LB's Rambles

Time Warp

A followup on my last post about 3D technology.

There are times I think I have been living in a time warp. Last week, I wrote about a reunion of ABC Radio News personnel, some of whom I have known for more than four decades. After that reunion, I received a video that was put together back in 1969, to promote what were then the brand new ABC Radio Networks. In 1968, ABC became the first US radio network to program four distinct newscasts each hour, each one aimed at a particular group of radio stations. This allowed ABC to have up to four affiliates in each market - very clever indeed.

At any rate, watching that video, I found myself amazed at how far we have come. For example, there are shots of audio tape being edited with a razor blade and a grease pencil. That's how we did it, folks. Even video tapes started out that way. The editors, newscasters and writers all used typewriters. MANUAL typewriters; I was pounding away on an Olivetti until the early 1980s. Video? TV relied on film, which had to be shot, shipped, developed and edited; the entire process took at least hours and often, for overseas stories, days.

The narrator notes, with pride, that all of the ABC news bureaus were linked by private teletype. I remember that one; I was quite proud of being able to type at the machine's maximum speed of 60 words per minute. We also had "facsimile" machines that could transmit documents over phone lines; it generally took six minutes per page. And the newsroom was filled with the clattering noise made by the AP, UPI and Reuters machines, disgorging reams of paper, usually running multiple carbon paper rolls.

Time warp. This morning, I sat and watched people demonstrating console editing of 3D digital video. Punch a few buttons, move a mouse, and a miracle happens. I don't think the people doing the presentation had ever worked with a film doublechainer; certainly not as their primary source. I doubt they were born when that promotional video was made.

Yes, I AM older than dirt.

Time warp.

Enhancing the Consumer Video Experience

3D technology has been used in movies for more than half a century – with considerable success, in some cases. The Disney Corporation has incorporated some of it into top-of-the-line attractions at Disney World and Disneyland. As the world moves to HDTV, what are the chances for improving this technology to expand the use of 3D in both movies and television?

At Bill Sobel’s monthly breakfast for the New York Media Information Exchange Group, we had a demonstration of the work being done in this field, and a chance to see how it is working right now.

David Dever, VP Broadcast and Network Sales of Quantel, presented a 3D video on their HDTV system. It’s pretty impressive. It does require wearing a set of special glasses to make the imagery work, but – once you get past that hurdle – the images themselves are quite impressive; the illusion of 3D is very good on a large HDTV screen.

According to Danny Peters, Director of Creative Services, Quantel, what’s different now is that we are able to do stereoscopic processing in post production. That has always been the primary problem in doing 3D productions. Traditionally, left and right images had to be edited separately. Quantel has come up with a way to make it work in post production. Peters provided a hands-on demonstration of how the editing can be carried out. Other techniques are possible as well – ways to provide color correction, depth perception and convergence, etc. Peters calls this one of the most significant developments in post production creation.

The demo was followed by a broader panel discussion of the 3D process and its possibilities, along with a review of some of the many considerations that need to be considered when shooting, editing and displaying 3D video.

The post-production technology on display could be used for virtually any display technology – from HDTV to Imax to the old Viewmaster “stereoscopic” viewer slides.

One key question: when will this get into the home and reach a much wider audience? Chris Chinnock says there are already a lot of 3D capable HDTVs in people’s homes – and nobody knows it. They do still require glasses. Some of the manufacturers are starting to do demo programs – it’s just starting to happen

Chinnock says there IS an audience for this. More theaters are coming on line virtually every day with the capability to display 3D entertainment releases, including fine arts and Metropolitan Opera productions. He also discussed a 3D in home consortium that is working on getting the technology into homes.

But there was also discussion of the need to change focus – to use the technology not as a novelty, but as a storytelling mechanism. There was general agreement on the panel that it is important to move past novelty and exploit the creative possibilities of the medium and the technology.

Chris Chinnock also says there are displays being made today that do not require glasses. This seems to me to be the direction that the industry will have to go. As long as you require an extra piece of hardware – the glasses – you’re going to be limiting your impact. Not a universally held sentiment among this group – but these are the pioneers in extending the technology.

More Than 10 Billion Sold...er...Viewed

This is starting to sound like those BILLIONS AND BILLIONS SOLD signs outside McDonald's: MultiChannel News quotes a new comScore report showing U. S. Internet users viewed more than 10 billion online videos in February. That's 10 billion. In one month. In the U. S. alone. Up 66% from the previous year. 34% went to YouTube.

With numbers like that, sooner or later, somebody's gonna figure out how to make serious money at it...

Hat tip: IAB SmartBrief.

No Life for 'Quarterlife'?

Tim Bourquin, creator (among other things) of the influential annual New Media Expo, has some useful thoughts about the dismal showing of the program Quarterlife, which started out as an Internet video series and has tried to move over to NBC television, including:

(a) 4 million viewers (on TV) is a dismal failure, while it would be great on the web?

(b) maybe there's a difference between what folks watch on TV and what they watch on the Internet?

And his key point (italics in the original):

Bottom line: the Internet doesn't HAVE to be a farm league for television.

He's right. Convergence doesn't necessarily mean the same programming on TV and on the web. Some programs are better suited to the formats - and the audiences - on one or the other.

Broadband Video: What Is the Future?

Monetization.

That was the key word at this morning’s meeting of the New York Media Information Exchange Group. When it comes to broadband video, the words “future” and “monetization” appear to be synonymous, at least in the minds of the audience and the panel gathered to discuss the future of video. The real question, though – to which there were no really complete answers – is how to really make that happen.

The moderator was Fred Seibert, co-founder of NextNewNetworks. Also on the panel were Kevin Shively, the EVP of TV Worldwide and Mike Hudack, CEO of blip.tv. The three companies have different approaches towards the overall problem of making money out of broadband video. NextNewNetworks is primarily a content producer, TV Worldwide is concerned with building and reaching specific audiences with shared interests and blip.tv concentrates on providing infrastructure, including ad sales, to content producers.

The loosely-structured discussion answered several questions from the audience, including suggestions for ways that an independent producer can be trying to raise money for a production. Fortunately, as Hudack pointed out, online production costs are significantly lower than they would be for television or cable.

Advertising continues to play a major role, of course. And the question becomes, what kind of video will attract the kind of audiences that advertisers want and need. As Kevin Shively pointed out, it’s not just a question of the quality of the video, but also of the quality of the audience.

No real conclusions were reached, but the lively debate over the future of broadband video continues. The panelists pretty well agreed that there are limits to being able to monetize User Generated Content – how many cat-flushing-the-toilet videos can you watch? – and that the key, as Seibert said, is, “There’s room for cats looking cute and David Letterman in the same video world.”

Remembering John McWethy

Former ABC News National Security correspondent John McWethy died a few days ago in a skiing accident. Jack McWethy was a colleague over many years at ABC News. He was one of the finest reporters I have known. ABC News put together a beautiful and moving (and lengthy) tribute to Jack. I invite you to enjoy it - it's long, but very much worth your time. He will be missed.

The Importance of Writers

There's encouraging news today that the strike by entertainment industry writers appears to be ending. That's good news. (Disclosure: as a news writer/editor/producer, I belonged to, and was represented by, the Writers' Guild for many years; I'm still a "lifetime" - but inactive - member.)

Over at Pajamas Media, Roger L. Simon has some interesting thoughts and observations, including one which immediately caught my eye: he argues that the industry is finally waking up to the notion that the writer is more important than the director:

The days of Fellini, et al, are long gone and likely to be further submerged by the new online media where the creator of the story will be king. Who these creators will actually be is anybody’s guess, but the Writers Guild has apparently extended its jurisdiction to include professional writers it never before represented (playwrights and novelists) in this brave new online world.

Yes. When the French came up with the notion that the "auteur" of a film was the sole artistic force of any importance in moviemaking, it's worth noting that the word, although always applied to the director, actually means author. Writers have never had much respect on Hollywood sound stages. If that's changing, then - as a writer - I am delighted.

Collecting Eyeballs

MediaPost is reporting a new comScore study of Super Bowl viewers which finds that 13% - roughly one out of every eight - viewers watched a Super Bowl ad online after the game. The same percentage - again, roughly one out of every eight viewers - say they visited an advertiser's website after the game.

Given a TV audience estimated at close to 100 million, that's pretty effective advertising. And it gets around TV's real problem: all that Nielsen and the other measuring systems can really tell you is that x number of viewers had their sets on while the ads were running - not how many actually watched. On the other hand, those who went to a web site and actively sought out the ads did actually watch them. And those who went to the advertiser's website took the relationship between consumer and advertisers a significant step further.

Compared with the whopping cost of a Super Bowl ad, I suspect the additional investment involved in getting that ad up online was pretty small - and the payoff would appear to have been very large.

Zombies on Autopilot

I'm talking about my former journalistic kin on Groundhog Day. Hey, it's February 2, so let's dig out the non-stories about local groundhogs that we do EVERY BLOODY YEAR and run with them again! That's what people really want to hear when they wake up.

There used to be an old semi-joke in newsrooms that you could pretty well write a standard five-minute radio newscast for, say, Christmas morning, and just fill in the blanks. You know, "The bells rang out in St. Peter's Square welcoming Christmas...a spark from faulty Christmas tree lights is blamed for the fire in [insert city name] that left [insert number] people homeless...[insert celebrity name] spent this Christmas holiday at a soup kitchen..." and so forth.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what I heard when I got up this morning, only the Groundhog Day version. Will [fill in smalltown name]'s loveable groundhog [alliterative name] see his shadow? Let's go live...

No. Let's not. Not only is it an auto-story older than I am, it's really a NON-story. Because there will be six more weeks of winter, no matter whether some frightened animal is dragged before the cameras to "see his shadow." See, it's something called a calendar. It's six weeks until the vernal equinox. You know - Spring.

And it's the kind of garbage that leads a lot of people to wonder precisely why they should waste time listening to big-media newscasts. "Hey, Mike, give us the latest on Podunk Pete - did he see his shadow?"

No thinking required. Or, apparently, allowed.

The Moviegoer as Media Consumer

Here's a very curious statistic, reported today by MediaPost: a study from Integrated Media Measure found that among the 13 to 24 age group, moviegoers are far bigger consumers of other forms of media - specifically TV and radio - than non-moviegoers. People in that age group who go to the movies watch twice as much TV and listen to twice as much radio than those who don't generally go to the movies.

That seems a little counter-intuitive. You'd think that people who don't go to movies would be more likely to sit at home in front of the TV. Apparently not.

The good news for advertisers is that non-moviegoers make up only 18.4% of the 13 to 24 age group. I guess that bodes well for the continued audience for TV and radio.