Re: [Videolib] Streaming??

media2 (
Sat, 22 May 2004 14:58:21 -0400

I agree entirely Gary, but that's not what you said. You referred to
streaming content as "herky jerky" which is a picture quality issue, not
a production values (bland) issue or a quantity issue (paltry). Agree
totally that buying into a digital delivery system just for the
"bragging rights" (sexiness) is foolish no matter how good the content
or image quality is.

But the quality of image and content "is there" from at least four
video-over-IP suppliers to the K-12 market. It is a viable option for
delivery in many applications. Perhaps not for public libraries (yet)
but certainly for university media centers once college level content
with IP transmission rights is made available.

Consideration of going with an video IP delivery system has a broader
consideration. Recent threads here have discussed the "end of VHS, "
raising a variety of issues regarding the future of moving image
collections and user access. And at the very least every regional
multi-media library and CCUMC member has to be considering digital video
delivery (streamed or downloaded) over the Internet as an alternative to
VHS delivery for some portion of the collection.

The demise of the LP after the audio CD emerged in 1984 was predicted
to take 10 years by "people who know the industry." It took, what,
about four years? I make no predictions, but those of us in the screen
image access and content delivery business for K-12 at least have to be
ahead of the curve on the shift away from VHS by the manufacturers.

IMCO, the era of Physical Delivery of media for K-12 from regional
centers or large district video libraries is over for 90 percent of the
"made for the classroom" instructional titles. Who knows how long the
shift will be going on until it is noticeable. But it is already
underway and spreading.

mark richie

Gary Handman wrote:

> My objection, Mark, is that ease of access (or sexyness of technology)
> should never be an excuse for buying into a paltry (or bland) content
> base.
> gary
> At 07:51 PM 5/20/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>> We put up our first video on demand server in December 1999 which pre
>> dates unitedstreaming and AIMS multimedia products. We license most
>> of our titles through the iDVS interactive Digital Video
>> System for IP transmission rights within our service area (70,000
>> students). Rights run $300 to $500 a title. In 1999 we opted NOT to
>> have a streaming system but a download (aka store and forward)
>> service.Streaming - even at the lower encoding rates of the streaming
>> subscriptions, can choke out a typical school LAN very quickly and we
>> (a county multi-media center) did not want to incur the wrath of the
>> school IT people. Besides, we could never see the point of insisting
>> that a middle school or high school teacher with four sections to
>> teach should have to log in and repeat the streaming process four
>> times a day . . . adding more traffic to the local LAN. Even when
>> unitedstrem and AIMS products became available we elected to stay
>> with the iDVS system. Unitedstreming system later added a download
>> feature to get around some of the issues associated with a straight
>> streaming system.
>> Downloads are started after 6:00 PM when school LANs are dark. It
>> allows us to deliver full motion, full screen (29.95 fps) 1.25 mBps
>> video to our teachers. Downloads can be done during the day with the
>> "download now" option, it just takes longer to deliver the file and
>> DOES NOT disrupt the school network because of the packet handling
>> built into the iDVS system. We have done several saturation tests to
>> prove this out.
>> I'm a little surprized at Gary's input <snip>
>>> . . .I cannot, for the very life of me, understand why anyone who
>>> has any concern at all for the moving image would opt for the 240
>>> by 360 herky jerky visual travesty that most VOD delivers (bandwidth
>>> be damned!) . . . .
>> The strides in video delivery over IP have been exponential in the
>> last five years. Perhaps the streaming video from ESPN at 176X132 or
>> even CNN at 240X180 displayed in a postage stamp size window is
>> jerky, but the quality of systems designed for educational video
>> delivery over IP is far from jerky anymore. And BTW, bandwidth as
>> little to do with the output quality. If the video was encoded for
>> 176 X 132, you can bring it in on an OC-16 line and it will still be
>> a jerky little picture with no lip sync.
>> Aside from picture quality, content selection becomes a larger issue
>> in the decision to move into a non-physical delivery option.
>> Selection? Remember selection criteria? Buying a subscription
>> service is buying a "box lot." It is a collection that tries to be
>> all things to all grade levels, well, at least k-12. The debate of
>> clips aside, access to 2,000 take-it-or-leave-it titles trying to
>> cover 12 grade levels and 380+ unit topics is a collection that is
>> spread pretty thin.
>> The advantage of a system that lets you pick your own titles is that
>> you can taylor it to subject areas and grade levels most likely to
>> get the greatest benefit out of the delivery system. Delivering a 40
>> minute dramatization of a short story may not be an appropriate use,
>> but a 15 minute production on plate tectonics aimed at 6th grade
>> might be - especially if you can freeze the images, draw on them, add
>> labels and a new sound track . . .
>> Mark Richie
>> Director, Burlington County EMTC
>> Jed Horovitz wrote:
>>> I have been in the streaming arena for almost seven years and yet
>>> this kind
>>> of takes me by surprise. We stream previews and music videos.
>>> Streaming,
>>> in my view, is visual information delivery. I would be very
>>> hesitant to
>>> watch a full film this way.
>>> If this is (is going to be) really a business, I need to let my
>>> sails out a
>>> bit. What do you all think? I understand the economics can create a
>>> win-win for schools and distributors but is streaming only for
>>> educational
>>> films or is it catching on for 'art' films? How do teachers use it in
>>> classes? Is it just for self study?
>>> Memberships, Subscriptions, Limited licenses, pay per view are all
>>> possible.
>>> What sort of business model appeals to schools, public libraries, etc?
>>> Internet Video Archive has tons of technical capacity (expert people,
>>> bandwidth, servers) but a very low overhead so I am sure we can provide
>>> value if there really is a business. Are there rights holders who
>>> would
>>> want to provide this kind of access on a % basis? (We have no money
>>> for
>>> advances.) Would you recruit Indy producers or go after
>>> distributors? What
>>> are your institutions plans?
>>> Jed
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From:
>>> []On Behalf Of Mark W. Kopp
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 8:27 AM
>>> To:;
>>> Subject: RE: [Videolib] United Streaming??
>>> I would whole-heartedly recommend the AIMS Multimedia
>>> over the United Streaming Package, hands down. We
>>> started with AIMS and our teachers are VERY excited with the delivery
>>> and format (bandwidth sensitivities recognized). A number of our
>>> teachers (we serve approximately 5,100 teachers and 65,000 students),
>>> have experience with United Streaming, and the feedback in
>>> comparison to
>>> AIMS has been nearly 100% in favor of AIMS over United Streaming.
>>> Feel free to contact me if you'd like further discussion of features,
>>> etc.
>>> Mark W. Kopp
>>> Circulation Coordinator
>>> Instructional Materials Services
>>> Appalachia Intermediate Unit 8
>>> 814-695-1972
>>> **************************************************
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From:
>>> [] On Behalf Of Joel S.
>>> Bachar
>>> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 3:02 PM
>>> To:
>>> Subject: [Videolib] United Streaming??
>>> Hello VidLib
>>> I am wondering if any of you have used the United Streaming service
>>> and/or have purchased a blanket license for your school in order to
>>> use this educational-based video on demand/download service??
>>> I am curious to hear any feedback.
>>> For those not familiar with the service you can learn more here:
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Joel
>>> Joel S. Bachar, Founder
>>> Microcinema International/Blackchair DVD Collection
>>> 531 Utah Street, San Francisco, CA 94110, USA
>>> 415-637-1345
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Videolib mailing list
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Videolib mailing list
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Videolib mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> Videolib mailing list
> Gary Handman
> Director
> Media Resources Center
> Moffitt Library
> UC Berkeley
> ****
> "Movies are poems, a holy bible, the great mother of us."
> --Ted Berrigan
> _______________________________________________
> Videolib mailing list

Videolib mailing list