More tweaks are on the way… but things are coming along nicely.  Enjoy!

This tutorial assumes some familiarity with the <video> spec released in html5 and offers a solution to html5-friendly video that can be exported out of itunes and is simultaneously backwards compliant with Adobe flash –while remaining iphone friendly.

Early in my testing, it was apparent that the default *.m4v files, although compatible both with html5 and flash, resulted in files well over 30 mb; and for our customers (mostly farmers out in rural areas) this was an unacceptable solution.  We needed to keep our final videos around 8-10mb (as our current .flv files were) but still allow mobile streaming on an iphone.  As I began testing, I learned that imovie-created mp4 files were compatible in html5 web-browsers but not with an ipod touch/iphone.

After a few hours of testing, I discovered a solution:  If I tweaked the mp4 video settings and provided a more detailed codec declaration in my <video> tag… I could make the video compatible with both the desktop browser as well as the ipod browser.

Here is my codec solution for mp4 compatibility in both flash (for backwards compatibility) and html5 from itunes:

Quicktime Export > MP4 file format > H.264 codec > AAC-LC audio > AND!!!  under the Video Options button, select “Baseline” as your profile option.  Here are some screen-shots of the settings panels:

This is still only part of the solution:  putting this file in a “vanilla” <video><source> tag would render the file un-playable on an iphone/ipod.  In order for this file to work properly, one must specify the right codec in the <video> tag.  Here is an example snippet that works with the itunes export:

<video id=”movie” width=”460″ height=”259″ poster=”image.jpg” controls autobuffer>
<source src=”movie.mp4″ type=’video/mp4; codecs=”avc1.58A01E, mp4a.40.2″‘>
</source></video>

Note the <source> tag;  I have included both a “type” declaration as well as a codec declaration.  If the <video> tag does not contain these fields, your mp4 file will not play on an ipod or iphone.  I cannot emphasize this enough.  [for more reading on html5 video and audio codec declarations, click here]

However, I still encountered one major issue:  .mp4 movies created out of itunes do not “buffer” the same way .flv files do when loading inside of a flash player.  Instead of the progressive loading we are all used to, the file would not even appear in the flash player until the entire clip had loaded in the browser’s memory.  This was an unacceptable solution. After some research over at rakaz’z blog and macslocum I discovered that the mp4 has something called a “moov atom” feed that makes buffering in flash possible.  In iTunes, this atom file is located at the “end” of the *.mp4 file… and flash cannot take advantage of the buffering capability unless this feed is the first piece of data downloaded by flash.  Fortunately, Renaun Erickson over at Adobe has created a simply little AIR utility to fix this atom feed placement.I found a relatively painless solution to this problem: a program called “QTindexswapper”.  [download link].

Once you have selected your iMovie mp4 file and click the “Process” button, you should see a new .mp4 file that will buffer correctly in a flash player.

I would be interested in other solutions to this one… especially ones that simplify the process.  If you have any ideas, leave a comment.

———————————————

for more great reading on this topic, allow me to refer you to this post over at the Opera Blog.

A friend poses the following: Imagine that there really were these fundamentalist Christian terror cells all over the United States, as the Department of Homeland Security imagines. Let’s say a group of five of these terrorists hijacked a plane, flew it to Mecca, and plowed it into the Kaaba.Now let’s say a group of well-meaning, well-funded Christians — Christians whose full-time job was missionary work — decided that the best way to promote healing would be to pressure the Saudi government to drop its prohibition against permitting non-Muslims into Mecca so that these well-meaning, well-funded Christian missionaries could build a $100 million dollar church and community center a stone’s throw from where the Kaaba used to be — you know, as a bridge-building gesture of interfaith understanding.

Read the rest at NRO: Ground Zero Thought Experiment – The Corner – National Review Online.

Mia Lamar, the Author begins her “article” thusly:

The arguments for both are the same: tax cuts—whether for individuals or corporations—will kickstart economic growth and create jobs at a time when the recovery appears to be stalling.

Actually mia, this isn’t really an argument at all… but more of a conclusion  (that tax cuts will jumpstart the economy) based on an argument (reasons why tax cuts will jumpstart the economy) you haven’t even acknowledged.  This sloppiness in your introduction is not an encouraging sign… I must say…

You continue with your analysis:

Though many economists agree a higher rate makes the U.S. less competitive over the long term, they are mixed about whether cutting the corporate rate would have any immediate impact.

The reason, they say, is that cutting corporate taxes isn’t focused specifically on expanding operations or creating jobs.

“You could create more opportunity for job creation,” said John Canally, an economist for LPL Financial. “But (corporations) could take that money and invest overseas. You can’t tell them what to do.”

SEE… SEEE (I hear you saying) tax cuts won’t stimulate jobs because, gosh darn it, you can’t tell corporations what to do with their money.  They “might” invest overseas and we just can’t take that risk now, can we?  But then you had a light-bulb moment, didn’t you!  WHAT IF… the government could tell corporations what to do with their money!  Problem solved!

[T]ax incentives—like the payroll tax exemption enacted last March to encourage hiring—are textbook tax approaches to economic downturns, says Doug Shackelford, a tax professor at the University of North Carolina Kenan-Flagler Business School.  ”These targeted jobs credits, that’s what supposed to work,” Shackelford said. “So if you told me you have one tax trick to play, I’d say we are playing the right trick right now.”

This “textbook approach” wouldn’t happen to be written by former Enron Advisor Paul Krugman, now , would it?!   No, seriously though… providing one-time tax incentives (aka government coercing business to act in pre-determined ways through the pulling of financial strings) isn’t really working all that great in helping to actually create jobs now, is it?  Mia, do you not even begin to doubt these self-proclaimed “experts” relying on “textbook” fixes when the reality of their results is so clearly in contradiction with their projections?!

Clearly you haven’t because in the very next paragraph… just moments after arguing that one-time tax credits DO INCENTIVIZE businesses to hire… you then reject the notion that LONG TERM incentives would do the same:

via US Corporate Tax Rate: Would Lower Corporate Taxes Help Jumpstart US Economy? – CNBC.

At a time when workers’ pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees’ average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds…

Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.

The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.

Twice the average compensation. Shocking, isn’t it?  And what makes matters worse is that the public sector… which has been hurting like never before… is subsidizing the extravagance of public sector employees.  It is one thing if someone EARNS more in the private sector because he or she creates greater value or sells a product someone else wants to buy… thereby gaining wealth by the voluntary exchange of goods and services.   It is quite another thing when an employee of the state — who produces nothing more of value than their private sector counterparts — earn far more simply by virtue of their connections to political power and influence.

Perhaps it is best said another way:  Government profits far more of the backs of the private sector than the private sector profits by means of the free market.  The very liberals who lament “greedy” and “evil” corporations don’t even bat an eye when the political class profits by a 2-to-1 factor off the working class.  If your worldview revolves around the idea that government is intrinsically good… than I suppose one wouldn’t find this to be some great injustice… but for the rest of us… those of us who see the waste, the inefficiencies, and the incompetence systematic of government activity… than this is truly an outrage.

via Federal workers earning double their private counterparts – USATODAY.com.

Does it not say something when the hometown paper of our nation’s capital cannot seem to find a reporter who can control his contempt for beliefs held by millions of ordinary Americans?

Oh, it says a LOT Mr. McGurn.  It tells us just how out of touch mainstream journalism is with the American people.  Or did you mean that question rhetorically?

via William McGurn: Are Americans Bigots? – WSJ.com.

The nascent US economic recovery would be halted in 2011 if Congress fails to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, analysts at Deutsche Bank said…

Deutsche said the drag on gross domestic product should they lapse could be as much as 1.5 percent, with the more likely impact at 1.1 percent.

The impact would be worse, the analysts said, if Congress fails to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was enacted in 1969 to make sure rich people pay taxes but was never indexed for inflation, and thus is now hitting middle-income workers.

“In a worst-case scenario, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and failing to fix the AMT could result in (1.5 percent) of fiscal drag in 2011 on top of the 1 percent fiscal drag we expect to occur as the Obama fiscal stimulus package unwinds,” Deutsche said in a note to clients. “If the recovery remains soft/tentative through early next year, this additional drag could be enough to push the economy to a stalling point.”

But those stupid Europeans… they don’t know what they are talking about… or, so says Secretary Treasury Timothy Geitner.  In an interview with Jake Tapper, news, Geitner said that letting Bush’s tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans would, and I quote, “be the right thing to do”.

what the President’s proposing to do is to leave in place, to extend tax cuts that go to more than 95 percent of working Americans and to leave in place tax cuts that are very important to incent businesses to hire new pe — new employees and to invest in expanding output. We think that’s a — the — it’s a very strong package. We think it’s the right package. We think it’s fair. We think it’s responsible. Now, we also think it’s responsible to let the tax cuts expire that just go to 2 percent to 3 percent of Americans, the highest earning Americans. We think that’s the responsible thing to do because we need to make sure we can show the world that they’re willing as a country now to start to make some progress bringing down our long — our long-term deficits. TAPPER: Don’t you think it will slow economic growth? GEITHNER: No. Just letting those tax cuts that only go to 2 percent to 3 percent of Americans, the highest earning Americans in the country expire. I do not believe it will have a negative effect on growth.

But even while Geitner was explaining the administration’s economic policy, his logic starts to break down.  If Geitner is admitting that tax cuts for couples making under 250,000 would stimulate the economy… why wouldn’t tax cuts for people making over 250,000 also stimulate the economy? And if it would have a stimulative effect… why wouldn’t the Obama administration be in favor of it?  Well, the answer is hidden in plain view in Geitner’s response to the question:  Obama’s economic policies are much more concerned about fairness than about growth.  The reason Obama’s economic policies have failed to bring about a definitive end to the recession is because they have always been designed to remedy the perceived inequity of American capitalism rather than to incentivize wealth creation.  Instead of letting the market transfer wealth from rich to poor by encouraging the rich to buy goods produced by small businesses… the Administration thinks that tax cuts for small business — paid for by higher taxes on the rich — will solve the country’s economic woes.  However, the rich — who already pay a huge percentage of all taxes — are not spending because their belts are being ever tightened by liberal economic policies.  It doesn’t matter how many tax cuts you give to small businesses; if no one is buying their products, they won’t have enough income to hire those workers.

The unfortunate consequence of this policy is that Obama’s huge transfer of wealth — either future wealth in the form of debt payments or higher taxes on high earners — has failed to actually benefit the poor in any meaningful way.  Obama’s huge spending projects have not increased demand for the cars unions produce… encouraged investment in business the poor work in…  or increased spending by the upper class.  Instead, his debt agenda has created a permanent under-class… dependent on government handouts (e.g. extending “unemployment benefits”… the new welfare) … and has forced us into a position where massive tax revenue will be required… not to pay for anything the poor need… but to pay a autotelic debt burden that that has not achieved any meaningful benefit for the middle class.

What we are seeing is a failure of Liberal policies… a failure of Keynesian economics… a failure of New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman’s entire worldview.  Lets hope we change directions this November.

via Letting Bush Tax Cuts Die Would Kill Recovery: Analysts – CNBC.

President Obama has recently been caught in his own mis-statement.  During the long campaign for heath care reform, Obama clearly explained to the American people that health care reform (and the fees associated with it) were not taxes.  In fact, Obama told George Sephanopoulos in an interview “For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.”  When Stephanopoulos pointed to a dictionary to explain that a fee charged by the government met the definition of a tax, Obama replied by saying, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

But that was when Obama was willing to say or do anything to get the American people on his side (incidentally, the American people sided against Obamacare by significant margins… cries which fell on deaf ears in Congress).  Now that the law is in place, the administration’s tune has changed.  In a recent brief by the Justice department defending the constitutionality of the health care law, Eric Holder (Obama’s Attorney General) is arguing that the provisions requiring people to pay fines is “a valid exercise” of Congress’ taxing power.

Furthermore, in order to get enough votes to pass the bill, Obama ‘promised’… in the form of an executive order… that the health care plan would not fund abortions… an order which has now been violated by his own administration in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico.  I can hear a bunch of liberals reading this begin to whine: ”But that wasn’t really a promise… it was just an executive order that can be rescinded at any time“… REALLY.  That’s your argument?  In the real world… a piece of paper saying your legislation won’t fund abortions is a promise it won’t fund abortions… and Obama has just lied to the American people about it.

Jeffery Kuhner in the Washington Times actually makes a great point about what Obama is doing to the country with this renege on abortion funding:  bottom line… it’s an ugly thing:

Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens. Traditionalists – evangelicals, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Orthodox Jews – have been made complicit in an abomination that goes against their deepest religious values. As the law is implemented (as in Pennsylvania) the consequences of the abortion provisions will become increasingly apparent. The result will be a cultural civil war. Pro-lifers will become deeply alienated from society; among many, a secession of the heart is taking place.

And this is from the president who was supposed to UNITE the country.  Yet another lie told us by a fawning media.

Now, what affect will these lies have on the Obama administration?  Well, if history is any indicator, I think it reasonable to say that the American people don’t like to be tricked into supporting a politician or piece of legislation.  They don’t like to feel like they were used… feel like their vote or support valued so cheaply by politicians wanting to make a quick political “buck”.  Its one thing if a politician lies about his personal life… it is quite another when he lies about his policies.  If you look at the Bush41 comparison, Obama’s re-election chances are not good.  Given his record not just on the economy… but on the basis of his own standards of performance… he deserves to loose.

via Changing Tune, Administration Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax – NYTimes.com.

Paul Campos, writing over at the “Lawyers Guns & Money” blog has a piece I highly recommend reviewing if you feel at all inclined. While he unearths little more about Kagan’s political beliefs than was revealed in the nomination hearings, he does begin to show us a picture of Kagan’s past that has not received the attention it probably should receive… but who in the mainstream media would we really expect to do this kind of research anyway?  I can’t think of anyone.  Whatever the piece’s weaknesses, I think anyone would agree with me that the piece is certainly compelling journalism.

I found two things particularly interesting about Kagan after reading the piece:  First, her ability to land not just good jobs… but great jobs… is really astonishing.  If you ever doubted the ability of connections to influence your career, you had best rid yourself of that notion immediately.  Second, it surprised me just how deeply Kagan is connected to Washington Elite… both because of her connections to the Clinton administration as well as those she gained as dean at harvard – a position she appeared to be quite unqualified for albeit groomed for it seems.

Campos concludes thusly:

Indeed, Obama’s nomination of Kagan suggests that, for all his talk of “change,” he is himself at heart a comfortable denizen of Establishment America – that place where people with the right sorts of resumes rotate profitably between Wall Street, Washington, and the Ivy League, while praising each other for having “good judgment,” and being “reasonable” and “non-partisan.”

The relative ease with which Elena Kagan is being confirmed to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court illustrates the extent to which Establishment America believes that a member of the club in good standing – someone who has gone to the right schools, and gotten the right kinds of jobs, and befriended the right sorts of people – can be counted on to do the right thing, even though her own legal and political views remain largely unknown. Naturally, from the establishment’s perspective, the right thing is to do nothing that might seriously disturb any of the social arrangements that continue to serve its interests so well. And in the end, Obama’s faith in Kagan is most likely based on a well-warranted belief that, as a Supreme Court justice, she will prove to be as acceptable to that establishment as Obama himself.

While this isn’t really that harsh of a critique… It certainly is not praise… and does not indicate to me Kagan will be much more than a dependable liberal vote on the court… which is exactly what Obama wants.

Elections have consequences people… you gotta remember that.