Video: Climbing Oaks

I watched it, cool.

I reckon some people are gonna have a few hassles trying to watch that video ... I did but luckily I know my way around.

What I've done for you is converted that DivX Video to WMV so other folk may try this link if yours is unsuccessful... man there's so many different video codecs, today a customer gave me an Mpeg4 and I cant do anything with it! Except watch it in that Quicktime crappy thing, now I gotta upgrade my editing package.

It's 4.20min long and 20mb download which buffers

http://www.palmtreeservices.com.au/video/SKT2.wmv
 
So you increased the file size by 33% just so you could assist with MS lock-in of inferior stuff? There's a link in the initial post for a free player of / codec for the superior technology...

(DivX is also MPEG4 based)

Upgrade your editing package to the one used to encode the original video :)
 
Glens

It's not that easy for me as it is for you.

If you were over here I'd just come and visit for a weekend and get educated but man ... it's crazy.

The problem with Ibuki's first vid link is you cant see the link just the wording, I clicked on it and windows player opened and just sat there stuck! So I hit the quote button and got the URL of the vid and put that into the freeware DivX player.

That then dowloads a file into it's system and you then need to click on that to watch it.

I just thought if this is what others had to do they'd just forget about it, seriously, some things aren't user friendly.

Some people like me just want to click and view ... simple and easy, downloading codec, files and carryon is major unfriendly in this day and age. Chit, websites have like 2 seconds to open the front page or people go elsewhere ... that's why they dont suggest big intro's of vid or flash on your front page.

Ulead9.0 doesn't support DivX or Mpeg4, but Ulead 10 out now does, I haven't upgraded mine yet but it's on the cards.

Life used to be so simple but these days .....

By the way, that DivX was AVI based!
 
I was able to watch Ekka's version no problem. Nice work and Welcome!

So, you like the Ibuki huh? /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif I saw it on your harness in the video. Was that tree winched with a GRCS or other winch?
 
[ QUOTE ]
If you were over here I'd just come and visit for a weekend and get educated but man ... it's crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Come on over anyway (or send me a ticket; hahaha!).

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with Ibuki's first vid link is you cant see the link just the wording

[/ QUOTE ]
When you hover the pointer over the link, doesn't the actual target address appear in your browser status bar?

[ QUOTE ]
I clicked on it and windows player opened and just sat there stuck!

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't that because you had not fetched the codec? I'm guessing that with the codec for your player that your player would "know" how to play it.

The reason, I'm assuming, that your Windows player immediately opened was because the server sent the content type in its first response. The content type indicated a standard container format for which your system is set to have a particular program handle so it started up. Once the file actually started arriving and the container format was "opened", revealing the content innards, the necessary codec library was not available to your player. It's a particularly unfriendly failure of your player to not step forward and tell you that but instead sit there silent (I could picture it with hands over its ears, chanting "la la la la la" :).

[ QUOTE ]
So I hit the quote button and got the URL of the vid and put that into the freeware DivX player.

That then dowloads a file into it's system and you then need to click on that to watch it.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you fetched the entire player instead of just the codec library. (I'm pretty sure I saw on the site where you could fetch just the codec)

I don't know how that player does what. I'd assume that when you told it the URL of the file you wanted to play, it fetched the file. Why it didn't automatically start playing the file may be a preference selection within the program. It also may be that your Windows Media Player is set to be the default player of .avi files and your system therefore doesn't give permission to another similar program to automatically start playing without direct user interaction each time. Wouldn't surprise me much since that's typical of MS' modus operandi based in part on "our users are stupid; let's keep it that way so they'll rely on us".

(You guys think that what you're using is friendly and that what I'm using is difficult. Trust me when I say I took the time to get to know what I'm using because I could not stand the heinous unfriendliness of what you've got. Not only have I got a world-class "desktop" the likes of which "Vista" will have in part if it ever comes out, but what I'm using suffices quite nicely for stuff like this very web site at the same time.)

[ QUOTE ]
I just thought if this is what others had to do they'd just forget about it, seriously, some things aren't user friendly.

Some people like me just want to click and view ... simple and easy, downloading codec, files and carryon is major unfriendly in this day and age.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doing so manually, is what you meant to say, right?

Yeah, but once you've got the codec library file, you've got it (until, that is, you have to wipe your hard drive and re-install the "friendly" [more so to mal-ware than to the primary user!] operating system -- which task in and of itself is currently near the top of the list for "un-friendly" such methods; there are other systems, believe it or not, where all you do is boot the CD-ROM, answer a few questions, wait about 20 minutes and reboot once into a system which comes stock with hundreds to thousands more programs than yours did!).

As for me, I clicked his link and about 1-3/4 hours later the movie just started playing all by itself :)

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, that DivX was AVI based!

[/ QUOTE ]
See the "container format" link at the end of the third paragraph in the article I linked-to earlier to learn why that's not really all that meaningful.

Cheers
 
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with Ibuki's first vid link is you cant see the link just the wording... So I hit the quote button and got the URL of the vid

[/ QUOTE ]
What happens when you right-click on the link? Attached is an image of my browser window with the result of that action here, and I highlighted the action I'm wondering if you don't have something similar to in your browser. Also note the link destination shown in the bottom of the browser window (but it's just for informational purposes; it can't be cut-'n-pasted or anything).
 

Attachments

  • 48779-rmb.webp
    48779-rmb.webp
    67.7 KB · Views: 63
See, now I got a headache reading that and going to the DivX joint to get stuff.

The viewed DivX file isn't much different, what's the big deal?

They reckon on that site that they can compress DVD's to lower file size and good clarity ... compared to what?

That DivX 4min movie is 16MB and no way is it clear, you put that up on a big TV and it would suck (just like WMV)!

Digital video out of the camera is AVI format and around 220MB per minute. When you burn that off to DV it drops to around 31MB per minute but plays clear on TV.

Sorry, I just dont get the DivX revolution, along with Mpeg4 etc ... just more spanners in the works to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong but at the end of the day it all boils down to kbps and resolution which determine file size ... a 30mb file will be better and clearer than a 10mb and so on, so why so many?

Oh, thanks for the tips in your two posts /forum/images/graemlins/beerchug.gif
 
I'll try to be brief.

AVI is indeed a file format but the filename extension (.avi) in no way indicates what type of data stream may be present within; merely that it contains streamage. As you indicate, the camera outputs raw (uncompressed) audio/video within that (.avi) container. You may also compress the data with a lossy scheme (WMA, WMV, MPEG2, MPEG4, Quicktime, etc.) and place it in an AVI file. It's all "legal".

You also indicate correctly that higher bit-rate content is unsuitable for general Internet transaction and that lower bit-rate content is unsuitable for full-screen viewing. It's a trade-off between quality and convenience. They have proper contexts outside of which they are silly.

WMA/V (of one type or another [what are they up to now, 9, 10?] your current favorite) is merely one of many of the "lossy" encode/decode (codec) methods available. It's not too bad (arguably better than what came before it), but like all the others, it throws away data in a manner deemed acceptable for the task at hand. MPEG4 also has several levels of doing what it does. DivX (and Xvid, its free counterpart) use arguably better methods, resulting in a smaller file size for the same thing (image size/quality) as (current?) WMV.

These things all change with time. WMV was perhaps "king of the hill" for a while. Now it's not (yet another iteration of it may again rise to the top). Another will always arise to knock the current "king" down. It's the way of the world.

Except that MS doesn't want that; they use their monopoly position on the desktop to lock users into their (most always) inferior tools. You often note how much easier it is to use just the MS stuff within Windows. They go to great lengths to ensure that is the case and that in part is why they've been convicted of (though not punished for!) abusing their monopoly position in the US and are currently getting slapped down but good in the EU. I have great expectation that the EU will not be the pansies that the US have shown to be in this matter.

I don't want MS to go completely away. I think it's great that they want to make general-purpose computers accessible to the half of the population with an IQ less than 100. I just want them to quit doing so in such a dangerous way (and their proposed notion of "Trusted Computing" chips is not the answer; it's even more dangerous for other reasons) and to play nice with everyone else. Their systems are littering the Internet, turning it into a minefield of infestation. I wouldn't be surprise if 2% of all Internet traffic is MS-Windows computers trying to infect each other with their nasty payloads of remote-control and spyware.

Sorry for not being so brief and for my part in the hijack of this thread...
 
Err excuse me, hey you ... yeah you, you in the mud hut on the other side of the black stump, BIG NEWS ... you can save 1mb per minute with this new DivX codec, it's the next big thing so dont miss out. lol

Your funny Mark, as the video link was DivX it brought about this chat which is quite relevant.

It must be a mandatory computer science graduates task ... Righteo students, and your final assessment will involve designing a new video codec as the planet is short of them, extra credits will be given to those who actually reduce file size without diminishing viewing quality. And those of you who make it Microsoft friendly will have a career when you graduate. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
um... I'm pretty sure that of the ones discussed WMV9 is the newest kid codec on the block.

More new fresh informative information: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12919287/ (the coffers are so full they treat it as just a cost of doing business to pay the fine instead of complying or what?)
 
Sorry, but I can't resist. I just read something which is rather ironicly pertinent.

I really will drop this subject in this thread after this. Your video, "Ibuki" is great!

Microsoft, it's reported, is proud of a new image compression technology which they hope will supplant JPEG. While a couple of the aspects actually seem interesting, one which really caught my eye was that they will be able, with their new technological wonder, to, well:

[ QUOTE ]
The compression technology is also "smart"--it is possible to ... [do] such things as rotating the image without the need to decode it and subsequently encode it again

[/ QUOTE ]
Every time one "works with" a JPEG image in many ways the image is decoded, modified, then re-encoded and this causes a loss in clarity/quality. However, let me share a couple of lines from the formatted "man page" for a utility I happen to have (note the date at the bottom!):

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>NAME
jpegtran - lossless transformation of JPEG files

SYNOPSIS
jpegtran [ options ] [ filename ]


DESCRIPTION
jpegtran performs various useful transformations of JPEG
files. It can translate the coded representation from one
variant of JPEG to another, for example from baseline JPEG
to progressive JPEG or vice versa. It can also perform
some rearrangements of the image data, for example turning
an image from landscape to portrait format by rotation.

jpegtran works by rearranging the compressed data (DCT
coefficients), without ever fully decoding the image.
Therefore, its transformations are lossless: there is no
image degradation at all, which would not be true if you
used djpeg followed by cjpeg to accomplish the same con-­
version. But by the same token, jpegtran cannot perform
lossy operations such as changing the image quality.

... [skip about 180 lines of text] ...

AUTHOR
Independent JPEG Group

BUGS
Arithmetic coding is not supported for legal reasons.

The transform options can't transform odd-size images per­-
fectly. Use -trim if you don't like the results without
it.

The entire image is read into memory and then written out
again, even in cases where this isn't really necessary.
Expect swapping on large images, especially when using the
more complex transform options.



3 August 1997 JPEGTRAN(1)</pre><hr />
Currently, computer time is kept track of by incrementing a 32 bit number once every second. The first second was "Thu Jan 1, 1970 00:00:01 UTC" (the "birth" of UNIX). The number will reach maximum capacity at "Tue Jan 19, 2038 03:14:07 UTC" (this will be the real Y2K-like problem if we aren't all off of 32- bit machines by then, but we're already starting to use 64-bit computers and a 64 bit integer for counting seconds will not fill up until well after the expected lifetime of the universe; but I digress). There's a point to that bit of "trivia".

With the new MS "Vista" due out "real soon now" (a phrase repeated for, I think, about 7 years now :) they will have finally incorporated some of the security features which UNIX-like systems have had for literally decades. They will also be including "user experiences" along the lines of (no doubt inspired by) those already available for unixes and Mac OS X.
You'll likely need to upgrade your hardware to use it, and the interface has changed a fair amount. Certainly the ways of doing things with the new security model will require training time.

Might I suggest you all fetch a bootable CD-ROM of Knoppix or Ubuntu now and save yourselves a bunch of time, money, and some effort?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom