Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) Barack Obama (video)

Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) Barack Obama (video)

Previous, different nom

Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) Barack Obama (video)

Barack Obama's February 24, 2009 Address Before a Joint Session of Congress in which he discussed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 among other economic-related issues during the Late-2000s financial crisis.

This is a video version. I previously nominated an audio version below at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) Barack Obama. This was not an official State of the Union address. The speech was delivered on the floor of the chamber of the United States House of Representatives in the United States Capitol in a joint session of the United States Congress. President Obama discussed the recently passed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 as well as the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the state of the economy, and the future of the country as it emerged from the Late-2000s financial crisis. Transcript and video available at the source. This file contributes significantly to the following articles:

Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't say whether a more experienced video editor could create a significantly better file, but I can relay the difficulities that I encountered. Basically, the original file is so large that it was difficult to produce a .ogv that was less than 100MB (the commons max). I had gained my first experience at creating video files with File:Ich bin ein Berliner Speech (June 26, 1963) John Fitzgerald Kennedy trimmed.theora.ogv, but that file was so small that there were not significant challenges to creating a basic file. Following the same procedure I had gone through with that file produced a 300MB file in this case. So I began tinkering with custom settings of the Moyea Video4Web Converter 3.1.0.0. I had previously learned that outputting a .mp3 filetype resulted in no audio in the .ogv and had produced .mov filetype. However, after trying over a half dozen settings combinations and finally going with mininmum settings across the board except for frames per second, which I kept at 15, I was still at about 130 MB. If I used the .mp3 audio setting no audio seemed to be produced, so I could only use the AAC. Oddly the program seems to ignore the frames per second (looking at the file properties in the right-click from Windows Explorer). After having such difficulty getting a small enough output, I then tested the .3g2 profile and was able to produce files under 100 MB. I then tried several custom settings combinations which retained the most quality and remained under 100 MB. The final custom settings are on the description page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: EV high; demonstrates this man's brilliant skills as an orator. There's a lot of fluff, but heck, he is a politician. Tony (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't find any faults with this. The recording is clear, that playback is smooth, and its a great example of Obama's abilities as an orator. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 03:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine example of Obama's oratorical skills. Good quality too! —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:07pm • 08:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query Is the aspect ratio right? It looks somewhat horizontally compressed to me. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I output 4:3. I am having trouble seeing if I started with 4:3 or 3:2. If the original was 3:2, then the output should be too. How can I tell what the original .rm file's dimensions were?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the original is 4:3, but can't say for sure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will try to produce a 3:2 nonetheless.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just tried to change the output from 320x240 to 352x240 (in both the auto aspect ratio mode and the 16:9 ratio mode) in the Moyea software and it just added some black borders to the sides. It did not change the aspect ratio.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I dunno, Obama's thin, but is he really THAT thin? Anyone able to reassure me? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've just played with the file in Media Player Classic, and the aspect is wrong on the WP file: it should be 16:9. Neither of my versions of Pinnacle will do OGV files (by the looks of things even AVID won't touch it!). A quick search has shown that various Linux-based editors will. Time to reinstall Virtuabox I think unless anyone knows of a windows-based editor which will do it... If the aspect can be fixed, then I will support. Oppose for now given that the aspect is wrong. Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per Major Bloodnok. When this is fixed, I'll change my vote. Until then, wrong is wrong. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bloodnok. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was this candidate suspended? I have no access to software to make to requested edits. I know of no one who does.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the suspension of this nomination, but I am trying to convert a WMV version of this speech in the correct aspect into OGV using Miro... and it is taking an age. I don't like the 10-second delay before the video proper starts, but I guess we'll have to live with it; I don't really want to have to edit it and then generate another file which will have to be converted. OGV files are a real pain. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Miro failed to achieve anything positive on this occasion; I think the problem is that the file which the Miller centre got was in 16:9, but had been put into 4:3. The Miller centre put their ident on the front and the watermark onto it too (the square image on the bottom left) without correcting the issue. The ident is in the correct aspect, but the rest of the file isn't - I'll see if I can do anything in Pinnacle with the WMV file. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, the White House web-site has a section of high quality video and here is the speech in question. Perhaps the best move would be to make our own version and upload it. Good news - the site uses MP4 and MP3 formats. Hurray! I'll see what I can do, but I won't be able to upload it until some point tomorrow. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the first 15 seconds up at a quality which will allow the whole speech to be uploaded to WP under the 100MB limit. For reasons best known to WP the White House titles which make up the first 5 seconds don't come out. It worked on my machine before I uploaded it. Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll upload it tonight.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great news! Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

President_Obama_address_to_Congress_24th_Feb_2009_resized (52:20)

A reproduction of the above with 16:9 aspect ratio and the complete speech.

President_Obama_address_to_Congress_24th_Feb_2009_resized (52:20)

Better audio and poorer video than above.

Problems playing these files? See media help.

New file added nominate and support.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per my !vote above, looks better than the previous version. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:43pm • 04:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per my comment above.Major Bloodnok (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For procedural reasons, I'm restarting voting on this. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a second version with slightly higher quality audio. I left the video size at original and it looks funny on the description page, so I will redo at this maximal audio quality with smaller video size and save over this version.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have posted the proper second version now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I kind of have to ask: The second version has such poor video, that is it actually worth it, just to have some very blocky images with the sound?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 April 2011
    - Do you think the video/audio combo of Major Bloodnok (talk · contribs)'s clip above is better. Maybe he could produce a full version for us to look at.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - With a speech which lasts a long time I think we are at the limit of video quality, given the 100MB file size limit set by WP. It is certainly an issue we should address. On the whole I am willing to excuse the video quality given the sound quality and the historical importance, although I could be persuaded to vote the other way. The full file I made is actually larger than 100MB, even at the lowest settings on my video editor, so I won't able to upload it (the editor estimated it would be 98MB before it rendered it). I don't have the time at the moment to render another one, and I think the difference would be marginal at best. A shorter video of, say 20 minutes, allows much better quality than it does here. Major Bloodnok (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that we should view these as an opportunity to have audio augmented by some sort of video. Admittedly for long files, we will not be able to produce high quality videos to go along with the audio. I personally prefer to see the speeches along with the audio and feel the videos are valuable for that opportunity.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, fair enough. Make sure the source is very clearly documented; if the file upload size increases, these will need to be redone. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this speech to two more pages. Now, this file contributes significantly to the following articles:

Question Why can't we split it into multiple files and then use a higher bitrate. Zginder 2011-04-23T22:45Z (UTC)
- Imagine three or four screens in place of one for each of its uses in articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This would certainly make technical sense, but the problem would be an aesthetic one; I agree with TTT above. Major Bloodnok (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a problem with a 52-minute video. And the res means it has to be so small it's little better than hearing the audio alone. So much of it is politician's pap (that's politics, not an anti-Obama observation). TTT, can I ask whether you envisage a whole raft of similar nominations? My concern is, what is the theme of the address? It might be of greater EV, as well as solving technical issues, to produce a number of files from this huge one, each with a theme. I don't care if each is just 15 seconds long (or a couple of minutes); they'd be more focused for use in articles. Tony (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have put forth the FS equivalent of the FP panorama. A small clip would be like a picture of a building in that panorama. It would need to go through its own WP:FSC and would be considered distinct from this file. For a blurb, check WP articles that may quote from the speech.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted = Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) - Barack Obama (WhiteHouse.gov).ogv Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]