UWOL 15 Temp Viewing Page at DVinfo.net

Kevin Railsback · November 1st, 2009, 01:47 PM

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

Ryan Farnes · November 1st, 2009, 03:57 PM

Thanks for putting this up.

Kevin Railsback · November 1st, 2009, 04:03 PM

No sweat. :)

Chris Swanberg · November 1st, 2009, 04:58 PM

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.

Kevin Railsback · November 1st, 2009, 05:13 PM

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.

Bob Thieda · November 1st, 2009, 05:35 PM

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

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

Chris Swanberg · November 1st, 2009, 06:39 PM

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

Kevin Railsback · November 1st, 2009, 06:53 PM

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 Ersoz · November 2nd, 2009, 12:08 AM

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!

Chris Swanberg · November 2nd, 2009, 12:54 AM

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.

Meryem Ersoz · November 2nd, 2009, 01:16 AM

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...

Chris Swanberg · November 2nd, 2009, 01:45 AM

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

Kevin Railsback · November 2nd, 2009, 05:51 AM

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.

Meryem Ersoz · November 2nd, 2009, 08:42 AM

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.

Sam Mendolia · November 2nd, 2009, 01:05 PM

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

November 1st, 2009, 01:47 PM	#1
Kevin Railsback Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa Posts: 1,544	UWOL 15 Temp Viewing Page 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 __________________ --==Kevin==-- http:naturephotostudios.com.com

November 1st, 2009, 04:03 PM	#3
Kevin Railsback Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa Posts: 1,544	No sweat. :) __________________ --==Kevin==-- http:naturephotostudios.com.com

November 1st, 2009, 05:13 PM	#5
Kevin Railsback Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa Posts: 1,544	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. __________________ --==Kevin==-- http:naturephotostudios.com.com

November 1st, 2009, 05:35 PM	#6
Bob Thieda Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Carol Stream, IL Posts: 541	Thanks Kevin...I was wondering where they all were.... Downloading now....watching a little later... __________________ Bob T.

November 1st, 2009, 06:53 PM	#8
Kevin Railsback Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa Posts: 1,544	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. __________________ --==Kevin==-- http:naturephotostudios.com.com

November 1st, 2009, 03:57 PM	#2
Ryan Farnes Major Player Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 220	Thanks for putting this up.

November 1st, 2009, 04:58 PM	#4
Chris Swanberg Major Player Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 904	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.

November 1st, 2009, 06:39 PM	#7
Chris Swanberg Major Player Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 904	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

November 2nd, 2009, 12:08 AM	#9
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	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!

November 2nd, 2009, 12:54 AM	#10
Chris Swanberg Major Player Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 904	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.

November 2nd, 2009, 01:16 AM	#11
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	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...

November 2nd, 2009, 01:45 AM	#12
Chris Swanberg Major Player Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 904	So I guess that raises the spectre of sponsorship if something akin to what I suggested is to occur?

November 2nd, 2009, 05:51 AM	#13
Kevin Railsback Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa Posts: 1,544	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. __________________ --==Kevin==-- http:naturephotostudios.com.com

November 2nd, 2009, 08:42 AM	#14
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	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.

November 2nd, 2009, 01:05 PM	#15
Sam Mendolia Major Player Join Date: May 2008 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 217	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 __________________ I was told I have no vision, but boy do I see great!