This sounds interesting, I wonder what's in it for Google. Between GMail and this new video hosting, they must have thousands of terrabytes ready somewhere. I just get a feeling they're planning for something bigger....the Google network maybe ?

Time will tell....

I'd like to hear from anyone that's signed up for this and get their reaction.....

"...I wonder what's in it for Google."

It looks like they get a cut of the fee you charge for folks to view the video

You can let people view for free but Google says they may charge you if they incur alot of costs to host the video. Either way, they get a penny it seems.

Keith

why does your link point to sony?

Seems to me that "searching" video could be a very big thing in the near future (and now if the technology was there.) How many home videos do you have sitting around on tapes....unable to locate a certain event/memory?

By gathering a huge cache of video files, Google could use them as a basis for testing search algorithms. What better way to get free samples, make money, and build the next killer technology?

A while back, I heard of sound searching by analyzing the phonemes (SP?) within the speech. This allows the sound wave to be translated to text more accurately, thus making it searchable. I can fathom this, but I cannot fathom how one would devise a decent video recognition algorithm without sophisicated artificial intelligence.

You're probably dead-on thinking that this is Google's way to test new search technology. The phonemes search works and is in use by the RIAA and their copyright police. They don't have to look for filenames, they actually have spiders to crawl the web looking for unauthorized copies of music files. It works by making a digital signature of a few seconds of the music, then compating that signature with music files found on the net. Tempo, timing and even pitch have no effect on the algorithm. The FBI already has an identity tool that compares locations of features on faces so that even a good disguise or age won't fool the program. I would not be the least bit surprised if Hollywood's copyright police aren't doing the same thing with illegally copied movies.

Steve Mann

I'm still trying to establish the best MPEG4 format to send to Google so that they don't have to re-encode. I'm tending towards DivX that I already have.

Is WMV actually capable of MPEG4? I didn't think it was but pages such as this one suggest it is. Very confused!

"This sounds interesting, I wonder what's in it for Google. Between GMail and this new video hosting, they must have thousands of terrabytes ready somewhere. I just get a feeling they're planning for something bigger....the Google network maybe ?"

Try this:
"At another level, it's a struggle over who will have the predominant influence over the massive amounts of user data that Google collects. In the past, discussions about privacy issues and the web have been about consumer protection. That continues to be of interest, but since 9/11 there is a new threat to privacy -- the federal government. Google has not shown any inclination to declare for the rights of its users across the globe, as opposed to the rights of the spies in Washington who would love to have access to Google's user data.

Much of the struggle at this new level is unarticulated. For one thing, the spies in Washington don't talk about it. Congress has given them new powers, without debating the issues. Google, Inc. itself never comments about things that matter. The struggle recognized by Google Watch has to do with the clash of real forces, but right now all we can say is that potentially this struggle could manifest itself in Google's boardroom.

The privacy struggle, which includes both the old issue of consumer protection and this new issue of government surveillance, means that the question of how Google treats the data it collects from users becomes critical. Given that Google is so central to the web, whatever attitude it takes toward privacy has massive implications for the rest of the web in general, and for other search engines in particular. "

http://www.google-watch.org/

Hmm... that Google-watch site is scary. Especially since I recently ran Google Desktop Search. Too late now I guess!

Anyway I've had a reply from them regarding video formats. My questions first followed by their answers...

Me: "My source footage is PAL. Is it really necessary to re-encode to NTSC framerate (29.97 fps) or can I leave it at PAL (25 fps)? If I submit PAL would you re-encode it?"

Google: "We currently do not accept the PAL format. We do accept any of the following: MPEG4, MPEG2, QuickTime, Windows Media, and RealVideo."

Me: "Do you have a preferred codec for MPEG4? I have access to the Nero Digital codec or DivX codec, amongst others."

Google: "We do not have a preferred codec for MPEG4. Go ahead and upload and we'll try to index your videos. If we can't, we'll email you for better recommended encoding."