RE: [tdwg] Species pages and video
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
_____
From: Bob Morris [mailto:morris.bob@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 5:34 PM To: Richard Pyle Cc: Eamonn O Tuama; Timothy M. Jones; tdwg@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg] Species pages and video
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_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
http://utc.usu.edu/keys/Carex/Carex.html
tdwg mailing list tdwg@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg
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
Just a few comments.
One possible solution to the 1080 issue will be (soon to be released, released?) Flash Player 9, which will support up to 1920 x 1080. It will not run in full screen mode at this setting unfortunately. It will be in H.264 format, as used in MPEG 4. FLV files are FLV files - which may not be the panacea everyone desires but it may allow some of the high-res content to get out in the wild, sooner than later.
The choice to use Youtube over Google was an easy one. Youtube allows one to embed the video in an html page, Google Video does not. My feeling is that the supplemental information surrounding the video can aid in familiarity for the user. The more images available to a user trying to make a determination of an unknown taxon, the better. However, Youtube, and Google for that matter, may (read will) switch to an ad based format. Ads appearing on/in vouchers are not appealing for obvious reasons. Scientific video services are coming into being - Sci-Vee, for one. Not sure whether they offer an embed feature, have emailed them and will hopefully know shortly.
Metadata - if anyone can send me a template that I can employ now, even something rudimentary, I will use it and re-post the species pages prior to the conference. The data are there/here.
Thanks to all on the list that have offered suggestions and solutions to clarify and improve the previously posted Carices pages.
Still working on clustering Google points and getting kml to run in Gmaps, Tim
Latest page with all recommended improvements so far-
http://utc.usu.edu/factsheets/CarexFSF/new/carex_oligosperma_species.htm
Richard Pyle wrote:
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Bob Morris [mailto:morris.bob@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, August 28, 2007 5:34 PM *To:* Richard Pyle *Cc:* Eamonn O Tuama; Timothy M. Jones; tdwg@lists.tdwg.org *Subject:* Re: [tdwg] Species pages and video 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:deepreef@bishopmuseum.org> http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html > -----Original Message----- > From: tdwg-bounces@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-bounces@lists.tdwg.org> > [mailto: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 <mailto: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> > [mailto: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 <mailto: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_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 <http://utc.usu.edu/keys/Carex/Carex.html> > _______________________________________________ > tdwg mailing list > tdwg@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg@lists.tdwg.org> > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg <http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg> > > > _______________________________________________ > tdwg mailing list > tdwg@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg@lists.tdwg.org> > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg _______________________________________________ tdwg mailing list tdwg@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg@lists.tdwg.org> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg -- Robert A. Morris Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston ram@cs.umb.edu <mailto:ram@cs.umb.edu> http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/ http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram <http://www.cs.umb.edu/%7Eram> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html <http://www.cs.umb.edu/%7Eram/calendar.html> phone (+1)617 287 6466
tdwg mailing list tdwg@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg
Thanks Tim,
One possible solution to the 1080 issue will be (soon to be released, released?) Flash Player 9, which will support up to 1920 x 1080. It will not run in full screen mode at this setting unfortunately. It will be in H.264 format, as used in MPEG 4. FLV files are FLV files
- which may not be the panacea everyone desires but it may
allow some of the high-res content to get out in the wild, sooner than later.
Good to know!
The choice to use Youtube over Google was an easy one. Youtube allows one to embed the video in an html page, Google Video does not.
That's what I used to think also -- but it's not true. To wit:
http://www2.bishopmuseum.org/testvideo/videotest.htm
Look at the source code, and you'll see how simple the embedded link is, and what you have control over (e.g., size, subtitles, etc).
In fact, it was this feature that sealed the deal for me on Google Video. Until I realized this, I was looking at YouTube for the very same reason.
My feeling is that the supplemental information surrounding the video can aid in familiarity for the user. The more images available to a user trying to make a determination of an unknown taxon, the better. However, Youtube, and Google for that matter, may (read will) switch to an ad based format. Ads appearing on/in vouchers are not appealing for obvious reasons. Scientific video services are coming into being - Sci-Vee, for one. Not sure whether they offer an embed feature, have emailed them and will hopefully know shortly.
I agree with all of your points above. Google Video seems less ads-based than YouTube, so my hope is that for embedded videos, at least, there will be some reprieve from ads. In fact, another reason I like Google Video over YouTube is that I don't like thatlittle YouTube watermark -- which itself is sort of an ad. Of course, since they're both owned by Google, I suspect they will eventually merge.
Metadata - if anyone can send me a template that I can employ now, even something rudimentary, I will use it and re-post the species pages prior to the conference. The data are there/here.
Ditto!
Latest page with all recommended improvements so far-
http://utc.usu.edu/factsheets/CarexFSF/new/carex_oligosperma_species.htm
Very nice! You might consider caching lower-resolution copies of the JPEGs (e.g., Habitat and Infructescence) for faster display. This is another topic I've wanted to learn more about and ask others how they deal with it. I've not quite graduated to the point where I can create on-the-fly resized images (JPEG2K sounds promising, though!), so I cache copies of each JPEG in 5 sizes: 50px, 150px, 300px, 800px, Full-res (all numbers indicate image width). That allows me to deliver fast tiled pages like this:
http://www2.bishopmuseum.org/natscidb2/?w=BPBM&s0=Centropyge&lst=i
Or pages with intermediate-size images like this:
http://www2.bishopmuseum.org/natscidb2/?w=BPBM&id=-1513740931
Or pop-ups with larger images (click the image in the above link):
Actually, the second link isn't quite right -- it goes to the large image: http://www2.bishopmuseum.org/PBS/images/JER/large/1306009233.jpg
It should get this copy: http://www2.bishopmuseum.org/PBS/images/JER/small/1306009233.jpg
Obviously, it would be better to scale the images on the fly, like Bob described for JPEG2K.
But anyway, that's a whole 'nother conversation.
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
Dear Rich, Thank you for the schooling. Did not know it was possible to embed G Videos. Will give it a try. Tim Will take this further off list.
Richard Pyle wrote:
Thanks Tim,
One possible solution to the 1080 issue will be (soon to be released, released?) Flash Player 9, which will support up to 1920 x 1080. It will not run in full screen mode at this setting unfortunately. It will be in H.264 format, as used in MPEG 4. FLV files are FLV files
- which may not be the panacea everyone desires but it may
allow some of the high-res content to get out in the wild, sooner than later.
Good to know!
The choice to use Youtube over Google was an easy one. Youtube allows one to embed the video in an html page, Google Video does not.
That's what I used to think also -- but it's not true. To wit:
http://www2.bishopmuseum.org/testvideo/videotest.htm
Look at the source code, and you'll see how simple the embedded link is, and what you have control over (e.g., size, subtitles, etc).
In fact, it was this feature that sealed the deal for me on Google Video. Until I realized this, I was looking at YouTube for the very same reason.
My feeling is that the supplemental information surrounding the video can aid in familiarity for the user. The more images available to a user trying to make a determination of an unknown taxon, the better. However, Youtube, and Google for that matter, may (read will) switch to an ad based format. Ads appearing on/in vouchers are not appealing for obvious reasons. Scientific video services are coming into being - Sci-Vee, for one. Not sure whether they offer an embed feature, have emailed them and will hopefully know shortly.
I agree with all of your points above. Google Video seems less ads-based than YouTube, so my hope is that for embedded videos, at least, there will be some reprieve from ads. In fact, another reason I like Google Video over YouTube is that I don't like thatlittle YouTube watermark -- which itself is sort of an ad. Of course, since they're both owned by Google, I suspect they will eventually merge.
Metadata - if anyone can send me a template that I can employ now, even something rudimentary, I will use it and re-post the species pages prior to the conference. The data are there/here.
Ditto!
Latest page with all recommended improvements so far-
http://utc.usu.edu/factsheets/CarexFSF/new/carex_oligosperma_species.htm
Very nice! You might consider caching lower-resolution copies of the JPEGs (e.g., Habitat and Infructescence) for faster display. This is another topic I've wanted to learn more about and ask others how they deal with it. I've not quite graduated to the point where I can create on-the-fly resized images (JPEG2K sounds promising, though!), so I cache copies of each JPEG in 5 sizes: 50px, 150px, 300px, 800px, Full-res (all numbers indicate image width). That allows me to deliver fast tiled pages like this:
http://www2.bishopmuseum.org/natscidb2/?w=BPBM&s0=Centropyge&lst=i
Or pages with intermediate-size images like this:
http://www2.bishopmuseum.org/natscidb2/?w=BPBM&id=-1513740931
Or pop-ups with larger images (click the image in the above link):
Actually, the second link isn't quite right -- it goes to the large image: http://www2.bishopmuseum.org/PBS/images/JER/large/1306009233.jpg
It should get this copy: http://www2.bishopmuseum.org/PBS/images/JER/small/1306009233.jpg
Obviously, it would be better to scale the images on the fly, like Bob described for JPEG2K.
But anyway, that's a whole 'nother conversation.
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
tdwg mailing list tdwg@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg
participants (2)
-
Richard Pyle -
Timothy M. Jones