>OK. I hope you understand that I'm not from Vienna. I only study there...<
Didn´t realize that. So, where are you actually from?
>Yeah. I know that it is a pain to get a smaller video only for trading it in with a lower bitrate and experimenting.<
It´s so time consuming.
Don´t ask me how much time I spent recently to make most of the audio / video mobile.
Been listening to Webcasts (and a little bit peeking at slides and code samples) on the go regularly for more than a year now.
I unfold the ancient Sony laptop 180°, put it on the ash tray and fixate it with a rubber band. Hook it up to the car stereo and 12V power supply. Matter of seconds.
Woulda loved to have the Webcasts (great educational material, bearable marketing slant at times) on the iPod Touch. Code samples are readable at its 480x320 (I tried it and recoded a short VS passage), but recoding 60+ min shows (in MP4 (AVC)) simply is an
absolute no-go (timewise).
Would be great to have C9 videos with code samples in 480x320 MP4 AVC / h.264 for the iPod Touch / iPhone.
I begun recording the Jay Leno Show with an Archos 605Flash. Can conveniently watch this on the notebook then.
One can nicely record video on a CMX 1110 (very small form-factor), but the OS is BS (no way to resume a video after standby!!!,...), the audio-in impedance is way off and the audio track is not recognized by WiMP as it is coded in some ancient ACPCM instead
of MP3. Found out that VLC can play it, but then hue is off.
Would be great to have C9 videos with whiteboarding in 320x240 MP4 AVC / h.264 for the iPod Video / Nano 3G too.
Generally I´m trying to move shows to the car / bike where audio is sufficient to safe time for Webcasts at the office where it is often beneficial or necessary to review / try (code) passages.
Carl Franklin has been having great technical quality and format choice for YEARS now and most shows do have sufficient content.
>I really appreciate your feedback. I don't know if you know that I'm also doing some stuff for Channel 8 and I want these interviews to be also good for students in technology!<
As this whole video thing wasn´t viable for me before I got a real flat rate only on Saturday I didn´t pay attention to other Channels,... so far, but I will check out many such things soon now.
Hope you can see now why it angers me when some sites / videos seem to be way off or it takes them ages to get there. No personal flames intended. Cheers G.
>I like the idea of making it obvious if the interview contains whitebaording or code. Usually, not always, I provide preview images with whiteboard or code-on-screen should either have happened in the interview.<
Yeah, I have to admit that I realized this fully when reviewing the video overview yesterday - after the discussion got more detailed ("d/l FULL SCREEN to get a SMALLER file") and heated with littleguru.
>I'll make a point of stating it in the text as well. Good idea.<
Thanks. It may have taken quite some time, but we´re definitely converging with incremental improvements (and hopefully the big V4 one) and my flat rate.
Thanks again. C9 DID change MS or at least our perception thereof. G.
Well, this is not personal, I just see it as a funny expression for our "special" relationship with people in our oversized / Wasserkopf capital.
>...the description makes it very clear! It's not about technology; it's about community ... What did you expect...?<
A little content.
>You might also download the "full screen" video with a decent download manager (like FlashGet or similar). The quality is not as good but the file is a lot smaller!<
Here we go again. I should know that I can get something SMALLER by downloading the FULL screen video??? (Guess it´s the least bitrate stream!?) Do I really have to have two dozen utils and experiment with them for hours in lack of a decent UI to get things
>I guess you didn't get the point of the video. It is about the community etc. It's not about the technology at all.<
Servas Gscheada, I´m from grey, cold Upper Austria, to be exact.
I can understand that it´s great for your vanity to see yourself on 9, but again: The whole content is worth the couple of bytes in the text, not more at all. In hindsight I could have easily spared the audio, much more so the video part. If this would apply
only to this video, I wouldn´t bother to ask for improvement, but it seems rather by method than chance.
On this site you never got the slightest idea if the video is worth downloading, or if just the audio would do (no code samples or even whiteboarding at all) or just skimming the text would be worth the effort.
Problem with this site has been and is that they seem to strive to look / be as unprofessional in as many aspects as possible to get this alternative look and feel.
>You have also to understand that the 70 MB video was designed to be played on a smaller device.<
Both videos are in 320x240 and I appreciate that Charles has started these 512Kbs d/ls, but the h.264 one is 70MB and the WMV is 277MB!
Just watched the again great Anders Hejlsberg PLINQ video and it was worth every single byte of the d/l, though a really well adjusted bit rate, fps, codec,... could have resulted in a much smaller footprint.
If it wasn´t for those gems I wouldn´t botherto come here again or to make improvement suggestions. Greetings G.
Hey there , Charles, here´s my update (MY POV) for you:
This video in case: Almost entirely hot air and self praise, 277MB of wasted bandwidth and 15 min of wasted time. Could have been done in coupla 100 bytes of text. (the blog link) Actually: the video discription IS the WHOLE content.
Generally speaking: Originally GREAT idea, but you´re falling way behind others in terms of effort (huge download) / gain (hot air) ratio.
The download size (effort for 877MB!!!) / content + time spent ratio for "VC++ 2008 and beyond" may be even worse. This is even too thin for a commute in heavy traffic that needs attention.
Recently I downloaded a 30 min 3sat show which fit in 70MB (!!!). Superb technical quality at 320x240 with full video fps in h.264 (MPEG4 AVC) for the iPod!!!
When Charles promised to post 512Kbit/sec Downloads I hoped this would be a viable solution. When I checked if he had kept his promise and I saw the 183KByte size of this subject I thought: "Dang, NO, he did not. Still have to wait."
But then I began to calculate, and, <arrrgh>, 183KB *IS* 512Kbs, which still *IS* prohibitive!
So, I´m in for the next round of negotiations (if Charles will listen another time), begging for these 212Kbs of Webcasts. But if you calculate, this Screen codec must be really good VBR (Variable Bit Rate) and actually works at an average of 20Kbs (twenty
Kilo*bits*/sec!!!) and peaks only briefly when slides / whole screen contents change.
For my taste it´d be absolutely sufficient to see (Anders H.´s and other "interesting" <g>) faces and whiteboarding and zoomed close snippets in 320x240, 10 frames/sec... if this results in, say 50MB!!!
>>>For now, I will stary encoding download files at 512Kbs....
>...I will START...
Sorry I didn´t get the meaning in your earlier reply due to the typo. I guessed "STAY", which was not a good guess in hindsight, cuz I know bitrates are 1500Kbs or even 2000!
I lost track if download files still even contain two or more streams at different bitrates, which is Tera-counter-productive.
So 512Kbs is a start. Thanks. Anything magic in that number?
I rechecked with the Webcasts which are VERY GOOD QUALITY.
212Kbs Windows Media Video 9 Screen codec including WMA 9 Voice 8 kbps, 8 kHz, mono. (So you see: Even your MP3s are overkill!
Guess 704 x 528 is a great match for the specialized Screen codec. Dunno what the specialized Screen codec gain with this special content is. (very static large or small text)
Guess for your purpose (faces / filmed screen content) a lower resolution is sufficient and a higher bitrate is necessary. Maybe 512 really IS the magic number for very high quality still, but possibly much less is OK. (in the 300s) Please TRY!