Thanks Bob,
I'm still waiting to hear back from them (Google) on
related stuff (mostly concerning bulk uploading). I know they prefer that
I upload the full-res version, even though they shrink it down when
streaming. I'd actually rather them have the full-res versions, so that as
future internet bandwidth paradigms allow higher-res streaming, they can
automatically step it up without input from me. Of course, uploading a
178MB file compared with a 3.5MB file -- multiplied several thousand times -- is
another factor that cannot be completely ignored.
The ideal would be a JPEG2K-ish standard as you describe
with user-specified resolution. Rather than get Google to build another
stand-alone app, I'd rather see them come out with their own browser with
built-in support for Earth (and customized/optimized video streaming, Google
Base access, Co-op features, etc.) all built in.
So far, no NDAs....
Aloha,
Rich
JPEG2000 video standards---which are generally mp4--- probably
address this problem, because JPEG2K can decompress at arbitrary resolution,
that is you can tell the remote server what resolution you want the stuff sent
at. I think, but am not certain, that this would be the case for the video
standards too, since it should be doable frame at a time. Indeed, I vaguely
recall a demo at a JPEG2K meeting in which video was streamed at resolutions
which varied with time. There are lots of questions, but apparently few
answers, of the form "does Flash support JPEG2000. Of course rendering
in the current browsers remains a problem if it doesn't, though people
certainly tolerate standalone Google Earth, for example---so why wouldn't they
tolerate standalone video viewers. Ask your Google video pals what's up.
Preferably not under an NDA. :-)
Bob
On 8/28/07, Richard
Pyle <deepreef@bishopmuseum.org>
wrote:
Dear
all,
I've been meaning to jump in on this conversation several times,
but I keep
getting side-tracked.
For over two years now, we have
been developing a protocol and associated
software tools (I use the
pronoun "we" loosely as far as the software
development goes -- that has
been entirely the work of Rob Whitton) to allow
us to harness the power
of video for our scientific purposes. We conduct
surveys of
coral-reef fishes in the Pacific, and the use of hi-definition
underwater video cameras allow us to make dozens of "video vouchers" (as
we
call them) of fish species in the context of their natural habitat on
every
single dive (again, I use the pronoun "we" loosely, as John Earle
is the
primary videographer on our surveys). Though perhaps
not as ideal as
specimens, the video is much better than in-situ still
photos (especially at
hi-def resolution), because it gives us multiple
angles on the subject
(increasing the probability of capturing that
elusive but diagnostic small
black spot near the anus), as well as
behavior (which can sometimes aid in
confirming
identifications). And it's a LOT better than just an un-imaged
observation record. It also allows us to document many more species on
a
given dive than we could by collecting alone.
The software that
Rob Whitton has developed is optimized for field-based
capturing of
metadata. We ( i.e., John) will generally catalog the
video
clips on the same day the video was taken. Metadata is
robust, with full
locality/habitat data (including depth and other
parameters), as well as
rich content cataloging (multiple identifications
of the same imaged
organism, etc.) At the moment, we (i.e.,
John & Rob) have something on the
order of 7,000 video clips
cataloged -- representing nearly a terabyte of
video files (a mix of both
standard-resolution DV and HDV). Very soon we
will have an
initial website online to allow searching/etc., and we have a
couple of
major regional checklists in the works that will cite these
"video
vouchers" in addition to more traditional means of documenting
species at
localities.
So...the reason I am posting this now
(rather than wait until the site is
online) is to ask others who are
exploring the use of video content for
similar purposes how they plan to
implement it.
Our current plan is to maintain an archive of
full-resolution digital video
files on our local SAN, but the files are
much too large to stream in
real-time over almost any typical internet
connection, and moreover would
completely choke our bandwidth if the
site ever became popular. For this
reason, we want to use a
video hosting service to stream the content, which
we will link to from
our own web databases (which themselves will serve only
keyframes from
the clips).
We've been working with Google to sort out a way to do
batch uploads onto
Google Video. I generally prefer the Google
Video environment over YouTube,
but I'm not familiar with other video
hosting services that are out there.
Here is a sample
clip:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=153611051098248174
Google
Video allows me to dump all of the metadata into the Description
field. Unfortunately, this is not very
structured. However, Google Video
allows you to link back to
your own web page for each clip, so I can have
that link go to an LSID
resolver, or some other web interface where more
structured metadata can
be served. Another feature I like is that you can
lay as many
subtitle/caption files as you want. For example, if you go
to
the link above, in the lower right corner you'll see a little "CC"
icon.
Click on the drop-down button to the right of the "CC" button, and
you can
choose from any number of subtitle tracks. In the
example above, there are
two different tracks: "Audio Dialog" transcribes
the spoken words you hear
on the clip's soundtrack, and "Species List",
which names the species as
they appear in the clip. Rob
Whitton is developing his software to
automatically generate the text for
the metadata and multiple CC tracks, so
that we can (eventually)
automate the upload process.
The main problem -- which I think will
be true of any of these video hosting
services -- is the limited
resoloution of the clips as they are streamed.
For example, here is a
frame from the original HDV clip in the above link:
http://www2.bishopmuseum.org/testvideo/Frame01.jpg
Here
is the same frame at the resolution that the video is rendered on
Google
Video:
http://www2.bishopmuseum.org/testvideo/Frame02.jpg
Obviously,
the full-resolution video contains a LOT more information. The
problem is that an MPG (i.e., compressed) copy of the full-resolution
HDV
clip is 172MB, whereas the compressed version that Google streams is
3.5MB.
The problem is not with Google Video -- it's with the
internet. Most people
will not have access to the badwidth
necessary to stream video at the full
HDV resolution.
So...what
we'd like is a service that will allow people to view the clips at
a
resolution that is reasonable to stream over the internet (Google Video,
YouTube, etc.), but then have the option of downloading the
full-resolution
file (in this case, 178MB) if they want to see it on
their own computer, and
are willing to wait for the full
download. Obviously, we'll have to somehow
regulate the
downloading so that we don't choke our bandwidth -- but we want
to allow
people to have access to the full-resolution imagery.
My hope is that
Google (or whoever) itself would offer the service of
streaming content
at an appropriate resolution, but then allowing people to
download the
full resolution clip as a file, if they want (i.e., using
Google's or
whoever's bandwidth, and not ours). But for the time being, we
mostly see Google as a way to: 1) Manage streaming of video content at
low
resolution, and 2) increase visibility (through Google searches_ of
the
content we do have.
Of course, the latter depends heavily on
how well the metadata are fleshed
out and structured -- which brings me
back to Éamonn's post. Like him, I am
very-much looking forward to
conversations at the upcoming meeting in
Bratislava.
Meanwhile, I
guess the main point of this message is to ask whether others
know of
analagous projects, and how they have dealt with issues of
bandwidth,
bulk uploading to video hosting services, and metadata structure
and
content.
Aloha,
Rich
Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database
Coordinator for Natural Sciences
and Associate Zoologist in
Ichthyology
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice
St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email:
deepreef@bishopmuseum.org
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html
>
-----Original Message-----
> From: tdwg-bounces@lists.tdwg.org
>
[mailto:tdwg-bounces@lists.tdwg.org]
On Behalf Of Eamonn O Tuama
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 5:20
AM
> To: 'Timothy M. Jones'; tdwg@lists.tdwg.org
> Subject:
RE: [tdwg] Species pages and video
>
> Dear
Timothy,
>
> I think the use of video is valuable even if there
is not
> much motion involved - combining a series of stills with
> voice over can be very effective - and the many video
hosting
> services makes it relatively easy to get online.
However,
> unlike text which can be mined for information, video
(and
> images) require good metadata to describe what the content is
> about - to aid in searches, etc.
>
> Your species pages
with their general facts and interactive
> taxonomic keys span the
task areas covered by SDD (Structure
> of Descriptive Data) and SPM
(Species Profile Model) TDWG
> interest groups. I look forward to
fruitful discussions
> between the two at the forthcoming meeting in
Bratislava that
> will lead to standardised ways of marking up your
species
> content so that it is more easily discoverable, accessible
> and re-usable (assuming permissions
> granted) across what
GBIF has labelled "The Universal
> Biodiversity Data
Bus".
>
> Best regards,
>
> Éamonn
>
>
-----Original Message-----
> From: tdwg-bounces@lists.tdwg.org
>
[mailto:tdwg-bounces@lists.tdwg.org]
On Behalf Of Timothy M. Jones
> Sent: 10 August 2007 16:48
>
To: tdwg@lists.tdwg.org
>
Subject: [tdwg] Species pages and video
>
>
Hello,
>
> I will not be attending the meeting this
fall but thought
> that this may be of interest
to those interested in species
> pages models.
> I am working on
species pages that include the use of video.
> The videos were only
added a month ago and are a bit
> rudimentary (with budget-conscious
equipment) but the
> potential now seems truly
limitless.
>
> Examples -
> http://utc.usu.edu/factsheets/CarexFSF/new/carex_eburnea_species.htm
>
> http://utc.usu.edu/factsheets/CarexFSF/new/carex_nebrascensis_
>
species.htm
>
> http://utc.usu.edu/factsheets/CarexFSF/new/carex_mitchelliana_
>
species.htm
>
> Comments appreciated,
> Timothy
M. Jones
> http://utc.usu.edu/keys/Carex/Carex.html
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg
mailing list
> tdwg@lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
> tdwg mailing
list
> tdwg@lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg
_______________________________________________
tdwg
mailing list
tdwg@lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg
--
Robert A. Morris
Professor of Computer
Science
UMASS-Boston
ram@cs.umb.edu
http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/
http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html
phone (+1)617 287 6466