Control Group Blog

Here is a series of recommendations, rants, and observations about why MSOs (the cable companies) will be sad in 2011, unless they innovate and invest.

Entertainment = Consumption + Interaction:

Internet-enabled TV will bring about some radical changes.  Nielsen’s Three Screen Report indicates that consumption of the moving image is increasing across all three screens: traditional TV, internet, and mobile. The interactivity of this “data” will surely change. Entertainment now equals both watching and interaction: checking out additional content online, playing games, or participating in ads as entertainment. 3D and gesture-based interactions will also redefine this blurring of the line between passive and active viewing over the next few years.

Ditch the “dumb” set-top:

Content models that rely on “captive audience” set-top box capture of viewing habits are outmoded as delivery systems, and deliver poor analytics and reporting compared with the information we can glean from a data-only model. If content owners rely on this information, why does the old model remain unchecked? The set-top box is largely a passive unit that doesn’t include an interface, platform, or APIs for allowing advertisers to interact directly with their target audience in real-time like the Web does. We have seen some recent (and awesome) successes with new methods of delivery: Hulu, Netflix, MLB, and on-demand efforts. However we are in an infancy of thinking about the possibilities of satellite, cable, and their antiquated set-tops, and how broadcast can recapture some of the money that migrated to online advertising.

This is an opportunity for direct access to consumers in their living rooms. The delivery method is there, there is already a large internet-enabled box in many living rooms: tuner, DVR, AppleTV, Slingbox, etc. MSOs already have the access to provide value-add applications to the experience, but what is preventing them from radically changing the intersection of TV, Internet, and advertising? They actually have had a better chance than anyone.

Develop a platform:

Imagine tying content delivery to analytics and advertising – a platform that delivers both choice and guidance to direct viewers to shows they like, and then targets accompanying ads based on more granular information and feedback. Visible World does last-mile ad insertion for parent company, Comcast, who acquired one of the big three: NBC.  A small wrinkle in this still-disputed merger is Sen. Kohl, who is asking for a divestiture of NBC’s holdings in Hulu, arguing that it potentially violates anti-trust.

But this is an amazing opportunity for MSOs to radically change the model for consumers and advertisers by providing a platform for interaction. MSOs have a chance to drive people back to their subscriptions — otherwise we will see a switch to online viewing, where advertisers can get a lot more feedback for their digital dimes, and consumers can have more choice, and augment their experiences.

The TV could supersede the MSO-provided set-top box as a platform:

Internet-enabled TVs or TVs with companion internet-enabled boxes will supersede the current MSO interface and platform. Federated search across Internet/DVR/broadcast is far more useful and less clunky than a remote-driven interface.  In addition, the ability to bring in dynamic web content — ads, additional content, or related information — should quickly reduce the three screens to just two.

When MSOs realize they are missing out on key advertising opportunities, we will see a rush to market with subscription- and licensed-content across the three screens. You would have thought that Hulu would have put the fear in them, but wait until Google TV takes their bite.  Their recent partnerships with TV manufacturer, Sony, ensures that this will be widely distributed to Best Buy, Walmart, etc. beyond the market reach of Roku, Slingboxes, of the world.

Prepare to lose ad revenue:

NBC Universal’s (current) CEO Jeff Zucker and his oft-quoted ‘trading analog dollars for digital pennies’ was revised last year to ‘digital dimes’ from the man himself. That is good news, especially for the multitudes of investors that entered into internet video ventures last year. Out of that gold-rush of investment though, there hasn’t been significant pay-dirt for many. Clearly the answer lies in uniting broadcast to the Internet, bringing the interactivity the web provides, in addition to the type of analytics that are possible. I predict Google TV will make more of an impact than Apple TV did to unite those advertising schemes, although watch out, Apple’s clearly got some plans a brewin‘.

Google TV offers the opportunity to sell ad’s within the interface, and provide targeted advertising, on the TV. Show me what you got MSO’s.

In Conclusion:

It is a rapidly changing world, and people have clearly shown that the TV, cable-tuner, and DVR do not have all the features people want. The cable companies who own the infrastructure and delivery method of video and data are being left out of this equation. Google has side-stepped around cable companies and the licensing issues — wisely I might add — and added a layer with enhancements that will allow them get deep into people’s living rooms, to collect data and provide a smarter ad platform. Things are going to get really interesting….

Check out the new ad campaign for the 2010 Cadillac CTS-V, with post production work done by one of our newest clients, The Lab. Post was done using Final Cut Pro, After Effects, and Maya, leveraging an infrastructure, render farm, and workflow that Control Group helped design, build, and support. We’re always astonished at what is possible when an incredibly creative firm gets their hands on the latest technology.

Adobe CS5 has been released and I can’t wait to install it. While I’ve noticed a lot of excitement around the web for Photoshop CS5, it’s been a rather divisive upgrade for the After Effects community. Many After Effects artists anticipate the upgrade to be lackluster or even disruptive to getting things done. Since After Effects CS5 is now 64bit and only 64bit, many are upset that their 32bit plugins won’t work anymore and need to be upgraded, and that the other major new feature, the rotobrush tool, won’t work for anything but the easiest shots, which are easy to begin with anyway, so what’s the point in paying for this new feature?

Personally, if the only upgrade to After Effects CS5 was 64bit, I’d be overjoyed. There’s nothing more maddening than being unable to render a frame in your timeline because of memory issues, be it in a RAM Preview, output to disk, or working interactively in the application. The dreaded error I’m talking about of course is “After Effects error: could not create image buffer”. This error has the potential to disappear with this release, given your workstation is souped up with RAM.

Indeed, I think many After Effects artists do not realize what a massive overhaul this is, and how much easier it’s going to be to work interactively and render with the application. Those 32 gigs of RAM you have in your workstation actually mean something beyond having a million tabs open in Firefox while you wait for your render to finish, which is crawling because After Effects CS4 is limited to 4GB of RAM, and is using swap space to avoid spitting out an image buffer error. Yes, that’s right, your renders will be much faster at higher resolutions, even if you’re not being given an error. I think once artists start using CS5 they’ll realize how much more sanity they have when working on HD, 2K and 4K projects. You folks that are delivering for non-standard ultrawide displays, such as for stadiums, buildings and museums will be stunned at what a difference 32GB of RAM will make compared to the 4GB you were limited to. It’s funny, I heard one guy say that 64bit support should have been a .5 upgrade, and I was like “Are you out of your mind?! They had to rewrite the entire application!” Finally, After Effects artists will no longer be snickered at by their fellow Nuke and Inferno compositors that have already been working in 64bit for sometime. 32bit was great when our resolutions were NTSC 640×480, but those days are long gone.

The lack of a 64bit wrapper for 32bit plugins is a mixed bag, but ultimately, I’m really glad 32bit plugins won’t work. With paradigm shifts like this, I think it’s all or nothing. The adoption rate from plugin developers would be less than a trickle in the Sahara if they weren’t forced to rewrite their plugins for true 64bit. This would have been a great opportunity for Adobe to introduce some standardization for plugin licensing, but it looks like they dropped the bag on that already. Anyone who’s had to build or maintain an After Effects render farm knows the jungle of mess licensing is with 3rd party plugins and I wish Adobe would at least encourage best practices while developers rewrite their plugins.

Unfortunately, due to the plugin issue, I do think migration from CS4 to CS5 will take longer than it already does, which is typically most of a product cycle. I for one, will keep After Effects CS4 around until I find a replacement for Stefan Minning’s plugin called Normality. Unfortunately, the developer will not be updating it to 64bit.

On the After Effects scripting side, not much has changed, other than some deprecations and a few nice features. You can now read/write layer labels (the colored square next to the layer), which will be useful for making persistent selections for script batch operations. The upgrades to Mocha is nice too, especially the ability to import Mocha shapes in After Effects, which is pretty huge. That combined with the rotobrush finally makes After Effects an excellent choice for roto and tracking. I pretty much avoid rotoscoping whenever I can, but I think the rotobrush tool will be pretty useful, especially for making mattes that don’t need fine detail, such as for localized color corrections. I’m curious if you can specifically shoot footage for the rotobrush, when a green screen isn’t available, but I’m not sure how it’s tracking and edge detection works.

I’m very excited to see Premiere’s enhanced performance. I’m a huge fan of dynamic link and I’m always encouraging people to use it instead of Final Cut when prepping footage for After Effects. Premiere really excels where After Effects doesn’t, and that’s real time video playback. Premiere has been further accelerated with CUDA enabled Nvidia cards and if you’ve never tried dynamic link, or imported a Premiere project into After Effects before, this is the release to do so.

Whew! As always, NAB was quick, productive, and overwhelming – only this time it was in 3D!

Everyone, everywhere, was talking about 3D: cameras, displays, production software, trucks, expertise, etc. The race for preparedness is on, and people will spend as pushy studios and producers want to be the first to do this or that with 3D. First sitcom, first sporting event, first documentary, first newscast, etc. The reality is that we are a ways off from wide-scale adoption, and showrooms and special screenings will be the place for 3D for the foreseeable future. We are in a similar catch-22 phase as a few years ago during the early days of HD production – 3D TVs are just coming onto the market and will drop down to reasonable consumer level prices within the next 2-3 yrs. Consumers are asking “do I buy a 3D TV when there is little to no programming?” while content creators are wondering “do I produce in 3D when there is little to no audience?”

Being an industry event though, it’s about more than bragging rights or audience – it’s about technical feasibility, practice, and logistics – all things which will change when 3D comes to our living room. DirecTV has announced that they will carry four 3D channels starting in June, including ESPN 3D and a dedicated 3D pay-per-view channel. And Cablevision dipped its toes into the 3D pool a few weeks ago with an MSG Network broadcast of a Rangers and Islanders hockey game live from Madison Square Garden.

After talking to a few industry experts who participated in the recent Masters in 3D, the challenges with 3D production are less technical than logistical: camera placement for example. While HD favors wide top-down shots for seeing all the action, 3D is most effective with close, ground-level cameras – imagine Phil Mickelson’s birdie putt as viewed from grass-level, just across the green, the ball rolling right toward you as he sinks it…

There were also lots of other things of interest: Falconstor’s HyperFS, CatDV asset management, Avid’s Java app for editing over the web, 3ality cameras, Adobe CS5, among many more. We were particularly excited by the potential of Active Storage’s Innerpool appliance for metadata. This PCI Express card contains on-board redundant solid-state drives, specifically engineered for storing metadata in an Xsan environment. This has the potential of being something of a game changer, allowing us to more efficiently configure the storage in our Xsan integrations, and giving our clients more bang for their buck when deploying new SAN solutions.

We had some great meetings with prospective clients, old and new friends, fellow consultants and vendors, and we’re excited about some emerging strategic opportunities. Our work in online video technology and web delivery combined with our broadcast infrastructure and workflow experience means we are ideally positioned to help organizations streamline and bring these workstreams closer together.

I wanted to add some thoughts to Chris’s post about Flash and HTML5. However I should preface this post by saying that HTML5 supporting video is really cool, both technically and because HTML5 is an open standard that anyone can implement for free. As we all know, for the last several years, Flash has been the de facto choice for online video delivery. Flash support on different platforms has been pretty good, but end users still don’t have total flexibility depending on their OS. Until recently, Flash on Linux has been about a version behind the release for Windows or OS X. Even now, Adobe only releases a player for x86, and the x86_64 version is unsupported beta software.

Everyone seems to be touting HTML5 video as the “open” alternative to the proprietary Flash plugin required for .flv playback in the browser. But how open is H.264, the codec that powers HTML5 video, and the current pick for encoding video for online delivery? Using H.264 as the codec behind HTML5 video sours things a bit for me. H.264 is encumbered by software patents; to develop or distribute a player or encoder for H.264 you might have to pay a licensing fee to MPEG-LA. Even though MPEG LA announced last week (PDF) that H.264 will remain fee-less for free internet video through 2016, this is not the same as being free or open. MPEG-LA can still go after people that produce the software to encode or decode H.264. And MPEG-LA is not just one organization, it’s a collection of patent holders that have their own agendas.

All this is a bit of a slap in the face to the open standards that power the web. Imagine if you had to pay a half million dollars to create or display JPEGs, GIFs, or HTML… The only people that would be able to afford to make software for the web would be huge companies. But what are our alternatives? Beyond Ogg Theora and Matroska, the pickings are slim. These codecs are open and free, but not necessarily better than H.264. Plus it would be next to impossible to compete with the marketing machine of Apple behind H.264.

Open and free standards have been what has made the Internet successful since its inception. I think it’s important that users understand this so that the Internet of the future cannot be controlled by corporations with enough cash to cover licensing fees.

There’s been much discussion and debate recently surrounding the iPad’s lack of Flash, which in turn has fueled discussion about the future of online video delivery. This week’s preview release of the HTML5-powered SublimeVideo player is seen by some as the beginning of the end for online video delivery in Flash player. As Senior Multimedia Development Consultant at Control Group, I thought I’d share a few thoughts on the topic.

To me, this isn’t so much a debate about Flash/ActionScript 3 versus HTML5, but rather another win for HTML + Flash/AS3! It’s all about creativity as a developer. Bad coding leads to poor applications, proper coding leads to a proper experience. It is a common pitfall that most people think “HTML or Flash”. I see this as more power for the mixing of technologies, raising the cap on what can and can’t be done in a web browser.

Adobe’s technologies provide clear benefits to the end user, but also (and perhaps more importantly) the developer. As a developer, I can utilize the unique capabilities of the .flv format to protect content in some fashion or for metadata injection, all of which can be done on the fly and server-side, if implemented using Flash Media Server (FMS).  I’m also really excited about Flash Player 10.1 – it brings the ability to scale all the way from mobile to HD flavors, and will be available on smartphones and other Internet-connected mobile devices.

This is about more than just video delivery, it is the platform combined with the tools, and Adobe has been making tremendous strides in going open-source with them. Adobe is providing a cohesive environment that is deeply integrated with some of the best tools out there for content creation. HTML5 is just starting out, and the gap between the tools and technology is too immense to make it the competition. Flash has fantastic penetration and Adobe can rapidly evolve the technology. Remember, HTML5 still is not a standard – in fact we are looking at sometime in 2012 before we’ll see a final recommendation. These are cohesive technologies and they are here to stay for a very long time, which means plugins will be around for a long time too. Simply put,  plugin implementations have the potential to penetrate faster, and as history has shown they often do. Plugins forge the path, and the Web comes right behind them to standardize those paths.

If you want to better understand what the big picture is regarding Adobe and its technologies, I recommend reading a little bit about:

OpenScreenProject
Catalyst
SVG and FXG
Flex Data Services
RTMFP (Real Time Media Flow Protocol)
Binary Sockets

One of the unique things about how Control Group works is that our focus is much more involved than simply putting in a solution for a client and then moving on. We work with our clients to determine how they work, so we can design IT solutions that really fit their needs. Since we have partnerships with a variety of vendors, we work with our clients to arrive at the best solutions for their business. This means we do quite a bit of research and planning before we begin a project — and then a great deal of testing during and after we install new hardware or software.

I do some work on implementing storage systems for our clients, and we’ve found that different applications have different storage requirements. For example a video post production facility — like the facility at WWE — generally needs lots of disk space that is very good at reading and writing large files at high speeds. The storage here needs to provide good streaming throughput, because high quality video files generally have high bit rates, and are being stored or played back from the disk in real-time for ingesting, editing, or playout. If the storage system is not fast enough to read or write the file in real-time, frames will be dropped. This can cause unsatisfactory media files, programs to crash, or audio and video to become out of sync.

10,000 RPM SAS disks. That's some serious storage.

Suboptimal read/write performance can become a huge problem. When we put in a new system this is something we need to test. I usually do the test with a tool called lmdd.

lmdd comes from the lmbench tools which are provided by Bitmover for benchmarking systems. lmdd is great for testing streaming bandwidth. In most of our engagements with video, we install a Stornext or Xsan filesystem so we’ll run our tests against this. lmdd will probably work on any filesystem that you can mount on your Mac or Linux computer (Leave a comment if you need a version for Mac OS X, I have one compiled).  lmdd lets us verify exactly what the maximum number of megabytes per second we can push through the storage and point us to where we need to make changes to the hardware or software configuration. I use lmdd like this :

lmdd of=/path/to/test_file count=1g

lmdd if=/path/to/test_file

The first tests write performance and the second tests read performance. More information about the syntax is available in the manual page for lmdd. The results of the command from a server I was testing looked like this:

2147.4755 MB in 6.8003 secs, 315.7914 MB/sec

lmdd is great because it’s easy to read. This result shows I could write to the filesystem at 315 megabytes per second. That’s really fast! This is from a test with a server with a lot of RAM and a special filesystem that took advantage of that cache. When I run it on my Macbook, I get a result like this:

18342.6171 MB in 376.7685 secs, 48.6841 MB/sec

So the next time you’re interested in how your storage is performing give lmdd a shot and let me know how it goes. If you’re looking for more information about storage performance testing then stay tuned; I’ll be posting about testing storage with tools that benchmark small reads and writes next.

Check out this great video that our friends at SPIN put together to show off the new SPIN Mobile iPhone app. Read more about how we built the app, and download it for free from iTunes!

As an Enterprise Consultant at Control Group, I help lead our Broadcast, Media, and Entertainment technology consulting group. While CG employs experts in a wide variety of technologies, my area of experience and expertise is focused around Apple solutions for professional video and design. A few months ago, I wrote an article for O’Reilly on Final Cut Server that was targeted at consumers and covered the basics for professionals in the production industry. I wanted to expand on that article and share some thoughts on Final Cut Server as part of an integrated media workflow.

Final Cut Server client

Apple markets Final Cut Server as a tool primarily for Final Cut Pro users. Apple’s focus is on enabling users to manage their FCP projects and related files, providing them with automations to save time, and giving production teams a centralized system for collaboration. Beyond Apple’s sales pitch, we think Final Cut Server has real potential to play a central role in a production and distribution platform made up of a framework of connected systems.

Here’s an example of a typical broadcast infrastructure:

• Storage area network (SAN) for storage
• Media asset management system (MAM) for organizing and versioning
• Editor/artist workstations
• Producer workstations
• A transcode system for delivery

Now here’s an example of how those pieces might fit together in a broadcast workflow:

1. Content from tape or tapeless media is ingested through the MAM. Metadata is added at ingest – both technical metadata (shot, tape, take, etc) and possibly contextual metadata (actor, object brands, locations).
2. Data is saved to the SAN, where it is cut and crafted by editors and artists. As the content comes together, project files and new assets are saved to the SAN by editors and artists, and reviewed by producers.
3. As content is completed, it is transcoded for delivery to television, tape, and the web. Web distribution might include delivery in a custom player, and/or Hulu, YouTube, Vimeo.
4. Once content is in the wild, content owners need analytics tools to understand who is watching what and where.

Beyond its out-of-the box capabilities, Final Cut Server can be customized to play a key role in workflows like these. While it doesn’t include an API, developers can leverage custom responses in Final Cut Server to read and write XML and run external scripts. On its developer website, Apple provides an example of Final Cut Server integration with an external Rails application that enables the viewing and commenting of movie clips in a web browser. An example like this serves as a useful starting place when exploring building the middleware to connect Final Cut Server to other applications or platforms in a workflow.

Episode Engine Admin

For example, Final Cut Server leverages Compressor for all of its out-of-the-box transcoding. However many existing infrastructures exist using established transcoding systems, such as Telestream’s Episode Engine. By combining metadata subscriptions and watch folders in Final Cut Server with custom responses that leverage external scripts, Episode can easily be integrated as the transcode delivery component for a Final Cut Server workflow. Similarly, the ability to read and write XML to assets in Final Cut Server makes possible the development of web applications that interact with assets, and can even store information in their own disparate databases, populating Final Cut Server when appropriate.

What excites us about this are the many Final Cut Server integration possibilities that are not currently being talked about. And since Control Group marries Apple video integration expertise with a team of developers under the same roof, we’re excited to continue to innovate in this area. Give us a shout if you’d like to open up a dialog on how Final Cut Server might fit into your broadcast or production workflow.