1. FLASH-BASED ON-LINE SIMULATION VIDEO Tron Compton-Engle Case Western Reserve University June 19 th, 2009

2. 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

3. 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

4. My Requirements  System could not be significantly more burdensome to AV staff than VHS  Platform neutral (Mac/PC compatible)

5. 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

6. 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

7. Contenders - Windows Media Server  Pros  No additional cost  Able to disable caching, downloading videos  Cons  Permissions management  Poor cross-platform compatibility

8. 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)

9. Demo  http://lawvideo.case.edu http://lawvideo.case.edu

10. Posting Process Version 1.0 Record VideoAV 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

11. 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

12. 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 Complicated requirements and directions

13. 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

14. 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

15. “Parts List”  Sanyo VPC-CG9  Tripod (standard)  VAR-A2 accessory  VAR-G8 accessory  SD card  JW FLV Player license VAR-A2 VAR-G8

16. 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 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

17. 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.

18. 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)?

19. 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 student- only 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?

20. Q and A  Questions?