kwc.org Photos Spare Cycles MythBusters

Category: video

December 12, 2006

Gotuit Scenemaker: interesting idea, not ready for consumption

gotuit.jpgOnline video site Gotuit has launched their Scenemaker tool, which has a great idea behind it: allow users to "videomark" a particular portion of a video and add their own tags, title, and description. I take a lot of videos at book author events, and this would mean that I could videomark a particular quote or Q&A response instead of breaking up the source video. It also means less of the "funny part occurs 2:14 in." It's not all that different from the spirit of purple numbering, for those familiar with that effort.

However, I can't really recommend using it just yet. Maybe in the future, but not just yet. I tried to videomark one of my Neil Gaiman videos, with frustrating results. It was a bit klunky but not too terrible to select the "scene" that I wanted to clip, and it was nice to be able to just load in a video from Youtube. But then came the "and now what?" moment. I wanted to post the video somewhere so I could share my clip, but the only buttons available to me were load, edit, delete, and save. All save does is save your progress clipping the video.

Then I watched the tutorial video, which ends at the exact point where I got stuck. This is where I started saying, "what the hell?" as there these are the three big features they tout:

  1. Bookmark or "Deep Tag" Scenes Found Inside Online Videos From YouTube and Metacafe
  2. Share Only The Scenes In A Video You Want
  3. Embed The Individual Scenes on Your MySpace Page, Blog or Web Site

I was still stuck on #1. I hadn't shared or embedded yet. After skimming down their gigantic FAQ, I found the answer I wanted: I have to wait until my clip shows up in their search results, load that video, and then I get the control to post the video. Yes, you have to keep searching again and again until your clip turns up.

On top of that, their site kept logging me out and the only way I can video "my videos" is by hacking a query string. These are not insurmountable problems, but it does seem that this is a tacked on feature that hasn't really been integrated into the concept of the overall site just yet.

In case you're curious, here is the result of my little test:

October 23, 2006

Testing out blip.tv

blip.tv has a faster uploads, less limits, cleaner UI, and more geeky bells and whistles than YouTube or Google Video, but it seems to be heavily Microsoftian in video format -- that may just cancel the rest out. I'm giving it a test above to see how it works out.

October 17, 2006

New Sony Bravia Ad

The new Sony Bravia ad delivers, after much anticipation from this clip, but now I want them to do it with Diet Coke and Mentos

April 15, 2006

I'm a 'Director' now (YouTube)

directorYouTube just launched their 'director' program, which kills two birds with one stone. It eliminates the recently imposed 10-minute limit on videos and it also adds much better branding to your videos (one of the few things that Google Video did better). The 10-minute limit is an arbitrary limit meant to discourage the posting of copyrighted TV programs and movies. Although YouTube built part of its popularity on the availability of such content, they are trying to make nice with the TV studios and even boldly suggesting that the TV studios post content themselves.

The intent of the director program is fairly clear: make people jump through a couple extra hoops so that they feel more accountable for the content they post. In exchange, make the people feel 'cooler' by giving them a 'Director' title and providing better branding. You apply for the Director program, so presumably they at least screen the contents of the accounts they approve. It only took me a day to get approved and none of my videos are high-quality, so I think just about anyone who doesn't break the rules will get approved.

The improved branding is important. YouTube used to make it really difficult to link to your own Web site from a video, which annoyed me when I was posting MythBusters Q&A videos and couldn't even link to my blog post about the event. Now if you go to one of my videos, you can see there's even a kwc.org logo, a big red directory stamp, and a link to my blog post. You also get to specify custom "Director Details" fields with a particular video: Video URL, Custom Field #1, #2, and #3. As an example of a custom field, they mention 'price,' which presumably you would use if you were selling the full video elsewhere. The custom fields appear in the same upper right box as your director logo.

March 8, 2006

YouTube vs. Google Video

I recently had the chance to try out YouTube vs. Google Video as a video publisher. I had some clips from the Tour of California that I wanted to put online and my DSL doesn't do the best job hosting video.

It's hard not to notice the rise of YouTube. It seems that everytime I see a video link I end up on that site and they certainly seem to have the attention of NBC, which is sending cease and desist after cease and desist for SNL videos (is SNL officially no longer lame?). I've run across Google Video much less frequently. I wasn't sure if this was due to laxer policies on the part of YouTube in allowing content like Oscar clips or if YouTube was superior in some manner.

I believe I now have the answer: YouTube is far, far superior. Google Video does have a better video uploader, but that's about its only advantage. For my test I uploaded the same Tour of California clip to both services. Google Video took over 24 hours to 'verify' the video. I still have a video that I uploaded on February 21st (two weeks ago) that is in the 'verification' process. Time it took YouTube to post my video online: instant. 24 hours is just a mind-boggling long time to have to wait, let alone two weeks. As far as I can tell, Google Video doesn't even tell you when your video is ready, so you have to keep revisiting your video status page.

YouTube also has three features that Google Video does not: tagging, commenting, visitor counting, and rating. I don't care much for ratings, but tagging makes it easier for people to find my videos, commenting is nice for feedback, and visitor counting tells me whether or not it was worth my time even posting the video.

Both services seem to degrade the quality of the original video. The cycling videos I uploaded weren't of the greatest quality as they were shot with an ELPH, but they were definitely more intelligible than these:

Nevertheless, if you don't have to server to host the video and you want to get the video online to share with others, I highly recommend YouTube as the route to go.

what is this?

This page contains an archive of all entries posted to kwc blog in the video category.

Google is the previous category.

Yahoo is the next category.

Current entries can be found on the main page.