Please read the start of part 1 to find out how you can try out these features too!
OK so part 2 is about in-browser video transcoding. So…what does all that jargon mean and why should you care?
Just as image files come in different formats (BMP vs JPG vs TIFF vs PNG vs SVG vs …), so too do videos. In fact it’s rather more complicated because there’s these things called codecs. As far as I understand it, different codecs are different methods of compressing audio/video – codes that say how to pack the raw (and huge) audio/video file in a particular way to save space. But because each codec has its own particular way, you need to unpack it in that same particular way otherwise your computer won’t be able to understand it, and you won’t be able to play the file. MP3 is an audio codec. MPEG-2/3/4 are video codecs.
Unfortunately it’s not even as simple as equating file format == codec, because some file formats are “container formats”. AVI and OGG are container formats, and it means that inside, the audio/video can be encoded in a variety of different codecs. So basically it’s more pain.
Now some codecs seem free, but some codecs really are Free, and hopefully this coincides with being patent-free so no one will sue you just for using them. The Wikimedia Foundation, bless their cotton socks, recognise through their Values statement the importance of free formats and codecs:
An essential part of the Wikimedia Foundation’s mission is encouraging the development of free-content educational resources that may be created, used, and reused by the entire human community. We believe that this mission requires thriving open formats and open standards on the web to allow the creation of content not subject to restrictions on creation, use, and reuse.
Consequently, Wikimedia Commons has a policy on which file types may be used:
Patent-encumbered file formats like MP3, AAC, WMA, MPEG, AVI and the like are not accepted at Wikimedia Commons. Our mission requires content to be freely redistributable to all. Patent-encumbered formats fail to meet this standard.
So what is allowed? For audio/video, it comes down to Ogg container format with Ogg Speex/FLAC/Vorbis (audio) and Ogg Theora (video) inside. Yay Ogg! There’s only one tiny problem… no Windows software plays anything Ogg by default, no recording devices produce Ogg files by default, and this means users have to convert their files before uploading. Blah! What a hassle! Why can’t using free software and free formats be easy?!? (I’m not being facetious… I half know what I’m doing and it’s still a pain.)
Well, soon things are going to get a whole lot better: with Firefox 3.1, due next month in February, by default Firefox will support Ogg Theora. That means you’ll be able to play Ogg video in your browser without any extra software.
But even better: someone has written an extension called Firefogg which will transcode a file for you when you upload it. So, if you have Firefox 3.1+, and you have the Firefogg extension, and you come to a site that only accepts Ogg and you have a something-else file, now you just need to upload it as normal and Firefogg will convert the file for you before uploading it to the site.
I don’t know about you but I think that’s some serious genius. And Michael Dale has an implementation of it for Wikimedia Commons! Here’s what it looks like:
So we make it to the Commons upload form, and notice a new option saying “Enable video converter”. So if we tick that…
… then we can choose some random video format (in this case, AVI). And instead of just uploading, it will do transcoding (converting the format) and then uploading.
And, uploading! (Nice to get progress meters “for free” with this extension)
And… wala! Here’s my uploaded file, now in Ogg format, and playing using just the browser because that’s how awesome Firefox 3.1 is going to be.
As it transcodes, it also writes a copy of the final Ogg file next to your original file – handy to have both around.
One of my favourite things about this is that it removes the need for me to figure out all the configuration options in transcoding files. There’s so many and figuring out the optimum ones can be very tedious. With Firefogg, the site that is accepting the Ogg file tells your browser what settings it wants you to use — and you don’t have to see or deal with any of it! Total win. :)
So, to recap, how you can play with this awesomeness:
- Add this to your /monobook.js:
- Install the Firefox 3.1 beta (…or wait til February and it won’t be beta anymore)
- Install the Firefogg extension for Firefox
- Go and upload videos with the greatest of ease!
Again this is something I hope that will become available as a Gadget for people’s user preferences, so if you like to experiment a bit please do so and report back, so it can be stable enough by the time Firefox 3.1 is released to be a Gadget for everyone.
Long live the Ogg! :D
It all began (publicly) with a press release, mid-January. No, wait. The average Wikimedian would first have had the opportunity to hear of it via a Wikinews ‘leak’. That was about a week beforehand. A few days after the press release, Jay Walsh had what must have been a baptism of fire in making the announcement to the community.
So, mailing list firebomb. The main points of contention were
- Free file formats: Kaltura is essentially a Flash thingy at heart. Gnash was talked up in response.
- Commercial advantage: It is no surprise to anyone in Wikimedia that Wikimedians are edgy about advertising. This extends to anything that looks like undue commercial advantage. Kaltura is not what you would call subtle. Everything they do is Kaltura-branded and screams “FLASHY WEB2.0 THINGY”. Their whole aesthetic is quite antithetical to ours. It is offensive to a Wikipedian’s eye. There are similar alternatives which are more acceptable in this sense.
- Lack of clear advantage to Wikimedia: I doubt Flash-based glorified slideshow editing capability was at the top of anyone’s tech wishlist. Em, sure, seems like a potentially cool idea, but not pressing or vital. Viz Greg Maxwell:
In the future I hope the Foundation will first seek community input on technology partnerships: A flash slideshow editor isn’t anything anyone here has been asking for, as far as I can tell… But we have thousands of other widely desired features, many of which could have substantial external components ripe for partnership.
In the end these concerns were all more or less assuaged by, of all people, the developers. The replies went something like
- Kaltura would only be implemented on Wikimedia sites when it was completely free (ie, Gnash works).
- This partnership is non-exclusive, ie doesn’t preclude any others being made with similar partners.
- As for lack of clear benefit, all we are doing is lending our name – at this stage not even dev resources. If lending our name leads to cool stuff becoming open source, what’s to lose?
In another post Greg commented, I’m unhappy that despite prior discussions, staff is acting like people finding proprietary formats is a surprise. (Greg would not be the only one, here.)
In the end, everyone seems content enough with where we all stand, but really, we went through some serious drama to get there. Drama started by others (like, journalists) is one thing, but I don’t think it should be quite so difficult to spot which of WMF’s own announcements are going to be the fire starters.
So there you go, that’s my view of the Kaltura brouhaha.