Microsoft Dumps HD-DVD

This doesn't really add anything to the format war story, but might give some a shiver of shadenfreude.

Microsoft was heavily invested in HD-DVD and designed the interactivity layer HDi (which unlike the interactivity layer in Blu Ray is actually complete). Microsoft will stop selling the HD-DVD add-on of the Xbox 360, and presumably will soon release a Blu Ray add on.

Stage6 to shut down.

I found this story via the excellent cinematech.blogspot.com. DivX Inc. the company being the DivX codec is to shut down its video sharing site Stage6. DivX Inc. have made their own announcement on the Stage6 blog but there is a great deal of difficulty getting the link to work right now (possibly the server is overwhelmed with irate Stage6 users) but the link is http://www.stage6.com/blog/108/

Stage6's problem was that it allowed users to set their own parameters (that and needing to install it's own dedicated plug in). That meant uploaders could push the quality settings off the scale in order to preserve as much quality of the original as possible. However viewers would spend most of their time watching a "buffering" logo.

Say what you like about Youtube (or Vimeo, BlipTV or Veoh, etc), the compromises they impose are designed to give the viewers a hassle free experience - "Give me convenience or give me death" as the Dead Kennedy's said...

Stage6 had the potential to be a great service, and I get the feeling that as company in general, DivX are on the side of the angels (well, at least on the side of content creators) but I'm not surprised it's being switched off...

BBC iPlayer getting 1.3 million unique viewers a week...

According to BBC figures quoted in this Guardian Unlimited article. In addition it reports that "iPhone and iPod Touch owners will be able to access iPlayer content within the next few weeks. This will be the first time the broadband TV service has been available beyond PC and Mac computers." This means a move away from WMV for the high quality Windows only download to the H.264 codec (WMV is available on Mac and linux, but not the DRM). This would also make the downloaded videos compatible with AppleTV, even though AppleTV is not mentioned in any of the many articles carrying this story, Ashley Highfield, the BBC's Director of Future Media & Technology, discussed the possibility previously:

"Apple's (long anticipated) move to a rental model, means that we can look to getting BBC iPlayer onto this platform too, as we should be able to use the rental functionality to allow our programmes to be downloaded, free, but retained for a time window, and then erased, as our rightsholders currently insist."

This would make three services that are AppleTV compatible, after iTunes (which is already selling BBC shows) and arthouse movie download service Jaman. The Jaman plug-in is an unsupported hack not an official update (and I've no idea if it's been kiboshed by the recent AppleTV makeover). It's odd that Apple haven't been more welcoming to services like Jaman, since iTunes basically sells iPods as much as it sells music, the more third party services that are supported on AppleTV the more attractive it is as a commodity.

This article from The Register included an addendum which says "the BBC got in touch to say it will always offer a Flash version", presumably in the browser embedded player, but since flash is moving away from the old Sorenson Spark codec to H.264 too, the statement may mean the embedded player will remain SWF based, even if the codec is updated.

This hopefully will mean a significant step forward for H.264 becoming a de facto web standard for online video, since it will be seamlessly supported by Quicktime (installed on all Macs and 60% of PCs) and Flash (installed on 90% of internet connected computers).

HD versus film for TV

This is an old article but an illuminating one. This is a report (in word doc format) from the august British Society of Cinematographers, on a BBC HD day in September 2006, where the message was sent out by Alan Yentob no less, "Drama on Film has got to stop!" (here it is in google HTML format). The reason is, apparently that the MP4 encoders that the BBC will use for HD cannot handle the random grain pattern of film. However (as pointed out in the article) this will also count for pseudo film effects added in post, or in low light situations where gain has to be used for HD. Basically the BBC (in the guise of chief technologist Andy Quested) is decreeing to producers how shows have to look in order not to annoy picky license fee payers who've just bought expensive HD ready TVs and get grumpy about things like a grainy image. So more Hotel Babylon gloss, less Life On Mars grit.

Life on Mars incidentally, and its follow up Ashes to Ashes are both shot on Super16 specifically for aesthetic reasons. (ITV's twinned shows Moving Wallpaper and Echo Beach are shot of film and HD respectively for similar reasons). It would be interesting to know how Kudos, the production company behind Life On Mars and Ashes to Ashes managed to get that one past the boffins at the Beeb. Has policy changed since again 2006? This document from Kodak (PDF) lists Ashes to Ashes as using stocks from fine grained 50D all the way to grungy and fast 500T ASA stocks. Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes do use a lot of slow motion effects that may have compelled them to use film over HD. Bear in mind that all this time, Dr Who, one of the Beeb's biggest shows is still being shot on 576i SD and deinterlaced in post.

Format war, round 2!

...Against downloads and standard DVDs.

This New York Times article (registration required) points out that movie rental downloads are a LONG way from challenging physical discs (at least in terms of movie sales), due to a number of factors, mainly access to fast enough internet connections, the lack of bonus features, and the limited range of films available and annoying restrictions, such as forcing you to finish watching the movie within 24 hours.

This article (also from the NYT) points out that while Blu Ray may have beaten its young rival, it still haS to see off the big daddy, the end-of-level-boss that is The Standard Definition DVD. Remember VHS took 30 years to kill and saw off three rival formats (Betamax, Laser Disc and VideoCD in case you're wondering).

DVD's dominance may yet be sustained by the new generation of up-ressing DVD players that allegedly do a great job of improving the look of SD material on an HD screen. The article quotes Mike Abt, the president of a US electronics retailer, “We have a lot of people who bought HD DVD players. [We tell them] you have an upconverting DVD player, enjoy it. You paid $150 for it, so you didn’t lose too much.” So, if you're in the market for a (newish) DVD player, you could do worse than hit Ebay and pick up a second hand HD-DVD player for a pittance. (they're already going for under £100, soon it'll be a LOT less.)

Low Budget Colour Correction for Mac

In an earlier post I mentioned that colour grading is a weak spot in many low budget productions. Proper reliable colour correction is generally only available on high end equipment generally costing tens of thousands of pounds (at the cheap end!)

I came across this review from DVuser magazine of the Matrox MXO interface. It plugs into the DVI output of an intel Mac Pro, Intel iMac or MacBook Pro (older iMacs and normal Macbooks are not supported because of lower spec graphics cards) and acts as an HD card allowing a proper HD video signal to be sent to a monitor, or a special DVI signal to be sent to a Apple Monitor, when used with Final Cut Pro or Premiere Pro CS3.

The output is correctly deinterlaced (so you'll see proper 50 field playback for interlaced video) or not as necessary, and the monitor can be calibrated to a reasonable degree of accuracy that the reviewer states "I would feel totally confident grading tropical fish with this set up, that’s how good it is." The cost of a Matrox MXO Plus an Apple 23" monitor is about £1200 plus VAT. That's expensive, but not THAT expensive, and for what it offers is really extraordinarily cheap, and within the reach of a lot of low budget outfits. You could throw in a top of the line fully loaded top of the line iMac, Final Cut Studio 2 AND a J L Cooper EclipseCX control surface and STILL be under half the price of that £20,000 broadcast CRT monitor by itself.

The reviewer thinks that this is set up is a serious replacement for a £20,000 HD monitor and HD card for colour correction and grading purposes, bordering on too-good-to-be-true territory. I'm sceptical of that, and find it unlikely that much broadcast or any professional movie work will be done with it, but for corporate, educational or low budget/indie work it would be ideal. Of course it should be stated that having a good colour correction system (be it for £12,000 or £20,000, or a £200,000 Da Vinci system) doesn't make you a good colourist, just as owning a Fender Stratocaster doesn't make you a Jimi Hendrix.

Update: here's another glowing review for the MXO/Apple 23" display combination.

BBC to sell programmes through iTunes.

The BBC selling TV episodes via the Apple iTunes store right now. Hit series such as Torchwood, Little Britain and the first episode of current series Ashes to Ashes are already up.

Episodes are a rather steep  £1.89 each, or you can buy a whole season at some kind of discount (following the US model). Series 1 of Life on Mars would set you back £13.99. Mind you that's at a low  640*360 resolution with normal stereo sound, and no extras. You can get the DVD box set (i.e much higher quality image , 5.1 sound with the usual specious features) from Amazon for only another £2.

 It's a good idea, one that the BBC should have got into a long time ago, though now the BBC's own iPlayer seems to render the idea obsolete (the strategy of releasing shows on iTunes eight days is even specifically designed not to clash with iPlayer's seven day's for free policy) . The US iTunes store has thrived on selling episodes of the longer running TV series in the states where people have missed episodes and wanted to catch up. (which is why Lost was such a big iTunes hit). 

One wonders why the BBC would go down this route after launching the iPlayer.  One thing it does do is offer non license fee payers a way to see (some) BBC shows legally far sooner than waiting to rent or buy on DVD.  It should be noted that International co-productions (Such as big budget shows like the new Dr Who, produced with Canada's CBC, or the natural history documentaries produced with the Discovery Channel and Japan's NHK) are not being offered.

HD-DVD - fat ladies, singing, etc...

Reuters report that Toshiba has decided to give up of the HD DVD format (though Toshiba is neither confirming nor denying this at the moment), which would concede defat in the HD disc format war to Sony's Blu Ray format.  Warner Bros' decision to go Blu Ray only made HD-DVD look increasingly untenable, but Wal Mart's decision to turn its back on HD DVD (they are the biggest seller of DVD's in the US) effectively killed the format. Other big movers who turned away from HD DVD were Best Buy (US electronics retailer, think Curry's or Comet) and NetFlix, a postal DVD rentals a la LoveFilm, but the fatal blow was Wal Mart.

Market surveys in the US have suggested that many consumers were holding off buying an HD disc player until the format issue was decided. With DVD sales reaching a plateau, some companies seemed to have wanted to kill off this counter-productive format war AND QUICK. Wal Mart and NetFlix may also have been spooked a little by Apple Inc's relaunch of AppleTV - with HD movie rentals, along with the continued success of Microsoft's XBOX live movie downoads service, and wanted to hurry a resolution along before the confusion in formats allowed downloads to gain a strong foothold.

So you can all rush out and buy Blu Ray Players (and Blu Ray PC drives) in confidence now - and then invite me round to watch them!

Revver for sale

CNET reports that video sharing site Revver is up for sale for the bargain price of $300,000 to $500,000 - an extraordinary low price, at the bottom end, it's no more than I paid for my Southsea Terrace. Potential buyers should be aware that the firm comes with over a million dollars of debt and an operating loss that has been hemorrhaging venture capital since the start. It seems more likely it'll go under.

Revver's claim to fame was as the first video sharing site to split advertising revenue with content providers and scored an early viral hit with eepybird's "Extreme Diet Coke and Mentos experiments". Howver revver never managed to sustain the sort of mass viewership that youtube seemed to amongst it's bviewers. EepyBird's most famous clip got over 11 million views. However Eepybird's most recent clip garnered a mere 2,000 odd views (some clips get that many views on youtube by accident!)

One much vaunted internet serial was Pink: The Series which had real production values, a name star (Pamela Anderson's former co-star Natalie Raitano) and a catchy "watch the next episode" narrative designed to hold an audience, yet it only managed to draw 20,000 viewers per episode on Revver. The producers of Pink also posted the episodes on Youtube where the first episode picked up two million viewers (it has to be said, later episodes didn't do anything like as well, while still surpassing any of Revver's figures - the first episode's success probably had more to do with being featured on Youtube's front page for a week or two than anything else.)

With numbers like that, Revver wasn't generating the money for itself, its producers or the advertisers. Meanwhile, Youtube is still drawing the big "audiences", and producers might feel that getting a million views but no money on Youtube was still worth more than the small amount of money that they might they would get from Revver. (At a glance I'd say Pink cost several thousands of dollars to make, and has earned a few hundreds from Revver, which hardly seems worth the effort.) Part of Youtube's success is its focus on the social networking aspect: commenting on/responding to videos, sharing, having "friends" and a home page. etc. Revver focused on attracting a "higher class" of content provider with better quality video and revenue sharing. Revver recently added some of those youtube style features too, but rather too late, to general apathy on the part of viewers and some trepidation from content providers- did they really want anonymous surfers leaving "this sucks, d00d" messages under the fruits of their labour? Meanwhile with it's crappy 200kb/s, 320x240 lo-fi image, Youtube is still raking the hits in!

In the end, part of Revver's legacy is that it forced the other video sharing sites to take producers seriously and start sharing the vast amount of revenue they were making out of other's hard work. And in that respect, they can always say they were the first.

Why is this important? More later...