Post
by bluetrain » Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:01 pm
Streaming; yae or nae ?
Okay here's my 2 cents on streaming.
If you were going to put steaming videos in say your video entry (wtih a local dl underneath) - wouldn't that mean the site would be hosting 2 videos and not just one. As in say a 60mb mp4 and a 17mb flv? (example only)
And if that happened with hundreds of AMVs across the board for donators, wouldn't that then lead to a lot more space being used. I know the theory is that people would watch the stream and then not download the video, but i know i just like to have my own little collection anyway - i rarely delete bad videos because one day i might watch them again and get a laugh out of them or something else whatever that may be.
Also with all the different formats that are/have been uploaded to the org; mpgs, divx, xvid, movs, h264, wmv etc etc would this pose issues with what would be able to be streamed - or would streaming videos have to be uploaded seperately by the editor?
What i mean to say, ancient videos like lets say kevin caldwell's 'believe' would have to be re-uploaded in order to be streamed, yes? Or the alternative would be for somebody with access to the server to convert the video into the most effective streaming video, or develop something which allows the original to be streamed in a lower quality display...
Maybe i'm missing something (entirely possible, i've not researched this at all) - but the idea seems good but i don't know if it will save space and bandwisth at all. And the legal attention issues which could potentially come with it tip the balance for me. So i'm not really a fan of streaming.
***
BUT I'LL BUY A SHIRT!
***
WMVs; yae or nae ?
And here's my solution to savin space and getting the org clean.
*For the record, everyone's thinking it - you just don't want to say it:
Any video submitted in WMV format can only remain hosted for say (6-12months *possibly less) - That way space is saved as people won't be bothered to reupload their videos, they'll most likely use the tube instead to host their wmvs after that - however their ENTRY stays, keeping all the videos catalogued as was the goal (as stated by godix). I know, I know i discriminating a format but good editors don't distribute in WMV (not that i know of anyway) - and bad editors still can but only for limited time. The way i see it this has 3 pros:
1. Saves space
2. Encourages editors to improve and move into more advanced territory
3. Discourages people who think they can make a great AMV in 2hrs because one linkin park lyric matches a pixellated concoction of fansubbed-footage, lip-flap, the old-film filter and the cartoon/divx logo. (big generalisation i know, but you get my point). There are some things that simply don't need to be hosted for 8 years.
4ish. Alternatively perhaps these are the kinds of videos that are meant to be streamed - maybe any WMV video cannot be locally downloaded, instead it can only be viewed online (or leeched with flv-downloaders). This would also save on a lot space as many of these videos are hardly ever downloaded anyway.
I understand perhaps that is a little harsh - but i agree with godix, if there is just going to be another donation push in a few months time for "b" maybe some sacrifices need to be made for the greater good. The biggest con is the feature could possibly turn people away from the org and thus potentially good editors (who just happen to be using WMM because its all they have access too and can afford - also i've heard it is possible to mod WMM with scripts and add-ons to make it more 'effective'... but i'm still not sold) - and of course a MASSIVE number of videos would be deleted in the first purge after 1 year or 6 months is up... which could do more harm then good to people who don't frequent the site enough to be knowledgeable of such an event...
Anyway i'm just putting it out there - you can burn it or whatever, i'm just trying to come up with another option - no harm in putting another one on the table.
*one day something with some effort will reside here*
