Category: Video Technology

CES finally brings High Dynamic Range TV to the consumer. Brighter (really brighter) white levels, cleaner blacks and wider color gamut are more obvious to most people, than high pixel count. 10 bit sampling will allow for smoother gradients and contribute to the wider color gamut.

Fortunately, the competing technology companies came to an agreement with UltraHD Premium.

Already at CES TCL and LG have announced new models with Dolby Vision incorporated. Dolby Vision is probably the widest adopted of the HDR standards. But it doesn’t really seem to matter as UltraHD Premium is about standards met, rather than how to meet the standard. This is a good approach as it allows the technology to evolve, as long as the same basic standards are met.

I’d started writing about the inevitability of vertical video, and how we should adapt to it, when what should came up in the Frame.io blog but Say yes to vertical video.

I had come to the realization that fighting against vertical video is not a winnable battle, simply because most people really don’t care. They shoot on a mobile device, and that’s where they view it. Most mobile phones and tablets default to vertical video. Every non-industry person I interact with shoots vertical video: from my singing teach to my niece!

UPDATE: On Twitter Kenneth X or @Knesaren pointed me to an article on How Norwegian Broadcasting made the first vertical video documentary. As always, start with a good story!

UPDATE 2: Clark Dunbar of Mammoth HD tells me that they’ve had large format (HD to 6K) vertical footage for well over a decade for signage, POS and museum installations! Their vertical stock footage gallery is at http://www.mammothhd.com/MHD_QG_VertPort.html.

UPDATE 3: Carl Olson @TheCarlOlson on Twitter, had some thoughts on vertical video today:

Red Shark news reports that Disney Research have:

Researchers working for the Mouse have developed a groundbreaking program that delivers automated edits from multi-camera footage based on cinematic criteria.

When you read how they’ve achieved it, I think it’s impressive, and very, very clever.

The system works by approximating the 3D space of the cameras in relation to each other. The algorithm determines the “3D joint attention,” or the likely center of activity, through an on-the-fly analysis of the multiple camera views. Based on this information, the algorithm additionally takes into account a set of cinematic preferences, such as adherence to the 180 degree rule, avoidance of jump cuts, varying shot size and zoom, maintaining minimum and maximum shot lengths, and cutting on action. The result is a very passable, almost human edit.

Perhaps it’s the very nature of research, but I’m not sure of the practical application. Maybe that’s the point of pure research.

Assuming the technology delivers, it’s rare that we want to take a multicam shoot and do a single, switched playback version. “Live switching” after the fact, if you will. At least in my experience, the edit not only needs to switch multicam angles, but to remove dross, tighten the presentation, add in additional b-roll, etc, etc.

More often than not, my angle cuts are more directed by the edit I want, than a desire to just pick the best shot at the time.

That said, this type of research is indicative of what can be done (and therefore almost certainly will be done): combine a good multicam edit, with content metadata and perhaps you’d have a decent first pass, that could be built on, finished and polished by the skilled editor. The point being, as Larry Jordan points out is

How do you save time every step of the production process, so that you’ve got the time that you need to make your films to your satisfaction.

Ultimately the commercial versions of these type of technologies should be seen as tools editors can use to make more time for their real job: finessing, polishing and finishing the project; bringing it heart that makes the human connection in storytelling.