Video + timeline related information – in DT, the wider file ecosystem & in knowledge work in general

[FROBGOBLIN]

Hello. I want to thank the OP for introducing this interesting use-case to the forum. I am a historian and have been using DT for my entire career now, and I have found it to be an excellent application for dealing with every type of media I use, including videos. Personally, time-referenced video data is not something I have used in the past or plan to use in the future, but it was nice to hear about how some users benefit from it.

1. feature requests
   Speaking in general terms about how to deal with feature requests, not specifically about this one or the conversation so far, I think it’s a good idea to keep a few things in mind. (1) A feature request is a “request,” not a demand. (2) Any app developer has to balance each request against a number of factors–as users, we usually know the needs of a single person (ourselves) and what is an “essential” feature for one user may not: be of interest to others, be worth the time or money to implement, fit their roadmap, or be technically feasible. (3) What might seem simple to us is almost certainly more complex to implement–this is probably true of just about any request we make of anyone

2. productive directions
   In this case, I think speculating about the future growth of video as a resource for knowledge workers, the composition of the DT user base, or the number of people who would benefit from new video-related features isn’t a terribly productive direction for us to take the conversation. Even for the DT staff, it’s probably difficult to speak with any certainty about any of these factors. As Bluefrog mentioned, the user base is quite broad, and probably not something easily encapsulated in one sentence on a website, no matter how detailed the explanation. To be honest, I don’t even know if I am a “knowledge worker,” at least in the sense that Drucker meant it when he coined the term over half a century ago, unless you characterize my research and teaching as products and services. If Drucker were alive today, he might pigeonhole me that way, but I hope the knowledge I’ve created (am I a knowledge creator?) is a lot more than a mere commodity in a capitalist economy, just as we users are (I hope) something more than simply consumers of DT’s product.

3. use cases
   It might be more interesting (at least for me) to hear more about how someone is using the existing DT features to integrate video content into their databases, and through that discussion we might tease out some more concrete issues / solutions DT could consider for future improvements. It could also help other users discover new possibilities with the app.

4. my example
   By the way, I haven’t got any videos in my main DT database at the moment (I like that I “can” put them in any time, and I have had them in my database in the past). Even though I literally use videos on a daily basis in my teaching and research–I have a lot of videos on my computer’s hard drive and even more in my external drives–one reason I don’t have any videos in my database is that they take up a huge amount of space and this leads to problems with syncing. I tend to consider the bulk of my data (about four terabytes) as a kind of “library” or “repository” that I reference from my “curated” DT database of essential files for research projects (a text file might contain a mention of the file name of the video, for example). DT is one of several specialized applications I use to do things with my repository of data-. I could imagine using MarginNote to deal with some of the files I have, but the return on investment (time and money) would not be very appealing for me–my current “zettelkasten” database of text files connected by wikilinks seems to cover most of the stuff MarginNote would do for me. Still, I’ll experiment with it.

5. my wishes and fishes
   Ideally, I’d have all of my data in one place with one app (it’s really frustrating when I am looking for a file on my iPad during a business trip only to discover that it is on my external drive back in the office and totally inaccessible to me), and if I were going to hijack this thread and make a feature request, it would be to build an app that could manage four terabytes of data, but I am aware that there isn’t much out there for the average user that can deal with amounts of data that go beyond gigabytes (usually in the double digits at most), so even if DT was an enthusiastic supporter of my request, it is unlikely to get implemented anytime soon. I’d settle for just having my DT wikilinks that work so well in OSX available in iOS as well. If wishes were fishes, we’d all swim in riches!

Thanks again for the interesting discussion so far. Perhaps, like the wikilink example, there is something you can do, but a tweak here or there, an extension or adaptation of an existing design, might make it better. I look forward to reading more.

[lerone]

thx @FROGOBLIN, especially for approaching and reacting to the proposition / stimulus on it´s intended grounds and in the spirit(s) it was raised.

– just my reaction:

1. I agree to (1), (2), and (3)

2. I agree at large.
   I agree the discussion of factual user base (esp. if unknown), future speculative directions etc. might lead astray. so in a way it might be better to boil it down to
   a) the centrality of my personal uses of audio/video (e.g. I now use to mark loads of documentaries besides screening a lot of podcasts because they simply are troves of research; research often not to be found in writing in the same concise way, but also information that is denser because of the text/visual combination);
   and b) pointing to the massive presence of AV documents, which – I think – is already a reality –… in all kinds of use cases / scenarios (see above)
   – then, in contrast to (assumed) ‘user base’, I do think it´s productive to try to discuss an app on it´s intended territorial base / purpose / vision (– i.e. as proclaimed tool for ‘intelligent collection, organizing, editing and annotation’ for ‘documents of any kind’ for the purpose of ‘analysing, connecting and archiving’); also because there needs to be a shared understanding of that btw. developers and community of this (or rather: of what it means, entails etc.)
   I am also aware and understand this is somewhat more complex and delicate in the case of an app like DT which proposes a more general 'document cultivation, as opposed to propositions like MarginNote, which allows for different things but – in principle – is based rather around one specific file format (PDF) and one use dimension (annotation / excerpting) and further ‘downstream’ processes…

… as to ‘knowledge worker’ as sociological category: yeah, let´s drop that. in a theoretical direction I´d rather bring up Lyotard, Lévy, Castells… but certainly am with you on not being boxed by Drucker and such. again to ‘boil down’ and simply put, my suggestion was this: a) ‘intelligent collecting, archiving, editing and organizing’, even more ‘analysing, connecting and annotating’… all that simply is ‘knowledge work’ – and that is certainly what we are all doing with DT; and b) documents are now in substantial scope non-textual (or rather para-textual) timeline-based, and this brings its own demands, structures as to all categories of a).

– one of the questions / directions to look at here is in what ways DT help or could help with ‘analysing, connecting and annotating’ video; and see in what ways it can tie in with other programs doing this (which brings us back to questions of technical standards; as currently YT-chapters seem the only example where an exchange w/ external systems really works as to timelines)
AW2307 systematized this question of internal affordances vs. third-party-apps alongside DT quite succintly:

Interested in your scenarios / experiences around timeline related documents / knowledge (audio / video)

I will take a stab at this based on my own experiences and current perspective (which may evolve). Everything that is said about video below also pertains to audio. DevonThink as the backend of the knowledge ecosystem As a starting point I think we need to appreciate that DevonThink does a large amount of things incredibly well. Then it offers additional functionality that can address many more specific use cases adequately although there may be some third-party app that could address that …

3. agree 200%.
   that is why I opened a discussion / survey in a rather ‘practical’ framing in the DT-scenarios section (– which for the very reasons you give might be the more appropriate context here.)

Video + timeline related information – in DT, the wider file ecosystem & in knowledge work in general

hey DT´lers & community, I just stumbled across Sanjiv´s question about video chapters and their display in the sidepane TOC. as I am myself interested in video chapters for knowledge management, and was intrigued some time ago by DTs fabulous function to create reference links to frames in the timeline of videos, I am now wondering a) how does all this go together? b) is there some comprehensive documentation and/or description of scenarios of working with timed video markers / annotations …

(I´d also be interested in how you use video; and why there is no need for adressing the internal structures, even though you seem to use it extensively. in other words: if you use it extensively and intensively – why is there no need for something akin to headings, underlinings, chapters, index etc.?)

4.& 5) I am not sure I understand 100%, resp. I am not sure it is still the same issue. but I can somehow relate to this question of how a) to deal with the sheer size of AV-files and b) how to imagine an intelligent catch-all, all-in-one bucket app that deals with all my data-demands in one place – and across the network of devices
as to a) I am in the indexing faction, which in principal solves the concerns you seem to raise.
as to b) I am still marveling about DTs ability to have on-demand / managed downloads – and still index all items…! given that the real bottleneck in your 4TB scenario seems the network/intermittent server, this is as close as it gets to full data availability in a single app!

thanks again for your nunanced input / feedback / thoughts!

[lerone]

I just realised that the ‘like’ function really has more value than just karma insights
Looking at the comments and the distribution of ‘likes’ in this thread, it is clear that there is a certain mood (culture) in the active forum demographic when it comes to media.
This is quite simply put ‘video’ / visual / audio information = ‘noise’ (– in the end it seems Shannon & Weaver are quite well these days… :-D). And it reinforces the impression that the DT culture is indeed based on a preference (bias) for (certain types of) text and textual documents.
… maybe it’s just good to register that thematising AV-media as a type and format of media does lead here to rather cultural objections like ‘Twitter noise’ or ‘video-equals-YT-equals-binching+equals-time-waste’. I do think such personal cultural and cognitive preferences are of course to be respected and no deeper evaluation of these opinions is meant. Every app has it´s culture. And it is good to be aware.

– But I do also think the discussion at this point never reached the topic – for some reason. Instead of AV-media as a general media mode and instead of things like MPEG-7, meta-data standards etc, we find discussed Twitter (an epitome of short-texting-culture), Youtube (as a general noise culture), personal time-coping strategies and preferences, takes on start-up app culture etc. pp.

I obviously come from a different culture where trans- and paratextual media documents (images, audio, video) have a greater value for my (knowledge/information) work. And as I said before, I also think that if one makes an alignment with the current state of media culture, ultimately there is no way around considering AV-media (and some other formats) as fundamental elements of the new ‘periodic system’ of 'documents; or around working with them and their (own) logics for that matter.
– And that was the point / spirit of bringing this topic / proposal / impulse to the forum.

But it is obvious that such a view on non-textual media is not really widespread here (check the likes).
Overall, I think it is good to understand what the cultural horizon (or bias) of DT is as a vision on a larger scale. This may help to adjust what you want to put forward (here) - and what you should not expect. … Besides annotated / metadata videos, this probably concerns people looking in directions like DT as an image bank; but it should also be important for all those new GenZ people living of podcasts etc…

Again, this could be a particular preference of the active user forum, but given some of the evidence of user requests as cited from DEVON-staff, it could also be that this is ingrained in the whole traditional user base of DT.

So for me, this discussion was not useless. Even if it did not really go in the direction I intended.
So, thanks to all

[BLUEFROG]

Agreed it wasn’t pointless as discussions aren’t pointless

And it reinforces the impression that the DT culture is indeed based on a preference (bias) for (certain types of) text and textual documents.

I would disagree this is a mere cultural bias. It is nodding to the strengths and the core of DEVONthink: text-based processing and connections between text-based documents.

Consider an empty database.
You put a video in it.
Except for a minimal amount of metadata indexed, there is no inherent usefulness to having the video in the database, relative to DEVONthink’s core functions. You can’t search for words in it. You can create frame links to certain points In the media, but these are only useful when used with additional files.

Add another video. See Also won’t connect these files. Again, other than storage and accessibility, the benefits have not increased.

Now consider a new empty database.
Create a plain text file. Even with Lorem Ipsum filling it, there is already an immediate source of indexed text to search for and compare via See Also or file with Classify.

Unless every video had a standardized and searchable transcript available on import, quick access seems to be the biggest benefit to storing media files in DEVONthink.

So no, I don’t believe development is driven by a bias against media or not wanting to ”keep up with the times” (especially when new does not always equal better). It’s playing to its core strengths and focused on what it does best.

[AW2307]

@BLUEFROG

So no, I don’t believe development is driven by a bias against media or not wanting to ”keep up with the times” (especially when new does not always equal better). It’s playing to its core strengths and focused on what it does best.

The only thing I would add is that I feel you understated DevonThink’s usefulness in organizing and managing media

Compared to merely using a Finder folder structure, one can still apply a lot of the core DevonThink functionality from Aliases to custom metadata to replicating records and using various automation workflows.

[BLUEFROG]

Indeed those things are true but they’re not the core, the heart - or in DEVONthink’s case, the brain - of the application. Strip all those other functions away and you still have a powerful application.

[lerone]

hey Bluefrog,

thanks. This kind of summing-up and reacting reflection is appreciated.

@BLUEFROG

It is nodding to the strengths and the core of DEVONthink:

I see that as one of the core take-aways. And it is a reasonable 'meta-'argument. I think indeed every app has it´s character (and characters ) – and that is ultimately a good thing. And simply something one better takes into account and acknowledges when dealing with complex apps. (And certainly DT has a lot of cores and strengths… )

@BLUEFROG

text-based processing and connections between text-based documents.

Consider an empty database.
You put a video in it.
Except for a minimal amount of metadata indexed, there is no inherent usefulness to having the video in the database, relative to DEVONthink’s core functions.

This goes to the core of the argument (‘architectural’ logic). And this is what I would indeed debate and contest to some extent.
First of all there is metadata in non-textual documents. And surely ‘metadata’ is not an aspect alien to the DT-horizon and architecture. – Consider the way DT itself acknowledges this in principle; e.g. importing / indexing of existing documents; importing some of the IPTC (text-)metadata from images(!); but also DTs many affordances to input, manipulate and work with metadata alongside ‘body-text’).

One thing I think safe to say is that this ‘mode of textual hybridity’ (– text in the human-readable body of documents; other textual metadata, human readable, interactionable or not…) is a base-feature/-reality of current day (digital) documents. With that in sight and contrasting of text vs. video (image / audio) gets … complex. Especially if one considers DT on it´s own terms (document handling vs. simple ‘note taking’ etc.)

@BLUEFROG

Now consider a new empty database.
Create a plain text file. Even with Lorem Ipsum filling it, there is already an immediate source of indexed text to search for and compare via See Also or file with Classify.

– In my view out of the multiple functional universes that DT serves (and it is a master at that), you are restricting discussion with this particular framing of your example to the mental space / scenario of notetaking (or something in that realm…).

---

Then there were in the course of the relevant threads here 'like three’ – by-and-large unadressed – arguments – also challenging this equation on different bases:

1. there are more and more ways to input text alongside timebased media (see YT- and podcast chapters; see subtitles and closed captions; see ‘special’ (research) software like Kyno, or even FinalCut and metadata / keywords / markers etc.). Also there is growing, more specialized base for this in more specific research-centric domains (… up to attorneys, and script writers). It is rather a question of how to evaluate this trend.
   – Again, as to the somewhat ecclectic way DT-as-is already acknowledges this: YT chapters are recognized and imported! (– even though I still do not understand on what technical protocoll :-}). Also take PDFs: PDFs were (and to some extent still are) image / design based to a large degree. What is DT response in that particular case? It implements OCR!! – So this definitely – to me – is a rather pro-active channeling into the direction of ‘text-culture’. (Which, functionally, I like btw. I am not against ‘text’ )

2. … brings to the second point that was raised in this (or the ‘sibling-thread’): it is possible by now to do automated transcription. and actually we see that all over the internet by now, certainly in more professional / enterpreneurial realms. As to that there was @AW2307 point that autotranscription really is something (like OCR) that could be considered (at least conceptually) – see [here]. (Interested in your scenarios / experiences around timeline related documents / knowledge (audio / video) - #2 by AW2307)

3. related to the third point raised… as, lastly, there is certainly the trend of bringing text as automatic / ‘natural’ augment to video (and audio) ‘consumer’ platforms. again, see YT-example, vimeo following, chapter and note culture in audio platforms and apps (like soundcloud, or in the better podcast apps).

---

So, I really do appreciate you getting to the conceptional core of it, and follow through. But I think your reaction also shows the (unacknowledged) ambivalencies as they exist, even within DT: your example excludes images totally, which are put into DT regularly I suppose (and are also regularly discussed here). It omits some of DT reals ‘core strengths’ and programmatics (like OCR; IPTC support, native time based references etc.).

@BLUEFROG

So no, I don’t believe development is driven by a bias against media or not wanting to ”keep up with the times” (especially when new does not always equal better)

I surely don´t think it´s an active form of 'not wanting to ”keep up with the times”’ :-). I am also acknowledging this is all strategic decision stuff. but I think to ”keep up with the times”’ one has to have open ears, and eyes, and a culture of attentive discussion in relation to tectonic shift and evolutions. (DT itself is a child of the transition from print to digital text, I guess). I think things like OCR for PDF while not adressing auto-transcription even conceptually is a sign of some bias. (That is not to beat this over anyones head, of course…)

In that spirit I thank you for your response here. As you see, in the end I ‘personally’ think a reductionist narrative of text-files vs other media-files doesn´t hold very long if going into the matter (and into DT itself), neither conceptually, nor in terms of document culture development, nor review of DT-genealogy itself…

But I would never argue with decisions made by others about what ‘core strengths’, ‘profiles’ etc. they want to give their app (project). For sure.
So, in some way as you might see, what I am calling for is some more serious and open ‘accounting’ and systematic reflection – while not leaving DT´s grounds, aspirations, or premises…

So, thanks for getting to it…!

[lerone]

It’s interesting how other PKM-players are getting this straight.

Just stumbled across some of the elaborations of Muse, a software project known for it’s deep anchoring in and reflection of the whole culture and trajectory of knowledge & notation (augmentation) tools.

Their take):

Video is increasingly the most important media type of our age.

Seems like an insight.

[AW2307]

@lerone

It’s interesting how other PKM-players are getting this straight.

In some ways, as you know, I support your argument that video is a relevant format and possible feature enhancements should not be dismissed without real consideration.

However, can we also acknowledge that things are moving in a good direction? Over the past two maintenance releases there have been significant improvements, like for example being able to display and navigate MP4 video chapters as well as filter for media-related properties.

Regarding Muse: They have been on the market for two years. I don’t think whatever they say carries much weight in terms of how the DevonThink developers will prioritize future feature development (and frankly, rightfully so). This is my view despite having argued in favor of acknowledging the importance of video (and audio) in other threads.

Let’s put forth our arguments in favor of future developments related to individual needs without taking on an accusatory stance (even implicitly).

[lerone]

@AW2307
[– cc: @BLUEFROG, @chrillek] :

I am with you on the acknowledgement front as to what DT achieves technically on the video front already (as on multiple others). Something I have done btw. explicitly, also as to video and DT´s existing and new capabilities (if you follow my contributions, you will have noticed it here, or there ). Which is why I am a bit puzzled by your suggestion there is a lack of acknowledgement on my side. And I try to be as acknowledging as constructively critical all the time. (And I actually argued at different times for a more constructive and acknowledging culture in the forum discussions, that at times strike me as rather flippant.)

What I have taken up was exactly the incongruence of these technical abilities and a stance / willingness to reflect / discuss that in some reflective, generalized way (beyond ‘sporadic’ features) with the community –or myself, for that matter; and ‘take up arguments’ (instead of throwing ad-personam questions, silence or rather shady comments at people, which I actually rarely to never have seen as being called out here in the forum…

On the other side of your (perceived) argument here: My argument here is not implicit at all :-).
It is interesting being criticized for ‘implicit’ criticism in questions that pertain to general, evaluative / analytical questions and that are in fact explicitly stated arguments / criticisms, … while other lines of ‘argument’ (like ad-personam dismissals and some – in my view – more lazy culture re. open and respectful debate beyond the purely technical) are – seemingly – ok to a lot of people here. At least implicitly.

As you see: I have no issues supporting your assertion that DT made progress and makes remarkable things possible as to some (selective) aspects of dealing with video, especially as to those features you now mention again. Why, on the other hand, you chose to criticize me for holding up in such a reflective, generalized discussion (the one I am interested in) how other players / acteurs are reflecting consciously the ascend and importance of video, I do not really understand.

I assume you do not mean it like that, but without understanding the real motivation it has some soundings of 'criticism (as such) is bad’ / better not issued, when talking to developers – … which, frankly, I do not share, especially not where a community and ‘discussion’ is wanted / instated (instead of a ‘request board’, technically in the ‘Canny’-universe). With criticism, I think it is generally ‘ok’; and I prefer the one that is explicitly stated, brought forward to respectful debate and supported by arguments (and own perspective), to the one cloaked in silence, non-interest or even condescending spiky tonalities. I do not see the equation if marking / stating critical arguments (and support that with argumentation) with what you now qualify as ‘accusation’ (nor do I really understand how a single user in a forum can really ‘accuse’ a developer of a software in terms of where they chose to take a software, e.g. (actually just some lines ahead I explicitely stated, that the autonomy of developers of strategical decisions as to their software is sacrosanct). What I take issues with on the other hand is some unwillingness to be clear, somewhat consistent (within the argument; with regards to self-characterization and cultural realities; etc), transparent, and react to points on the level the argument, … or at all.

But of course that is ok, I register that you think bringing forward what I brought up in the last post might be … unfair(?), problematic(?), too insistent(?). Of course, I am interested to hear more about that – and understand what really bugs you about this particular insertion, because – as you see – I do not understand the real problem yet / quite.

For now I feel a difference we might have, could be that for me the sentence / stance to support and go by is
» Let’s put forth our arguments in favor of future developments related to individual needs or general perspectives / takes without taking on an accusatory stance (even implicitly). «.
– I am engaging in general perspective (grounded on / organically linked with my ‘individual needs’). Or, trying to. And the reason I am stressing that, is that I would refuse – especially in a ‘forum’, and one located on a subdomain ‘discourse’ – to be reduced to an individual expressing only ‘individual’ needs, wishes, plea /requests etc., and not being tolerated as someone also expressing opinions, evaluations, (founded / sourced) arguments, or positions; or even explicit ‘criticism’, as long as it is constructive, based on argumentation, and as long as it is not descending into rants, or personalized charges / abuses etc.

As to Muse: I do not really understand why such a serious enterprise born out of serious and applied research, such as Muse is dismissed on the basis of their age as developer, at least where the debate (again: at least the one I am interested in), is about a rather principal observations on media- and document culture and its trajectories (and why and im what ways DT could / should register that). One should check their Metamuse Podcast where they – laudably – engage deeply with a whole swathe of well-established developers on all kinds of interesting and relevant issues in the field. Of course I am aware that on the practical development side they follow quite a different philosophy and work towards quite a different beast (software architecture), so there – to me – is no question of DT in need to ‘copy’ / mimick anything from them on a technical basis. Then, listening and learning in general is a different thing…

You see me listening. But also not fully understanding (your motivation; or real subject of critique), or maybe you simply see me in some mild way disagreeing at this point (about what is permissable / desirable in a discoursive forum, ‘free and open’).

best to you,
oliver

[AW2307]

I won’t comment on your speculations as to the deeper meaning of my comment… please don’t overinterpret things

What I took issue with in your post above is the following:

• Posting in a DevonThink forum about how other PKM players are “getting things straight” implies you think DevonThink is not getting things straight. It has a bit of a petulant ring to it - as if you know best and others should listen.
• There was no objective argument apart from beating the drum of “video is important” once again. I broadly agree with that but it has been repeated ad nauseum.
• You were not linking to actual arguments but to the marketing messaging of an application that is in its early stages and has not even proven it will sustain itself in the long run. And the implication was that the DevonThink people should basically take this as a serious input for how they should run their app (despite them having a proven track record of remaining on top of the PKM space for decades). Nothing against Muse at all, the concept sounds interesting - reminiscent of Curio - and I wish them success. But their opinion (and especially their marketing) can just by no means be considered an authority.

Aside from this, I enjoyed reading your (sometimes very detailed) thoughts about video in relation to PKM in this thread and others… Learned quite a bit from them as well. Keep it up

[lerone]

@AW2307

implies you think DevonThink is not getting things straight

… that´s actually true, at least when it comes to the level of reflection and systematic (explicit) acknowledgement (not neccessarily feature-wise). I do think it is permissable to state such propositions (knowing / aware each and every one is finally ‘subjective’)

@AW2307

It has a bit of a petulant ring to it

… I see; and have to accept that.
Though I remain deeply puzzled that something like that ‘registers’ in such rather topical (subject-oriented), generalized contexts, while I really miss this kind of ‘close / sensitive observation’ in contexts where people are being ‘talked over’, simply ignored or rather sporadically / selectively adressed, or rebuked in rather technical ways. (This is really something that puzzles me about the forum, but also as to your – chosen – intervention.)

@AW2307

There was no objective argument apart from beating the drum of “video is important” once again

The argument was: it is not something out of the mind of one or two individual users. I think that is a valid argumentation in discourse. Beyond that, I admit there was some impulse driving me when I stumbled across that statement (as I didn´t plan on (re-)beating the drum, or any dead horse).
But again: I am puzzled some much more impulsive (and rather ad personam) impulsive commentaries I came across here (encountered personally – rather often, btw – or as hurled to others, never receive this kind of – repudiating – attention. (Still: I hear / register what you are saying to me here :-))

@AW2307

it has been repeated ad nauseum

maybe repeated. For ‘ad nauseam’ I would think of some other discussions here on the forum.
But in any way, I do not feel it has been acknowledged and heard on any real level. Maybe you feel it has been seriously adressed; I do not see that… (see this thread as an example).
– BTW: I would be interested, if you show me any reaction / contribution that – in your view – really (counter-)adressed the raised topic in somewhat sustainable and coherent form, and answering the points really raised… I was rather sad not to find any such thing, really (beyond comments on this or that partial feature; dismissals of ‘youtube-culture’, or points as to oversimplified ‘I personally prefer to write short notes’. This is a serious question. And I am grateful for any link, and would revisit that.

Also, if you show me one other reference in the forum to the discourse outside / beyond what the developers / moderators or the ‘individual’ DT users think, I will grant your point. But I think this hasn´t been done at all. And beyond that, it is something that any healthy forum should ‘endure’ and ‘stomach’ (I have actually been told, in line with free culture of the DT forum it would be advisable to endure much more… and there was no one objecting that…)

@AW2307

But their opinion (and especially their marketing) can just by no means be considered an authority.

Point taken at 50%. I am oldschool in that I take the self-representation text of serious enterprises (like DT or Muse) serious to some extent – after all marketing without base doesn´t work as we all know, especially in this field. (Though, as you might have read, I was told I shouldn´t take the self-description of DT not too serious, either… … but let´s pass that…). I do not think Muse is a superior authority here; but again, I think they are very serious in terms of PKM-studies (if such a thing exists), as well as conceptually. They are also, for sure a player (new kid) respectfully watched by many… but in some ways, you are right, this should not be overstated. And I didn´t mean to. But instead of loading the work onto me to corraborate some other source material to underline and bring forth that my ‘opinion’ (and I guess, overall, yours) is not individual but founded in a consensus of the general community of discourse (on PKM, ‘document culture’ etc.), I took this individual ‘find’ to illustrate.

@AW2307

But their opinion (and especially their marketing) can just by no means be considered an authority.

Here I disagree. Profoundly. I think all participants seriously engaging in the search / discourse on knowledge software can be regarded as an authoritative voice (among others). I wonder what would be an ‘authority’ then beyond DT-devs themselves? I don´t know if you checked the podcast and their background. But rarely you (at least: I) find protagonists that integrate practical software development and deep-reaching reflection / knowledge / discourse (on software history; on current development strategies; on tendencies of mediatized knowledges; etc.) in such a resonant form.
If they are not ‘the authority’ (which no one is in terms of PKM), then at least they are a serious voice.
I take issues with downgrading each and everyone in lieu of ‘that-which-exists’ and ‘factual-authority’ (of one).
This btw. is also the territory where the difference between ‘feature requesting’ and ‘community discussion / exchange’ / a.k.a. ‘discourse’ starts. In taking – all kinds of – voices seriously.

@AW2307

Aside from this, I enjoyed reading your (sometimes very detailed) thoughts about video in relation to PKM in this thread and others

Thanks. I enjoy being checked in some serious way. With people not stopping after the first turn of the brawl… Keep it up too, AW2307!

best again!
oliver

@AW2307

… please don’t overinterpret things

sorry, I am trained to – as I can´t really code… to each and everyone their medium! ;-D

[AW2307]

I appreciate your “discussion culture”. It’s refreshing to have a civilized disagreement

[anonny]

Can’t you just copy frame link from a video and crate your own bookmarks?

Unless the creators of the videos are already doing that, I don’t know how DT can automatically create it.

[anonny]

MarginNote is one of my favorite tools!
Their notes can carry over into DT.
Export notes, and use TextSoap to get rid of the first two paragraphs, and clean the text, and you can then import into DT easily.

[lerone]

Thanks @anonny!

MarginNotes has been pointed out in one of the video-related threads. And I know why and what you are talking about. It is worthwhile in working with video-information, esp. alongside text. The big draw-back – if you don´t correct / update me on that – is that all these things happen internally to MN. Even the PDFs have to be imported. So, what one can do is annotate in there and then get out the annotations, but not with a hard-link back to some original video (e.g. also residing in DT). So the exported text would be ‘just that’, free floating text (in terms of having no original link to the video). But do correct / enlighten me if you found a better way…? That would be interesting.

I guess one way to restate the interest of the particular thread is: it´s interested not in the ways ‘video-related’ text / notes / annotations can be brought into and used alongside video documents in DT; but in the ways DT can or could allow to work with timeline-related information of videos actually linked back to video documents (even more video within DT). Think markers, subs, transcriptions, chapters etc…

The big thing about DT is that it can already do basically two things, as kind of routes into this:

1. timeline-linked annotations to original files (within the computer) – you can annotate videos within DT; and the annotations keep the link to the exact timeline position of the video within DT. That is on the basis of DT-text-formats.
   This is related to some use of the Apple AVkit. I am still wondering about further uses, but so far haven´t heard back or found out about it after enquiring here.
   (Personally to make things more manageable (UI wise, processing etc.) I personally use Kyno, which does probably what you propose with MN…)

2. TOCs from online videos – this applies so far to YouTube (and mp4-files – see below).
   Here I have inquired about the – smaller but in the end more serious – option to extend this to vimeo. But again, haven´t heard back. This would also be progress… and also leads to some more systematic questions / thoughts on how online (timeline-)metadata is / can be used

• there is (already) the case where 1) and 2) ‘overlap’ in that DT can read the chapter markers of original mp4 (residing / registered / synced in it´s db).
This appears as TOC in the sidebar (just like YT-online videos). Which is already immensly helpful! It would be even more helpful, if these TOCs are searchable … again an open question that I haven´t heard back on, so far.

[ – btw: these DT-internal annotations + YT/MP4-TOCs seem the more direct route to what you were suggesting to @chrillek; though again, I understand using 3rd party for convenience… ]

In sum, I hope I got right where you are coming from. Your ideas are appreciated and in general helpful. But I also think they are more in the realm / paradigm of textual information alongside video (as regards DT); or in case of online-video as a kind of soft-hack to things that are (already) otherwise possible through metadata exchange.
– In the end the initial interest was about keeping the direct link between text / metadata / technical protocols like srt, AVkit-chapterization etc. and video-/audio-/timeline-documents (although online video/audio also should be included – but again on the basis of ‘metadata’ (of all kinds) instead of multiple time-specific links (…though one could argue these are also ‘metadata’ in some way :-D…)

[anonny]

@lerone

So, what one can do is annotate in there and then get out the annotations, but not with a hard-link back to some original video (e.g. also residing in DT). So the exported text would be ‘just that’, free floating text (in terms of having no original link to the video). But do correct / enlighten me if you found a better way…? That would be interesting.

What I do is after I export the notes from MarginNote I import them into a temp folder and add a reference to the Video/file in Metadata.
All you have to do is select all, batch process, and type in whatever you need.
You can add a reference field, and a link field and use batch process to fill in the metadata.

You can link to any file in DevonThink, but if it’s outside DT you can use Hook (hookmark)

For the creation of chapters in mp4s, I suggest mChapters on Mac