Monthly Archives: October 2010

What It Takes to Produce Content in 3D

by Leslie Ellis // October 25 2010

The good news about producing TV content in 3D: Adding depth to nature programming, live sports and computerized games works especially well. The bad news: No matter the genre, it’s way more expensive than shooting in 2D.

That was the word from last week’s CTAM Summit, where production-side executives from ESPN, 3DNet and Flight 33 Productions talked candidly about how 3D advances storytelling.

Session highlights on shooting sports in 3D: Golf, the X-Games, and other sports played on topographically diverse surfaces shows off 3D better than flat-field sports, like basketball, football and hockey.

A second set of commentators is required to call games produced in 3D. Because the universe of 3DTV owners is still pretty small, the announcers often add in commentary about how the game is being produced.

Hard: Dealing with glitches on live events that wouldn’t matter at all in 2D. Like when a shot is set for 50 feet, and a cheerleader suddenly jumps into the frame from 10 feet away. Likewise for quick swipes from one side of the field to another – slower is better, to give the brain and eyes time to interpolate the depth on the screen.

Non-sports 3D highlights: Creating content about abandoned places – a small town inside Chernobyl, as part of Flight 33’s work on “Life After People,” was cited as one example – works especially well in 3D. Long shots, common in nature and history programming, don’t show well in 3D.

In all cases, producing in 3D is still way more expensive than shooting in 2D, because of the additional set-up, cameras, and gear required.

What about converting existing 2D content into 3D? Doing it right can cost as much as $125,000 per minute; doing it wrong can permanently damage the perception of a film (“Clash of the Titans” routinely finds itself in this category.)

None of these challenges dampened the enthusiasm about making content in 3D, however – comments like “all of your senses light up” and “it’s like you’re there” regularly seasoned the conversation.

All, though, lamented the lack of 3D content – a reality that depends on consumer uptake of 3D sets. It’s a classic conundrum: Why produce 3DTV content if no one has a TV that can display it; why build 3DTVs, if there’s nothing to watch.

The holiday season arrives in about 60 days. That will almost certainly shed light on how consumers view the 3DTV equation. Until then – Happy Halloween!

This column originally appeared in the Platforms section of Multichannel News.

A Reader’s Guide to the CTAM/SCTE Mashup

by Leslie Ellis // October 18 2010

Going into any trade show, there’s what you want to find out, and what you know you’ll hear about.

This week’s double-feature – CTAM Summit, overlapped by the SCTE Cable Tec-Expo – contains tons of both.

What you know you’ll hear about: 3DTV. The volume remains cranked up on this latest consumer electronics thrust to emulate the home run that was HDTV.

If you feel like you’ve heard it all, stop in on “How 3D Sharpens Stories and Brands,” at CTAM Summit, Tuesday at 10:30. It’s a different take on the topic, told by people who are making 3DTV happen on the production side: ESPN, Discovery Communications, and Flight 33 Productions.

Other things you know you’ll hear about: DOCSIS 3.0, which remains a tech darling at the SCTE Expo. The big focus this season: What it takes to do upstream channel bonding, to make room for all that video-conferencing we’re going to be doing from our TVs and home PCs.

A quick sampling of other jumbo-sized jargon that will season the engineers’ annual confab: “Representational State Transfer,” “opaque origin servers,” and one I had to look up, “idempotent.” All have to do with content delivery networks, or CDNs – the ways operators are building hierarchical VOD storage for titles sent over national, regional and local optical networks.

(“Idempotent” is a math term, loosely meaning that the outcome doesn’t change, no matter how much you change the inputs. I’m no mathematician, but the term nonetheless reminds me of Einstein’s definition of insanity – doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.)

Here’s what I want to find out at this week’s marketing-then-engineering fest: What will it take for Consumer Jane to bring home her brand new Internet-connected whatever (HDTV, tablet, laptop), turn it on, and have at the ready a way to download the navigational app from her local cable operator. Netflix is fine, but, more from the home team, please.

Here’s what else: Is it just me, or do all these “connected device” and “over-the-top” entrants lack a way to just leave the video on in the background? Say Consumer Jane likes to park the big screen on Food Network when she’s cooking. Do her shows keep running, unattended, like linear? Or does she have to click for the next title every time?

If the latter: Hello IP simulcast, or, replicating the linear lineup yet again, this time to move over the broadband plant. Takes a lot of bandwidth (six to eight 6 MHz channels, say the back-of-the-envelope calculations), but, it usually works to be the guy who has what the other guys don’t.

One more thing I seek: An alternate way of describing the everything-ness that is IP video. Please. I’m begging. It is the most awkward spoken acronym ever.

All of this, plus cloud computing, commercial/business services, and an IP video cornucopia, will be the jargon darlings of this week’s trade show mashup in New Orleans. See you there!

This column originally appeared in the Platforms section of Multichannel News.

Video Calling and Upstream Bandwidth

by Leslie Ellis // October 11 2010

I’m not big on predictions, but one thing really does seem clear: Very shortly, we will all have the option, probably within arm’s reach, of talking on the phone while seeing each other.

Think about it: More and more PC monitors and laptops come with a built-in webcam. More and more smart phones come with cameras on the front.

Chances are high that even your mother has heard about, and probably used, Skype.

Then, last week, Cisco introduced a residential version of its “tele-presence” line, called “Umi” (pronounced “you me”). If you’ve seen the enterprise version, you know that it’s freakishly high in video quality. (As in, forget about multi-tasking during that long video conference call.)

Putting aside the matter of whether we really want to see each other every time we talk on the phone, there’s another consideration: Upstream bandwidth.

A brief refresher: Cable bandwidth is segmented into two chunks: Upstream and downstream. So far, the big work in bandwidth optimization is far more focused on the downstream path (toward homes) than the upstream (from homes.)

This makes sense, especially when you consider how many different ways operators need to carry the same networks. ESPN, for instance, might be carried in analog, standard definition digital, and high definition. It’s entirely likely that mainstream networks will be carried linearly in IP, too. So that’s each big network, potentially being carried four ways.

The good news is, optimizing downstream bandwidth is comfortably provisioned with options. These days, operators needing more shelf space (name me one that isn’t) respond by harvesting analog channels, recycling bandwidth using digital video switches, or building more bandwidth on the top (1 GHz.)

No such panoply of options exists for the upstream path, which represents about five percent of total available bandwidth. It’s completely hemmed in between 5-42 MHz.

This upstream squeeze issue isn’t new. Twenty years ago, a lot of the engine room talk was about building a second upstream path, way up high, around 1 GHz.

Today, the options to optimize the upstream are still pretty much the same as they were in the early ‘90s: Figure out a better modulation scheme that can survive down there (it’s noisy in the 5-42), move the spectral boundary above 42 MHz, or build a second path.

And with all these gadgets coming that let us see each other from far away, it’s probably time to dust off the options and try again.

This column originally appeared in the Platforms section of Multichannel News.

Connected Devices, or Additional Outlets?

by Leslie Ellis // October 04 2010

This week’s translation looks into the state of the state of “connected devices,” meaning things in your life that want an Internet connection: PCs, of course, and smart phones, e-readers, and iPads.

Pretty soon, lots of TVs, too: By next year, it will be difficult to purchase an HDTV that doesn’t come with an Ethernet or WiFi link. Ditto for the expected onslaught of iPad-like tablets, plumbed with Droid.

To get a better sense of scope, I put out a Facebook post last week with this request: “Ok, fellow geeks, time for this query again: How many IP devices in your home right now, per room?”

At press time, 57 responses had piled up a cornucopia of gadgetry. The winner, for total number of gadgets, screens, and overall IP stuff in his house: Steve R., with 33.

His count: Three Wi-Fi cell phones, four laptops, two desktop PCs, two MoCA adapters, a voice over IP adaptor, an alarm system, router, and cable modem. Two dual-port NAS (network attached storage) servers, a Gig-E (Gigabit Ethernet) switch, a Linux server, a Playstation 2, a Nintendo WII player. Two BluRay players, a Netgear video player, and a set-top with an Ethernet (thus IP) port.

“So,” he wrote, “at least 33 MAC addresses, capable of IP.” (For the observant who noticed the number discrepancy — some of his connected devices have more than one IP address.)

As far connected devices per room, Steve’s count is about six per (not including bathrooms, he noted.)

Yes, yes, that’s a lot. But Steve’s a technologist and early adopter. His world is a reasonable portend of where things are going.

Here’s a sampling of other IP-thirsty gadgets listed: Digital picture frames. Webcams. Network printers. Game players, like the X Box, Playstation, and WII. Netbooks. Externally-connected over-the-top video players, like Roku and AppleTV. Advanced set-tops, meaning those with a built-in DOCSIS modem.

The oddest connectible device listed: A “squeezebox,” posted by Mark F. Turns out he didn’t mean an accordion with an Internet connection. It’s a networked music player made by Logitech.

The most amusing post came from Bill M., who wondered if the ID chip inside his dog counted. (It doesn’t, Bill.)

On average, most people had a total of 10 connectible devices in their home, and roughly two per room.

The good news is, all of those connected devices are getting Internet from somewhere, right? Chances are high that in the home, it’s that cable modem connection. And for that reason, this glut of connected devices is starting to feel a lot like what we used to call “additional outlets.”

This column originally appeared in the Platforms section of Multichannel News.