
that approach is almost always far cheaper than using a streaming web server, which can give slightly faster and more reliable service... you'll have to look at your business model and decide for yourself. -->>>

Dan, your concern about our pricing has been a subject of discussion among our marketing for some time. It may change in the future but so far it hasn't been a detriment for the types of clients that we target.

As for your criticism about the technology, Clipstream does not require a dedicated server either. In fact, it does exactly what you advocate. Clipstream files are served up on your HTTP server whereas, true Window streaming requires a Windows Media Server. It is true, you can just put up a .wmv, .avi, or .mpeg (or Quicktime) on your server, but that is not streaming. Compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

Media people in general seeking out the best quality, ARE content to sit and wait for the files to download. I know, I am one of them. When the newest LOTR trailer comes out in full screen format, I know I will be content with letting the file download while I go get my daily sandwich and then come back. But this is not everyone. We target large volume customers who are being killed in bandwidth and who cannot afford to host large video files on their server. They have done the math. For every DVInfoer who is putting up a single clip to their latest project in a fat .mov, there is a research company who used to pay thousands of dollars every month hosting dozens of clips to thousands of subscribers every month. These are the same customers who formerly tripled their bandwidth costs because they had to cover the three bases of Quicktime, WM, Real. You know, those "choose one of the three players" option screens. It is an administrative nightmare for these institutions.

Our other market is in advertising. Obviously, for advertisers to offer video in an ad is a NO GO if they have to make a choice between one of the three players. So, they play it safe by relying on Java. We are not the only people in the Java space but chances are, when you see one of these ads it is our technology. Now Flash is getting into the game. Macromedia is actually going to be our closest competitor in the future. Now that is actually a valid comparison and is something our developers are looking closely at.

Jake Russell June 20th, 2004 04:03 AM

Flash Video.

http://www.sorenson.com/

You can output for use with Flash MX or not if you don't have it.

They have trials so you can check the packages out. Small file-size, high quality. It's pretty much a must have app I thought. As is the codec for QT encoding.

Jake

Jake Russell June 20th, 2004 04:25 AM

The showcase link:

http://www.sorenson.com/showcases/sh...ompression.php

Also you can use FlashCom to detect your bandwidth and load the content depending on that. So no please choose 56k/DSL etc or S, M or L.

http://www.macromedia.com/software/flashcom/

Here is a site with it in action:
http://www.redbullcopilot.com/

Jake

Rob Lohman June 20th, 2004 04:51 AM

Jim: your point still does not tie the camera to a web use. Why?
It will not matter which camera you get in regards to web compression

But I think you get that. We are not trying to get you to buy a
camera. How good are you with shooting and editing? Even if
your final output is web there is a host of things you need to
do before you get to the web.

Yes, web compression is not an easy thing and requires lot of
testing if you want to do it yourself. Simply do a single test and
then concluding that it is not working out is madness.

A lot of people here have done web compression with good
results. I'm pretty pleased on our end result with our Lady X
project for example.

But then again if you are so focussed on web compression I
would suggest to you that you thorougly read through this
forum and start testing all sorts of packages and compession
methodes with some footage you have lying aroud (hopefully
you have some).

To give you a few hints: find a good codec, use lower resolution
and lower framerates. If you have widescreen / letterboxed
footage crop of the black bars etc. That is wasting compression
space.

Keith: could you tell us a bit more about the technology behind
clipstream? I know you can't explain how it work probably, but
before recommending something to others I always like to know
what is going on and when it works and doesn't work.

Jim Giles June 20th, 2004 06:25 AM

"It is an administrative nightmare for these institutions."
Agree. 100%.

Keith,

What is the difference between Sorenson and Clipstream?

Jim Giles June 20th, 2004 06:32 AM

Rob,

I want something that is quick and easy. All those players make my head spin.

I would like to know how Clipstream works. It still seems too good to be true.

Let me be blunt. A dang idiot can take a minidv and Clipstream and start posting quickly and easily to the web.

Otherwise you gotta pay beaucoup moola and lots of time.

I have not heard one substantive criticism of Clipstream from my vantage point. BTW, forget downloading files of any length. That's a non-starter as far as I'm concerned. My people ain't gonna wait. Heck most people on the Internet ain't gonna wait.

"Give it to me now (simple, quick and fast) or don't give it to me at all."

Jim Giles June 20th, 2004 06:48 AM

P.S.

Plus you gotta be real smart.

K. Forman June 20th, 2004 08:58 AM

Jim- I can understand where you are coming from, but you do not need to be a genius. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, yet I am able to shoot, edit, and post clips. There are little things that will make the video better, but common sense and understanding are your best tools.

There are some things that will help your video look better, and stream faster. Use a solid background. Use straight cuts, instead of dissolves and transitions. Try lowering the audio quality a bit more, so the bulk of the download is video. Keep trying different codecs, until you find the right one.

Learn to do it yourself, so you don't need to pay others to do it for you.

Jim Giles June 20th, 2004 09:12 AM

Keith,

I probably could learn to edit the file (actually, it's the time involved that I don't have) but even after getting the video file 'right' you still must contend with all them players.

For me, the 'playerless' aspect is too appealing not to take advantage of. I'm trying to appeal to a 'mass' market including 28k dialup connections.

Thank you for the feedback.

Keith Loh June 20th, 2004 09:19 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman :
Keith: could you tell us a bit more about the technology behind
clipstream? I know you can't explain how it work probably, but
before recommending something to others I always like to know
what is going on and when it works and doesn't work. -->>>

Clipstream is a propriety codec that is played back from a small Java applet that is launched by the Java that is preinstalled in most browsers. It has a PC-based encoder that converts most common formats into Clipstream bit rate files (either a batch or user-specified bit rates). The encoder then outputs the applet code that the user then places in a web page where they can make modifications. All the files are uploaded to the user's basic HTTP server. The basic configuration has a supplied buttonset (which the user can replace with their own design if they wish). If they have chosen the autobit rate option, when a viewer comes to the page, the applet senses the user's bandwidth at the time and will play the appropriate bit rate version of the movie (if autoplay has been selected) or will wait for the user to use the buttonset or click on the screen to play it. The encoder can also supply beginning and end images.

Some of our more advanced clients use make use of JavaScript to control various parts of Clipstream such as making use of indexing, embedding Clipstream in presentations, interactive surveys and even inside Flash. So when I said earlier that Clipstream competes with Flash, well really it can work within Flash as well just like Flash makes use of Sorensen.

Those are the basics. I'd like to write more but I'm due on set in an hour.

You can always take a look on the website:
Product Video section

The technical guide:
The technical guide (.pdf)
Showcase section

There is also an Audio-only applet for which we do many of the same things (except just in audio). We just recently signed an exclusive agreement with Universal Music Group in fact.
http://www.clipstream.com/news/

Dan Euritt June 20th, 2004 02:01 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Jim Giles :I have not heard one substantive criticism of Clipstream from my vantage point. -->>>

you have heard substantive criticism of clipstream... it just isn't registering... when you are a newbie, it's real easy to glom onto something because it seems like the easy way to do things.

i would recommend that you go to google and do your due diligence on how many pc's have wmp already installed, to begin with.

the big advantage with clipstream, and it was very significant, was the capability to do "playerless streaming"... that advantage is no more, thanks to microsoft:

"The MSJVM( Microsoft® Java Virtual Machine (MSJVM) is no longer available for distribution from Microsoft and there will be no enhancements to the MSJVM. Microsoft products and SKUs currently including the MSJVM will continue to be retired or replaced by versions not containing the MSJVM on a schedule to be announced."

http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/java/

in other words, the msjvm is required to play back clipstream video, and it is no longer included with microsoft internet explorer.

i experienced this first hand, when my brand new laptop with winxp on it would not play back the clipstream videos.

i had to follow a couple of links to the sun website, in order to download the java player that clipstream requires... by comparison, almost all desktop computers on the internet have wmp by default, and they will continue to do so.

the other criticism i had of clipstream was the video quality, you can see it for yourself by downloading this link:

http://www.oceanstreetvideo.com/vide...clipstream.zip

among other things, the clipstream encoder will not go over 15 fps... that sort of thing can be partially compensated for by a sophisticated media player itself, which is how wmp and real handle low bitrates/framerates... the clipstream java player apparently does not have that capability.

keith, we are indeed talking apples to apples here, http streaming is the subject... your codec is not nearly as efficient as the wmp codec, so it will cost the customer more money in the long run, because he will have to encode the video at a higher bandwidth to compensate.

in addition, the clipstream encoder apparently requires some dos-level command line interfacing to get the most out of it... quite the opposite of what jim was claiming about it being easy to use.

sorry if it looks like i'm down on clipstream, i'd really like to see a solid alternative to the borg... maybe you guys could include the java player with the clipstream video download?

Jim Giles June 20th, 2004 03:03 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Euritt :
you have heard substantive criticism of clipstream... it just isn't registering... -->>>
No argument. What you say registers with me, however. How long would it take a 28 k connection to download Java player?

The ball is clearly in Keith's court.

Thank you Dan; VERY INFORMATIVE! I hope Clipstream has a good response.

Jim Giles June 20th, 2004 05:20 PM

I've been thinking about this some more and I still think Clipstream is awesome visavis all them players. Even if an individual doesn't have Java (which I think most people have but looking for even more confirmation on this) all you gotta do is go to java.com.

Consider also:

In these special cases Java needs to be installed, either from Microsoft or Sun.

or here.
http://www.videoclipstream.com/msjavx86_3805.exe

Java is there in at least 93% of the worlds machine.

Actually more because that figure includes weird machines that aren't really used to surf the net.

That figure is from an independent survey thats continuously done by

thecounter.com

Jim Giles June 20th, 2004 05:25 PM

Java Stats
Sat May 1 00:05:02 2004 - Mon May 31 23:55:04 2004 31.0 Days

Java enabled: 220397621 (93%)
Java disabled: 2255771 (0%)
Java unknown: 14218316 (6%)

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2004/May/java.php

JavaScript Stats
Sat May 1 00:05:02 2004 - Mon May 31 23:55:04 2004 31.0 Days

Javascript 1.2+: 222889677 (94%)
Javascript <1.2: 474008 (0%)
Javascript false: 13508023 (5%)

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2004/May/javas.php

I don't know the difference between Java and JavaScript.

Dave Perry June 20th, 2004 08:34 PM

This is an article explaining why choosing QuickTime as your primary video delivery format is an excellent choice: http://www.quicktiming.org/articles/QT_101.php

Keith Loh June 21st, 2004 01:31 AM

I'm replying quickly as I just got back from an all day shoot. But you can actually encode at 30fps in Clipstream, but not with the basic front end interface. The front end interface is just a GUI for the DOS level encoder. Most longtime users of Clipstream will use the DOS encoder and it is in that level that you can encode at 30fps. The reason why we did not include that in the front end UI is that we do not agree that you need 30fps for internet streaming, especially at the market we are aiming at which is high volume institutions, portals and advertising.

Far from being annoyed at your criticism, I welcome it because it helps us formulate our strategy for version three of our product as well as how to improve the product.

A criticism based upon output quality is best satisfied by a test of both codecs under similar conditions. This includes an analysis of bandwidth, user stats, how quickly did the video play, how long did it take to buffer or download, etc. These types of head to head tests we have done for major clients. Some of them we've won, some of them we have lost to be sure.

As far as Windows Media installation, you have a point, except where Windows Media prompts the user upgrade. Clearly, some people are used to automatically upgrading, some are not because they don't want bloat ware, they are suspicious of Microsoft and otherwise don't have the patience to stop whatever they are doing to get up to speed. This is the same complaint that stops people from installing Real to begin with, and it is the reason why some people who choose one Media Player software tend to stick with that single player to the exception of the others. It creates partisans who can't understand why others don't en masse support their media player choice. This drives people delivering content crazy. I'm sure there are many people on this board, in particular, who don't understand why everyone doesn't convert to Quicktime. Well, I know quite a few people who absolutely hate Quicktime. For some reason, it crashes their system, it is always nagging them to upgrade or install iTunes, all of these things they have to embrace before they see the light.

Your criticism about the install base is a good one. Of course if you don't have Java right out of the box, you won't be able to view Clipstream, regardless of the measures we take to ask you to install it. However, Java isn't used just for Clipstream, it is used for a variety of applets from several thousand other companies and developers. We are counting that eventually most people do install Java for one reason or another. Although Microsoft stopped installing it, Sun has picked up the slack by approaching hardware manufacturers to preinstall it anyway independent of the OS. Our stats show that almost all of our visitors do in fact have one form of Java installed. Surprisingly, almost half still have MSJV for some reason. Jim Giles has posted that other stat (93 per cent) which we also know about.

Well, this board has a unique situation. I'm not on DVInfo to be an evangelist or Guy Kawasaki for Clipstream. It just so happens that I'm on here for video production advice and when someone wanted to know about Internet Video, I would be remiss not to point to the company I work for. I happen to have almost every player installed and I've heard the complaints about all of them because the people who come to us have those issues with their own user base.

Rob Lohman June 21st, 2004 02:40 AM

Keith, thanks for your explenation of Clipstream! So are you
saying that the codec is natively available for Flash as well? That
would be interesting. But I assume it isn't transmitted with the
video file in that case? So people must install it in Flash?

I agree with both points of Java. I haven't been running Java
myself for a year or so now due to SP1a from MS. I'm not missing
it since I don't think any site I visit is using java on the client.
At least they all remain working.

Would I install Java just to see a movie someone made? At this
point in time, doubtfull. As I would not install Real. They may have
worked out the problems with that by now, but I'm still not at
ease with that product (not saying other products don't have
issues). I've actually skipped several movies last year to being
in the real format.

I agree with everyone who says that the different mediaplayers
is a nightmare. The best format anybody can possibly read is
MPEG1 <g> Too bad about the filesizes....

Dan Euritt June 21st, 2004 02:56 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Jim Giles : In these special cases Java needs to be installed, either from Microsoft or Sun.-->>>

but you can't download java from microsoft... that's my entire point, and it's why the future outlook for clipstream isn't good.

you did a great job of getting those java stats! that's the kind of homework we have to do when deciding how to design our websites.

so the stats for the currently installed java base look good, but what will they look like in the near future? it can only get worse, as more and more new winxp o.s.'s without java are installed.

while keith attempts to dismiss that issue, the counterpoint from rob backs up my claim that in the future, there is no compelling reason for people to have a java client on their computers.

thank you keith for taking the time to work with us explaining clipstream... wrt the codec comparison, both clips had the same frame size, the same data rate at 350kbps vs. 358kbps, the wmp clip had a much tougher job to do because it was for the full 30fps, while the clipstream codec was already falling apart at 15fps(?)... it displayed serious blockiness at that low framerate, so there is no hope for it for serious bandwidth useage... i was unable to find 30fps capability documented in the clipstream literature, all i recall seeing is the same 15fps limit with dos command line encoding... it's rather a moot point anyway, as the clipstream codec isn't suitable for high-bandwidth useage.

where would you want to use clipstream? just where it's designed to be used, in advertising banners and the like... a great application that will remain viable until the lack of java clients becomes an issue... at which point, clipstream will have to include the java client as an automatic download, or maybe call up an end user-created gif file as an automatic viewing alternative??

for some time now, i have been fascinated with the idea of creating java-based banners and the like, but the couple of emails i sent to clipstream from their website were not responded to, and with the total lack of pricing on their website, i had to give them up as an alternative... flash will now finally encode real video with a halfway decent picture, so that's probably where the world will continue to go.

if the clipstream people had a clue, they would be selling the clipstream encoder right off of the website as a cheap download, which is just what the content creation community needs... that is how internet standards are created.

Jim Giles June 21st, 2004 03:44 PM

It's my understanding that java can operate in any environment. What do you call that? Platform independent? In any event if that is the case, I don't see how such an 'operating system' protocol or what have you will diminish in install base. It seems too valuable to the Internet community, don't it?

I still think the members of this forum are way more exacting than the average bear out there. IOW, y'all's standards are a lot higher than mine when it comes to viewing video on the Internet.

Keith Loh June 21st, 2004 06:24 PM

Dan, we do have "clues" and all of what you have written we have heard before and are addressing in our development and marketing. If we can't satisfy you now, we are doing our best to improve the product and strategy for the future. As for trying to dismiss anything, I've answered as much as I can in a public forum. The reality is that the product is what it is until the next version and we would love to institute instant changes but can only work as fast as we can. All I've tried to do here is provide some basic information and correct any misinformation. Any fatal flaws will be show up in the marketplace, not just on a forum such as this and will affect all of Java developers, not just ourselves.

As for your unresponded to emails, if you want I can look in our help desk to see if in fact we did or did not respond adequately and go forward from there. If you had a poor experience before, then I apologize on behalf of whoever you were dealing with. I don't think it's necessary to turn DVInfo into the Clipstream support forum as there are more than a couple ways to get information and support on our website.

As for putting in place a java 'client'. Well the java player is there in a tiny zipped class. So that is the client. You have already made the point about java install or lack thereof so we are not covering any new ground there.

The Clipstream Video Encoder can be tried out by anyone, with the only restriction being the 20 second limit when testing online. We also are willing to provide temporary test licensing that the users can try out on their website and do their own comparison taking into account time for playback, file size, webstats, etc., as I have said. Dan's suggestion of a possible way of selling Clipstream is one of many dozens of strategies that have already occured to us and may arise again. That sort of licensing scheme was not lightly dismissed when the current path was decided upon.

Rob, Clipstream is called by Javascript from Flash and can appear as an ilayer or frame. Some of our clients have done this in advertising and other campaigns. As I said before, I consider Flash our major competitor in this arena. If major clients ask for comparisons then that is a nice compliment to our technology that we can be measured up against Macromedia. The marketplace can speak then. We can survive and succeed or Macromedia can squash us. It doesn't take a genius to see that.

Who is next on the hot seat? Bill Gates? Rob Burgess? Steve Jobs?

Rob Lohman June 22nd, 2004 04:07 AM

Keith: thank you for your well formed responses and help with
your companies product. That IS much appreciated!

Dan Euritt June 22nd, 2004 11:00 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : Keith: thank you for your well formed responses and help with
your companies product. That IS much appreciated! -->>>

i'll second that! appreciate the insight to clipstream... i'm pointing out the problems because i just hate to see a product that may help my business not live up to it's potential because of marketing decisions.

it's easy for an internet company to go down the wrong path... when i worked as an encoding engineer at intervu, some genius had the idea of developing a new internet video player that used a new internet video format.

that was the days of quicktime cinepak & mpeg1 dominance, and intervu of course wasn't in the position to create new standards, since they had virtually no income or product at the time... they finally ended up going an entirely different direction, and sold the company to akamai after i had left.

jim, just for drill, take a look at http://www.gamespot.com... i like the way that they have integrated wmp streaming video into their pages.

wrt to older wmp players, the borg finally did make the current windows media 9 codec work with version 6.4 of the wmp player... and since wmp 9 works with win98, that gamespot page will work with over 93% of the computers on the internet.

Keith Loh June 22nd, 2004 11:46 AM

Dan, I remember InterVu and actually our parent company has been around since then and has survived the dot com shake out. I've also noted GameSpot (and other site's) decision to use WMP. Making a bid for GameSpot would have required the participation of a good partner in that vertical - I think we would have been competitive. The technology challenges we can solve with brainpower, it is the marketing and business development that is always affected by external circumstances.

I will just leave with another comment that applies to the corporate environment in particular. When you are an IT person and you are responsible for massive amounts of desktops, you don't want to go around installing players, upgrading players, making sure people have the right version. However, you can do a system wide install from the server with Java. More and more of the corporate customers who are curious about our technology are talking about firewall security stopping streams coming from the outside. Clipstream will get through corporate firewalls as just another internet resource. Finally, we have security that is pretty robust that prevents downloading and can even prevent local playback for sensitive videos.

Jim Giles June 22nd, 2004 08:52 PM

Dan, I went to http://www.gamespot.com but I have decided to go with Clipstream. I have only one more request of Clipstream or someone in this forum before I buy and that's how to set my Pinnacle Studio software which has 3 components: Capture, Edit, Make Movie. In the Make Movie section you can choose to save the captured video as:

AVI
MPEG
WMV

I've been told that I should save the video as an AVI file then use Clipstream's encoder to compress it further. Which compression option should I choose?

Cinepak Codec by Radius
DV Video Encoder
Intel Indeo(R)
Intel IYUV codec
Lead MCMP/MJPEG Codec (VFW)
etc.

I've shot a 5 minute video which results in an estimated file size = 740 MB. This seems way too large. What am I doing wrong? Shouldn't file be much smaller?

Which should I choose for frames/second?

5, 10, 15, 30, 29.97, 14.985

(Keeping in mind that I want to offer my video to a mass market.)

Keith, what should the approximate file size be ideally for a 5 minute video before using Clipstream's encoder?

Thank you.

Keith Loh June 22nd, 2004 10:59 PM

Jim, I've forwarded this request back to my own support email so I will deal with it first thing tomorrow morning at work. Thanks :)


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:41 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2020 The Digital Video Information Network