6 ms·

The Problem With Mobile Video

14 points by puja108 14y ago

Why hasn't anyone succeeded at "Instagram for Video", yet?

harscoat 14y ago
I really like the idea of onesec app: solves the pb that "I suck at taking video" (// Instagram: even if my pics are crap they could look good with filter). Still imho the best comparison is not "instagram" but Twitter. Onesec = twitter for video ie: only 1 second format (or 2 or 5s) videos not more. That'll make video less of a waste of time and more appealing to me.
- puja108 14y ago
  yeah, it goes in the same direction as other short duration formats. E.g.: - 5s Movies: http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/5-second-movies http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththegl... - 15s Film Festival: http://www.15secondfilmfestival.com/ http://www.15secondfilmfestival.com/
- dugmartin 14y ago
  I played around with this idea, mocking it up in a Adobe Air app. The UI that worked best was to allow for unlimited video but if it exceeds seven seconds (that feels like enough plus it has a nice alliteration) then have a scrubber at the bottom that lets you select any number of seven second snapshots to publish ala Instagram. For the consumption UI I would use a scrolling list like Instagram but just have start and end of video keyframes alternate in a animation - maybe use a fade in/out transition so it is not jarring to the eye. This would let you quickly browse without much interaction required.
  - c1sc0 14y ago
    Care to share the UI mockups? I'm working on the editing part right now & I'm interested.
    - dugmartin 14y ago
      It wasn't much - I vertically stacked a Flex VideoDisplay control, a custom scrubber control and then a Flex Button control to publish. Instead of a fixed size thumb the custom scrubber's thumb width was proportional to 7 seconds of the total video width. I did it in AIR/Flex so I could just drop a video on the app to test with it. I never tested it on a mobile device but on my desktop I needed a lot of keyframes in the video to make it work. I'm not sure what it would look like with native video on a iOS/Android device.
kugelblitz 14y ago
Actually, the aspect ratio is because our eyes are side-by-side, so a longish, non-square screen is mimicking our eye-view.
- c1sc0 14y ago
  Anyone care to chime in why portrait & square aspect ratios seem to work for photos but not for videos? I know the very first film formats were actually square for both moving & static images. Why did video quickly settle on 4:3 / 16:9 while photo explored the portrait, landscape & square formats? Is it really just because of the technical constraints (the device to 'play' the media) or is there a more fundamental, natural reason?
  - mtgx 14y ago
    I figure because of the magazine format, which is portrait, and they need to show a "vertical" photo on the page. The old portrait paintings were also vertical as well, to show most of the human body. Cinemas needed to be "landscape" because of space constraints.
  - ars 14y ago
    It was done for exactly one reason: To be different. Whenever video and tv got a certain aspect ratio, film "one upped" it. Part of it was also the size of 35mm film, once they moved the audio track off of the central area it made it wider, so they used that area. Basically, there is no fundamental reason for it. But these days people are used to it and think it was done because video somehow requires it. Now that they make lots of money from selling home video they will probably not move too far from 16/9, but it wasn't always so. It's the same with the poor FPS of film: It makes it look like a "film". Same for graininess. It's not better, people just associate it with movies.
    - puja108 14y ago
      yeah, here's also a very in-depth history of widescreen in the film industry: http://www.in70mm.com/news/2010/widescreen/index.htm http://www.in70mm.com/news/2010/widescreen/index.htm
puja108 14y ago
The aspect ratio / vertical video (PSA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA) point is a really good one, I like the idea of "preventing" vertical video through norming/squaring the aspect ratio
blacktar 14y ago
Initially, I was absolutely convinced that one second videos would be an incredibly stupid idea. Then I watched Cesar Kuriyama's video of one second videos of a year of his life and was blown away by the storytelling potential: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyx6O_WFJhU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyx6O_WFJhU
- delinka 14y ago
  Excellent work. I would personally love to do something like this, but alas it looks like it takes an enormous amount of work to edit. If I had a head-mountable life recorder, I could revisit clips in my leisure time for editing perhaps. Or perhaps living life is more important than documenting. This video is certainly inspirational like that. After all, the only people who will really care about my life videos are me, my spouse, probably my kids and maybe their kids.
  - puja108 14y ago
    You wouldn't need a head-mountable life recorder to do a one second video every day or every several hours, like shown in that video.
    - delinka 14y ago
      You know not my personality or lifestyle. Yes, I would. Also, to get the "right" second I'd need lots to choose from. Yes, I would need a head-mountable life recorder.
  - c1sc0 14y ago
    If you like the idea, you can help out by spreading the Indiegogo campaign or even donating a few bucks. If you've got UI ideas you can mail me. I'll be working on that side this week.
debacle 14y ago
The problem with mobile video is that there will be so much of it. If you create an Instagram for video, you're going to massively hemorrhage bandwidth as soon as the video becomes remotely popular. If it was financially feasible, it would have happened, but as it stands any company that tried this would get obliterated quite quickly. There's no way to monetize against that much data.
bradleyland 14y ago
Suggestion: Give the option to shoot in 8mm mode. Shooting in this mode would apply a filter reminiscant of old 8mm cameras, and would not have any sound. A lot of the reason I dislike watching other people's short videos is the intrusion of the local noise. Shooting video is hard enough to begin with, but getting the sound right is equally difficult. When you take away sound, you take away one more thing that's easy to get wrong. When you apply the 8mm film filter, you mask the typically poor lighting and filming conditions, creating something nostalgic, just like Instagram.

14 points by puja108 14y ago

Why hasn't anyone succeeded at "Instagram for Video", yet?

I really like the idea of onesec app: solves the pb that "I suck at taking video" (// Instagram: even if my pics are crap they could look good with filter). Still imho the best comparison is not "instagram" but Twitter. Onesec = twitter for video ie: only 1 second format (or 2 or 5s) videos not more. That'll make video less of a waste of time and more appealing to me.

puja108 14y ago
yeah, it goes in the same direction as other short duration formats. E.g.: - 5s Movies: http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/5-second-movies http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththegl... - 15s Film Festival: http://www.15secondfilmfestival.com/ http://www.15secondfilmfestival.com/
dugmartin 14y ago
I played around with this idea, mocking it up in a Adobe Air app. The UI that worked best was to allow for unlimited video but if it exceeds seven seconds (that feels like enough plus it has a nice alliteration) then have a scrubber at the bottom that lets you select any number of seven second snapshots to publish ala Instagram. For the consumption UI I would use a scrolling list like Instagram but just have start and end of video keyframes alternate in a animation - maybe use a fade in/out transition so it is not jarring to the eye. This would let you quickly browse without much interaction required.
- c1sc0 14y ago
  Care to share the UI mockups? I'm working on the editing part right now & I'm interested.
  - dugmartin 14y ago
    It wasn't much - I vertically stacked a Flex VideoDisplay control, a custom scrubber control and then a Flex Button control to publish. Instead of a fixed size thumb the custom scrubber's thumb width was proportional to 7 seconds of the total video width. I did it in AIR/Flex so I could just drop a video on the app to test with it. I never tested it on a mobile device but on my desktop I needed a lot of keyframes in the video to make it work. I'm not sure what it would look like with native video on a iOS/Android device.

kugelblitz 14y ago

Actually, the aspect ratio is because our eyes are side-by-side, so a longish, non-square screen is mimicking our eye-view.

c1sc0 14y ago
Anyone care to chime in why portrait & square aspect ratios seem to work for photos but not for videos? I know the very first film formats were actually square for both moving & static images. Why did video quickly settle on 4:3 / 16:9 while photo explored the portrait, landscape & square formats? Is it really just because of the technical constraints (the device to 'play' the media) or is there a more fundamental, natural reason?
- mtgx 14y ago
  I figure because of the magazine format, which is portrait, and they need to show a "vertical" photo on the page. The old portrait paintings were also vertical as well, to show most of the human body. Cinemas needed to be "landscape" because of space constraints.
- ars 14y ago
  It was done for exactly one reason: To be different. Whenever video and tv got a certain aspect ratio, film "one upped" it. Part of it was also the size of 35mm film, once they moved the audio track off of the central area it made it wider, so they used that area. Basically, there is no fundamental reason for it. But these days people are used to it and think it was done because video somehow requires it. Now that they make lots of money from selling home video they will probably not move too far from 16/9, but it wasn't always so. It's the same with the poor FPS of film: It makes it look like a "film". Same for graininess. It's not better, people just associate it with movies.
  - puja108 14y ago
    yeah, here's also a very in-depth history of widescreen in the film industry: http://www.in70mm.com/news/2010/widescreen/index.htm http://www.in70mm.com/news/2010/widescreen/index.htm

puja108 14y ago

The aspect ratio / vertical video (PSA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA) point is a really good one, I like the idea of "preventing" vertical video through norming/squaring the aspect ratio

blacktar 14y ago

Initially, I was absolutely convinced that one second videos would be an incredibly stupid idea. Then I watched Cesar Kuriyama's video of one second videos of a year of his life and was blown away by the storytelling potential: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyx6O_WFJhU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyx6O_WFJhU

delinka 14y ago
Excellent work. I would personally love to do something like this, but alas it looks like it takes an enormous amount of work to edit. If I had a head-mountable life recorder, I could revisit clips in my leisure time for editing perhaps. Or perhaps living life is more important than documenting. This video is certainly inspirational like that. After all, the only people who will really care about my life videos are me, my spouse, probably my kids and maybe their kids.
- puja108 14y ago
  You wouldn't need a head-mountable life recorder to do a one second video every day or every several hours, like shown in that video.
  - delinka 14y ago
    You know not my personality or lifestyle. Yes, I would. Also, to get the "right" second I'd need lots to choose from. Yes, I would need a head-mountable life recorder.
- c1sc0 14y ago
  If you like the idea, you can help out by spreading the Indiegogo campaign or even donating a few bucks. If you've got UI ideas you can mail me. I'll be working on that side this week.

debacle 14y ago

The problem with mobile video is that there will be so much of it. If you create an Instagram for video, you're going to massively hemorrhage bandwidth as soon as the video becomes remotely popular. If it was financially feasible, it would have happened, but as it stands any company that tried this would get obliterated quite quickly. There's no way to monetize against that much data.

bradleyland 14y ago

Suggestion: Give the option to shoot in 8mm mode. Shooting in this mode would apply a filter reminiscant of old 8mm cameras, and would not have any sound. A lot of the reason I dislike watching other people's short videos is the intrusion of the local noise. Shooting video is hard enough to begin with, but getting the sound right is equally difficult. When you take away sound, you take away one more thing that's easy to get wrong. When you apply the 8mm film filter, you mask the typically poor lighting and filming conditions, creating something nostalgic, just like Instagram.