User talk:Ravedave/FeaturedVideo

technical criteria for featured video

It seems like a strict resolution requirement might not be suitable for video. For example a 400x300 video that played at high quality for 5 minutes, for 10MB might be "higher quality" technically than a 640x480 video that had a poor frame rate, or bad compression. Having a strict limit might just encourage people to blow up their videos for the sake of eligibility and loose detail per area.

What would you say to starting with the technical details unspecified, except to say that a featured video must be in the top 1% of all videos available on Wikipedia, and then as we see what is available, we could hammer out the technical details? Debivort 05:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's where the subjective "Be of high quality" section comes in. But to get this started off the resolution requirement should be removed. It makes sense to have low standards at first to get the ball rolling and then tighten them up as time goes on. The one thing that might be tough with featured videos is file size and quality. There is no way wikipedia can support full HD video, so lower quality might actually be a preference. The goal of WP:FP seems to be to select the best, encyclopedic pictures that could be printed. Perhaps Video's goal would be to select the best, encyclopedic videos that have a wow/information factor. I am thinking of things like the Hindenburg crash, where pictures (esp lacking the audio) don't have nearly the same impact that video does. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 07:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe by anology, FMs would be the best movies to accompany a CDROM pressing of Wikipedia - just as FPs correspond to the best images for printing. Debivort 07:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to feel that other than that the page is ready to go.Geni 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]