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 [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
