We shoot our videos using miniDV tape, then "capture" them using Final Cut Studio. Capturing imports the video onto the hard drive. File sizes for uncompressed video are huge! Our 20-minute interviews are too large to fit onto a DVD. That makes it very difficult to transfer files between camera crews and editing crews.

We edit in Final Cut Studio, then "render" (compress) the video using Cleaner software. When I first saw the pulldown menu in Cleaner for video compression settings, I knew I could never edit film. There are dozens of format choices! We render in one: QuickTime MPEG-4, AAC.

Because we render in only one format, we get complaints from people, especially on older computers, that they can't access the video. Now my tech guru says, "Tough. If they want to watch video online, they need to update their gear. No matter what format we render in, those people will not be happy. No one on a 56K modem is going to like online video."

And he's right. Since we switched from offering video in 7 formats to offering it in 1 format, our connection complaints have stayed roughly the same. Either way, we have the same number of dissatisfied users. To maintain 7 choices, we'd have to stay up on the latest software in five different programs. Our customer service problems have remain unchanged, but our production costs have dropped significantly.

On the other hand, my Production Manager thinks we should offer at least one alternative format specifically optimized for Windows computer users on older systems. That would probably cure at least half of the format complaints we get.

And he's right, too. We really should be producing in two formats: one that works on most PCs and iPods as well, and one that works on older Windows PCs. It's a tough call.

Even tougher calls are ahead. We also produce DVDs from our videos, and there's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. There are two formats fighting it out for the future of DVD. I hope someone chimes into this dicussion who knows more about this than me; I'm trying to keep my head low until victory is declared.

Videos on cell phones, as I've learned, is the least organized of all these markets. There are several different format choices (none very good, I'm told), and numerous different delivery systems, the file sizes are huge, what do you when the connection drops??? Even though our videos easily go into iTunes, it will be a long time before we make a version for phones.

Anyone care to add to this discussion?

Tomorrow I'll talk a little more about the file size problem.

STEVE O'KEEFE
V.P. IAOC
President, AuthorViews, Inc.

An epic battle is being waged, in cyberspace and, more to the point, in my space -- my office -- over what formats to use for online video.

Until last fall, we made our videos available in the following formats:

QuickTime
MPEG-4
MPEG-1
RealMedia (hi res & lo res)
Windows Media (hi res & lo res)

Your consumer looks at that list and goes, "Huh?" How do you know which one to click? So we installed a nifty little applet that would ping a browser's config and -- presto! -- serve up the perfect video for that user. However, many people behind firewalls will not let the applet ping their systems, and so they can't access the video, even though they have the right gear.

This fall, Apple made life easier on us in many ways by introducing the video iPod and making it compatible with only two different file formats. The codec we use is called "QuickTime MPEG-4, AAC". A codec is an algorithm that contains instructions for compressing and decompressing video. The main ratio we look at when choosing a codec is the clarity compared with the file size. The codec we use results in incredibly small file sizes (2 megabytes/minute) with outstanding clarity on an iPod. Every new generation of codec results in a geometrical improvement in quality and reduction in file size. That's what's really powering the online video revolution: Moore's Law.

So last fall, we started rendering our videos in one format instead of seven. The only problem is, you can't see the videos unless you are running QuickTime 6 or higher. Lots of people cannot see our videos now. So should we render videos in Windows Media or RealMedia or some alternative to make it easier on people?

No.

That's what my tech guru says.

Yes.

That's what my video production manager says.

Me? I'm stuck in the middle. Tomorrow, I'll present some arguments pro and con in this debate.

But I'd like to hear what YOU have to say about it. Have you had experience producing online video? What formats do you prefer? Have you been frustrated trying to use video online? Any pet peeves?

Your's for Smaller Files & Greater Clarity,
STEVE O'KEEFE
V.P. IAOC
President, AuthorViews, Inc.

I'm going to try kickstarting our awesome program, "This Week on IAOCblog.com," with a program about online video. Every day, I release a new 2-minute video at the AuthorViews web site. It's a daunting pace and requires that my head be firmly fastened to developing issues in online video. The business press breaks major online video stories almost every day. Google, Amazon, Apple, Sony, Microsoft -- they are all making major video-related deals every week. It's an exciting, difficult time for this nascent industry. I'll try to talk about some of the most pressing issues this week.

I'd also like to introduce everyone to one my associates, Morty Schiller, whom I've asked to assist with "This Week on IAOCblog.com." Morty is a copyrwriter extraordinaire, a blogger (his blog is called Wordrider), and has a wonderful sense of playfulness in his postings. Morty recently conducted a blog PR campaign for the book, The Case for Peace, by Alan Dershowitz, with me kibbitzing. Morty has a write-up about that campaign on his blog.

I'm hoping that Morty will assume the duties that PR Diva Gwendolynn Gawlick performed so admirably last fall: scheduling guest presenters for "This Week on IAOCblog.com," getting them passwords and usernames, and introducing the weekly topics and bloggers.

So, if you would like to take a week on the blog, please send topic ideas and dates to morty@mortyschiller.com, and we'll try to get this party started and keep it rolling to Valley Forge!

I have a pet peeve about fascinating discussions taking place in e-mail that belong on this blog. So let's kick it out, ladies and gentlemen, and see if we can get This Week on IAOCblog.com up and running again with a discussion of Online Communications in Investor Relations.

Don Dunnington broached the subject because he is giving a presentation at the National Investor Relations Institute (NIRI) meeting in Philadelphia on Thursday. The focus of the program is IR and blogging, v-blogging, and podcasting -- something like that.

Online IR was given a big boost by the Security & Exchange Commission's Regulation FD, requiring full disclosure of material financial information to all investors simultaneously. Webcasting earnings reports is one of the few ways to stay on the right side of Regulation FD.

My take on this was that IR folks are going to need to learn online video if they want their earnings reports to spread far and wide (of course, sometimes you don't want earnings reports spreading at all). I've been working with online video for four years now and I can tell you it is tough sledding. In some ways, Apple has made it easier for us because there are only two formats of digital video that play on iPods and cell phones. When you realize that there are hundreds of compression settings you can use with online video, narrowing the number down to 2 is a great relief. I'm thinking if you're broadcasting earnings reports, you'll want them to go onto handhelds.

Don found some interesting stats about subscribers to IR casts and then Dee Rambeau dished some info about how it's relatively easy to syndicate earnings reports through RSS. I hope those gentlement will post on this topic in the coming days and that you, dear reader, will chime in, too, and then This Week on IAOCblog.com will be back in business!