Talk:FORscene

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 12 June 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

A previous version of this article was deleted (see the debate). A new version has been written from scratch which addresses the issues of verifiability and reliable sources expressed in that debate. I am satisfied that this product meets WP:SOFTWARE, and that the article is suitably neutral despite the involvement of User:Stephen B Streater, who is involved wiht the product. This article is not eligible for speedy as repost. Just zis Guy you know? 11:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Choppy intro

The intro mentions FORscene waaay too many times. Also, it looks a bit choppy and 4 and 5 references for a couple lines seems a bit excessive. Fresheneesz 19:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've diluted the FORscene mentions, but the references are there as a reaction to the last AfD. Stephen B Streater 20:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From List of Codecs talk page

I'm working on a prototype FORscene article here. I have started to include some information about the video and audio codecs used in FORscene. This could also mention the video codec used in FORlive, which is now deprecated in FORscene, and also FORtune. In fact, I'd welcome any constructive comments and edits prior to deletion review. I am keen to err on the side of too much information rather than too little, as it is easier for me to add content and find references and for other editors to trim it than vice versa. Stephen B Streater 10:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. You might want to trim the See Also list a bit, since things like Java and web application are already linked in the article text. I was a little confused by the upload section, since you list 3 operating systems separately, and I was under the impression that this is done with java and a web browser and is basically the same on each platform. Also the server section is confusing - do you sell servers or only usage of your servers? -- Mcoder 13:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I've made some improvements. Thanks for your suggestions. Stephen B Streater 07:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback on prototype FORscene article

I found the article informative, factual and focussed, and I appreciate the need to keep it this way even more so for Wikipedia. I failed to spot any errors (as you already know however, I'm not so good with dates). But I do have some comments which may be of use as I have been following FORscene development for some time.

  • Was there a player written in native code at one point, is this a notable milestone (perhaps not if that path is no longer being developed)?
  • What about FORscene's defence against piracy, not just relative to tapeless and non-tapeless, are the benefits even over other tapeless systems? Or would this be out of scope as it might belong more in an article about video deliver i.e. relating to FORweb / FORmobile?
  • What about privacy too - how is this addressed by FORscene (e.g. lots of TV/films are kept heavily under wraps during production)?
  • Worth having a section on enhancements planned / in the pipeline (e.g. storyboard)?
  • There is no mention of integration with FORlive in terms of ability to edit monitor, edit, and publish from a live stream (which I believe is possible as it is something mentioned in relation to MyGard)?
  • Add some balance by mentioning alternatives? I don't know of any professional products but I know of at least two consumer oriented products - eSEQ / eyespot. I appreciate this route can get messy as it could open the door to personal opinion... Perhaps competing products could be referenced as external links? Also on competition, you mention how blackbird addresses issues of video editing over the internet but do not say what these issues are or why other methods do not solve them so well, is it worth adding more on this topic (without compromising any IP?)
  • So far as I know FORscene is 'net native' - i.e. it is built wholly on internet technologies e.g. pure Java - but the article does not mention the fact it uses HTTP - is this worth mentioning given I believe it has significance in terms of requiring less administration to make it work over firewalls and so on?
  • Are their any allowances one would have to make regarding FORscene? e.g. would editors used to tape-based or other systems have to make some significant sacrifices or changes in working practices? Is it as easy to use as some other systems e.g. eSEQ (BTW I noticed on Formidable's site that they had school children using FORscene).
  • You have external links to some Forbidden pages but not FORlive - which has been streaming live footage 24x7 for what seems an age (at least more than two years).
  • Vrious output methods are mentioned but not XML which I thought I read somewhere it handled.
  • If somebody wanted to get a basic idea of how to use FORscene, referencing the Clesh tutorial may be a convenient way to see practially how it works. Although as FORscene is aimed at professionals, the tutorial may convey a false impression. Is there an equivalent video for professionals?
  • How is collaboration supported? I have seen libraries of footage on the Clesh site. But I also read about being able to view video as it is being assembled. There is no section covering collaboration. Does collaboration mean logging in with your own ID but being able to view / use folders and footage shared with somebody else?

mk 07:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your help. Here is my view:

  • Was there a player written in native code at one point, is this a notable milestone (perhaps not if that path is no longer being developed)?
The Optima codecs were all written in native ARM code.
The mobile player is compiled into native ARM code.
The FORscene web player has always been in Java to allow cross-platform playback.
  • What about FORscene's defence against piracy, not just relative to tapeless and non-tapeless, are the benefits even over other tapeless systems? Or would this be out of scope as it might belong more in an article about video deliver i.e. relating to FORweb / FORmobile?
This is a good point. The only public player for the Blackbird codec is, not surprisingly, the Forbidden Java player, which can be tied to a particular server, making piracy difficult.
  • What about privacy too - how is this addressed by FORscene (e.g. lots of TV/films are kept heavily under wraps during production)?
Good point. Most professional users have all export options disabled except for time code, so they can't get content out of the system.
As a login is required, someone using the same machine later does not have access to the material.
  • Worth having a section on enhancements planned / in the pipeline (e.g. storyboard)?
I think I will add these when they are released. The storyboard is getting quite advanced, if you know how to enable it ;-)
  • There is no mention of integration with FORlive in terms of ability to edit monitor, edit, and publish from a live stream (which I believe is possible as it is something mentioned in relation to MyGard)?
This is true. Several big broadcasters now use FORscene with live compression for monitoring live broadcasts over the internet.
The importance of a live codec for logging, reviewing and editing hundreds of hours also should be mentioned.
  • Add some balance by mentioning alternatives? I don't know of any professional products but I know of at least two consumer oriented products - eSEQ / eyespot. I appreciate this route can get messy as it could open the door to personal opinion... Perhaps competing products could be referenced as external links? Also on competition, you mention how blackbird addresses issues of video editing over the internet but do not say what these issues are or why other methods do not solve them so well, is it worth adding more on this topic (without compromising any IP?)
I think links to pages comparing all the rivals is better than potentially POV opinions in each article.
  • So far as I know FORscene is 'net native' - i.e. it is built wholly on internet technologies e.g. pure Java - but the article does not mention the fact it uses HTTP - is this worth mentioning given I believe it has significance in terms of requiring less administration to make it work over firewalls and so on?
Yes - supporting standards is a key advantage of FORscene. HTTP support allows FORscene to work through firewalls and hugely increases its market.
  • Are their any allowances one would have to make regarding FORscene? e.g. would editors used to tape-based or other systems have to make some significant sacrifices or changes in working practices? Is it as easy to use as some other systems e.g. eSEQ (BTW I noticed on Formidable's site that they had school children using FORscene).
That depends on your setup. In a modern setup, the internet access is practically invisible. We have been told FORscene is more responsive than many professional desktop systems.
  • You have external links to some Forbidden pages but not FORlive - which has been streaming live footage 24x7 for what seems an age (at least more than two years).
FORscene now uses a more modern codec - I might link to it in the history section.
  • Various output methods are mentioned but not XML which I thought I read somewhere it handled.
XML is mentioned in the EDL article. I might mention it separately for clarity.
  • If somebody wanted to get a basic idea of how to use FORscene, referencing the Clesh tutorial may be a convenient way to see practially how it works. Although as FORscene is aimed at professionals, the tutorial may convey a false impression. Is there an equivalent video for professionals?
Professionals tend to get training, so we don't have a video for them. It's a good point though.
  • How is collaboration supported? I have seen libraries of footage on the Clesh site. But I also read about being able to view video as it is being assembled. There is no section covering collaboration. Does collaboration mean logging in with your own ID but being able to view / use folders and footage shared with somebody else?
This is being improved at the moment. I could fill in the details.

Also need:

  • Screenshot (I'll take some on my 30 inch Apple screen, or use the one in the R&A if we need a published source).
  • Workflow diagrams - worthy of any article in its own right.
  • Impact on the industry of web-based workflow.

I'll amend the article when I've digested this a bit more. Stephen B Streater 17:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


I've gone through your list fixing things which are simple to do. Still need:

  • Screenshot (I'll take some on my 30 inch Apple screen, or use the one in the R&A if we need a published source).
  • Workflow diagrams - worthy of any article in its own right.
  • Impact on the industry of web-based workflow.

Stephen B Streater 20:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This article has recently had a Cleanup tag added. Please propose any specific ideas on how this article could be improved to allow removing this tag here in this section. Stephen B Streater 17:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There are way too many irrelevant references. Most of them are not important and it makes the article difficult to read with all the in-text reference pointers. The summary section should be removed. I also think there are some npov-issues. --Sleepyhead 07:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The references all relate to the text preceding them. I included many because it is easier for me to find them and others to delete them than the other way round. I included many press articles and a few reviews to demonstrate beyond doubt that notability guidelines have been met. Several editors have already offered to improve the article. Perhaps they will be able to spot your NPOV issues. Stephen B Streater 07:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I might do some editing after the AfD is done since it looks like it will be kept. Not sure if I have the time though --Sleepyhead 09:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll remove the summary section now. Stephen B Streater 10:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
If there are any parts you think are NPOV, let me know and I'll dig out some references. Stephen B Streater 10:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've cut down the early history. Stephen B Streater 10:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Stephen - I strongly suspect (though I may be doing Sleepyhead a disservice here) that any cleanup you do will run the risk of appearing NPOV whatever you do. I should have time this afternoon to do some work on the article which should help. --JennyRad 11:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Stephen B Streater 11:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Sleepyhead's article on his employer was deleted partly because it was edited in large part by Sleepyhead, an employee. Still is, for that matter, now it's back. Just zis Guy you know? 12:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It's getting much easier now other people are working on it. Stephen B Streater 15:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The way this article is laid out is horribly confusing. When I read this, I got the impression that FORscene is a complicated aggregation of video software, services, and marketing buzzwords. It really doesn't convey a clear idea of what someone uses this for. The first few paragraphs need to give a concise overview of the subject. The current intro has way too much stuff crammed in there about Web 2.0, codecs, awards, and patents. How about something like this:

FORscene is a platform for editing and publishing of video over the internet, developed by Forbidden Technologies plc.
The platform consists of a browser-based video editing tool, and an Internet hosting service. An upload tool is provided to send raw video to servers operated by Forbidden Technologies. After uploading the video, it can be edited using a Java applet which runs in a web browser. The edited video can then be published. Published videos are viewable by anyone using a Java player which runs in most web browsers, and are streamed via HTTP from Forbidden Technologies' hosting service.

There are a bunch of other things that should be reworded. Such as "The FORscene Java interface operates through...HTTP and Java". I think it would be sufficient to say it uses HTTP. Video podcasts apparently work with iPods. Does that mean you can export MPEG-4? What other formats are supported? What about input formats? Also the timecode export part is really confusing. There is no way the average reader is going to understand this sentence. I would either drop it or give a brief description of how Final Cut Pro handles edit decision lists and non-destructive editing. The server section is still confusing. Do you let all your customers store thousands of hours of video? --Mcoder 01:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Some good points here. I'm at the Broadcast Live Show this week, but will put some suggestions here on the talk pages when I get back. Perhaps another section, not the introduction, could explain workflow including input and output formats supported and integration with FCP and Avid. We do let all our customers store thousands of hours of video. Some only have hundreds of hours though. They delete when their programmes are made. As for the introduction, most of our customers use FORscene for logging and reviewing so I think this should be mentioned. I had two speaking slots yesterday on delivery[1], (and an extra one at short notice!) so web and mobile publishing are also attracting interest in the real world. I think mobile input and output is important, and should be mentioned in the introduction. The patents could be mentioned in a separate section. I think the award should be mentioned somewhere. We have other awards, but this is most relevant as it is from the RTS and they get it (see video). Version 1 of this article didn't claim notability and was speedy deleted for this. Timecode export is complex but also important as this is what broadcasters use the system to generate. There are many options depending on workflow. Anyway, I'll fill in some details here this weekend. Stephen B Streater 06:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
My point is that the average reader's idea of video editing is probably something like iMovie or VirtualDub. So if you want to introduce concepts like offline editing and edit decision lists, you're going to have to explain them. In fact, I was a bit surprised by this section, since most of the rest of the article is about low-resolution publishing on the web and mobile phones. I guess I'm still not clear as to whether the focus is as an internet publishing tool, or a general video editing tool that operates over the internet. I guess it's both, but mainly as a collaborative editing tool. It's fine to cite patents as reference material, but I don't want to invite a debate here over whether such patents are enforcable in the UK. Saying that software is "protected by patents" pretty much begs the question of the European Patent Convention article 52. So either present both sides of the issue or don't bring it up at all. My question about the servers is basically about presenting it from the customer's point of view. Can customers use as much storage space as they want and not get charged extra for it? I take it the answer is yes - that you only charge by the hour. On the subject of codecs, I watched that award ceremony video and the framerate seemed really low. The images looked high-quality, but the framerate had been cut substantially to save bandwidth, and it didn't look like any motion compensation was used. I'm not sure this is the sort of codec I would want to use for publishing. Editing perhaps, but not publishing. --Mcoder 22:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
FORscene is a big system, covering a wide range of video functions. Some people use it for internet publishing, some for television post-production. Some for review (see latest Save the Children release). Your comment is like saying "I don't know whether TV is for news or entertainment". It is used for both. FORscene is used for making video. Web video, mobile video, TV video, podcasts. I assumed the Wikilinks to eg offline editing would suffice for those who need extra information, while leaving the article uncluttered for people in the know. The frame rate is low on the RTS video because the camera phone was a prototype and running in night mode - the Forbidden codec encodes at full frame rate of the source video. Stephen B Streater 23:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
PS It's the as such which is important in the European Patent Convention. Stephen B Streater 23:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
PPS The article doesn't refer to the program being potected by patents, but the technology. This is a whole area for discussion. Stephen B Streater 23:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this cleaner?

I've done a whack of tidying up, taking out the references I think Sleepy was complaining about (and where appropriate making them external links instead) and trying to tone down the language where it sounded a bit "promo". I've also temporarily commented out the patents, that is, the links to the actual patents themselves. Maybe I shouldn't have (which is why I didn't outright delete them, obviously) - it seems a bit excessive to include them, but I'm not at all sure. It probably still needs de-marketing-speak-ifying somewhat, and I want at least someone else (someone external, I'm afraid, not Stephen!) to proof-read it before removing the cleanup tag. Hope I've not done anything terribly terrible. --JennyRad 14:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this. It's a lot more readable without all the in-line references. I was wondering if the external links supporting the article content should be separated from the product-related external links. It would be a shame if there was a later cull of external links followed by an even later cull of unreferenced content. Stephen B Streater 15:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I've had this concern in the past as well: links are removed to trim content, but then later someone else comes along and removes the seemingly unreferenced content. Perhaps comments in the article source itself would help in this regard? In other words, when removing a reference for the purposes of readability, maybe we could insert a <!- -> style comment that identifies that sources were removed for brevity. Unlike talk page discussions, doing it this way would ensure that the citation doesn't get lost during archiving. A Transportation Enthusiast 16:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

JennyRad, I think it's a nice improvement, overall. A Transportation Enthusiast 16:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web 2.0

I read O'Reilly paper [2] and it meets almost all criteria laid out there for Web 2.0:

  • An attitude, not a technology (I didn't make this one up)
  • The long tail (runs on PCs / Macs without installation or configuration, so suitable for low volume users)
  • The perpetual beta (upgades every few days/weeks)
  • Software that gets better the more people use it (customers determine developments)
  • Emergent user behaviour not pre determined (new workflows being developed by customers)
  • Play
  • Rich user experience
  • Trust your users (we do this - they are pretty good at what they do)--JennyRad 23:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Small pieces loosely joined (uploading, reviewing, logging, editing, web publishing, mobile upload/viewing, are separate components)
  • Software above the level of device (PC, Mac, Linux, Mobile phone, Video iPod etc)
  • Data as the Intel Inside. Web/mobile videos can be shared easily. (To come: existing library will allow sharing of user-generated source videos)

Comments anyone? Stephen B Streater 18:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

First thought (aside from "how cheesy is that first one!?") - just as well it fits those criteria, 'cos the article says it's a Web 2.0 app, I know it does, 'cos I got perplexed about phrasing that sentance and it stuck in my mind! But - yes - for those criteria that I understand (the "long tail" has me a little confused, and the "Intel Inside" analogy is passing me by presently) - it seems to me FORscene is an excellent example of them. I think I'd hesitate to mention this in the main FORscene article just yet, though - although I'm having enormous difficulty explaining why I think so. I'll come back to it tomorrow and try to explain.
Having said that I've just noticed - and me an avid categoriser! - that FORscene is in no categories whatsoever, and yet Category:Web 2.0 clearly exists. I shall therefore Cat it at once - and point if need be at this talk page for justification! --JennyRad 23:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The long tail is about the fact that a few companies will use the system a lot, but vast numbers will use it a little, if only they have access. A powerful but complex dedicated desktop system does not cater for huge number of one-off productions, as the investment in setup time and money is too high to make it economical. A Java applet (which runs without installation or configuration) with an intuitive interface is ideal for the vast numbers of users with relatively small needs, who typically represent a majority of the potential market. Just think of the few 13 part TV series and the millions of 1 minute mobile video clips, and you'll see the point.
The Intel Inside analogy is not fully developed in FORscene. We will soon add the ability for any user to add their own footage to the library, and allow all users to read this content. Combined with the existing powerful logging and search functionality, FORscene will become the place of choice to do video, simply because there is so much available. Think about Wikipedia - the data here is often what attracts people, encouraging them to add their own (such as this sentence). It becomes a virtuous circle. Stephen B Streater 14:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Um, by that definition just about any website that works on a PC and a Mac exploits the Long-tail. Which makes it a not particularly good definition. TBH I think you're bending ALL of those definitions to get FORScene inmto the web2.0 catagory. Artw 14:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Generic websites don't meet the other criteria for Web 2.0. And the web is well suited to the long tail, unlike (for example) broadcast TV. I play Go and there are no broadcast TV programmes about Go in the UK, but many websites. Go is an example of the long tail. Perhaps someone would like to come up with a definition of the long tail, perpetual beta, and software above the level of device which excludes FORscene. Stephen B Streater 17:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
See this for an explanation of why the web is so good at the long tail: "Where inventory storage and distribution costs are insignificant, it becomes economically viable to sell relatively unpopular products; however when storage and distribution costs are high only the most popular products can be sold.". FORscene has very low storage and distribution costs, and so is well suited for the long tail. Stephen B Streater 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free images

The image FORscene_editing_interface_May_2006.PNG is tagged {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|Image is to be used only in Wikipedia articles}}.

This does not meet the requirements of Category:Conditional use images, which are images that may be used for any purpose, but may require attribution or other acknowledgement.

Since the use of this tag violates Wikipedia's copyright policy, the image may be removed, but I'd like to give Stephen B Streater a chance to fix this before proposing deletion. --Mcoder 23:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like I misinterpreted "free". I'll fix the tag. Stephen B Streater 06:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tidy up?

First the article was nominated for deletion, now it has a banner stating the quality needs to be changed to meet WP standards. Can we infer that its present form exceeds current WP quality levels. :-)

Could somebody explain how this banner came about? I thought the need to keep things tidy was something that applied to all articles equally. Why has this article been singled out as being having a need greater than the thousands of others on WP? mk 15:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Several editors have improved this article since that cleanup was put on by the AfD proposer here [3]. His specific points have all been answered, so I don't know if he still thinks it should be there. Since then, various other ideas, such as those from Mcoder have been mooted. I'll address these in detail when Broadcast Live is over. You could always try removing the banner and see if anyone objects. Perhaps the cleanup was triggered by article being new. It's now had around ten editors all together. Stephen B Streater 18:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timecode Export

I'm reluctant to repeat great swathes of material which is available in the blue links, because this makes it too verbose for people who are familiar with blue linked concepts and doesn't benefit from improvements to the blue-linked articles. The timecode section could be expanded though as there are multiple uses of timecode output, depending on how FORscene is used.

A typical consumer will not have come across timecode, except seeing it by chance on badly edited live TV programmes, so may be unfamilar with it. All professional users in the broadcast industry will be familar with it. Timecode, written as four pairs of digits separated by colons, specify the hour, minute, second and frame of every frame of video. When FORscene is used for logging, editing and reviewing over the web it has pictures restricted to browse quality (to reduce bandwidth and CPU requirements). These are not sufficient resolution for broadcasting on conventional TV programmes (though no doubt, with improvements in internet speed and storage, this state of affairs will only be temporary). There are several ways to get the information in FORscene into a broadcast quality version of the programme. They all use timecodes (and reel name) to relate browse quality copies of the video to broadcast quality versions.

  • When logging, exporting an Avid Log Exchange or XML which contains the logging information (tied to appropriate timecodes)
  • When editing or reviewing, exporting a CMX 3600 EDL. This contains timecode specifying the exact start and end point of each edit. The broadcast quality original video can then be combined with the EDL to give a broadcast quality copy of the programme.
  • When editing, exporting an XML or AAF which contains detailed edit information allowing automatic remaking of a broadcast quality video from the original source material.
  • When uploading into FORscene at browse quality, FORscene can keep broadcast quality material too. After the browse quality is edited, FORscene can output eg a QuickTime or AAF file at broadcast quality which contains all the edits too, for finishing on FCP or Avid.

It's a bit like making a rough copy on your 300dpi laser printer, and then sending a postscript file off to a printer for high quality rendering.

Do people think it would be useful to include any of this information? And if so, which bits? Should I write Avid log exchange and CMX 3600 stubs? Stephen B Streater 21:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the key to what should/should not be included in this article has to be FORscene-specificness. Things like the nature of timecode should be in the timecode article (suitably wikilinked). I'm looking at pages like Final Cut Pro and Final Cut Express to try to decide by analogy what sort of things are suitable to include - the biggest problem then being that what is suitable to include on a page about something mainstream like FCP may be tut-tutted at on a page about an as-yet less-used system written largely by the page's author. Having said which I'm very tempted to write a section explaining usage of FORscene for Joe Bloggs. The why and what and who. I'd appreciate it if others would leap in and yell if they think this is a terrible idea! --JennyRad 11:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd give it a go. It might put the rest of the article in more context. Stephen B Streater 12:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pricing

A question which came up a lot at Broadcast Live was about pricing. As an Internet product, this must be handled differently from a normal video post-production tool. Does this deserve a section? Stephen B Streater 21:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting question on two levels: firstly from the normal post-production tool perspective that you mention but also from the payment-for-web-service perspective: pay-as-you-go isn't, I don't think, yet a common model for payment for web services, and yet it seems to me to be a very useful one for the future. I suppose newspapers and academic journals and so on where you can pay for a once-off reading of something-or-other are not disimilar ... oh - and perhaps in some senses O'Reilly's Safari and Baen Books' Webscriptions ... but they aren't quite the same. I'm off to read the Wikipedia pages about those things now to see if there's mention of their payment models - what's included on other Wikipedia pages about other web services has to be a useful model for what should be on FORscene's. --JennyRad 10:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. My first investigation has turned up very little - I particularly notice that Software as a Service doesn't mention the pay-as-you-go possibility, and there's very little discussion that I can find on Wikipedia of web micropayments. Since I know there's vast quantities of description of other interesting and unusual business models (in many cases "interesting" is relative) this seems like a hole that needs plugging. However, I think the plugging needs to be on pages like Software as a Service and Web service rather than on the FORscene pages - though a passing mention of the payment model would certainly not be inappropriate, I think. I'm starting some discussion on the Software as a Service talk page - I don't want to just go adding the content until I've given what I want to add a bit more thought. --JennyRad 10:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Does the subject of pricing depend on where the article is coming from. I.e. as a consumer on the street, as a professional media outfit (which might have one off costs for infrastructure), or as a provider offering it as a portal either for upload of ad hoc videos and / or a video library. The Tiscali use of FORscene does/did not charge the end customer but presumably the system could track usage which Tiscali might subsidise. I.e. the key point being that usage can be tracked - and linked to a pay as you go pricing scheme if so required. mk 21:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Pricing is a complex issue. Perhaps a short section saying:

  • system tracks usage
  • price depends on usage
  • low use consumers are not charged
  • fixed price per project is usual

with some mention of SaaS, as this is not mentioned yet. Stephen B Streater 21:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles should not have a detailed price list, which would quickly get out of date. However, for some services, pricing is an integral part of the marketing and delivery, for example the iTunes Music Store's flat-rate 99 cents per song. The software-as-a-service model seems to be a rather fundamental part of FORscene, so I think it deserves a brief mention. --Mcoder 01:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Added a simple section. Stephen B Streater 19:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Added a note on charges arising from viewing a web vid / downloading a mobile video, I expect these are there to cover bandwidth charges (but I've not said this as I'm not 100% sure), as well as making a point about viewing stats (which I cannot see mentioned anywhere). mk 23:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes - the web charge is to cover bandwidth charge. The mobile charge is signifcantly more than bandwidth cost - but less the mobile operator download charge to the end user for download. Viewtoothing is free.
I was intending to include this cost in the hosting sentence above. Perhaps we should reduce that line to just Publishing, taking off the bit about Internet data cost from that sentence. Also, we don't want to give the impression the viewer has to pay, which was why I had it under hosting rather than viewing. I think it is worth saying that the pubisher pays, not the viewer. Stephen B Streater 06:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Ouch - didn't log in before making my change! Did not want to say viewing is free without qualification as mobile viewing is free only once the viewer has paid the initial data charge to download it to their phone - so I've qualified it in brackets saying it's free with respect to FORscene i.e. excluding ISP / mobile network operator charges. mk 19:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage

I've added a short section on usage, which seems to me to be relevant and an important thing to include - but I can't as yet find parallels in other articles on Wikipedia. I'm not sure whether this is because (a) I'm looking in the wrong place, (b) it simply hasn't occured to people that it's a useful section for specialist software pages to include or (c) other people don't agree that it's a useful section. I'd be grateful for opinions before I expand this section - or indeed start including it on pages on other specialist software I know stuff about! --JennyRad 17:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a good start. The usage section would be a good place to include the workflow diagrams for web-based workflow, perhaps when they are published by a reliable secondary source. I can't help feeling that Usage should go above History. Perhaps Intro, Usage, Components, [Pricing], History, See also, References, External links. Does this make sense? Stephen B Streater 17:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


Agreed - seems so logical that I've implemented it! --JennyRad 17:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White space

There is a lot of white space on my version near the top, as the contents list is quite long, and he introduction is quite short. How is this space normally filled? Stephen B Streater 19:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clesh

Any thoughts on how to accomodate Clesh into Wikipedia? Currently there's no Clesh article on WP. Should Clesh have it's own article? Or is it appropriate to describe Clesh within the FORscene article? I.e. along the lines of it being the 'consumer flavour' of FORscene? mk 22:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Clesh has recently been granted an article of its own. In this light I'd suggest the FORscene article be stripped of Clesh-specific content, providing instead only links to the Clesh article where needed, or descriptive where it serves to contrast the two services. mk (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)