Transcript Flash-based On-line Simulation Video

FLASH-BASED ON-LINE
SIMULATION VIDEO
Tron Compton-Engle
Case Western Reserve University
June 19th, 2009
Impetus




Library tired of cataloging, storing, and checking
out VHS tapes and DVDs
Students tired of checking out VHS tapes and DVDs;
wanted “electronic” access
Limited use of simulation video by students due to
inconvenience
Very limited use of simulation video by faculty due
to inconvenience
Faculty Requirements





Students cannot download video
Password protected: students cannot see anyone
else’s video until they have been recorded their own
Very easy to use
Ability to comment on video
Live, password protected remote viewing by faculty
My Requirements


System could not be significantly more burdensome
to AV staff than VHS
Platform neutral (Mac/PC compatible)
Contenders- MediaNotes

Pros
 Free
 Robust

commenting
Cons
 Learning
curve for software
 Students have easy access to video files (“to post on
YouTube”)
 Not web-based
 Permissions management not built into system
Contenders - CommuniCoach

Pros
 Very
robust commenting
 Course management approach to video
 Permissions management built-in
 Web-based

Cons
 Time
consuming to set up course structure
 Faculty learning curve
 At the time, not Mac compatible or AD integrated
 Not free
Contenders - Windows Media Server

Pros
 No
additional cost
 Able to disable caching, downloading videos

Cons
 Permissions
management
 Poor cross-platform compatibility
Decision – Internally
Developed IIS/Flash Site

Pros
True cross-platform compatibility, web-based
 Easy permissions management (web-based, AD/NTFS
integrated)
 Ability to disable right-click downloads
 Very little learning curve for faculty and students
 Relatively easy for AV


Cons
No commenting (yet)
 Some performance issues with Flash player
 Video is cached locally (progressive download; not
streamed)

Demo

http://lawvideo.case.edu
Posting Process
Version 1.0
Record Video
AV staff drops file on file share drop box
Using batch files which run twice-a-day via scheduled tasks,
convert files to Flash videos and move videos to appropriate
web folder based on file name
Schedule tasks opens Internet Explorer and generates new
playlist for Flash player
Faculty member gives appropriate students access to videos
via a web interface
Technical Details
Version 1.0



Camcorder: Samsung SC-MX10 (generates AVI’s
with proprietary codec)
“Batchable” conversion software: Alive Video
Converter and Alive Video to Flash Converter
Web site: IIS 6.0 with Longtail’s JW FLV Player and
progressive download FLV files
Version 1.0 Pros and Cons

Pros
 Can

convert virtually any video file type
Cons
 Have
to use precise file names
 Large initial file sizes (slow transfers)
 Poor post-conversion video quality
 Complicated requirements and directions
Posting Process
Version 2.0
Record Video
AV staff drops file directly on to actual web
server (read-only)
Schedule task that opens Internet Explorer and
generates new playlist for Flash player runs hourly
Faculty member gives appropriate students access
to videos via a web interface
Technical Details
Version 2.0


Camcorder: Sanyo VPC-CG9 (generates “web
friendly” MP4s with non-proprietary H.264 codec;
no conversion necessary)
Web site: IIS 6.0 with Longtail’s JW FLV Player and
progressive download FLV files
“Parts List”






Sanyo VPC-CG9
Tripod (standard)
VAR-A2 accessory
VAR-G8 accessory
SD card
JW FLV Player license
VAR-A2
VAR-G8
Version 2.0 Pros and Cons

Pros







No file conversion: can drag and drop directly to web server; no need
for batch files and precise file names
Better quality video (because of no conversion)
Smaller video sizes for much faster transfers from camera to web server
Much faster posting of videos (hourly playlist scheduled task)
Faculty can self-manage process from recording to posting
Much less complicated requirements and directions
Cons


Must use camcorder which records natively in Flash compliant file type
(FLV or H.264 MP4 with progressive download support)
Sanyo camcorder does not come with AC power supply or external
microphone option
Feedback






Both faculty and students watched more videos
Faculty reviewed videos to refresh memory when
writing formal notes, grading, or justifying grade given
More faculty are now requesting that their classes be
recorded
Lead faculty members could easily review adjuncts’
sessions
Ability to skip around in video allowed greater
efficiency
Clinic is now using camcorders for off-site interviews,
crime scene filming, etc.
Outstanding Issues





Can we incorporate a commenting feature?
Should this be the solution for recording our large
lecture classes due to video/audio quality?
Are there other camcorders with “web friendly”
H.264/progressive download files (and ideally an
AC adapter and an external microphone option)?
If not, how long will we be able to acquire the
Sanyo VPC-CG9 with necessary accessories?
What should we name the system (OMRI)?
Other Thoughts





Could you use Adobe Connect for faculty to view and
comment remotely, record the meeting and then post on the
site?
Using v. 1.0 system, you could record the classroom screen
and audio with software like CaptureWiz or Camtasia,
convert to FLV and post
You could check out camcorders in the library for studentonly assignments
You could give camcorders to students, faculty, librarians,
etc. for vlogs with easy self-posting (abroad programs,
student recruitment, training, etc.)
Could security cameras with remote control capabilities and
scheduling features be tied into this system?
Q and A

Questions?