He also cited studies that pointed to higher student achievement and even better classroom attendance resulting from students reviewing video materials outside of the classroom.

Nevertheless, my interest was piqued by Singer’s argument that lecture capture can substitute for the in-class experience for a student who prefers watching online. It’s not something I often hear in the promotion of lecture capture. While companies list distance learning as a core use case, they take care not to imply that recordings of classes in on-the-ground curricula should substitute for attendance.

Justified or not, the relationship between attendance and lecture recording is a sensitive issue. When there’s resistance to adopting lecture capture, the risk of encouraging would-be slackers to cut class is a prime objection. Thus, I was surprised that Singer would be so blunt.
Read the rest at StreamingMedia.com

No related posts.

These days we all do it. We meet someone new in person or online and then we do a search of his or her name on Google, Facebook, or LinkedIn. Perhaps we want to stay in touch, or maybe we’re interested in learning more about what that person does. But I’m pretty sure that I’m not the only person who is a little disappointed when I don’t find a profile picture. We don’t just want to read about someone; we are naturally drawn to photographs and want to know what someone looks like. It helps us build a connection.

Obviously—at least to us video producers— video amplifies that connection by allowing us to see a person speak and act; it’s more like if we were in the same room together. This is the same reason why videoconferencing and video chatting have become popular technologies among both business users and consumers.

Read the rest at Streaming Media…

No related posts.

That’s the next crucial step in educational video online: developing a common standard for cataloging, organizing, and sharing content, regardless of platform. We already have a model in libraries, which have common standards for cataloging physical assets such as books and discs. The successes and failures of this decades-long process should provide direction and insight for educational video.

In a similar vein, fellow SM writer and columnist Tim Siglin reported on discussions about time-based metadata for video that happened at the recent Open Video Conference:

Chris Jackson noted that URIPlay, an open-source project that MetaBroadcast has been working on with the BBC’s backing, started as an interface project but has ended up as a metadata play.

“Our core goal is to help people find moving images,” said Jackson, “but we’ve found we had to move well beyond user interfaces to the creation effective metadata tools and interfaces. We compared ‘closed code’ and ‘open code’ and realized that the pain threshold would be about the same initially for either type, but that the data range/quality of metadata could increase significantly if our open source code was used by the larger open source community. Our open software code revolves around metadata scraping and parsing.”

Although it all sounds a little technical, what’s at hand here is creating, storing and sharing data about video files so that the media itself is easier to find and use. The real trick is being able to search based upon more criteria than just titles or filenames, which often doesn’t result in much when video files are given names like “video01.mov.”

Searchability is accessibility and is truly one of the next most important steps in the development of online education, especially a more democratic online education.

I’ll be writing about more educational topics here at mediageek as that is what I do for a living and because I think the world of educational media is very connected to independent media and media freedom. Like so many disciplines, these worlds are too often siloed into their own self-contained universes, without a lot of cross-pollination. It looks like the Open Video Conference was one venue where the boundaries were crossed. I wish I could have gone, but I hope there will be more conferences like it.

No related posts.

Last Tuesday’s presidential inauguration was one of those moments where I think all business except for vital functions like transit and public safety stopped all over the country as people tuned in to watch Obama’s swearing in. Another thing that stopped for a lot of people was the internet. Arguably this was one of the biggest, if not the biggest live streaming video events in the history of the event. It was also one of biggest tests for streaming video over the internet, and the results were decidedly mixed.

I was at work on Tuesday, where one of my responsibilities is providing instructional media support. As soon as I got in that morning I started getting requests from people all over our building to set them up to watch the inauguration. Now, the building I work in is poured concrete monstrosity that acts like a Faraday cage, successfully blocking reception of most broadcast signals. On top of that, there’s no cable TV in building. So I advised anyone who asked about getting a TV that they should consider viewing a live stream. Then I went to go set up a live stream in a large conference room with a video projector. At that moment I realized that maybe the live stream wasn’t going to work out so well, as it took many different attempts on several different sites before we could get anything to stream for more than a few seconds. That was around 30 minutes before the inauguration was set to begin.

When I returned to my office all attempts to get a stream there–whether from CNN, Ustream or even the CBC–resulted in failure. A few minutes after the ceremony began I received an email from our central IT network department, advising us that our multi-gigabit campus network had ground to a halt due to people watching the inauguration online. Looking at Twitter and the CNN live Facebook stream I saw that we were not alone, as folks all over the internet were finding it hard to get a reliable stream.

In the end it looks like about 7 million people were able to get live streams of the inauguration, according to Dan Rayburn whose estimates are based on talking to actual content distribution networks. By any standard that’s an impressive simultaneous viewership for the internet. But it’s less impressive compared to broadcast television, where 37.8 million people watched the inauguration.

More illustrative of the difference is the number of people who were denied the ability to watch the inauguration due to capacity limits. That is, another 37 million people could have tuned in to the inauguration on broadcast, cable or satellite TV while still leaving capacity for 37 million more. Whereas on the internet 7 million appears to be the upper limit — past that nobody else could watch.

That’s because streaming internet video is based upon a technology called unicast. With unicast every single viewer is getting a unique stream of data from a video server on the internet. So, if the video stream requires a bandwidth of 256kbps, then ten viewers requires 2.5 megabits, and a hundred viewers require 25 megabits. So, how much do you reckon 7 millions viewers might require? Using my thumbnail estimations, the number is in the region of 1700 gigabits. On top of that the video provider streaming that content has to pay the bandwidth for each and every one of those viewers.

Although there are certainly costs associated with reaching larger audiences in the broadcast realm in terms of larger transmitters or contracts with cable and satellite providers, by and large each additional viewer to a broadcast channel causes no additional cost to the broadcaster. If CNN and FOX News both are able to reach 50 million households, but only 10 million tune in to CNN but 12 million tune in to FOX, there’s ostensibly no additional cost to FOX to reach those extra 2 million households. But it would be much more expensive to reach 2 million more with internet streams.

The reason why this difference is important is because so many arguments in favor of loosening ownership rules for broadcast or justifying the Clear Channelesque gutting of our broadcast media is that the internet provides a rich, nearly infinite alternative tailored to many more diverse and narrow interests. Of course, I’d be fool to say that’s not entirely true. Indeed the internet is a medium that enables many more people to become small-scale narrowcasters at very low cost compared to broadcast TV or radio. Yet, it is still ill-equipped to offer a live, truly mass media experience on the scale and magnitude that television and radio can.

Furthermore, when the a large number of so-called internet broadcasters attempt to offer up such a live broadcast experience it risks bringing the whole enterprise to a halt, getting in the way of other streamed audio or video content. By comparison, 37 million people watching the inauguration on broadcast TV posed no barrier to watching cartoons or home shopping instead.

At root the internet was never intended to be a live broadcast medium. It’s foundational technology, packet-switching, is very efficient for moving data around a diverse, multi-nodal network, and was invented specifically to allow for little pieces of data to move around out-of-sequence and even by different paths, and still be able to be put together whole and in order. It also wasn’t designed to happen in linear real time. The problem with live audio and video is that they’re fundamentally linear — the order of each frame of video and each second of sound is critical, and any misordering renders the program unintelligible. An increase in the speed of the internet combined with clever protocols and programming has made streaming live content with minimal lost data a reality, but it’s still really a hack.

One of the reasons that the inauguration was able to be viewed by 7 million online in the first place is that major content distributors like Akamai have invested heavily in edge servers. With this approach the content you receive comes from a server that is located as geographically close to you as possible, so that the data passes through as few networks as possible, putting less strain on the whole internet. I’m certain that advances in edge networks combined with increased bandwidth capacity at all levels will make the internet more accommodating to live streaming media in the future. But that day is not here yet.

I see the problems with the inauguration streams as a reality check to remind us, and especially our new policymakers in DC, that the potential of the internet as a true media broadcast alternative has not yet arrived. That day will happen only when there’s sufficient investment in and deployment of bigger pipes at all levels of the internet. Yet, this is something that our broadband ISPs don’t necessarily want to see because rich internet streaming poses competition to their cable TV business. So while with one side of their mouth they’ll point to the diversity of the internet as rationale for deregulation and consolidation, with the other side of their mouth they’ll lobby against increasing content-agnostic expansion and network neutrality because of the competition it represents.

We need to invest in our broadband infrastructure, from backbone to last-mile, while keeping the information superhighway open to all traffic, without any prejudicial tolls. It must be a truly neutral network. Only then is there the hope that the internet might be a suitable alternative, supplement or replacement for broadcast media. And until then, we owe it to ourselves to value the broadcast media we have and not to let it be starved to death in the way that’s happened since 1996.

No related posts.

First up, the alternative press. The theme of yes! Magazine’s current issue is “Liberate Your Space,” with some interesting articles, tips and profiles in creative resistance. The issue features a too-short article on pirate radio, focusing primarily on Pirate Cat radio in San Francisco.

The positive exposure, with positive spin, is a good thing, as writer Brooke Jarvis notes,

grassroots voices are increasingly being denied legal access to radio space….

For those without the money or the desire to be officially sanctioned by the FCC, cheap and accessible technologies are making pirate radio an increasingly popular option….

It may not be legal, but it gets alternative voices on the air.

But, honestly, there’s nothing new in this article that hasn’t already been written about microradio hundreds of times over the last decade. It’s unfortunate that Jarvis takes a tone that implies microradio is some kind of new phenomenon that is “an increasingly popular option.”

It’s also unfortunate that she dedicates the last paragraph of the piece to Pirate Cat’s recycling of the tired CFR title 47 section 73.3542 defense, writing,

The Code grants authority to operate an unauthorized radio transmitter “in extraordinary circumstances requiring emergency operation to serve the public interest.”

It’s a thin, untested theory at best. At worst, it gives would-be microbroadcasters a false sense of security that they can or should hide behind a legalistic defense rather than reckon with the reality of engaging in an act of civil disobedience.

The Chronicle focuses a long feature on Neighborhood Public Radio. It’s “a conceptual art project and mobile pirate radio station,” that “typically sets up in an art gallery with little more than a banner, booth, microphone and transmitter and a rough schedule of hyper-local programs aimed toward maximum neighborhood participation.” However,

Officially, NPR is only streaming broadcasts on the Internet, although, as Montgomery says with a wink, “We can’t stop people from rebroadcasting.”

Separating the studio from the transmitter, either by location or by having separate groups run the different parts, is an effective method for avoiding an FCC enforcement action. While the transmitter will always be somewhat vulnerable, a raid or other action is less likely to compromise the more valuable studio equipment and on-air volunteers.

It seems like Neighborhood Public Radio’s quasi-micropower leanings–without the messy direct use of unlicensed transmitters–combined with its high art aspirations help give it more credibility in the press than a Creole-language pirate in Brooklyn. I can certainly imagine the NY Times covering NPR when it comes to the Whitney with a similarly positive article, while at the same time sounding alarm bells over the microbroadcasters with real transmitters broadcasting to unserved ethnic minorities in the outer boroughs.

My critique, however, is directed not at NPR but at the mainstream press, which is all too willing to fawn over radically populist intentions wrapped in artistic rhetoric than deal with the realities of providing a voice to forgotten communities that doesn’t conform to current art trends. I’m glad NPR is doing what it’s doing and receiving recognition and coverage of the effort. I think it helps spread understanding of the need for true micropower community radio, whether or not the FCC and Congress deign to legitimize it in ways that make it truly accessible everywhere it’s needed.

No related posts.

I was very impressed by the panelists, each of them bringing a unique perspective on the question of what makes effective online video for education.

I already knew John Tubbs, who also works at the University of Illinois. I invited him to participate because of his passion for good quality audio and video. Beyond aesthetics, John has been researching the physiological reasons why good audio matters and why bad audio might impair comprehension and retention. He brings up some of his research in this session.

I shared a panel last year with Richard Bloom, who is the coursecast administrator for the excellent Webcast site at the University of California – Berkeley. I was glad Richard could make it because Berkeley is really emphasizing the value of publicly sharing their videos along with using as many open source tools as possible.

I met Chuck Allen from CSU San Marcos and Scott Szczurek from the CME Group in Chicago for the first time the evening before the panel. Chuck has the distinct privilege of having built the media capture and distribution infrastructure at San Marcos, since the university is less than twenty years old. He shares some choice wisdom based upon his experience there.

I was glad to have Scott on board for the panel to bring us the perspective of someone producing video for internal training and education, demonstrating that educators of all stripes share a lot of the same challenges and can benefit from sharing solutions.

No related posts.

You’re watching an online video. The scene is dimly lit. There’s just a single harsh light on our subject’s face in extreme close-up. The sound, while understandable, is full of popped Ps and distorted peaks.

Is this a sequel to the Blair Witch Project, or a video podcast for Political Science 101? Or is this the future of educational video?

The do-it-yourself approach to video has taken the internet by storm, and more instructors and students are taking up the call to use digital media to enhance learning. As both a media producer and educator I think this is a great trend. Yet, like a weary English teacher at a slam poetry competition, I can’t help but think that the quality could be a lot better with some attention to the basics.

Read more at StreamingMedia.com…

No related posts.

No related posts.

The free version of Real Player downloads the video in whatever format it originated in. And if your machine has the proper player or codec installed to play the video in the first place, Real Player should play whatever you download, too (including Flash Video .flv files). The as yet unavailable Real Player Plus 11 promises to transcode videos into the format of your choice. I wonder if it’ll transcode Real Video, since Real has kept its audio and video codecs pretty locked up all these years. Even though you can find plenty of apps on the ‘net that will save them to other formats, no major commercial video app like Premiere or Cleaner will do it.

I also have to report that the installation process of Real Player 11 is significantly less evil than prior versions. Gone is having to register a username and password. And then, rather than just taking over playback of every media type on your system by default, Real Player instead asks if you would like it to take over the playback of any format not already claimed by another player. Indeed, the “media-type wars” may be closer to over.

I must admit that the simple video stream ripping will make my life easier in a lot of ways for simple fair use purposes, like research and teaching. Certainly there have been all sorts of stream ripping apps floating around the ‘net for years that will accomplish pretty much the same thing. But none are as easy or as well executed as Real Player. I only wonder if this feature will survive a possible legal attack.

Finally, Real Networks CEO Rob Glaser chose to answer some tough questions leveled by blogger Rafat Ali about Real’s new player. Regarding the legality of the record function, Glaser says:

The new RealPlayer is just like a VCR, a DVR, or a photocopier: It knows nothing about whether or not a piece of content is copyrighted. Like these earlier video players, the new RealPlayer facilitates many legal and appropriate uses, for instance downloading public domain content and content for which the owner has given permission.

I’m still not sure what the profit model is with the new Player, because it plays multiple media formats it doesn’t necessarily push people to use the Real Server. But maybe Real can figure out a a way to capitalize on the good karma of offering up something genuinely useful. Stranger things have happened.

No related posts.

(As a tangent, the way I found out is kind of interesting — it’s because a Real Networks product manager actually called me at work in response to an article I wrote for Streaming Media magazine that ended up on the front page of Streamingmedia.com. The university where I work has a site license for the Real Helix Server, so the call was actually more to talk about Real’s roadmap for the Server’s future in a browser plug-in media world. The call from Real wasn’t the only one I got from inside the streaming media “industry” in response to my article… didn’t realize how a little freelance writing would garner quite so much attention…. mostly from sales reps.)

As I noted last month while attending Streaming Media East, Real definitely needs something to stay in the game, since the rise of Flash Video has moved the media player game into the browser, making the separate media player app seem like a quaint relic compared to Google Video. However, with Microsoft offering its own in-browser player to compete with Flash, adding a third plug-in player from Real would be absurd, and probably a losing strategy.

Adding the ability to record media streams is a ballsy move that adds functionality that a lot of people want. In my university work setting, I often hear from faculty who would like to save online media for various research and teaching uses. Of course, there are various programs out there that will accomplish this with varying degrees of quality and ease, but few are simple to use or universal. The new Real Player is promised to download video in four of the major formats: Flash, Windows Media, QuickTime and Real. And, the Real Player should be free, rather than costing $50 – $100.

Of course, I’m in favor of media content being downloadable and shareable for Fair Use purposes, and I think there should be tools available that make this easy. For myself, just being able to more easily save copies of FCC hearing and meeting webcasts will be helpful in producing my radioshow.

It’s also good to hear that Real has cleaned up a lot of the annoying parts of its Player with the new version. Importantly, they’re removing the requirement to register and also no longer having the Player take over playback of every media type. As the Real Player blog says,

Remember the media-type wars where QuickTime, Windows Media and RealPlayer would battle for playback? We’re not playing anymore.

Now, of course it still is up for question about how Real makes any money with this free player. Most of their money comes from their server business and Rhapsody. I’m not sure if a much improved player will sell more servers, except for the fact that with a Real Server you will be able turn off the ability for the player to record a stream. But I hope extortion is not the way Real intends to make its business (acknowledging that the player is supposed to respect DRM and not permit protected content to be saved).

Perhaps this is a good karma move intended to improve the image of Real amongst the technorati — a sector where I think the bad habits of its previous version players has caused its reputation to be tarnished. Real CEO Rob Glaser makes some Jobsian remarks in a blog post last week, wherein he says,

Why the big change? I think it has to do with the fundamental nature of media business models. Media businesses are generally based on accumulating the biggest audience possible, which means going where the audience is. Approaches based on locking down the content out of a fear of piracy are self-defeating.

Whether this will work is anyone’s guess. Before any judgement can be made, we have to see the player first — the beta is scheduled to drop sometime this month.

No related posts.