The present and future of post production business and technology

AT the Boston Final Cut Pro User Group on Thursday February 21
Details at the Boston FCP User Group website.

Saturday February 23rd in New York. Distribution Workshop.

Hope to see you there

So, I’m reading Time Magazine this week and stumble upon Joel Stein’s Totally Uncorked article.

Gary Vaynerchuk’s daily 15-min. video blog has 25,000 viewers who click onto his site each day to hear him describe–as he did a few weeks ago–a New World–style Spanish wine as “not obnoxiously over the top and fake as many of these types of wines are. Instead of a full face-lift and boob job and suction and all of that, maybe this just got a nose job.”

It’s clear that he’s doing the blog as promotion for his wine store business, which is at the same site as the video blog, so he doesn’t needcompensation for the blog. It’s also clear that Gary Vaynerchuck is that rare combination of expert (self taught so he retains the common touch) and a great on-air personality. Maybe a little over-the-top for some but very hard to look away from (perhaps for the same reason it’s hard not to stare at a train wreck).

But let’s say this guy just did the video blog and wanted to make a buck. The TV Wine Library vlog is daily and, according to Time Magazine, has 25,000 viewers per day (site visitors). Grant me the one indulgence: the technology to charge for individual items in a feed, as is suggested in this model, hasn’t been released yet, but it is coming.

Let’s say he could get some proportion, 20% maybe, of that audience to sign up for the feed even with a small charge associated with viewing the episodes. With incentives you might get a more than 20% to subscribe. Make the charge per episode low: a no-brainer decision level. For argument and easy math let’s say 10c per show, charged when it’s downloaded.

I think it’s reasonable to argue that if 15 minutes of programming isn’t worth a nickel then why are you wasting your time watching it? Your time to watch it is worth way more than that. (If you earn $10 an hour, that 15 minutes is equivalent to $2.50 of your time; scale your time’s value up to know how much it would cost you to watch 15 minutes of programming!)

Once the subscriber is on board, then the default in software like iTunes, is to download every show. (I prefer people to set it to manual download.) If you’re interested in wine then you’re probably not going to quibble over a dime a day. Make all the inevitable comparisons: “about the cost of one cup of coffee for a month’s wine entertainment and knowledge building.” (BTW, that’s the type of programming that has the most potential growth over all.)

Whichever way you put it, it is not a lot of money for a viewer. In an RSS feed it’s not a lot of effort, either: at most it requires a single click on the download button, if the aggregator is set to manual. All libraried in the same software (if using Apple’s iTunes). The show could then be sent to the Television via an Apple TV.

Ok, given that this is currently not possible, but will be in the near future, then our wine guy, with his smaller “for pay” audience over his the larger audience who watches for free, could pull in $1000 a day. That’s $5,000 a week, $20,000 a month, $240,000 a year. That’s a decent, middle class income.

His $5 million-a-year wine business is probably more worthwhile for him, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t a hundred (or more) niche knowledge areas that would attract 5,000 or 10,000 people for a daily does of entertaining enlightenment. But I’ll bet that there are more than a few people for whom $150,000 plus a year would be a decent income.

Adobe have opened AIR to public beta. Formerly known as Apollo, AIR basically takes those Rich Internet Applications (RIA) from the browser and runs them in a cross-platform desktop environment. The biggest advantage of Adobe Integrated Runtime (AIR), over a browser, is that it allows developers to do things in their application that are “forbidden” (for security reasons) for a browser to do, like have local data storage. (AIR includes a SQLite-like database for this purpose.)

Development is basically the same as for RIA as browser deployment. AIR is the basis for Adobe’s upcoming Adobe Media Player. At least Adobe are “eating their own dog food” or more politely, proving their own technology is at least good enough for themselves!

AIR, like Microsoft’s Silverlight, is unlikely to directly affect many video professionals except that it will probably spawn a dozen players.

The news feeds I create are hosted hosted by the Digital Production BuZZ. This website is hosted on Media Temple’s Gridserver, which we chose because it allows us to absorb large amounts of traffic by simply using more resources on the Gridserver (for which we pay of course).

Unfortunately, Media Temple had a major problem with the Gridserver this morning and despite multiple phone calls to tech support and their media relations people did not get returned. Finally just now, I reached Marketing Director Alex Copehart, who could comment on the record. He had a team of people with him for the call (I suspect they were already together working on understanding this morning’s problems) and I was able to ask why there wasn’t more information on the website and why I hadn’t had my calls returned.

Here’s a tip, if you get to an outside call center for an organization like this, try hitting the directory number for sales! Most companies are more responsive in sales than anywhere else. It was via sales that I was able to get a useful comment.

The problem with the lack of detailed and timely information, Alex explained, was because t they were still attempting to understand fully what went wrong and they did not want to post misleading information.

David also offered, unprompted, to find us a different solution that would be more robust as a discounted price and we’ll explore that further with him over the next few days.

In any technology “stuff happens”. The Grid Server is a new concept and one that has potential, and we’re treating this as a one-off glitch. We may get hooked up with a different solution with them or
we’ll find a more reliable hosting service. We hope that today’s problems are transient. We’ll see.

My take-away, is for businesses that are having a problem, is to be as open and honest as you can be as quickly as you can be. My biggest frustration today is that I had no idea whether this was a problem that would be fixed in an hour, in which case we’d just wait it out, or whether it was a really big problem and I’d better make other arrangements to keep our site and feed alive. We’ll certainly be exploring failover provisions for the future.

Microsoft constantly claims that any attempt to restrict (whatever it wants to do) will somehow “reduce innovation”. I’m hard pressed to remember any actual innovation that Microsoft have actually released. (The excellent Photosynthesis tech demo is indeed innovative but it’s not yet ready for market.)

Likewise I hear the big four record companies talking about “innovative ways to distribute digital media” when they mean Digital Rights Management destroying the features we already enjoy with their product - like being able to move it from device to device, computer to computer without having to remember to de-authorize one computer before starting on the next.)

Disney are “innovating” on MySpace by making a cosy little non-space that’s designed to please parents but has nothing going for it compared to the real Internet. If parents are worried about what their kids are doing on the Internet they should be parents and manage it, not rely on some walled garden that tries to isolate itself from the rest of the Internet: isolates itself from what makes the Internet actually useful.

So, I’ve come to the conclusion that “innovation” a really a code word for “we haven’t got a clue”. Another example is the Telecommunications companies who are “innovating” with IPTV by creating a poor copy (less choice, more lag time between channels, expensive infrastructure) of a cable system.

I’ve got news for them all: innovation means doing something new, different, unexpected, evolutionary, revolutionary. Triple-play telco bundling is not innovative. Doing a limited version of cable TV on IP protocols is imitation not innovation. What would be innovative is something that gave more choice, was easier to find programming you were interested in, wasn’t limited to a “broadcaster’s” schedule and wasn’t controlled by some channel or network gatekeeper.

That would be innovation. If it fails, better to fail at trying something new than the inevitable failure of poor quality imitation on an infrastructure totally unsuited for the purpose… I’m looking at you ATT Uverse and Verizon. High speed, high bandwidth symmetrical broadband is useful and will power the real innovation that’s coming in television delivery. But that’s not what the telcos are about.

They’re about imitation and convince themselves it’s innovation. How deluded do you have to be to work there?

The latest bit of insanity in legislation (part 654 in an ongoing series) has Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) brining up a Bill to “ban Myspace.com from schools” in order to “protect the children”. Leaving aside the facts that parents are where the responsibility lies, and that, given the 80 million members, MySpace is safer than the school itself because more teachers have been convicted of molesting children than has ever come via MySpace or equivalent, this piece of extreme stupidity once again proves that Legislators don’t seem to have any idea of anything regarding the Internet.

Fortunately this piece of lunacy is unlikely to go beyond grandstanding by Rep. Fitzpatrick, but if it did the “Deleting Online Predators Act” would be devestating for the Internet because it’s badly drafted and way too broad. If Wikipedia were commercial it would not be available in schools or libraries. And, just btw, MySpace and equivalent social networking sites now cover half the Internet’s users.

I say every legislator in every assembly should show a working knowledge or the subject before they’re allowed to vote on, let alone draft, legislation.

Perhaps it’s my background in video production and my strong desire to match media and message, but I’ve been seeing some incredibly inappropriate ways of delivering a message “visually”. The specific example that prompted me to write is this one . The piece is actually a very interesting pseudo documentary looking back at how media changes - perhaps its content is blog-worthy some other time. What annoyed me about it was that it was being used as an example of a “good use of Flash” when in fact I thought the visuals were so poor that, in all probability, the choice of a visual medium was a mistake: if you don’t have visual content, don’t do visuals is a good rule of thumb, I think.

Another example of, imho, really lame visuals used to waste time and attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear is this marketing hype. Again, Flash used but poor quality visuals (blown up way too big), super slow pacing and a message that, to me is cloyingly saccharine. (On the last point I am probably alone - it’s been very successful as a viral marketing piece so it must appeal to a lot of people.)

What bothers me about these pieces and about a lot of podcasts is that they are incredibly inefficient. One regular podcast I once listened to (on the topic of Final Cut Pro et al) takes about 20 minutes a week to listen to, for what would be a 3 minute read on a web page because the podcaster simply reads a script (or seems to be reading a script). OK, it could be listened to during a commute or at a gym where the 20 minutes wouldn’t be an imposition but surely, if you’re going to do an audio medium it should be produced as an audio medium?

Ditto visual medium - I always have hated making a “video” for a client that was essentially an audio program that had to have visuals forced onto it. (Like the piece at the head of this article.) Have we forgotten the imaginative power of radio? I’ll bet the movie version of War of the Worlds due out soon has none of the impact of the original 1938 broadcast. There are great radio documentaries produced that would make awesome podcasts, instead we get lame “read my script” or “come into my office and chat” podcasts that have zero production value. The Media 2014 example has great writing, the audio production is excellent and the visuals (which probably took the most time) add very little, imho.

This is what worries me about vlogcasting - even basic video production requires some time - more time than most people want to put into a blog or podcast, so what’s going to happen? Gigabytes of bandwidth occupied by badly lit, poorly edited shakey-cam that is virtually unwatchable? It’s already happening: download the Ant vlogcasting client and try and find something worth your time watching. Little evidence of strong writing or great production there - at least in what I’ve found (and if you find something great, ping me on it so I can share the excitement).

Where’s this going? - well, there’s still going to be a role for production skills for some vlogcasting, particularly if we adopt channels of information models via subscription. (The “RSS, Vlogcasting and Distribution Opportunities” blog entry is back, after editing.) It’s another example of how production specialists will need to adapt, and advise clients on what the most appropriate distribution methodology is. Just having basic production skills won’t be enough, but they will be a marketable commodity and profitable when part of the full service we offer customers on their communication needs. Also necessary will be the judgment and sense to tell customers that they don’t need “a video” but rather a website or brochure will work better for them. Savvy people will have those skills as well - if not personally, within their network.

From the blatant self promotion department…

Apple just put up a Pro story about the most fun job I worked on last year: A Musical Journey. This was one of the DVD Extras for the 40th Anniversary release of Mary Poppins.

The relevance for the blog is that we were able to recreate, and improve on, the effects done for the movie using standard desktop tools that 40 years ago had been cutting edge technology that lead to an Academy Award for the effects. Most of what I do every day was not possible for any amount of money when Mary Poppins was released.

Where do we end up if we continue down this path? I’ve been looking at game commercials on TV and the rendering is getting more and more realistic. On last night’s news there was a game commercial juxtaposed with some “war area” footage that looked like 10th generation VHS, and the humans in the game looked more realistic. The games are not even close to 100% realistic… yet. But it seems to be only a matter of time before we at least get close. Perhaps the “uncanny valley” effect will kick in. That’s what happens when animated characters get very close to being human, but turn out to be creepy because we become even more aware that they are not. (Think Polar Express and the eyes which couldn’t be motion tracked.).

Let’s assume that technology will overcome that little problem - 40 more years is a long time. Will completely synthetic storytelling replace acted ones? I’m certain it will become an option: what will be the “killer application” that keeps human actors employed?

Immersive storytelling is also likely to be everyday. A recent article talks about a more advanced version of Playstation’s EyeToy™ that puts the player in the game or ToySight that uses your iSight camera as a game controller. The games right now are hardly deep storytelling but that’s only a matter of time. Heck, holographic projection is far enough advanced in the lab now, that a 30 year lab-to-loungroom cycle would put truly immersive storytelling within reach. (No work or breakthrough currently has ’solid’ holographic project in the mode of Star Trek’s holodeck - these projections would be walk–through.)

I believe that game play will become a much more dominant form of entertainment than it is now, with realistic interactive stories - why watch James Bond when you can be James Bond (bring on the tactile body suit for the love scenes!)? If it’s possible, someone will do it, so what is the killer application that will keep human actors in “the movies” when your interactive “Friends” respond to you and include you in their hijinks? Will it simply be the lay-back inertia factor that will keep at least some entertainment totally passive? Will people want to get up and get involved with their entertainment - even part of the time. (Would this be more like going to the movies than home entertainment now?)

In the meantime, doing stuff on my laptop that couldn’t be done 40 years ago is a head trip.

I’ve been prompted this week to think about 16:9. 16:9 is great but the problem is that clients (oh, them!) buy or rent these lovely big plasma screens and suddenly we have to miraculously convert 4:3 source into 16:9 and make it look good. How do we communicate that you can’t get there from here! How do we communicate to clients that 16:9 display is not a decision made somewhere between commissioning the project and turning up at the trade show? How do we make it clear that, unless the decision to shoot 16:9 for 16:9 display is made at the start of the project, then everything from there on is compromised?

There are three ways to get 4:3 source to “fit” a 16:9 display. Two of them are quality compromises and the third is a compositional compromise. Some choice! First option is to blow the 4:3 source up 133% so the 4:3 fills the full width of the 16:9 but crop at the top and bottom of the image (oh, right, that’s both a quality and a compositional compromise). Choice two is to simply keep the 4:3 at full height and stretch the width out to fill the 16:9 space. That keeps the top and bottom composition correct, but compromises the quality (it’s about 120% width stretch) and makes everything look wide and fat. (Now that’s the way to keep a client - make them look fat! Maybe it is a way to make the point that this is not an appropriate way to get 4:3 to 16:9?). Still, there’s a good chance the client won’t even notice that the image is stretched. Seriously, every sports bar and restaurant takes this approach for their 16:9 displays and typically no-one notices. There is one difference here though… typically a 16:9 set will apply a non-linear stretch so the effect is more exaggerated at the edges than in the center. That’s not an option in NLE or compositing tools right now.

The final way to convert 4:3 to 16:9 is to consider that there’s a 16:9 canvas into which we place a 4:3 element and surround it with “something” relevant. Design elements or additional information. Place the 4:3 element in the center or off to one side to create a more balanced display. Useful for trade show type displays where the information can be useful.

But regardless of how well we work around the problem, ultimately it comes down to an unreasonable client request. How do we handle them? Same way as always… More than a small part of the job of a post production specialist is to educate clients and it seems it has been for a while now. Ever since the world stopped being “BetaSP=Professional.” That’s the problem with a diverse set of choices: it’s no longer a simple message and then suddenly it’s an “educational opportunity” with the specialist as the educator.

So, how do we deal with this educational role? Depends a lot on the client. If you have a long standing relationship with the client who’s happy with your work, then taking the “mmm, this isn’t such a great idea, here are the (unsatisfactory) alternatives” will probably work. If it’s a one-off or new client, then it’s more difficult. Then you have to feel out the client to find out what their level of discomfort is. If they’re budget focused (a very nice euphemism for cheap) then the stretched 4:3 into 16:9 solution is probably going to meet their needs. A client who cares about their public image will either realize that a 16:9 display isn’t the right solution, or allow the time and budget to find a creative solution for the extra real estate not used by the 4:3 image.

The iPod and iPod Shuffle in particular, are the new radio. Radio in the US has become so formulaic and predictable with one company alone owning over 1650 stations. An iPod fills the role that radio used to fill - playing the music I want to listen to. Well, more accurately, playing the “stuff” I want to listen to because not all radio is music. Except an iPod really does play my music and my stuff - not what a program director thinks I want to listen to, but what I really want to listen to. Shuffle mode makes it even more like radio because it is the music I want to listen to but like radio I have no control over the order it’s played. iPod, the new radio.

There’s another phenomenon that has rapidly grown under the radar: Podcasting. Podcasters create an audio show which, with the help of software is automatically delivered to your iTunes and subsequently to your iPod if you synchronize. As the developers of iPodderX say on their site “Fresh content, automatically” - what could be a better description of radio? Fresh content, of the type you want to listen to, automatically. With radio you tuned in: with podcasting it’s delivered to your iPod without any more effort than tuning in a radio. Podcasting really got started in the second half of 2004. We’ve been streaming our long running DV Guys show since April 2000 but we’ve only been podcasting since October 2004. We are now regularly getting comments “I listen to the show more often because it’s Podcast”.

Podcasting is a rapidly growing phenomenon feeding off the success of the iPod - no doubt a result of the law of unintended consequences.

Where audio leads, video follows. We are already seeing the beginnings of video podcasting. Video podcasting, of some form, to some device is almost certainly going to be a major influencer in the way people consume media. Think about it. The programs you want to watch will be automatically delivered to your media server ready for consuming on your schedule. Should ever Apple do a video iPod that would be a logical place of consumption, but failing that, a Mac Mini as home media server has got to be on the horizon. Already video podcasts are being directed at video-equipped 3GPP cell phones.

Significant uptake of video podcasting could lead to serious changes in content distribution channels as well as open distribution opportunities for new content because video podcasting will “break” the real time delivery barrier. Because podcasts are pulled ‘in the background’ there’s no limit on the bandwidth so good quality standard definition or high definition can readily be delivered (using H.264/AVC) to whatever delivery device you use. Bandwidth remains an issue for the small content creator - become successful and die on a new variation of the “Slashdot effect.”

There are people working on using a Bit Torrent to solve the bandwidth problem for smaller (i.e. not huge mega corporation) content providers.

Whether the programming is the DV Guys podcast or the latest HD mega-movie delivered to my home media server for consumption when I want, to having purchased it from the iMovie online store, the future is going to be different than the past and present with the strangle-hold on distribution broken.