The Internet has truly changed the playing field of entertainment. With each company that shuts its doors, many more have opened to capitalize on this ever-evolving eMarketplace. The net effect has been certainly disruptive across the music, movie, broadcast, and gaming industries. Disruption can be discussed in a positive and negative context. Some industry proponents blame copyright infringement for their revenue decline. Others thank the unabated proliferation of their content through the Internet, in reaching an untapped global audience. Is the sky falling on the entertainment industry, or is it thriving? Should we be thanking the internet, or blame it. Is this a failure of legacy business models or is it just the evolution of technology? This presentation explores the effect that the Internet has had on the entertainment industry, and looks towards how subscriber behavior is advancing their consumption of entertainment.
View the recorded video presentation from IBC ‘13 at:
This session was presented by Gabriel Dusil, Senior VP of Marketing & Corporate Strategy at Visual Unity, and was broadcasted live at IBC ’13, in Amsterdam on the 14th of September 2013, via the Broadcast Show (http://www.broadcastshow.com/), and powered by TV Bay.
The broadcast market is facing the most significant paradigm shift in history, with traditional linear television struggling to meet the demands of an emerging multiscreen audience. Any broadcaster that has not yet implemented a TV-PC-Tablet-Smartphone strategy, and is still managing its operations with linear tape-based workflows is missing out on a massive audience – a demographic of mobile video subscribers – a group that is growing at a faster pace than in any previous technology in history. This change is driven by a desire not only to consume media on multiple devices, but to interact with this content across social, geographic, and cultural boundaries.
Figure i – Global Forecast of PC, Smartphone and Tablet to 2016
Top tier broadcasters are not oblivious to the multiscreen movement. It could even be argued that they have led the evolution; from switching off analogue services by 2015[1], to upgrading their back-end systems to file-based workflow, high definition, and IP[2] delivery[3] (Figure iii). At any rate, entertainment industry leaders have been taken by surprise, due to the speed of technology adoption of these new market entrants. Telcos, internet providers, enterprises and innovative start-ups are positioning themselves as online video service providers – all vying for market attention. While broadcasters struggle to realign their business and operational strategies, those pushing the TV experience out of the traditional living room, and into the new social media marketplace, have driven this momentum.
Figure ii – Global Installed Base of Connected TV Devices
While television’s grip on the household remains strong, its dominance is diminishing as audiences utilize connected and interactive consumer electronics. Video is now detached from the sofa, and has gone mobile. Market research by Business Insider™[4] reports shipments of smartphones already surpassing PC sales. Tablets and other internet connected devices are expected to surpass PC sales beyond 2016 (Figure i). But it’s not only smartphones and tablets. As more and more device manufacturers seek out new revenue streams, connected internet devices now include media streamers, game consoles, set top boxes (STBs) and Blu-Ray players. Topping this list are connected TV’s, which are expected to take nearly 50% market share by 2016, according to Informa[5]. (Figure ii). Traditional broadcasters that only focus on the living room will inevitably see their subscribers moving to competing services with enhanced multiscreen capabilities.
Some industry insiders are anticipating the fate of television to that of the desktop computer. It is more likely, however, that consumers will simply enjoy new ways to view their video, and share those experiences with others. Social TV is about interaction. Television is no longer a monologue to a broad audience. It is now a one-to-one dialog with known subscribers.. According to Nielsen™[6], mobile devices are increasingly being used for social networking, product research, and shopping (Figure iv). In a Social TV context, the television is no longer just a passive monitor in the living room, but an interactive and personalized screen. On a basic level Social TV enables:
Second screen interactions with friends and family
Sharing comments, ‘likes’, ratings, criticisms, and recommendations
Discussions on a film or series story-line, their actors, writers and directors
Tweeting reactions to a live news broadcast, or posting opinions onto Facebook
Integrating consumer behavior and demographics into viewing patterns and targeted advertising
Voting, trivia and sweepstakes in real-time
Broadcasters are aware of these subtleties, however, despite changes in consumer behavior, many are still struggling with how to secure their position in the Social TV era. With the focus of entertainment consumption on any device, anywhere, and at any time, what are the expectations for Social TV? How should broadcasters position themselves in this new space and remain competitive? The remainder of this paper will explore some of the challenges that the entertainment industry faces in the Social TV era, and explore strategic principles necessary to remain competitive.
Figure iii – Top Trends for the Global Broadcast Industry
Social TV Challenges
An effective Social TV strategy calls for more than simply delivering content from a strategic brand. It’s about the user experience. The global proliferation of mobile devices is changing the very nature of content consumption. The growth of streaming video is forcing broadcasters to develop innovative strategies to protect their installed base.
The first challenge is in the development of applications for social media engagement across a wide range of devices. Apps are the digital bridges between entertainment and computing. Traversing this path is no easy task for broadcasters that are struggling to familiarize themselves with the world of software.
From a delivery perspective, there are challenges in reaching a mobile audience. Two such hurdles are the lack of feature-rich smartphones and mobile bandwidth, for live video streaming in some markets. Moving content to the cloud enhances the experience for some subscribers, but cloud coverage is still sparse in many regions beyond the USA, Europe, and Asia. The majority of global subscribers do not have access to high mobile speeds which leads to reliance on costly Content Delivery Networks (CDN) to provide effective local streaming.
From an operations perspective, the publication of online and mobile content is often labor-intensive and disconnected from traditional broadcast workflows. In many organizations the preparation of online content, transcoding, adding metadata, and reformatting of content to suit various mobile devices is still a manual process. This fragmented workflow from content creation through to consumer consumption, means that broadcasters often lack the agility to rapidly respond to changes in subscriber behavior, or the need to quickly deliver content from one end to the other (i.e. content creation to consumption).
Financially, broadcasters are facing greater competition than ever before. They are losing audiences not only to streamlined multiscreen content providers but also to online service providers that are leap-frogging the traditional distribution model and reaching their subscribers directly. These new “Over the Top” (OTT) content providers completely bypass traditional programming by connecting TV’s directly to the Internet. Subscribers are reviewing their monthly bills, and asking themselves why they should stay with their Pay TV provider when they can have a lower cost internet video services instead? – A service that supports multiple devices, and provides exciting social interaction. Such questions have led to some consumers “cutting-the-cord” to their Pay TV service.
Finally, changing the mindset from a content-centric to an experience-centric ideology is a major challenge for traditional broadcasters. Entertainment is not just about content – it is an immersive experience. Content must provide a total experience for consumers to enjoy it (and pay for it!). An extremely important component of this development is the User Interface (UI) and the User Experience (UX). Content itself is still central to the buying behavior of subscribers, but UI/UX is essential to its sale. The consumption of content has changed because content that was once languishing on tape, in storage, can now be readily available online. Subscribers no longer have to wait for a designated broadcast slot to watch a movie on their TV. They can watch that movie anytime, anywhere, and on any device. The differentiator is now the environment in which that content is consumed. There is greater competition for grabbing the attention of consumers: Internet video, social networking, mobile apps, gaming, search & discovery all form the architecture of an exciting UI/UX application.
In this fast moving entertainment landscape consumers need to be sheltered from technological complexity. Apple’s iPhone is an excellent example of complex technology hidden behind a wonderful UI/UX. An elegant front-end experience should mask the complex workflow or processing that is needed to ensure an enriched end-user experience. Maximizing revenue is about a boundless and untethered consumption of content in an environment where the residents wants to stay and play.
Nimble content providers are solidifying themselves as viable competitors in an increasingly tech-savvy and discerning audience simply by providing a superior environment. Broadcasters initially dismissed these providers as viable competitors, but they have since emerge over the past decade as formidable players. Subscribers now have more choice in how they view, consume, and react to content. To paraphrase a popular saying, it’s not just that Content is King, it’s how the viewer enjoys their trip to the Kingdom, and has fun during their stay. This is the essence of an exceptional user experience.
Figure iv – Mobile Device Activity While Watching TV
A Business Case for Social TV
The one-to-one relationship of Social TV enables a more personal relationship with consumers, for better or worse. Putting privacy issues aside, the audience is no longer an anonymous group of faceless subscribers. Each consumer can be treated individually in an ecosystem of content, advertising, and common interest.
Content Monetization
The three most common forms of content monetization include; revenue based on advertising (the basis of broadcast television for over 60 years); transactional model (used in Video On Demand purchase and rental services); and a subscription model (popular with cable and satellite Pay TV services). Developing compelling services that reduce client churn is one of the main challenges today. Extended offerings out of the living room and into an untethered mobile lifestyle leverages this growing multi-platform user base. Providers will need to find a balance between premium and ‘freemium’ content. YouTube is already dispelling the myth that freemium is not a viable business model. After all, when a YouTube channel has over one million followers, new doors are opened to monetize content using social media and other interactive means.
For owners of entertainment assets; system requirements include the monetization of content via a balanced combination of ads, subscriptions, or transactions; the ability to adapt quickly to new and evolving consumer behavior; quick implementation of new campaigns; integration with multiple social networks; portable and untethered content rights protection. Service providers also need the ability to integrate new technology without significantly disrupting their current best practices. Realizing a Social TV solution strategy requires putting the consumer at the center, where previously content held pride of place.
Advertising Revenue
Figure v – Ad Spending by Consumer Time & Media Type, ‘11
Social TV allows broadcasters to expand online advertising revenue streams. Recent reports estimate global internet ad revenue worth 36.5 billion US$[8] in 2012. An increase of 15% from the previous year. The time spent on viewing online media is growing, thanks to mobility, however advertisers are currently playing catch-up. According to eMarketer™, online ad spending is expected to reach 50 billion US$ in 2015[9].
Correlating advertisement spending against consumer time reveals an interesting disparity in how dollars are being spent. According to a study by Business Insider Intelligence™[10] consumers are spending much less time on print publications compared to advertising spend (Figure v). Conversely, mobile advertising is being under-utilized when compared to subscriber’s time spent on mobile devices. Advertisers will need to address this disparity if they are to capitalize on Social TV trends.
Audience Engagement
Real-time Audience engagement not only builds brand loyalty but offers opportunities for revenue generation. Personalized interactions via comments, voting, chats and sharing on global social networks are being used to build behavioral profiles within CRM (Client Relationship Management). Integration with social media allows almost unlimited growth of ‘friends’, or ‘followers’ as a route to expanded viewership. Adding mobility adds a new dimension, which expands both the hours spent with media, and their engagement with advertisers.
For the subscriber; an appealing user-experience (UX) enables content feedback. Shared experiences translate to suggestions and recommendations. Content delivery should work cross-devices and operating systems – even when switching between devices in mid-view. Consumers want content that has no geographical limitations and where digital rights do not spoil their enjoyment.
Social TV Revenue Generation
Broadcasters are well positioned to generate revenue from Social TV by extending their existing business models. It is essential for the entertainment industry to realize the value of correlating content within the context of an interactive community, putting subscribers at the focal point of the entertainment value chain.
In the linear television era, reports that measured audience behavior (such as they were) came back late, had statistical errors, and there were always concerns that the sample chosen, didn’t quite represent the overall audience. Advertising in social media is about understanding the viewer – not as a group, but as individuals. Technology now allows for targeted advertising to individual subscribers – something traditional television has never been able to achieve – this is done in real-time and at a granular scale. Advertising dollars are otherwise wasted when commercials or banner advertisements are displayed in the wrong geography, on the wrong web page, or even to the wrong consumer. Advertising on a personal level becomes relevant and more valuable through the correlation of socio-demographic[11], geolocation[12], and historical behavior analytics[13].
Real-time analytics and statistics are vital tools in understanding the success or failure of a campaign. Marketing success is generally measured by the ratio between leads generated in a campaign to the number of prospects which have actually bought the product. Online campaigns are typically measured by CPM[14] (Cost per Impression), CPV[15] (Cost per View), PPC[16] (Pay per Click), and CPA[17] (Cost per Action). Beyond these metrics, advertisements that are geo-location sensitive, ensuring they are “in-view”, and that the correct brand is served with the website’s content, are important to ensure that prospects, web-content and ads are all correctly associated.
Another feature to take into account is the increasing tendency to interact with multiple devices simultaneously. The youth segment is often using the smart phone as their 2nd screen. Adults find themselves using their tablets as they relax on the sofa, or in bed, for an evening of television. Regardless of age, subscribers interact, comment, and critique their entertainment in real-time. This simultaneous consumption of entertainment while communicating with remotely displaced friends, family and followers is part of today’s Social TV ecosystem.
Understanding the behavior of end-users is essential to a modern marketing and sales strategy. A recent report from Forrester Research™ shows an overwhelming influence of social media on the consumption of video, audio, images and documents[18] (Figure vi). The influence of peer suggestions drive subscribers to fresh videos, music, blogs, and podcasts – content that would be otherwise undiscovered using traditional means. And video leads the pack for internet-based consumption. It’s also worth noting from this study, that there is little disparity between European and North American consumer behavior.
How subscribers interact with multiscreen devices (TV, PC, tablet or smartphone), whether sequentially or in parallel opens new revenue generating opportunities for content owners:
Commercials providing additional product information to support their product, eg .the TV show Top Gear’s[19] road test review coinciding with a car commercial.
Sports broadcasts offering additional statistics related to a live event, or behind the scenes footage of a favorite player.
Reality and game shows – See who your friend’s voted for. Play on a 2nd screen game for additional prizes, or enter a sweepstakes.
Education – provide supplementary videos or reference materials to support educational content. Push relevant content to students during a live lecture.
Shopping – check if your friends, family or followers liked the product before deciding to buy
Film – receive additional scene details, camera angles, or plot clues, while watching a movie[20]
As subscribers become more engaged within these environments, revenue opportunities have the potential to increase proportionally.
Figure vi – How Subscribers Consumer Internet Content
In summary, competition is growing for traditional providers of entertainment. With new entrants competing for market share, broadcasters require changes in corporate culture to adapt to a changing market landscape. Consumers are getting smarter how they want their entertainment. They are also becoming more demanding. What was considered a revolutionary technological breakthrough yesterday, quickly becomes today’s norm. Social TV provides the industry with a real-time forum for reacting to entertainment. Traditional television could never achieve that level of granularity in measuring audience behavior, be it comments, criticism, ratings, voting, or suggestions, Social TV brings a new level of real-time response back to the entertainment industry.
In the days of linear television, broadcasters had a difficult task in understanding their audience. Without a direct broadcasting and feedback mechanism like the Internet, gauging subscriber behavior was slow. Today, online video providers have the ability to conduct a one-to-one conversation with their audience. Viewing habits of consumers will continue to rapidly change in the next ten years. This will require changes in advertising expenditure and tactics.
The evolution from traditional TV viewing to online video has been swift. This has significantly disrupted disc sales such as DVD and Blu-Ray, as well as cable and satellite TV subscriptions. With the newfound ability to consume content anytime, anywhere, and on any device, consumers are re-evaluating their spending habits. In this paper we will discuss these changes in buying behavior, and identify the turning point of these changes.
Transcoding large video libraries is a time consuming and expensive process. Maintaining consistency in video quality helps to ensure that storage costs and bandwidth are used efficiently. It is also important for video administrators to understand the types of devices receiving the video so that subscribers can enjoy an optimal viewing experience. This paper discusses the differences in quality in popular video codecs, including the recently ratified H.265 specification.
IV. Search & Discovery Is a Journey, not a Destination
Television subscribers have come a long way from the days of channel hopping. The arduous days of struggling to find something entertaining to watch are now behind us. As consumers look to the future, the ability to search for related interests and discover new interests is now established as common practice. This paper discusses the challenges that search and discovery engines face in refining their services in order to serve a truly global audience.
V. Multiscreen Solutions for the Digital Generation
Broadcasting, as a whole, is becoming less about big powerful hardware and more about software and services. As these players move to online video services, subscribers will benefit from the breadth of content they will provide to subscribers. As the world’s video content moves online, solution providers will contribute to the success of Internet video deployments. Support for future technologies such as 4K video, advancements in behavioral analytics, and accompanying processing and networking demands will follow. Migration to a multiscreen world requires thought leadership and forward-thinking partnerships to help clients keep pace with the rapid march of technology. This paper explores the challenges that solution providers will face in assisting curators of content to address their subscriber’s needs and changing market demands.
VI. Building a Case for 4K, Ultra High Definition Video
Ultra High Definition technology (UHD), or 4K, is the latest focus in the ecosystem of video consumption. For most consumers this advanced technology is considered out of their reach, if at all necessary. In actual fact, 4K is right around the corner and will be on consumer wish lists by the end of this decade. From movies filmed in 4K, to archive titles scanned in UHD, there is a tremendous library of content waiting to be released. Furthermore, today’s infrastructure is evolving and converging to meet the demands of 4K, including Internet bandwidth speeds, processing power, connectivity standards, and screen resolutions. This paper explores the next generation in video consumption and how 4K will stimulate the entertainment industry.
Social TV brings viewers to content via effective brand management and social networking. Users recommend content as they consume it, consumers actively follow what others are watching, and trends drive viewers to subject matters of related interests. The integration of Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and other social networks has become a natural part of program creation and the engagement of the viewing community. Social networks create an environment where broadcasters have unlimited power to work with niche groups without geographic limits. The only limitations are those dictated by content owners and their associated content rights, as well as those entrenched in corporate culture who are preventing broadcasters from evolving into a New Media world.
Content Protection is a risk-to-cost balance. At the moment, the cost of piracy is low and the risk is low. There are no silver bullets to solving piracy, but steps can be taken to reduce levels to something more acceptable. It is untrue that everyone who pirates would be unwilling to buy the product legally. It is equally evident that every pirated copy does not represent a lost sale. If the risk is too high and the cost is set correctly, then fewer people will steal content. This paper explores how piracy has evolved over the past decades, and investigates issues surrounding copyright infringement in the entertainment industry.
About the Author
Gabriel Dusil was recently the Chief Marketing & Corporate Strategy Officer at Visual Unity, with a mandate to advance the company’s portfolio into next generation solutions and expand the company’s global presence. Before joining Visual Unity, Gabriel was the VP of Sales & Marketing at Cognitive Security, and Director of Alliances at SecureWorks, responsible for partners in Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA). Previously, Gabriel worked at VeriSign & Motorola in a combination of senior marketing & sales roles. Gabriel obtained a degree in Engineering Physics from McMaster University, in Canada and has advanced knowledge in Online Video Solutions, Cloud Computing, Security as a Service (SaaS), Identity & Access Management (IAM), and Managed Security Services (MSS).
Broadcast, CDN, Connected TV, Content Delivery Networks, Cost per Action, Cost per Impression, Cost per View, CPA, CPM, CPV, Digital Video, entertainment industry, Gabriel Dusil, Internet Video, Linear Broadcast, Monetization, Multi-screen, Multiscreen, New Media, Nielsen, Online Video, Online Video Platform, OTT, Over the Top Content, Pay-per-click, PPC, Smart TV, Social TV, Television, TV, Visual Unity
[7] “some 40% of consumers are using social media while watching TV, talking and reading about the shows and movies on the big screen. This number is as high as 74% when looking at consumers with a broadband connection, according to Ovum”, OTT Goes Global – Worldwide Survey of Over-The-Top Video Services Report, http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/2059220/ott_goes_global_a_worldwide_survey_of
[15] CPV, Cost per View. Considered a more accurate representation of success from CPM as it measures how many times an advertisement is displayed and in view. Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_advertising
The future of digital video is expanding in all directions; from the size of the living room TV, to the depth of content selection, and to the different types of devices which serve content. A culmination of technologies is brewing that is bringing an IMAX-esque[1] experience to the living room. It is not difficult to imagine that in the next ten years subscribers will be unraveling and gluing their TV’s onto their wall. A culmination of the following innovations will make this happen:
Televisions are growing to the size of an entire wall. Several 100” television sets (2.5 meter diagonal) have been introduced to the market over the years, and prototypes of even larger screens have also been showcased. As screen sizes continue to increase, the only limiting factor will be the available wall space.
Displays are verging on the thinness of credit cards, thanks to technology such as OLED[2]. Organic Light-emitting Diode, displays have been recently introduced in 2013 as thin as 4mm[3] by LG[4]. Although OLED had a slow start due to high manufacturing costs and other technical issues, it still offers a promising future for ultra-thin and ultra-high resolution displays. Namely due to the fact that each pixel is self-emissive (i.e. they emit light without requiring a back-lit layer). As screens become thinner, this leads to the inevitable availability of…
Flexible displays[5]. These have also been announced from manufacturers such as Sony[6], Samsung[7], as well as display technology manufacturer, Corning[8].
Higher resolutions are now being introduced to the market such as 4K[9] (aka. UHD, Ultra High Definition video). When display technology verges on the size of walls, then even 4K will not satisfy consumers, and 8K, or higher will begin to steal the attention of consumers.
Computing power to crunch through all that Ultra High resolution data is readily available.
The ability to deliver hundreds of megabytes in bandwidth[10] to the average consumer is on the horizon.
Figure i – Top 16 cities for High-speed connections @35 US$ per month
These advances in home video may seem like a distant dream, but the future is closer than most realize. 4K television was a hot topic at the Consumer Electronics Show, CES ’13[11], in Las Vegas this year. But some consumers may feel that 4K has been introduced too soon. Especially considering that Blu-Ray only recently reached strong sales momentum, and HDTV[12] has finally established a firm foothold in the living room – penetrating also the mobile market. So why 4K video, and why now?
When viewed from the perspective of technology penetration, this is the perfect time to introduce Ultra HD. Higher resolution displays immediately benefit consumers wanting the most real-estate on their devices. More windows, icons, and widgets can be displayed side-by-side in all their high-resolution glory. Businesses and enthusiasts have already been using display resolutions higher than HD for several years. For example, the popularity of 2650×1600[14] (2.5K displays perhaps?) steadily increased as prices dipped below $1000. More recently, Apple released their retina[15] displays in the latest generation of iPad’s (2048×1536 resolution at 264 pixels per inch, ppi) and MacBook Pro laptops, at even higher resolutions (2880×1800 @ 220 ppi). Consumers are quickly becoming acclimated to high pixel densities. Retina displays enhance the subscriber’s viewing experience on smartphones, tablets, and laptops, and create a precursor for ultra-high resolution content.
So how will this Ultra HD content reach the subscriber in the first place? Some cities already offer bandwidth that can accommodate a 4K live video stream[16]. According to New America Foundation[17], at least 12 cities currently offer affordable download speeds above 30Mbps (Figure i) – This is well within the bandwidth requirements of a single 4K video live stream[18] (assuming typical streaming quality, and that the internet pipe isn’t being used for anything else). Moreover, this is offered at a very reasonable fee of 35 US$ per month[19]. At a national level, Asia Pacific rank in the top three. European countries share six of the top ten positions, and the United States holds steady in ninth place (Table I). Even though the national average of some countries can barely accommodate a real-time high definition stream (typically between 4Mbps to 8Mbps used for online HD streaming), the peak download speeds exceeds 30Mbps are enjoyed in a select number of cities around the world.
Table I – Top Countries for Average & Peak Internet Speeds
In any case, sending 4K over today’s internet connections will not be optimal using today’s encoding standards. Streaming encoders would need to utilize the newly finalized H.265[i] format. Current tests show a 15%-20% improvement on the currently ubiquitous H.264 codec, but as implementations of the codec are optimized, promises of a 50% improvement in compression efficiency is anticipated. This means that a 4K movie streaming with a frame aspect ratios of 2:39:1 (aka. CinemaScope typical for Hollywood movies) could be delivered quite comfortably within an existing 30Mbps internet connection. Alternatively (as shown in Table II[ii]), in the case of a Video on Demand (VoD[iii]) service, a 4K movie could be downloaded within 1.5 hours over a 30Mbps connection. HD content using the same service would download in just under 20 minutes, and standard definition (SD) content would complete in little over six minutes[iv].
Figure ii – 4K digital video to the Consumer – Minimizing the Bottleneck
This begs the question; Is there a bottleneck today, in delivering 4K video to consumers? In fact, it could be argued that for major cities in the top 40 countries in the world, there no bottleneck[17]. Internet speeds are continually improving, expanding to new cities, and becoming affordable. Further down the pipe, WiFi standards such as 802.11ac[v] promise theoretical bandwidth capabilities from 87Mbps and higher, to comfortably carry several 4K streams (Figure ii). Alternatively, LAN[vi] speeds of 100Mbps have been available for over a decade, in consumer electronics. As for the final connection between the set-top-box and the TV, the current iteration of HDMI 1.4 already has the capacity to deliver a 3840×2160p (progressive scan) signal at 24 or 30 frames per second, (or 4096×2160p at 24fps). But it is the development of HDMI 2.0, currently in the works, that will extend support to 60fps. This is important because broadcasters will send 4K content to subscribers at their usual 60 frames per second (fps) used in the USA, or 50fps (used in Europe). Furthermore, HDMI v2.0 will support a Transition-Minimized Differential Signal (TMDS[vii]) of 18Gbps which is ample bandwidth for the final delivery of uncompressed 4K video to the television.
Table II – File size, & download times by Video type
To be fair, the main bottleneck in delivering 4K video to consumers is likely in the processing power of the devices responsible for encoding and decoding video. H.265 is expected to take as much as ten times longer to encode video, compared to H.264. Furthermore, 4K has four times the real-estate compared to HD. Therefore, curators of video transcoding should anticipate at least a 40x increase in encoding time when comparing HD@H.264 encoding to 4K@H.265. Thankfully, decoding of H.265 is only two to three times more costly compared to H.264. So adding 4K to the frame will require consumer processors to be at least ten times more powerful than they are today. Whether it be a set-top box, gaming console, or media center appliance, these CPUs will need to be; a) powerful enough to decode 4K in combination with H.265; and b) affordable for the price sensitive consumer electronics (CE) market.
Figure iii – Flexible Displays by PowerFilm
An IMAX-esque Experience
While a full back-catalog of digitally restored Blu-Ray content is voraciously being released on a weekly basis, there are looming questions regarding the absence of available 4K content. Certainly, 4K TV can only be successful if content is available to take advantage of its glorious resolution. But this leads to the inevitable chicken and egg predicament; Which should come first, a) the infrastructure supply chain all the way down to the display, or b) the content? It certainly makes sense that display technology should precede the release of complementary content, and this has ultimately been the industry approach for introducing 4K.
To fuel the anticipated transition to UHD, a wave of film restoration over the past decade has resulted in the scanning and digitizing the Hollywood back-catalog. Thanks to digital restoration pioneers such as Lowry Digital[ii], now owned by Reliance Big Entertainment, high ticket items such as the Disney[iii] and the James Bond[iv] collections were some of the first titles to be digitally restored. At the moment, as many as eighty Blu-Ray titles are being released on a weekly basis[v] – some of which are digitally restored back-catalog titles, and others are recent theatrical releases filmed using 4K digital cameras. It has become standard practice to scan and digitally restore old film masters to 4K, then transcode or downres[vi] the frames for distribution to DVD (standard definition, SD) and Blu-Ray (high definition, HD). For the time being consumers are not aware of an existing 4K version of these titles, nor have access to them. But when the time comes for studios to release their catalogues in 4K, they will have a relatively easy task to prepare them for public distribution.
It’s worth pointing out that the presentation of these 4K digital restorations are inevitably better than when they were originally premiered in movie theater decades earlier – A time of sub-standard lens optics (from today’s vantage point), and were scratches and pops on analog film reels was considered the norm.
Figure iv – RED One 4K (left) & Epic 5K (right) Digital Cinema Cameras
Restoration aside, movie production using native 4K digital cameras was introduced long ago by RED Digital Cinema[vii] – first with their RED One[viii] in 2007, and then with the RED Epic[ix] in 2010 supporting 5K (5120×2700) resolution. Founding member and first employee of RED, Ted Schilowitz commented at NAB ’13 In Las Vegas, “Since we introduced RED back in NAB ’07, thousands of movies have been filmed using our cameras. And it’s not just Hollywood that’s into 4K and 5K production – international studios, and enterprises have joined in as well.”
Figure v – RED Dragon 6K sensors scheduled for upgrade, at NAB ’13 in Las Vegas
RED continues to lead the market with their introduction of the RED Dragon, announced on the 8th of April, 2013. This new sensor extends their Mysterium® range to 6K – a sensor that supports 6144×3160 – and has an equivalent resolution to a 19 megapixel camera. The Dragon far exceeds the pixel density of any competing 4K camera from competitors[xi] that have recently entered into the UHD production space. Sony is also fighting for market share, with the introduction of their F65[xii], claiming an 8K sensor, although the true pixel count is measured around 5782 x 3060[xiii] (or over 17 million pixels – thus closer to 6K resolution).
Crossing the 4K Chasm
Likely the first 4K experience for consumers has already been – or soon will be – at the cinema. Although most theaters are outfitted with digital projectors using 2K (2048 × 1080)[xiv], they are steadily upgrading to 4K. As the ultra-high definition experience becomes ubiquitous in theaters, movies produced in UHD will be projected[xv] natively, without any reduction or compromises in pixel resolution.
The distribution of 4K content to theaters is an ongoing challenge. With the shadow of piracy looming, content needs to be delivered such that the following contingencies are addressed:
Content Delivery – As the Internet becomes the vehicle to distribute movies to selected cinemas, the appropriate DRM (Digital Rights Management) and encryption mechanisms need to protect the content.
Content Storage – Distributed 4K films require tamper-proof hardware to ensure that content is securely protected while at rest.
Content Rights – Centrally established usage policies are needed so that movies are projected at authorized times, and aptly expire – as authorized by the content distributors.
Content Quality – Maintaining consistency in quality through the use of industry certified projectors, screens, optics, and audio quality is essential to ensuring uniformity in the 4K cinema experience. Using the recently ratified H.265 standard will maintain efficiency in file size and bandwidth, while maximizing video quality.
Figure vi – Penetration of Selected Audio & Video Technologies in U.S. Households since 1981
Finally, it’s worth mentioning the anticipated rate of market adoption of 4K when compared to previous technologies. Studies show that the rate of adoption is increasing with every new technology. The CD[xvii], took 16 years to reach 70% penetration in U.S. households[xviii]. It then took six years to reach the same adoption for DVD[xix] (introduced in 1998)[xx]. HD Television has grown at a similar pace, fuelling Blu-Ray sale in the process. By chance or design as each technology reached 70% penetration, a new format was introduced to consumers (Figure vi). Interestingly, none of the past four recessions adversely affected adoption of these technologies[xxi]. With the introduction of 4K televisions in 2013, it is entirely feasible for 4K to reach similar adoption rates by the end of this decade.
Before consumers benefit from 4K, its successor is already being showcased. 8K[i] supports resolution up to 7680×4320, and has already been demonstrated by NHK[ii], Japan’s public broadcasting organization[iii]. 8K is essentially equivalent to viewing every single frame in the video at the resolution of a 33 megapixel camera.
When 4K eventually arrives to the living room, consumers will turn their attention to 8K and beyond. HD will be relegated to history class, and on display at the local technology museum.
In the days of linear television, broadcasters had a difficult task in understanding their audience. Without a direct broadcasting and feedback mechanism like the Internet, gauging subscriber behavior was slow. Today, online video providers have the ability to conduct a one-to-one conversation with their audience. Viewing habits of consumers will continue to rapidly change in the next ten years. This will require changes in advertising expenditure and tactics.
The evolution from traditional TV viewing to online video has been swift. This has significantly disrupted disc sales such as DVD and Blu-Ray, as well as cable and satellite TV subscriptions. With the newfound ability to consume content anytime, anywhere, and on any device, consumers are re-evaluating their spending habits. In this paper we will discuss these changes in buying behavior, and identify the turning point of these changes.
Transcoding large video libraries is a time consuming and expensive process. Maintaining consistency in video quality helps to ensure that storage costs and bandwidth are used efficiently. It is also important for video administrators to understand the types of devices receiving the video so that subscribers can enjoy an optimal viewing experience. This paper discusses the differences in quality in popular video codecs, including the recently ratified H.265 specification.
IV. Search & Discovery Is a Journey, not a Destination
Television subscribers have come a long way from the days of channel hopping. The arduous days of struggling to find something entertaining to watch are now behind us. As consumers look to the future, the ability to search for related interests and discover new interests is now established as common practice. This paper discusses the challenges that search and discovery engines face in refining their services in order to serve a truly global audience.
V. Multiscreen Solutions for the Digital Generation
Broadcasting, as a whole, is becoming less about big powerful hardware and more about software and services. As these players move to online video services, subscribers will benefit from the breadth of content they will provide to subscribers. As the world’s video content moves online, solution providers will contribute to the success of Internet video deployments. Support for future technologies such as 4K video, advancements in behavioral analytics, and accompanying processing and networking demands will follow. Migration to a multiscreen world requires thought leadership and forward-thinking partnerships to help clients keep pace with the rapid march of technology. This paper explores the challenges that solution providers will face in assisting curators of content to address their subscriber’s needs and changing market demands.
VI. Building a Case for 4K, Ultra High Definition Video
Ultra High Definition technology (UHD), or 4K, is the latest focus in the ecosystem of video consumption. For most consumers this advanced technology is considered out of their reach, if at all necessary. In actual fact, 4K is right around the corner and will be on consumer wish lists by the end of this decade. From movies filmed in 4K, to archive titles scanned in UHD, there is a tremendous library of content waiting to be released. Furthermore, today’s infrastructure is evolving and converging to meet the demands of 4K, including Internet bandwidth speeds, processing power, connectivity standards, and screen resolutions. This paper explores the next generation in video consumption and how 4K will stimulate the entertainment industry.
Social TV brings viewers to content via effective brand management and social networking. Users recommend content as they consume it, consumers actively follow what others are watching, and trends drive viewers to subject matters of related interests. The integration of Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and other social networks has become a natural part of program creation and the engagement of the viewing community. Social networks create an environment where broadcasters have unlimited power to work with niche groups without geographic limits. The only limitations are those dictated by content owners and their associated content rights, as well as those entrenched in corporate culture who are preventing broadcasters from evolving into a New Media world.
Content Protection is a risk-to-cost balance. At the moment, the cost of piracy is low and the risk is low. There are no silver bullets to solving piracy, but steps can be taken to reduce levels to something more acceptable. It is untrue that everyone who pirates would be unwilling to buy the product legally. It is equally evident that every pirated copy does not represent a lost sale. If the risk is too high and the cost is set correctly, then fewer people will steal content. This paper explores how piracy has evolved over the past decades, and investigates issues surrounding copyright infringement in the entertainment industry.
About the Author
Gabriel Dusil was recently the Chief Marketing & Corporate Strategy Officer at Visual Unity, with a mandate to advance the company’s portfolio into next generation solutions and expand the company’s global presence. Before joining Visual Unity, Gabriel was the VP of Sales & Marketing at Cognitive Security, and Director of Alliances at SecureWorks, responsible for partners in Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA). Previously, Gabriel worked at VeriSign & Motorola in a combination of senior marketing & sales roles. Gabriel obtained a degree in Engineering Physics from McMaster University, in Canada and has advanced knowledge in Online Video Solutions, Cloud Computing, Security as a Service (SaaS), Identity & Access Management (IAM), and Managed Security Services (MSS).
Connected TV, Digital Video, Online Video, Gabriel Dusil, Internet Video, Broadcast, Linear Broadcast, Multi-screen, Multiscreen, New Media, Online Video Platform, OTT, Over the Top Content, OVP, Smart TV, Social TV, Visual Unity, UHD, H.265, H.264, Ultra HD, 4K, 8K, 16K, NHK, RED Epic, RED Dragon, RED One, Sony F65, Canon EOS C500, Mysterium, OLED, HDMI, CES, Consumer Electronics Show, IMAX, HEVC, High Efficiency Video Coding, flexible display, IMAX
[x] “To the annoyance of collectors that replaced their DVD’s with Blu-Rays … 4K will make these collections obsolete in one fell-swoop. Such is progress.”
[xxii] “Most certainly, when our walls become gigantic TV monitors … then HD will be passé, and enthusiasts will be demanding even higher resolutions.”
The multiscreen experience has significantly widened the choice for how subscribers receive their content. The living room television is no longer the only lean-back experience – tablets and mobiles also offer a unique approach to viewing content. Internet video introduced the notion that self-produced short-form videos[1] (less than 10 minutes), are not just a fad but an alternate form of entertainment[2]. Whether short-form or long-form, it is no longer necessary to buy video in excess of what is consumed – subscribers now have the ability to obtain exactly what they want, thanks in part to multiscreen viewing.
In the foreseeable future online video is expected to dominate the daily consumption of content. But the predictions of a broadcast demise due to multiscreen, have been exaggerated. Consumers are increasing their viewing experience with alternate online offerings such as YouTube[3], Netflix[4], and Hulu[5]. In spite of recent studies, habits have not changed significantly from traditional TV viewing[6]. A recent study by Ericsson (Figure ii) shows that consumers are migrating from a passive viewer to an active user state, where new services are being offered on demand, onto multiple screens[7]. In any case, as indicated by this study, although there is a steady shift towards internet video, linear television[8] still maintains a key position in the viewing habits of subscribers.
Figure ii – Average Viewing per Device across 12 Markets
Furthermore, the television industry is forecasted to maintain healthy growth amid a rapid rise in competing online video solutions. One metric for measuring the broadcast business is in the analysis of advertising[9] revenue. As shown in Figure iv, ads for local television stations experienced a dip from 2006 to 2009, however there has been a steady rise since. Even if growth is in single digits, it is growth nonetheless. Traditional television revenue growth continues to show a stable and upward trend[13].
Figure iii – Time Spent Viewing per day, by Type[20]
Nevertheless, some media still portray the state of linear broadcast (aka. live television)[11] as steadily dying, in contrast to the growth in online video. Some even predict the demise of television to echo the fate of newspapers[12]. Just google, “death of broadcast television” to see the latest dire opinions of journalists. The origin of TV’s demise are rooted in recent subscriber trend reports. For example, Alcatel Lucent Bell Labs[28] predicts that by 2020, only 10% of viewing in the U.S. will be via linear TV, compared to 48% in 2012. Almost 50% of video will be consumed using OTT (Over-the-top content)[29] by the end of this decade, and another 33% will be using VoD services. Additionally, daily viewing is expected to increase from 4.8 hours per day in 2012 to seven hours per day in the next eight years. This change will be driven by a twelve fold increase in internet video content, according to the study.
Figure iv – Television Station Advertising Revenue Forecast
Broadcasters continue to be the Ocean Liners of this market[14] – not just because they are huge and have the most money to spend, but because they know their viewers well and are still the flagships of video monetization. Ultimately, broadcasters are in an excellent position to capitalize on the current evolution of subscriber behavior. However, as with most new technologies there are big boats, well-funded, directed with huge capacity. Then there are smaller faster and flexible boats, able to quickly address what the big guys have missed (or maybe even fast enough to grab some clients before the bigger boats hit port). Compared to the traditional broadcast industry – which is over 60 years old – online video has only recently entered into the mind-share of consumers[15]. With so many suppliers[16] vying for market share one could infer that this suggests a young market that promises growth and eventually consolidation[17].with the ocean liners steadily incorporating and mimicking the activities of the smaller, faster players.
For these ocean liners to survive in a multiscreen world, consolidation will occur, and take shape in many forms. One may be Telco providers acquiring video platforms to complement their service portfolio. After all, Telcos and content delivery network (CDN[18]) operators are responsible for supplying video traffic reliability to their subscribers. Their services are easily complemented by offering cloud-based video to host all of that content. A recent example of this is the acquisition of Delve by the CDN provider Limelight[19]. Another example are design and build video solution providers that will continue to seek partnerships to widen their geographic reach – resulting in cross-sell[21] and up-sell[22] opportunities.
In addition, equipment manufacturers offering partial solutions to an OVP (Online Video Platform[23]) infrastructure will acquire suppliers to complete their product offering. Still other companies may acquire for the purposes of building Intellectual Property[24] assets to increase their opportunity footprint.
This multiscreen ocean is certainly big enough to accommodate boats of all sizes and shapes.
Analog Dollars to Digital Gold
The economic climate over the past few years has been a wake-up call for broadcasters[25] looking to streamline their workflow and cut costs. This has helped drive a migration to digitization and then logically extend their libraries to internet video services. This can significantly lower costs compared to expensive hardware-based broadcast equipment, and becomes a necessary foundation for multiscreen video consumption.
So, despite budget cutbacks in ICT[26], consumer demand has helped push the migration of investments to online video, and build these new infrastructures. Throughout the latest economic down-turn, the need for multiscreen solution providers remains strong. This is largely due to the requirement of migrating legacy-based tape systems to an internet-based file system. All of these changes require expertise in both traditional and new disciplines. As common sense dictates; the better a supplier speaks the language of the client, the higher the chances of a successful installation. It follows that suppliers with a background in both traditional video and new media[27] video will prove to be the most successful players.
The recent recession has not affected all regions equally. Emerging, dynamic markets such as Central & Eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East and South-East Asia have been a blessing to solution providers operating internationally. Although budgets are typically smaller in these emerging markets, the sheer quantity of projects is a boon to suppliers trying to maintain healthy revenue streams. In some cases these new technology investments allow these markets to leap-frog western counterparts.
So how will the traditional broadcast industry adapt and overcome these rapid changes in subscriber behavior? Well, it certainly won’t happen overnight. But speed, agility and sheer will are necessary to survive and thrive amid evolutionary changes. The digital video world is no exception. Curators of content – those who produce, own, or distribute video – are perfectly positioned to capitalize on this massive market growth – Both in the use of multiple screens, and in the increased duration that subscribers are watching video.
Building the Foundation
A main component of revenue success in multiscreen services is to offer solutions that are flexible, modular, and scalable. This forms the critical paths to building modern platforms that can accommodate a plethora of back-end infrastructures, while maintaining a sense of continuity. The project needs to be considered as an ever-evolvingsolution, as opposed to a one-off product. A well maintained and updated platform will translate into happy subscribers, and provide a foundation for geographic reach.
On a functional level, online video services require innovation excellence, in areas such as:
Analytics & Reporting – Cross-platform subscription services require constant refinement to maximize revenue potential. Monitoring and assessing the intricacies of user behavior should translate into continual improvements in the user experience. Increased subscriber satisfaction then leads to maximizing revenue potential.
Search & Discovery – These algorithms need to juggle a complex set of search results that offer accurate suggestions in real-time. Search results should be correlated across collaborative, statistical, social, and behavioral engines.
Development Portability – ensuring that multiscreen software development can be usable on as many devices and operating systems, as possible.
DRM[30] Interoperability – Support for multiple DRM standards that seamlessly cohabitate. At the top of this content protection pyramid is PlayReady[31] from Microsoft, FairPlay[32] from Apple, Verimatrix and more recently, UltraViolet[33] which is backed by a consortium of over 70 corporations. Future online video services should anticipate support for heterogeneous DRM environments.
Automated end-to-end Workflow – Ensuring that tasks from live broadcasts or VoD (Video On Demand)[34] to multiscreen playout are streamlined, and converge on real-time service delivery.
Multiscreen Development Excellence – Maintaining a high quality and consistent video experience across as many consumer devices as possible.
Internet video solutions should be capable of integrating into existing hardware and broadcast workflows without overly taxing the corporate culture. For broadcasters, the ability to tie seamlessly into established operational processes is a strong value-add, and in some cases essential. A robust offering also needs to accommodate new-entrants into the video delivery market that do not have any legacy constraints.
Figure v – Solution Selling Principles for OTT & Multiscreen – From Business Needs to Implementation
Proposals that realize these goals start from the framework of understanding the client’s overall business objectives and then take a strategic approach with the client, rather than reacting to a single tactical request,. Much larger business opportunities are uncovered and a competent supplier’s profile is raised from a basic reseller to a trusted adviser.
Preparing a solution begins with understanding the client’s pains and/or needs. This may be in the form of organizational inefficiency, competitive threats, or not capitalizing on new revenue potential. A strategy can then be developed to address these business challenges. Strategic decisions filter down to departmental objectives and into individual actions. Solution selling leads to the building block of People, Process, and Technology, whereby:
Technological components consist of a bill-of-materials, including various software and hardware that may spread across an eco-system of suppliers.
From People disseminates knowledge and expertise and forms the basis of a provider’s reputation
The overall Proposal consists of designing, building and supporting the solution.
Figure vi – Digital Video Workflow from Creation, Ingestion, & Management, to Delivery & Consumption
In combination, these components fulfill the client’s strategic vision as the project migrates to the implementation stage. Still, the project should not be considered a one-off implementation, but rather an organic infrastructure, synchronized with revenue growth and client expectations.
Software, Platforms, & Infrastructure
An important solution for delivering multiscreen internet video is utilizing a PaaS[35] (Platform as a Service) and SaaS[36] (Software as a Service) offering. These cloud-based services provide content owners and distributors with a quick time-to-market. Comparatively, designing and building a proprietary online video platform takes several years, and may still not match the functionality, resilience, and longevity of a commercial grade platform. In a digital video context, the difference between SaaS and PaaS is that SaaS is mainly positioned as an entry-level service, for companies with a limited amount of premium content. This is where most OVP vendors concentrate their efforts. A SaaS-based service manages video content in the cloud, and the client uses a portal interface to manage their subscribers. This is often an off-the-shelf service, with minimal flexibility in workflow, accommodating legacy systems, or support for live content.
Figure vii – Online Video Market Opportunities
Conversely, PaaS is a complete platform solution approach. The cloud infrastructure is fully customizable in both hardware and software to suit the needs of the client. These solutions encompass a much larger infrastructure, defined in this case as OTT (Over the Top Content). OTT solutions are best delivered as an à la carte[38] service, giving clients the flexibility to run a more robust service, while not having the burden of hosting (and managing the entire infrastructure by themselves which entail higher capital and operating costs respectively).
Where OVP may service terabytes of storage, OTT services petabytes and exabytes of content.
Online Video Must Flow
Content management for multiscreen has special requirements in the cloud. Compared to services that just involve document storage (i.e. without video, or other real-time multimedia), the keys to a successful video service are: the ability to manage large bandwidth requirements, quality of service demands, and massive storage. Beyond these basics, there are distinct requirements for content protection, licensing, and monetization of assets. There is also a clear demarcation between managing VoD verses live content; VoD subscribers download stored files; Live content requires special real-time workflow considerations from ingest & transcoding, through to delivery & consumption.
Opportunities have not just come from traditional broadcasters. They come from new entrants as well – Companies that have no legacy issues, and want to build digital infrastructures and distribution models using the latest methodologies. Media brands, retailers, telcos and enterprises are all realizing that they have vast libraries of multimedia content that can be monetized given an affordable, easy to use and flexible platform (Figure vii). This brings awareness to traditional enterprises that an online video platform can be an excellent vehicle to promote their brand, and enhance their revenue streams.
With a proper architecture across all five stages – Creation, Ingestion, Management, Delivery, and Consumption (Figure vi) – Video service providers are able to monetize all of their content – not just what they feed into a live channel.
OTT, OVP, represent tremendous revenue opportunities for network operators, media creators, owners and distributors of video content and, of course for enterprises in general. Wherever the client comes from, and however much video content they have, it can be consumed and monetized using OVP and OTT solutions using a PaaS or SaaS architecture.
In the days of linear television, broadcasters had a difficult task in understanding their audience. Without a direct broadcasting and feedback mechanism like the Internet, gauging subscriber behavior was slow. Today, online video providers have the ability to conduct a one-to-one conversation with their audience. Viewing habits of consumers will continue to rapidly change in the next ten years. This will require changes in advertising expenditure and tactics.
The evolution from traditional TV viewing to online video has been swift. This has significantly disrupted disc sales such as DVD and Blu-Ray, as well as cable and satellite TV subscriptions. With the newfound ability to consume content anytime, anywhere, and on any device, consumers are re-evaluating their spending habits. In this paper we will discuss these changes in buying behavior, and identify the turning point of these changes.
Transcoding large video libraries is a time consuming and expensive process. Maintaining consistency in video quality helps to ensure that storage costs and bandwidth are used efficiently. It is also important for video administrators to understand the types of devices receiving the video so that subscribers can enjoy an optimal viewing experience. This paper discusses the differences in quality in popular video codecs, including the recently ratified H.265 specification.
IV. Search & Discovery Is a Journey, not a Destination
Television subscribers have come a long way from the days of channel hopping. The arduous days of struggling to find something entertaining to watch are now behind us. As consumers look to the future, the ability to search for related interests and discover new interests is now established as common practice. This paper discusses the challenges that search and discovery engines face in refining their services in order to serve a truly global audience.
V. Multiscreen Solutions for the Digital Generation
Broadcasting, as a whole, is becoming less about big powerful hardware and more about software and services. As these players move to online video services, subscribers will benefit from the breadth of content they will provide to subscribers. As the world’s video content moves online, solution providers will contribute to the success of Internet video deployments. Support for future technologies such as 4K video, advancements in behavioral analytics, and accompanying processing and networking demands will follow. Migration to a multiscreen world requires thought leadership and forward-thinking partnerships to help clients keep pace with the rapid march of technology. This paper explores the challenges that solution providers will face in assisting curators of content to address their subscriber’s needs and changing market demands.
VI. Building a Case for 4K, Ultra High Definition Video
Ultra High Definition technology (UHD), or 4K, is the latest focus in the ecosystem of video consumption. For most consumers this advanced technology is considered out of their reach, if at all necessary. In actual fact, 4K is right around the corner and will be on consumer wish lists by the end of this decade. From movies filmed in 4K, to archive titles scanned in UHD, there is a tremendous library of content waiting to be released. Furthermore, today’s infrastructure is evolving and converging to meet the demands of 4K, including Internet bandwidth speeds, processing power, connectivity standards, and screen resolutions. This paper explores the next generation in video consumption and how 4K will stimulate the entertainment industry.
Social TV brings viewers to content via effective brand management and social networking. Users recommend content as they consume it, consumers actively follow what others are watching, and trends drive viewers to subject matters of related interests. The integration of Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and other social networks has become a natural part of program creation and the engagement of the viewing community. Social networks create an environment where broadcasters have unlimited power to work with niche groups without geographic limits. The only limitations are those dictated by content owners and their associated content rights, as well as those entrenched in corporate culture who are preventing broadcasters from evolving into a New Media world.
Content Protection is a risk-to-cost balance. At the moment, the cost of piracy is low and the risk is low. There are no silver bullets to solving piracy, but steps can be taken to reduce levels to something more acceptable. It is untrue that everyone who pirates would be unwilling to buy the product legally. It is equally evident that every pirated copy does not represent a lost sale. If the risk is too high and the cost is set correctly, then fewer people will steal content. This paper explores how piracy has evolved over the past decades, and investigates issues surrounding copyright infringement in the entertainment industry.
y.
About the Author
Gabriel Dusil was recently the Chief Marketing & Corporate Strategy Officer at Visual Unity, with a mandate to advance the company’s portfolio into next generation solutions and expand the company’s global presence. Before joining Visual Unity, Gabriel was the VP of Sales & Marketing at Cognitive Security, and Director of Alliances at SecureWorks, responsible for partners in Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA). Previously, Gabriel worked at VeriSign & Motorola in a combination of senior marketing & sales roles. Gabriel obtained a degree in Engineering Physics from McMaster University, in Canada and has advanced knowledge in Online Video Solutions, Cloud Computing, Security as a Service (SaaS), Identity & Access Management (IAM), and Managed Security Services (MSS).
Connected TV, Digital Video, Online Video, Gabriel Dusil, Internet Video, Broadcast, Linear Broadcast, Multi-screen, Multiscreen, New Media, Online Video Platform, OTT, Over the Top Content, OVP, Smart TV, Social TV, Visual Unity, DRM, Digital Rights Management, PaaS, Platform as a Service, SaaS, Software as a Service, Solution Selling, Search & Discovery
The era of multiscreen video has begun. Portability and connectivity are changing the video landscape. TV everywhere and other multiscreen initiatives are fundamentally changing the entertainment business model, with apps streaming live to TVs, computers, tablets, and mobile phones. According to the latest forecasts from Informa, the global online-video market will be worth $37 billion in 2017, driven by the popularity of OTT (Over the Top services). Broadcasters, content owners, and distributors must engage multiscreen delivery to survive. This presentation explores these market trends, and integrated solutions that bridge the gap between the broadcast world and multiscreen consumption.
Searching for content has significantly evolved in the past ten years, thanks largely to Google[1]. Consumers don’t even realize how much things have changed, and how fast we can find what we’re looking for. Those that are old enough to remember the 80’s TV experience or earlier, discovering new content was reliant on commercial previews to entice us to watch up-and-coming programs. The popularity of TV Guide[2] helped untether viewers from these teasers, and allowed searching for future programming schedules in a magazine format.
Regardless, tuning into broadcast TV was restricted to watching specific channels, during specific timeslots. Viewers needed to reserve that window in their daily schedule. Prime time[4] (between 8pm and 10pm) was established as the most lucrative timeslot in a channel’s 24 hour transmission. Broadcasters faced the constant challenge of juggling their content to optimal times, to suit the target audience – a practice that continues today.
The electronic programming guide (EPG[5]) gained traction throughout the 90’s and became a modern attempt to discover new interests. Instead of browsing a week’s programing in paper format, subscribers were doing so on the lower third[6] of their TV monitors. Although the notion of searching was still out of reach – especially in the context that consumers are familiar with today. EPG did not meet the depth of search sophistication that is expected in today’s digital generation. It also lacks modern search features that subscribers expect, such as content suggestions or peer-based recommendations.
Figure i – From Channel Clicking to “Googling”
The linear experience in TV broadcasting can be directly compared to how the PC experience entered the lives of consumers. When computers first came into the home, PC’s were arranged similar to television programs – in directories (akin to TV channels),and files (TV episodes) – albeit with greater flexibility and deeper tree structures.
Google helped fix that problem by significantly improving the search paradigm (hoping to remind us of how effective their algorithms are, Google always displays the duration of your search. Who isn’t impressed with 1.5 million hits in 0.2 seconds?) This approach led to software that would achieve similar search speed, accuracy, and ease of use on the PC. Users no longer had to remember where they put their files. All that was needed was to remember a word, or phrase that was used inside the document, and to a good level of confidence, the file would be found. The proficiency that web surfer’s achieved from googling[9], translated to the desktop. Gradually there was no longer a need for all those directories. The organization of digital lives changed from endlessly moving files around the computer, to ensuring they had meaningful file names and metadata[10] so that they could be easily searchable. Whether files were in one directory or one hundred, they could be found just as quickly.
Figure ii – Evolution of Video Consumption
Fast forward to today, and files have grown in size, quantity and frequency that are orders of magnitude higher than ten years ago. Content is accessible at any time anywhere, and on any device. Computers now consist of multimedia libraries – images, music, and videos. The need for metadata is even more important for these files because there is no inherent text from which to catalog them. Metadata comes in two forms:
Structural – For photos this may be the time-stamp of the photo, exposure, shutter speed, or geolocation where it was taken. For a video or audio file this may include the bitrate, overall duration, and compression codec used.
Descriptive – For photos this may include the names of people in the images, and the event being photographed, For music this would include the artist, song, and album titles. Or for movies this may include the actors, directors, and producers of the title. IMDB[11] (Internet Movie Database) is a good example of descriptive metadata for movie titles.
This embedded metadata forms the index needed to find multimedia files that do not have a textual base.
Search & discovery is now an industry in itself fueling its own revenue streams. Users can now discover interests which were previously inaccessible. Operating systems have followed suit. For example, modern iterations of Microsoft Windows 8[12] and Apple iOS[13] have a relatively flat structure from a user perspective. Programs are now accessible from the home screen or adjacent screens that are a swipe away. Deep directories and file structures are still there, but hidden behind an elegant front-end. Digging deep into our memories and remembering where we put something is now archaic.
Figure iii – The Challenges of Search & Discovery
To better understand the evolution of search, and the consumption of video we need to start with an understanding of user behavior. Subscriber needs have evolved to a more complex set of search parameters. These engines now juggle a dense set of algorithms to present results that appease the consumer’s behavior. To do this, multiple algorithms are at play:
Collaborative Behaviour[14] compares the subscriber’s past behaviour with other subscribers with similar activities, and clusters similar interests. In other words, users that liked Lord of the Rings[15] also liked Batman, the Dark Knight[16].
Content Based search ties related content together. If a user likes the director, Peter Jackson[17], then they may like the movie, King Kong[18], which he directed.
Recommendation engine[19] which takes behaviour to a more proactive model by asking subscribers for their opinion, then presenting their collective user ratings.
Statistical searches display cumulative totals, such as the number of views, Like’s or the amount of reviewers – suggesting a level of popularity for that content.
Figure iv – Collaborative Search Engine clusters
Due to the global nature of a video subscription service, a subscriber should be presented with search results that are relevant to their geolocation[21]. They also should not be bombarded with irrelevant or inaccurate results that cannot be monetized due to restrictions in rights management, censorship, or DRM[22] (digital rights management). This applies to any associated advertisements as well. In the same spirit as Google’s “Do You Feel Lucky”, subscribers want search results that are immediately relevant. Challenges facing modern search engines include:
Demographics and Culture add their own level of search complexity, as results are altered due to a content rights or censorship. Results may be filtered or not shown at all.
Advertisers also want to have their brands shown prominently – Whether it’s on a mobile, tablet, TV, or laptop – and have their products displayed adjusted to content that complements their brand.
This leads to a wider discussion is on the rights to censor results, freedom of speech, and the manipulation of search results to suit big brother[23]. How much leeway should be allowed in order to control search results in the presence of sponsors, political influences, media brands or internet governance?
Online search algorithms continue to face the challenge of increased accuracy. In the pursuit of excellence, Netflix ran an open contest in October 2006, to improve their collaborative filtering algorithm. The competition was awarded in September 2009 for 1 million US$ to BellKor’s Pragmatic Chaos[24] which improved the accuracy of the Netflix algorithm by 10.06%., After thousands of man-hours, the algorithm was never implemented, due mainly to the implementation costs involved, according to Netflix sources[25].
Search engines and their related services may already be considered a mature market but there is still room for improvement. Several online music services allow subscribers to find artists of similar interest through graphical means similar to collaborative engines[26]. Google recently enabled the ability to drag a photo onto their search bar so that similar images could be found[27]. IMDB has mapped 2.3 million titles. The value of monetizing such a database was recognized by Amazon.com, resulting in their acquisition of IMDB in 1998. The beneficiaries of these search and discovery improvements continue to be subscribers.
Future challenges include a continuing correlation of as may data points as available. Then making sense of the results. How can peer suggestions correlate better with statistics, past viewing, and collaborative results? How can search data correlate better with purchase behavior, and the overall personal profile of the subscriber? How can video consumption map to musical or photographic interests? How can search better integrate with personal verses business interests? Could a discovery engine reach a level of sophistication that offers search suggestion better than a close friend? Then again, would we want that level of intimacy with a computer algorithm?
This may be a lot of questions to ask at the end of an article, but isn’t that the foundation of search and discovery?
In the days of linear television, broadcasters had a difficult task in understanding their audience. Without a direct broadcasting and feedback mechanism like the Internet, gauging subscriber behavior was slow. Today, online video providers have the ability to conduct a one-to-one conversation with their audience. Viewing habits of consumers will continue to rapidly change in the next ten years. This will require changes in advertising expenditure and tactics.
The evolution from traditional TV viewing to online video has been swift. This has significantly disrupted disc sales such as DVD and Blu-Ray, as well as cable and satellite TV subscriptions. With the newfound ability to consume content anytime, anywhere, and on any device, consumers are re-evaluating their spending habits. In this paper we will discuss these changes in buying behavior, and identify the turning point of these changes.
Transcoding large video libraries is a time consuming and expensive process. Maintaining consistency in video quality helps to ensure that storage costs and bandwidth are used efficiently. It is also important for video administrators to understand the types of devices receiving the video so that subscribers can enjoy an optimal viewing experience. This paper discusses the differences in quality in popular video codecs, including the recently ratified H.265 specification.
IV. Search & Discovery Is a Journey, not a Destination
Television subscribers have come a long way from the days of channel hopping. The arduous days of struggling to find something entertaining to watch are now behind us. As consumers look to the future, the ability to search for related interests and discover new interests is now established as common practice. This paper discusses the challenges that search and discovery engines face in refining their services in order to serve a truly global audience.
V. Multiscreen Solutions for the Digital Generation
Broadcasting, as a whole, is becoming less about big powerful hardware and more about software and services. As these players move to online video services, subscribers will benefit from the breadth of content they will provide to subscribers. As the world’s video content moves online, solution providers will contribute to the success of Internet video deployments. Support for future technologies such as 4K video, advancements in behavioral analytics, and accompanying processing and networking demands will follow. Migration to a multiscreen world requires thought leadership and forward-thinking partnerships to help clients keep pace with the rapid march of technology. This paper explores the challenges that solution providers will face in assisting curators of content to address their subscriber’s needs and changing market demands.
VI. Building a Case for 4K, Ultra High Definition Video
Ultra High Definition technology (UHD), or 4K, is the latest focus in the ecosystem of video consumption. For most consumers this advanced technology is considered out of their reach, if at all necessary. In actual fact, 4K is right around the corner and will be on consumer wish lists by the end of this decade. From movies filmed in 4K, to archive titles scanned in UHD, there is a tremendous library of content waiting to be released. Furthermore, today’s infrastructure is evolving and converging to meet the demands of 4K, including Internet bandwidth speeds, processing power, connectivity standards, and screen resolutions. This paper explores the next generation in video consumption and how 4K will stimulate the entertainment industry.
Social TV brings viewers to content via effective brand management and social networking. Users recommend content as they consume it, consumers actively follow what others are watching, and trends drive viewers to subject matters of related interests. The integration of Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and other social networks has become a natural part of program creation and the engagement of the viewing community. Social networks create an environment where broadcasters have unlimited power to work with niche groups without geographic limits. The only limitations are those dictated by content owners and their associated content rights, as well as those entrenched in corporate culture who are preventing broadcasters from evolving into a New Media world.
Content Protection is a risk-to-cost balance. At the moment, the cost of piracy is low and the risk is low. There are no silver bullets to solving piracy, but steps can be taken to reduce levels to something more acceptable. It is untrue that everyone who pirates would be unwilling to buy the product legally. It is equally evident that every pirated copy does not represent a lost sale. If the risk is too high and the cost is set correctly, then fewer people will steal content. This paper explores how piracy has evolved over the past decades, and investigates issues surrounding copyright infringement in the entertainment industry.
About the Author
Gabriel Dusil was recently the Chief Marketing & Corporate Strategy Officer at Visual Unity, with a mandate to advance the company’s portfolio into next generation solutions and expand the company’s global presence. Before joining Visual Unity, Gabriel was the VP of Sales & Marketing at Cognitive Security, and Director of Alliances at SecureWorks, responsible for partners in Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA). Previously, Gabriel worked at VeriSign & Motorola in a combination of senior marketing & sales roles. Gabriel obtained a degree in Engineering Physics from McMaster University, in Canada and has advanced knowledge in Online Video Solutions, Cloud Computing, Security as a Service (SaaS), Identity & Access Management (IAM), and Managed Security Services (MSS).
Connected TV, Digital Video, Gabriel Dusil, Internet Video, Linear Broadcast, Linear TV, Multi-screen, Multiscreen, New Media, Online Video Platform, OTT, Over the Top Content, OVP, Search & Discovery, Search and Discovery, second screen, Smart TV, Social TV, Visual Unity
Online video providers today have the ability to experience a one-to-one conversation with their audience, compared to the somewhat anonymous nature of this relationship in traditional TV. Viewing habits of consumers continue to rapidly change in the next ten years, bringing more choice, portability and accessibility to video. A granular nature to analyzing subscriber behavior will open new opportunities for content owners, end users, and everyone in between. This will require accompanying changes in advertising expenditure as it pertains to a global vs. local focus. In the global reach of video, due to the ubiquity of the Internet, online services will need optimize to capitalize on new market opportunities.
Creating a compelling and engaging video experience has been an ongoing mission for content owners and distributors; Whether it was the introduction of CinemaScope[1] in 1953 to stifle the onslaught of color TV[2], or the introduction of 3D films[3] in the 50’s, the 80’s, and its subsequent re-introduction in 2009 with the launch of Avatar[4], to 4K Ultra high definition (UHD[5]) TV, and retina[6] quality video. In every way, gauging video quality has been a subjective exercise for consumers and experts alike.
Figure i – Visual Representation of calculating Qf
Beyond the signal to noise ratio (SNR[7]) measurement used to compare different compression ratios or codecs, in many cases only a trained eye would notice errors such as compression artifacts[8], screen tearing[9], or telecine judder[10] – unless they were persistent.
A modest metric to assess a video file’s compression density is the Quality factor (Qf[11]). In fact, the name is misleading since it is not actually a measure of quality, but an indication of video compression using three parameters: bitrate, the number of pixels in the frame, and the overall frame-rate of the video. Qf is essentially a measure of, “the amount of data allocated to each pixel in the video” [12]. This metric doesn’t take into account the type of compression profile used, the number of passes originally utilized in the encoding process[13], or any tweaks implemented by the encoding engineer to optimize the video quality. So Qf, or compression density, is just a baseline guide for an administrator that is responsible for transcoding or managing large video libraries.
The accompanying table shows a comparison of Qf using nominal figures for DVD, Blu-Ray and the recently ratified H.265 codec (aka. High Efficiency Video Coding, HEVC[14]). As the compression standard used for encoding the video improves, this corresponds to a reduced Qf.
Although Qf may be considered an inaccurate measure of video compression quality, where it becomes valuable is during the video encoding[15] or transcoding[16] stage – especially when multiple videos are required for processing, and an administrator has the option to choose consistency in the profile used and all related sub-parameters. Choosing a single Qf in this case will ensure global uniformity of compression density across the entire library. There are several internet forum discussions on the optimum quality that should be used for encoding (or an ideal Qf). Realistically, every video has its own unique and optimum settings. Finding this balance for each individual video would be impractical. For this reason, grouping video libraries by genre, or content type, then using a Qf for each group is a more reasonable compromise. For instance, corporate presentations, news casts, medical procedures – basically any type of recording with a lot of static images – could be compressed with the same Qf. The corresponding file for these videos could be as small as 1/20th the size of a typical Blu-Ray movie, with no perceivable loss in video quality.
Table I – Comparing Qf for MPEG2, H.264 & H.265[17]
As shown in the table, the Qf metric is useful in showing that a 1080p movie using the MPEG2 codec (aka. H.262 under the ITU definition) at 16.7GB (Gigabytes[18]) of storage (with a Qf = 0.33), compares equally to 10GB using H.264 (Qf = 0.20). Or in the case of H.265 a file size of 6GB (Qf = .6) again maintains the same quality. This is because each of these codecs significantly improves the efficiency on the previous one, while maintaining the same level of perceived video quality.
Figure ii – Visual representation of Video Compression standards & relative bandwidth requirements[19]
Ascertaining a video’s compression density can be achieved using MediaInfo[20], an open-source software package. This utility is an excellent resource in determining the formatting and structure of a given video file. MediaInfo displays a plethora of metadata and related details of the media content in a well laid-out overview. This includes granular structure of the audio, video, and subtitles of a movie. The layout of the data can even be customized using HTML and entire directories can be exported as part of a media library workflow. It’s an indispensable resource for content owners and subscribers that are managing large multimedia databases.
Figure iii – Snapshot of MediaInfo showing a video’s Structural Metadata
The H.264 codec (MPEG 4 AVC[21], or Microsoft’s own VC1[22]) improved on the efficiency of MPEG2[23] codec, developed in 1995, by around 40% to 50%. Although H.264 was created in 1998 it didn’t reach mainstream until Blu-Ray was officially launched in 2006. The H.265 standard, currently promises a similar 35% to 50% improvement in efficiency[24]. So when MPEG2 needs 10Mbps to transmit a video, an H.264 codec could send the same file, in the same quality at 6Mbps. H.265 can achieve the same at 3.6Mbps. The trade-off in using H.265 is two to ten times higher computational power over H.264 for encoding. So expect video encoding to take up to ten times longer to encode when using today’s processor. Thankfully devices will need only a two to three times increase in CPU strength to decode the video.
The new H.265 standard ushers in multiple levels of cost savings. At a storage level, costs saving of 40% would be significant for video libraries hosted in any cloud. Content hosting facilities or CDNs (content delivery networks[25]) are costly endeavor at the moment, for many clients. It may be argued that storage costs are a commodity, but when media libraries are measured in Petabytes[26] then these capital cost savings help the bottom line by using newer and more efficient codecs. Also, bandwidth costs will play an important role in further savings. Many online video platforms charge subscribers for the number of gigabytes leaving their facilities. Halving those costs by using H.265 would have a significant impact on monthly operational costs. On the flip side, video processing costs will increase in the short term, due to stronger and more expensive CPU power needed at both the encoding and decoding stages. Existing hardware will likely be used to encode H.265 in the short term, at the expense of time. But dedicated hardware will be needed for any extensive transcoding exercises, or real-time transcoding services.
Subscription-based internet services significantly compress their video content compared to their Blu-Ray counterparts. It’s a practical trade-off between video quality and bandwidth savings. But the quality of video only becomes a factor on certain consumer devices which can show the deficiencies of a highly compressed video. For example, a 60” (inches diagonal) plasma screen has the resolution to reveal a codec’s compression artifacts, but for a TV less than 40”, these artifacts would be hardly noticeable to the average consumer. For the most part, a 1080p title is barely distinguishable in quality to 720p on even a medium-sized television. Likewise, for many views watching on a majority of mobile device, high resolution content is both overkill and costly.
For those with bandwidth caps, subscribers are charged for all streaming data reaching their smartphone, whether they experience the highest quality video or not. Any video data sent exceeding the capability of a consumer device is a waste of money
At the moment video playback on mobile devices still poses a challenge for high definition. Thanks to multi-core processing on smartphones consumers are on the brink of having enough power to play full HD video, and can even run other processor intensive tasks in the background. Although quad-core[28] processors such as the Cortex A15 from ARM[29] and nVidia’s Tegra 4[30] (also based on the ARM architecture) have the ability to play some 1080p video, they will still struggle to play a wide library of full HD content without requiring some level of transcoding to lower profiles. 2013 is ushering in a wide range of handsets claiming 1080p support from HTC, Huawei, Sony, Samsung, and ZTE[31]. Multicore GPU and CPU running at ultra-low power requirements are asserting mobile devices as a viable platform for 1080p.
In the meantime, the resilience of H.264 and H.265 is in their use of encoding profiles (eg. baseline, main, or high and all associated sub-levels). The use of different profiles ensures that the best quality video experience is delivered within the limitations of the device playing the video. Low profile’s such as baseline require minimal processing power but do not efficiently compress the video. High profile modes are highly efficient and squeeze video file size as small as possible. Thus bandwidth is used efficiently, but requires higher processing power of the end-device to decode the video. Although the latest Apple iOS[32] devices support high profile, most smartphones still use lower profiles to ensure wider device compatibility. In the interim, internet video providers continue to encode titles into multiple profiles to suit a wide range of subscriber devices, accommodate their limitations in decoding capabilities, and maximize each individual viewing experience.
Higher profiles in H.265 will also have an effect on consumer electronics (CE[33]) equipment. Current iterations of these appliances are not equipped to handle the required processing demands of H.265. The next generation Home Theater PC (HTPC[34]), Set Top Box (STB[35]), or Media Player[36], will require upgrades their processing engines to accommodate these next generation codecs. Lab testing is still required to showcase that next generation computer processors will have the ability to decode H.265 at higher bit depth (eg. 10 bit), and resolutions as high as 4K resolutions. Some estimates state that 4K using H.265 will require 80 time more horsepower compared to HD using H.264[45].
To further compensate for the vast differences in mobile coverage, and best-effort internet communications, Over the Top (OTT)[37] providers, and Online Video Providers (OVP)[38] are offering advanced video optimization features such as Adaptive Bitrate Streaming (ABS)[39]. This is a solution to optimize video quality sent in real-time. Protocols such as Apple’s HLS[40], and more recently MPEG-DASH[41] have been developed to provide a universal approach to implementing adaptive bitrates.
The need for Adaptive Bitrate Streaming and related techniques is just a stop-gap requirement. As quality of service improves and bandwidth speeds increase, the need for optimization techniques will diminish. In some regions these techniques may completely disappear. Certainly, during the days of the analog modem, bandwidth was at a premium, so compression techniques and sophisticated error correction methods were used to maximize data throughput while also saving costs for the last-mile[42]. As bandwidth increased, these line adaption features were no longer deemed necessary. Similarly, the need for bandwidth optimization techniques will be diluted in regions where mobile 4G LTE[43] (Long-Term Evolution) will become ubiquitous. Speeds will become so reliable that even the internet’s best-effort[44] will be sufficient to deliver multiple 4K videos, in real time, to any device.
In the days of linear television, broadcasters had a difficult task in understanding their audience. Without a direct broadcasting and feedback mechanism like the Internet, gauging subscriber behavior was slow. Today, online video providers have the ability to conduct a one-to-one conversation with their audience. Viewing habits of consumers will continue to rapidly change in the next ten years. This will require changes in advertising expenditure and tactics.
The evolution from traditional TV viewing to online video has been swift. This has significantly disrupted disc sales such as DVD and Blu-Ray, as well as cable and satellite TV subscriptions. With the newfound ability to consume content anytime, anywhere, and on any device, consumers are re-evaluating their spending habits. In this paper we will discuss these changes in buying behavior, and identify the turning point of these changes.
Transcoding large video libraries is a time consuming and expensive process. Maintaining consistency in video quality helps to ensure that storage costs and bandwidth are used efficiently. It is also important for video administrators to understand the types of devices receiving the video so that subscribers can enjoy an optimal viewing experience. This paper discusses the differences in quality in popular video codecs, including the recently ratified H.265 specification.
IV. Search & Discovery Is a Journey, not a Destination
Television subscribers have come a long way from the days of channel hopping. The arduous days of struggling to find something entertaining to watch are now behind us. As consumers look to the future, the ability to search for related interests and discover new interests is now established as common practice. This paper discusses the challenges that search and discovery engines face in refining their services in order to serve a truly global audience.
V. Multiscreen Solutions for the Digital Generation
Broadcasting, as a whole, is becoming less about big powerful hardware and more about software and services. As these players move to online video services, subscribers will benefit from the breadth of content they will provide to subscribers. As the world’s video content moves online, solution providers will contribute to the success of Internet video deployments. Support for future technologies such as 4K video, advancements in behavioral analytics, and accompanying processing and networking demands will follow. Migration to a multiscreen world requires thought leadership and forward-thinking partnerships to help clients keep pace with the rapid march of technology. This paper explores the challenges that solution providers will face in assisting curators of content to address their subscriber’s needs and changing market demands.
VI. Building a Case for 4K, Ultra High Definition Video
Ultra High Definition technology (UHD), or 4K, is the latest focus in the ecosystem of video consumption. For most consumers this advanced technology is considered out of their reach, if at all necessary. In actual fact, 4K is right around the corner and will be on consumer wish lists by the end of this decade. From movies filmed in 4K, to archive titles scanned in UHD, there is a tremendous library of content waiting to be released. Furthermore, today’s infrastructure is evolving and converging to meet the demands of 4K, including Internet bandwidth speeds, processing power, connectivity standards, and screen resolutions. This paper explores the next generation in video consumption and how 4K will stimulate the entertainment industry.
Social TV brings viewers to content via effective brand management and social networking. Users recommend content as they consume it, consumers actively follow what others are watching, and trends drive viewers to subject matters of related interests. The integration of Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and other social networks has become a natural part of program creation and the engagement of the viewing community. Social networks create an environment where broadcasters have unlimited power to work with niche groups without geographic limits. The only limitations are those dictated by content owners and their associated content rights, as well as those entrenched in corporate culture who are preventing broadcasters from evolving into a New Media world.
Content Protection is a risk-to-cost balance. At the moment, the cost of piracy is low and the risk is low. There are no silver bullets to solving piracy, but steps can be taken to reduce levels to something more acceptable. It is untrue that everyone who pirates would be unwilling to buy the product legally. It is equally evident that every pirated copy does not represent a lost sale. If the risk is too high and the cost is set correctly, then fewer people will steal content. This paper explores how piracy has evolved over the past decades, and investigates issues surrounding copyright infringement in the entertainment industry.
About the Author
Gabriel Dusil was recently the Chief Marketing & Corporate Strategy Officer at Visual Unity, with a mandate to advance the company’s portfolio into next generation solutions and expand the company’s global presence. Before joining Visual Unity, Gabriel was the VP of Sales & Marketing at Cognitive Security, and Director of Alliances at SecureWorks, responsible for partners in Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA). Previously, Gabriel worked at VeriSign & Motorola in a combination of senior marketing & sales roles. Gabriel obtained a degree in Engineering Physics from McMaster University, in Canada and has advanced knowledge in Online Video Solutions, Cloud Computing, Security as a Service (SaaS), Identity & Access Management (IAM), and Managed Security Services (MSS).
[11] Originally used in Gordian Knot, http://sourceforge.net/projects/gordianknot/, an open source project for encoding videos into DivX and XviD formats. This software is no long being developed.
[13] With multi-pass encoding, the encoder becomes aware that some static parts of the video can be encoded with lower bitrates compared to complex scenes requiring higher bitrates. This knowledge encodes the video more efficiently, but requires higher processing resources and time to complete the task.
[17] This table shows the typical frame size for MPEG2, H.264 and H.265. For consistency and for the sake of comparison, a frame aspect ratio of 16:9 is shown. The Cinemascope[17] frame size of 2.39:1 or 2.35:1 would further alter the figures. The table also does not take into account the audio channel, which roughly amounts to a 10% increase in bitrate and file size (when a similar quality codex are used in each instance). Also not under consideration is a pixel bit depth higher than 8, such as in professional video recording, and common frame rates of 25, 29.97, 30 or 50fps are not considered.
[24] Studies have shown a 39-44% improvement in efficiency over H.264. Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC), “Comparison of Compression Performance of HEVC Working Draft 4 with AVC High Profile”
Gabriel Dusil was recently the Chief Marketing & Corporate Strategy Officer at Visual Unity, with a mandate to advance the company’s portfolio into next generation solutions and expand the company’s global presence. Before joining Visual Unity, Gabriel was the VP of Sales & Marketing at Cognitive Security, and Director of Alliances at SecureWorks, responsible for partners in Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA). Previously, Gabriel worked at VeriSign & Motorola in a combination of senior marketing & sales roles. Gabriel obtained a degree in Engineering Physics from McMaster University, in Canada and has advanced knowledge in Online Video Solutions, Cloud Computing, Security as a Service (SaaS), Identity & Access Management (IAM), and Managed Security Services (MSS).
![Graphic - Multiscreen Solutions for the Digital Generation (title, web]](https://i0.wp.com/mykoddi.com/dusilcom/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/graphic-multiscreen-solutions-for-the-digital-generation-title-web.png?ssl=1)
![Figure iii - Time Spent Viewing per day, by Type[20]](https://i0.wp.com/mykoddi.com/dusilcom/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/graphic-multiscreen-solutions-for-the-digital-generation-ii-time-spent-viewing-per-day-by-type.png?ssl=1)
![Graphic - Multiscreen Solutions for the Digital Generation (iv. Television Station Advertising Revenue Forecast]](https://i0.wp.com/mykoddi.com/dusilcom/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/graphic-multiscreen-solutions-for-the-digital-generation-iv-television-station-advertising-revenue-forecast3.png?ssl=1)
![Table I - Comparing Qf for MPEG2, H.264 & H.265[17]](https://i0.wp.com/mykoddi.com/dusilcom/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/graphic-benchmarking-the-video-experience-i-comparing-qf-for-mpeg2-h-264-h-2652.png?ssl=1)
![Figure ii - Visual representation of Video Compression standards & relative bandwidth requirements[19]](https://i0.wp.com/mykoddi.com/dusilcom/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/graphic-benchmarking-the-video-experience-ii-visual-representation-of-video-compression-standards-relative-bandwidth-requirements.png?ssl=1)
