Sunday, March 21, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
New Site Explains How to Publish Video on Wikipedia
A new website aptly named Videoonwikipedia.org aims to get more users to contribute video clips to Wikipedia by demystifying some of the issues related to the site’s video format. Videoonwikipedia.org was launched today by the Participatory Culture Foundation, which is also known for its Miro video player, in cooperation with the Open Video Alliance, the Mozilla Drumbeat Project and open source video platform provider Kaltura.
The main idea behind the site is obviously to enrich Wikipedia, which currently doesn’t feature many articles with videos, but the Participatory Culture Foundation also sees this as a chance to showcase HTML5 video and the open video codec Ogg Theora. “Wikipedia is the most popular site in the world that posts video exclusively in open formats,” the organization’s co-founder Nicholas Reville wrote in a blog post, adding: “By encouraging more people to post videos in Wikipedia articles, we can bring theora video played in html5 to a very large audience.”
The new site offers its users a quick and very basic step-by-step guide for posting videos on Wikipedia, which includes converting them to Ogg Theora, signing up for a Wikipedia account and enabling video upload capabilities on the site.
The Participatory Culture Foundation aims to simplify the encoding and converting issues with a new and as of yet unannounced tool dubbed the Miro Video Converter. Users of the converter can simply select Theora as the output format of choice, drop a video file onto the application and wait for the file in question to be converted.
Video on Wikipedia has been a long time coming, with the Wikimedia Foundation announcing plans to embrace video in early 2008. However, the site’s strong commitment to open formats has somewhat slowed down the adoption process, as it took a while until browsers capable of playing Flash-free video via HTML5 became available.
However, part of the delay apparently has also to do with internal issues, as representatives from Wikimedia and its technology partner Kaltura told me earlier this year. Kaltura’s VP of Business and Community Development Shay David said back then that Wikipedia editors took a while to get comfortable with video. “People needed to understand that video is an important aspect of Wikipedia,” he told me, adding: “That needed some time.”
The main idea behind the site is obviously to enrich Wikipedia, which currently doesn’t feature many articles with videos, but the Participatory Culture Foundation also sees this as a chance to showcase HTML5 video and the open video codec Ogg Theora. “Wikipedia is the most popular site in the world that posts video exclusively in open formats,” the organization’s co-founder Nicholas Reville wrote in a blog post, adding: “By encouraging more people to post videos in Wikipedia articles, we can bring theora video played in html5 to a very large audience.”
The new site offers its users a quick and very basic step-by-step guide for posting videos on Wikipedia, which includes converting them to Ogg Theora, signing up for a Wikipedia account and enabling video upload capabilities on the site.
The Participatory Culture Foundation aims to simplify the encoding and converting issues with a new and as of yet unannounced tool dubbed the Miro Video Converter. Users of the converter can simply select Theora as the output format of choice, drop a video file onto the application and wait for the file in question to be converted.
Video on Wikipedia has been a long time coming, with the Wikimedia Foundation announcing plans to embrace video in early 2008. However, the site’s strong commitment to open formats has somewhat slowed down the adoption process, as it took a while until browsers capable of playing Flash-free video via HTML5 became available.
However, part of the delay apparently has also to do with internal issues, as representatives from Wikimedia and its technology partner Kaltura told me earlier this year. Kaltura’s VP of Business and Community Development Shay David said back then that Wikipedia editors took a while to get comfortable with video. “People needed to understand that video is an important aspect of Wikipedia,” he told me, adding: “That needed some time.”
Friday, February 12, 2010
Doxie Scanner Sends, Shares, Stores on the Cloud
Doxie offers crisp and clean paper scans in a small, portable USB-powered package. With no power cables or irritatingly impossible to install drivers (though we do have workarounds available) - Doxie works with a simple app and a touch of a button. Which makes us wonder, "Why can't all scanners be this easy?"
The little scanner offers scans up to 600dpi in 24bit color and scans as fast as 12 seconds per page. The package is pretty sweet too - it comes with the Doxie scanner, companion software, even a carrying case. Just plug her in, fire up the software, and turn your paper into PDFs, JPGs or lossless PNG files - straight into Doxie's own cloud service, which features plenty of integration into existing services out there like Twitter, Flickr, Picasa, Evernote and Google Docs for OCR scanning.
But the real caveat here is the price. You can grab the entire package for around $129. Available later in March.
Please Do Not Use Bananas to Clean Your Netflix DVDs
Please Do Not Use Bananas to Clean Your Netflix DVDs
Unplggd has an interesting trick for removing scratches from DVDs using a banana and toothpaste, but I beg you to to only use this trick on your own DVDs, lest we have fruit-scented Netflix mailers.
Netflix recommends using using liquid soap or window cleaner, and if that doesn't work they'll send you a replacement.
Unplggd has an interesting trick for removing scratches from DVDs using a banana and toothpaste, but I beg you to to only use this trick on your own DVDs, lest we have fruit-scented Netflix mailers.
Netflix recommends using using liquid soap or window cleaner, and if that doesn't work they'll send you a replacement.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Cord-cutters Are Hulu, Redbox and Netflix Junkies
The threat of cord-cutting is real, but not as big as one might expect, according to new research from Parks Associates. The Dallas-based market research company is estimating in its new “All Eyes on Video” report that less than 8 percent of U.S. households are thinking about canceling their pay-TV subscription in favor of online services. However, cable companies shouldn’t celebrate just yet: Cord-cutters seem to be trendsetters, who not only watch way more online video, but also rent a ton of DVDs.
The new findings from Parks Associates come only two days after Strategy Analytics released its own study about the value perception of cable TV, which painted a slightly different picture, stating that less than 22 percent of cable’s customers were thinking that they were getting their money’s worth from their subscriptions. Taken together, both studies seem to signal that the real winners of any move towards cord-cutting could be paid services like Netflix.
Parks Associates is estimating that about 5.5 million U.S. households are seriously considering cutting the cord, down from 2008, when that number stood at 11 percent. And the number of people who actually follow through seems to be even lower: Park believes that only 0.5 percent, or 350,000 homes, have cut the cord so far.
And households considering cutting the cord watch 10 hours of online video per week, which Parks calls “much higher than typical video consumers.” Potential cord-cutters also rented a median of 18 DVDs during the last six months, compared to two DVDs for customers willing to stick with cable.
What explains the discrepancy? Netflix, of course, a service with its high turnover rate for rentals, and possibly Redbox with its ultra-low rental prices, according to Parks Associates research director John Barrett. “Nobody is going to rely on online video alone — households likely to cancel their TV services are going to use a mixture of online video, free-to-air broadcasts, and DVDs,” he said, adding that the threat of cord-cutting was “real but misunderstood” because people tend to focus on online video alone and ignore DVD rentals.
The Strategy Analytics report released earlier this week suggested that two-thirds of cable customers wouldn’t think twice about saying bye-bye to their cableco if someone offered them a better deal. Park Associates is now reporting that potential cord-cutters are very interested in accessing pay-TV online, a sign that the company views as encouraging for TV Everywhere.
Of course, it’s also good news for Netflix. The company has been pushing hard to make its Watch Instantly feature more attractive to its customers, but Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has said it will likely continue to rent out physical discs for decades to come. DVD rentals plus a growing online library for a price point much below your average cable bill — sounds like a potential cord-cutter’s dream, doesn’t it?
The new findings from Parks Associates come only two days after Strategy Analytics released its own study about the value perception of cable TV, which painted a slightly different picture, stating that less than 22 percent of cable’s customers were thinking that they were getting their money’s worth from their subscriptions. Taken together, both studies seem to signal that the real winners of any move towards cord-cutting could be paid services like Netflix.
Parks Associates is estimating that about 5.5 million U.S. households are seriously considering cutting the cord, down from 2008, when that number stood at 11 percent. And the number of people who actually follow through seems to be even lower: Park believes that only 0.5 percent, or 350,000 homes, have cut the cord so far.
And households considering cutting the cord watch 10 hours of online video per week, which Parks calls “much higher than typical video consumers.” Potential cord-cutters also rented a median of 18 DVDs during the last six months, compared to two DVDs for customers willing to stick with cable.
What explains the discrepancy? Netflix, of course, a service with its high turnover rate for rentals, and possibly Redbox with its ultra-low rental prices, according to Parks Associates research director John Barrett. “Nobody is going to rely on online video alone — households likely to cancel their TV services are going to use a mixture of online video, free-to-air broadcasts, and DVDs,” he said, adding that the threat of cord-cutting was “real but misunderstood” because people tend to focus on online video alone and ignore DVD rentals.
The Strategy Analytics report released earlier this week suggested that two-thirds of cable customers wouldn’t think twice about saying bye-bye to their cableco if someone offered them a better deal. Park Associates is now reporting that potential cord-cutters are very interested in accessing pay-TV online, a sign that the company views as encouraging for TV Everywhere.
Of course, it’s also good news for Netflix. The company has been pushing hard to make its Watch Instantly feature more attractive to its customers, but Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has said it will likely continue to rent out physical discs for decades to come. DVD rentals plus a growing online library for a price point much below your average cable bill — sounds like a potential cord-cutter’s dream, doesn’t it?
Saturday, January 30, 2010
USB TV Tuner: No Cable Replacement
It’s time, I think, to get rid of my cable TV service. It’s over-priced and under-used in my house. These days, I can find most of the shows I like on Hulu or iTunes, anyway. Most, but not all. And there are times when I want to watch live TV. I like the Super Bowl, for example. And I want to watch the season premiere of Lost when it happens — not a day later, when ABC gets around to posting it online.
That’s why I thought a USB TV tuner might be the perfect solution: I could hook it up to my computer and view HD content on my shiny new 20-inch monitor. I’d pay only once — the upfront cost for the TV tuner — and could kiss cable bills goodbye forever.
As it turns out, though, paying cable bills might not be so bad after all, if the few days I’ve spent testing Hauppauge’s WinTV-HVR 1950 USB 2.0 Hybrid TV tuner are any indication. This $149 device has plenty of potential — and in the right circumstances, could prove useful — but it didn’t work well enough in my house to make me think about cutting the cable.
The WinTV-HVR 1950 is actually a small box, slightly smaller but thicker than a CD case, that connects to your computer via USB 2.0. It can capture analog NTSC and digital ATSC channels, as well as ClearQAM (unencrypted cable) channels. You also can connect external video sources (like DVD players) using the tuner’s S-Video and composite video inputs.
Hauppauge recommends connecting an external antenna when scanning for over-the-air channels, but, unfortunately, the company does not supply one with the device. Even a small, portable antenna, like the one included with the company’s WinTV-HVR-950Q I tested a few years ago, would have helped. When I connected the tuner in my home office and scanned for ATSC channels, it found zero. My computer is next to a window, and there are no tall buildings in my neighborhood to block transmission, but when used without an antenna, the WinTV-HVR 1950 was not able to pick up any channels.
When I tried the tuner on my laptop, in a downstairs room in my house, I had better luck, and was able to pick up a handful of over-the-air stations. Still, if you want to use this product on a desktop computer that’s in a fixed location, you’ll need to purchase your own antenna. Unless you happen to have one sitting on your roof, that is. The user manual notes that a roof-top antenna will deliver the best picture, but let’s be serious: who has a roof-top antenna these days? And who’s willing to hook one up just to use a TV tuner with their computer?
Not me. That’s why I switched to scanning for ClearQAM channels. To do so, you need to connect a cable line-in to the WintTV-HVR 1950, so you’ll, presumably, need a cable subscription. You could get by with paying for only the most basic service, I suppose, but doing so defeats my stated goal of going without cable entirely.
But the tuner did find plenty of ClearQAM channels; after scanning for just a few minutes, it identified more than 600 channels. That number was made even more overwhelming when I started watching them on the included WinTV software, and found that the way they were numbered made absolutely no sense. The HD broadcast of what is usually Channel 2 appeared as Channel 12203. Channel 4 was channel 63.10451. Only a few of the stations had names with them; most were represented as only a baffling series of numbers.
None of the channels had any programming information with them either, all of the shows were labeled “Unknown.” That means that if I wanted to record them using the WinTV software, which is actually pretty slick, I’d have to do so manually.
The good news is that all of the channels I was able to watch, both the ClearQAM stations and those that I was able to receive over-the-air without an antenna, looked great. HD picture quality was excellent, and even standard definition programs looked relatively clear. That’s why I think that Hauppauge’s USB TV tuner does have potential. If your computer is portable, or in an area that gets good reception, this device could prove to be cost-effective. But for the rest of us, Hauppauge needs to include an antenna. Until then, I guess I’m stuck paying for cable.
That’s why I thought a USB TV tuner might be the perfect solution: I could hook it up to my computer and view HD content on my shiny new 20-inch monitor. I’d pay only once — the upfront cost for the TV tuner — and could kiss cable bills goodbye forever.
As it turns out, though, paying cable bills might not be so bad after all, if the few days I’ve spent testing Hauppauge’s WinTV-HVR 1950 USB 2.0 Hybrid TV tuner are any indication. This $149 device has plenty of potential — and in the right circumstances, could prove useful — but it didn’t work well enough in my house to make me think about cutting the cable.
The WinTV-HVR 1950 is actually a small box, slightly smaller but thicker than a CD case, that connects to your computer via USB 2.0. It can capture analog NTSC and digital ATSC channels, as well as ClearQAM (unencrypted cable) channels. You also can connect external video sources (like DVD players) using the tuner’s S-Video and composite video inputs.
Hauppauge recommends connecting an external antenna when scanning for over-the-air channels, but, unfortunately, the company does not supply one with the device. Even a small, portable antenna, like the one included with the company’s WinTV-HVR-950Q I tested a few years ago, would have helped. When I connected the tuner in my home office and scanned for ATSC channels, it found zero. My computer is next to a window, and there are no tall buildings in my neighborhood to block transmission, but when used without an antenna, the WinTV-HVR 1950 was not able to pick up any channels.
When I tried the tuner on my laptop, in a downstairs room in my house, I had better luck, and was able to pick up a handful of over-the-air stations. Still, if you want to use this product on a desktop computer that’s in a fixed location, you’ll need to purchase your own antenna. Unless you happen to have one sitting on your roof, that is. The user manual notes that a roof-top antenna will deliver the best picture, but let’s be serious: who has a roof-top antenna these days? And who’s willing to hook one up just to use a TV tuner with their computer?
Not me. That’s why I switched to scanning for ClearQAM channels. To do so, you need to connect a cable line-in to the WintTV-HVR 1950, so you’ll, presumably, need a cable subscription. You could get by with paying for only the most basic service, I suppose, but doing so defeats my stated goal of going without cable entirely.
But the tuner did find plenty of ClearQAM channels; after scanning for just a few minutes, it identified more than 600 channels. That number was made even more overwhelming when I started watching them on the included WinTV software, and found that the way they were numbered made absolutely no sense. The HD broadcast of what is usually Channel 2 appeared as Channel 12203. Channel 4 was channel 63.10451. Only a few of the stations had names with them; most were represented as only a baffling series of numbers.
None of the channels had any programming information with them either, all of the shows were labeled “Unknown.” That means that if I wanted to record them using the WinTV software, which is actually pretty slick, I’d have to do so manually.
The good news is that all of the channels I was able to watch, both the ClearQAM stations and those that I was able to receive over-the-air without an antenna, looked great. HD picture quality was excellent, and even standard definition programs looked relatively clear. That’s why I think that Hauppauge’s USB TV tuner does have potential. If your computer is portable, or in an area that gets good reception, this device could prove to be cost-effective. But for the rest of us, Hauppauge needs to include an antenna. Until then, I guess I’m stuck paying for cable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)