Mat must be busy this weekend so since so many people have already put up feedback threads and links to outside sources for viewing here's a temp viewing page for the films.
UWOL 15 Temp Viewing Page (http://tinyurl.com/ydbhw2o)

Thanks for putting this up.

No sweat. :)

Not a criticism by any means, but in a way the idea of embedded vimeo worked pretty darned well in this round... and of course at a higher resolution.

Thanks though for getting the links up.

Chris S.

The thing I like about having them here on UWOL is that we have a complete film library.
Things with Vimeo may change down the road and we could lose a lot of great films.
If the films are on uwolchallenge.com then no matter what the Terms of Agreement are of Vimeo, YouTube or whatever the films will remain intact.

Thanks Kevin...I was wondering where they all were....

Downloading now....watching a little later...

Kevin.... no that is the apparent and understandable reason to have them in an archive you control. But since so many folks spent valuable time trying to wrestle the compression dragon... I wonder if posting them on YouTube, Vimeo or ExposureRoom, to list a few, and at a better resolution ... might not serve the deadline requirement going forward, with a compressed version for ther UWOL archive to follow. Just some musings.

Chris

I hope Meryem will be willing to revisit the requirements for next year. I'd love to see bigger sizes and better codecs used. I think having bigger better compressed judging versions would allow the judges to get a better "flavor" of what the filmmakers were going after.

I think since this is the last challenge of the year we should open up a dialog about changes for next year if Meryem is ok with that.

Meryem is fine with that...dialogue away!

...but here is why you have to have someone looking at the bigger picture and not just at what individual players want...this comes up frequently..."why can't we have this or that feature or functionality" - when in fact, things are the way they are for a reason...not all the reasons are good reasons, but we do change things when it fits the structure. we have changed MANY things over the past 3 years, based on player feedback and needs, actually.

...to be fair to the judge, we need these to be centrally located, and anonymous, and easy to download all at once...otherwise, we won't have any outside judges, because weeding through our mess of a forum is certainly not fair to them...nor is having them search all over vimeo to seek out your entries. and we need universal playability, to the extent that we can achieve it, which is why the size and codecs were selected. i'd like to think that codecs have evolved a bit over the past 3 years, but at the beginning of this year, when this started, that was still an unmet goal. we may be at a difference place, technologically, now and I'm willing to entertain suggestions.

moreover, we need a centralized vault, to be able to look back over through our vast accomplishments. at least, we did when i was actively seeking sponsorship...it didn't really materialize, but if someone else gets ambitious and wants to see this thing continue and do that work, then we will need the vault. email me if you're that person. for our own sake, it is just a nice, neat thing to have, a record of all you have done, from all over the world, to see all those parts of the world in one package is one of the coolest things about the contest...

of course, we could do away with the outside judges and y'all could judge yourselves, like DVC, but the one time we did that here it seemed to cause a bit of pain and suffering!

Thanks for your ok, and comments Meryem. Since I apparently opened this can of worms this time around, I guess I'll start. I invite Kevin or Mat to move this post to a new thread if they want to start one on this issue.

Every one of Meryem's points makes sense. I do think though that a higher format size and/or file size limit makes sense at this point in time. Why? Well several reasons. As we as a group evolve to HD, I honestly believe often something we worked hard to achieve in the finished film is lost in a max resolution of 428x240. The 60mb limit I suspect is a creature of storage cost (the cost of which is falling like a rock cost wise today) and bandwidth (a significant issue discussed below). With BOTH a 60MB limit AND a 428x240 size limit, a filmaker making say a 2 minute film cannot gain some upsizing ability due to the short length and stay under the 60MB limit. (For example by using the extra file size available to use a larger frame size.) I therefore suggest in a go forward mode select a file size limit, and skip the limits of the frame size (maybe there is ALSO another reason [judging?] for this that I will be educated about, but if not, it seems silly to me to have BOTH.)

To me the question seems to become how to pay for the bandwidth larger file sizes use. DVInfo and the challenges have been open to everyone, free, gratis. It is a great film school. I am NOT suggesting there be a charge, but a suggested donation of some small amount (not required) for each round, for both particpants and viewers might net SOME monies to offset the cost. Low key, and with the knowledge that many of our participants cannot afford that right now in their lives (college students for example.) Having said that, I realize that what it likely produces will pale in comparison to what would be ideal, and that of course, is the kind of monies that might be produced by sponsorship.

I'm interested in knowing the path travelled to that goal in the past, and whether the current state of films created, their quality, number, etc. might be more attractive now (save and but for the economic climate).

Ok - everything above, condensed? My suggestion would be a 100MB file limit. With sponsorship, what the cost would support above that. I'd gladly contribute in the meanwhile.

Chris Swanberg

ps. I like the outside judging idea. I wasn't around when whatever happened was swirling about, but I DO like the independent judging idea.

when we started the Challenge, Kevin offered to supply the bandwidth voluntarily. His argument was that he would rather pay a host than see his gorgeous footage go through the ugly Youtube compression process...which has improved since those days three years ago, with the addition of HD and better compression options. But that is the history of how our website came into being - that, and Mat jumping in with his mad design skills to make it happen.

Now our bandwidth is supplied by Chris Hurd and DVInfo.net, so we don't have to worry about the expense. Even our website is hosted on the DVInfo servers.

So it isn't a question of money--at least not in the sense that, we, UWOL have to be concerned with it. It is a question of how much space Chris would be willing to allot, and with the number of entries that the contest attracts, I doubt that a 40% space increase over what we currently use is a reasonable request. He will already be hosting much larger files for the long-form (which is a "this-year-only" phenomenon, we won't be running that again for a long time, if ever...)

So while I'm willing to consider new codecs that permit better compression schemes within the 60mb limit, I'm less inclined towards more bandwidth...

So I guess that raises the spectre of sponsorship if something akin to what I suggested is to occur?

I'd like to see the dimensions of the films grow for sure.

I can make a much larger image size with H.264 and be smaller in file size than the current size and have much higher quality.

Making a film compatible with Flash 9 is easy now with H.264. I just change the extension from .mov to .flv

I don't know what's involved from a PC side.

That has always been the crux it to have a format that both sides could do without having to download a codec to be able to do it.

I think a larger image size will also give UWOL a bigger presence as well.Certainly more impressive to possible sponsors being able to watch a larger image with all the films.

I think we can still retain the 60mb file size but go to a codec that both sides can easily use and up the dimensions of the films and have a better experience all around.

the obvious solution would be to let in h.264 and also .wmv

then mac and pc people would be happy. but back when DVC started and had no format requirements, there was a lot of hootin and hollerin (by the players) about having to download players to watch movies across platforms.

the choices that I made regarding codecs were designed to be the most cross-platform compatible.

of course, ever since then, mac people hoot n holler that they want h.264 and pc people hoot n holler that they want .wmv

So it is a matter of "pick your poison": we can just tell the players to bite the bullet and download a 3rd party app, so we can have bigger, better looking files. or we can keep doing what we are doing and let the players continue the compression battle.

None of this will be decided right now. I usually have a long chat at year-end with Mat and Kevin, and it isn't quite year-end, a lot has to happen still ...but I'm willing to listen to ideas now that can be incorporated into the following year, to make it a better experience.

Hey gang, great to see so many films made the temp site.

I noticed mine did not make it up.

Mine was 17_UC15_hideandseek


It is nothing special, as there was not much around to tape.

Sam

Sam... you should post a feedback thread as the others have. Also, if you have a higher def version, you can upload it to Vimeo or Youtube and for vimeo at least if you link it in your opening post you can have folks view it at a better resolution rather simply. Look forward to seeing your entry.

I noticed mine did not make it up.

Mine was 17_UC15_hideandseek


Meryem, Kevin, Mat,

What happend to Sam's entry?

I have been rendering most of my Vimeo and YouTube HD stuff using a a 1280 x720 mp4. The level rate I rendered to left me about 140 megabytes for my 3:18 render. I think it translated very well at both Vimeo and YouTube. I really don't know a lot of people who are using windows media video to up load, so I am curious why Meryem is suggesting that for the windows side ?

I didn't see Sam's file anywhere. I'll check here in a bit to see if it's there.

Mac users can download Flip 4 Mac for free to watch WMV files. Works fine on my Mac

I will try and start a feedback thread in the morning, as I will have to upload my video, which is on my harddrive at home.

Edit: The file was uploaded to the cahllenge site on Oct 29th, if it makes it easier for you to find it with a time frame.

Sam,

Your file's no where to be found. I checked the upload list thread here and didn't see that I ever posted it on that either.

Upload it again and we'll get it posted for you.

I really don't know a lot of people who are using windows media video to up load, so I am curious why Meryem is suggesting that for the windows side ?

not my suggestion - it has been requested many, many times by PC users...and I sure don't know enough about PC workflow to deny it...other than the fact that mac users have to download flip4mac to watch it...

...and have had lots of feedback from all sides that they don't like to be forced to download 3rd party apps...

round we go again!

guess I'll have to render there to get a feel for it.... I will transfer very rough low def versions sometimes, but hadn't considered Window Movie files to be that desirable.


Edit: Follow up: Okay I rendered to a Window Media file, at the same 1280 x 720 as I used for my mp4 files, and I have to say it looks very good. So drop that objection on my part.

Well, I downloaded Flip4Mac just cause I was missing out on other WMV files on the internet from other film boards.
So, no objection from me on that one. :)

Not ever owning a PC, how easy is it for PC users to view H.264 files? Or do PC's have any problem with Flash 9 files?

Flash 9 supports H.264. You just change the extension from .mov to .flv and you have a Flash 9 file. Not sure how that works in PC land though.

I have no problems viewing h.264 or flash videos. I use VLC and it does a fine job with almost anything I throw at it.

I agree that we should keep an archive of all of the videos. I frequently go to uwolchallenge.com just to enjoy some of the old entries.

BUT I sure would like to see everyone's work in HD. Is there some way we could have a link from the uwolchallenge website to a copy hosted on vimeo, youtube or exposureroom. That way we keep the archive, don't really increase the bandwidth, but provide a way to view in higher resolution. If the hosting site at some point deletes the entry at least we would have the lower res archived copy. And truth be told, I get better playback performance from a Vimeo HD video than from the uwolchallenge website.

I think having the archives really show how far we've grown as filmmakers. Take a look at the old entries and you can see the results of a global group of filmmakers banding together to help each other make better films all for the greater good of the planet.

We can't download a third party viewer for a major platform codec?

I can see if it was some weird Divx codec or something. I wouldn't install that either. But for Windows Media and H.264 files? I can make the sacrifice for the greater good of the planet!

I agree with Kevin.

I would rather listen to people complain (ignorantly) about a 3rd party install, and in turn get to watch the videos in much better size and quality. I am bewildered to think that someone is watching videos here and is scared of 3rd party installs like flip4mac and quicktime. I am even more bewildered if it is participants in the challenge itself. h.264 and wmv have got to be the 2 of the most widely used codecs for the last several years.

I would argue that we simply allow h.264 since quicktime is a free download for PC and comes loaded on Mac as the native media player. However, I can understand that some people are encoding on PCs and might only have software that writes to wmv.

I say let people submit wmv and the mac folks can get flip4mac to playback wmv within quicktime. Let Mac people submit h.264 and the PC folks can get quicktime which includes the ability to playback h.264. Both are free. Both are easy. Both work. If people have trouble doing that, then we welcome them to the world of digital video on the internet. And we get a warm fuzzy knowing that they'll be able to view even more stuff than UWOL thanks to our helping them expand their playback potential.

:D

Thanks Kevin,

I am uploading the file again.

It will be fine if I don't qualify, as the date has gone by for uploading, but I know that somewhere in cyberspace, my original upload is scattered around, in little bits and bytes, one day maybe getting to you.

here is the info that I get, once the file is uploaded:

file1x_original:17_UC15_hideandseek.mpeg
file1x:17_UC15_hideandseek.mpeg
file1x_status:OK
popup:on
target_dir:/export/sites/uwolchallenge.com/docs/deadbolt/deadbolttest/UPLOAD1/uploads

Sam.. it is clear you went through the process of uploading, early even... and you have a post to that effect. I'm quite sure Meryem will grant dispensation if you ask. You NEED to ask though.

I have worked out the compression issue.
Thanks to Mike Beckett, for his workflow, article that was posted on Oct 31,2009.

I will upload this to Vimeo.

I think I have caused enough issues here, with this, and do not want to try my luck, after the upload date, with a better quality result.

Hi guys

Films are now listed in the film vault....sorry for the delay!

Mat