Given that allowing mp4 would be an act of commercial expedience at the expense of core Wikipedia principles, let me make the modest suggestion of introducing mp4 in concert with a name change to Encarta. On Jan 16, 2014 5:15 AM, "Andrew Lih" <andrew....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great post Manuel, and I wholeheartedly agree, including the final > recommendation. I, instead, voted for full MP4 support on the RfC to draw > the center of gravity towards accepting MP4, but I would be happy even with > a partial solution. > > Some points: > > 1. The video project in English Wikipedia is: > [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiki_Makes_Video]] We certainly welcome more than > just English Wikipedians there! We've had several university classes use > this, and I think a pretty good set of example videos and guidelines > including many videos shot by journalism and media studies students: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiki_Makes_Video > > 2. I talked recently with the Mozilla Popcorn folks, and they seem to have > the best OSS, online video editing system today with Popcorn Maker. You can > actually paste in URLs of Commons video and start splicing them together. > Just make sure to use an Ogg/WebM friendly browser. I encourage you to try > it out. > > https://popcorn.webmaker.org/ > > They said they would be thrilled if Popcorn became part of the editing > solution for Wikimedia. One problem is that they right now only manage an > EDL of edits, so embedding an edited video together requires an online > Javascript environment -- there is no provision for re-compressing and > outputting the video to a standalone Ogg or WebM file. But this is OSS so > adding this functionality should be possible with the right resources. > > 3. Perhaps we should do several sessions at Wikimedia in succession, > including a workshop on how to shoot and make video? I teach video shooting > and editing to students each year, so this would be quite an easy thing for > me to pitch in on. > > -Andrew > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Manuel Schneider < > manuel.schnei...@wikimedia.ch> wrote: > > > Hi Fabrice, > > > > interesting question! > > > > I'd like to remind of a discussion we had at last year's Wikimania in > > Hong Kong concerning tools for the video community. > > > > Yet we do not really have a video community but scattered small groups > > or individuals doing some work. I try to coordinate this in the > > german-speaking world and we do this via Wikipedia, then there are > > people in the Czech Republic doing videos on national parks, Andrew did > > some great stuff in the US, there is a british initiative as well. We > > all face similar challenges. One things - which is off-topic here - is > > that I have in mind to connect these groups to an internationl video > > community, maybe by having a WikiVideo (or whatever the name might be) > > project. > > > > But back to the RfC: One of the challenges is that we need a solution for > > > > * storing the raw video material allowing people to re-use, re-edit > > etc., also most volunteers don't have the storage capacity to store all > > their raw material > > > > * collaborative editing - hard to do technically and it mostly implies > > that raw material is being shared - hard for people that can meet each > > other as these files are big, fast storage is needed etc. and it is even > > harder for people working online > > > > * upload of high-quality, finished video projects is a pain. They mostly > > have more than 1 GB, you need to have another server to upload and share > > it, make a bug report, find a server admin who downloads and imports it > > etc. > > > > My idea which we talked about briefly at Wikimania was a server where > > people could upload there raw material, it gets transcoded into smaller > > "proxy clips" everyone can easily download, edit and then upload the EDL > > (edit decision list = video editing project file, which just holds the > > operations). The server would then use the EDL on the raw material > > stored there and render the final video. The upload process can then be > > automated between this server and Commons. > > > > The reason this idea was dismissed is the core of this RfC: patent > > trolling etc. on H.264 codecs etc. which we would need to allow as raw > > material. > > > > So my take on this topic is a compromise: > > > > * allow MP4 / H.264 as a source codec > > > > * deliver everything in WebM / Ogg Theora (or other free codecs) > > > > Especially with WebM I see no reason why people really need H.264. Ogg > > Theora is somewhat exotic but WebM isn't. > > And once we have solved the legal problem around this RfC nothing is > > stoping us to implement the video editing server, right? > > > > > > /Manuel > > -- > > Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens > > Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
