Two of Google’s browser-making competitors, Mozilla and Opera, took the stage at the conference to throw their support behind WebM. Until now, they’d been championing Ogg Theora–another open codec with some of the same ancestral roots as VP8–and opposing H.264, the codec favored by Apple and Microsoft. (H.264 is open, and carries no royalty requirements at the moment–but that’s supposed to end in 2015.)

Microsoft isn’t among the 40+ companies who Google lined up for the WebM announcement at I|O, but says IE will support Google’s technology on Windows PCs that have the codec installed. Apple, meanwhile, hasn’t been heard from. Given that it’s standardized all its products on H.264 for many years, it would be a shocker if today’s news prompted it to change its plans.

The best thing anyone could say about Theora, as far as I can tell, is that it was open and free. The best thing you can say about VP8/WebM is that it’s a really high-quality, efficient codec. Now it’s open and free–and coupled with HTML5′s video playback support, it’ll let browsers on computers and mobile devices do high-quality video without the need for plug-ins, proprietary technologies, or payments. So Google’s move is welcome.

Except…

We’re still left with the prospect of a future in which some applications and devices support only H.264 and some support only WebM. Unless every purveyor of online video encodes every video in both formats, you might not be able to make any assumptions about whether a video you want to watch will play on all the gadgets you own. That doesn’t strike me as a radically better scenario than the current state of affairs–in which you can probably watch videos if you’ve got Flash, and might not be able to if you don’t.

Ogg Theora was weak enough that I wondered if Mozilla and Opera would be forced to grit their teeth and surrender to the inevitability of H.264. As a stronger contender, WebM could actually push a solution to the codec mess out further into the future.

Of course, very few of the people who use browsers care about competing standards with varying degrees of openness and varying technical benefits. They just want to be confident that their video will play. Which is why I’d like to see one codec come to dominate the Web sooner rather than later–and I don’t much care which one it is.

I’m not sure why the iPhone 3G S wouldn’t be Qik-friendly–Apple said today that there will be an API that will allow third-party developers to write apps that make use of the video camera. And while all the examples that Apple has given of streaming video involve stuff coming into the iPhone, the fact that carriers are comfortable with the idea might mean they’d be comfortable with Qik, too. (I don’t think Qik stands much chance of bringing even AT&T’s fragile network to its knees–it’ll likely never be used by as many people as apps for consuming streaming video will be.)

None of which means that the new iPhone hardware and software will make an App Store release of Qik available, of course. We’ll see.

In related news, Qik is announcing today that Qik will ship on all of Nokia’s Symbian S60 phones, starting with the soon-to-be-released N97. Score one for the N97, especially if there’s no good news about Qik on the iPhone in the immediate future…

I’m not going to accept anything about next-generation iPhones as gospel until an Apple exec strides on stage and announces it, but video certainly falls into the “that sounds logical” rumor bucket. My big question, however, is this: Will Apple unlock video capability in existing iPhones, or just in ones with snazzier cameras? Companies such as Qik have proved that there are no technical limitations that prevent iPhones from capturing video (albeit choppy, fuzzy video)…

Google’s Web properties (including YouTube) received the greatest number of hits, accounting for 41% of the online video market. Fox Interactive was the (distant) runner up with a 3.1% share of the market, trailed by Yahoo, Viacom Digital, and Hulu. The average U.S. Internet user watched an average of 96 videos in December, and 78.5% of U.S. Internet users watch online video, according to the comScore report.

Viewers are trending toward short sessions, indicating that they’re not treating the Web like their TV. The average duration videos were watched for was just 3.2 minutes. Hulu users were an exception, spending 10.1 minutes per session.

Furthermore, the most popular YouTube videos of all time are music videos, comedy, and viral shorts. Far fewer people are catching entire television episodes and movies on the Web; although, video downloads and purchases were not tabulated in the report.

NBC hit pay dirt when it placed clips of SNL’s Tina Fey doubling as Sarah Palin online during the presidential election, and plenty of entire TV shows are online, complete with advertising.  So there is a financial incentive for old line media to embrace the Web. But both TV companies and TV viewers still seem to be getting their heads around Net video.

When I watched episodes of Star Trek on CBS’s classic television Web site last year, I was bombarded with surveys about the advertisements that I saw. That was very blatant market research. It will be interesting to see how the studios adapt to the Web, and if they can figure out how to turn all those online viewing sessions into the money they’ll need to pay for more content.

Ten years ago when I worked at ZDTV (later to become TechTV) I made all the mistakes a first time producer can make in video production. I shot too much video. I didn’t set up a shoot schedule. I didn’t have an outline of what I wanted. And I ended up reshooting projects because I didn’t plan correctly.

Video production can be insanely time-consuming. Some of that is just a result of rookie mistakes made early on, but many production processes are simply unavoidable. Even though everyone has adopted non-linear video editing, watching video must be done linearly. A good producer can reduce time considerably if they plan better and learn how to more efficiently work their equipment. But even when you cut out all the fat, you still end up with the realization that  video production is slow.

About four years ago, at CES in Las Vegas, I started to see a new crop of software and devices specifically targeted at reducing the time it takes to produce a video. No single product or technology has shown itself to be the panacea for speedy video production, but when you use these tools and tricks in aggregate they can save you an enormous amount of time. Here are some suggestions that everyone can use. These tips are not just for professionals, but anyone looking to cut down the time it takes to produce video. I know I’ve left a lot out, so I look forward to you adding some of your own recommendations in the comments.

Tape-free shooting and storage

Canon Vixia HF100

Tapeless camcorders automatically create digital video files onto digital media, such as memory cards, which can be imported directly via FireWire to your PC. If you’re doing a non-moving shoot, like a presentation, you can use a product like Adobe OnLocation to capture video directly to your computer’s hard drive as you shoot. In that case you can have a tape-based camera that’s connected to  your PC via FireWire.

The most obvious and biggest advantage of tape-free shooting is there’s no need to capture and encode video on the PC after you shoot. Eliminating that process alone can save you hours. Additionally, you’re also eliminating the need to manage physical tapes. No need to pull stickers, write labels, or create storage. Plus, you can randomly seek any video content inside the camera. Tape-based video search is linear.

Storage of video is also a lot cheaper than tape. The cost of disk space has dropped to comically low levels ($120 for 1 TB as of 12/4/08). A terabyte can hold about 400 hours of DVD quality video. 400 60-minute miniDV tapes will cost you $920 (40 x a JVC 10 pack). That doesn’t include the cost of finding storage for all those tapes.

Here’s a list from CNET of tapeless standard-def camcorders and tapeless high-def camcorders.

Video production processes you avoid:

• Capturing and encoding video on the PC after the shoot.
• Managing physical media, labeling, and storing.
• Linearly seeking videos within camera.

Shoot video quickly and get it on your PC fast

Flip Ultra

Flip Mino

I’m a huge fan of the Flip series of mini video cameras: Flip Ultra ($150), Flip Mino ($180), and Flip Mino HD ($230). Here’s a video I shot showing the quality of the Flip Ultra and Flip Mino side by side. While the Flips won’t replace your three-chip camcorder, it can replace many of the videos you enjoy shooting, like family videos or hanging out with your friends.

No need to carry an additional USB or FireWire cable. The Flip’s connectivity (USB port) is built into the camera. Plus, it has simply software for editing, or as I call trimming since that’s all you can really do with it.

The Flip’s real advantage is its portability and instant on. The Flips are easy to carry. No need to pack a huge specialized camera bag. Pull it out, turn it on, and in less than two seconds you can be recording, which makes it a perfect camera for those “in the moment” shots where you don’t have time to set up.

Creative Vado

Kodak Zi6

Pure Digital, the manufacturers have a few significant competitors. Creative’s Vado ($100) and Vado HD ($200) (available only for pre-order now), plus the Kodak Zi6 Pocket Video Camera ($180). While the Vado does have more storage (2 hours recording) than the Flip Ultra and Mino (1 hour recording), CNET rates it poor on video quality and featureless on-board software. The Kodak Zi6, which classifies itself as an HD video camera, just barely meets that classification. One annoyance is the device requires you to carry around a charging unit for the two AA batteries. Pure Digital’s second generation Flip Ultra has the same requirements.

Video production processes you avoid:

• Carrying a camera bag and cables.
• Configuring a camera and settings before you can shoot.
• Waiting for camera start up before you can record an event.
• Connecting a cable from your camera to your PC.
• Capturing and encoding video on the PC after you shoot.

[Disclosure: All the Flip cameras that I use have been given to me by Pure Digital.]

Use only what you need

Ferrari owners don’t pull out their Ferrari when they make a trip to the grocery store. Besides its poor trunk space, a Ferrari has too much power for such a small and low profile trip.

Not all videos require you to boot up Final Cut Pro, Avid Media Composer, or Adobe Premiere Pro. While all powerful, all these programs take so long to launch. If all you’re doing is trimming a video, or cutting a couple of videos together, go for the software that came on your machine, such as iMovie or Windows Movie Maker.

Video production processes you avoid:

• Waiting for your huge memory hogging video editing application to boot up.

Batch encoding

This is a pretty obvious one, but surprisingly not a lot of people plan to batch encode their final video project. To take advantage of the management-free time savings made possible with batch encoding (set all your projects to encode and then come back when it’s done) you need to plan ahead for distribution.

Before you begin your project, calculate how many videos you’re going to create, where they’re going to be distributed, and how many formats you’re going to need in all these distribution locations. Next, run some tests with a ten second sample video. Do this before you begin your project. Run tests to determine the best configuration and then save the settings you’ll want to use later. Write them down. You’ll hopefully only need to do this once.

For the PC, two free batch encoders I enjoy are SUPER and FormatFactory. For the Mac, a friend recommended the free program iSquint especially for iPod conversions. If you’re willing to spend money, Sorensen Squeeze ($500) will give you more power and control.

Video production processes you avoid:

• Configuring and testing encoding parameters for each video project.
• Babysitting the computer and manually launching each encoding project.

TechCrunch’s Mike Arrington has pointed out a new feature in embedded YouTube videos I hadn’t noticed: a search bar. Mike thinks it’s ugly. I wouldn’t argue that it’s gorgeous, but it’s kind of handy, since it turns every embedded YouTube clip into a mini-YouTube that lets you rummage through the video site’s entire addictive cornucopia of stuff without leaving the site you were on in the first place.

Rather than trying to explain this, I can give you a video and let you try searching right now. Look, here you go:

If, after watching the Shatner Vic-20 ad above, you got in the mood to watch more commercials with Bill, you’d do a search something like the one below. And could watch several hundred clips without ever leaving Technologizer. (The image below is just an image, not live YouTube–as far as I know, you can’t embed search results, although it would be nifty if you could.)

(You know, I kinda liked Shatner-as-spokesman better back when having William Shatner in your ad wasn’t in itself some sort of allegedly hip, postmodern statement.)

On today’s Web, when a lot of the content and functionality on sites such as Technologizer is really someone else’s embedded service, it’s easy for those of us who do the embedding to feel proprietary and paranoid about changes: All the millions of YouTube videos that folks have incorporated over the past few years now have that search bar, whether we embedders want it there or not. But what really matters is whether YouTube watchers like the new search feature. And I bet they will…

Some folks who took a look at the app earlier this evening have been reporting playback problems; I haven’t encountered any so far, which may be a sign that Joost has worked out some initial kinks. (There is a disconcertingly long pause with no indication of what’s going on before playback begins in some cases, but once it starts it’s gone smoothly for me.) My biggest gripe from a technical standpoint is that Joost, unlike the built-in YouTube app, only works via Wi-Fi, which limits its usefulness when you’re out and about and can’t depend on being within range of a hotspot:

But Joost uses that fast Wi-Fi connection to do some pretty good-looking video–in motion, it looks even better than these still images suggest:

The Joost player works well (although if you can fast-forward your way through a video, I haven’t figured out how) and the features for searching and browsing work exactly as you’d want them to on an iPhone:

Other than the lack of support for cellular connections, the big disappointment with Joost ‘s iPhone app has nothing to do with the app–it’s the selection of TV and movie programming that Joost has to offer, which is hit-or-miss, with the emphasis on the misses. Yes, there are 46,000 items to choose from, including some name-brand, full-length TV (Smallville) and movies (Ghostbusters, Fifth Element, etc.). But Hulu simply has a far richer, more interesting treasure trove of stuff to watch–including full-length versions of some items which Joost has only in clip form, such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

You know that Joost’s library is a bit on the thin side when the highlights include…well, for instance, this:

So respectable though Joost’s iPhone app may be, it mostly makes me hungry for a similar Hulu one–especially one that’s not limited to Wi-Fi.

As of today, though, YouTube has increased the size of its player to 640 pixels wide–which is, coincidentally enough, the same width as Hulu’s player. The new player is in widescreen 16:9 format, but most content up on YouTube is old-school 4:3, so you usually get black bars. The extra real estate is still nice, though. Examples after the jump.

(I don’t know why the legendary Skateboarding Dog takes up so little of the new player–especially since he’s also available in a High Quality version that still isn’t as big as it could be:

When video is designed for 16:9 high-res, it looks really nice:

All of this reminds me of the situation with my HDTV–it too is designed for content of higher quality, in a different aspect ratio, than most of what’s actually out there. But 16:9 is becoming the default for new video, and I’ll bet the new YouTube player helps make it utterly pervasive even quicker.