Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

First Installment of Xiph.org's 'Digital Video Primer For Geeks'

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the so-many-pixels dept.

Graphics 86

Ignorant Aardvark writes "Xiph.org just released the first installment in its video series 'A Digital Video Primer For Geeks,' which covers digital audio and video fundamentals. The first video covers basic concepts of how digital audio and video are encoded, and does so in an understandable fashion. The video is hosted by Monty, the founder of Xiph.org (the people who brought you Ogg), and explains a lot of concepts (FourCC codes, YUV color space, gamma, etc.) that many watchers of digital video have long been exposed to, but don't quite understand themselves. The intent of the video series (in addition to general education) is to spur interest in digital encoding and get more free software hackers involved in digital audio/video."

cancel ×

86 comments

first piss (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33683802)

on YOU

Very informative and well done (4, Informative)

leetrout (855221) | more than 3 years ago | (#33683816)

For what could be very stale subject matter Monty has done an excellent job of giving effective examples that engage and entertain.

Re:Very informative and well done (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33684372)

Monty was keynote speaker at Ohio Linuxfest earlier this month where he presented a teaser of this video. He is clearly very passionate about his work and his enthusiasm and delivery make audio and video codecs seem pretty exciting.

Re:Very informative and well done (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33684380)

Sure, if you like "talking head" videos.

Some more graphs, equations, and animations would help... show me, don't tell me!

Re:Very informative and well done (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#33686080)

You've got to be kidding me. The presentation was full of visual and audio demonstrations. I'm guessing you didn't even watch the video.

Re:Very informative and well done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33701744)

Oh, I watched it. It's essentially a college lecture presented pompously by a 'talking head.' They throw in a few whiteboard illustrations, but they don't take any advantage of the fact that they're presenting this on video. Almost every illustration is static.

What I found more amusing is that the presenter ("Monty" Montgomery) mentions at one point how digital media can be copied, stored, manipulated, and transmitted with no loss of quality compared to analog. Then I skipped around the video a little bit and it fell out of sync, and I noted numerous dropouts and freezes during playback (thanks, Java!).

The digital revolution is not all it was cracked up to be.

Re:Very informative and well done (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#33702092)

Almost every illustration is static.

The original complaint was about a lack of "graphs, equations, and animations". Only one of those is not static. The whiteboard illustrations that you are now dismissing are part of the "show" and tell, equivalent to graphs and equations. There were plenty of audio demonstrations (that's not static). There were also some video demonstrations. In sum, if you are the original Anonymous Coward, you are changing your tune and full of shit.

What I found more amusing is that the presenter ("Monty" Montgomery) mentions at one point how digital media can be copied, stored, manipulated, and transmitted with no loss of quality compared to analog. Then I skipped around the video a little bit and it fell out of sync, and I noted numerous dropouts and freezes during playback (thanks, Java!).

Try copying a single analog video from person to person, in analog. Compare the original with the 6th copy. Now do the same thing with digital. Try sending out your analog copy over the Internet, in analog.

The digital revolution is not all it was cracked up to be.

Whiners aren't all they are cracked up to be.

Re:Very informative and well done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33703104)

What the fuck is your problem, dude? Did your brother produce the video or something?

Look, all I'm saying is that this video would be a lot better if they took advantage of the medium. Yes, they gave audio examples, but the graphics might as well have been straight out of a textbook.

Try copying a single analog video from person to person, in analog. Compare the original with the 6th copy. Now do the same thing with digital. Try sending out your analog copy over the Internet, in analog

Whoosh! The point here is that for all the advantages of copying and transmission fidelity with digital, it still gives you a shit experience when things go wrong.

I've seen HDTV transmissions freeze up and break apart in ways far worse than analog TV. Recompressed HDTV images look like shit and defeat the purpose of having higher resolution. And I have never seen an analog TV program's audio go out of sync after it has been recorded.

If you don't agree with my opinions, fine, but that doesn't make them illegitimate.

Re:Very informative and well done (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#33703682)

What the fuck is your problem, dude?

I have this aversion to bullshit and feel the need to speak out against it.

Look, all I'm saying is that this video would be a lot better if they took advantage of the medium.

No, all you are doing is making uninformed and whiny complaints, while continuing to move the goalposts after each response.

Whoosh! The point here is that for all the advantages of copying and transmission fidelity with digital, it still gives you a shit experience when things go wrong.

Oh no, there was a minor bug in the player! That must negate all the advantages! Better go back to magnetic tape, because it was so perfect. Back then we had mechanical fast forward and rewind buttons. It was slow, and we liked it! The tape quality would degrade over time, and we liked it! Sometimes the tape would get chewed up. We liked that too! Our VCRs had tracking problems, and we liked it!

The point is that you're a whiny bitch making shallow complaints about a vastly superior format and a well-done educational video.

Re:Very informative and well done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33729712)

Yeah, well tough shit because every point you think you "refuted" is a matter of opinion, and my opinion is just as valid as yours.

I didn't like the way the video was presented, and said how I thought it could have been better. That's not bullshit, it's an honest opinion. It's not "whining" to be critical of something worth criticizing just because you happen to disagree, so you can kiss my ass!

Re:Very informative and well done (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#33729832)

All you did was make uninformed and whiny complaints, while continuing to move the goalposts after each response. Sorry to repeat myself.

Free software hackers? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33683824)

No thanks. I'll watch your free video series, and use the knowledge gleaned to earn a phat paycheck thank-you-very-much. There's a real market out there for such specialized knowledge. I have a family to feed. I don't care about whacking off online all day with a bunch of RMS clones.

Re:Free software hackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33683888)

Clearly though you have a family to feed, you're more than happy to waste your time whacking off online talking about RMS.

Re:Free software hackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33683992)

Fapping isn't all that bad... no one looks down on you for that. It's not like RMS eating his toe-jam [youtube.com] at least.

Why? (3, Funny)

dangitman (862676) | more than 3 years ago | (#33683884)

Why does it have to be "for geeks"? Why can't it just be for people who are interested in digital video? I guess people who bite the heads off chickens at carnivals need their own special perspective on the topic, but I can't imagine that those people constitute a very significant market segment when it comes to video.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

matthiasvegh (1800634) | more than 3 years ago | (#33684036)

Also, don't geeks already know these things? I mean seriously, I understand the general public not getting the difference between say, lossy and lossless compression, but a geek?

Re:Why? (1, Funny)

dangitman (862676) | more than 3 years ago | (#33684164)

I understand the general public not getting the difference between say, lossy and lossless compression, but a geek?

Huh? I think that geeks typically know less than the general public. For example, your average member of the general public is intelligent enough to not choose a career that involves biting the heads off chickens. I'm not sure why you think that this particular career choice would involve specific knowledge about video compression.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33684704)

You have obviously never attended geek training. It's not only about chicken heads! Recording and selling the videos of their freakish endeavors requires advanced knowledge of modern video coding techniques. Dental care is also important.

Your suggesting is like saying pharmacists only need to learn how to count pills. But that's not true either, they also need to know how to put the labels on the bottle!

Hrm (3, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#33683894)

I wish they'd just written an ebook, I think sometimes people lose sight of trying to impart useful information, and get wrapped up in making the information "fun and accessible." You could probably get twice the amount of information reading in an hour rather than watching someone mug in a video -- making it "entertaining" will only make the information more accessible to people who are likely never to use it.

PS. Available as OGG and WebM. Is Xiph working for Google now?

You've got it backwards (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33683940)

Available as OGG and WebM. Is Xiph working for Google now?

Xiph.Org has been pushing for unencumbered codecs for over a decade [xiph.org] and contributed to the creation of webm [xiph.org] .

It might be more fair to say "WebM? Is Google working for Xiph now?"

Yes. Yes they are, and it is so sweet. Don't be evil sill means a little something sometimes.

Re:You've got it backwards (2)

dangitman (862676) | more than 3 years ago | (#33684040)

Don't be evil sill means a little something sometimes.

I'll remember that next time I'm baking a non-evil pie, and set it out to cool on my evil windowsill.

Re:Hrm (5, Informative)

mindspillage (806179) | more than 3 years ago | (#33683952)

Better than an ebook--there's a wiki page with a full transcript and helpful screenshots: http://wiki.xiph.org/A_Digital_Media_Primer_For_Geeks_(episode_1) [xiph.org]

Re:Hrm (4, Funny)

SIR_Taco (467460) | more than 3 years ago | (#33683986)

I'm just a little skeptical....

If it were really a primer for geeks it would have started at Episode IV

Re:Hrm (1)

KingFrog (1888802) | more than 3 years ago | (#33684250)

Nah...it would start out as a stand-alone, then get re-titled as Episode IV when the sequel came out.

Re:Hrm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33685826)

Why would a six year old kid, or weedy dweeb be looking at underly techniques for digital video?

Re:Hrm (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 3 years ago | (#33690250)

Episode IV? But that would imply there were three episodes before it, which is wrong.

Re:Hrm (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#33684002)

The problem with a transcript is the information density is very low, because it's still built around the typical talking-head conventions. I saw the wiki page, and it's exactly what I didn't want. I wanted what they wanted to say, not what everyone on the internet helpfully wants to add.

Re:Hrm (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#33684026)

Sorry, I'm in a fuddy duddy mood tonight, I commend your patience.

Re:Hrm (1)

mindspillage (806179) | more than 3 years ago | (#33684068)

Heh. It's a pipe dream anyway that "everyone on the internet" would be even remotely interested enough to read the page, much less add to it--at last glance, the current text is entirely by the authors of the video and/or people at least tangentially associated with xiph.org...

Re:Hrm (5, Informative)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 3 years ago | (#33684022)

I wish they'd just written an ebook

Did you watch the bits where he demonstrated the difference between 8-bit linear audio vs 8-bit -law by manipulating the audio of his voice Or showed what clipping and Nyquist frequency aliasing sound like? Or showed the content contained in the Y, U, and V video channels by displaying them onscreen?

Try *that* with a book.

In general, I agree with you that a page of text is worth an hour of video, but in this case, the video is worth its weight in gold. And Xiph doesn't waste any time either: that video goes *fast*.

Re:Hrm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33684148)

Yes, if only there was a way to comine video with a page or pages of text with various controls to start and stop said video, and distribute the abomination through a series of interconnected computer networks.

Careful what you wishfor... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33684184)

We came _this_ close to making the caption text use the hyperlinks from the wiki, but if we did that no one would ever finish watching!

Re:Hrm (1)

NoMaster (142776) | more than 3 years ago | (#33684524)

Did you watch the bits where he demonstrated the difference between 8-bit linear audio vs 8-bit -law by manipulating the audio of his voice Or showed what clipping and Nyquist frequency aliasing sound like? Or showed the content contained in the Y, U, and V video channels by displaying them onscreen?

Try *that* with a book.

Actually, I've seen all of those quite well presented in magazine articles & books, using graphs, images, and waveform diagrams which have the advantage of actually showing you what's going on (e.g. decreased dynamic range / increased SNR; flattened waveforms from clipping; the effects of sub-Nyquist sampling in both the temporal and frequency domains (non-representative sampling & 'wrap-around / mirror' effect); separate colour images & graphs of their relative sensitivity to the human eye (which leads in nicely to how colourspace sub-sampling & compression works in both analogue & digital realms); etc.)

As my snarky co-commenter points out: if only there were some way of distributing text, images, audio, and video together to weave a deep, engaging, and coherent narrative for anybody to peruse at their leisure...

And as is often the case with information videos, they ignore an important corollary to an old maxim: While a picture may be worth a thousand words, a thousand words often beats 24 pictures a second.

But as long as the next one patiently explains to the average person the difference between containers, codecs, and contents, I'll be a happy man. I'm getting sick of explaining why "it's an .avi file!" is a useless thing to tell me when a file won't play...

Re:Hrm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33684810)

I'm getting sick of explaining why "it's an .avi file!" is a useless thing to tell me when a file won't play...

Tell them an .avi file is like a book - it can be written in any language, and the computer needs to understand the "language" in order to read the "book".

Re:Hrm (1)

bemenaker (852000) | more than 3 years ago | (#33685954)

Representing that with graphs and pictures does work well with the scientific mind, but even then you still have to abstract what you think it produces in the real world. Sometimes, nothing beats hard real examples.

Re:Hrm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33685592)

>>the difference between 8-bit linear audio vs 8-bit -law by manipulating the audio
Unless "-law" is being used in some unusual form of grammar in your statement, I'm fairly certain that you meant "log", as in "logarithmic". Context dictates that to be what you meant as opposed to "linear". ...unless, of course, your words got scrambled by the compression algorithm.

Re:Hrm (1)

hedronist (233240) | more than 3 years ago | (#33688180)

Actually, it is "law", which is shorthand for mu-law [wikipedia.org] . (I tried to use the HTML entity for mu but Slashdot's system ate it.)

Re:Hrm (1)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693966)

I meant mu-law. I got fancy in my original post and threw down a Unicode "mu", but Slashdot ate it. Greek slashdot readers should sue.

Re:Hrm (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#33718324)

Wow, you vegans are getting really militant. /. eats one lousy mu and you play the lawyer card...

Very Informative (5, Interesting)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 3 years ago | (#33684086)

For someone only partially familiar with video and audio encoding, this was a particularly clear and informative video. It also serves as an excellent example of the direction more Open Source efforts need to take. Mini lectures that bring some human explanation.

Your comment about an ebooks and wikis, is well taken and follow-ups to "flesh out" the information would be an extremely helpful next step to break down the various issues under discussion, as well as provide further instruction on how specifically to address various issues needed to bring the user community "up to speed". This is excellent in that it makes clear that although challenging this kind of knowledge need not be inaccessible.

The organization would do well to provide more mini-lectures to expand on each of the topics in greater detail and follow it up with outlined summaries, tutorials and soft-ware coding and details about hardware choices that are available and supported on open-source systems. This would be helpful to everyone as it would give developers and a more general class of users more power in the marketplace, as new projects develop and bring with them new communities of enthusiasts and students. For example, those interested in higher resolution video or high speed video, or audio-video interfaces could each bring critical mass to more specialized areas that in turn could stimulate interest by hardware vendors in meeting the specific needs of such users.

Given that the closed source, proprietary society model is rapidly taking over everything else, those who want a modicum of freedom expression and fair markets, open software has the potential to do much to serve under-appreciated, under-served, and under-funded audiences the world over. Thats good for everyone, especially in a world where it grows easier and easier to be discouraged.

Really a great open source contribution. My congratulations to Monty and the rest of the crew at Xiph.org.

Flesh out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33684104)

"follow-ups to "flesh out" the information would be an extremely helpful next step to break down the various issues under discussion"

As you wish: A Digital Media Primer For Geeks — Wiki edition [xiph.org] .

Obviously there is a lot that still need to be done but the folks at Xiph.Org are on it.

Re:Very Informative (0, Troll)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#33684260)

For someone only partially familiar with video and audio encoding, this was a particularly clear and informative video. It also serves as an excellent example of the direction more Open Source efforts need to take. Mini lectures that bring some human explanation.

That's fair, and of course they're no doubt trying to emulate the success projects like Ruby on Rails have had with demonstration webcasts, but really what many people are looking for is something they can sit down with a cuppa coffee and a tuna sandwich and read. I doesn't help that there's really no reading material whatsoever on open source audio and video coding efforts, aside from man pages and forums -- completely unstructured and un-comprehensive.

Given that the closed source, proprietary society model is rapidly taking over everything else, those who want a modicum of freedom expression and fair markets...

If there is anything more annoying than the vegan-like moral posturing of open formats advocates, it's their unrelenting persecution complex at the hands of the Big Boys, and if there's anything more annoying than their persecution complex, it's their nervous libertarian tick of always justifying what they want in terms of "markets."

Re:Very Informative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33684508)

How, might I ask, would you propose demonstrating, for example, the difference between 8kHZ audio and 44.1kHZ audio in text format?

Re:Very Informative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33684762)

With multimedia. *Multi* media. There's no reason an article written in pages of text can't be supplimented with a few images and 'click here for example audio' links.

Re:Very Informative (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#33690054)

Recourse to audio-visual aids, like videos, "presentations" and PowerPoint are a serious indicator that the speaker does not completely understand the concept involved, or is attempting to force an unsupportable conclusion.

Not in this case, though. I'm currently seeding the video...

Re:Very Informative (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33685124)

Then of course on the other side of the paranoid highway, we have the mini-tyrant apologists like yourself who, because they know they have zero chance of achieving Bigboy status on their own, side with them instead so they can live the delusion of being more powerful than they are.

Re:Very Informative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33694328)

I too found it very informative and useful, but it was about 20% too fast for me.

A lot of it was new concepts for me, so a little repetition ("Didja get that? Let me explain that same idea one other way") and breaking it down to even more basics would have helped so much.

One reason I've avoided the topic in the past was its complexity (or at least, perceived complexity). That's why the concepts were so new to me.

If this series is truly "intended for budding geeks" then please tone it down one notch to accommodate our buddingness.

Monty, in case you're reading these posts, thank you, but a little slower on the next ones for the slow guys, please?

Re:Hrm (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#33684094)

This.

I'm not saying that instructional videos are all bad, but things are getting a little out of hand when shit like "fill a range of columns in OpenOffice Calc" gets a goddamn VIDEO instead of the less than 2 paragraphs (or even better, less than 10 steps) needed to impart the damn knowledge.

Do we have a term for stuff like this? Using tech for completely inappropriate purposes solely because it exists?

Re:Hrm (1)

chaboud (231590) | more than 3 years ago | (#33684234)

I'm sorry...

Your message was too long for me to finish.

Can you make a video?

Re:Hrm (1)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 3 years ago | (#33685034)

I bought a dirt-cheap MD80 video camera off eBay which arrived yesterday. To change the timestamp it puts on the video, you need to include a text file on the root of the SD card, but the instructions are in Chinglish and don't make sense. I googled the answer and eventually found a 5 minute Youtube video that gave me the answer, which boiled down to "save a file called TAG.TXT on root, that contains the lines:
[date]
2010:09:24
09:00:00

That was it. Five minutes of watching some fool click around his desktop, for this information. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but sometimes a Youtube video is worth about 20...

Re:Hrm (1, Informative)

Roman Mamedov (793802) | more than 3 years ago | (#33684162)

> I wish they'd just written an ebook
You mean something like this one? http://en.flossmanuals.net/theoracookbook [flossmanuals.net]

Re:Hrm (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#33690646)

This is a user manual, it has very little for the developer.

Re:Hrm (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33684700)

Yes, you can waffle on in an ebook but then you'd get significantly less people interested which is counter productive to what the presenter is trying to do.

Re:Hrm (1)

CrashandDie (1114135) | more than 3 years ago | (#33685020)

Well, first of all, because watching people is a lot more interesting than reading things. We've been doing it (watching people talk, and understanding a lot more than from paper) for literally millions of years. Reading? Not so much. Maybe a few hundred years.

Chris Anderson recently had a talk at TED [ted.com] describing why video is so important. There are many things you just cannot describe easily with words or graphs. I'm pretty sure that all the information imparted in those videos is readily available in a bunch of papers, RFCs or... papers. But in one easy-to-read page that will get people motivated? Probably not.

Re:Hrm (1)

pugugly (152978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33690980)

As someone that has tried to figure out even the basics of codecs from various websites, if he can make it simple enough to bring some clarity to it more power to him.

Ever reference I have seen on the web made me feel like a kindergartner trying to understand the mathematics of quantum physics.

Pug

Soylent Rex is DINOSAUR! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33683998)

when can we eat printed t-rex meat from paper?

they print to paper circuits, I WANT T-REX BRAINS!

Patent issues (1)

WarJolt (990309) | more than 3 years ago | (#33684012)

It would be nice if there was an episode about compression algorithms. Pretty much the whole video is about raw audio and video.

Re:Patent issues (2, Insightful)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 3 years ago | (#33684046)

As I understand it, this is the first in a series, and explaining the raw data formats is the place to start. I assume compression algorithms will be covered in a followup. Or many followups.

Nice video (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33684030)

As a geek who previously spent all his time keeping *nix and windows systems running happily together, this was enough information to give me a curiousity spike, and enough information to google around.

Great video, and I hope there is more to come. Although I suspect the next video will be much less informative as I will be much more informed.

Good job Xiph.

The curiousity spike is the expected result (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33684056)

Which is why the Wiki edition is stuffed full of citations for those looking to GO DEEPER.

Not for Beginners (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33684272)

I just watched the video, it's definitely not for beginners, although they acknowledge them as possibly watching but they make little or no effort to make the terminology in the concepts easy to understand. Fail.

The terminology is explained in the Wiki version. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33684346)

It would have been three hours long and covered half as much stuff it they took the time to explain every detail. Checkout the wiki [xiph.org] for pointers to tons of background material.

Re:The terminology is explained in the Wiki versio (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33684616)

Having a bunch of links of stuff you couldn't be bothered to explain to arcane Wikipedia articles is not incredibly helpful to beginners. If it were we'd wouldn't need teachers and everyone could just use books.
I'm only focusing on this because at the start of the video they acknowledge beginners but then barely cater for them at all.
Maybe I just have a differing definition of a beginner, I would think a beginner would be someone who doesn't even really understand what binary is beyond it has something to do with 1s and 0s let alone a fast fourier transform.

Re:The terminology is explained in the Wiki versio (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 3 years ago | (#33685272)

Anyone who watches a 'Digital video primer for Geeks' is hardly a complete beginner. If you don't understand what binary is, you're really way out of your depth. Now, Fourier transforms may be more advanced, but the video tells you everything you need to know. In fact, possibly a bit too much detail just for an introduction. The frequency domain will likely be explained better later on, as compression enters the picture.

Re:The terminology is explained in the Wiki versio (1)

pugugly (152978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33695026)

Frankly, as someone that has tried several times to figure out codecs past the 'something ffmpeg takes as input in format a and spits out as format b", so far this is the best intro I've ever had. It makes assumptions that I know computers at a basic level . . . and that's it.

I'm definitely watching this all the way through.

Pug

Great primer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33684312)

Bravo! As a small time geek who deals mainly with avr's, c, and operating systems, I am now highly tempted to jump outside my comfort zone and dig deeper into digital media. Looking forward and will be keeping an eye out for your next episode.

The guy has a talent (5, Insightful)

melted (227442) | more than 3 years ago | (#33684452)

He should seriously consider doing this for a living. One of the best lectures I have ever seen. I knew 99% of this stuff already (and more), but the presentation was _flawless_.

Re:The guy has a talent (1)

dargaud (518470) | more than 3 years ago | (#33684608)

Excellent video but... what the heck is he drinking at the end ?!?

Re:The guy has a talent (1)

Logic and Reason (952833) | more than 3 years ago | (#33685536)

Looks like an iced latte of some kind, maybe chai?

Re:The guy has a talent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33695356)

It's Monty's usual iced espresso/milk in a liter stein. It pops up in his blog all the time. Uhhh that sounded a bit like a stalker.

Re:The guy has a talent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33684906)

The question however is, how do people who know 0% of this stuff perceive the presentation? What's flawless to you, could be unintelligible to the target audience (ie. not you).

Re:The guy has a talent (1, Informative)

nanomanc (858727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33684992)

Not so flawless for me - the link greys out firefox for more than 10 seconds and then there is no sound :(

Re:The guy has a talent (1)

JimboG (1467977) | more than 3 years ago | (#33685818)

I'm guessing bubble tea. It has little jelly balls in it. Very tasty.

Thanks for the videos! (2, Insightful)

NemosomeN (670035) | more than 3 years ago | (#33685660)

And I'd love to watch them, but you decided to only post them in your own, unpopular and inefficient codecs/containers, and none of my media players support it. If they are trying to get people interested in free/open video encoding, they shouldn't post in a format that assumes the audience already cares about it. Won't be watching. Assholes. (Yes, I know they won't read this).

Re:Thanks for the videos! (2)

Bram Stolk (24781) | more than 3 years ago | (#33686016)

Tried watching on iPad but could not do so.

Re:Thanks for the videos! (2, Insightful)

coryking (104614) | more than 3 years ago | (#33687378)

Ditto. Tried to find it on YouTube... No dice. The least they could do is upload it to YouTube (or the much better vimeo). On YouTube it would play everywhere, including through the media player hooked up to the tv.

Which sucks because I wanted to watch it. I certainly ain't gonna go use my "real" computer.

Stupid FOSS politics. Gets in the way of actually doing useful things.

Re:Thanks for the videos! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33686124)

It ran in Google Chrome for me, before I even noticed it was WebM.

Re:Thanks for the videos! (1, Troll)

sumday (888112) | more than 3 years ago | (#33686402)

Jesus christ, that's like me complaining that I can't see the slashdot logo because I'm browsing the web in lynx. Get VLC and stop being a dick.

Re:Thanks for the videos! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33686858)

I can see the slashdot logo in Lynx it looks like this /.

Perhaps you need to update your version of your browser the latest version of Lynx is a modern browser that can convert images to Ascii Art - can you believe that Ascii Art!! I tell you man, Wow just WoW!
And the best feature of all is that it looks like the matrix when it is displaying animated images and videos. In fact, Neo is coming over to watch a movie with my VLC pluging for Lynx. Good times man, Good times!

Re:Thanks for the videos! (0)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693616)

Whoosh.....

It's a satirical take on the sort of comments that appear on other articles that feature video links with files encoded in H.264 and other formats that people always moan about "would love to watch it but needs quicktime, so I won't!" or "it's in H.264, which is patented so I can't watch it legally!" etc etc.

Re:Thanks for the videos! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33695258)

Hahaha. The taste of your own medicine isn't nice, is it MPEG-LA shills!?

Re:Thanks for the videos! (1)

thomasvs (600635) | more than 3 years ago | (#33709784)

There were always be complainers... The title clearly says 'for geeks'. If you are unable to install a newer version of Firefox, Chrome, or Opera, then clearly you are not a geek and hence this presentation is not for you.

player question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33686084)

Here's a question for you guys. I downloaded the webm file to watch later. However, it doesn't look like anything I have on my work computer (a Mac running 10.4) will play it. I was hoping VLC could handle it, but it doesn't. And it also doesn't look like I can view it by dragging it into a browser window (hoping that whatever renderers the browser used originally would take over). Any suggestions on what I can use to view the downloaded file? I realize I can just go back to the webpage and watch the embedded version there. But what good is a downloadable file if it's a pain to get it to play anywhere?

Re:player question (1)

sparrowhead (1795632) | more than 3 years ago | (#33688318)

Your VLC must be out of date if it cannot handle it. My 1.1.4 plays Webm just fine. There are links to others here [webmproject.org]

Re:player question (1)

dudeeh (877041) | more than 3 years ago | (#33689996)

I also had some trouble playing it, I keep my ubuntu one release behind the "current" release for stability reasons so it is outdated but only slightly so.
Webm wouldn't work with any of my installed programs, and even the ogv file caused some trouble which is...unusual. It's been a few years since i got a video i couldn't play out of the box on my linux system.
I ended up playing the video in...firefox :) (don't know which plugin it uses or if it's the native video tag at this point)

Disclaimer: i know very little of media so it is likely classic PEBCAK. Ironically my ignorance almost prevented me from watching the very thing that would at least try to shed some light on the subject.

That said, the video is immensely interesting; I studied electronics (quite a while ago now) so a lot of it was familiar if deeply buried and for me it was about the right tempo, but I would imagine people with no introduction to the given material would have a hard time keeping up.

Anyway, cudos to the creator, it is a rare art to make something that "complex" accessible in 30 minutes.

Great Video! - Can't wait for the sequel! (1)

jimwelch (309748) | more than 3 years ago | (#33687454)

Excellent presenter!
Flawless editing!
Appropriate special effects!
The last chapter seemed a little out of place and out of character - maybe a teaser?
As a former TV geek(35 years ago, before I heard the siren call of software), I followed everything except the dot placement choices.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...