3 ms·

Eek, the thought of that makes me cringe. I guess it would be passable in some circumstances, but I can imagine a bunch of reasons why it would be miserable or

by pfranz 6y ago

Eek, the thought of that makes me cringe. I guess it would be passable in some circumstances, but I can imagine a bunch of reasons why it would be miserable or useless: * the quality drop; recompressing, non-matching frame rates, non-matching resolution--all the same goes for audio. You're very likely clipping (losing) data. This is assuming you're doing screen-capture. If you're literally video taping a monitor you will get moiré in the video, room tone in the audio, losing any stereo separation, and other audio/video artifacts. * performance; must be done in real-time, cannot queue up multiple sources. This is likely the biggest efficiency killer and makes things 100x more labor intensive. * reliable Internet; if you get a blip or have a slow connection you have to hopefully catch it and start over. With youtube-dl you can pause, resume, confirm even on the slowest, spottiest connections. * metadata, organizing, indexing; likely hand-typed separately, prone to error, prone to not knowing if you've done that video already. * Chain of custody; grabbing the original video allows you to prove two identical copies match (using file hashes or other comparisons) screen recording makes that difficult to impossible to confirm--maybe with fancy AI you'd have to run by the courts?

beagle3 6y ago
Eek, you are responding to my comment as if it was a freestanding response about archival copy and law enforcement work, when it was specifically in response to someone saying he was using it for neither. It's not surprising it makes you cringe, but please consider in context. > the quality drop; recompressing, non-matching frame rates, non-matching resolution--all the same goes for audio. Are you trying to preserve quality or prove something? My response was in context for "gathering evidence" but not police work, and not archival quality. Would such a copy cause your problem to prove libel, copyright infringement, illegitimate disclosure, etc? > performance; must be done in real-time, cannot queue up multiple sources Can most definitely queue up multiple sources. Just make a youtube playlist and record it. Yes, it takes "real time latency", you'll take 10 hours to download 10 hours of video in general -- that's not an issue for evidence or gathering in a non law-enforcement context. > metadata, organizing, indexing; likely hand-typed separately, prone to error, prone to not knowing if you've done that video already. Again - consider the context of my answer, NOT archival quality anything. The "cc" stream GP mentioned, which can be searchable etc - has also seen many revisions for many files when the Google STT algorithms are revised, and with corrections. > Chain of custody; grabbing the original video allows you to prove two identical copies match (using file hashes or other comparisons) screen recording makes that difficult to impossible to confirm--maybe with fancy AI you'd have to run by the courts? You have no chain of custody. You can prove two downloads are the same, but YouTube does not guarantee they keep the file the same (indeed, they've modified files several times, changing formats and even remastering old '80s videos). If a file is later pulled (which is what GP was talking about), what are you going to compare it to? Chain of custody is law enforcement business. They'll get the files from YouTube directly, with affidavits and statements about it and any modifications, if they need it in court. You are going to civil court, and youtube-dl is not making your evidence more valid than a screen recording.
- monsieurbanana 6y ago
  Is it possible to replace youtube-dl with a video camera in front of the screen? Sure. Did I expect anyone, ever, to propose that? Let's just say, 2020 is full of surprises. I want off this wild ride.
- hanselot 6y ago
  Can you automate a video camera placed in front of a screen to automatically trawl several sites for new videos simultaneously? Oh, wait, now we need 1 camera per computer, per screen, and of course, we would need licenses for that, as none of these videos are provided free of charge on a public medium accessible anywhere* in the World. Perhaps a license per unit of electricity consumed also? Perhaps we shall just cripple the justice system by replacing automated tools with mundane positions (video camera screen watch person, as of course, now a person would be required to watch that the camera is recording at the right time). I applaud your efforts to increase the number of jobs in circulation, but I feel this may be the wrong approach. I can tell you, there is very low likelihood of someone from $3RD_WORLD_COUNTRY_X's government going all the way to $CONTENT _PROVIDER_X to get a video they could have fetched using youtube-dl, fairly painlessly, and without waiting weeks for $CONTENT_PROVIDER_X to decide if they have the desire to share that content, or whether it would somehow besmirch their non-sleepy narrative.

by pfranz 6y ago

beagle3 6y ago

Eek, you are responding to my comment as if it was a freestanding response about archival copy and law enforcement work, when it was specifically in response to someone saying he was using it for neither. It's not surprising it makes you cringe, but please consider in context. > the quality drop; recompressing, non-matching frame rates, non-matching resolution--all the same goes for audio. Are you trying to preserve quality or prove something? My response was in context for "gathering evidence" but not police work, and not archival quality. Would such a copy cause your problem to prove libel, copyright infringement, illegitimate disclosure, etc? > performance; must be done in real-time, cannot queue up multiple sources Can most definitely queue up multiple sources. Just make a youtube playlist and record it. Yes, it takes "real time latency", you'll take 10 hours to download 10 hours of video in general -- that's not an issue for evidence or gathering in a non law-enforcement context. > metadata, organizing, indexing; likely hand-typed separately, prone to error, prone to not knowing if you've done that video already. Again - consider the context of my answer, NOT archival quality anything. The "cc" stream GP mentioned, which can be searchable etc - has also seen many revisions for many files when the Google STT algorithms are revised, and with corrections. > Chain of custody; grabbing the original video allows you to prove two identical copies match (using file hashes or other comparisons) screen recording makes that difficult to impossible to confirm--maybe with fancy AI you'd have to run by the courts? You have no chain of custody. You can prove two downloads are the same, but YouTube does not guarantee they keep the file the same (indeed, they've modified files several times, changing formats and even remastering old '80s videos). If a file is later pulled (which is what GP was talking about), what are you going to compare it to? Chain of custody is law enforcement business. They'll get the files from YouTube directly, with affidavits and statements about it and any modifications, if they need it in court. You are going to civil court, and youtube-dl is not making your evidence more valid than a screen recording.

monsieurbanana 6y ago
Is it possible to replace youtube-dl with a video camera in front of the screen? Sure. Did I expect anyone, ever, to propose that? Let's just say, 2020 is full of surprises. I want off this wild ride.
hanselot 6y ago
Can you automate a video camera placed in front of a screen to automatically trawl several sites for new videos simultaneously? Oh, wait, now we need 1 camera per computer, per screen, and of course, we would need licenses for that, as none of these videos are provided free of charge on a public medium accessible anywhere* in the World. Perhaps a license per unit of electricity consumed also? Perhaps we shall just cripple the justice system by replacing automated tools with mundane positions (video camera screen watch person, as of course, now a person would be required to watch that the camera is recording at the right time). I applaud your efforts to increase the number of jobs in circulation, but I feel this may be the wrong approach. I can tell you, there is very low likelihood of someone from $3RD_WORLD_COUNTRY_X's government going all the way to $CONTENT _PROVIDER_X to get a video they could have fetched using youtube-dl, fairly painlessly, and without waiting weeks for $CONTENT_PROVIDER_X to decide if they have the desire to share that content, or whether it would somehow besmirch their non-sleepy narrative.