Blackbird (codec) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 20 March 2018 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Blackbird (software). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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.
mk 07:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help.
Here is my view:
Also need:
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:
Stephen B Streater 20:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
I've cut down the early history. Stephen B Streater 10:58, 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:
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)
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)
JennyRad, I think it's a nice improvement, overall. A Transportation Enthusiast 16:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I read O'Reilly paper [2] and it meets almost all criteria laid out there for Web 2.0:
Comments anyone? Stephen B Streater 18:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Pricing is a complex issue. Perhaps a short section saying:
with some mention of SaaS, as this is not mentioned yet. Stephen B Streater 21:17, 25 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)
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)
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)
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)
Added launch of FORscene Server (September 2009). Have skipped 12 months - retain this note as a reminder to skip through the intervening time to add any significant historic events during this period. mk ( talk) 20:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
There's a recent article in Streamingmedia.com, generally considered a reliable source on related matters, which talks about FORscene being a Cloud computing service. Perhaps some Cloud categories could be added to the article. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 07:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
PS It also talks about FORscene having been used for fine cut for broadcast TV - a big step forward for Cloud-based professional video editing tools. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 07:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
On the subject of the Cloud, the Broadcast technology editor writes: Broadcasters using Brightcove to publish and distribute content to the web are to be given access to Forbidden Technologies’ cloud-based editing tools from within the online video platform, further illustrating independent third party recognition of FORscene's Cloud credentials. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 10:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyone interested in how FORscene works can come to Cloud Camp to hear my talk. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 10:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Bit of a 'watch this space' item - FORscene was recently ported over to run on an N900. Until this time the standard web browser has been the primary means of using the FORscene client. With the release on the N900 and news about the sister platform Clesh being up and running on Android a new section / paragraph to address this would be useful to readers. I will mention the N900 somewhere... mk ( talk) 23:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Forscene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackbird (codec) closed as merge. @ Pavlor, Kvng, Seanjmcm, Domdeparis, Mark Kilby, and Timtempleton: What components of the Blackbird (codec) article do you think should be merged. Please try to be as detailed as possible. AIRcorn (talk) 09:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Subject of the article 'Forscene' has changed and a new name (Blackbird) has come into majority use. The name 'Blackbird_(video)' seems a sensible choice. Any views? mk ( talk) 17:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
This article is terribly fragmented, includes a lot of redundancy, and is in parts very out-of-date. I don't think that trying to fix it piecemeal with small edits is likely to be very effective and I'm happy to rewrite it in full. Consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.41.146 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the move request was: page moved to Blackbird (software). Based on the discussion that the article is for the video software, this is the most reasonable suggested article title. Note: I've made some changes to the article to reflect the new title, however more will need to be made here to ensure the article makes sense. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 15:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Forscene → Blackbird (video) – Forbidden Technologies (now Blackbird plc) renamed Forscene to Blackbird in March 2018 as mentioned in this article:
Because of the potential conflict with many other uses of Blackbird, the title "Blackbird (video)" is appropriate as the company website is https://blackbird.video 87.112.41.146 ( talk) 16:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Wug· a·po·des 00:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Following the recent overhaul of the article could somebody please review whether this banner is still appropriate. If it isn't then please remove it. If it is, then please outline reasons why and ideas for precipitating removal. As I'm the author of most of the updates I don't feel I'm in the best position to judge it. mk ( talk) 20:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Blackbird (codec) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 20 March 2018 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Blackbird (software). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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.
mk 07:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help.
Here is my view:
Also need:
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:
Stephen B Streater 20:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
I've cut down the early history. Stephen B Streater 10:58, 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:
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)
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)
JennyRad, I think it's a nice improvement, overall. A Transportation Enthusiast 16:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I read O'Reilly paper [2] and it meets almost all criteria laid out there for Web 2.0:
Comments anyone? Stephen B Streater 18:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Pricing is a complex issue. Perhaps a short section saying:
with some mention of SaaS, as this is not mentioned yet. Stephen B Streater 21:17, 25 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)
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)
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)
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)
Added launch of FORscene Server (September 2009). Have skipped 12 months - retain this note as a reminder to skip through the intervening time to add any significant historic events during this period. mk ( talk) 20:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
There's a recent article in Streamingmedia.com, generally considered a reliable source on related matters, which talks about FORscene being a Cloud computing service. Perhaps some Cloud categories could be added to the article. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 07:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
PS It also talks about FORscene having been used for fine cut for broadcast TV - a big step forward for Cloud-based professional video editing tools. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 07:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
On the subject of the Cloud, the Broadcast technology editor writes: Broadcasters using Brightcove to publish and distribute content to the web are to be given access to Forbidden Technologies’ cloud-based editing tools from within the online video platform, further illustrating independent third party recognition of FORscene's Cloud credentials. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 10:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyone interested in how FORscene works can come to Cloud Camp to hear my talk. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 10:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Bit of a 'watch this space' item - FORscene was recently ported over to run on an N900. Until this time the standard web browser has been the primary means of using the FORscene client. With the release on the N900 and news about the sister platform Clesh being up and running on Android a new section / paragraph to address this would be useful to readers. I will mention the N900 somewhere... mk ( talk) 23:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Forscene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackbird (codec) closed as merge. @ Pavlor, Kvng, Seanjmcm, Domdeparis, Mark Kilby, and Timtempleton: What components of the Blackbird (codec) article do you think should be merged. Please try to be as detailed as possible. AIRcorn (talk) 09:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Subject of the article 'Forscene' has changed and a new name (Blackbird) has come into majority use. The name 'Blackbird_(video)' seems a sensible choice. Any views? mk ( talk) 17:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
This article is terribly fragmented, includes a lot of redundancy, and is in parts very out-of-date. I don't think that trying to fix it piecemeal with small edits is likely to be very effective and I'm happy to rewrite it in full. Consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.41.146 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the move request was: page moved to Blackbird (software). Based on the discussion that the article is for the video software, this is the most reasonable suggested article title. Note: I've made some changes to the article to reflect the new title, however more will need to be made here to ensure the article makes sense. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 15:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Forscene → Blackbird (video) – Forbidden Technologies (now Blackbird plc) renamed Forscene to Blackbird in March 2018 as mentioned in this article:
Because of the potential conflict with many other uses of Blackbird, the title "Blackbird (video)" is appropriate as the company website is https://blackbird.video 87.112.41.146 ( talk) 16:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Wug· a·po·des 00:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Following the recent overhaul of the article could somebody please review whether this banner is still appropriate. If it isn't then please remove it. If it is, then please outline reasons why and ideas for precipitating removal. As I'm the author of most of the updates I don't feel I'm in the best position to judge it. mk ( talk) 20:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)