Grants talk:IdeaLab/Open source simple video cutting and transcoding contribution tool

Existing tools

Wouldn't it be better to improve one of the existing tools? Like en:Openshot, en:Avidemux or en:Kdenlive. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Existing tools (VLC, openshot, avidemux, kdenlive) are usually complex... none are designed for the specific use case of Commons. I agree that we should definitely take a look at all of them as potential options for places to start, though. VLC was just the first thing I found that had cut and multi-codec playback support, was open source and cross platform. Pratyeka (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I think there'd be a big benefit to a tool that concentrates on:

• batch uploading -- set up metadata then 'fire and forget' while it runs
• very minimal editing (maybe just trimming)
• transcoding on client-side OR coordination with a consistent server-side converter tool
• consistent ability to restart if the machine crashes or lose connectivity

meanwhile full video editing can be pushed out to, at the high end existing cross-platform tools, or at the low end a web interface like Popcorn Editor. For folks who have large archival data sets to upload -- or new data sets like conference videos -- the bulk setup is the pain. Definitely make sure this is specced carefully, it's easy to get bogged down in extra stuff in video-land. :) --brion (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your supportive comment. I was not considering upload as a key feature of the initial project, however it is a pain point in many cases and could be integrated either initially or as a later update. Since you seem keen, please consider endorsing the proposal using the button the main proposal page. Pratyeka (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

yes, how do we get an entry level video "editor" / wizard to fix video mistakes, easy captioning, crediting, transitions? - for some quick wins & leave off professional grade for later. Beatley (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in this proposal. One by one...

• Not sure what you mean by fix mistakes.
• About easy captioning: captions can be added later as additional streams. They can also be translated. There are existing simple tools for that, and it's not considered to be the major pain point.
• crediting: As far as I'm aware, the explicit standard on commons is to avoid placing credits within media. Instead it should be supplied as metadata outside of the media, on the appropriate commons page. This includes authors, licensing, etc. Therefore, this is a non-problem.
• transitions: The most common transition in video is the cut. The current scope of the proposal is to support cutting only.

Does this help to resolve your queries? Pratyeka (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Glrx

I would decline this proposal. As it stands, the suggestion is to have VLC upgrade its offering. If that is the plan, then the proposal should have asked VLC for a bid first. Other details of the proposal are not concrete. If VLC says no, then what? I'm also not inspired by "VLC was just the first thing I found".

On the help convert page, VLC's transcoder is criticized for poor quality. I would expect VLC to want to improve that problem already. WP need not drive VLC's development. It appears that there are several command line tools that can perform the desired transcoding. I do not get the sense that all those tools produce inferior results. The proposal claims that the process is difficult, but it does not describe why it is difficult. Consequently, I do not understand the proposer's complaint. If the proposer does have a background in video, then why is it difficult to cut/dissolve the 20 hours of video using an editor that he already has? I'd expect the proposer to have tools that would allow such edits even if they do not output the WP-desired format. Then use a command line tool to transcode to a WP-format and upload the video.

The proposed editing requirements seem limited and haphazard. A tool that provides limited editing support would not have a long life. Why would users learn a tool that offers only limited functionality? I'd expect users to gravitate toward tools with more capabilities. If we assume that existing tools can output a common video format, then the only issue is a transcode to a WP-favored format. That can be done with a command line tool.

The proposal needs more meat.

Glrx (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I was just about to write something similar. Funding better free video editing software might be a worthy goal, but reading this grant, I'm left wondering if the grant requester would even know what to ask for (Assuming they got someone to actually implement it). Feature requirements and use cases is one of the hardest part of software development, and the part that most likely causes software development projects to fail (It is also the part that you don't need to be a programmer in order to "do"). This proposal is pretty silent on what the features actually needed even are. Bawolff (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 1 2017

This Project Grants proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 1 2017 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during the community comments period, through the end of 4 April 2017.

The committee's formal review for round 1 2017 begins on 5 April 2017, and grants will be announced 19 May. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear Pratyeka,

Can you clarify the extent to which you see the work you propose to do as Wikimedia-specific, versus providing support that would apply more globally in other contexts?

I would like to see comments from volunteers editors focused on Commons, indicating to what extent they see a need for this project. Video editing software is common enough now (through YouTube, Instagram, mobile apps, etc) that it's not clear to me how much the product you propose is a priority for our volunteers. It will support your proposal if you can ask for community members to comment, both with endorsements and concerns.

Finally, have you begun the engagement process with existing open source projects? Ideally, these partnerships would already be in the works now for a project such as you propose. Have you had any conversations with VLC?

Kind regards,

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

video convert on Labs

Hi! Isn't it something similar? videoconvert rubin16 (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Round 1 2017 decision

This project has not been selected for a Project Grant at this time.

We love that you took the chance to creatively improve the Wikimedia movement. The committee has reviewed this proposal and not recommended it for funding. This was a very competitive round with many good ideas, not all of which could be funded in spite of many merits. We appreciate your participation, and we hope you'll continue to stay engaged in the Wikimedia context.

Next steps: Applicants whose proposals are declined are welcome to consider resubmitting your application again in the future. You are welcome to request a consultation with staff to review any concerns with your proposal that contributed to a decline decision, and help you determine whether resubmission makes sense for your proposal.

Over the last year, the Wikimedia Foundation has been undergoing a community consultation process to launch a new grants strategy. Our proposed programs are posted on Meta here: Grants Strategy Relaunch 2020-2021. If you have suggestions about how we can improve our programs in the future, you can find information about how to give feedback here: Get involved. We are also currently seeking candidates to serve on regional grants committees and we'd appreciate it if you could help us spread the word to strong candidates--you can find out more here. We will launch our new programs in July 2021. If you are interested in submitting future proposals for funding, stay tuned to learn more about our future programs.

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Open source simple video cutting and transcoding contribution tool

Scoring rubric	Score
(A) Impact potential Does it have the potential to increase gender diversity in Wikimedia projects, either in terms of content, contributors, or both? Does it have the potential for online impact? Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?	5.7
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	4.8
(C) Ability to execute Can the scope be accomplished in the proposed timeframe? Is the budget realistic/efficient ? Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?	3.0
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	3.2
Additional comments from the Committee: The proposal may be within Wikimedia's strategic priorities and has a potential for online impact. Sustainability is hard to estimate as there are only few details available. Seems to fit more VLC strategy, not Wikimedia. The idea in itself is good: falls under “infrastructure” strategic priority and should make an impact by making uploading videos easier. I am not sure that it is a particularly innovative proposal - there are many such front-ends for VLC and not only (for instance, videoconvert on toolslab). Since the proposal is just to ask the VLC maintainers to develop a new front-end the risks may be high, as they may refuse. It is not clear what will constitute the success of this project? If VLC maintainers agree? Not very innovative (Schnittserver or how do we spell it?) but a decent solution. Somewhat measurable outcomes. Not clear. Unclear relations with VLC and no endorsements or letters of intentions from their side. Even no interactions seem to be executed with VLC. Not clear how this will be executed, this refers mostly to VLC developers who are yet to be identified. Little or no. No community engagement, while there is an active community of people working on videos on Commons. I am not sure that this is a valid grant proposal, just to ask the VLC team to develop something for Wikimedia. In addition comparable tools already exist. https://tools.wmflabs.org/videoconvert/index.php - convert is already possible via Labs, and doesn't seem to be executable: unclear relations with VLC, unclear budget, unclear prior experience of grantee. Too vague proposal compared to the existing options and lack of clear proof of the experience of a potential grantee.