FIMS and SOA

Broadcasters no longer have the monopoly on the delivery of A/V entertainment to the home. In the fiercely competitive world of media and entertainment, companies have to deliver more versions and formats, but without increasing their costs. A channel is now expected to have a Web presence, as well as mobile and tablet versions of their content.

Organizations like the EBU and Advanced Media Workflow Association (AMWA) are promoting the Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) as a route to provide the interoperable media services that can serve the new business requirements.

For the seasoned video engineer, the world of SOA introduces terms and concepts that at first encounter seem foreign and more suited to the IT specialist. As video processing migrates to the file domain, there is no option but to become familiar with what at first sight may appear alien.

Broadcast systems have evolved around the imposed workflow of the serial processing steps of videotape operations. Over time, many processes have moved from dedicated hardware boxes with SDI in and out to software applications on a network. A typical broadcast operation is now a hybrid of SDI and IP connections.

In many cases, the workflow remains as the original tape-based flow. Over time, other applications like asset and workflow management are layered over the entire process chain. The system has grown by accident, not by design, and become a web of custom or proprietary interfaces linking the many applications.

Sure it works, it was designed that way, but when the time comes to replace a component part — say the playout automation — the inflexibility of the system rapidly comes apparent. The parts of the system are linked by a web of custom APIs, often restricted to a specific release of a specific software application. It is just not possible to swap out the automation for the latest product without attending to the web of interfaces.

To meet the demands for new services to the public, the broadcaster must add facilities for a mobile news service, a 3-D channel and interaction with a social media website. Along comes CES and some new consumer device to consume content. How do you add support for this new device? Will it mean more custom interfaces or more special workflow applications? The EBU and AMWA are developing a Framework for Interoperable Media Services (FIMS), which aims to provide a new technology platform that leverages current IT practices, like the use of the SOA, to provide business agility and to control costs.

The legacy system architectures suffer from many problems, and these scenarios serve to illustrate just two.

Scenario One: Ingest
Take the example of ingest. A VTR connects to a video noise reducer via HD-SDI. This then connects again via HD-SDI to an encoder card. The card encodes to a suitable codec for editing and also creates a low-resolution proxy.

At some point this is updated so that the encoder card ingests directly from the VTR and encodes to an uncompressed format. The noise reduction is performed in software. The uncompressed file is saved in a watch folder and picked up by transcoder software, which creates files in the wanted resolutions and codecs.

Imagine more control is needed over the clean up, and the file is passed to an operator who will apply craft skills to the clean-up and repair process. Any changes to the process flow involve wiring changes and software reconfiguration.

The system is just not flexible or agile enough for the constant changes needed to serve today's requirements.

Each evolution of the ingest system needs wiring and configuration changes

Scenario Two: System Upgrades
A broadcaster has a transcoder that is interfaced to a DAM. The broadcaster starts with Transcoder A and DAM A. The transcoder is replaced by a later model from a different vendor, Transcoder B. This requires a new interface to the DAM. The broadcaster migrates to a new DAM B, so the interface to Transcoder B must be rewritten.

The broadcaster liked the compression quality of Transcoder A and decides to move back, but must pay for another interface to the new DAM. Next, the vendor for Transcoder A has to redesign its product to move from a 32-bit to 64-bit operating system. In the process, the API is upgraded, and a new SDK is issued. The custom interface must be similarly upgraded.

Using two transcoder vendors and two DAMs has required the development of five custom interfaces over time. This adds up to costs for professional services, and for the manufacturer, the opportunity cost of not using software resource to develop new products. It is an unsustainable business model.


Each upgrade needs a new custom API

Integrating an SOA
The implementation of an SOA in a media business must take into account the special needs of the processes that manage A/V files. Off-the-shelf IT products do not cater for these additional requirements without extensive customization. The work to develop FIMS will create a set of standards for vendors to create compliant products and save unnecessary professional services.

This melding of IT with a media-savvy system means that the video engineer and IT specialist can collaborate and share their skills in the creation of products and systems that meet the new demands of the media and entertainment sector.

Services
The linear nature of legacy production is implemented by serial processes acting on the content: ingest, editing, transcoding, distribution, playout and archive being typical. It may be that content is transcoded at ingest — AVC-Intra to DNxHD, for example — and then transcoded after editing to different delivery formats. This could be done by a transcoder in the edit bay and a transcoder in master control.

In a file-based environment, devices all sit on the media network. It makes sense to pool all the transcoders as a central resource and make them available as a transcode service. It could even be that cloud transcoding could be used. This offers much more efficient use of transcoder resources, but for it to work, the service should be reusable at any point in the workflow and should interoperate with all the necessary equipment in the organization, whatever make or model.

This calls for standardization so that a transcode service has a common interface, whatever make or model, and capabilities. A given transcoder may not support all codecs, but the interface can still be common. If demand increases, new transcoders can be added; the architecture scales easily.

The move to an SOA involves a change of mind-set to view processes within the organization as services. Since most post houses have a rate card of services they offer, it is not a great leap to understand this concept. The services include ingest editing, grading, dubbing, encoding, sound mixing, etc. Note that some services require extensive and lengthy use of creative staff; services are not only computer processing operations like transcoding.

Encapsulation
A post facility can take a videotape and return a copy of the tape encoded on a Blu-ray disc. All the detail of the process is hidden. You don't need to know which tape deck was used or what software was used to burn the disc. It is all abstracted from the client. The facility performs a service and bills for that service; it is a business transaction.

In an SOA, this concept of abstracting, or encapsulating, the detail of the process is key. If the post house starts using different software, or a different VTR, you don't care as long as the disc is a faithful copy of the tape.

An SOA uses loose coupling for services, possibly a foreign concept for video engineers used to real-time systems. But many services are already loosely coupled. Captioning is one example. A low-resolution proxy is sent out to the captioning facility, and at some point in the future a caption file is returned. The process is managed at a business level by a scheduling department.

Service Adaptors
Many existing products need the user to control the service via a custom API using an SDK provided by the vendor. In an SOA, services are linked to the middleware via service adaptors. These provide the abstraction from the implementation of the service — how it works — to deliver the service at the business level.

The FIMS project is working to define standard interfaces for common media services. A system with FIMS components contains two broad service categories: workflow services able to realize a given business goal (media workflow services), and infrastructure services that are essential components of the media SOA system (media infrastructure services).

The first three workflow services to be developed are:

• Transfer (moving files)
  
• Transform (changing essence or metadata)
  
• Capture (ingest stream to file)

It is envisaged further services will be added to the list as dictated by demand from vendors and users.


The first three SOA services for FIMS are: transfer, transform and capture

Building an SOA
In all but the smallest facility, some middleware is required to manage the services, scheduling resources and the workflow. To link services together to implement broadcast workflows, the SOA middleware orchestrates job requests, calling appropriate services to satisfy a request. There are many SOA middleware systems, but few are “media aware.” It is hoped that FIMS will make it easier for several manufacturers to offer compliant products.

One important term is “web services.” Web services are used for communications between the many components of the SOA implementation. SOA is just an architecture — a methodology; it is not a software application.

Web services have become a commodity, with companies like Amazon and Google offering storage, processing and many other services in the cloud. Web services are not exclusive to the Web, but can equally be used on the company LAN.

Web service standards have two interaction styles: SOAP/WSDL and RESTful. RESTful only operates over HTTP. SOAP is agnostic to transport protocol, so it can use other protocols like TCP. SOAP was designed for distributed computing, whereas RESTful is a lightweight protocol for point-to-point communications. Both can be used to bind a service provider with a service consumer. FIMS uses an object model described by XML schemas, which provides independence from the method used to bind services.

Media-Centric Issues
File-based media systems need to allow for certain issues not found in typical SOA implementations. One is the very large size of media files, terabytes in some cases. Media files cannot travel as attachments on a conventional enterprise service bus, the interconnection bus of an SOA. Instead a separate media service bus is used. This concept is common in broadcast facilities where a high-bandwidth media network carries files separately from the main network, which carries control messages, e-mails etc.

A typical SOA service, like converting a Word document to PDF, happens in seconds. Media processes can take hours or even days. Such operations must happen asynchronously from other processes. Operations such as transcoding must be scheduled to business rules to ensure resources are not used for a low-priority job, holding up a high-priority job.

A resource manager service must manage use of services according to business rules that manage the needs of broadcast operations.

The media bus is a potential bottleneck to scaling of services, so SLA monitoring is vital to ensure efficient running of the media systems. To the video engineer, used to non-blocking systems, with dedicated circuits and crosspoint routers, it is easy to keep track of bandwidth requirements. In a file-based environment, care has to be taken over the use of the media bus though continual monitoring of capacity and performance.

Summary
The AMWA and EBU have now joined with SMPTE to move forward standardization of the framework. After formalization by AMWA and EBU, the work will be submitted to SMPTE.

The standards work is not following a big-bang approach, but progressing in steps, with usable specifications released at regular intervals so that vendors and media companies can start deploying systems immediately, rather than waiting for a long, drawn-out standards process, which has been the case in the past. Businesses have to move now; there is no option to wait for an all-encompassing answer to everything in the media factory. By releasing the framework, and then key adaptors, further work will proceed as the demand arises from the community.

The move to an SOA, and to follow the FIMS route, promises many advantages to the broadcaster. The architecture is more flexible and scalable than legacy systems. The broadcaster can more easily outsource to external services or cloud provision. And finally, the system — through the dashboard — gives management a better view of key performance indicators of the business. The system agility and the better control gives management the ability to invest in new services and to improve the efficiency of existing operations.

By David Austerberry, Broadcast Engineering

Archive eXchange Format

The long-awaited AXF open format for long-term preservation and storage is designed to support interoperability among systems and ensure future access to valuable, file-based assets regardless of type or how they are stored.

Thanks to technology, we've now got more ways than ever to communicate with each other through audio and video. However, the same proliferation of technology that creates so much opportunity also has resulted in a multitude of formats and systems for storing digital media. However, those formats and systems often are not compatible with one another. Here we are not talking about interoperability of the media files themselves (as has long been the dream of MXF), but rather the actual operating system, file system, storage technology and devices used to capture, store and protect these valuable media assets now and in the future.

This diversity and potential long-term incompatibility makes reliable and guaranteed access to these assets complicated, expensive and sometimes downright impossible. Solving the problem means establishing a common format for digital media storage that works not only with any existing system, but also systems that have yet to evolve — an open standard for the long-term storage and preservation of media assets.

Although this may seem unnecessary on the surface, there are many documented cases today where important files stored on dated technology using non-standardized methods have become inaccessible and are therefore lost forever. We will likely be able to recreate an MPEG-2 software decoder on whatever platforms exist 100 years from now, but are we certain we'll be able to find a system compatible with FAT32 to be able to recover the MPEG-2 content itself?

The answer to this daunting problem lies in the new Archive eXchange Format (AXF), an open format that supports interoperability among disparate content storage systems and ensures the content's long-term availability no matter how storage or file system technology evolves. AXF inherently supports interoperability among existing, discrete storage systems irrespective of the operating and file systems used and also future-proofs digital storage by abstracting the underlying technology so that content remains available no matter how these technologies evolve.

What is AXF?
At its most basic level, AXF is an IT-centric file container that can encapsulate any number of files, of any type, in a fully self-contained and self-describing package. The encapsulated package actually contains its own file system, which abstracts the underlying operating system, storage technology and original file system from the AXF object and its valuable payload. It's like a file system within a file that can store any type of data on any type of storage media.

The Embedded File System
This innovative embedded file system approach is AXF's defining attribute. It allows AXF to be both content- and storage-agnostic. In other words, because the AXF object itself contains the file system, it can exist on any generation of data tape, spinning disk, flash, optical media or other storage technology that exists today or might exist tomorrow.

Because of this neutrality, AXF certainly supports the modern generation of data tape technologies (LTO5, TS1140 and T10000C, for example) and because there is no dependency on the features of the storage technology itself, it supports all legacy storage formats as well.

What Makes AXF Better?
AXF offers many significant advantages over other formats and approaches such as Tape ARchive (TAR) and Linear Tape File System (LTFS) for long-term storage, protection and preservation.

AXF can scale without limit, which distinguishes it sharply from legacy container formats like TAR. Like AXF, TAR uses a file container approach that works on any file type of any individual or total file size with support for multiple operating systems. However, TAR's age and tape-based roots yield inevitable limitations. For example, it incorporates neither descriptive metadata support nor a central index for file payload information, which makes random access to files challenging and slow. In large TAR archives, the performance penalty is significant, effectively making the format unsuitable for any situation where random access to individual files is required, let alone random access to portions of the contained files as required by operations such as timecode-based, partial restore.

Certainly, TAR has evolved over the decades, but it has done so typically in divergent paths that lead away from its open-source origins. As a result, it is difficult, or impossible, to recover some TAR packages today, rendering them lost forever.

Also in contrast to TAR, AXF incorporates resiliency features that make it possible to recover object contents, descriptive metadata and media catalogs in a multitude of failure and corruption situations. AXF also incorporates comprehensive fixity and error-checking capabilities in the form of multiple per-file and per-structure checksums. TAR lacks these features that should be considered mandatory for modern systems.

The embedded file system enables AXF to translate between any generic set of files and logical block positions on any storage medium, whether the medium has its own file system or not. This essentially abstracts the underlying file system and storage technology and allows systems that comprehend AXF to ignore any of their complexities and limitations.

While AXF can work in harmony with LTFS, it also has advantages over it. LTFS relies on storage technology elements — such as partitioning and file marks on data tape — that hinder both its storage capabilities and its performance. Likewise, a format such as LTFS is ineffective for complex file collections with tens of thousands or even millions of related elements as it lacks any form of encapsulation and instead relies on simplistic file and path arrangements.

AXF can support any number and type of files in a single, encapsulated package, which inherently means these AXF objects can grow exponentially in size. With its inherent support for spanning objects across media (such as over multiple data tapes), AXF offers significant advantages over LTFS, which offers no spanning support — rendering it ineffective in large-scale archives typical in media operations.

For the preservationist community, AXF offers support for the core OAIS (Open Archival Information System) reference model with built-in features such as fixity (per-file checksums and per-structure checksums), provenance, context, reference, open metadata encapsulation and access control. This adherence to established industry practices is another significant benefit of AXF over LTFS.

Once content is stored in the system, the media itself can be transported directly to any other system that also comprehends AXF offering the same “transport” capabilities of LTFS with the additional features highlighted above.

Front Porch Digital is currently working with SMPTE to standardize AXF and promote it as an industry-wide method for storage and long-term preservation of media assets. Further, the committee hopes its work will extend far outside of the media and entertainment space and into the broader IT community because of its wide-reaching applicability and unparalleled features.

These factors are key to AXF's ability to support large-scale archive and preservation systems as well as simple, standalone applications.

How Does AXF Work?
AXF is designed so that each AXF Object (or package) is comprised of three main components regardless of what technology is used to store them (spinning disk, flash media, data tape without a file system, data tape with a file system, etc.).

The structure of an AXF object includes a header, the payload and a footer

The first part is that each AXF Object originates with an Object Header — a structure containing descriptive XML metadata such as the AXF Object's unique identifier (UUID and UMID), creation date, object provenance and file-tree information, including file permissions, paths, etc. Following the AXF Object Header is any number of optional AXF Generic Metadata packages. The AXF Generic Metadata Packages are self-contained, open metadata containers in which applications can include AXF Object-specific metadata. This metadata can be structured or unstructured, open or vendor-specific, binary or XML.

The second component of the Object construct is the File Payload — the actual byte data of the files encapsulated in the object. The payload consists of any number of triplets — File Data + File Padding + File Footer. File padding, which ensures alignment of all AXF Object elements on storage medium block boundaries, is key to the AXF specification. The File Footer structure contains the exact size of the preceding file, along with an optional file-level checksum designed to be processed on-the-fly by the application during restore operations with little or no overhead.

The final portion of an AXF Object is the Object Footer, which repeats the information contained in the Object Header and adds information captured during the Object's creation, including per-file checksums and precise file and structure block positions. The Object Footer is important to the resiliency of the AXF specification because it allows efficient re-indexing by foreign systems when the media content is not previously known, offering media transport between systems that follow AXF specification.

Because of this standardized approach to the Object construct, which abstracts the underlying complexities of the storage media itself, simple access to the content is ensured regardless of the evolution of technology now and into the future.

Special Structures for Use with Linear Data Tape
When used with linear data tape typical in large-scale archives today, an AXF implementation includes three additional structures to incorporate key, self-describing characteristics on the medium itself, ensuring full recoverability and transportability:

• ISO/ANSI standard VOL1 volume label: The first structure, which appears on the medium, is an ISO/ANSI standard VOL1 volume label. This label indentifies a tape volume and its owner. This is included for compatibility purposes with legacy applications to ensure they do not erroneously handle AXF formatted media and to signal applications that do understand AXF to proceed with accessing the objects contained on the medium.
  
  
• Medium Identifier: The second structure is the Medium Identifier, which contains the AXF volume signature and other information about the storage medium itself. The implementation of the Medium Identifier differs slightly depending on whether the storage medium is linear or nonlinear, and whether it includes a file system or not, but the overall structures are fully compatible.
  
  
• AXF Object Index: The third structure is the AXF Object Index, which is an optional structure that assists in the recoverability of AXF-formatted media. Information contained in this structure is sufficient to recover and rapidly reconstruct the entire catalog of AXF Objects on the storage medium. In a case where the application has not maintained the optional AXF Object Index structures, the contents of each AXF Object can still be reconstructed by simply processing each AXF Object Footer structure.

Who is the Ideal AXF User?
AXF was developed to meet a broad spectrum of user needs — from those accessing petabytes of data in a high-performance environment to those looking to simply encapsulate a few files and send them to a friend via email. AFX is completely scalable to accommodate an operation of any size or complexity. In all cases, AXF offers an abstraction layer that hides the complexities of the storage technology from the higher-level applications, while it also offers fundamental encapsulation, provenance, fixity, portability and preservation characteristics. In addition, the same self-describing AXF format can be used interchangeably on all current storage technologies, such as spinning disk, flash media and data tape from any manufacturer now and into the future.

The Bottom Line
AXF has the ability to support interoperability among systems, help ensure long-term accessibility to valued assets and keep up with evolving storage technologies. It offers profound present and future benefits for any enterprise that uses media — from heritage institutions, to schools, to broadcasters, to simple IT-based operations — and is well on its way to becoming the long-awaited, worldwide, open standard for file-based archiving, preservation and exchange.

More information on AXF is available at OpenAXF.

By Brian Campanotti, Broadcast Engineering

Video Compression Technology: HTML5

A media container is a “wrapper” that contains video, audio and data elements, and can function as a file entity or as an encapsulation method for a live stream. Because container formats are now starting to appear in broadcast situations, both OTA and online, it is useful to consider the various ways that compressed video (and audio) are carried therein, both by RF transmission and by the Internet.

Web Browsing and Broadcasting Crossing Over
The ubiquitous Web browser is a tool that users have come to rely on for accessing the Internet. Broadcasters already make use of this for their online presence, by authoring content and repurposing content specifically for Internet consumption. But browsing capability is something that will come to OTA broadcast as well, once features like non-real-time (NRT) content distribution become implemented. For example, by using the ATSC NRT specification, now under development, television receivers can be built that support different compression formats for cached video, including AVC video and MP3 audio, and different container file formats, such as the MP4 Multimedia Container Format. It is envisioned that these receivers will have the capability of acting as integrated live-and-cached content managers, and this will invariably involve support for different containers and codecs. For this reason, we need to understand how browsers and containers — two seemingly different technologies — are related in the way they handle content.

Several container formats currently provide encapsulation for video and audio, including MPEG Transport Stream, Microsoft Advanced Systems Format (ASF), Audio Video Interleave (AVI) and Apple QuickTime. While not a container format per se, the new HTML5 language for browsers nonetheless has the capability of “encapsulating” video and audio for presentation to a user. With the older HTML, there was no convention for playing video and audio on a webpage; most video and audio have been played by the use of plug-ins, which integrate the video with the browser. However, not all browsers support the same plug-ins. HTML5 changes that by specifying a standard way to include video and audio, with video and audio “elements.”

HTML5 is a new specification under development to replace the existing HTML used by Web browsers to present content since 1999. Among the key requirements of HTML5 are that it be device-independent and that it should reduce the need for external plug-ins. Some of the new features in HTML5 include functions for embedding and controlling video and audio, graphics and interactive documents. For example, a “canvas” element using JavaScript allows for dynamic, scriptable rendering of precise 2-D shapes (paths, boxes, circles, etc.) and bitmap images. Other content-specific elements provide more control over text and graphics formatting and placement, much like a word processor, and new form controls support the use of calendars, clocks, e-mail and searching. Most modern browsers already support some of these features.

The HTML5 Working Group includes AOL, Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Mozilla, Nokia, Opera and many other vendors. This working group has garnered support for including multiple video codecs (and container formats) within the specification, such as OGG Theora, Google's VP8 and H.264. However, there is currently no default video codec defined for HTML5. Ideally, the working group thinks that a default video format should have good compression, good image quality and a low processor load when decoding; they would like it to be royalty-free as well.

Multiple Codecs Present Complex Choices
HTML5 thus presents a potential solution to manufacturers and content providers that want to avoid licensed codecs such as Adobe Flash (FLV), while preferring the partially license-free H.264 (i.e., for Internet Broadcast AVC Video), and fully license-free VP8, Theora and other codecs. Flash, which has become popular on the Internet, most often contains video encoded using H.264, Sorenson Spark or On2's VP6 compression. The licensing agent MPEG-LA does not charge royalties for H.264 video delivered to the Internet without charge, but companies that develop products and services that encode and decode H.264 video do pay royalties. Adobe nonetheless provides a free license to the Flash Player decoder.

HTML5 can be thought of as HTML plus Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) plus JavaScript. CSS is a language for describing the presentation of webpages, including colors, layout and fonts. This allows authors to adapt the presentation to different types of devices, such as large screens vs. small screens. Thus, content authored with HTML5 can serve as a “raw template,” and repurposing to different devices entails generating appropriate CSS for each device. (This is known to programmers as separating “structure” from “presentation.”) JavaScript is an implementation of ECMAScript, both of which are scripting languages that allow algorithms to be run on-the-fly in decoders. Because JavaScript code runs locally in a user's browser, the browser can respond to user input quickly, making interaction with an application highly responsive.

Websites often use some form of detection to determine if the user's browser is capable of rendering and using all of the features of the HTML language. Because there is no specific “flag” that indicates browser support of HTML5, JavaScript can be used to check the browser for its functionality and support of specific HTML features. When such a script runs, it can create a global object that is stored locally and can be referenced to determine the supported local features. This way, the content being downloaded can “adapt” itself to the capabilities of different browsers (and decoder hardware). Scripts are not always needed for detection, however. For example, HTML code can be written, without the use of JavaScript, that embeds video into a website using the HTML5 “video” element, falling back to Flash automatically.

HTML5 also provides better support for local offline storage, with two new objects for storing user-associated data on the client (the playback hardware/software): localStorage, which stores data with no time limit, and sessionStorage, which stores data for one session. In the past, personalization data was stored using cookies. However, cookies are not suitable for handling large amounts of data because they are sent to the server every time there is an information request (such as a browser refresh or link access), which makes the operation slow and inefficient. With HTML5, the stored object data is transferred only when a server or client application needs it. Thus, it is possible to store large amounts of data locally without affecting browsing performance. In order to control the exchange of data, especially between different websites, a website can only access data stored by itself. HTML5 uses JavaScript to store and access the data.

Years ago, content developers predicted the crossover of television and Internet. With standard codecs, container formats and specifications like HTML5, integration of the two media will soon be common.

By Aldo Cugnini, Broadcast Engineering

OTT Video Delivery

OTT video, or streaming media, is an evolving set of technologies that deliver multimedia content over the Internet and private networks. A number of online media platforms are dedicated to streaming media delivery, including YouTube, Brightcove, Vimeo, Metacafe, BBC and Hulu.

Streaming video delivery is growing dramatically. According to the comScore 2009 U.S. Digital Year in Review Video Metrix, Americans viewed a significantly higher number of videos in 2009 than in 2008 (up by 19 percent) because of both increased content consumption and the growing number of video ads delivered.

In January 2010, more than 170 million viewers watched videos online. The average online viewer consumed 187 videos in December 2009, up 95 percent over the previous year, and the average video duration grew from 3.2 to 4.1 minutes.

Hulu, for example, in that same month delivered more than 1 billion streams for a total of 97 million hours. According to comScore, the character of video viewing is changing as well, with more people watching longer content.

There is a growing effort by broadcasters to make regular TV content available online. For example, the BBC has developed the BBC iPlayer and the bbc.co.uk website to support replication of most BBC broadcast material. The service has been outstandingly successful: 79.3 million requests were serviced in October 2009. NBC coverage of the 2010 Winter Olympics included live and recently recorded content, complete with commercials.

Whenever there is the possibility of a large or dynamic viewer audience, a reliable CDN is required. CDNs once only used to replicate website content around the world. Now, they have expanded dramatically to handle streaming media. Research and markets estimated the value of CDN services for 2008 at $1.25 billion, up 32 percent from 2007.

Top CDNs include Akamai, Mirror Image Internet, Limelight Networks, CDNetworks and Level 3. Streaming media services must deal with content collected from disparate sources and distributed to a growing number of devices.



Technology Trends
The most common network protocol used to transport video over IP networks is the Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP). RTSP is a stateful protocol used to establish and control media sessions between a media server and client viewer. RTSP clients issue VCR-like commands to control media playback. The transmission of the audio/video stream itself is most often handled by the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP), although some vendors have implemented their own transport protocol. RTSP and RTP are almost universally used to implement VOD features.

Most video players, such as the Adobe Flash Player, use proprietary protocols that provide additional functionality and flexibility. Flash Player has an almost total presence on PCs and Macs, and is used to deliver more than 80 percent of online videos. The Adobe Flash Player is a lightweight client embedded in Web browsers. Adobe uses the Real Time Messaging Protocol (RTMP) to deliver streaming content, providing multiple independent channels, which are used to control and deliver content. RTMPT is an RTMP variant that encapsulates RTMP packets in HTTP.

First released in 2007, Microsoft's Silverlight player is growing in popularity within the player market. The Silverlight player uses HTTP as its top-level transport mechanism and for media streaming. Using HTTP as a single transport mechanism can result in significant internal cost reduction for end-to-end delivery. Silverlight includes Digital Rights Management (DRM) features similar to those available in Adobe Flash.

HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) is a media streaming specification that is developed by Apple that uses HTTP as the transport. Devices such as the iPhone, iPad and Apple-compatible platforms support this streaming technology. The “Live” is misleading in the name, as this technology works for on-demand and live streaming. HLS supports streaming media that is segmented into smaller chunks of data, to improve delivery and user experience. An Extended M3U Playlist format file is used that contains the media segments to download.

Modern streaming media technologies adapt to changing network conditions, especially those related to mobile devices. As conditions degrade or improve, the player requests an alternate lower or higher bit rate media stream. Multiple flows are prebuilt or constructed at multiple bit rates and divided into chunks so that a player can seamlessly switch different flows.

The ability for a video player to adapt to varying network conditions is termed differently across players. In the Silverlight player, it is called Smooth Streaming; Adobe Flash 10.1 terms it HTTP Dynamic Streaming; and Apple iPhone's HLS refers to it as adaptive streaming.

How is IPTV Delivered?
Delivery of video to the consumer has undergone rapid change in recent years and is guaranteed to continue to do so in the future. Cable TV networks deliver a large range of content, and the ability to provide user interactive features, including VOD.

Carrying the most promise for the future is delivery of video over multiservice IP networks. This is commonly referred to as IPTV. It is delivered as a triple-play service to consumers that include High-Speed Internet (HSI) and VoIP.

Video over IP Information Flow
The major components and data flow in IPTV networks consists of media and control flowing between content servers and home networks.

The two types of video services delivered are linear broadcast and VOD. Both have dramatically different characteristics that affect the networks that handle them. Broadcasts are regularly scheduled programs sent to large numbers of subscribers. It is sent efficiently over multicast IP routes.


VOD service delivery exhibits an entirely different behavior from linear broadcast service. Stored videos are sent to the subscriber on demand. Each subscriber receives his or her own video flow, which they can control with VCR-like controls.


The differences are responsible for the complexity of the delivery network. Broadcast TV over IP is primarily a one-way channel, using well-understood multicast protocols. The home network is responsible for multicast messages and image display. VOD adds another level of complexity. Requests for and control of video content are transmitted upstream from the subscriber to the service provider using RTSP. Video content is returned to the subscriber through RTP.

IPTV Delivery Challenges
Until differentiating services are developed for IP-based video-voice-data networks, IPTV services will continue to be compared with traditional TV, cable and satellite service. As such, the IP delivery network must remain transparent to customers.

Customers expect video quality and service availability to be on par or better to make the switch. With multiple choices available to consumers, there is little tolerance for poor quality and operational problems. A poorly engineered network can lead to substantial customer churn.

To successfully deploy IPTV, the following end-user requirements must be addressed:

• Video quality: subscribers' perception of quality must be the same or better than other alternatives;
  
• Minimal channel change delay: because instant response is expected;
  
• Assured service delivery and availability for an always-on service.

IPTV Testing Requirements
Service providers must systematically test and verify network devices in each of the video transport architectures, including video content servers, core and edge routers, access devices, and customer premises equipment. Such testing provides an understanding of individual device performance and may determine how much impact each has on the overall system.

System-level tests that incorporate more than one demarcation point in the transport architecture are required. In this way, a clear understanding of how well the individual systems play with each other is determined.

Finally, the network must be tested end-to-end. Most standard routing and forwarding performance tests should be performed, looking at packet loss or latency under different load conditions.

Test Methodologies
All types of video testing, both OTT and IPTV, require testing through large-scale subscriber emulation. That is, large user communities must be simulated performing “normal” activities in order to exercise video components, subsystems and end-to-end delivery. “Normal” activity is directly related to the type of video delivery.

IPTV
Broadcast IPTV delivery is highly dependent on multicast operation. In order to avoid sending individual programs to individual users, all viewed channels are broadcast to all users wishing to view particular channels.

It is up to the STB and all routers between the source(s) and the subscriber(s) to join and leave multicast groups that correspond to a particular broadcast stream.

Broadcast IPTV testing requires emulation of subscribers engaged in two types of behavior:

• Requesting a channel (joining a multicast group), watching for a period of time and then requesting an alternate channel (leaving one group and joining another);
  
• Rapidly changing channels, often called “channel zapping”.

During this type of testing, the critical measurements are:

• Video quality, largely related to jitter and drop outs. Several types of quality of experience metrics, including VMOS and VQMon, produce values that are closely related to how viewers “feel” about their experience;
  
• Channel change latency — that is, the time between channel change request and response.

VOD
VOD stream delivery is point-to-point, as opposed to multicast. VOD users have VCR-like buttons at their disposal: play, pause, fast forward, rewind and stop. VOD testing requires emulation of subscribers engaged mostly in viewing and occasionally in VCR-like control activities.

During this type of testing, the critical measurements are:

• Video quality, as described above;
  
• Command latency — that is, response to VCR-like control activities.

OTT
OTT delivery is also point-to-point, and testing requires emulation of large audiences of users accessing a larger set of possible sources than with VOD. The same VCR-like controls are available, but due to the generally short nature of OTT content, are generally used less often.

What differentiates OTT from VOD and makes it much more difficult to test is changing connection rates. OTT content is saved many times over at the source for delivery at many different connection rates — for example, high resolution for broadband connections and low resolution for mobile devices. OTT delivery must quickly and transparently switch between streams based on conditions dictated by the consumer.

OTT testing, therefore, must emulate frequent bandwidth changes from a large community of users accessing many possible streams. During this type of testing, the critical measurements are:

• Video quality, as described above. Empirically, one's expectations of quality for this OTT delivery are much less than broadcast TV;
  
• Smooth presentation. As bandwidth availability changes, consumers must not be aware of the changeover of streams. That is, there should be no noticeable pauses.

BY Dave Schneider, Broadcast Engineering

MP4 File Fragmentation for Broadcast, Mobile and Web Delivery

Consistent multi-platform audio and video content delivery presents an ongoing challenge for broadcasters. Explosive smartphone and tablet growth on varying operating systems —Android, Apple iOS, or Windows Phone—threatens to create a user-experience divide between users on mobile devices, at the desktop or in the living room.

Broadcasters must address multi-platform consumption demands without compromising content security or network efficiencies. Many broadcasters are assessing efficiency of transport protocols used for content delivery, to see how they stack up for web and mobile delivery. Some legacy solutions, such as MPEG-2 Transport Stream (M2TS), lack basic web delivery functions.

What key information do broadcasters and network operators need to know as they look for more efficient approaches to the media delivery? This white paper explores fragmented MP4 files (fMP4) and considers whether the fMP4 format can replace legacy file formats.

Along the way, we’ll explore four key areas that impact both broadcasters and network operators:

• Format benefits of fMP4
  
• Network benefits of fMP4
  
• Movement toward fMP4 standardization
  
• Platforms supporting fMP4

By Timothy Siglin, Transitions, Inc.

yellowBird - 360º Video Playback for iOS

With current trends leaning heavily towards delivering content for the new tablet market, yellowBird have created a 360º video playback component for iPhone and/or iPad. Touch based and gyroscopic navigation provide a complete new edge to experiencing 360º video content.

Tailor made apps can be downloaded from the App Store. This way, yellowBird can fully leverage preview capabilities and develop in-app purchases for users to download complete episodes or subscribe to a series shot in 360º video.

Click to watch the video
Source: yellowBird

Everyone Following their Own Path with HBB

Do not expect rationalisation of standards and anything close to a pan-European, let alone a global specification for hybrid broadcast broadband (HBB). That was the message from a panel of experts at the OTT TV World Summit on Wednesday.

Anthony Smith-Chaigneau, Chairman of the DVB-GEM Commercial Module, which determines what the DVB interactive TV standard needs to deliver for the market, suggested the problem is not a technical one but a human one.

“There are plenty of standards but nobody is choosing them,” he said. “Everyone is fighting each other and following their own path.”

Dr Klaus Illgner-Fehns, IRT Director and Chair at the HbbTV Consortium, disagreed with the analysis that the problem is down to people and organisations getting in the way of progress towards harmonisation. He explains the lack of conformity by the fact that different markets have different needs.

Illgner-Fehns highlighted the progress of HbbTV, which looks to have the best chance of pan-regional adoption. This ETSI standard has strong support in Germany and France and he says there is even interest in Japan, China and the U.S. He attributes the success of HbbTV to meeting the need for a solution that accommodated Internet services and applications but was also available quickly and was not over-engineered. Importantly, the standard also left room for device manufacturers to provide some differentiation. Now the standard can provide economies of scale for smaller CE vendors looking to promote their own branded portals via hybrid solutions.

Richard Lindsay-Davies, Director General at the Digital TV Group, the body responsible for developing and maintaining the DTT specifications in the UK, also noted the lack of uniformity and pointed out that even HbbTV, which could potentially deliver a one-size-fits-all standard, is being implemented using different profiles in different countries.

“It seems that everyone wants a standard as long as it is their standard.”

And this is just the hybrid broadcast broadband market. In connected TV there are multiple manufacturer platforms and as pointed out on another panel at the conference, even TV models from the same vendor in different years are not fully compatible. There is also an interesting dynamic between the connected TV market, characterized by CE vendor content portals that stand separate to linear TV, and the HBB market, notable for the way linear TV content links seamlessly via ‘Red button’ type links to interactive and catch-up TV services.

Antonio Gioia, Project Manager at DTT Content Factory for Mediaset in Italy, said the CE vendors are trying to push the broadcaster towards their own ‘widgets platforms’ to host their content and services – something that on the face of it is attractive because these platforms are already built and deployed. But the company is not convinced, with Gioia saying,

“All that glistens is not gold. We try to keep our content integrity and avoid the division of our brand, which is why we are trying to push the idea of a common [broadcast-centric] platform like in the UK, Spain, France and Germany.”

DVB-GEM is being used as the basis for HBB services in Italy.

By John Moulding, Videonet

Active Retarder - Dead or Alive?

In the 3DTV space, the debate still rages over the merits of shutter glasses vs. passive polarized glasses using Film Pattern Retarder (FPR) technology. While Samsung was singing the praises of shutter glasses, it also had a plan to offer a passive polarized solution in partnership with RealD. Now, the future of this approach is clouded since RealD revealed that its deal with Samsung to manufacture the panels will not go forward.

Active retarder technology is a way to create passive polarized 3D viewing on a flat panel display. It does this by bonding an additional LCD panel to the main imaging panel, instead of bonding a FPR polarizer sheet, which is the approach favored by LG Display. The main advantage of the active retarder approach is the ability to deliver the full native resolution of the panel to each eye in 3D mode. The main disadvantage is the cost and weight of the second LCD panel.

The technology was first shown several years ago at SID by LG Display. At the same time, it also showed its film patterned retarder technology. Subsequently, LG Display slowed down active retarder development and focused on FPR technology, which was introduced into TVs one year ago. Since then, it has seen tremendous success with many brands adopting and doing well selling the approach.

Meanwhile, RealD and Samsung partnered to show prototypes of active retarder TVs (called RDZ by RealD and Active Shutter by Samsung) at CES 2011 and again at SID’11. As we noted in our coverage at the time, the performance was very good and indeed improved by SID. At that time, we were told that Samsung would offer active shutter monitors by the end of 2011 and move into TV production in 2012.

When we asked about the extra cost of the active shutter panel, RealD acknowledged it was an issue but implied they had a plan that would make this a cost affordable component.

So what happened? According to an engadget article, RealD CEO Michael Lewis told reporters that the Korean manufacturer simply "had a recent management change, reviewed all their projects and decided not to go forward."

While it is reasonable to assume that Samsung had a strategic review of all display technologies and decided active shutter would not make the cut, there were probably additional factors at play. One was the difficult economic climate that has hurt TV sales and shifted consumer attention to smartphones and tablets. Samsung could easily have seen better return on investment in this area compared to TVs.

Another factor may have been technology. Was the team able to meet their cost and manufacturing targets to offer competitive TVs in the desired timeframe? My guess is that there were indeed some problems in this area and the only practical way to address the cost and weight issues is to create plastic LCD. Commercializing this in monitor and TV sizes is a big challenge and was likely going to require additional investment and time.

And let’s not forget the competitive aspect vs. patterned retarder technology commercialized by LG Display and a host of TV partners. Remember, over the last year, Samsung and LG have slung mud at each other over the image quality of the patterned retarder vs. shutter glass approach. Samsung claims that shutter glasses deliver the full native resolution of the panel per eye whereas FPR delivers only half the vertical resolution per eye. LG says not true, and has backed that up with a series of independent test results that validate the image quality is FHD in 3D mode.

This argument is essentially being settled by consumers who are voting with their purchases. While active shutter sets continue to increase in sales, film patterned retarder sales have come on strongly in the last year. Some brands are now converting their lines from shutter glasses to all film patterned retarder models. While the active retarder approach can deliver FHD per eye, the image quality - and tricks that LG plays with film patterned retarder, is very close to FHD per eye, so the advantage is minimized.

Finally, 3DTV is not as hot as it once was with Connected/Internet/Smart TVs likely to create more excitement with consumers in the near term.

Putting it all together, arguments that made sense 1-2 years ago, don’t seem to make as much sense today. It may be all of these, and possibly some other reasons, why Samsung pulled the plug on active shutter.

Lewis noted that RealD remains "bullish on the technology" and will explore opportunities with "other potential partners." In addition, AUO is now active in the space. At FPD International they debuted a surprise product - a 46-inch 3DTV using a scanning retarder approach.

So is the technology dead or alive? I guess I will leave it to you to judge for yourself.

By Chris Chinnock, Display Daily

ConnecTV Gives US Stations TV Everywhere

US local TV station groups covering 76 million American homes are partnering with ConnecTV to launch a free second screen application in early 2012 that will offer viewers additional content and social media features tied to live TV. As part of the agreement, a number of the broadcasters have also made an undisclosed investment in the Silicon Valley start-up.

Many national broadcasters, cable channels and programmes have launched second screen apps as a way of enhancing live TV viewing and to capitalise on the growing usage of mobile devices and social media. But the deal between the broadcast groups and ConnecTV marks the largest attempt by local broadcasters – a number of whom compete with each other – to work together on social media and second screen applications.

The ConnecTV platform automatically synchronises with whatever channel a viewer is watching. Users who have signed up for the service at its web site or have downloaded an app for smart phones or tablets can interact with others who are watching the same show and access a wide array of related content.

If a viewer is watching a local newscast, for example, the application might show related news stories, which the user could access or share with friends. Alternatively, the application might offer polls or stats related to a sporting event. Local ads and promotions are also synched to the programs being viewed, opening up new revenue opportunities the companies hope.

The ten television broadcast groups involved in the ConnecTV partnership are active in 45 of the top 50 markets and own 201 stations in markets covering 76 million US households. Those groups include Barrington Broadcasting Group as well as the nine broadcast groups that make up the Pearl Group (Belo Corp., Cox Media Group, E.W. Scripps Co., Gannett Broadcasting, Hearst Television Inc., Media General Inc., Meredith Corp., Post-Newsweek Stations Inc. and Raycom Media.)

Speaking on behalf of the Pearl Group, Alan Frank, president and CEO of Post-Newsweek Stations noted that a growing portion of their audiences are active social media users and that many of them were using laptops, smartphones and tablets while watching TV.

“There is more TV viewing than ever but people are doing it differently,” said Frank. He cited a 2010 Nielsen study concluding that two thirds of people aged 18 to 54 reported watching TV while they accessed the web and that 70 per cent of tablet owners used their tablets while watching TV.

The Pearl Group was originally set up by nine broadcast groups to coordinate the launch of mobile DTV services but the growing importance of social media and the increasingly widespread usage of tablets, smart phones and laptops to access video, convinced members to explore way that they might be able to capitalize on those trends.

Source: Advanced Television

Rapid Adoption of ID System Speeds Multiscreen Rollouts

A simple but essential new pan-industry method for keeping track of entertainment content and the metadata that’s essential to monitoring usage and enabling navigation and other applications is already paying off in activities across the digital landscape. Known as EIDR (Entertainment ID Registry), the platform employs numerical IDs to provide a solution for identifying digital movie and TV content in commercial distribution, regardless of platform or distribution channel.

“The film and TV industry hasn’t been very good at tracking compared to what we see in retail stores,” says Jud Cary, vice president and deputy general counsel at CableLabs, one of the founding entities in the EIDR initiative. “What we’re doing is very similar to UPC (the Universal Product Code barcode system) in dry goods.”

People and applications alike can search the registry via Web user interfaces or Web service APIs using the numerical ID that’s been assigned to a given piece of content submitted by a content owner or other registrant to immediately access all the metadata descriptions associated with that content. The numerical tags create a uniform basis for tracking content usage and developers can use the APIs to integrate the registry features with their applications and automated workflows.

“When you’re trying to deliver content in multiple formats to multiple devices, it gets exponentially complex to keep track of each movie or TV program and to make the back office work efficiently,” Cary says. “You can have hundreds of permutations of a given piece of content once you start talking about clips, different cuts, different encoding and distribution formats.”

EIDR, which began over two years ago as a development project spearheaded by MovieLabs, CableLabs, Comcast and Rovi Corporation with backing from many individual studios and other entities, launched in early 2011 and now is anchoring content initiatives across the ecosystem.

“Complete, accurate and consistent metadata is key to our products and features such as browse, search, filter and recommendations,” notes Steve Heeb, vice president of business development at Comcast. “The use of EIDR will enable us to develop a robust and accurate database of program metadata from multiple sources that can be used across multiple platforms, including VOD, linear and online.”

A big advantage for content producers is the impact EIDR is likely to have on monetization, leading to more aggressive use of online distribution. “EIDR makes it easier for content producers to track and get paid for ad impressions and the use of their assets,” Cary says.

For example, Warner Bros. has invested in several technology initiatives to streamline and automate online interactions with retailers, vendors and consumers, says Darcy Antonellis, president of Warner Bros. technical operations. “EIDR is a key component of these initiatives, providing a global, unique identifier for content assets as they move from creation to consumption,” Antonellis explains.

“Just as our advertising colleagues have seen a need to use a unique ID system for ads, the need for a unique ID to track media and entertainment flowing online also has become obvious,” she continues. “We are actively integrating EIDR into our content workflow and are working with retailers like Microsoft to incorporate the standard over the coming months.”

Similarly, Disney has made EIDR part of its infrastructure supporting multiple digital initiatives, says Arnaud Robert, Disney’s senior vice president of distribution technology. “We have implemented EIDR into our metadata and internal digital workflows, and, working with our distribution partners, we intend to extend its usage to our various distribution channels,” Robert says.

Rovi, a major holder of metadata from movies and programming going back to the dawn of broadcast TV, played a major role in contributing records to “prime the pump,” Cary says. Comcast and others with significant data bases contributed as well.

The non-profit EIDR operation is designed to draw as much content into the database as possible, he adds. “The idea is the fees to join are so ridiculously low anyone can participate,” he says, noting that costs are tiered for contributors to where the highest level is only $5,000, which “gives you unlimited access and registrations.” At the promoter level, where the fee is in the $35,000 range, entities are entitled to be on the EIDR board.

An important new factor in driving participation is the support of two influential industry organizations – The Digital Entertainment Group (DEG), a Hollywood marketing engine, and the Hollywood IT Society (HITS). The two are working together to help drive adoption among studios, post-production houses and service providers.

Source: ScreenPlays

Not Just Mobile: Adobe is Abandoning Flash on TVs as Well

Adobe announced Wednesday that it would be abandoning its work to enable rich applications on mobile devices through Flash, and would be focusing on HTML5 and Adobe AIR apps instead. But at the same time that it was working on bringing Flash video and applications to mobile devices, it was also hoping to bridge the divide between web video and what could be watched on connected TVs. So what happens to those efforts?

While the market for TV apps is incredibly fragmented, it doesn’t appear that Adobe’s Flash will provide a solution. The company confirmed through a statement that like mobile, it will no longer focus on porting the Flash plugin into web browsers on CE devices, but believes developers should build native apps on those devices instead. An Adobe spokesperson writes:

“Adobe will continue to support existing licensees who are planning on supporting Flash Player for web browsing on digital home devices and are using the Flash Player Porting Kit to do so. However we believe the right approach to deliver content on televisions is through applications, not a web browsing experience, and we will continue to encourage the device and content publishing community down that path.”

Adobe’s efforts to bring Flash to connected TVs, Blu-ray players and other devices, like its mobile Flash plans, were part of its Open Screen Project, which aimed to create a consistent app runtime across multiple devices. The idea was that developers would be able to create a Flash application once and be able to distribute it across web browsers, mobile devices and TVs.

Two-and-a-half years ago, Adobe announced a number of partnerships with OEMs and system-on-chip vendors such as Broadcom, Intel, STMicroelectronics, NXP Semiconductors and Sigma Designs to embed the Flash player into their silicon. But the number of TVs and other CE devices that support the Flash player have been limited to those from Sony and Logitech running the Google TV operating system. And Google TV has hardly been a success.

Now, Adobe is taking a step back from those plans, but not abandoning the TV app segment altogether. Instead of pushing multi-screen browser-based Flash applications, Adobe is hoping to convince developers to create native apps on mobile and TV devices using the Adobe AIR framework. Already some developers are taking advantage of that framework, with publishers like CNet, Epix and YouTube building TV apps for Samsung TVs based on Adobe AIR.

By Ryan Lawler, GigaOM

Google Talk and Hangouts Close to Go Native in Chrome

Chrome users will soon be able to access Google Talk and Google+ Hangouts video chats through a native, open-source implementation based on the WebRTC protocol, as opposed to the proprietary plugin that’s currently bundled with the browser.

This change also means Hangouts and Google Talk will be replacing the H.264 video codec with Google’s open-source WebM video format.

Google has been using proprietary technology licensed from Vidyo to facilitate voice and video chat within Google Talk as well as Google+ Hangouts until now. However, work has been underway for a while to replace the plugin with an open-source implementation based on WebRTC, a framework for real-time voice and video communications that Google open-sourced in May.

Now it looks like this work will soon pay off: WebRTC Group Product Manager Serge Lachapelle wrote Tuesday morning that his team is “heads down” working on Webkit patches to bring a WebRTC enabled version of Chrome to the public. He added: “You’ll notice the brilliant work by Ericsson, whom have [sic] been helping out a ton in driving this.”

The WebRTC group also recently announced its work to the wider Webkit developer community. The exact timing of the Chrome release with WebRTC is unclear, but Lachapelle hinted at more upcoming news in his post: “Hopefully our next post will be soon, and will include a more useful URL :)”

By Janko Roettgers, GigaOM

SyncTV: Building TV Apps for Almost Every Device

When it comes to building connected-TV apps, most video providers are stuck trying to decide which devices to build for: After all, it seems like every consumer electronics manufacturer has its own software development kit (SDK) to do so. There are more than a dozen different frameworks for creating applications that run on different connected TVs, Blu-ray players, game consoles, streaming set-top boxes, tablets, mobile handsets and the like, which is more than most publishers can reasonably be expected to develop for.

Enter SyncTV, which aims to deliver third-party video applications for multiple platforms without going through the process of reinventing the wheel each time a publisher wants to reach a new device. The company delivers video experiences to the PC and Mac, as well as mobile frameworks like Android and iOS. But the real key is in reaching TV screens, with apps built for connected TVs and Blu-ray players.

SyncTV builds apps for connected TVs and other devices from a wide range of major CE manufacturers, such as Sony, Samsung, LG, Vizio, Philips and Panasonic. Its apps are also available on Roku and Boxee Box streaming devices, and it’s also working on applications for the upcoming launch of Microsoft’s new Xbox Live user interface.

Being available on such a wide range of devices is becoming increasingly important for video publishers. When you think about Netflix, for instance, one of that company’s main advantages over competitors has been its relative ubiquity on connected devices. However, that ubiquity comes with a price: Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has admitted to paying an “innovation tax” for being in all of those places. But not everyone has the resources that Netflix does, which are necessary to build all those apps.

With SyncTV, however, video publishers don’t necessarily need to create apps for every device. Because it’s already built the user interface and has the back end necessary for ingest, encoding, digital rights management, ad insertion, reporting and billing, it can simplify the process of rolling out to new devices. It can also reuse a lot of the same code and infrastructure.

For video publishers, that reduces a ton of complexity associated with being everywhere that consumers want them to be. There are already a number of publishers taking advantage of that offer: SyncTV’s named clients include NBC Universal in the UK, French broadcaster M6, U.S.-based VOD provider Avail-TVN, German TV station Wider.TV and South Asian content provider Bollywood Nirvana.

SyncTV is being spun out of DRM provider Intertrust, and it is going independent. The company, which currently has more than 30 employees, is based in Sunnyvale, Calif., and also has offices in France, Spain, the UK, the Netherlands, Japan, Singapore, South Korea and China.

By Ryan Lawler, GigaOM

Google TV Porn Powered by HTML5, Not Native Apps

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Technicolor Launches Second-Screen Synching App for Blu-ray, VOD, Broadcast

With tablet and smartphone use seemingly on a vertical trajectory with no end, Technicolor has decided to roll out a 'second-screen' app that pay-TV operators can offer to enrich their linear and/or video on demand (VOD) offerings.

Analysts say that up to 70% of consumers use a laptop, tablet or mobile device to supplement their home viewing experience, whether engaging in social media or browsing for more information about the program they are viewing. Technicolor MediaEcho makes that easier, by automatically synchronising that secondary content with whatever the consumer is watching.

Information offered at consumer fingertips include cast, crew and production information, historical facts, and ancillary audio and video for tablets that allow viewers to deepen their engagement with the program without cluttering the main screen.

The app can also enable integration of social media, so users can post comments, share content and connect during their viewing experience. MediaEcho can also help with top-line revenue generation, because it can enable e-commerce within the app, allowing fans to purchase items related to the program right from their tablet.

The synching is accomplished via Technicolor’s own audio watermarking technology, which inserts an inaudible high-frequency sound that allows the app to synchronise even in the presence of ambient noise.

Synchronisation of content also works with Blu-ray disc, a feature made possible through BD-Live technology to enable a two-way communication between any Internet-connected Blu-ray Disc player and tablet device.

The intial MediaEcho launch is for Apple iOS and Android.

Technicolor is not the first mover in the market: Miso recently launched the same type of app, inking deals with DirecTV and AT&T.

By Michelle Clancy, Rapid TV News

Higher Frame Rates for More Immersive Video and Television

The frame rates used for film and television have been fixed for the best part of a century. A belief has arisen that the frame rates chosen are close to an upper limit, and that little improvement can be expected from an increase.

In this paper we will challenge this view, reporting on some experimental work that shows that the use of higher frame rates for capture, storage, transmission and display offers clear advantages at the resolutions associated with SD and HDTV.

We will also explain why the frame rates currently in use will increasingly limit the quality of television pictures if the size of displays and/or the resolution of television systems continue to grow.

Source: BBC R&D

G-Tech Rolls Out 3D Cover Glass Solutions

G-Tech Optoelectronics (GTOC), an affiliate of Foxconn Electronics, has rolled out 3D cover glass solutions and is likely to win orders from branded smartphone vendors in the first half of 2012, according to industry sources.

GTOC has been cooperating with a total of five handset makers on the development of 3D cover glass for six months and the five makers are expected to begin volume production of smartphones and tablet PCs using GTOC's cover glass, the sources noted.

GTOC is expected to debut on the Taiwan Stock Exchange (TSE) soon. The company posted revenues of NT$5.3 billion (US$175.97 million), net profits of NT$752 million, and an EPS of NT$3.80 in the first three quarters of 2011.

By Yenting Chen and Steve Shen, DigiTimes

Apple 3D Display is Groundbreaking According to Insider

Apple is working on a glasses-free 3D display that—according to an insider—will reinvent the way consumers perceive 3D. This was already discussed in Steve Jobs’ biography. Our Apple insider tells us that this display may not be limited to just television sets.

“We have prototypes of many different sized 3D displays—all the way from 3.5 inches to 32 inches. These displays are nothing like the glasses-free 3D displays that have a very narrow sweet spot for viewing. I can’t even describe how amazing they are. You’ll hear more about this by the middle of the year.”

Los Angeles industry analyst Paul Mueller believes that Apple could help the crawling 3D market really take off. “Consumers—in general—still believe 3D is a gimmick. Right now, Apple is the only company that can convince them it isn’t.”

By Daryl Deino, LA Gadgets Examiner

The Hobbit - Production Diary Video

Click to watch the video
Source: YouTube

Global Technology Moves to the Motion of Israeli Sensors

At the end of August, there were only four major players competing over the dominance over the 3D motion sensor market which develops technology for capturing body motion and converting it into digital information for games, home appliances and cellular devices.

Three of the four contenders, which own leading patents in the industry, are well known giant corporations Microsoft, Apple and Qualcomm. The fourth is a small Israeli company named XTR otherwise known as Extreme Reality. The Israeli company developed technology that can turn any digital or web camera into a state of the art 3D sensor.

XTR, however, is not the only Israeli company which deals in motion capturing technology. The most well known Israeli company in the field is PrimeSense which sells 3D motion sensors to Microsoft. The company supplies Microsoft with millions of PCBs at $10 a piece and estimates are that it cut a $100 million coupon on the sales of 10 million unites of Kinect – Microsoft's motion sensor which is based on Primesense's technology.

Military Vision Systems
Sunday Calcalist revealed that another Israeli company is joining the war between the technology giant over the 3D sensor market: Intel is negotiating with Invision for the $50 million acquisition of the small Israeli company. In the long run, Invision's technology will enable Intel to launch 3D vision chips and software and market them to television, game console, smartphone and tablet manufacturers.

The three Israeli companies are not alone: a number of other Israeli companies deal in the development of image processing technologies that incorporate complex algorithms and electro-optics to produce 3D vision systems.

"Many of these technologies came out of the army", explains XTR founder David Geva in an interview with Calcalist. "Many military engineers migrated to the civil industry and it is only natural that the industry is developing in Israel".

'Now They All Want a Piece'
PrimeSense CEO Inon Bracha has another take on the profusion of companies in the digital imaging industry – the success of his own company.

"When Ceragon Communications was established, many companies were founded in an attempt to reproduce its success but there is only one Ceragon. Most companies in Israel were not able to raise funds until the Kinect became a success and now everyone wants a piece of the action."

Izhar Shay from Canaan Partners VC fund, a key investor in PrimeSense, believes that image processing expertise is not enough and attributes Israel's success to the required multidisciplinary know-how that the local market can offer.

"In order to develop a 3D vision controller, you need knowledge in video, signal development, electro-optics, ergonomics and cognitive psychology on top of expertise in all aspects of the program. It's hard to find such a combination of fields like Israel has", he says.

Shay was not surprised by Intel's intention to enter the content field and notes the giant's expansion strategy, acquiring, for example, McAfee security software developer for $7 billion and more recently its acquisition of two Israeli companies unrelated to the PCB industry – Graphtech which develops technology for the transfer of video and data from PCs to cell phones and Telmap which develops navigation applications.

However, Bracha still recalls Intel's last floundering attempt to penetrate the smart-home market when it acquired Israeli Oplus for $100 million. "Intel cannot change its skin and become a different company. Some things money can't buy".

Aside from PrimeSense, all the companies below are up for sale. As they develop small components for large systems which give the competitive edge to technology giants such as Microsoft and Intel, chances are high that the acquisition spree will continue. Calcalist marks the candidates for the next exits.

PrimeSense: the Chip that Found its Way into Kinect
In 2009, Microsoft's hardware division execs had to make a decision which sensor technology to incorporate into the Kinect system, the popular Xbox 360 motion sensor. They deliberated between two Israeli companies, 3DV and PrimeSense and eventually decided to go with both and acquired the 3DV employees and a license to use PrimeSense's technology as the latter turned down the acquisition offer.

However, Microsoft was more impressed by PrimeSense's technology – its chip met the high performance standards and could capture body movements of more people from greater distances and under various light conditions. 3DV was dumped at a loss and its employees stayed on to support PrimeSense's technology.

The rest is history: since Kinect's launch in the beginning of the year, over 10 million devices have been sold – 8 million within the first two months – a Guinness world record for the sales of a single electronic device.

PrimeSense is not stopping at computer games though. The company is examining smart house technologies for hands-free operation of consumer electronics.

In the meantime, PrimeSense has launched pilots with megs manufacturers such as Asus, Lenovo and Chinese giants Haiel and Hisense. However, entering new markets is no mean feat. Bracha notes that global slowdown effects consumer indices and considerably impedes the introduction of 3D into other areas of life.

Product: 3D motion controller that captures body motion and detects facial features
Founded in 2006 by Aviad Maizels, Alex Shafonet Dima Reis, Ofir Sharon and Tamir Berliner
CEO: Inon Bracha
Location and employees: Tel-Aviv, 200
Capital raised: $80 million
Investors: Silverlake, Canaan, Genesis, Gemini
Clients: Microfost, Asus, Lenovo
Estimated earnings for 2010: $80 million

MobilEye: Impact Alert
Mobileye was founded by one of Israel's leading specialists in image processing, Professor Amnon Shasua from the Hebrew University and colleague Ziv Aviram who is the company CEO.

Over the past decade, the company raised $157 million and became a global leader in impact detection sensors. Mobileye technology does not translate body motion to VR data like the rest of the companies mentioned here but it uses body motion to detect nearby pedestrians or vehicles.

Product: Vehicles impact detection sensors
Founded in 1999, by Professor Amnon Shashua and Ziv Aviram
Location and employees: Jerusalem, 200
Capital raised: $157 million
Investors: Glenrock, Leumi Partners, Goldman Sachs, UMI, Yacov Shahar. Ari Steimatzky, Israel Kaz
Clients: Clal Insurance, Eldan, Hertz, Avis, BNP Paribas

Invision: Intel's Response to Microsoft's Kinect
Last sunday Calcalist revealed that Intel is negotiating over the acquisition of Invision Biometrics – an upcoming company previously unpublicized which operates under a cloak of secrecy.

The company's products are based on patents developed in the laboratory of Professor Ron Kimmel's, a Technion image processing expert. The company's initial development was a 3D human model developed in Professor Kimmel's lab.

Only after PrimeSense's success, its founders conceived the idea to register their technology as a patent and sell it to technology giants. The Technion is on of the company's prime shareholders.

Intel will probably incorporate Invision's patent with other recently acquired patents by Israeli startup Omek Interactive which raised $7 million last summer. Invision's technology will constitute the "eyes" of the motion sensors.

It should be noted that while the market dubs Invision Intel's PrimeSense, Invision is a young company which has yet to develop an existing product and is surely not on equal financial footing as PrimeSense.

In fact, Invisions holds PCB design patents but has not yet produced one. The first chips based on the company's technology will probably be developed by Intel in the event that the acquisition comes to fruition.

Product: 3D sensor PCB patent
Founded in 2011, by Sagi Ben Moshe, Professor Ron Kimmel and Lior Ben Hur
Location and employees: Yokneam, 10
Capital raised: $2-3 million
Investors: Olaf Roge, Nutcracker

XTR: A Real Alternative to Primesense
Extreme Reality (XTR) is the developer of gesture control interface and motion capture software which can use input from 2D cameras. The technology aims to make high cost sensors such as the Kinect redundant. XTR's software can be installed on cell phones, computers, tablets and television sets with simple 2D cameras.

Since the company's technology can process a wide range of information and costs only several of dollars, it may to be a real alternative to Primesense's chip that sells for $10 a piece.

Similarly to PrimeSense, XTR's technology captures real time 3D full body motion and converts the information into player motion. XTR provides external developers with a software bundle to which they can tack on their own applications. Texas Instruments has already begun incorporating XTR's technology in its top box and cell phone boards.

Recently, the company has undergone expansion and reorganization which placed former executive at Modu and Next Technologies Elad Dubzinski at the helm.

Despite being a veteran company, XTR has yet to take a leading position on the market and it is PrimeSense that created a market niche with a successful product with sales in the tens of millions of dollars.

Product: 3D capture software
Founded in 2005 by Dor Givon
Location and employees: Headquarters in Herzliya and sales office in Tokyo; 28
CEO: Elad Dubzinski
Capital raised: $4-5 million
Investors: Texas Instruments
Clients: Texas Instruments

EyeSight: Change Channels With a Gesture
Eyesight delivers short range gesture recognition technology and deals in 2D motion analysis. Eyesight's technology enables touch free operation of cell pones and television sets.

In its former years, Eyesight focused on cell phone technology and developed hands-free interfaces for Nokia smartphones enabling users to operate their phone using hands gestures.

Recently, the company expanded its operations and as Chinese TV manufacturer Hisense has begun delivering the technology in its television sets. Eyesight had also signed a cooperation agreement with Chinese content company Huan TV which develops applications for digital TV.

Product: Gesture recognition based software
Founded in 2004 by Zvika and Itay Katz
Location and employees: Tel-Aviv; 20
Capital raised: $4 million
Investors: Eli Talmor and Rami Lipman
Clients: Hisense and Huan TV

Omek Interactive: The Brains Behind the Sensor
Whereas Inovision is considered Intel's future 3D sensor hardware supplier, startup company Omek Interactive is regarded as the "brains" behind the sensor. The company's software maps image depth and the company develops a software bundle which may be used by external developers to develop image depth based applications.

Omek's application operates on 3D cameras such as the Kinect but cannot operate by 2D cameras such as cell phones or web cams which makes the company's operations complementary to that of Primesense rather than posing competition.

The company plans to further develop the technology for digital set-top boxes, mobiles and game consoles but depends on the incorporation of 3D cameras in such devices. So far, Omek Interactive has recruited several business partners among them Lenovo and Panasonic.

Product: 3D sensor technology which maps image depth
Founded: 2007, by Janine and Gershom Kutliroff
Location and employees: Beit Shemesh; 55
Capital raised: $14.4 million
Investors: Intel, Zitlman, FF Assets, Everett, Chestnut
Clients: Lenovo, Panasonic

Side-Kick: 3D Game Developer
Side-Kick is a global 3D gaming pioneer – even before the Kinect stormed the markets last year, the company launched two of its games for the Chinese game console iSec produced by Lenovo's subsidiary, Eedoo.

Side-Kick's technology can operate on any motion controller, especially Kinect which is installed in over 10 million Xbox devices.

Side-Kick's founders are well seasoned game developers: Bendov founded prominent gaming companies in Israel such as Double Fusion; Raviv worked at US gaming company Eidos and Sela founded the animation lab at the JVP media compound in Jerusalem.

Product: 3D sensor-based games
Founded in 2010 by Gay Bendov, Asaf Sela and Tal Raviv
Location and employees: Bnei Nrak; 7
Capital raised: $600,000
Investors: Jasmine Group, Kima Ventures, Tevel and Wekix
Clients: Eedoo – A Lenovo subsidiary

By Assaf Gilad, Calcalist