[IMC-Video] new CMS sandbox

[anna]

Hi,

Sasha Costanza-Chock wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I agree 100 percent with anna re: let's go ahead and set up a sandbox
> for plumi and filmforge, try to make them work w/the functionality we
> desire, then we can make a decision about which to use for the new
> video.indy. Meanwhile, if anyone finds hosting for the current
> video.indy, we can keep it alive for those who want to work on it/with
> it and simply change its address to ivdn.indymedia.org.
>
> re: indytube, the current filmforge setup is using ffmpeg with
> flowplayer to do the transcoding and flash embed. We could shift to
> indytube, but we are also discussing a completely FOSS solution (using
> Ogg and Cortado).
>   
We've done this experimentally with Indytube and will be releasing it in 
the near future. In
many ways I think if we can collaborate on this as a CMS-agnostic 
transcode/embed
solution then it has the capacity to benefit more people and more 
projects than just developing
this as a Plone or Drupal solution independently.

What do you think?

I'm in Jakarta at the moment and not able to check email very much, but 
either of the Andrews
can send you details on this if you are interested.

But we had this working with ffmpeg2theora in combination with Cortado a 
couple of months
back, just haven't had time to tie up the loose ends and release it yet. 
We are also going to
implement the metavid method of using Javascript checking for:

- VLC plugin for Mozilla browsers
- HTML 5 <video> element implementation for Ogg (experimental Opera and 
Mozilla browsers)
- Cortado plugin

and installing Cortado plugin if the first two are not available. This 
covers other efforts to support
Ogg in the browser that are emerging, as well as providing Cortado as a 
baseline.

We are using the Icecast streaming server to serve Ogg files with this 
Indytube implementation.
It all seemed to work quite smoothly.

We have the same issues with Flash, so will hopefully move both 
EngageMedia and Plumi to
Ogg Theora/Vorbis before too long.

Cheers,
Anna

> In other words we are hoping to develop a solution that does not use
> flash, since flash is not Free Software. For the moment we're using it,
> since it allows user friendly functionality that is not quite replicated
> yet with Free Software.
>
> So, Lotu5, do you want to go ahead and set up the plumi sandbox?
>
> peace
> schock
>
>
> anna wrote:
>   
>> hi ben,
>>
>> i think schock's idea of installing filmforge and plumi *now* is a good 
>> one. we can compare from there, and discuss the functionality that needs 
>> to be added to achieve what we want with video.indy after that, along 
>> with who is going to do it and with what resources.
>>
>> but i'd much rather see something happen than wait until a piece of 
>> software can do *everything* we want it to turns up. software 
>> development just doesn't happen that way, you have to get something out 
>> that people can look at, play with and work on.
>>
>> the current video.indy software does not have a development future, so 
>> this rule does not apply here. the functionality we want will not be 
>> added to it. Drupal/Plone do have viable development communities so the 
>> chance of getting the software to do what we want after picking one of 
>> these is much higher.
>>
>> your questions are very important, but i think these can be worked out 
>> along the way, we don't have to wait.
>>
>> indytube has the capacity now for distributed transcoding, according to 
>> an email from john duda it's primary developer. that doesn't answer your 
>> question about distributed hosting/serving of the video files, but it is 
>> one step towards making the software more viable for the indymedia 
>> network through sharing CPU load amongst servers.
>>
>> indytube (the transcoding/flash-embedded code) has been implemented into 
>> Plumi but also into some Drupal sites i believe (and is transportable to 
>> any CMS with some dev). is filmforge using this schock?
>>
>> just my thoughts.
>>
>> cheers,
>> anna
>>
>>     
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject:
>>> Re: [IMC-Video] plumi
>>> From:
>>> Ben <ben at riseup.net>
>>> Date:
>>> Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:01:11 +0100
>>> To:
>>> imc-video at lists.indymedia.org
>>>
>>> To:
>>> imc-video at lists.indymedia.org
>>>
>>>
>>> While any kind of progress is welcome I think a jump to plumi might be 
>>> a knee jerk rection. There are important questions that need 
>>> considering before such a move... where are video uploads to actually 
>>> be hosted, how is bandwidth load going to be handled and most 
>>> importantly, how does video.indymedia intergrate with local indymedia 
>>> sites?
>>>
>>> ben
>>>
>>> On Jul 13, 2007, at 9:36 PM, lotu5 wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Have folks looked at engagemedia.org and plumi? it looks great.
>>>>
>>>> i'd like to setup a test install to use for video.indymedia.org. what do
>>>> folks think about moving video.indymedia.org to plumi?
>>>>
>>>> ciao,
>>>>
>>>>   lotu5
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> blog: http://deletetheborder.org/lotu5
>>>> podcast: http://feeds.feedburner.com/didm
>>>>
>>>> gpg:  0x5B459C11 // encrypted email preferred
>>>> gaim: djlotu5 // off the record messaging preferred
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> imc-video mailing list
>>>> imc-video at lists.indymedia.org
>>>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-video
>>>>         
>> _______________________________________________
>> imc-video mailing list
>> imc-video at lists.indymedia.org
>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-video
>>
>>     
>
>