Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

X.Org & CoreBoot FOSDEM Recordings Available

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Holly Linus !

    i just finished to download all of those videos from FOSDEM archives and... damn!.. they are horrendous ! why ? well:

    1) those are mp4 containers with approximately-half-a-hour h264 1280x720@30 _8873_ kbps bitrate videos and mp4a/faad audio. and, by the looks of it, taken straight from the camera without any... _any_... ANY processing!

    not only they are not free in any way but reason behind giant size is clear now.

    2) camera always, and i mean, ALWAYS points out on the wall between reporter, floor and projector in a way you can't see any of them.

    yep, gigabytes and 1280x720 dots in 30 frames of ugly brown wall.

    3) there were no gun-microphone nor "operator" tried to operate the camera in any way to get a voice recording. instead he was recording rape of keyboards and coughing.


    oh, how could anyone fuck up that much ? :'(

    Comment


    • #32
      http://video.fosdem.org/2010/devrooms/coreboot/ // original
      http://www.zhick.de/phoronixfosdem/ // has the xorg videos in ogv
      http://meson.us/video/coreboot/ // just uploaded the Coreboot ones in ogv.

      Comment


      • #33
        I may not be a subscriber, but I have quite a bit of audio and video expertise (as I'm sure other readers do as well), and I'd gladly write up a low-cost equipment list and a brief HOWTO for optimum quality if requested.

        As for transcoding, check doom9 for instructions on converting the videos to a manageable format and size, or just use Handbrake. It will save you a ton of bandwidth, upload time, etc.

        OT: does anyone else think it's really screwed up that you can't legally sell raw videos recorded by an H.264-using camcorder, due to MPEG-LA's broken licensing scheme? How on earth does uploading a file incur H.264 patent liability?

        Comment


        • #34
          "How on earth does uploading a file incur H.264 patent liability?" ++

          btw just though I'd mention it but really simple way to convert pretty much any video to ogv

          type (in the console):
          ffmpeg2thedora originalvideo.mp4 // simple huh?, (default: -v 5 -a 1)
          ffmpeg2thedora -v 7 --optimize video.mp4 // or this for higher quality video

          (playable in Firefox/chrome/opera without plugins, vlc an such) (will hopefully eventually become web-standard)

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by unix_epoch View Post
            OT: does anyone else think it's really screwed up that you can't legally sell raw videos recorded by an H.264-using camcorder, due to MPEG-LA's broken licensing scheme? How on earth does uploading a file incur H.264 patent liability?
            It doesn't, unless you want to sell it, AND it's longer than 12 minutes, AND you have more than 100.000 subscribers, AND you live in the US. If instead of subscribers you want to pay on a per-title basis you'd owe those fine gentlemen the lower of $0.02 or 2% of what you made from each video. Principles apart, this is hardly a robbery.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by yotambien View Post
              It doesn't, unless you want to sell it, AND it's longer than 12 minutes, AND you have more than 100.000 subscribers, AND you live in the US. If instead of subscribers you want to pay on a per-title basis you'd owe those fine gentlemen the lower of $0.02 or 2% of what you made from each video. Principles apart, this is hardly a robbery.
              I think the "principle" problem is kind of the point. Once the video is encoded, how is it that you're practicing the patented method(s) by putting it on a server? Or am I completely misinterpreting the situation here?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Ex-Cyber
                Originally posted by yotambien
                It doesn't, unless you want to sell it, AND it's longer than 12 minutes, AND you have more than 100.000 subscribers, AND you live in the US. If instead of subscribers you want to pay on a per-title basis you'd owe those fine gentlemen the lower of $0.02 or 2% of what you made from each video. Principles apart, this is hardly a robbery.
                I think the "principle" problem is kind of the point. Once the video is encoded, how is it that you're practicing the patented method(s) by putting it on a server? Or am I completely misinterpreting the situation here?
                I don't understand your point. What I meant with 'principles' was 'moral values'. This is, leaving aside moral objections (which is always a slippery issue), the terms of the licensing aren't draconian, considering that you only need to pay royalties if you generate revenue over certain minimum threshold. From economic considerations (I'm thinking about the argument of patents hindering innovation, for instance) I find it difficult to defend the patent system for software inventions, but there is no good to be gained by exaggerating or plainly getting facts wrong about it.

                I, for instance, put in a completely different plane the arguments against patents for free (beer) implementations and those for revenue generating products. And while the first group is in no way exposed as the second you often hear people conflating both cases--which leads to a poor defence since you'd already be showing poor fact checking skills.

                Comment

                Working...
                X