Alongside the many technological changes occurring in this era, robotics continues to evolve with new capabilities in artificial intelligence. Of those more recent advances and updates, generative AI took the lead, but there’s a new tech in town and it’s going “fully autonomous.”

In my Cloudspotter’s Journal columns, I have shown by example that the basics of next-generation cloud computing now include an advanced “cloud” infrastructure, shifting toward AI integration, edge computing and cross-cloud federation (coming up in October). Crucial elements include “AI-first architectures,” “agentic data systems” and “distributed cloud-to-edge” connections and their associated networking.

The importance of connecting the cloud to the world of AI cannot be underestimated. At first, it seems to be a bit far-fetched and beyond the reach of everyday use, but hold on—artificial intelligence is now “everywhere,” with a wider definition and an expanded dimension touching all walks of life. Most evident today is the explosion of data center activity popping up everywhere. Only a few see this as an important element of our tech future, but the data centers of today and tomorrow are “the cloud,” with compute power, storage and interconnection across the globe.

In the not-too-distant future, these new data centers will be self-managed and, in many cases, autonomous in nature. They will become the backbone for AI activities as their integration grows.

In this installment, we take a broad overview perspective of some new AI-related terms and how they generally apply to workflows, data centers and AI:

• Artificial Intelligence Integration: Based upon custom AI agents, robust LLM integration and AI-data engineering. As stated in Google Search, “AI integration is the process of embedding artificial intelligence into existing systems, workflows and applications to automate processes, generate insights and optimize performance.”
• AI Systems Integration: The fundamental elements associated with this widespread migration, modernization and optimization of services using a leaner stack are being accomplished with zero disruption. An “always-on digital workforce” is a key element, constructed as a unified platform built on at least three integrated layers: Data Quality, Agentic AI and Plain-Language Interfaces.

Data Quality (DQ)
Data Quality (DQ) encompasses elements of trust and Autonomous Data Engineering—the automation of jobs for data analysts, data engineers and operations (see workflows depicted in Fig. 1). DQ aims to improve the accuracy, completeness, consistency and reliability of the data used to train, test or run machine-learning models and AI systems. DQ generally includes model accuracy, which aims to ensure all AI outputs are trustworthy and to prevent error factors where poor data leads to biased or incorrect results.

DQ concepts include machine learning models that depend on “clean inputs”—free of duplicates, errors or misrepresentations, aka missing values or skewed anomalies.

Modern platforms use other AI tools to automate DQ checks and build validation rules that scale. Validation rules are those surrounded by an AI simulation of human intelligence in machines specifically programmed to think, learn and make decisions—i.e., utilizing building blocks typical to AI systems that include data (i.e., numbers, characters, media images—audio, video, etc.) and operations which are performed by using compute processes.

• Algorithm(s): Basically a sequence of calculations or rules used to solve a problem employing data that is “optimized in terms of time and space.” Such relative data should fit the time, place and application, and must provide suitable results that resolve the problem constructed of appropriate prompts with sufficient depth to properly answer the question “posed” of the associated content. 
• Model: Sometimes referred to as an “agent,” a model is a combination of data and algorithms used to generate the response. Once you have a model, you can constantly provide it with new data and algorithms and continuously refine it. Fundamentally, the goal is to perform these actions autonomously.
• Response: Outputs generated as responses from models, otherwise known as the results.
• Ethics: The “moral principles” and “guidelines” from responses. These and related fundamental principles ensure that the responses (replies, reactions and/or outputs) from the AI systems “contribute to positive social, economic, and environmental impacts of the organization and the community.”

One significant application of AI is automating tasks that do not necessarily require human intervention during routine operations. This brings on some relatively new definitions for workflow and actions—e.g., idempotent, which means an operation that can be applied multiple times without changing the final result beyond the first time, and Customer Lifetime Value (CLV). When combined, idempotency and CLV can match analytics or calculations without double-counting revenue or corrupting historical cohorts—i.e. the use of past records to identify groups of people with or without a specific exposure.

The latest evolution in AI-driven automation is known as Agentic AI.

Agentic AI for RPA
Agentic AI is the next step in automation. Autonomous or semiautonomous artificial intelligence systems can independently plan, make decisions, use external tools and execute multistep workflows to achieve a specific goal with minimal human supervision. Robotic Process Automation (RPA) is rule-based, using software “bots” to mimic human actions. RPA automates repeated tasks (invoicing, inputting data, extraction and validation) which have since evolved with new AI capabilities. In principle, that evolution has stepped into various levels of agentic automation used to aid in determining the level of agents your organization may need; agentic workflow automation in action, or how those AI-powered agents perform; and how to scale agentic automation—responsibly and securely—while autonomously evaluating foundational skills aimed at end-to-end task completion.

The main types of automation (in robotics) include:

• Attended RPA: Bots that run on a user’s computer to help with live tasks like customer calls. 
• Unattended RPA: Bots run on servers in the background to complete large batches of work automatically.
• Hybrid RPA: Blends both attended and unattended approaches so humans and bots can work together on complex jobs.

In addition to those RPA/human modes, those rational and easily manipulated sets of actions or instructions—including reporting and outputs—are orchestrated in plain language instead of software-driven expressions in specific forms of new or complex terms that must first be thoroughly learned and trained.

Plain Language
For an AI interaction to be “conversational,” the prompts and stages should repeatedly master the following steps in its sequences:

• Removes Jargon: Finds hard-to-read technical words, acronyms, or legalese and swaps them for everyday terms, with “audience identification” obviously being a prime focus on both output and delivery. For example, a response for a lawyer would be output differently for an administrator without a legal background.
• Shortens Sentences: Breaks down long, tangled sentences into short, direct thoughts aimed for a C-level executive set, TV/radio news reporter or professional-level manager.
• Active Voice: A sentence structure where the subject performs the verb’s action, following a clear pattern: actor, verb—targeting its searches for passive phrasing and changing it to clearly show who is doing what.
• Layout Improvement: Outputting clear headings and bullet points so text is easy to scan and reading for understanding is elevated smoothly and rapidly.

Assuring Data Quality
A part of maintaining and assuring Data Quality is documentation (especially if auto-generated). Docs are a foundational principle in assuring Data Quality and are extremely important when assembling any AI platform. Having a consistent and accurate reference set that includes the stages and steps discussed is essential to the AI system’s intelligence for long-term maintenance of the large model learning system, for both immediate and future or long-term support of the system overall. Instructions on documentation integrated with the “checks and values” portions of a system are essential.

Elements crucial to AI-developed outputs (Fig. 2), based on the prompts submitted and the audience you are addressing, include accuracy, where data matches real-world values and facts; completeness, with no essential fields or values missing; consistency, where all information matches across different systems, tables or equations; that data is fresh and timely, appropriate to the topics and audience and easily available when needed; and validity, where data follows defined (business) rules, formats and constraints, is unique and does not contain duplicate records.

Appropriate expectations are part of the primary requirements in qualifying the validity of an AI system and integration. These are some of the guidelines most solutions or outputs will produce with a properly utilized agentic AI or general practices as modeled across many levels of industry—providing a good checklist and process for relatively effective and useful autonomous applications and solutions.

I have written about supercomputers in the pages of TV Tech for more than six years. I even had an ABC director tell me my musings on computer dominance in broadcasting were pure folly and that I was “full of it.” However, my earliest contemplations did not take into account learning models which, to me, now further legitimize the possibilities of AI in broadcasting.

Let’s use my friend at ABC as an example. Bob has less than a dozen cuts in his directing repertoire, with only a handful of permutations between them—very predictable. Now, if you take it to the next level, Bob-Bot can remember these camera sequences and their outcomes, plus how effective their entertainment value was. You could even teach Bob-Bot the patterns of different directors and producers and mix up a pretty good show.

FIFA World Cup soccer and Host Broadcast Services have led the way in advancing sound quality and also in developing computer-assisted sound.

Not only was the concept of mixing matches in the broadcast center’s master control developed at the World Cup, but Lawo also created a mixing algorithm that compares sound intensities from different microphone positions, selects the best ones and creates the most desirable sports sound. I wrote in the pages of TV Tech that I thought the 2022 World Cup was the best-sounding World Cup ever and better yet, the best-sounding sporting event ever!

From Assistant to Controller
The difference between the early AI systems and current (and future) systems is that AI brings the ability for the computer to learn and remember. For example, a machine model can combine audio sources and create a mix from the existing data. A learning model will be able to elevate the entertainment value with more and better permutations each learning cycle.

Computer-assisted is quickly moving to computer-controlled. It is easy to see how the entire production chain can be computer-controlled. Cameras do not need operators anymore, with autofocus and simple commands like “follow the ball” or “follow car No. 6.” I was resistant to “audio-follow-video” for many years because I thought the switch did not sound very good and subjective control was the job of the mixer. Basically, my prejudices were ego-related and not engineering-related.

The Lawo “mixing assist” compares sound levels from different microphones and adjusts mix levels for the most desirable combination of sounds. So, what about computer-generated sound fields and sporting sound effects, like what Ben Shirley and Rob Oldfield of Salsa Sound have been developing? The Salsa program not only can mix, but can change the timbre, texture and composition of sounds. I imagine a ball kick with a little thunder or dynamite explosion added to it. That is entertaining!

Entertainment vs. Reality
When gaming came along, I realized my role as a sound mixer was to entertain the audience and not necessarily document the sound image. Some sounds were boring or not easily captured, which is why, in the early ’80s, I started to use a sound sampler—a primitive analog computer to play back and enhance the sound field—everything from pit sounds and tire squeals to canoe rows and crowds. Engaging sound, camera work and graphics drive broadcast retention, but also cost money, unless perhaps there is a heavy dose of generative computer influence and output.

Every sport can develop an audience via the internet, and there is clearly an abundance of content that is captured and streamed. Not only are supercomputers good at automating tasks and improving efficiency, but they are capable of creating realistic content. How about nude beach volleyball? How will content production keep up? Through AI.

Supercomputers with learning and adapting capabilities are known as “generative,” where computers create new content using similar or existing data. Think about the commentators. You rarely see them, and they tell the viewer what they just saw and then read something about the person, place or thing that was just shown. It is called play-by-play and color, and I think these folks are on the way out.

I have read postings on LinkedIn for audio practitioners to train AI algorithms. That makes sense, since the power of artificial intelligence lies with its ability to ultimately learn and think for itself. It also seems that the best models have a deep reservoir of knowledge to build on.

A Better Model Me
But where is this knowledge coming from? Well, one significant avenue has been through theft of intellectual property.

America has long had a beef with China over intellectual property theft, but it is happening right here in the United States—with impunity. I don’t know who is to blame—the publisher or the AI company.

I heard on the news recently that Anthropic, a leading AI company that I thought had scruples, has settled a class-action suit for copyright theft, which included two of my broadcast publications with Focal Press. If you are going to train a computer to do my job, then learning the fundamentals of signal processing as well as the aesthetics of signal balancing will make a better Model Me.

All sound disciplines are changing and the evolution probably will not stop. No doubt, analytical tools for quality control are soon to arrive, if they are not already here. Things like distortion, phase and loudness are easily quantified and corrected. While working on this article, one of my sources said they have developed a profanity eliminator that works basically in real time and even in different languages.

I used to think the safest jobs in television were held by those who set up and maintained the equipment. I don’t see that as the case anymore when I see stories of Chinese robots playing soccer. Television broadcasts are not hard to set up, and any deficiencies can be compensated or covered up by the computer.

Are you scared yet?

Have you ever heard the old movie cliché, “What’s a nice girl like you doing in a place like this?” Those of you who might recognize my name or byline from consumer and residential technology publications over the years might reasonably paraphrase that to ask, “What’s a consumer-centric journalist doing in TV Tech?” That’s a good question, but as an introduction to my new column, “The Other Side,” allow me to explain.

Over the years, I have been involved in exactly what the name of this publication is: TV technology. I’ve worked at post and duplication facilities, helping to initiate and market new technologies; spent more late nights supervising film-to-tape transfers back in the days of 3V film chains and quad recorders; and helped install and bring up and run massive RF distribution networks for early in-room hotel pay TV systems.

On the other side of the technology fence, I led teams that developed and marketed one of the first digitally converged three-tube video projectors; spearheaded one of the first complete home theater systems (including processors, amplifiers and speakers); and, more recently, helped lead product teams for immersive home audio products that play back the content TV Tech readers capture, edit and distribute.

‘Trickle-Up’ Electronics
That has given me a unique view of how both broadcast/professional and consumer electronics products are used and, often, misused for both their intended market applications but also as a physician might say when a drug is used for something other than its main intended use, for “off-label use.” As a good example, one need look no further than the use of DSLRs and even iPhones as production-level cameras for everything from local news to major sporting events and feature films. Let’s call that “trickle up,” as it is the use of consumer market products “off-label” in professional applications.

On the other hand, there has always been the opposite: “trickle down.” By that, I mean the use of professional products in a consumer environment. Back in the day, I recall more than a few high-end consumer installations where one might find those old Tektronix video monitors or “professional” video projectors in home theaters. Perhaps the ultimate trickle-down was the frequent use of the original Altec “Voice of the Theater” speakers in the home, or perhaps JBL and other studio speakers in home theaters. The same for high-end, high-power audio amplifiers or Ampex 300-series reel-to-reel tape machines. The best way to picture that is to do an online search for the classic image of Frank Sinatra’s home listening system.

The digitization of everything has meant that things are clearly blending together from both sides, and my goal here is to have you meet the technology in the middle. On one hand, you get maximum efficiency both in terms of time and costs by using things originally not meant for “pros,” while on the other hand consumers get to reap the benefits of “pro/commercial” products. I’m certain that most of you know nonindustry friends who use Resolve or similar video or audio production software tools for their vlogs, or what now passes for “home movies.”

Both Sides of the Fence
Last bit of my introduction to this space: As an industry professional, it would be astounding if each of you hasn’t been asked more than once by relatives or friends: “Hey, you’re in the TV business. Can you recommend a good display, camera, speaker or amplifier?” By jumping across both sides of the fence in this column, we’ll give you some answers to those questions.

Let’s start with something everyone has and needs, and which you use every day: video displays. For last-mile, precision applications there is still no substitute for a Sony BVM series or monitors from Eizo, Flanders, TV Logic, the Dolby PRM-4220 (as a successor to the now-discontinued Dolby Pulsar) and other brands. However, for noncritical use such as viewing rooms, offices and stages where image quality and price are key, but so is cost, there are new products from consumer brands that may fit the requirements.

You may not be as familiar with TCL and Hisense as you’ve been with the legacy brands such as LG, Samsung and Sony. However, keep in mind that from a global sales perspective, those two brands are right up at the top of the sales charts with LG and Samsung. In particular, the new TCL models with their SQD panel structure and the RGB MiniLED models from Hisense have an excellent price/value benefit. Similarly, the LG and Samsung Micro RGB models will also give higher-priced, “professional” models a run for their money. Just as I’ve seen high-end LG and Panasonic OLED models used as the main and “client” monitors for color grading, expect to see these in non-consumer use sooner than later.

As an aside, the Mini and Micro RGB backlit products—not to be confused with true direct-view LED display technology (dvLED) that is common for video walls, virtual production and staging—may just be the thing to recommend when your nonindustry friends ask you, “What should I buy?” Along with the standard set by OLED, these and the (non-RGB) TCL SQD won’t steer them wrong.

Crossover in Action
As one other example of where From the Other Side will take you going forward, let’s look at one other “trickle up” product drawn from the consumer/home office space that you might benefit from on the job and on the go.

TV technology professionals are often on the go, both traveling to and from gigs, at a remote event, or in recent times possibly even at home doing remote production. Particularly since the pandemic, we’ve all gotten used to multiple screens but what do you do when you have to finish an edit on the go at an airport lounge or coffee shop?

After all, taking a wall of monitors with you just doesn’t work in an era where, to paraphrase another now-obsolete advertising slogan, “bags don’t fly free” unless you have elite-level loyalty status. TSA wouldn’t like that too much, either.

One solution I have tested and used, courtesy of a sample provided by the manufacturer, is the Tri-Screen 3 from a company with the unique name of Xebec. It lists for $699 and consists of two 13.3-inch, 1080p/60Hz screens that fold up against one another to a compact form that isn’t much thicker than some larger laptops. It fits snugly to the laptop’s screen, has one USB-C connection and, after folding out the aluminum kickstand, you fold out the monitors. You then have three screens, counting the laptop or two screens facing you and one facing behind the laptop so others can see what you are working on.

Best example: sitting in a cold Boston airport this winter, having people wonder what I was doing with an edit on three screens. That’s nowhere near as interesting as continuing it with three screens on the plane and then uploading the job as soon as I landed.

These two examples are just a hint of the crossover potential between “work and play” or “home and office/studio/remote shoot” that this column will be bringing you as we all move forward into a future that is not only mixed in terms of media, but with respect to the tools and products we all use to navigate the ever-changing media landscape.

In Australia, the patch bay is called a tail board. In the United Kingdom, the engineer responsible for matching cameras is often called a “racker” rather than a shader.

At the FIFA World Cup, those differences disappear remarkably fast.

The world’s largest sporting event brings together hundreds of broadcast professionals from different countries, cultures and technical traditions. Within days, engineers from Australia, England, the United States and beyond must operate as a single crew delivering one of the most recognizable sounds in sports.

They arrive speaking slightly different technical languages. The same piece of equipment or role can have multiple names. Yet by kickoff, those differences largely vanish. The audience hears one broadcast, not the dozens of production cultures working behind it.

What viewers remember is the roar after a goal, the tension before a penalty kick, the swell of a national anthem and the eruption of a stadium after a dramatic winner. They remember how the World Cup feels. Audio is a major part of that feeling.

Australian broadcast veteran Tim Stapleton, audio guarantee for Host Broadcast Services (HBS) in Kansas City, is one of the people responsible for creating that experience. A veteran of UFC, cricket, combat sports in the Middle East and the recent Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics, this is his first World Cup. The scale stood out immediately.

"The World Cup is unique because of the sheer number of moving parts," he said.

Big Event, Big Undertaking
Commentary facilities are handled by a completely separate company, with 10 dedicated booths inside the stadium. Outside, the production compound fills a parking lot with mobile rack rooms and support units from multiple vendors.

The biggest difference from a normal match is the atmosphere. “The crowd makes it sound like a magical moment, not a regular weekly game,” Stapleton said. “You can tell it is something special.”

HBS deploys a standardized audio plan across all venues while adapting to each stadium's characteristics. In Kansas City, the bowl design allows crowd noise to rise naturally, giving the mix team exceptionally clean audience capture.

Capturing that atmosphere requires far more than the standard soccer microphone package. The foundation remains familiar: pitch microphones positioned around the field to capture ball strikes, player movement and referee whistles, along with microphones mounted on cameras to follow the action.

Beyond that foundation, the World Cup expands significantly. Additional crowd microphones and immersive audio arrays are deployed throughout the venue to capture the atmosphere that defines the tournament. In Kansas City, ambient microphone arrays are positioned on the roof, camera deck, and pitch level, allowing the team to capture everything within the roar of the stadium.

The goal isn't simply to make the crowd louder. It's to make viewers feel present.

GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium (or, FIFA is calling it during the tournament, Kansas City Stadium) presents a unique advantage in that regard. Stapleton noted that the stadium's bowl design allows crowd noise to rise naturally through the venue, creating excellent opportunities to capture clean audience reaction.

A Mix That Tells a Story
For Stapleton, however, the technical design is only part of the equation. His approach to mixing is rooted in storytelling. Rather than simply balancing levels, he actively follows the action around the field, searching for sounds that draw viewers deeper into the match. The crowd remains a constant emotional foundation while individual moments are allowed to breathe naturally. "You're telling a story," he said.

Goals are allowed to build organically rather than exaggerated artificially. As the action moves around the field, microphones mounted on handheld cameras, Steadicams and other mobile systems help bring viewers closer to the moments they are seeing on screen. There is even a microphone mounted on the referee, though it is only used during specific review situations.

The Lionel Messi hat trick in Kansas City was a perfect example. “The reaction inside the stadium was immediate and overwhelming,” Stapleton said. Moments like that are exactly why so much effort is placed on crowd capture. The goal isn't simply to hear the reaction; it's to transport viewers into the stadium and allow them to experience the emotion of the moment alongside the fans in attendance.

The technology behind those moments may be sophisticated, but for many of the visiting engineers, the most memorable part of the World Cup has been adapting to life in the United States.

For Felix Harris, an HBS A2 from London with extensive Premier League and Club World Cup experience, the technical approach feels familiar, just on a larger scale. American stadiums, compounds, and travel distances are noticeably bigger than what he's accustomed to in the U.K.

"It's really tomato-tomah-to as far as nomenclature goes," Harris said. "But it's definitely a bit more." A lot more.

Andrew Lilley, another U.K.-based HBS A2, pointed to one practical difference: U.K. vehicle-length restrictions limit how much equipment can fit in a mobile unit. American trucks simply have more room, allowing for larger technical footprints and expanded microphone deployments. “A good tech sheet keeps everyone on the same page,” Lilley said.

Teamwork Comes Quickly
While terminology and workflows may vary, crews quickly find common ground. According to Stapleton, the real key to building a successful crew has nothing to do with technology.

“The first few days are essential,” he said. Crews learn each other’s strengths. They figure out how people communicate. They discover who works best in which roles. Shared meals, a drink after work and long production days help transform a group of strangers into a functioning team. “You spend so much time together that you become a family.”

Harris described the welcome from U.S. crews as warm and accommodating. Lilley joked about adjusting to the food, the lack of public transportation and a level of humidity that felt different from anything he experiences at home. “You do not do green vegetables in the States,” he joked. “And everything is on a bun.”

Stapleton has been impressed by Kansas City itself. “The best part is the locals,” he said. "Everyone has been friendly and willing to help.”

By kickoff, the terminology has been sorted out. The accents have become familiar. The workflows have aligned. Engineers who arrived from different continents are now focused on a single objective, helping billions of viewers feel connected to a match happening thousands of miles away.

Shared meals, long production days and countless hours spent solving problems together have transformed a group of strangers into a crew. The microphones, trucks and technology make that possible. The people make it memorable.

Together, they create the sound of the World Cup.

I like to watch the beginning of big sporting events and was looking forward to hearing and seeing the band The War and Treaty sing the Star-Spangled Banner on “Monday Night Football” back in November.

The sound started out bad and, surprisingly, never got better during the entire performance. Clue one: Basic troubleshooting. Two singers were on wireless microphones, accompanied by an acoustic guitar—direct—three faders. Each channel was distorted and the balance between the sound elements never changed.

Before submitting this article and blaming the “MNF” crew, I decided to check out YouTube, where The Sports Video Channel was credited, not “Monday Night Football.” I am glad I did, because I was shocked—this certainly was not the same mix I heard live on my ABC affiliate.

What happened and who is really listening?

I can only ask, what was the mixer listening to? What was master control listening to? It reminds me of a favorite saying from the late, great television producer Fred Rheinstein: “Are we doing the same show?” What are you listening to?

Staying in Phase
In the early days of stereo sound over analog copper wire, it was not uncommon for the left and right channels to get out of phase. Often, this would occur in transmission, clearly beyond the event mixer’s control. It became common to send a “split track” of the announcers on the left channel and the other sounds on the right channel, with the two-channel (stereo) mix taking place back at master control. That worked, but I never thought it sounded very good, especially when you used an Orban stereo synthesizer to create stereo—“phase-y” stereo at best.

Surround sound was a nightmare with the widespread use of Dolby Pro Logic, an analog synthesis of surround sound delivered over two analog audio channels. If you had the decoder, then you could decode the surround, but if you didn’t, you had what was dubbed “super stereo”—once again, phase-y-sounding stereo. Dolby Surround was problematic until digital transmission and the first set of ATSC standards.

As a very green sports location sound mixer, I quickly learned to listen to and monitor the output of the OB van and as many other places as possible. There could be several processing or signal-splitting stages before the sound leaves the truck, and a problem could easily happen at a spot where you may not be listening.

After the audio program leaves the audio production space, further processing may happen somewhere in the audio signal flow. Isn’t someone listening to the sound? I remember the story about a master control technician who told the field mixer, “the meters looked fine there.” Who is listening to the sound?

But the question still lingers on how can the audio mixer produce sound for the masses when the consumer listens on earbuds, TV speakers, and sound bars? Not to mention the sound may be listened to in stereo, surround and even immersive by a few. How about language? Language intelligibility has plagued the broadcast sound mixer since advancing from mono to stereo. In mono, there is no gimmick like a “phantom center” that could disappear when the left and right channels are out of phase.

Immersive Challenges
Surround sound was difficult for the sound mixer because there were four channels of event sound and music and only one channel for dialogue. Compounding the mixing challenge is speaker alignment and placement, and often the surround speakers are too close to the mixer. Significantly, if the center speaker is too close it can give the sonic impression that the voices are too loud, resulting in the mixer turning the voices down and making them hard to hear.

With immersive sound the problems are further complicated by the fact that you have just added four overhead speakers. Now you have between eight and 10 effect and music speakers and still just one voice channel.

Part of the problem is how we define channels and how we mix them. I do not see any reason to not put voice in the left and right channels or in the front immersive channel, in addition to the center channel. You might argue that true reproduction in the home may be off, but then consider how sound bars project the sound. Who are you mixing for?

Mixing audio beyond stereo is arduous because of speakers and speaker placement, but significantly because of the acoustic mix space. World Cup soccer is hosted in multiple locations with different equipment and mix spaces making a cohesive consistent sound challenging.

Beginning in 2010, Felix Kruckles and Christian Gobbel of HBS (Host Broadcast Services) devised a signal flow and schedule where all the World Cup matches were produced in stereo in the venue and stems were sent to the International Broadcast Center. Then, a surround or immersive sound overlay was blended and mixed in a proper mixing room. All matches were mixed in the same audio mix studio—that is consistency! Felix and Christian were listening.

Who is listening? The misuse of compression is at an all-time high, and I would bet that it did not sound like that in the audio room. When there were only a couple of channels of compression, compression was tricky. Now virtually every audio channel and signal path has compression available, and maybe that is the problem—the compression is cumulative over the signal flow. I hear overcompression every time I turn on the TV. I bet it has to do with meeting the loudness numbers required by law!

Who is really listening? Maybe quality control is the best use of AI. You could program a gazillion qualitative and quantitative factors into a “QC bot” and it could “steer” the mix with some DSP into perfection so we can all listen in high fidelity.

The real question is, what did I really hear? I know I am not crazy! Yet.

If you’ve ever done single-camera production work, you already know how important lighting is. Taken together, lighting and camera skills comprise the foundation of visual storytelling. And, since you’re reading this column, you already know lighting is much more than just flooding an area with light.

While lighting someone for a one-camera shoot is relatively straightforward, the degree of complexity increases as more cameras and angles are added. As with juggling, the more balls you’ve got in the air, the trickier it gets. To help simplify the task, we’ll look at a method for dealing with this challenge that doesn’t sacrifice portrait-quality lighting.

To narrow the scope of this topic, we’re only concerned with multicamera television shows. Cinema and episodic television lighting is very different from what we generally do. For starters, cinematic production uses “motivated lighting” as warranted by the story.

As visually stunning as that can be, it’s something rarely used on a news or talk show. Instead, we more commonly work with something best described as “nonmotivated lighting.” Motivated light originates from “natural” or “practical” light sources consistent with the filmed scene, whereas nonmotivated light originates from anywhere that suits our needs.

Storytelling With Light
Our objective is to present on-camera talent in the best light possible, letting them, rather than the light, tell the story. The goal is to provide attractive lighting that supports a well-exposed camera image. When done right, people look good and the video engineer doesn’t have to chase the iris setting when the shot changes.

Lighting one person for a single camera angle isn’t complicated. The well-known “three-point lighting” method serves as a good starting point for attractive portrait lighting. This technique forms the fundamental building block for television lighting.

But the pillars of three-point lighting can get a little shaky when the number of cameras increases. An example of this would be adding a second angle to cover an anchor camera turn during a long read or an alternate shot with a graphic. The solution is not to just repeat the three-point pattern like a cookie cutter for each additional angle. This is where we need to adapt the fundamental building blocks of lighting to better suit our needs.

For any particular shot, there’s always a perfect key-light position. The problem arises when two camera angles on the same talent position must look equally good without further adjustment. Fortunately, there’s a way to accommodate this without sacrificing good lighting.

Before we discuss this approach, let’s cover some solutions that seem attractive, but don’t work as well.

It’s a fairly common practice to place the key light directly over the camera, so why not just add a second key over the second camera? That approach doesn’t work here, because both cameras would see the second key light. This would result in a confusion of shadows on the anchor’s face, rather than a single modeling shadow. So, “no” to a second key light.

Another possible solution is to flood the set with a mush of shadowless soft light. Although this “forgiving” approach would illuminate the subject for multiple camera angles, its very flatness makes everything look two-dimensional and, frankly, dull. So, another “no.”

Yet another possible approach involves using separate key lights that are alternately faded between as the anchor turns from one to the other camera. This is tricky and requires a lighting console operator working in perfect coordination with the camera shot change. This is notoriously difficult to pull off without detection and best avoided.

Split the Difference
I suggest using the following simple solution to key-lighting an anchor with two cameras. Split the difference by placing a single key light between the two camera positions.

Normally, “split the difference” implies a compromise. In this case, it’s not. That slight offset of the key light helps provide beautiful modeling. Back when I was drafting lighting plots by hand, I would use a protractor to help guide light placement. As is the case here, challenging lighting problems often yield to simple geometry.

Although some TV lighting designers opt for putting their key lights right over the camera (which is a zero-degree offset), my preference is for a side/horizontal offset somewhere between 10 and 20 degrees.

As you can see in Fig. 1, the two camera shots are relatively close to each other (roughly 28 degrees apart) with the key light placed precisely between the two cameras. That puts the key light at a 14 degree offset from both shot angles. This results in a good modeling shadow for both camera angles and makes visual sense on the shot change between them. And since only one key light is involved, as shown from behind the anchor in Fig. 2, the modeling remains consistent with no confusion of multiple shadows.

As for how steep the key light should be, there are multiple factors to take into account. Consider how the light angles will impact facial features (such as deep-set eyes), reflections of light fixtures in video displays and LED walls, or light washing out backlit scenic elements. These can sometimes present conflicting goals, influencing the lighting choices that must be made with every fixture placement decision.

According to one very successful master of network television event lighting, the ideal vertical angle is 22.5 degrees. That turns out to be exactly half of 45 degrees, which isn’t a coincidence.

There was a time when 45 degrees (both above and to the side of the subject) was considered the ideal lighting angle. But the industry and tastes have changed since Stanley McCandless first suggested his method of stage lighting. Contemporary tastes in this age of screens lean towards less acute light angles for their more forgiving impact on close-up shots. And in our corner of the visual arts, it’s important to keep the drama off of the faces.

A few techniques that inform lighting remain timeless today. We still use the Renaissance painters’ invention of “chiaroscuro” to create a sense of depth. Where they used paint, we use light, and those highlights and shadows are determined by where we place the key light.

There are a number of important steps to be taken before your organization moves full speed into the cloud. For example, senior leadership should aggressively focus on the company’s data-management principles, including analytics and security, in concert with how they approach their digital transformation goals.

Modernizing and optimizing your organization’s data management requires going beyond the basics of analytics and security. Criteria for selecting a cloud service provider should be created much as a project leader or project manager would do when structuring a series of steps to achieve success in any new project or endeavor.

First on the agenda should be setting and understanding the business needs of the organization. Are you a small business with 50 or fewer employees? If the organization is at a level of 250 workers or more, it would be considered an “enterprise” business and by now likely already has a serious infrastructure level as it relates to networking, internetworking, financial planning and structure, legal, technology and other mainstream solutions consistent with businesses of this scale.

Services and Solutions
Depending on the scale of the enterprise (or small business), you should thoroughly itemize and lay out how your current or future approach to IT support will be structured, as this is one area that will shift into cloud harmony as a solution provider is selected. Services should include managed and/or co-managed support and a help-desk solution to support employees’ desktops and remote workstation (or mobile) environments. On-site, automated or remote support levels should be defined. An ongoing IT “health check” and cost management/containment platform should be outlined for presentation to a cloud provider or solution’s management resource.

Solutions that should be evaluated when looking at a cloud support and services platform involve the requirements (or not) for a security operations center, how to routinely use and apply concepts such as “penetration testing,” cyber awareness training, managed detection and response (MDR) services, extended detection and response (XDR) services and compliance as a service (CaaS), and include a “cyber risk assessment.”

Other deeper practices that may be available through a cloud service provider could include vulnerability management; identity and access management; mobile-device management; monitoring of dark web and credentials security (Fig. 1); password protection and malware download protection; advanced email protection and monitoring; cloud application (APP) security and firewall as a service (FaaS); SaaS protections; and cyber essentials service through a certification program.

Protection Practices
Cyber essentials certification procedures vary depending on the country, region or locale in which those practices are governed or offered. The scheme is a set of fundamental security measures designed to produce a robust foundation for protecting your organization’s sensitive data and systems.

Key areas of cybersecurity include the implementation of (a) boundary firewalls and internet gateways; (b) security practices and configuration; (c) access control (e.g., “ACLs”); (d) malware protection; and (e) software and application patch management.

When looking at cloud service providers, inquire how or if they offer extensions for any of the above practices (in items a-e) and how they address them.

Broadcast Essentials in Connectivity
Fast and secure access to cloud and data center applications are essential to the organization, regardless of user location. For broadcasters, this became most relevant during the initial stages of the pandemic, when central equipment operations shifted to remote functionality.

Today, an ongoing common challenge is achieving centralized management of multiple locations, including branch offices. For media systems (broadcast news and production), high-speed, reliable bandwidth is necessary for voice, video, data and control/management of data centers and production centers. Support for unified communications has become essential, unlike what news broadcast requirements needed even long before the pandemic.

SD-WAN (Fig. 2) offers a relevant solution that optimizes WAN connectivity with centralized manageability at a fraction of the cost of WAN-only dedicated connectivity. Check that a potential cloud solution provider can support systems such as SD-WAN and where the limitations are.

Service Level Agreements
Check if your candidate cloud provider has service level agreements (SLAs) in place before signing up.

A good cloud service provider will have considered such critical SLA components of a contract and will already have them in place. The contract should define (a) the level of service you can expect; (b) the uptime guarantees; and (c) compensation for service disruptions.

The contract can be refined to include response times and compensation policies in case something goes wrong. An SLA should outline measurable performance benchmarks and should detail response times for support requests and service restoration timelines.

How a provider manages downtime is a metric of how it manages planned maintenance and unplanned outages. Communication protocols and informant timelines related to planned or unplanned service disruptions should be included in any cloud service provider contract.

Administrative Support
Get a checklist that states how the provider deals with (a) performance reporting; (b) resource monitoring; (c) configuration management procedures; (d) and billing or accounting management—each is an important item to check and understand. A provider who cannot address these items to your satisfaction is not the provider for you.

Decision Keys
In summary, the following are key takeaways that should be considered to make an informed decision:

(a) Security and Compliance: Itemize, review and understand that the provider will offer and support a set of robust security measures and that the cloud services will comply with relevant regulations. If you are expecting to work across clouds or international borders, be sure your provider will meet those regulations and report accordingly.

(b) Service Offerings: Evaluate each potential provider and its supported solutions. Ensure the selected provider will offer the services and technical capabilities that support your business needs. If using live A/V solutions, test and be certain the codecs you need are supported and that the data rates meet the needs of your services under heavy loads.

(c) Flexibility and Scalability: Suggest, assess and have the provider demonstrate how they allow you to scale resources as needed. Do they offer customizable solutions? How do they work? How do you assess feasibility and fluidity?

(d) Evaluate the Provider’s Pricing Models: Look at current costs, review expansion costs and look at any penalties and/or costs you will pay to make changes. Model any expected adjustments in advance of signing any contract to best understand the current and future pricing and cost models to avoid unexpected expenses.

(e) Preview SLAs and Reliability: Determine if the provider can offer reliable service with clear SLAs that you understand. Check the extreme ends of your usages (loads, data rates, peak demand) and understand how “overages” impact your cost model—where applicable.

Using Consultants
Cloud consulting services are often available from various companies throughout the industry in which you engage. Most will start with a comprehensive cloud assessment that will present a thorough evaluation of your current needs, available technologies and suggest (or provide) the best cloud-based solution for your business.

Often these are fee-based services that can offer additional services—where desired—such as end-user monitoring and integration, and that will be there on a contract basis to support operations from installation through deployment and turn-up on your system.

Look for a third-party consulting or provisioning organization that specializes in your business’ operational needs (e.g., media operations, streaming, news, production).

Immersive sound is the final journey to the complete auditory experience. Stereo began that journey with the ability to reproduce sounds that would align more with our hearing, but at the onset, audio practitioners seemed to define stereo as two channels of monophonic sound.

I will always remember my first records that separated the instruments into one channel or the other—this did not work for television. When you saw music on television, the instruments were not separated into left or right, but more of a mix in the middle. This may have been because early mixing decks did not have panorama controls.

The Problem With Surround Sound
Once audio technicians ventured into two channels of sound, the problems began immediately with phasing and even to the extreme of phase cancellation. With surround sound, this became even more problematic. Stereo and surround sound cracked the door open for the complete auditory experience, while the next step, immersive sound, blew the door off its hinges with creative possibilities while solving many technical issues.

For the audio producer/broadcaster, immersive sound adds an upper layer of sound over the basic surround-sound bottom layer. Technically, when you propagate the upper channels with sound, you have immersive sound.

Immersive sound is easy to produce—begin with atmospheric enhancements so the listener further believes the “being there” experience. The ambience at sports venues is fairly homogenous and omnidirectional, particularly in the upper stratus, so to capture a stable immersive sound base will require a minimum of four microphones spaced some distance apart and some distance from the source.

There is much discussion of the separation of “spaced pairs” of microphones. I happen to like a widely spaced group of microphones because I like a broad sense of dimension—my experience has been that precise placement is not absolute in sports.

With immersive sound, you do not want to over-mix the ambiance/atmosphere into the lower channel—use all of your channels to separate your sound elements and be careful not to drown out the commentators or other voices with ambiance and atmosphere.

Evolving Sounds of the Game
Immersive sound will evolve as the practitioners and producers gain knowledge and experience. There are sports that are covered with the athlete in full frame from head to toe, which lends itself to specific sounds in the upper front channels. For example with basketball, the net microphones can be placed in the upper front channels, giving a natural soundscape, because the listener does expect that the sound of the basket and net are above their head.

It is often assumed that if you cannot properly hear the sound field, you cannot properly control the sound field. This is partially true, but consider that somewhere in a quality-control or transmission room the entire immersive sound field should be verified, but for simple atmospheric enhancement visual metering is a valuable asset to the mixer.

Critical listening of a transmission mix may dictate your level of sophistication in the immersive mix. For example, basic atmospheric enhancements can be metered and monitored in a QC listening room with a soundbar to determine proper levels of sound and balance to the immersive sound encoder.

In a space without overhead speakers, you can hang a couple of overhead speakers or—depending on budgets and time—a temporary immersive mix area can be assembled for the event. Specifically, any event where “flight pack” equipment is set up, you should be able to configure speakers to accommodate Immersive Sound production.

Digital Advances
Immersive sound was not possible before digitized audio. Additionally, digitizing the audio and video signal solved the problem of transporting the broadcast signal to the consumer. The introduction of ATSC 3.0 audio standards for immersive sound with Dolby Atmos and its competitor, Fraunhofer’s MPEG-H, along with the proliferation of modestly priced encoding “black boxes” like the Liner Acoustics brands, has allowed for immersive sound to be encoded on virtually every electronic entertainment production.

Dolby Atmos and MPEG-H decode immersive sound into the home over speakers, soundbars and ear devices and either codec is capable of decoding virtually any listening configuration—not only immersive but surround and stereo, solving the decades-long concern over “the down mix.”

Entertainment formats and technologies are consumer-driven—no matter how cool the industry thinks a format is, the consumer may think otherwise. The problem for multichannel sound has always been delivering the experience to the home. The early analog “matrixes” from Dolby sounded mediocre at best, but opened ears to the possibilities of the enhanced audio experience.

Fast-forward to today and soundbars with audio decoders are the “go to” audio device for the home consumer. The consumer/listener can tell the difference with even the most basic of sound reproduction devices, and enhanced sound clearly stands out with virtually all content—drama, music, variety and sports. Finally, soundbars are significantly easier to install and set up; ask my mom.

My advice has always been, it is never going to be perfect! It only needs to be entertaining and immersive sound is entertaining.

Designing transmitter sites for sustainability can be a challenge. This month, I’ll offer some tips on items to consider when upgrading old transmission facilities or building new ones.

Today’s solid-state transmitters using LDMOS (laterally-diffused metal-oxide semiconductor) devices and Doherty amplification are more efficient than yesterday’s tube transmitters. However, at many stations that gain in efficiency has been offset by the need to put more radio frequency (RF) signal in the air to reach indoor antennas.

In most urban and suburban areas, it is unusual to see outdoor TV antennas. Reaching indoor antennas and antennas in attics requires more power. Adding vertical polarization takes additional power—up to 100% more power for circular polarization.

Antenna and Line Efficiency
There are a few ways to reduce the required transmitter power. One is to use a higher-gain antenna; that, however, increases antenna size and directivity. Increasing elevation gain results in a narrower beamwidth that will reduce signal strength in some areas. Even if a narrow elevation pattern and its electrical and mechanical beam tilt are optimized for the coverage area and terrain, if the tower or antenna flexes, that pattern will shift.

Distant viewers in the direction of the tilt may lose the signal. One thing I discovered early in my career was that having some power at higher elevation angles is important in areas with mountains, as the signal will diffract over the edge of the mountain to the area behind it only if there is sufficient power hitting the top of the mountain.

Rather than compromise on the elevation pattern, it may make sense to look at the azimuth pattern to determine if a higher-gain, more-directional pattern will reach the population centers. Consider where population growth is occurring: Revisiting areas around Orlando, Fla., this month, I saw new subdivisions full of houses in areas that were vacant land when I was doing measurements there two years ago.

Assuming we don’t want to give up elliptical polarization or a wider elevation pattern and can’t sacrifice coverage in some areas with a more directional azimuth pattern, is there anything else we can do to reduce the transmitter power required?

Another option is to improve the efficiency of the transmission line. This will have little impact on short towers but at Channel 30 with a 2,000-foot line, the difference is significant. A 6 1/8-inch, 50-ohm line will require 88.6 kW of transmitter power into the line to have 50 kW at the antenna, compared with 79.2 kW for a 7 3/16-inch, 75-ohm line. In addition to power savings, the lower power may allow use of a smaller transmitter, offsetting some of the cost of the larger line.

Transmitter Efficiency
When comparing transmitter efficiency, is the quoted efficiency for the amplifier alone, the entire transmitter or the transmitter and cooling systems? All components should be considered.

To achieve maximum efficiency, transmitters use adaptive pre-correction to obtain more power from an amplifier with less DC input power. As efficiency increases, the amplifier will generate more distortion and the output signal’s signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) will increase, even with pr-correction in the exciter.

If transmitter power consumption is a concern, consider allowing worse SNR. In the past, an SNR of 27 decibels was considered the minimum acceptable level. With today’s transmitters, an SNR of over 30 decibels is easy to obtain. Poor SNR will impact coverage, but once the ratio is in the mid-30-dB range, any additional improvement in SNR will have little if any impact on coverage and may not be worth the increase in power consumption.

A chart from a Rohde & Schwarz report (Fig. 1) shows the impact in dB and power on modulation error ratio (MER), which is related to SNR. The paper refers to COFDM (coded orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing) but results will be similar with 8-VSB (vestigial sideband modulation). The “falloff level” is the required receiver threshold, so 16 dB above a 15-dB “falloff level” matches a 31 dB MER.

High-power, solid-state transmitters require many amplifiers and these require combiners, which require reject loads. How these loads are cooled will affect transmitter efficiency. Normally, there is no power into the load, but if an amplifier fails, the load must be able to handle the reject power immediately without burning up.

Spinner and Dielectric sell loads are designed to operate with minimal cooling power until RF is applied. If liquid cooling is used for the load, the heat exchanger can be placed outside, reducing heat in the building when the load is in use. Air-cooled loads with thermostats to control the cooling fans require no power when there is no RF into the load, but will add heat to the building when in use.

How much heat does the transmitter generate and where does it go? Some transmitters use liquid-cooled power supplies, so the heat goes outside. Others use air-cooled power supplies that put heat into the transmitter room and add fan noise.

Beyond Efficiency
Besides efficiency, sustainability includes environmental impact. Many transmitter sites were designed with an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) using a large string of lead-acid batteries to keep the equipment in the transmitter facility running in the event of a loss of utility power until the generator starts, usually 15-45 seconds. That was important with tube transmitters, as it could take 15 minutes for an amplifier to warm up after a power loss.

Today, if utility power is stable and the transmitter is solid state, consider whether a full-sized UPS is needed. If it is only required for outages, having a smaller UPS connected only to the equipment that requires time to start up after a power outage, like computers and the transmitter exciters, may be sufficient. The solid-state amplifiers will return in seconds after power is restored.

If power is unstable, prone to brownouts or frequent dropouts, a flywheel UPS may make more sense than a battery-based UPS. Though noisier, it requires less maintenance and no hazardous material is involved. Lithium batteries are more compact and last longer than lead-acid batteries, but may not be suitable for locations where fire is a possibility.

What about a solar-powered transmitter site? I could see this working for LPTV or translator sites. While it would be difficult to find space for a sufficient number of panels for a high-power transmitter at most mountaintop or building sites, it could be an option for owners of sites with large guyed towers with lots of land under the tower. It probably wouldn’t work in areas with snow or lots of cloudy days and, if not grid-tied, the solar power capacity and battery storage would have to be designed for the worst-case scenario.

Television operations and production is a team effort where clear communication between all members is critical. Communicating a camera angle, inserting a graphic or counting into a video replay all require clear, uncluttered, undistorted communications between producers, directors, operators and technicians.

When I started working in television/outside broadcast, I used to think the most important job of audio was to get on-air and mix a good sounding show. I learned quickly that intercoms were probably the most important aspect of audio’s job. You can lose a camera, crash a recording machine and even up-cut a commentary microphone, but if you lose the producer’s or director’s microphone you are probably screwed—believe me I know.

Intercom Etiquette
Television communications evolved from readily available telephone technology and even into the 1980s broadcast communication systems were a basic telephone “party line” configuration. The director’s camera conference would be where all the camera operators communicate on a single channel. Even a communications channel was often called a “P.L.,” which is shorthand for private line or party line.

In those days, the CBS OB van had only three basic channels of party-line communications—the director’s channel, the producer’s channel and an engineering channel. Additionally, there was the ever-present director and producer “hot mic,” which was heard throughout the OB van over open speakers so that if you were not on the director’s headset channel everyone could hear the director or producer over their hot microphone.

The 1980s began a period of improvements as the needs of broadcasters became defined and refined. Initial six-channel modular intercom systems were a lot like the analog days of telephones with delays and echoes that inhibited clear communications. 

Equipment manufacturers were quick to adopt the latest telecommunications technology and next came various schemes of analog multiplexing where the systems evolved with increased channel counts along with programing flexibility. As with most things electronic, the final transition to digital solved most of the inherent deficiencies in an analog system.

I admit that there were some advantages to only having a few channels of communications, but the downside is that chaos can quickly ensue when someone gets “wound-up” and starts yelling over people on the same channel. Intercom etiquette not only includes polite interaction, but quick conversation. 

My good friend and fellow mixer/A1 Pete Addams preached the concept of “word economization” when talking on intercom systems. You don’t need a chapter’s worth of information when only a sentence or a word will do. The infamous producer Don Ohlymeyer only needed one channel of communications and had the quietest communications of any live network production I witnessed. It was simple—the general rule was that everybody listened to Don and spoke only when spoken to. I miss Don!

Current communication systems have almost unlimited channels permitting abundant programing possibilities without worrying about limitations on channel capacity. Digital communications systems can easily be programmed for “party lines” or a “point-to-point” individualized channel. In addition to channel flexibility, digital intercoms have become incredibly sophisticated with programming that makes possible such things as splitting the left and right ears between different channels and being able to blend selectable channels together in each ear. 

These communication tweaks are a tremendous benefit in a complex and hectic broadcast production world and personalized communications will endear you to most directors, producers and operators.

The Dark Side
As necessary as intercoms are, there is a dark side to them. There seems to be a shield of anonymity when some people put on a headset. I remember being told by a three-lettered network that I had “thin skin.” The shield/excuse often was called “in the heat of the moment, or it was nothing personal.” Well, some of it I took personal and so did some of my colleagues. What has been excused as “locker-room talk” is not excusable over the headset.

Remember, a headset is a microphone and a speaker and in the broadcast world there are many remote intercom stations that also have built-in speakers—and from my years of experience there was loose chatter that could be considered offensive, rude and down-right hateful. Before the HR and legal departments interceded, outside broadcasting had become wild and wooly, and the intercoms were the undoing of several on-camera talent and a few directors and producers.

Intercoms are often viewed as mundane and a necessary evil, but I contend that intercoms should be viewed as the backbone of a broadcast production and essential. A director will remember you if they had intercom problems before they would ever remember if you had a great mix! 

As production gradually resumes, the requirement for teams to work “together apart” will remain fundamental and not just for the immediate future. Beyond short-term social distancing, the pandemic will permanently shift workflows away from centralized organization to the flexible aggregation of resources and talent located anywhere in the globe.

The enforced experiment that the entire creative industries sector has taken part in has led to a revelation about how remote distributed workflows are perceived, with long lasting impact on business culture and economics.

WHAT HAPPENS NOW/NEXT?

“There will be positive consequences resulting from production lockdown,” contends Chuck Parker, CEO at Sohonet. “Chief among these will be an enlightened attitude in Hollywood and beyond to the practicality and benefits of a distributed content-production workforce.”

Michele Sciolette, Cinesite Group CTO, says, “The one aspect that will be a permanent and critical change is the clear understanding that remote VFX and feature animation production is possible.”

For a lot of people in the industry, he adds, this was not an obvious assumption. “But today we know, with a direct first-hand experience, that remote production is possible while maintaining a high level of productivity.”

Filmmaker Hasraf Dulull ("The Beyond") is just as blunt: “It’s taken a pandemic to open the eyes of those not convinced about remote working. Our collective experience will change way we work forever.”

Media tech analyst Futuresource Consulting thinks it unlikely we will see an overnight revolution in the adoption of cloud-based and IP workflows, but agrees that the enforced experience will undoubtedly have altered attitudes and help to further accelerate the tech’s ongoing adoption. “In the context of coronavirus, the definition of ‘remote production’ has fundamentally changed,” explains analyst Chris Evans.

PLUS: Spectrum Newsrooms Go Remote With Virtual Desktop, High Speed Network

Previously, it was typically used in reference to the remote integration model (REMI) workflow, a means to take audio and video signals from a venue to a production gallery off-site enabling crew to perform operations from different geographies. Now, throughout the content supply chain, companies have been mobilized to create working practices that not only involve virtualization, but where possible, can allow every individual to work remotely.

In the mid- to long-term, Futuresource expects to see more interest in larger facilities that are built with distributed architectures that can support this style of working. This, it says, will result in the consolidation of equipment to serve a potentially more fragmented workforce across more locations.

“The design of new facilities will take into consideration how dependent they are on on-premise operation and the level of contingency that is built in to allow complete remote operation if needed,” says Evans.

INTO THE CLOUD

VPN and cloud remote workflow solutions have been available for several years. Most people pre-COVID-19 were still working inside of brick-and-mortar facilities at workstations leveraging a local storage network.

“COVID-19 has forced everyone to explore remote technology options and they’ve seen that it does enable reliable workflows at low latency so much so that many would have a hard time telling the difference [between SAN and cloud/VPN],” says Ray Thompson, director of market solutions, broadcast and media, Avid. Avid’s own Edit on Demand cloud-based service running on Azure has “exploded” in demand since the beginning of the outbreak.

“Beyond the benefit of spinning up resources in the cloud and spinning down when the project’s over there are a host of other advantages from a collaboration and operational standpoint that we’ve never truly had a chance to prove until now,” Thompson says.

The option to spin up an environment to fit the requirements of a particular project and then reconfigure it for the next project could be a game changer.

“The short-term nature of many projects—a pilot or one-time event—add to the desirability of being able to quickly turn on and then turn off the whole production environment without having to make any capital investment,” agrees Stephen Tallamy, CTO, EditShare.

Such virtualization fits a wider trend that will see the physical aspect of production fade into the infrastructure.

“In the same way that we don’t have to go to a specific clock to tell the time, we won’t have to go to a specific place for postproduction,” Tallamy says. “We’ll still have our favorite tools available to us, but they’ll run virtually, somewhere: smoothly and productively.

"If the experience of work is as good wherever you are, then, if you can avoid wasted hours commuting, then this way of working is practically inevitable. It will probably be faster and more productive, too.”

THE REALITIES OF WFH

There are mixed reports on quite how successful working from home has been. There’s relief that many workflows have been successfully transplanted from office to home, but dig deeper and there are crunch issues yet to be solved.

Pre-COVID, 46% of the VFX industry revealed they did not have a work-from-home policy or technology in place, according to research by U.K. VFX reseller Escape Technology. However, over half of the same respondents said they could now sustain remote working for eight months to a year, showcasing how quickly such methods have been embraced from the top.

According to Sciolette, some staff at Cinesite—particularly from its support teams—clearly suggest that the lack of frequent interruptions has made them more productive from home.

“Simple day-to-day practices such as quickly checking somebody else’s monitor or reviewing shots together are possible in a remote environment but not as easy,” he says.

PLUS: CNBC's Coronavirus Setup Sprang from Careful Planning

Remote workstations inevitably mean a slight delay in interactivity combined with additional compression applied to the workstation output.

“Tasks that require a very fine level of interaction such as painting, sculpting are particularly affected,” Sciolette says. “In addition, editorial work with its need for frame accurate audio/video synchronization is harder than it would be directly sitting on the workstation. Final approvals of shots are also harder than it would be if we were sitting in our digital cinema.”

A remote collaboration tool like Evercast or Sohonet’s ClearView Flex can be used to invite colleagues to a secure live stream. You could perform a live edit session or review and approve in real-time with over the shoulder instruction like “back up two frames,” “cut this,” “tweak that,” as near as you would in a suite.

“KVM and remote desktop tools are an aid to access workstations offsite, but where these solutions fall short in terms of latency or image fidelity more sophisticated networking is required,” Evans says. “Working with uncompressed video, especially at high bitrates and resolutions also presents a challenge.”

It’s not unusual for colorists to take home their project on [Blackmagic Design DaVinci] Resolve or [Filmlight] Baselight, but the catch now is that “critical review” quality output is not yet possible from any cloud tool (though many industry players are working hard to solve this).

Restrictive home bandwidth and inability to tightly calibrate individual monitors make SDR color grade reviews tricky, let alone HDR passes.

“Personally, I like having all my team around me,” reports Steven Bodner, supervising colorist, Light Iron NYC. “I find it a lot easier to collaborate and get things done with my regular team in adjacent rooms. Right now, everything is a lot slower simply because every interaction requires a videoconference of phone call. I find it hard to see how anything I am doing now from home will be permanent.”

SECURING ASSETS

Security remains by far the main impediment to future remote working.

“Studios responded very quickly to the exceptional circumstances we faced by allowing our team to be remote as long as we met a few key criteria,” Sciolette explains. “As things return to normality, I hope that, as an industry, we will be able to establish some general guidelines for what a secure remote work setup is and continue to support it.  We now know it is possible. We need an industry wide effort to standardize on what is a long-term acceptable setup from a security standpoint.”

According to Katie Fellion, head of business development, Light Iron, it was security fears at studio level rather than technology issues that put the biggest brake on remote workflows pre-pandemic. “The risk was perceived too great to enable that sort of work but now the floodgates are open.

“The reasoning that we can’t work remotely because of security—well, those rules are torn up. Until the industry sees a large security breach, I think we will move increasingly toward opportunities for more global internet connected collaboration.”

None of this will eliminate the facility, stresses Fellion. “Some parts of the process are easier to do in a room when sitting next to somebody.”

Outside of a select number of directors, few creatives will have home theaters let alone ones spec'd to the highest picture levels. Audio mixing spaces simply don’t exist in home environments.

“The advantages of a cloud-based infrastructure will become more relevant in future if we have the flexibility to adopt a hybrid model where we can complement our local core team with additional team members working remotely,” Sciolette says. “In this case, a more dynamic cloud-based infrastructure would give us the flexibility to scale up for short time in order to meet peaks in our workload.”

The cost efficiencies and carbon savings of remote working will play into the need to reduce budgets for a financially traumatized industry. Approximately 30% of a film’s budget is associated with travel, according to Sohonet.

“Before COVID, remote collaboration was seen as a necessity for an overbooked director or the prerogative of a key creative to have review and approval dialed in to their location,” says Parker.

“Post-pandemic, it will become the norm for any member of production—from director and VFX supervisor to editor—to do more of their work together from where they live, reducing costs and improving speed and agility.”

Avid’s Thompson also predicts a more distributed production workforce resulting from lockdown. “People’s experience with cloud is that it is really solid and overwhelmingly positive. It will open up the ability for producers and post-producers to leverage talent that lives anywhere.”

Dulull remote produced animated sci-fi short “Battlesuit” in London with just two other crew during lockdown.

“People will realize that you can produce cine-quality animation without the need for huge studio spaces or large teams or expensive rendering,” he says.

“I can see a future where real-time filmmaking is going to unleash a wave of new and fresh stories that not only feel big but are full of imagination and ideas that were previously deemed too risky and expensive to do.”

THE VIRTUAL VIBE

Working remotely is all about flexibility. Being able to draw on talent wherever it is located gives productions flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances, from a world pandemic to a minor clash in production schedules.

“There is a global pool of talent that can help a production work around the clock if required, or bring an entirely different element of creativity born from rich local cultures,” says Tallamy. “Technology plays a key role in making that a reality, to make it seamless to share content between remote locations, avoiding conflicts in editing, to providing low latency streaming experiences that allow creatives just allow their work to flow naturally.”

He adds, “One thing we have not yet found a technology solution for is how to build a virtual ‘vibe’—that intangible benefit you get with people in the same room having the same experience in the same conditions.”

There will be some comfort in realizing that nothing will be this hard again. Even if another pandemic surfaces, there will be more robust business continuity workflows in place.

The technology and the artists working under lockdown are now battle hardened in trial and error. Going back to a “normal” but increasingly remote work environment with access to high bandwidth, professional grade on-premise tools and visiting tech support will seem like… a walk in the park.

This story originally appeared on TVT's sister publication Creative Planet Network.

There is little doubt that the migration to the next generation of video (UHD/HDR) and advanced multichannel audio is well underway. 4K television sets are cheap, bandwidth is cheap(er), soundbars were the hit of 2019 International CES and content producers are beginning to understand the production benefits of UHD production with advanced audio features.

It is a different climate today than a decade ago with the transition to HD. The consumer technology implementation and installation is well underway. I believe that content producers and owners are seeing UHD/HDR and immersive sound as a premium feature for premium content. Adoption will accelerate as more content—movies, sports, games and music—become available in an enhanced spatialized format.

I asked a group of interested content producers, sound designers and mixers about their view of the path forward for immersive sound for sports and entertainment content. They included Stacey Foster, coordinating producer at “Saturday Night Live;” Fred Aldous, senior sound designer and mixer for Fox Sports; Mike Rokosa, technology executive at National Hot Rod Association (NHRA); and Karl Malone, director of sound design for NBC Sports and Olympics. (My comments are in italics.)

I started the conversation with the question: How long will it be before we see widespread adoption of immersive sound?

Stacey Foster: Every time I go to CES, I get encouraged with all the new technology. I think consumers are embracing soundbars and I expect the majority of the markets to be able to experience UHD with immersive sound somewhere between three to five years. I do not think it should take longer than that. At “SNL” we have worked very hard to push the entertainment side of NBC. Premium content is worth something. We took a couple of episodes and remixed them in Atmos and I was absolutely stunned, it galvanized me.

Mike Rokosa: I heard a Dolby Atmos demonstration for soccer and that started a discussion... OK, you can put the PA up there, but what else? With ball sports you are probably not going to put ball sounds above, but it got me thinking and talking about it. I felt there was something there for NHRA but I didn’t know what it was yet. So we worked with Dolby Labs and we came up with some unique approaches to our sound.

The entire panel agreed that immersive sound design will be guided by the content. Fred Aldous was excited about the prospects of immersive sound for NASCAR, but reserved on field sports like football and baseball.

Fred Aldous: I think if you were able to add overhead sounds to the in-car mix, that would enhance the mix and be a great effect to consume the listener. With a stick and ball sport, adding the additional ambiance and separating sources away from the front can give the consumer a more in-stadium experience.

Karl Malone: The first thing we need amongst ourselves, in our own networks, is the buy-in from production. Having producers and executive producers listen to immersive mixes and be familiar with what they can bring to their productions is very important.

Fred Aldous: I applaud the past chairman of Fox Sports, David Hill, because he wanted to change the way people watched and listened to sports. He gave us the resources to excel. At Fox, the sound is a key component of the brand, part of its signature.

NBC Sports and entertainment has been active to find production and distribution solutions for premium content produced in UHD with immersive sound.

Karl Malone: NBC began testing production practices and workflow for immersive sound in 2016 and continued with the PyeongChang Winter Olympics, where the remote venue A1’s sent various individual 5.1 beds, submixes and objects from some of the big venues back to our Stamford headquarters where we mixed them live in Atmos. Having one A1 mix all the Atmos events helped in having a consistent and reliable mix.

We also examined and tested a single (standalone) event. Our goal with HDR/ Atmos with Notre Dame was a single stream production. One truck outputting HDR and SDR with 5.1 and 5.1.4 respectively. One A1 mixing a 10-channel mix. The HD feed with 5.1 went to 30 Rock for commercial integration and direct to air and the HDR and 10-channel mix went to Englewood Cliffs for commercial integration, encoding and to air on DirecTV.

We worked out of NEP’s ND6, which was retrofitted with four full ceiling speakers and DP590 monitoring equipment. The room was redesigned to Dolby spec and they came in and tested for acoustic accuracy. Front desk production listened in stereo.

Our 10-channel truck mix was sent PCM to Englewood Cliffs (EC), the NBC SportsNet Master Control where commercial advertising was upmixed to immersive, integrated to the broadcast and then encoded to Dolby Atmos there. NBC has advanced technology labs in EC with HDR and Atmos monitoring with both professional “reference” and home “sitting room” confidence monitoring possibilities. We were given very accurate verbal and visual feedback from the labs to ensure that what we were airing was what we were monitoring using the “scene” emulations that the Dolby DP590 would output.

Stacey Foster: Beginning with the 2019 fall season of “SNL,” we are planning to produce 4K in the studio (cameras and graphics) and the switcher will send out a 2K live show and later distribute UHD/HDR with Atmos audio to our digital platform. Every mix position on the show will be able to work in an Atmosenabled environment. We are also working with Lawo and Calrec to implement a 12-channel-wide mixing and monitor matrix plus some other features. The after life of the show is in many ways the most important life of the show. It is going to be taxing to record all the stems, the whole archival side of the show needs a rethink, so there is plenty of homework to be done.

An early adopter has clearly been Mike Rokosa and the NHRA, which has been producing immersive sound since the beginning of their 2018 season.

Mike Rokosa: We had a lot to figure out from OB operation and workflow to replays, transmission and archive. Game Creek, our OB partner, did the work to integrate the listening environment into the truck—specifically fitting the A and B unit with overhead monitoring speakers. We had to build sound scenes for the replay machine. As much as was done with the live mix, there was equal if not more work on replays, records and distribution.

With transmission, we are doing a 10 channel mix and folding it down to 5.1 to Fox—actually what we deliver to Fox is 16 channels: 5.1 and the 10 stems for the Atmos. Our intent is to get the transmission people used to checking in 16 channels of audio through distribution.

Karl Malone: Any retrofit for HDR should include an Atmos upgrade and any new 4K trucks should offer the same. I can’t imagine the leading broadcast networks with the biggest sports events offering anything less.

Mike Rokosa: The audio community is aware of immersive sound, some are toying with it, others like NHRA are doing it. I do not think it is a big reach to get there. We only added a couple of microphones to our regular compliment… the place where you pick up the sound hasn’t changed, but what do we do with that sound is how we make it more compelling.

Fred Aldous: I really do not think that producing it (immersive sound) is going to be the bottleneck.

UHD/HDR and immersive sound content is already available with cinematic and dramatic productions and I would expect more major events like the Olympics to continue and expand the technology exhibition. Clearly a Super Bowl or a World Series is around the corner, but I see content with a strong fan base like the NHRA as a major driver to get the distribution systems ready sooner than later.

After talking to my colleagues and listening to immersive sound material for several years, I see that UHD and immersive sound has the potential to be much more than just “bigger”—it’s the new frontier for content producers and presenters.

Since ATSC 3.0 is a voluntary standard, I expect that we will see the adoption and implementation rate vary between content producers and providers. Additionally, there are still outstanding technical commitments and decisions to make, but the technology and technical options are on the table and ready. Clearly compelling content will drive consumer interest.

For most of us, the migration to immersive sound is a process and I think a lot can be learned from my discussion with my esteemed colleagues. Here are the takeaways:

1) Get everyone bought in—from management to production.
2) Start the dialog about sound design, with everybody—producers, directors, audio designers and engineering—and the sound design will follow.
3) Figure out the workflow—real time, replays, storage and archives.
4) Practice—capture, create and refine.
5) Push to get the distribution in place.

Immersive sound technology is getting ready. Are you?

Dennis Baxter has spent over 30 years as a sound designer contributing to hundreds of live events including nine Olympics Games.

He is the author of “A Practical Guide to Television Sound Engineering,” published in both English and Chinese and is currently working on a book about immersive sound practices and production. He can be reached atdbaxter@dennisbaxtersound.com.

You might not have noticed, but… we’re losin’ a lot o’ sleep over pleasing a bunch o’ dentists. Sheesh.

We’ll get to the dentists in a minute; but first, a story.

It’s a red-letter day around our place when an actual, real, live visitor gets walked through the studios—over the years, the number of civilians eager to watch the sausage being made has plummeted like an outdated holiday panettone off a grocery shelf. And I’m sure the antisocial nature of the technical staff hasn’t helped; who wouldn’t thrill to a detailed explanation of the PSIP protocol by a gassy, coffee-stained engineer?

This visitor, though, was a bright, older fellow… an engineer in his own right, although not attuned to TV. As I led him through room after room of the aging and/or obsolete equipment we all use (if it’s not already obsolete, it will be soon), I was yappin’ about the standards and formats we’d spooled-up over time—SD, HD720, HD1080i, 1080p30, 4K, HDR…

“And 3D?” the visitor added.

I laughed out loud. “Oh, that 3D nonsense,” I grunted. “Lucky that never went anywhere…”

TURNING INWARD

Not accustomed to self-examination—there are few mirrors in Mario’s world—I nonetheless found myself pondering my own kneejerk reaction some hours later, after copious doses of limoncello lubricated the thought processes. OK, so 3D was an awkward, kluge-y attempt at a theatrical novelty act; but I felt that the issue was bigger—it was about the bandwidth.

Now, I’ve used this space several times before to rant incoherently about this dichotomy of small versus big, regarding formats, screens, bandwidth… you name it. But for technologists worried about the future of over-the-air (OTA) TV—and there ain’t nobody left except us these days—this is the burning question: How can you possibly keep pace with algebraic leaps in next-great-invention bitrates?

I know, we’ve got our 6G-SDI and our IP infrastructure; but how many more times will we be able to pull the HEVC rabbit out of the hat… tighten down that compression valve until the bitstream trickles like a shopping mall water fountain? Our elected officials are auctioning spectrum out from under us, which made OTA 3D an even crazier thought—tie up multiple broadcast channels just to watch the snake pop out of the peanut brittle can? At the same time, I’m willin’ to bet that the brain trust at Japan’s NHK Laboratories, aghast at a mere 8K resolution, is putting the finishing touches on OTA 16K transmission.

I don’t know about the rest of youse, but my bandwidth budget is in the red.

LOOK TO THE FUTURE

Let’s pause for a brief (and rare) engineer-pat-on-the-back moment: Even though our original technology has mighty long whiskers, we were able to catch up and meet the OTT whiz kids on their own turf. We learned to send some content via RF, and push other content via cable, mobile and IP platforms… yay, us!

Now, it’s time to take it up a notch, and do what the non-technical types love so much: look at the consumers—our viewers—and see what they really want and need. What’s the one thing we’ve got that the whiz kids don’t got? It’s those towers! We may hate ‘em, we may love ‘em, but they’re the essence of what we are as broadcasters. To use their new-speak jargon, we’re hyperlocal.

We live and work in the communities and regions we serve, and we’ve got boots on the ground. There’s value in that. And until the day our beloved Commish sells out and allows one or two giant corporations to own us all—and to feed content from a single playout server—we’re independent, and we’re diverse. Some of us drawl like rednecks, some have that Cali chill goin’, and others of us sound like a table read for a Sopranos episode (who you thinkin’ bout?). We’ve got texture… local color… and a viewpoint that people wanna hear. Why aren’t we cashing in on that?

And here’s something no one can argue with: our next-gen audience doesn’t seem to give a hoot about high-bitrate streams, HDR and 4K… most of them are content to squint at their wireless devices. Sixty-five-inch 4K screen for $2,000? That’s for the dentists! Back in the days when high-end audio equipment took off, the term “audiophile” was synonymous with “rich guy”—cash to spare. Dentists. Today, the bleeding-edge video gear and high-bitrate services play to the same audience.

As broadcasters, we’re saddled with a pretty skinny bitbudget; but that doesn’t figure into what we really do best. Armed with ATSC 3.0, more modest pricing on production gear, and a love of community, we can make limoncello from the lemons we’re dealt, and keep on pumpin’ our stories into the ether.

Mario Orazio can be reached attvtech@nbmedia.com.

The 600 MHz wireless spectrum auction has come and gone, taking some television stations off the air, forcing more than a thousand others to relocate, and causing repercussions that are starting to trickle all the way down to wireless device users. It was already apparent that owners of equipment operating in the auctioned spectrum would need to replace or reband their devices in order to avoid interfering with the mobile devices that will soon be operating there, but many were planning to put this off as long as possible.

With announcements coming from the auction winners of accelerated rollouts of 600 MHz mobile devices, there is no longer any time to waste. Wireless device issues are already on the increase as new devices are lit up and tested, with users puzzled as to why their previously fine wireless systems are suddenly giving them trouble. Though this has resulted in problems for wireless users, it has, perhaps inadvertently, created a place for engineers who can advise customers on their wireless issues, especially if they are able to perform wireless frequency coordination. Some of these calls have come my way, which caused me to take a fresh look at the problem and the newly available tools to help us deal with these issues.

INTERMODULATION DISTORTION

At its most basic, coordinating the frequencies of wireless devices is as simple as ensuring that all transmitters are operating on different fundamental frequencies, but of course, things are never that simple. Those fundamental frequencies have harmonics with enough strength through at least the fifth order that they can interfere with the frequencies of other nearby transmitters, resulting in intermodulation distortion. This typically manifests itself through popping or other unwanted noises that emanate from the receiver, usually at the worst possible time. 

[Read: FCC To Hone Wireless Mic Rules]

Calculating the harmonics of fundamental frequencies is easy, with the second harmonic double that of the fundamental, the third harmonic triple, and so on. For instance, a fundamental frequency of 626.200 MHz has a secondary of 1252.400 MHz (1.2524 GHz), and a third of 1876.600 MHz (1.8766 GHz). A single transmitter operating on its own in an area of clear spectrum will have no problem, but as soon as a second transmitter is powered up things get complicated, and the complexity increases with each transmitter added to the system. As soon as more than one transmitter is online we must determine whether the frequencies of each will interfere with the other, and the best way to do this is by using frequency coordination software made specifically for this purpose.

However, before we can coordinate the frequencies of the devices we know about, we need to figure out if other devices might also cause interference, a process done by performing a frequency scan of the area using an RF spectrum analyzer. These devices monitor and display RF spectrum activity over a specified frequency range. After running the scan, the analyzer generates a report which gets imported into the frequency coordination software along with the data from our known devices. 

Most frequency coordination software also includes the ability to pull in data for local television stations, which needs to be factored into the intermodulation calculations along with all the other data we’ve gathered. Once all the data is loaded, the software calculates any conflicts and suggests changes to the fundamental frequencies of the transmitters in order to get all the devices to play well together.

THE AUTO-SETUP OPTION

It is theoretically possible to eliminate almost all of this work by using the auto-setup features included with some wireless systems, since it polls the wireless spectrum and automatically assigns the best frequencies for all transmitters in the system. Unfortunately, auto-setup typically requires that all devices be from the same manufacturer and be banded in the same frequency range. Most real-world audio systems contain devices from multiple manufacturers with transmitters banded across multiple ranges. 

Building a system of wireless microphones, in ear monitors, and wireless intercom stations from a single manufacturer, that meets end user requirements, can problematic if not impossible. Still, auto-setup solutions are an excellent option for simple systems, or systems engineered this way from the outset, but most systems which have evolved over time are far more complicated than auto-setup can handle. Still, anyone who has decided that now is the time to replace their transmitters should consider new systems that are frequency-agile with the ability to manage frequency coordination without additional tools.

The good news for anyone given the task of wireless frequency coordination is that RF analyzers and coordination software tools are more widely available and affordable than ever before. RF analyzers now cost from tens of thousands down to hundreds of dollars and coordination software from hundreds to tens of dollars. The precision of the analyzers and comprehensiveness of the software is what sets them apart, with the more expensive options offering more features and generally making life easier by reducing the amount of work required.

Back when I worked for a large media company, our coordination work was done with a very high-end Anritsu analyzer coupled with the Intermodulation Analysis System (IAS) software from Professional Wireless. These days my toolset is far more modest, with an RF Explorer analyzer, Touchstone analyzer software for RF capture, and Shure Wireless Workbench software for coordination. Using Wireless Workbench with devices from other manufacturers is not a problem, but it requires building device profiles for those not included. The process itself is much as described earlier—connect the analyzer, gather RF data, pull all data into the coordination software, run the analysis, then make any necessary frequency changes to the transmitters. It doesn’t hurt to run another coordination once things are changed, just to double-check that everything is working without conflict.

While wireless coordination will most likely be needed for 600 MHz devices, it may also be necessary for 470–512 MHz devices if you happen to be in one of 11 large US metro areas, because that spectrum has been designated for public safety (T-Band) land mobile radio use.

Jay Yeary is a television engineer who specializes in audio. He is an AES Fellow and a member of SBE, SMPTE, and TAB. He can be contacted through TV Technology magazine or at transientaudiolabs.com.

Flash memory provides a needed level of storage performance for media and entertainment applications which now command, for UHD and beyond, massive amounts of storage and speed to meet the growing amounts of content being generated. New high-res applications demand much higher storage performance than conventional enterprise back office applications. Flash memory is helping enable that performance—but with it, the physical media also commands interfaces that provide the best value for the applications and its associated storage.

Non-volatile memory express (NVMe) is a trending technology that utilizes Flash storage more effectively and efficiently. The harmony of solid state and rotating storage media will continue for the near term, and for the undefined future. These respective storage mediums will endure, providing complimentary values for ambitions such as more storage, better storage, and faster throughput with a reduced hardware footprint, at less cost.

[Read: A Solid State of Non-Volatile Memory]

MORE THAN A 2X BUMP

At the previous two Flash Memory Summits (2016-17) both NVMe and the PCIe 4.0 bus were hot topics. Yet right alongside the 2016 Flash promotors, the SCSI Trade Association reminded the industry that “a new serial-attached SCSI (SAS) technology was on the way.” That new technology took the SAS ecosystem from the 12G level to a usable 24G SAS (24GBps, serial attached SCSI). Promoters unveiled this advancement as more than just a “two times bump in speed over the previous data rates for 12G SAS” (refer to Fig. 1 for the SAS technology roadmap).

The interface of choice for mission-critical storage applications remains SAS; moving the interface from 12GB to 24GB yielded a major refurbishment in the technology. Updates included more efficient 128b/150b encoding, with SAS Protocol Layer (SPL) packets and Forward Error Correction (FEC). The transmission signaling rate is specified at 2.4GBbs (i.e., 22.5 gigabaud rate) which still retains compatibility with earlier 6G and 12G solutions.

Changes which help achieve this faster throughput include an FEC field, 20 bits in the SPL packet that aid in error detection and recovery. An SPL packet is a 150-bit block that includes a 2-bit header and a 128-bit packet payload, plus the FEC bits. At the deep-dive level, additional features added include changes in: binary primitives (in the SAS Link Layer); primitive parameters; serial management protocol (SMP); open priority; and inter-expander fairness arbitration enhancements. Details can be found in a technical overview document for Serial Attached SCSI, which is roughly 1,000 pages and whose details are beyond the scope of this overview.

LOWERING LATENCY

Regardless of the application for media and entertainment or others such as transactional trading on the stock exchange, latency has a tremendous impact on storage performance. Recalling from our previous article—NVMe is an industry standard that is optimized with a new storage stack featuring a low latency, efficient and scalable protocol streamlined with a revised drive command set that uses fewer clock cycles per IO operation.

Comparing spinning magnetic drive latencies for hard disk drives (HDD) to those of Flash SSDs, conventional Flash NAND technology offers a 100x reduction in latency over HSDs.

Latency figures decrease further when NVMe eliminates the 20 microseconds of latency found in the SSD NAND (whether SAS or SATA) implementation. “Next Gen NVMe” will now drive NVMe to deliver “4KB operations in under 10 microseconds,” according to a presentation at the 2016 Flash Memory Summit.

CHANGING THE MESSAGING

What do these memory improvements provide to the media and entertainment (M&E) industry? For starters, it enables audio/video to become the dominant medium for the carriage of information and content. In a February “New York Times” text message to mobile subscribers we saw, “What you are doing now (i.e., ‘reading text on a screen’) is likely going out of style.” The Times’ text infers that A/V will replace the text messaging we do today and in the not-too-distant future.

One of the tasks necessary to achieve this change will be to increase the speed of the delivery while at the same time improving the processing and memory requirements of the channels which deliver the information. The new 5G networks may help this, but more is needed. This same prolog can be applied to production and post-production workflows for M&E.

[Read: Non-Volatile Memory Grows In Popularity]

We have already seen the impacts of 4K over HD in terms of resolution, quality and image perception. While well-produced 1080p content can be wonderfully upscaled for 4K displays; in many cases there can be very satisfying results when the content is originated as 4K and then downconverted to 1080p and displayed on a high-end HD (1080p60) television system.

The real impact for UHD/4K, once available in more delivery systems, will be in the use of higher frame rates (1/120 second frames instead of 1/60 second) especially for sports. Add the higher resolution per frame and a higher density of pixels per unit screen area, and it could make today’s conventional HD images look like older analog 1-inch videotape, comparatively.

IT TAKS A LOT OF MEMORY

To reach these goals, it takes memory, a lot of it; and fast memory coupled with much higher bandwidth (selected video formats described in Fig. 1). Compression helps to a degree, but with the improvements in compute and networking technologies, more productions are switching to full-bandwidth, uncompressed video for their editing and post-production workflows.

Digital storage for media workflows will continue to advance in these areas. Flash, coupled into NVMe interfaces, make these higher capacity, faster and better memory solutions possible. We’ve seen Seagate produce a 12TB “BarraCuda Pro” 3.5-inch HDD with SSD-like performance, and SanDisk’s “Extreme PRO” CFast 2.0 solution in a 256GB form factor capable of 525MBps read (450 MBps write). These devices are the tip of the iceberg, as the products become the workstation’s local drives (i.e., the Seagate HDD) and the camera capture’s memory solution (i.e., the SanDisk memory)—key components needed to work in higher resolution and higher frame rate production workflows.

ACHIEVING THE TARGET

Along with this perspective on higher resolution, higher bandwidth production—another element which will consume massive amounts of memory is video on demand. According to Coughlin Associates, the shipping capacity for VOD storage will increase 8-times, from the 2,500,000 TB (terabytes) in 2016 to a whopping 20,000,000 TB (per year) in 2021. Add the other data sets, which aren’t getting any smaller, and the requirements necessary to fulfill all these ambitions is quite an undertaking. When AI and VR take hold, cloud services may not be enough to satisfy such exponential changes in storage volumes—let alone the means to transmit (wirelessly) the demands to the end users.

To manage the physical maintenance issues of storage using HDDs could require small armies of support teams (quite possibly robotic) just to change the drives in even a modest data center. Flash memory would need less support, with the R&R (rescue and recovery) cycles for SSD upkeep probably hundreds of times less. Technological changes would likely outpace the life of the SSDs in service, making storage a disposable commodity.

This is the future for storage. Mechanical drives, besides reaching physical capacity thresholds that may limit their overall performance, are probably in their last decade of useful life—at least for large scale M&E solutions. Single unit workstations may continue with HDDs, where cost-to-capacity requirements are different than in datacenters—although the migration to all SSDs is very much apparent in tablets and mobile devices. Watch for some dramatic changes in storage and Flash as more video enters into our lives and better images become an expected case and not a “luxury once in a while” alternative.

Karl Paulsen is CTO at Diversified (www.diversifiedus.com) and a SMPTE Fellow. Read more about this and other storage topics in his book “Moving Media Storage Technologies.” Contact Karl atkpaulsen@diversifiedus.com.

With advancing lighting technology, there are some beautiful daylight LEDs on the market that can be used to extend light throughout daytime interiors. It all depends on what is being shot, but a lot of times windows can be a plus for the cinematography of a piece. Embracing windows and available daylight gives a lot of opportunity for shaping light, very naturally keying actors and having plenty of ambient light.

I remember when getting accurate daylight temperatures on LED lights was not easy. Nowadays, there are plenty to choose from and I can count on accurate color. Some units that I have found useful to extend daylight inside a room include the ARRI Skypanels and LiteGear’s LiteMat line. From outside a room, punching through windows, I prefer to use large HMI units to simulate the directional punch that is natural to sunlight. LEDs lack the punch once directed through glass. However, inside a room, these soft LED lights are magical.

[Read: Lighting for ENG]

DOING AWAY WITH GELS AND DIMMERS

On a recent short I worked on, “Always Remember Me,” the entire film took place during the day. We were lucky enough to find a large house location with plenty of windows throughout, and so strategically blocked actors in order to shoot against them. When going in for coverage, units such as a LiteMat 4 and an ARRI Skypanel 60-C came in to wrap the light from the window as a key. I am a big fan of soft keying, and softening LEDs with diffusion can be tough if you don’t have a lot of space. Because we had a sizable house location, I was able to throw frames of grid diffusion in front of the units. In my experience, placing diffusion gel on the lights is not as effective and makes softening LEDs a pain. You want to be able to get diffusion away from the light. Having so much daylight also allowed us to fake soft backlights where there were none. The audience can just feel and assume these soft backlights on hair and shoulders were coming from some window in the space.

The scenes in this film take us from afternoon all the way until sunset. Again, having windows allows you to have plenty of ambience and still create the illusion of a lower sun. Being able to dim and change color temperature on our LED fixtures allowed us to make these light changes easily. This is where we are going with lighting—having such versatility in quality, intensity and color without needed extra pieces like hand dimmers and gels. For scenes later in the film, we turned everything a bit closer to tungsten color temperature without doing anything in camera. We were shooting on 16mm film, Kodak 7207 250D, the entire time and didn’t use any camera filtration. The change in light and color was strictly through the LEDs themselves. The HMIs, on the other hand, had to have CTO placed in front of them to match. This is where a color meter comes in handy—though you can read the exact Kelvin on your LEDs, you can’t on your HMIs, and on top of that when you’re shooting film you can’t tell the differences as easily. I had an old Minolta color meter on hand.

Though these newer LEDs that keep coming out are so beautiful and versatile, you want to always have plenty of grippage on hand to affect quality and to shape. LEDs that come without lenses, like Skypanels and LiteMat, have no sharp directional beam. They are usually one large soft spread. For wider shots in “Always Remember Me,” we had to utilize a lot of duvetyne and flags to shape the light and keep it from spilling onto walls. It also becomes a bit trickier to soften in bigger shots because you are now seeing so much of the space, so bouncing LEDs into the ceilings and walls and then diffusing, in a sort of booklight fashion, becomes an effective strategy.

[Read: Lighting the Scene from Different Directions]

Whether you’re extending daylight as a key, bringing up the shadows to expose for outside a window, or giving direction throughout a location to an already existing sun, LEDs are now extremely useful players in daytime interiors. As always, the more sophisticated and powerful, the better, so you have the ability to soften and shape as needed. The future of lighting only promises bigger and better LEDs for cinema.

In an era of cybersecurity intrusions, Next Gen TV developers are looking at how to secure the all-IP ATSC 3.0 signals, which are a potential delivery vehicle for Internet of Things (IoT) services. Whether to fixed devices in the home, smart cars in transit, wearable products, public-space advertising or “smart city” capabilities (such as transit routing and in-vehicle infotainment), local opportunities abound, as IoT enthusiasts continue to demonstrate.

Although the emerging fifth-generation (5G) wireless technology is angling for a dominant role in IoT applications, some broadcasters see significant roles for Next Gen TV—and they recognize that security and privacy are crucial to establishing IoT services.

In addition to the wireless telco visions for IoT, Dish Networks is expected to use its spectrum assets by building a dedicated IoT network. When Dish Co-founder Charlie Ergen resigned as CEO in late 2017, he said he’d concentrate on building a NarrowBand IoT (NBIoT) network using spectrum Dish acquired in a $6.2 billion spending spree that created a near-nationwide footprint in the 600 and 700 MHz bands.

Kevin Gage, executive vice president, strategic development and chief technology officer at Sinclair-owned ONE Media LLC, told TV Technology that medical data companies have approached ONE Media “looking to pair with 3.0 to develop hybrid solutions” for keeping in touch with IoT sensors, monitoring devices and other applications. He said it was especially encouraging that new ventures are looking to broadcast bandwidth for spectrum solutions.

“We haven’t had a robust start-up community in broadcasting,” Gage observed about the legacy relationships of TV stations. “Our goals with 3.0 are to support the security needs of any new business or industry that wants to make use of 3.0 as a delivery or communications service.” He emphasized that ONE Media’s objective is to “adapt already proven and approved security solutions from new industries to 3.0.”

‘INTERNET OF THREATS’?

At the same time that the IoT business cases are being built, legislators and regulators—from Capitol Hill to the Federal Trade Commission to the National Institute of Technology and Standards, among others—are accelerating their efforts to figure out how and what they should do to assure secure use of IoT systems. On overlapping days, NIST ran its second annual workshop on “enhancing resilience” of IoT and other parts of the “communications ecosystem” while the FTC’s third annual PrivacyCom conference again featured warnings about smart TVs in the privacy/security scenario, Barely a week earlier, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) were talking up their Cyber Shield Act of 2017 (S.2020 and H.R.4163) at a Capitol Hill seminar sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute.

Collectively, the policymakers explained that they want to make sure consumers can trust IoT products and services. Markey and Lieu’s legislation would create a voluntary cybersecurity “seal of approval” (probably administered through the Commerce Department) for IoT devices; one objective is to create product labels (physical or digital) to show consumers that products—ranging from baby monitors to phones, laptops and other networked items—are safe from intrusions.

At the AEI event, Markey warned that every IoT device (which he repeatedly called “Internet of Threats”) is “something that can be compromised ... in ways that people don’t think about but they should.” He said the proposed legislation would “create a roadmap of improvements for manufacturers and their devices.”

SPECTRUMCO AFFIRMS NEED FOR SECURITY

SpectrumCo LLC President John Hane acknowledged that “some IoT applications require extremely high levels of security.”

“We expect to support industry standard security and authentication protocols, and proprietary solutions of our customers,” said Hane, who in February was hired to run Spectrum Co., LLC, the ATSC 3.0 spectrum consortium founded by Sinclair Broadcasting Group and Nexstar Media Group.

Hane said SpectrumCo’s platform will be able to enhance security in several ways. “One of the biggest challenges of IoT security is updating the firmware of so many devices in so many locations,” he said. “As vulnerabilities are found, they have to be patched, and fast. SpectrumCo’s low-band broadcast platform will allow our customers to update devices at a small fraction of the cost of cellular updates. Even where wireless or wired connections already exist, a redundant path can provide an additional layer of security.”

READY FOR IOT CYBERSECURITY CHALLENGES

Against this backdrop and the growing promise for IoT systems, ATSC 3.0 developers believe the new standard is ready to handle security challenges, according to technologists who have worked on Next Gen TV.

“ATSC 3.0 specifies use of encrypted data on the internet," said Adam Goldberg, principal of AGP, LLC and chair of the Technology Group 3 Specialist Group on ATSC 3.0 Security. “It also specifies use of cryptographic code signing which allows devices to verify that software updates (or other software) was created by trusted parties and not by hackers.”

Goldberg also pointed out that the 3.0 standard’s A/360 (“Security and Service Protection” layer) calls for use of Transport Layer Security for encrypted internet communications, “with an eye toward greenfield implementations.”

“This is useful for IoT,” Goldberg added because A/360’s code signing “is rather vital for IoT” implementations such as online updates.

Dr. Richard Chernock, chief science officer of Triveni Digital and chair of Technology Group 3, which guided 3.0 creation, also acknowledged the potential massive scale of IoT.

“IoT implies the need to communicate with a very large number of devices,” Chernock said. “When the same information needs to be sent, then broadcast economies-of-scale come into play. Sending common information to millions of devices takes no more resources than sending to hundreds of devices. This is useful for things like firmware updates.”

CHALLENGES EXPECTED

At the NIST workshop, Lisa Carnahan, Manager-Interoperability Group at NIST’s Information Technology Laboratory, urged the IoT industry to identify a model to manage and reduce cybersecurity risks, focusing on the need to align IoT security with consumer expectations and other market considerations. Warning that “the alternative is regulation,” Carnahan emphasized the value of inter-industry collaboration to understand and agree upon the approach to security protection.

Overall the NIST workshop focused on botnet threats and was part of a “conformity assessment process” as the agency prepares a report to the White House on automated threats to IoT and other systems. Other NIST speakers emphasized that the government prefers voluntary industry protections rather than regulatory mandates.

Chris Boyer, assistant vice president for global public policy at AT&T, urged the industry to create security guidelines for IoT devices, modeled on another NIST framework for cybersecurity standards. He cited the “need to do something similar to what we did for the NIST Framework for IoT, that we can promote internationally.”

“I think it’s very important to get our arms around how we deal with IoT in the U.S., because other countries are aggressively pursuing IoT standards and guidelines,” Boyer said.

As with many IoT conferences, the NIST program eventually moved toward the “liabilities”—that is, who in the value chain would bear the burden of problems created by IoT flaws or security intrusions.

[Disney Studios Partners With Accenture to Assist With StudioLAB]

Meanwhile, the Consumer Reports/Consumers Union presentation focused less on IoT than on other data-related aspects of TV technology. The presentation repeated the CU mantra that there should be greater protections from the data-collecting capabilities of smart TVs.

Katie McInnis, Consumers Union’s Washington office, explained that, “as more consumer devices contain smart or connected functionality, these devices may collect or share information in ways consumers may not expect — or otherwise limit or compromise a consumer’s control over their purchases.”

She also offered a peek at the results of the television study that Consumer Reports Online will publish later this year.

“While we will not be scoring the televisions using traditional Consumer Reports ratings,” McInnis said in prepared remarks, “we will indicate which televisions performed generally better or worse according to our metrics.”

At the AEI seminar, Rep. Lieu also called for a cautious approach to IoT regulation.

“The reason we’re not very specific in this statute is [because]... when it comes to technology, government should have a very light touch,” Lieu said, emphasizing his expectation that that industry will “self-regulate.” He explained that the voluntary program established by the proposed legislation would rely on a commission of diverse experts to set standards.

Gary Arlen is president of Arlen Communications LLC, a research and consulting firm. He can be reached atwww.ArlenCom.com

For a comprehensive list of TV Technology’s ATSC 3.0 coverage, see our ATSC3 silo.

:

No one goes to an event like the annual NAB Show without doing their homework first. As the show expands its umbrella to cover more advanced media technologies, the need to prepare becomes ever more crucial. Whatever your taste, TV Tech’s experts are here to help; here’s their advice for 2018:

KARL PAULSENStorage Technology

Standout trends will likely center on evolving workflows in cloud-based solutions and emerging applications for IP infrastructures. This is the first NAB since the adoption of new SMPTE ST 2110 standards for Professional Media Networks so don’t miss the IP Showcase (in the rear of Central Hall) where working examples of the new standards plus integration of the NMOS interface specifications will be shown in an educational showcase environment. Potential IP adopters will be looking at how manufacturers address software defined networking and new tools aimed at diagnostics and operational management for IP implementations.

The enormous prominence of virtual and augmented reality and artificial intelligence and machine learning at the Consumer Electronics Show will be evident at NAB. Expect to see evolving products necessary to support the industry’s mandate to create, manage and deliver content to these emerging platforms. eSports is now attracting inventive players and changing production techniques that may show promise for aspiring venues.

The continual industry churn of what is now Belden’s growing empire should attract users to see what new products they collectively offer. Everyone is curious how the combined companies of Grass Valley and Snell Advance Media will address the changes in infrastructures that appear to be moving away from pure hardware and into virtualized, software-based environments. We’ll see what comes out of these mergers and acquisitions—and who will be next in line.

JULIA SWAINLighting Technology

The 2018 NAB Show promises to be a big one! Excited to see more lighting units capable of RGB and DMX, which so many of us have been utilizing more and more on set. Being able to move so quickly between colors and qualities of light has opened up a lot of possibilities. I’m very much hoping for LEDs with great outputs as well. The climb toward stronger, more versatile LED units has been an exciting and consistent one, so I’m looking forward to seeing what this year brings in the world of lighting.

On the camera side, I anticipate some new monitor options with a gamut of exposure tools. Lots of apps to control and learn camera settings are also on the horizon.

AL KOVALICKCloudspotters Journal

Look for all things cloud including SaaS apps for your daily operations. Don’t settle for installed apps unless there is a performance need. Ask vendors what their cloud strategy is, including what clouds they support for media services, apps and processing. Go to NAB with a list of “cloud questions” for your preferred vendors specifically around hybrid cloud local operations integrated with cloud services. Understand there is a place for local services but these are being eclipsed by cloud operations. Understand what mix will work best for your facility. Expect to use one or more clouds to meet your business needs. This multicloud approach will give you more flexibility for business operations. Look for 24x7 cloud support and operational services possibly from specialty companies.

JAY YEARYFocus On Audio

This is the year where we really start to grasp the full scope of the changes that IP-enabled technologies are bringing to television, from ingest all the way to delivery. HD-SDI video and discrete audio chains will see fewer implementations as they are passed over for IP-based alternatives, even though the road to an all-IP facility remains a bumpy one. With ATSC 3.0 now rolling out in the U.S., IP is now a reality for new and remodeled television facilities.

In audio, we’ll certainly see an increasing number of personalization options for consumers, along with products for immersive audio that are designed to be shoehorned into residential environments. At least for now however, it looks like personalization, whether mono, stereo, or emulated surround, has piqued the interest of the end user more than additional surround channels in the living room. This could change if the costs of immersive audio products for the consumer become a little more accessible. The preference for personalization is partly VR-driven but is really a continued outgrowth of the de-cades-old personal device boom—which is likely to continue with or without a VR element.

User interfaces for Next Gen technologies are particularly worthy of scrutiny this year, since presenting complicated options in an easy-to-understand package is an art form that will make the difference between success and failure for some products. Finally, anyone hoping to stretch out their use of 600 MHz wireless devices appears to be out of luck now that T-Mobile has accelerated their rollout.

CRAIG JOHNSTONCorrespondent

We’ll see the rollout of ready to use 4K and some 8K camera systems. These new cameras have spawned attendant equipment such as enhanced lenses and high bit rate signal transmission equipment.

A whole host of 360 degree virtual reality camera systems and stitching software will be presented. An Immersive Storytelling Pavilion will help newcomers to 360 degree technology figure out how it will fit into their business.

Look for cellular liveshot gear that is futureproofed by including 5G capabilities, even though 5G at present is a small blip on the cellular radar.

And speaking of futureproofing, a lot of black boxes being bought at the show will have IP connectors on them, even though they will initially be connected via coaxial and fiber optic cable.

Unless you’ve had your head in the sand, you can’t help but have heard about HDR (High Dynamic Range) TV. There’s been no end of announcements from manufacturers about how they are (or will be) supporting this phenomenal new technology.

One thing we know to be constant in our industry is that there is always going to be change. We’ve moved from black and white to color, from analog to digital and from SD to HD (now moving on to UHD and up), in the constant desire to bring higher and higher fidelity images to the home. Talk of higher and higher resolutions and frame rates continue to stretch the boundaries of delivery bandwidths—with, some might say, decreasing rates of return as each of these technology advancements comes with a real price tag for the creators and distributors of media.

THE PROOF IS IN THE IMAGE

It’s hard to argue the value of HDR TV, though. Even the least discriminating viewer notices immediately the improvement when they see their first HDR images. Large screen or small, high frame rate or standard, the visible improvement through HDR is immediately apparent and, more importantly, significantly improves customer engagement with the program. The details, though, still appear somewhat veiled—our industry is highly experienced in adopting new technologies and simply expecting those producing, lighting, shooting and distributing the resultant media to adopt it and excel in their various duties without taking the time to really explain the basics. Over the next few postings, I’m going to be examining this topic, with the aim of clearly explaining what it is intended to do, what it is not intended to do, how it works, what the differences are between the various formats are and ultimately (hopefully) answering the question “Why should I care?”

[Is HDR Worth It?]

If we are going to discuss “High Dynamic Range,” we have to also accept the term “Standard Dynamic Range.” As you might expect, these two terms differentiate between different tiers of dynamic range within the media industry. So we should start by understanding the term “Dynamic Range.” With that understanding, we can extend the discussion to cover these tiers of performance.

Dynamic Range is a term engineers and physicists use to define the full range of signal that a piece of technology or system is designed to handle (preferably without distortion—dynamic range doesn’t specifically detail that the system should be linear). For example, in film, the dynamic range is the range between the lowest amount of light that a piece of film can capture (if you go any darker, you can’t reproduce the difference when you present it) to the largest amount of light that the film can tolerate before it saturates (go any brighter, and you can’t detect the increase—the film has absorbed as much light as it can). In audio, the dynamic range goes from silence to the loudest level that a piece of equipment can record, tolerate or present (play back).

SYSTEM DESIGN IS CRUCIAL

It’s important to note that different pieces of equipment at different stages in the media production/delivery process could, in theory, have different dynamic ranges. In that case, the true dynamic range of the system will be limited by the performance of the lowest dynamic range component. System design is therefore crucial—there’s little point in putting an HDR component in the middle of an SDR workflow. For now, just remember that in any discussion of dynamic range or HDR, it’s important to specify if you are talking about a system, or an individual component of that system.

[ITU Announces HDR Standard for TV]

In video, it’s often convenient to discuss dynamic range in terms of contrast ratio. As we’ll discuss in a later post, HDR systems can offer up to a 50x increase in contrast ratio in comparison to an SDR system. But—and here’s the really important point—SDR systems could achieve similar gross contrast ratios if the final display can be made bright enough. This is analogous to turning up the amplifier on your stereo: the sound gets louder, not better. The big difference is that an HDR system is cable of reproducing far more of the intermediate values than an SDR system can—ensuring that all of the nuances of the signal make it through to the viewer’s display. This is the most important point—HDR allows you to reproduce images that convey a much more realistic representation of the original scene. Absolute light level plays an important part in that, to be sure—specular highlights can be breathtaking—but it’s the ability to recreate all of the intermedia values that makes HDR material so compelling.

In the next post, we’ll examine the characteristics of light in the natural world and what it takes to reproduce that on TV.

Paul Turner is founder ofTurner Media Consulting and can be reached atpault@turnerconsulting.tv.

When shooting in the style of electronic newsgathering, especially as a solo journalist on location, there is so much to take into consideration. On-location shooting ENG typically does not allow for a lot of setup time nor much time with a subject, and the overall workflow for prepping, shooting, cutting and delivering a piece like this is very fast. These shoots consist of short stories journalists go out and capture on location as events are happening. They can also be short stories that are pieced together through interviews, b-roll, and live events. As with any role in production, when you are capturing a story on your own, you should constantly be going down a mental checklist of tasks.

First and foremost is understanding the subject and the story. After coming to a solid understanding of the story you are telling, the next step is always planning the most effective way of telling it. 

UNIQUE CHALLENGES

Every story has different locations and each presents its own unique set of challenges. When it comes to lighting, not having a lot of time to set up and tweak is simply the nature of ENG.

The key is to prepare as much as possible ahead of time for shooting in every location, if you can. Understand the obstacles the location presents. Take advantage of the available light in the space, the time of day you can shoot there, and the directions you can point the camera once you are there to roll. Have an idea what the shots are that need to be obtained and if you can scout before the shoot day, take plenty of references photos. Utilize windows, practicals, and the tools you are able to bring with you.

[Lighting the Scene From Different Directions] 

One great way to supplement light if you don’t have a bounce board is to shine the light into a wall or ceiling. On the day of the shoot, place your subject where there is light, pull them away from walls, and then plant the lighting tools you have at your disposal.

For example, when I was starting out in ENG, I had a story in someone’s home where we were to shoot interviews. I had not seen the location before. There were large windows in the living room, so I placed the subject where one of the windows could essentially be her key light. Then, all I had to do was use one of my lights to supplement and shape that window light.

RAISING THE BAR

Our tools are advancing rapidly to give us more flexibility while shooting, which make quality images more and more obtainable in ENG. Cameras keep raising the bar in terms of dynamic range, so cutting light in specific areas or trying to supplement shadows becomes less of an issue. They can see more, and so dealing with a range of exposure in the frame has become a more manageable job. However, we still want to have some control and get it to where we want it. It is beneficial to always bring a few lighting tools on the day, especially if you haven’t yet seen the location and you’re going to capture something live as it happens. If you can bring a lighting kit, whether it be a set of LEDs, Kinos, etc., great. This means you will need a power solution and some stingers, but you’ll have bigger sources with you and be able to supplement light in darker spaces.

If a “legitimate” kit is not available, there is now a plethora of mobile lighting options. Aputure, Westcott and so many more have beautiful LED lights in a variety of models and sizes that come in very handy in something like ENG. There are many bi-color and RGB options as well, so gels may not be necessary and you can be prepared for different color temperatures on location. A lot of shooters go about explaining ENG lighting as 3-point, but that doesn’t have to be the case. Two lights is a great strategy—you can supplement or create a key, and then fill or separate as needed.

[Exterior Scenes Can Present Challenges] 

There may be a shoot where you cannot bring lights for whatever reason. You are just a journalist with a camera and have to rely on natural light. First consideration is shooting outside. Find somewhere with soft light, in the shade, or if there is no shade, point the camera toward the sun so the subject is backlit. With the cameras we have today, this is a safe way to control light and maintain exposure.

ENG shooting is the perfect combination of needing to be proactive and reactive. Preparing as much as possible, but also bringing different tools to adjust accordingly, is so important. Another key is simply not to overthink it. Our technology has advanced so much and locations can provide a lot of great light and color. ENG will always be a great way to learn how to tell a story quickly and effectively and keep lighting simple while still capturing beautiful images.

The last edition of this column talked about subnets and introduced folding paper as an illustration of how subnets can be understood. This will be very useful as we proceed. 

MORE IPv4 SUBNETTING BASICS

Consider an analog clock. Start the second hand at 12:00 and follow it clockwise around the dial. At 12:00, 60 seconds have passed. Zero seconds and 60 seconds are the same place on the dial. When the second hand gets to 60, the minute hand has moved one minute. Since we keep track of time in minutes and seconds, we usually think of seconds from zero to 59, then at 60 seconds we re-set our seconds count to zero and add a minute. It’s like counting from nine to 10, where we increment the tens column when we pass nine. 

It’s like that looking at IP and subnet octets. We can go from zero to 255 in each octet, but 256 means the octet is filled. We don’t have room for 256, because 255 is the limit, i.e. all binary bits are set to 1. When we hit 256, the octet changes to zero and we increment the octet to the left by one. 

At home, your computer might have an IP address like 192.168.1.10. For this address, your subnet mask is probably 255.255.255.0. You decide you want two networks. Doing the mental math, you say “Two networks from one means one fold of the paper.” Each fold of the paper is a bit borrowed from the host address field. Here, you borrow one bit. That means you need to change your subnet mask. Here’s how that works: 

You started off with 255.255.255.0. In binary, that’s all ones in the first three octets. To borrow, you need the first bit in the fourth octet. Here’s how it works: 

11111111.11111111.11111111.00000000 is 255.255.255.0. This is where you start. You borrow the first bit in the fourth octet. The new subnet mask is 11111111.11111111.11111111.10000000. 

Borrowing Table 9 from an earlier article and revising it to show the borrowing, here’s the new fourth octet:

The first bit in the fourth octet has a decimal weight of 128, so the final octet of the new subnet mask changes to 128 in decimal notation. The new subnet mask is 255.255.255.128. The way the computer sees it, this is 11111111.1111111.1111111.10000000. Since the fourth octet is where the edge of the subnet is defined, it is the critical octet here. 

Hint: It is valuable to know the correlation of decimal weights (DW) of eight bit binary numbers with subnet masks (SM) values. To do this, let’s look at another table.

This is a good table to memorize, or to be able to regenerate at will. The SM row shows the succession of subnet mask numbers as each bit is turned on. In subnetting, we’ll be using this table a lot.

Now that we have two subnets, we have to know where each subnet starts and ends. The increment dividing one subnet from the other is the Decimal Weight from Table 11 associated with the subnet mask. In this case, note that with the subnet mask (SM) being 128, the Decimal Weight (DW) is also 128. This is also the increment between the subnets. 

We know the first address in the first subnet is 192.168.1.0. This is the network IP for the first subnet. Let’s write that down as the first “Net IP.” Adding the increment, we get 192.168.1.128, the starting address of the second subnet. Next, we need the “Local Broadcast Address” for the 192.168.1.0 network. The largest number we can use without stepping on the 192.168.1.128 space is 192.168.1.127. This is the Local Broadcast Address, or LBA. For the 192.168.1.128 network, the LBA will be the largest number we can use without stepping outside the original network space. We’ll write down 192.168.1.255, meaning all bits in the fourth octet are full. 

Now, we can do the math to find the available addresses in each subnet. These range from one higher than the Net IP to one less than the LBA, so we write them down in the middle column. Think of the Net IP and the LBA as the cookies and the Valid IP Addresses as the filling.

The valid IP addresses may be assigned to nodes in the network.

This month I’ll wrap up coverage of papers at the IEEE Broadcast Symposium as part of a discussion about measuring the coverage of existing or new facilities installed as part of the FCC channel repack.

THE CHALLENGE

Fig. 1: A tower 650 feet away created a 3 dB notch in the antenna pattern.

Click on the Image to Enlarge

Since the beginning of broadcasting, stations and their engineers have looked for ways to verify their signal was actually reaching the audience. Aside from viewer surveys, field measurement of signals on the ground was the only option for these pioneer TV stations.

The size of receive equipment using vacuum tubes and the need to get the antenna high enough to match the outdoor antenna heights used by most viewers at that time mandated specially designed vehicles for these measurements. 

[IEEE Broadcast Symposium Part 1: Repack] 

Anyone who has done field measurements, whether with a sophisticated measurement van or just a field strength meter, a pole and a TV antenna, has seen that the surroundings and antenna height greatly impact the signal level.

The FCC recognized this in the measurement method specified in “Field Strength Measurements,” Section 73.686 of the FCC rules. After describing selection of measurement locations and antenna orientation, it states, “(v) A mobile run of at least 30.5 meters (100 feet) is made, which is centered on the intersection of the radial and the road, and the measured field strength is continuously recorded on a chart recorder over the length of the run.” In an area with power lines, this could be difficult, if not downright dangerous!

I’ve come up with some alternative methods of on-the-ground measurements, which I’ve described in previous columns. One uses an antenna on a 10–12 foot pole able to be stored in a conventional vehicle with measurements taken in a circle with points as close to the same distance from the transmitter site as possible. Due to the location variability noted above and measurement location availability, absolute field strength readings may be unreliable, but at least they can be compared with other stations on nearby channels at the same antenna farm.

Another method is to take hundreds of measurements on the ground using a vehicle with multiple antennas at different orientations designed to be able to grab readings from a dozen stations or more from each of the antennas in less than 10 minutes per location. This is the method used in New York City to check reception from One World Trade Center prior to installation of the master antenna. The main purpose of this study was to verify reception as measured by signal lock and SNR on the different antennas rather than precisely measure received channel power and field strength.

The Cavell-Mertz drone has a custom Tarot-brand frame with six motors and a custom flight controller with inertial sensors.

All of the methods described above show reception only at specific points, which may be affected by structures on the ground. A different approach is to measure the pattern of the antenna, as precisely as possible, then use that as input to propagation software such as the FCC’s TVStudy, V-Soft’s Probe, Progira’s PROGIRA plan, LS Telcom’s CHIRplus or John Magliacane’s free SPLAT to predict signal level at any location. The question then becomes, how do we measure the real antenna pattern once it’s on the tower?

DRONES TO THE RESCUE

Over the past 30 years I’ve worked with engineers from Hammett and Edison to do antenna measurements from both helicopter and fixed wing aircraft. Helicopter measurements allowed the vertical drops needed to measure elevation patterns, but were very expensive and only suitable for locations without flight restrictions, blocking access to areas around the antenna.
Click on the Image to Enlarge

Fixed wing measurements are less expensive but, except for certain mountaintop sites, elevation pattern measurements are difficult if not impossible. 

Unmanned aerial vehicles offer the flight flexibility, high location precision (through GPS-based flight path control) and the ability to operate at heights low enough to measure an antenna’s elevation pattern. Two papers at the IEEE Broadcast Symposium showed how drones could be used to verify antenna performance.

The presentation “Antenna Pattern Measurement With a Drone,” by John Kean at Cavell, Mertz and Associates, provided an excellent overview of the many items that have to be considered. The Cavell-Mertz drone has a custom Tarot-brand frame with six motors and a custom flight controller with inertial sensors for trim, a flux-gate compass for orientation and a differential GPS that provides autonomous flight over a pre-defined path. RF hardware includes a biconical broadband antenna, wireless telemetry and a custom software-defined receiver for measurements. Everything has to be RF shielded to handle the high field strength (over 20 volts/meter) found at tower sites.

Kean cautioned that accurate measurements require flight in the far field of the antenna array. Ground reflections also have to be considered. In his presentation he showed these could cause signal variations from +6 to –25 dB! Careful post-processing of the data is necessary to reduce sampling noise and convert positional information. Kean’s presentation is available to IEEE Broadcast Symposium attendees in the proceedings. Copies may be available through John Kean and Cavell-Mertz at www.cavellmertz.com.

[IEEE Broadcast Symposium Part 2: Antennas] 

Ian Gair, from Sixarms, echoed many of Kean’s cautions in his presentation “Real World Results for a Signal Measurement Drone.” Gair provided a “rule of thumb” for determining the far-field distance for drone measurements: 450 feet for large FM arrays, 1,200 feet for VHF-TV and 1,800 feet for UHF-TV.

Gair provided several examples of antenna issues uncovered with drone measurements. These included an inverted panel in a panel array, a panel oriented incorrectly, antenna tilt due to storm damage and severe elevation pattern distortion caused by incorrect feeder phasing.

Fig. 2: The impact on the antenna pattern of structures at 170 and 540 feet.

The items I found most interesting were the impact of surrounding towers on the antenna pattern. Fig. 1 shows a tower 650 feet away created a 3 dB notch in the antenna pattern. Another example, shown in Fig. 2, shows the impact of structures 170 feet away at 160 degrees and another 540 feet away at 190 degrees. They caused 7 and 4 dB notches, respectively.

For more information on Sixarms drone measurements or to obtain a copy of the presentation, visit the

company’s website at www.sixarms.com.

CHOICES

We’ve become used to thinking of our actual antenna patterns like those plotted on the antenna manufacturers’ datasheets. Traditional ground measurements had so much variability due to obstructions and a limited number of measurement points that even relatively large pattern discrepancies of 3 dB might not be noticed.

The ability to quickly and accurately measure real antenna patterns using drones lets us see the real performance of our antennas and—perhaps more troubling since there may be nothing that can be easily done to fix it—the impact of the surrounding structures on antenna performance.

Signal measurements are a reimbursable expense for stations participating in the FCC incentive auction channel repack and I suspect many broadcasters checked that box on their Form 399. The question now is whether to use a drone to verify antenna performance, use a test vehicle to do traditional on-the-ground radial measurements or a combination of both. What are your station’s plans for post repack measurements?

As always, your comments and questions are welcome. Email me at dlung@transmitter.com.

Getting your key light just right can get complicated when considering the blocking of the actors, the space and what units you have at your disposal. It is also easy to feel a bit of pressure when keying actors for tight eyelines and close-ups because we tend to sweeten up the lighting a bit when we walk in camera.

Tight eyelines and close-ups are also ingredients for a dramatic, emotional and/or important moment, so naturally we want to take a little more time to be sure we get it right.

When going for more traditional beauty light on the face, we come frontal with our key light and decide how wrapped around the face we want it. I have discussed ways to key light before, but want to explore lighting from different directions.

Half of a recent Under Armour commercial I shot took place in large offices at night. It also was shot for black and white, so my lighting and contrast had to be approached differently. The spot introduced characters as leaders of a corrupt corporation.

Because of its dramatic introduction, before we go into a gym with the main character, lighting soft and frontal was never an intention. Knowing whose story this was, I utilized the key lights for each scene in different positions—from above and from the side.

KEYING FROM ABOVE
When you key from above, where you may also have your ambient light coming from, you lose light in the eyes. You can back up actors to potentially gain back an eye light, but what you have done is created shadows downward on the face.

Fig. 1: Top light on coverage for the Under Armour office scene

What you gain with keying from above is the ability to hide units above frame lines, rig without stands in the frame, and you naturally gain ambient light depending on how big and soft you go (Fig. 1).

This also gives you a more dramatic feel than if you killed your overhead unit and threw up something to key right from camera.

Fig. 2: Keying from the side

For this conference room scene, I put up a Quasar LED tube, wrapped in black wrap to avoid spilling on the walls and windows, with a layer of diffusion, above the two actors (Fig. 2).

This allowed for the single key light to hit both actors in a master, and when we moved in, we didn’t have to move the unit, just reposition actors underneath.

If you were doing something such as an interrogation scene, you could even go harder from above with a bare bulb or some other harder source. On the other hand, if you were doing a sitcom, you would also be keying from above with several soft sources. Keying from above can play in many different scenarios for a range of genres and spaces.

KEYING FROM THE SIDE
Again, key lighting is dictated by the tone of the narrative. The more you understand it, the better your work will be. Side lighting is another dramatic way to key actors. It is important to remember that it is just as much about shadow as it is about light.

Fig. 3: Top light on a master shot for the office scene

Keying from the side is a great way to create shadow. This approach was taken a lot in this commercial (Fig. 3). I used a mix of a Leko and Arri Skypanel 60-C for a key light throughout the shoot, and would typically start out by having it too close to camera.

After realizing it was a bit too pretty, I would have my crew walk it out more to come from the side. This extends shadows on the face and creates more contrast, which in this commercial is more than appropriate.

Side lighting simply adds texture. Adding shadow creates fall off, where parts of the image gradually transition into black. On a character’s face, this can not only enhance what he or she is feeling or experiencing, but it adds intrigue, guides the audience’s eye and is, overall, much more interesting than a key light that wraps around the whole face.

Flat is ugly. It is also not what we think about when we consider sophisticated cinematography. It is helpful to have choices in terms of what units you use, but it is even more helpful to have options when it comes to shaping and directing them.

You are painting every frame, so making decisions about where to place your lights and what types of shadows you want will help translate your story to the audience. It’s all part of your job to communicate on screen.

Julia Swain is a cinematographer based in California, whose narrative films include “Killing Animals,” “Jilted” and “Cassidy Red.” She continues to shoot on a variety of formats, seeking to create compelling visuals for every story and brand. She can be contacted through TV Technology.

Over the last 15 to 20 years, broadcast audio systems have undergone revolutionary changes—from analog to digital technologies, from manual to computer-assisted workflows, integrating related systems such as telephones and intercom systems, and much more.

One key enabling technology is Audio over IP (AoIP), which delivers a number of significant benefits, including operational flexibility, scalability and lower costs. However, implementing AoIP systems to take advantage of these benefits depends almost entirely on the existence of and support for interface and interoperability standards to ensure that the many elements that make up professional audio systems are capable of working together. To that end, there are several AoIP protocols designed to achieve this goal by easing implementation and integration, including the increasingly popular Livewire+ AES67.

Originally known as Livewire, this pioneering technology was created in 2003 by the Telos Alliance as a means of transmitting low-latency, high-reliability audio over switched Ethernet. Livewire+ AES67 adds full compliance with the AES67-2013 interoperability standard for high-performance AoIP transport over IP audio networking products. This allows devices to seamlessly connect directly to Livewire+ networks for connecting audio streams, regardless of device type or manufacturer. Livewire+ AES67 also offers the flexibility to incorporate and comply with future AES and SMPTE standards as they are approved and released, while simultaneously offering backward compatibility with the RAVENNA networking protocol.

Today, 70,000 connected devices worldwide use the Livewire or Livewire+ AES67 protocols, and 100 companies provide compatible equipment. While these numbers are impressive, adoption continues to grow steadily for a number of key reasons.

EASE OF INSTALLATION AND USE

In the coming years, studios’ transition to IP will continue, but the number of available protocols, methods, hardware and audio devices can make the process confusing. Livewire+ AES67 cuts through this noise to accomplish interconnectivity more easily at a lower cost.

Using Livewire+ AES67, uncompressed digital audio, device control messages, program-associated data and routine network traffic is carried over a single Ethernet cable in real time. This reduces the number of cables to deploy, significantly reducing the time required to wire an entire facility. All sources and devices connect using readily available Ethernet cables, which can carry up to 250 audio channels each, depending on the network link capacity. This link aggregation eliminates expensive multi-pair cable for interconnecting studios, resulting in potentially significant savings in labor costs alone.

Configuration can also be just as simple. With Livewire+ AES67, every audio source is given a text name and numeric ID, which are transmitted from devices over the network thanks to a built-in device discovery mechanism. All hardware products have built-in web engines that can be accessed via any common browser or by using an Axia program called iProbe. Users simply enter the names of their desired input sources using just a PC and web browser, with a configuration window enabling any necessary parameter changes for the selected sources.

As a result of these capabilities, installation and configuration, which may have taken weeks in the past, can now be completed in hours thanks to Livewire+ AES67.

AUDIO QUALITY AND RELIABILITY

Unlike Internet audio, which suffers from reduced quality as a result of limited and variable bandwidth, Livewire+ AES67 uses Internet protocols but is intended to deliver uncompressed audio over local area networks (LANs). Livewire+ AES67 is the only fully compliant protocol that also features Unicast SIP modes of operation, meaning it is also suitable for VLAN and WAN applications.

The controlled, high-speed Livewire+ AES67 network provides more than adequate bandwidth for large numbers of channels of high-quality uncompressed audio in real time, eliminating the risk of audio drop-outs from network outages and other issues affecting transmission. Long accepted as a reliable means of transporting virtually any kind of data or signal, IP has become a reliable option for telephone, intercom, teleconferencing and many other applications. According to the Telos Alliance, as of April 2015, more than 5,500 studios around the world had been built using the company’s Axia IP-audio infrastructure employing the Livewire+ AES67 protocol for mission-critical broadcast applications in major metropolitan markets.

COST SAVINGS

A key benefit of Livewire+ AES67 is its ability to enable computer data, phone, audio and control to be transmitted on a single network. Naturally, this type of converged networking environment can generate significant cost-efficiencies throughout a broadcast facility.

Further contributing to the cost-effectiveness of Livewire+ AES67 is that the most widely used and highly respected companies in the radio industry have adopted the technology. This allows broadcasters to select best-of-breed solutions and connect as many audio devices as possible directly to their audio network. In addition to simplicity, this removes the need for extra I/O devices, delivering even lower overall system costs.

Livewire+ AES67 allows wiring to be installed in hours, as opposed to the weeks that are often required. Livewire+ also generates savings from the way it handles audio from PCs, which nearly all broadcast stations use as their primary means of playing and editing audio. With a traditional network, PC-based audio is transmitted through a router input card or console module, which adds significant cost when bringing multiple audio channels into the system.

The latest release of Livewire+ AES67 includes a driver that can handle up to 24 bi-directional stereo or mono audio streams directly through a computer’s network card and now features PTP clock synchronization. This allows the computer to be connected directly to the network using an existing Ethernet connection, eliminating the cost of an additional sound card and the port needed to connect it to a console or router. In many cases, this can save broadcasters many thousands of dollars.

Studios’ transition to IP-based broadcasting has been underway for several years, but has been hindered by the sheer number of protocols, integration methods, legacy hardware and advanced audio devices, which can be confusing at best. The advanced capabilities and other key benefits of Livewire+ AES67, on the other hand, simplifies interconnectivity and upgrades, while offering greater flexibility and cost-effectiveness.

By implementing Livewire+ AES67 solutions, studios can take advantage of best-of-breed technologies to satisfy a wider range of applications within network environments. Best of all, Livewire+ AES67 is designed to work with future standards as they are released. This ensures that the Livewire+ AES67 will never be obsolete and continue to deliver quality, reliability, flexibility, cost savings and many more benefits well into the future.

John Schur is the president of Telos Alliance TV Solutions Group.

As mature as the television industry is, it appears to be going through a very disruptive identity crisis right now. Cable providers are hemorrhaging subscribers while over-the-air broadcasting is being rediscovered; broadcasters and content creators are rolling out their own streaming services to ensure they have direct access to customers without the need for third parties; the journalistic integrity of traditional news organizations is under attack while tech companies deliver uncorroborated information to users while denying any responsibility for determining its credibility; and viewership of traditional sports broadcasts seems to be waning while interest in eSports is on the rise.

Yet despite this changing content landscape, viewing of television content seems more popular as ever, even as the array of devices used to consume it and the possible environments it gets consumed in appears unfathomable.

NEXT GEN TV
The impending rollout of ATSC 3.0 promises to bring together broadcast and streaming content in ways we haven’t experienced up to now, with the ability of immersive and customizable audio to be delivered to practically every device, and to be enjoyed through speakers or headphones. Unfortunately, not all streaming content is quite ready to become a part of the broadcast ecosystem, either due to poor quality or because it doesn’t meet broadcast standards.

One area where this is apparent is with streaming audio loudness, since the disparate streaming services and online outlets use different loudness settings. The good news is that most outlets now implement some sort of loudness management for content; the bad news for content creators is that this is usually done through automated normalization rather than through monitored gain modification, so audio content could be negatively altered.

AGOTTVS Streaming Audio Loudness Recommendations

The first North American attempt at setting loudness standards for streaming content was done by the AES Study Group on Streaming Loudness, headed by recording engineer Bob Katz, who wanted to set loudness standards for music streaming.

In October of 2015, the group released the document, “Recommendations for Loudness of Audio Streaming and Network File Playback,” which recommended that target loudness of non-metadata encoded music reside between –16 and –20 LUFS. While this was a great start, it was immediately realized that all other streaming audio content would benefit from similar loudness recommendations, especially the audio accompanying streaming video.

So, in early 2016 the AES Audio Guidelines for Over the Top Television and Video Streaming (AGOTTVS) Study Group was formed, chaired by Jim Starzynski, the director and principal audio engineer at NBC Universal. His previous foray into loudness management was as part of the ATSC committee that created A/85, which serves as the core of the CALM Act and regulates broadcast audio loudness.

The group is made up of members from broadcast and cable networks, content providers, device manufacturers and content delivery services, as well as other interested parties, all working together to gain agreement on standards across the entire content chain, from creation to delivery to the consumer.

Preliminary AGOTTVS guidelines were published in September 2016, and on October 19, 2017, the AES announced an update to those guidelines that appear to be on their way to becoming an AES recommended practice. AES Technical Document AESTD1006.1.17-10, titled, “Loudness Guidelines for OTT and OVD Content,” can be found at AES.org and it is worth downloading and reading all the way through.

The document’s objectives are spelled out clearly in section 2, namely to “Provide consistent loudness across different Programs, provide appropriate loudness range for devices and listening conditions, prevent … processing from degrading audio quality, preserve the artistic intent, and improve the listening experience.”

Basic recommendations are along the same lines as A/85: use ITU-R BS.1770 measurement tools and make use of metadata with content whenever possible to take advantage of available dynamic range control and loudness management.

LONG FORM VERSUS SHORT FORM
For North America, loudness measurements of long-form content should be done by measuring the anchor element, typically dialog, while full program measurements are recommended for short-form content. For long-form content where the anchor element cannot be determined, it is recommended that the full program be measured.

The guidelines themselves have recommendations for six possible content scenarios: delivery and distribution of properly prepared content; systems with questionable metadata capabilities; devices or environments with limited dynamic range; and for content created with no regard for standards or recommendations. Quite a few of the guidelines mention prior arrangements, which have been made between the content creator and distributor, and in those situations the document recommends that loudness and true peak values should be measured and should not exceed recommended regional targets.

Specific targets can be found in Annex B and vary according to region. Loudness targets for North America are –24 LKFS, plus or minus 2 dB, with maximum peaks no higher than –2 dB TP. Maximum loudness is never to exceed –16 LKFS, plus or minus 1 dB, with peaks measuring no higher than –1 dB TP.

While these recommendations should help moderate loudness of television and video content, the document notes that the loudness of sounds generated in the system itself, such as phone and tablet alerts, may differ from content loudness and requests that developers work to match loudness of all sounds across the device in future versions of software, though emergency alerts are expected to be louder than other content due to their nature.

Also noted is the fact that some devices utilize codecs, which may not support metadata, resulting in undesired playback loudness from the device and suggests that they follow CTA CEB11 and EBU Tech 3344 recommendations to mitigate this.

Finally, the document goes into the differences between fixed and portable devices, their environments, and typical expected capabilities.

This document is a major step forward in sorting out the loudness issues between different streaming services and the many devices on which their content is consumed. While AGOTTVS has a wide cross-section of industry participation, it’s not everyone. Some are waiting on a standard to be created before implementing changes, and while this document will only be a recommended practice, so is A/85.

Jay Yeary is a broadcast engineer and consultant who specializes in audio. He is an AES Fellow and a member of SBE, SMPTE, and TAB. He can be contacted through TV Technology magazine or attransientaudiolabs.com.

We have a lot of tools to measure exposure, but to me, the light meter is the simplest and truest. Every cinematographer has a different way of checking exposure in a shot, whether it’s a single tool (such as false color), a combination of tools or no tools at all. Some just look at the monitor and call it.

The author takes a spot reading of the sunrise for a 35mm movie.

However, I am a big believer in making choices and doing things for a reason as I am painting the frame with light. Metering light is not just a way to make sure the camera can see a subject, it also allows you to purposefully set ratios.

For example, if you want your backlight to be two stops over, understanding the latitude of your camera and how it will be perceived, then you can do that quickly and with confidence.

Back when shooting film, the light meter was the only sure way of knowing the image was exposed, however desired. Personally, and for many, it’s still the tool I rely on the most, in addition to false color and my eye.

For this reason, I would like to discuss how a meter is used; why it is such a great tool; and some specific instances where it saved the day on set.

Sekonic L-758C

INCIDENT AND SPOT READINGS
There are many different brands and types of light meters available. One of the most popular is Sekonic. My Sekonic L-758C, now an older model, allows me to get both incident readings and spot readings. An incident reading measures the amount of light falling on a subject, while a spot reading measures how much light is being reflected off of something. Both are important, because, just as sound waves do, light is both absorbed and bounced around by objects filling a space.

Because meters cannot see a subject, they are calibrated to assume that a subject is of 18 percent reflectance or 18 percent gray. Meters are a tool to determine illuminance, so without having to know the color of a subject, meters will read darker shades of gray as darker or more underexposed and lighter shades as brighter.

To get any light reading, the first thing that must be done is to set camera settings in your meter. The first decision you make is how you want to treat your film stock or sensor in terms of sensitivity to light. Whether you go with the native ISO or you rate it as something else, you must tell the meter this information. A meter must also know what framerate and shutter speed you are shooting at. These camera settings all affect exposure. You should also have chosen an ƒ/stop on your lens to shoot your scene.

CHOOSING YOUR CAMERA SETTINGS
As I always say, in this age of button pushers, you should be choosing your camera settings based on what you want to achieve visually rather than changing settings because the image is too dark or too bright. By just bumping up the ISO or speeding up your shutter, for example, you are messing with a lot of different things. When you take a reading with your light meter, your meter will tell you what ƒ/stop is needed to properly expose your subject. If something reads too bright or too dark, it tends to be best to use your lighting tools to brighten or darken something in the frame to get it to where you want it in intensity.

Night scene from “ARRI: Visions”

It is important to remember that the meter is just a suggestion. When your meter gives you an ƒ/4, it does not mean you have to march over to your lens and change the aperture to ƒ/4. Every shot will contain a plethora of readings from the various shadows, highlights, sources, etc., within the frame. It is the cinematographer’s job to figure out what each object in the frame should read, based on what he or she wants the camera and lens set to.

Depending on the camera’s latitude, objects that read many stops over and under may still be seen in detail. I just came off a commercial for ARRI, which was shot completely in remote locations. In one scene, the main source was a fire at night. It was important for me to take spot readings of the fire, incident readings of the actress’ face from the firelight, as well as read into the shadows around her to see if I still had detail. I wanted to make sure we exposed the actress properly while still maintaining detail in the bright highlights of the flames.

We did a lot of scenes during the day, too. Spot readings are key for bright sources in the frame such as fire, the sky and units such as flashlights.

There isn’t one ideal tool for the job, or the same ideal tool for everyone. However, I find that a light meter has been key in allowing me to make exposure decisions, shoot film confidently, and really know how I can push things in color during post. It also serves as a great way to communicate with my gaffer who is also metering throughout the day, so that together we are on the same page with how exposure through the frame looks.

Light meters have always been, and will remain, a simple, effective way of reading light.

Julia Swain is a cinematographer based in California, whose narrative films include “Killing Animals,” “Jilted” and “Cassidy Red.” She continues to shoot on a variety of formats, seeking to create compelling visuals for every story and brand. She can be contacted through TV Technology.

The last editionof this column discussed subnet masks and the nature of IP addressing. In this and the following column, we will begin discussing what subnetting means and how to do it. First, though, we need to discuss some other basic stuff.

SUBNET

A network may be sub-divided into smaller units called “subnets.” As we will discuss, a subnet may be sub-divided into smaller subnets. There are specific rules for how to create subnets. 

NETWORKS, GATEWAYS & BROADCASTS

Each network and each subnet must have a network address and a broadcast address. These are always the smallest address in a network and the largest address in a network, respectively. Consider an array of IP addresses of 192.168.1.0 through 192.168.1.255, using the subnet mask 255.255.255.0. With the smallest address in the array being 192.168.1.0, this is the network address. The largest address in the array is 192.168.1.255, this is the broadcast address. The network address and the broadcast address may not be assigned to Hosts. Therefore, for any subnet, the number of available host addresses is equal to the number of addresses in the subnet, minus two. Gateways must be assigned among the remaining available addresses. It is common, but not required, for gateways to occupy the address adjacent to the network address. In this example, that would be 192.168.1.1. 

WHAT IS A DEFAULT GATEWAY? 

Imagine you are living in a large apartment building with several floors and many apartments on each floor. Apartments on the first floor might have numbers beginning with one, apartments on the second floor may have numbers beginning with two, and so on. Regardless, the apartment building has a street address that all the apartments share. For mail to get to your apartment, it first has to come to the street address; in an IP sense, the street address is the “gateway” to your apartment. A message from another apartment in the building can get to you without going outdoors. For a message from outside your building to get to you, it has to come through the building’s door. This is a bit like how a “default gateway” works—it’s the passageway in and out of your subnet. 

So let’s say the IP address of your computer is 10.24.24.120, with a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0. This means the first three octets of the IP address are the network. Your PC can only talk directly with other PCs in its network, so the default gateway needs to be in that network. Maybe the network admin has set it to be 10.24.24.1. This means that when you talk to computers outside your network, you are sending your communications first to 10.24.24.1, which then forwards them. 

IPv4 SUBNETTING BASICS

Before talking IPv4 subnetting, let me mention that there are two IP addressing schemes. IPv4 uses the dotted decimal notations we have been talking about, while IPv6 uses an entirely different system with enough address space (so I have heard) to count all the stars in the known universe with room left over. In these articles, we are talking only of IPv4. It is also worth mentioning that IPv6 will become more and more a part of everything as time goes by, because the public address space in IPv4 has been used up entirely. However, the private IPv4 address space is virtually infinite because these addresses cannot be used on the public internet. Therefore, they can be re-used over and over in any number of locations. 

Subnetting gives you the power to create (sub) network spaces. I like to use the analogy of a sheet of paper. Think of the surface of a sheet of paper as the addresses in a network. If you fold it in half, then unfold it, there will be a crease dividing the paper into two smaller parts. Now you have two sub-networks, with the original number of available addresses split between them. Take another sheet of paper and fold it twice. When you unfold it, you will have two creases that divide the paper’s surface into four parts. If you had made a third fold, you would have eight parts, and so on. Each fold doubles the number of parts, with the individual parts becoming smaller with each fold. If the paper is the network, each part is a subnet. Each fold reduces the number of addresses available for each subnet, but doubles the number of subnets. 

Suppose you have a request for seven subnets. If you fold the paper once, you have two subnets. If you fold twice, you have four. If you fold a third time, you have eight. Thus, three folds give you seven subnets with one left over. 

Next article, we’ll get a bit more into the meat of IPv4 basics. 

Tom Norman, CPBE is project engineer for Diversified.

For more background, read Parts I, II & III

In my last column, we looked at the fundamentals of object storage as it applies to the media industry and as applicable to archiving. Object stores have become a principle solution for long-term data preservation, especially for cloud-based environments—whether for on-prem or private clouds. Object storage is used heavily in public cloud storage solutions and especially when the data is geographically disbursed for protection and accessibility purposes.

Furthermore, where tiered storage has been a trend for more than a decade, object storage brings new perspectives—particularly when addressing disk replacement management. Object storage may now be overshadowing even some of the earlier approaches to tiered storage. 

A comparison of how traditional versus object storage is implemented

Tiered stores were, for many years, an integrated overall approach to having different drives and physical media applications arranged in such a way that high-performance drives (those at the highest/top tier) were used for immediate access by applications; and lesser performing storage solutions (e.g., tape) were used for longer-term storage.

HIGH-PERFORMANCE, TOP-TIER STORAGE

Applications, for example those for post-production video editing or graphics compositing, require data delivery to be extremely fast and do so with minimal latency. Often these top-tier storage devices were Fibre Channel based (i.e., both the drives and the network switch configurations are Fibre Channel). These systems would be coupled with specific file-system controllers (aka “metadata” servers) which are designed to manage the high-volume/high-throughput transfers necessary for very rapid data movement to and from the base system application servers, local workstations or the compositing, rendering or effects servers.

The mid-tier storage was often referred to as “slow-disk” or “near-line” storage. The content data held at this level were usually the completed works (finished edits), as well as complimentary versions of the first master completed clips, stories or commercials. In addition, various “b-roll” pieces might be held in the same near-line storage since fast accessibility was not necessarily needed during content approval periods or lulls during the post-production periods. Often this storage tier was also used as the holding location for content which would ultimately be readied for archive or much deeper/long term storage.

The drives needed in this application need not be expensive, top-tier level (fibre channel) drives. Even the types of drives used in consumer-level PCs or laptops would suffice for this level of storage.

ARCHIVE NEEDS AND CONSIDERATIONS

The lowest tier storage was usually a linear tape storage solution or possibly cloud storage. If stored to tape, sometimes the workflows would require a local copy in a tape library be retained, and an off-site copy (e.g., an “iron mountain” version) would be created and physically shipped to another location.

It is this lowest tier, the archive tier, which is steadily being replaced by the disk-based object storage solution. The reasons for using object storage vary depending upon the current investment the archive-provider may already have in tape-based storage; or how the organization feels about shifting to newer technologies (i.e., disk storage either on-prem or offsite); or if the organization feels tape storage is too costly or they’ve never used tape-based library solutions and don’t want to pay for the costs of private or public cloud for archive.

In the latter case of cloud storage costs, this rationale will depend upon what form of the cloud you choose or if the potential time line needs for data restoration (recovery) cannot be predicted. These factors change the equation in terms of both the cost for data recovery (i.e., getting the data back to your own mid-tier storage) or how quickly, time wise, you might expect that data be needed since some archives use storage which cannot be easily just called up and returned to the user.

Deep archives are meant to take data in at very low costs and charge you much more to return that data. The more quickly you want the data recovered, or the volume of the data you need plus the time you need it back can seriously impact the costs for storing (and recovering) that data. 

FAST DATA RECOVERY IMPACTS

Some organizations simply don’t know when they’ll ever want the data back or how fast (e.g., disaster recovery versus occasional return uses). For this reason, by itself, building an archive which allows for the rapid return of the data (whether from offsite or onsite tape or from the cloud) becomes a business-level trigger whereby you might want to consider object storage and exclude tape or cloud, except in a few situations.

Another capability inherent in object storage-based solutions is the cataloging methodologies utilized in the store itself. Metadata is key to search and paramount to getting just the right data back from any store. In most non-object cases, the metadata is held in an external media asset management system, which needs its own database, application servers, and integration into the entire storage and workflow solution set. 

When the key metadata can be held within the object (store) itself and be searchable or modifiable by an external solution (that is, the object’s indexer), then the necessity for an archive-centric MAM changes. In objects, which are essentially “wrappers” or “containers” that hold both the content data and the rich metadata together as a single entity; only keywords and locations need to be addressed by these external MAM-like applications. This reduces hardware and software overhead, and allows the systems to be rapidly accessible. In many cases the object store solution will take less physical space (a smaller footprint) compared to the tape library and cassette storage needed in more traditional archive applications.

LONG-TERM COSTS AND BUDGETS

While this point might be arguable depending upon when, what or how much the user has invested in a tape solution—the long-term costs for object storage, once implemented, can be reduced versus tape. Why? Because tape has a finite life (both physically and technically) that mandates the data be migrated from an older format to more current higher density formats. If you have a large library, this means the older tapes (which hold far less data) are or will need to be updated; that is, replaced with the most current solutions on a recurring basis. This replace and renewal process may be every few years. So, both the physical media (tapes) are replaced and the tape-drive mechanisms will also need replacement to leverage the newer, higher density/higher capacity tape storage solution. And don’t forget, if the physical media is damaged, the data is lost forever, unless a second copy is held elsewhere.

In object storage solutions, there will be multiple drives which (in similar fashion to RAID) protect the data across many sets of drives of that object solution. In some object store chassis, which may for example, consist of 20 to 40+ drives in each group set, as many as 4 to 10 drives can fail—and all the data can still be recovered. In large data centers (or clouds) disk drives are seldom replaced since the labor to remove and replace a single drive—per instance of failure—cannot be justified. When an object group gets to the point it becomes too high of a risk to implement data recovery (that is, maybe 6 of the 8 drives in a 20-drive group have failed); a decision can be made to update that chassis, or maybe retire the chassis altogether. 

MAKING BEST SENSE

Object storage makes sense when rapid access to data is necessary; when the risk to not being able to recover the data quickly is unwarranted for your operations; or if a cloud solution is not financially beneficial (coupled with either of the other two reasons). And since object storage systems allow you to replace older smaller drives (e.g., 2 or 3 TB drives) with higher capacity drives (mixing multiple size drives in the same group set or chassis), then the migration issues associated with tape vanish.

Next time you need to look at archiving content without the complications of tape or cloud, consider how an object-based system might fit into your organization’s workflows and budget.

Karl Paulsen is CTO at Diversified (www.diversifiedus.com) and a SMPTE Fellow. Read more about this and other storage topics in his book “Moving Media Storage Technologies.” Contact Karl at kpaulsen@diversifiedus.com.

Hub Entertainment Research’s report last month, which found that 52 percent of pay-TV viewers prefer to watch their favorite shows online rather than via traditional broadcast or cable channels, surfaced amid a flurry of high-profile developments in the fast-evolving, over-the-top and subscription video-on-demand market.

Hub Research chart STB vs online viewing

The Hub study reinforced a Parks Associates report, issued just a few days earlier, that declared SVOD services—many of them offshoots from traditional linear TV networks—now dominate the paid OTT landscape.

Almost simultaneously, several new streaming services materialized. Most prominently, “Philo,” a $16 per month “skinny bundle” of 37 channels largely culled from non-sports cable networks; and a new Disney streaming network, due to debut in 2019, will further bolster the appeal of non-traditional TV viewing.

Disney’s go-it-alone plan, which was announced quickly after the company said it will take its content off Netflix, generated extraordinary interest because of suggestions that Disney will create new shows for its streaming channels, featuring original video based on company franchises such as “Star Wars,” its Marvel properties and Pixar’s “Monsters, Inc.”

Plus, the past month had the usual parade of OTT announcements, such as:

· A fee-based “Sports Illustrated” SVOD channel on Amazon Prime; for $4.99/month, there’s a lineup of sports material, although no live coverage;

· Fee-based “Curiosity Stream” (the SVOD service created by Discovery Channel founder John Hendricks) on Comcast’s OTT platform; the $5.99/month lineup is available on Comcast’s set-top box VOD platform and via its Xfinity Stream app/portal;

· A no-fee, ad-free video streaming service from Hoopla, a company that collaborates with local participating public libraries. Hoopla’s service offers “classic” titles (oldies) from Paramount Pictures, Viacom, Disney and other distributors for delivery to Apple TV and Amazon’s Fire TV at no charge for limited periods of time.

Separately, AT&T filed a trademark application for a “Watch TV” logo, with an intricate design highlighting the letters “A”, “T” & “T”. Although the paperwork at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office offers no hints about how the logo might be used, analysts speculated that it could eventually be a unified mark for all AT&T video services, including (pending current legal challenges) those offered via AT&T’s u-Verse IPTV systems and DirecTV, including DirecTV Now apps plus the Time Warner content.

For deep thinkers seeking to find a unifying context in these developments, there is the question of how (or if) these platforms and applications will fit into the emerging ATSC 3.0 environment. Some concepts—but probably no deals—may emerge during next month’s CES (see cover story) where the streaming producers and platform providers will be scouting for collaborative and competitive delivery systems.

Philo, which started as an internet TV service for college campuses, has programs from A+E, AMC Networks, Discovery, Scripps and Viacom—along with investments from most of those networks. Nostalgically named after Philo Farnsworth (considered by some to be the father of television), the new streaming service will seek to position itself with cord-cutters who want to access major OTT options, according to Philo CEO Andrew McCollum, an alumnus of Facebook. He expects customers to use an over-the-air antenna to receive local TV and to continue their subscriptions to SVOD services such as Netflix.

“We wanted to build the first social TV experience,” he said, indicating that Philo will eventually add social functionality, which was not available at launch. The vision is to establish a synch-watch feature that lets multiple friends chatter online about shows they are jointly watching, such as programs on Comedy Central or Discovery.

“We share a lot more about much more personal things on social media all the time,” McCollum said.

HOW ADVERTISERS PERCEIVE THE CHALLENGE

Inevitably, these research reports, launch promises and business visions were accompanied by deep thinking about the impact on advertising and the financial structure of broadcast economics, especially as it affects sports telecasts.

In a report last month, Rob Norman, chief digital officer of GroupM Global, examined “the challenge of getting younger viewers into the TV habit” with special attention to the problems for “ad-funded sports programming.” GroupM characterizes itself as the “world’s largest media investment group with more than $108 billion in billings.”

Norman warned that if OTT purveyors “emerge as aggressive bidders” for online sports rights, the legacy “television establishment will lose impacts or be forced to pay more.”

“This is important as it will lead to inevitable advertising price inflation at a time when advertising itself is under considerable pressure to prove return on investment,” said Norman.

At about the same time, the Consumer Technology Association’s research department issued its analysis of the streaming video advertising landscape. Its study “Exploring Preferences for Personalized Content Consumption Experiences” concluded that streaming viewers are more willing than expected to watch commercials on streaming platforms. About 71 percent watch video commercials to discover other streaming content, and 69 percent watch videos for a product or service, explained Steve Koenig, CTA’s senior director of market research, who conducted the survey.

Although about two-thirds of viewers watch streaming ads up to the point where they can skip out “most of the time,” Koenig found that “nearly four-in-10 viewers watch the entire ad without being required to do so.” CTA’s study also determined that viewers expect the length of an ad to conform to the length of the content they’re watching.

“For example, shorter spots for short-form video and longer ads with long-form content,” Koenig said. “To a lesser extent, the number and placement of ads tied to streaming video also influence ad tolerance.”

FORMULATING THE STREAMING FRAMEWORK

The restructuring of the SVOD ecosystem, along with the research findings, are typical of an emerging category, although it is complicated because of the relationships with—and the competition against—existing broadcast and cable operations.

For example, as the Park Associates study pointed out, about half of the general entertainment and premium-level SVOD services in its 2017 Top 10 have some connection to conventional TV brands. Parks pointed out that these top 10 paid OTT video services have “a massive lead over more expensive and relatively newer virtual MVPD services.” Here is Parks’ tally on the most-viewed SVOD services:

1. Netflix

2. Amazon Video

3. Hulu

4. MLB.TV

5. HBO Now

6. Starz

7. YouTube Red

8. Showtime

9. CBS All Access

10. Sling TV.

“While the top three are no surprise, the big story over the past year has been the rapid subscriber growth for OTT video services from HBO, Showtime and Starz,” said Brett Sappington, senior director of research at Parks Associates. “The combination of recognized brands and popular original content is driving demand for their offerings. Services such as Sling TV and Crunchyroll are still enjoying strong growth, but other services have simply grown at a faster rate over the past year.”

Sappington noted that online pay-TV services are also growing quickly, fueled by nationwide advertising campaigns. “YouTube TV’s advertising and sponsorship deal with MLB during the recent World Series is just one example of the marketing dollars behind these service offerings,” Sappington said. “While more online pay-TV services could enter the top 10 within the next year, those services that comprise the top 10 are recognized brands that are aggressively working to expand their subscriber bases. Displacing them will be a difficult task.”

Hub Entertainment Research’s annual “Conquering Content” report examined the role of conventional cable/satellite programming in a different context. Hub identified that set-top box use has “been steadily declining over the past several years.”

It noted that in 2014, 64 percent of viewers watched their favorite show through an STB (either live, on a DVR or through their MVPD’s on demand platform). At that time, just 31 percent said they watched their favorite show online (via an SVOD service such as Netflix, Hulu or Amazon, through a network or MVPD site/app or through other online sources such as iTunes). The past year saw a big jump (from 40 percent to 52 percent) in the online viewership preference.

“These findings suggest that the aggressive investment SVODs are making in original and exclusive content is paying big dividends,” said Peter Fondulas, co-author of the study and principal at Hub. “In this research and other recent studies, we see clear evidence that high-profile online exclusives generate buzz that draws consumers to these platforms, which not only helps attract brand new subscribers, but also builds loyalty among current customers.”

Hub’s Jon Giegengack, co-author of the study, characterized the SVOD companies as transforming themselves “from technology companies that distribute content, into entertainment companies that create it.” He also predicted that in the future, “the share of total TV time may turn out to be a more important way to evaluate platforms than looking at the number of subscribers.”

MEANWHILE, ON THE OBITUARY SIDE

While all these promising and upbeat OTT developments were underway, the video undertaker was also keeping busy. Many OTT services just quietly slip away, but some high-profile ventures get a farewell salute.

For example, “SeeSo,” a comedy SVOD service from NBCUniversal which debuted in January 2016, is running its final feeds this month. No one issued a body count on how many customers the $3.99 per month service ever attracted.

“Fullscreen Media” (backed in part by AT&T in its joint venture with The Chernin Group) will cut off its SVOD spigot in January. Again, there was no official tally of users, but sources suggest it had “hundreds of thousands” of viewers, although it was unclear if that included one-time tune-in audiences.

And Comic-Con HQ, a streaming VOD channel that began early last year as a partnership between San Diego Comic-Con and Lionsgate studio, was cut off last month. Its content—much of it from Lionsgate, has been licensed to other streaming services, including Roku, Amazon Prime and TubiTV.

In other words, the OTT/SVOD landscape continues to be dotted with promises, solid trends and a few corpses.

Gary Arlen is president of Arlen Communications LLC, a research and consulting firm. He can be reached atwww.ArlenCom.com.

ORANGE, CONN.—IP technology is already driving major improvements in live video production. New standards such as SMPTE ST 2110 will further cement IP’s role as the dominant production format.

Ask any broadcaster today which network formats are currently used for signal transport, and the answer will no doubt include IP (Internet Protocol) networking, in many cases at the top of the list. IP’s benefits are widely acknowledged, including great flexibility, low cost, and widespread availability. These factors would seem to make it an ideal choice for live video production, right?

Current deployment level of several IP technologies used in live productions

Well, reality is a little more complicated. While IP has greatly improved live production workflows, most of the impact has been confined to signals other than the transport of actual video, particularly within the studio. That is not to diminish the benefits of IP, it simply means that video is the last holdout prior to completing the migration to IP. To understand how far the industry has progressed towards IP, it helps to look at each of the major functions individually. 

MAKING THE CONTRIBUTION

IP technology has made major inroads into live video production, and one of its major impacts has been in contribution links, spanning the distance from remote venues back to production studios. A majority of these circuits use compression at high bit rates, in the range of 20 to 200 Mbps. Technologies such as H.264, I-frame only H.264 (also called AVC-I), and JPEG 2000 are popular contribution formats. In many cases, these signals will flow over IP network connections, either as part of a larger IP pipe or on special leased circuits.

Uncompressed contribution links are also available, particularly from special video networking providers. But most uncompressed services currently use SDI interfaces for connections at signal sources and destinations, even though the signals are often carried over IP networks internally to the carrier. Remote productions will need to transition to using high-bandwidth IP connections (over 1 Gbps) in order to support end-to-end uncompressed IP video. 

WITHIN THE STUDIO WALLS

With the completion of the first round of SMPTE ST 2110 standards for uncompressed elementary streams over IP, the stage is set for a major transition from SDI-based to IP-based signal flows within the live production studio. In order for this to happen, a few changes need to take place.

First and foremost, all of the devices that send, receive and process video need to be upgraded to handle ST 2110 video. As seen at this year’s NAB, IBC, and SMPTE shows, manufacturers are making major progress in developing products for all of the required ST 2110 functions, and the interop demos showed how well the various products work together. Next year will likely see an onslaught of product releases and sales, marking the beginning of the all-IP studio. Hybrid systems that support both SDI and ST 2110 will also have a role to play during the transition. However, the major benefits of IP-based system will not appear until a substantial majority of the equipment has been converted.

Studios will also need to install high-capacity Ethernet switches, with capacities in the Terabit per second range. IEEE 1588 Precision Time Protocol master clocks and infrastructure will need to be installed. While these upgrades are currently underway at some major networks, they will take time and consume a significant amount of capital before they become fully realized. 

BEYOND VIDEO AND AUDIO

Aside from video, IP technology has already had a major impact on other signals used in live production. One example is intercom systems, which have pretty much abandoned expensive T1/E1 and ISDN telco circuits in favor of low-cost IP interfaces, particularly for wide area networks. IP networks are also growing in popularity for uncompressed audio transport using the AES 67 standard, particularly in cases where the audio signals are not embedded within SDI video signals.

Another application where IP networks are prevalent is in system control and monitoring. This can range anywhere from simple device status reporting to complete control of a live production in real time. Given the tiny bandwidths needed for these signals, the flexibility of IP systems provides huge benefits. Plus there are many non-realtime activities during live productions that can be implemented over IP, including e-mail, web-based research and other preparation. (Woe betide the OB van operator who can’t get a printer working in time for copies of the script to be made).

File transfer is one more area where IP technology clearly dominates. Most live productions today need all sorts of support in the form of graphic overlays, interstitials, archive clips, and other file-based content. IP networks are the perfect choice for transporting these files, whether within the studio or over long haul networks. 

IP MOVING FORWARD

Although fully-IP live production systems are currently few and far between, that doesn’t mean that broadcasters haven’t been able to benefit from using the technology. Quite the contrary—many routine aspects of live productions have been migrated completely over to IP networks, delivering major benefits in efficiency and flexibility. These benefits themselves are sufficient to justify the move to IP.

The trend towards greater penetration of IP for media signals is unstoppable, and much to be desired. It will take some time, but in a few years, broadcasters will wonder how they ever managed to cope with multiple incompatible signal types, each of which required its own set of cabling, interfaces and synchronization systems. High-bandwidth, multiformat, reconfigurable IP infrastructure will become as indispensable as electricity for every media production.

For the past 13 years, on a Saturday in mid-autumn, the AES Atlanta Section has held their workshop for students. The classes are taught by audio professionals and are held in working audio production rooms.

The workshop concluded with a discussion featuring all of the instructors, giving the students a final opportunity to ask questions.

This year’s event took place Sept. 23 and I was honored to be among the instructors, teaching the “Critical Listening” class alongside composer Tanya Ostrovsky. This class has historically been taught by multiple Grammy Award-winning engineer Jim Anderson, so we had some rather large shoes to fill.

Joining us as instructors this year were Michael Cardillo (Creative Waves) teaching “Pro Tools Fundamentals,” Miles Walker (Gwen Stefani, Coldplay) covering “Mixing Fundamentals” and Matt Still (Elton John) and Bob Gillespie (Turner Studios) digging into “Fundamental Microphone Techniques.”

The students rotated through the four classes throughout the day, ending up with a broad cross-section of audio instruction for six hours.

CRITICAL LISTENING
Critical listening is one of those intriguing topics you see mentioned every so often, but the ability to discern sounds is one of the defining characteristics of professional audio engineers. It is a skill that can and should be developed by everyone planning to work in the audio field.

The idea of listening critically as a discipline is something I find compelling because we sometimes get so wrapped up in the technical aspects of our jobs that we forget to slow down and really focus on what we’re hearing before making adjustments.

Needless to say, being a part of this class, which forced both the students and the instructor to simply listen and analyze, was utter joy.

My goals for the workshop were to get the students to really think about how to listen; get them listening critically with fewer assumptions; and to, hopefully, get them to start listening to sounds in the real world without constantly having transducers stuck into their ear canals.

I sometimes wonder if the sounds of nature, rural communities and even cities will one day become unrecognizable as we continue consuming audio content primarily through the devices we tote along in our pockets.

Tanya and I took turns teaching the Critical Listening class, handling two sessions each. My classes were loosely based on the book, “Critical Listening and Audio Production” by Jason Corey and were taught from my perspective as an engineer. Tanya’s sessions were taught from the viewpoint of a composer, with much heavier emphasis on music theory, with materials and listening tests from the “Golden Ears” course by former TV Technology audio columnist Dave Moulton.

Watching speech on the spectrogram was particularly interesting because it showed how wide the frequency and tonal range of the human voice truly is.

Because music creation and sound engineering are so intricately intertwined—and to aid in pinpointing and understanding the overall concept of frequencies—students were first given diagrams showing the frequency ranges of musical instruments and the human voice, along with the 10 octaves of hearing.

This led to a discussion of how instrument frequency ranges overlap, how timbre, pitch and resonance are among the characteristics that help us distinguish instruments and other sounds. From there we discussed the benefit of arranging music and soundscapes so that sounds with similar tonal characteristics don’t compete with each other in the mix because it tends to make the mixing process more difficult and the results often less pleasing.

In Corey’s book, he calls for active and analytical listening on the part of audio engineers and that is what we attempted to develop through the playback of a range of audio material, including music, speech and sound effects. Each example was selected for its distinctive instrumentation, to demonstrate a specific audio focus such as dynamic range, distortion, noise, reverberation and rooms, etc., and to generate discussion about what we were hearing. The goal was to recognize the unique characteristics of each example and to distinguish what certain sounds actually were.

UNDERSTANDING AND VISUALIZING FREQUENCIES
To help the students understand and visualize frequencies, all examples were presented through a spectrogram plug-in, which allowed everyone to see the frequency and intensity of sounds as they occurred. Watching speech on the spectrogram was particularly interesting because it became obvious how surprisingly wide the frequency and tonal range of the human voice truly is.

The one problem with the spectrogram plug-in was that I periodically had to remind students (and myself) that closing our eyes allows us to listen more intently. Once we worked our way through the audio elements, we started making systematic sweeps, then boosts and cuts, using a parametric equalizer to hear how sounds change when adjusted at given frequencies. This was in preparation for the final part of the class, which was a simple boost and cut equalization test using Train Your Ears EQ Edition software and a couple of new audio elements.

Some of the students attending the workshop were already doing audio production to varying degrees. Others were intrigued by the idea of working in audio as a career, and some didn’t know much about it, but were there to learn more.

By the end of the day, after attending all four classes, they had been inundated with a lot of practical, useful knowledge and had been given the opportunity to spend time with some incredible audio talent.

This workshop always concludes with a round table discussion featuring all of the instructors, giving the students one final opportunity to ask questions of the audio professionals they’ve spent their day with. Invariably, those questions include how to get hired into the business; how the instructors got into the business; and how they became successful.

Yet there are two other, far more important things, that have remained constant in all the years I’ve participated in the workshop; the curiosity that eventually rises to the surface once students understand that their questions are being answered openly and honestly and the palpable excitement they exhibit after they realize they actually could spend their lives making music, manipulating audio and staying close to their passion.

It always reminds me of how I felt in my early years in audio and also makes me wonder whether those of us working in this business realize how truly fortunate we are.

Jay Yeary is a broadcast engineer and consultant who specializes in audio. He is an AES Fellow and a member of SBE, SMPTE and TAB. He can be contacted through TV Technology magazine or at transientaudiolabs.com.

A few years ago, the thought of running a TV channel’s infrastructure on a public cloud was considered abhorrent to many broadcasters. The cry was, “not reliable, not secure, no direct control.”

Brinton Miller

In 2017, things have changed with the likes of Discovery, Disney, Fox, Hearst Television, PBS and others making big cloud moves. Discovery has recently announced they are moving their worldwide channel signal chains to the public cloud. This is big news for our industry and is a proof point of cloud acceptance.

Below is an interview with Brinton Miller, senior vice president of technology strategy and architecture for Discovery Communications. I have known Brinton for many years and have followed Discovery’s move to the cloud.

Al Kovalick:Please tell us about Discovery’s channel empire.
Brinton Miller: Discovery Communications offers a portfolio of premium nonfiction, sports and kids programming brands, reaching 3 billion viewers across pay-TV and free-to-air platforms in more than 220 countries and territories. Our programming [like “Deadliest Catch”] is supplied across hundreds of linear channels worldwide.

Kovalick:What are some of your motivations for moving Discovery’s broadcast workflow chains, including playout, to the cloud?
Miller: Eighteen months ago, we started looking at our global media infrastructure and started thinking about what’s next. We had multiple facilities around the world all running aging playout infrastructures. So, planning for a refresh we needed to ask: “Where do we want to be in a few years? Will any infrastructure we build today meet our future business needs, some of which are unknown? With the speed of technology change, does it make sense to spend the next three years building data centers around the world?”

It quickly became clear that we needed to move to a software-based environment and we wanted to build it in a public cloud. We needed to normalize our technology stack so the tools and systems we use to launch linear products were the same as for our nonlinear products.

“Deadliest Catch” crew members of the Cape Caution emptying a crab pot.

Kovalick:How do you put a price on cloud agility when you do an ROI analysis for new infrastructure?
Miller: Agility is a bonus and not a cornerstone of our financial analysis. That said, a cloud-based channel can be built from scratch and be on air in 20 minutes. Sure, content needs to be prepared, but building the on-air chain is fast.

This compares to about four months using current on-premise methods. Agility allows Discovery to quickly deploy pop-up or digital channels to meet new business needs.

Kovalick:What is your legacy equipment utilization across ingest processing, asset management, file delivery, QA, playout and other workflow components?
Miller: Let’s just say that it is nowhere near 100-percent utilization as measured across a 24-hour/day week. Cloud provides the ability to pay for what we use versus building to a ceiling that will ultimately be a bottle neck for the business.

Kovalick:Did you encounter an internal army of naysayers when your technical staff made the cloud transition proposal?
Miller: Not at the management layer. If a cloud-native competitor is doing this, why can’t Discovery? We have a great culture at Discovery that embraces change. There will always be people that take a bit longer than others. However, for the most part the team embraced the idea.

Most of the negative comments came from incumbent equipment providers. They want to sell us boxes and we were not interested in that discussion. I do think that the vendor space is a bit more open to discussing now 18 months later.

Kovalick:What are some of the challenges to the cloud move?
Miller: Licensing of software can be problematic. Most vendors are in the perpetual license business and this model is aging fast. We wanted “per-widget” consumption models whenever possible.

That said, we needed to accept it for some cases. It was also a challenge to duplicate the real-time signal flow portions of video workflows on a cloud platform not specifically designed for video, but we did it and with the same reliability our business requires.

Kovalick:Did you consider starting with only a few cloud-based channels then migrating others later?
Miller: If you are considering migrating to the cloud, don’t dabble in it. Go all in.

Kovalick:Where did you find savings?
Miller: Oh, many places. Equipment maintenance, support, real estate costs, power, cooling, building services, the list goes on. Our legacy air chain had about 130 racks of on-premise equipment just for our 32 domestic feeds. The cloud-based system has five racks on premise and all the remaining in the cloud. All this amounts to tangible savings for the long-term. Of course, we do channel stat-muxing and satellite up-linking outside of the cloud.

To check out our recent webinar, “Project On-Ramp: Migrating Discovery’s Media Supply Chain to the Cloud,” visit www.tvtechnology.com, click on Webinars under “Resources.”

Kovalick:Let’s talk channel reliability, a huge concern for broadcasters. Can you share some of the architectural principles you followed?
Miller: Our initial rollout is based on Amazon Web Services (AWS). We use S3 for object storage and hundreds of EC2 compute instances for media processing and other functions.

The end-to-end workflow is a mix of file-based processing and real-time streams. We worked with selected vendors to implement a world-class broadcast software architecture.

For reliability, each channel’s signal chain is duplicated in two different Regions (AWS U.S. East Region and Dublin, Ireland Region, for example) and each Region’s signal output is fed to our Sterling, Virginia Broadcast Center where they connect to a simple 2x1 switch. It is there we decide which Region’s feed goes to air. If one faults, we switch to the other. We have created a very reliable system that can withstand both geographical disruptions and multiple equipment failures.

Kovalick:Why did you choose AWS?
Miller: Amazon did a good job reaching out to our industry and this built our confidence and trust in their ability to support our workflows and business needs. We built our foundational flows on Linux and virtualization so that we can migrate to other cloud providers if and when it makes business sense. We deliberately applied design principles to not impede any future migrations.

Kovalick:What new vistas has the cloud opened to you?
Miller: There are many, but I like programmatic workflows and supply chain efficiencies. Quickly setting up signal chains and apps as required by a business and rapidly changing these to meet our needs is very cool.

Al Kovalick is the founder of Media Systems consulting in Silicon Valley. He is the author of “Video Systems in an IT Environment (2nd ed).” He is a frequent speaker at industry events and a SMPTE Fellow. For a complete bio and contact information, visitwww.theAVITbook.com.

A big misconception in our industry is that daytime exteriors are the easiest time to shoot because of the amount of available light. In truth, they can be the most difficult. This is simply because you have less control. On a stage or location with minimal windows, we are fortunate to be able to manipulate the light and maintain a look with ease. Cinematography is about image control and repeatability. The ability to have control over the frame you are creating and then being able to repeat that same look as you clock around a room is the whole point.

I want to talk about both daytime and nighttime exterior scenes, as they both present challenges and I just wrapped on a commercial, “Visions,” that was solely exteriors at every time of the day and night.

SHOOTING DAYTIME EXTERIORS
Daytime seems straightforward to most, but it requires just as much preparation to get it right. You are typically fighting one of two battles: softening and cutting what’s already there while supplementing the shadows, or attempting to add highlights to a very flat image.

Unfortunately we cannot move or slow down the sun as much as we find ourselves wanting to, so we have to strategically choose locations and place our actors and camera. The time zone and the time of year also have an effect on your shoot as well. The most common and simple thing I do outside on a sunny day is just supplement the shadows with a bounce board on tighter shots.

Fig. 1: Using lighting technology on daytime exteriors can add edges on actors while softening the bright sun overhead, which was necessary for this opening scene of “I Blame Monty Hall.”

However, using lighting technology on daytime exteriors can be the key in achieving more sophisticated scenes. Most especially, having daylight units to add edges on actors while softening the bright sun overhead or dealing with a flat, cloudy sky can create separation and depth. ) I had to do this on the opening scene of “I Blame Monty Hall,” (Fig. 1), so there was some separation.

It can be easy on a cloudy day to have your units look like lights off to the side, so softening and spreading the beam can help hide your work. Outside, you have the biggest light source available to us, the sun, and it becomes about controlling the quality and amount of shadows.

Another common technique that goes without saying is pointing the camera toward the sun. Using the sun as a backlight can help avoid harsh front light on your subjects while simultaneously providing a backlight.

Often, controlling the harshness of the sun as a backlight is called for because we can only supplement the shadows so much before it starts to look unnatural. However, using the sun as a backlight tends to prove a bit easier than trying to control it as a front key light and just looks much more pleasing. As always, understanding what ratios you want to set and the capabilities of your camera will also help decide how to treat the light.

SHOOTING NIGHT EXTERIORS
Night exteriors present a new group of potential lighting techniques. The biggest topic of discussion for these is moonlight: How bright is it? The answer to this question varies with every film and cinematographer.

Some level of ambient moonlight can be very difficult to pull off because only so much light is in your arsenal and at some point that light will fall off into darkness. This can make a scene feel like it is, in fact, on a stage, because you can only see so far into the world.

For this reason, many cinematographers choose not to recreate moonlight at all. They may lack the large balloon light that is commonly used to create a large enough ambient light or simply not gravitate toward the look of it. In all the scenes that I have shot outside at night, I have found it best not to try to create moonlight unless there is absolutely nothing else.

Fig. 2: In this commercial, “Visions,” a haze was added to enhance the beams of the flashlights as the actors searched the woods.

In this new commercial, “Visions,” we had a night scene in the woods (Fig. 2) where the actors were searching with flashlights. To enhance the beams, we added haze, but I also wanted to see the trees. The shots were contained enough so I could backlight the trees without feeling like I had to fill a large space.

This also presented the common challenge of balancing color temperature. Deciding how bright your moonlight is is just as important and subjective as what color temperature it is.

I lit the entire commercial with Aputure 120d and 300d lights, and then threw some color temperature blue gel on the pair of incandescent flashlights.

Fig. 3: In the same commercial the scene was lit with the fire and a soft beam of moonlight with a 120d up in the rafters of the structure.

The final scene of the commercial was shot at night into an abandoned structure featuring a witch working around a fire, (Fig. 3). My initial instinct was to extend the effect of the fire with a warm key off to the side that was higher than the flames. Of course, this ended up not happening, and to make it the most natural and interesting, we lit solely with the fire, and added a soft beam of moonlight with a 120d up in the rafters.

This also spilled into the foreground in front of the structure, edging the weeds and dirt. The structure provided the contained area where I could create moonlight, but didn’t feel like it needed to extend very far.

The sun’s natural light can throw some interesting challenges, but if you scout and have the tools necessary to deal with it, you can create something you intended. Just like with interiors, you want control intention in each shot with the light.

Julia Swain is a cinematographer based in California, whose narrative films include “Killing Animals,” “Jilted” and “Cassidy Red.” She continues to shoot on a variety of formats, seeking to create compelling visuals for every story and brand. She can be contacted through TV Technology.

When voice search launched on personal devices, the feature was touted as a “personalized” search engine. But when users asked their device, “Find me a restaurant,” it wouldn’t know that the user didn’t like French food and that it should remove French restaurants from the search altogether. Arguably, this isn’t truly personalized.

Home assistants face the same challenge. Amazon Alexa can now recognize different voices and accents, however it still cannot respond to complex, conversational queries, such as “What’s on TV tonight?” without installing a specialist skill. This is despite TiVo finding the phrase, “What’s on TV tonight?” as one of the most frequently occurring voice searches performed at any given time.

To ensure a positive experience in the TV space, it is critical that pay-TV providers offer users accurate, personalized voice search from the get-go. Rather than pull up the standard TV guide when users ask, “What’s on TV tonight?”, the response should highlight the top shows that it knows the viewer will be most interested in watching. Consumers recognize voice search as a much easier method to find something to watch on TV, when compared to remote control-driven keyboard text search. However, the key is being able to facilitate a conversation that takes into account personalization and intent.

A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

When it comes to increasing voice search functionality, pay-TV providers already have a head start. Their abundance of data gives them a major competitive advantage over personal and home assistant devices, as they know subscribers’ viewing behavior, such as their favorite TV shows, music, actors and sports. In turn, this will enable a truly personalized voice search offering.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning techniques can also help pay-TV providers to provide viewers with intuitive voice enabled discovery. Through delving into the high-quality metadata from their large back catalogues and informing the entertainment experience, AI and machine learning methods would make television viewing more fluid. This is ideal for improving the relevance of search results and recommendations, as users will be able to ask naturally spoken questions and follow-up queries that the technology will understand. The user would be able to engage in a normal, free-flowing dialogue. For example, if they asked the system “Find me a Tom Hanks movie,” then specified “just comedy movies,” then also added “from the 80s,” results like “Big,” “Bachelor Party,” “The Burbs” and “Dragnet” would materialize. Performing a similar search with a text-based remote would prove far more burdensome, if possible at all.

With this backbone of data, pay-TV providers have two major hurdles to cement voice search as a preferable search mode:

Personalization: Voice search will become the norm when a device knows the user’s preferences and likes. For example, when a father asks the set-top box, “What’s on TV tonight?” his results should differ from his teenage son’s results for the same request. Similarly, if a mom asks, “Is Chelsea on?” the device will recognise that she watches a considerable amount of the TV show “Chelsea” on Netflix and does not mean the next Chelsea Football Club game. Again, the pay-TV provider already has this data; implementing it to the fullest would ensure the highest quality user experience for voice search, ultimately providing additional value to viewers.

Intent: When selecting a voice search platform, pay-TV providers must choose one that understands viewer intent when searching and can connect viewers with the desired content using natural language. The device must be able to infer what the user is talking about, as well as the type of search. For example, is the user looking for a TV show, a personality or a sports team? The device must also understand the end goal. For example, does the viewer want to play the latest episode, find where the game is, or record the show?

Essentially, the most critical element of voice search offerings for pay-TV providers is understanding viewers, their preferences, what they like to watch and what they don’t like to watch. It’s then about associating personalization with viewer intent, which should be an important part of pay-TV providers’ solutions.

EDUCATING USERS

According to TiVo’s “Q2 2017 Video Trends report,” which shows a breakdown of voice search types conducted by viewers from a major pay-TV provider, nearly 92 percent of all voice searches are for a particular show title or TV channel. However, only around 4 percent of searches use conversational searches, or requests for video content personalized to the end viewer, such as “What’s on TV tonight?”, “When is the Chelsea game on?”, or “Find me comedies.” This low usage level implies that there is a lack of education in the TV space, as viewers are likely unaware that they can do more with voice search on their TV than with their personal or home assistant devices. Indeed, they can pose much more complex, conversational queries. For example, “Show me some James Bond movies” and then following that up with “The ones with Roger Moore.”

TRUE PERSONALIZED SEARCH ENGINES

When personalization and intent are integrated into pay-TV providers’ voice search offerings, true personalized searches will become apparent. To make this a reality, pay-TV providers need to increase efforts to educate viewers on available options and clearly distinguish their service offerings from those of home assistant devices. This is similar to when content could be viewed on a mobile and/or streaming device; once pay-TV providers demonstrated to viewers what features are available, there was a considerable increase in multi-screen use for watching TV. Voice search usage in the TV space will likely lead down the same path.

This story originally appeared on TVT's sister publication TVB Europe.

Click on the Image to Enlarge

There is much talk about IP infrastructures for broadcasting at the moment. Typically, the talk centers on live production and interoperability between systems. This is, of course, extremely important. But there is another area in which it has the potential to deliver transformative change.

To get content from a remote location back to the broadcast center, traditionally you booked a contribution circuit (aka “backhaul”). This was usually just that: a single circuit. So if you were covering, say, a major football match, you had a single feed from the outside broadcast truck back to the studio.

Comprimato Live

Major venues would have broadcast circuits permanently installed. These were video cables, and thus of no use for any other purpose, which meant that the provider—usually the local telco—had to charge a significant sum to cover the costs of installation and provision.

Where there were no video circuits available, productions were forced to use line-of-sight microwave links (which were limited in range and location) or satellite uplinks. Like fixed links, both radio solutions were expensive, risky in terms of resilience, and in the case of satellite links, added a significant latency.

With the coming of realtime IP connectivity for professional audio and video, all this changed. By converting the feed to IP, it no longer needed a specialized link, and could be carried as data over any carrier that had sufficient bandwidth. In particular, as telcos installed high-capacity dark fiber across their territories—and particularly in the sort of metropolitan areas home to major sports stadiums—the stream could be carried as data alongside other traffic.

This saved money as telcos tended to charge for the amount of data carried, so broadcasters only paid for what they used. It also increased resilience, as geographically diverse redundant paths could be used, with the receiving device switching seamlessly between the strongest signals.

MULTIPLE FEEDS

Successfully delivering contribution over IP depended on good signal routing and on high-quality codecs to achieve broadcast quality in the optimum bitrate. While H.264 was widely used—with H.265 just over the horizon—this was seen as an ideal application for JPEG2000. This codec provides high video quality with 10:1 compression ratio for contribution applications and its wavelet algorithms are generally considered to degrade more gracefully than the discrete cosine transforms used in MPEG-type compression.

JPEG2000 also allows for uncompressed but packetized delivery, when no quality compromises can be tolerated.

Once broadcasters accepted the concept of IP carriage for contribution circuits, and the potential use of mild compression, then the obvious question became “can we use the available bandwidth to carry more than one stream from the venue to the studio?” It is this which is transformative for production.

It makes possible the ability to deliver multiple parallel feeds from an event. For rugby or football, you could have different cuts for each team. For an athletic event you could have separate track and field-oriented feeds or you could provide an international feed alongside a domestic production, which included an on-site studio for discussions and presentation.

It also means that you can deliver alternative content alongside the main feed, allowing the rights-holder to package an event in different ways for different platforms. All these provide new ways to engage with the audience, and to monetize the coverage of the event.

LOCAL AND REMOTE DISTRIBUTION

Another important requirement is to deliver multiple feeds at the location. An obvious use case is for a video referee, who will want to look at multiple camera angles. Rigging a large number of video feeds is challenging and time-consuming: running in a single fiber is much simpler.

While video referees are usually located at the event, in time it may be that major sports will follow the lead of the NBA in America, which has a centralized video referee center collecting feeds from all simultaneous games across the country.

Broadcasters frequently provide courtesy feeds to stadium screens and to other areas in the venue such as the press box and radio commentary. Again, distribution of multiple feeds over networked fiber is much easier to provide.

This concept can then be carried on to distribution, the delivery of streams from the broadcaster. Again, this is traditionally a single channel output over a video circuit, which is then modified for the platform at each individual headend. So the broadcast signal will be compressed by hardware at the headends for terrestrial, cable and satellite before multiplexing; and it will be transcoded for storage for video on demand and for live streaming across multiple platforms.

This architecture is inherently expensive, because it requires dedicated devices for each stream at each headend. It is also a quality risk, because the remote transcoders are outside the physical control of the broadcaster.

This same architecture of presenting multiple video streams along a single or multiple strands of dark fiber can be applied to distribution. This allows the broadcaster or content provider to maintain quality control over all the encoding in house, distributing all the different formats required ready packaged.

SOFTWARE ENCODING

Central to moving these ideas from a theoretical discussion to a practical solution is the ability to encode and stream potentially large numbers of high quality strands in a cost-effective manner.

The power of standard IT platforms today, and particularly GPU power, allows high quality codecs to be implemented in software. In turn, high power platforms—either virtualized or in physical devices—allow multiple instances of codec algorithms running simultaneously.

In other words, one appliance could have a single video feed in and, on a fiber output, multiple feeds at all the resolutions, formats and codecs required. This provides a secure and controlled solution to multiple distribution formats, perhaps even carrying the different streams over the public internet to the headends.

Alternatively, the same hardware could take in multiple video feeds and put it on a single fiber to another similar device, acting as a break-out box. So all the cameras or server outputs could be concentrated and delivered over a bunch of dark fiber to the television match official, or over the stadium network to the scoreboard controller.

It also provides a solution to deliver multiple feeds from a stadium to the studio, using open fiber connectivity. The same fabric could carry live realtime feeds and also transfers from the remote server network. Because IP is inherently reversible, the studio could use the same path to send archive material to the site.

Any such device would need to support a range of codecs to meet the production’s needs. It should provide transparent quality for contribution, particularly as viewers are becoming even more demanding as the option to deliver Ultra HD becomes a reality.

It should also achieve this with the minimum of latency, because consumers expect live events—and particularly sports—to actually be live. Finally, it should also acknowledge the realities of remote production where truck space is severely limited. Solutions such as Comprimato’s Live transcoder, offer multiple codecs and the ability to deliver as many as 70 full HD streams in a single 1U server with an end-to-end latency of less than 700ms.

IP connectivity provides new flexibility in both contribution and distribution circuits, allowing producers to create more targeted, engaging content, while ensuring quality is carefully controlled by bringing all the processing in house. Software systems that run on standardized hardware benefit from the continuous improvement in performance from the IT hardware industry, and through regular software updates the ability to add new functionality quickly, securely and cost-effectively.

Jirˇí Matela is CEO of Comprimato.

Media storage is the one component of your system that you want to set and forget. Most of us take our local drives and network volumes for granted. We expect them to just work. When they don't, we quickly become aware that there's a problem as work grinds to a halt. Having fast and reliable media storage is the cornerstone of modern editing, graphics, animation and color correction. For a lot of us, videotape masters and deliverables are long a thing of the past, so a successful storage strategy is integral to staying in business.

TECHNOLOGY PILLARS

Storage technology has advanced over the years, with drives gaining capacity and speed and entirely new storage mechanisms being developed. There are four pillars to consider: solid-state storage, RAIDs, interconnection and shared storage.

Echoing the evolutionary trends of other digital technologies, SSD (solid-state drive) storage devices have been gaining capacity while coming down in price. These days it's quite common to have computers—especially laptops—with internal SSDs. As this trend progresses, the same will become true of local external drives. The majority of editors today are using spinning disk drives for local storage, but that's changing as editors are called on to deal with higher resolutions and frame rates.

RAID 5 writes data across all hard drives in the array and a parity block for each data block. If one physical hard drive fails, the data from the failed hard drive can be rebuilt onto a replacement hard drive. While the files stored on a RAID 5 array remain intact should one hard drive fail, data can be lost if a second hard drive fails before the RAID is rebuilt with the replacement drive. Image by en:User:Cburnett via Wikimedia Commons

If you want the best performance with high capacity, then RAID (redundant array of independent disks) is the way to go. Once expensive and exotic, there are plenty of configurations available today, ranging from a chassis with two drives up to eight and more. Promise Technology, CalDigit, LaCie, G-Technology and OWC are leading RAID storage vendors.

RAID data virtualization combines two or more physical disk drives so they act as a single volume that may be optimized for speed, performance or redundancy. While there are several different RAID levels, you'll typically encounter RAID 0, RAID 1 or RAID 5.

RAID 0, also called "striping," combines two physical drives into a single virtual volume to achieve faster performance. RAID 0 does not provide data redundancy to offset disk failures, so the system is able to use the total capacity of both drives for storage, but if one drive dies, then you've lost all of your media. RAID 0 is optimized for increased throughput and provides the best performance of any RAID level.

RAID 1, also called "mirroring," records duplicate data onto both drives in a two-drive array. If you lose a drive, you have a backup; however, capacity is divided in half. (Half of the capacity is used to store your data and half is used for a duplicate copy.) RAID 1 does not offer the performance boost of striping.

The most common configuration with larger arrays of drives is RAID 5. This level writes parity data across all of the drives so that if one drive fails, the parity data can be used to rebuild the media information when a replacement drive is installed. Nothing is lost. You gain performance and protection, but at the cost of some storage capacity. For example, in a four-drive array, you give up approximately 25 percent of the raw capacity to parity data.

Interconnection technologies have likewise evolved over the years. Fast interconnection between a computer and external storage used to require a separate PCI card be installed in the computer for protocols like SCSI. As more of these protocols were built into the computer itself, the cost has come down, since you don't need to purchase extra hardware. FireWire (a favorite among Mac users for years) is largely gone, supplanted by newer built-in protocols like Thunderbolt 2 or 3, as well as USB 3.0 or USB-C. There is still support for eSATA, too, which may require a peripheral, such as a Thunderbolt dock with an eSATA port.

The last of our pillars is shared media storage, often called SAN (storage area network) or NAS (network attached storage). I won't go into specifics about the differences between SAN and NAS systems, but the simple differentiator is that SAN solutions generally connect to computers using Fibre Channel, while NAS uses Ethernet. Until recently, SAN systems were considered to be faster than NAS, but those waters are muddy today, with NAS configurations being used in installations working with 4K and higher video resolutions. SAN and NAS installations are the best way for multiple editors and designers to access the same media from separate workstations.

HOW LEADING PROVIDERS SEE THE TREND

The film and TV world was first introduced to shared storage through Avid Technology. That company's storage solutions have evolved from the original Avid MediaShare, introduced in 1995, through Unity and ISIS, to the current iterations of NEXIS and NEXIS | Pro. Storage solutions today have to be open to working with many creative applications. Avid's storage, which initially was designed to work with Media Composer and NewsCutter, has been tuned today to also work with Pro Tools, Adobe Premiere Pro, Apple Final Cut Pro X and Blackmagic Design DaVinci Resolve.

Avid MediaCentral now features the MediaCentral | Cloud UX (user experience), a task-oriented graphical user interface that runs on virtually any operating system or mobile device, and is available to everyone connected to the platform, no matter where they are.

Avid storage is still a common fixture in large post facilities and broadcast operations, but use of shared storage solutions is definitely moving "downmarket." Smaller shops with two or more edit stations can benefit from common access to projects and media without the need to "sneakernet" external drives between computers. Thanks to the advancement of simpler systems that can handle the needs of media pros at a lower price point, shared storage is an increasing part of the small and mid-sized business landscape. Avid, too, has recognized this trend, introducing lower-cost NEXIS bundles to attract SMB customers.

"We continue to see strong demand for digital media storage as the industry tries to keep up with viewers' ever-increasing desire for high quality, engaging content," says David Colantuoni, senior director of product management at Avid. "But tech budgets aren't increasing, forcing our customers to look for more flexible, cost-effective media-optimized storage solutions that help them keep costs down. That is one of the reasons Avid recently announced our strategic partnership with Microsoft Azure—to enable the migration of our Media Central Platform into the cloud in order to help our customers become more agile, flexible and collaborative."

The market that Avid effectively created has spawned many competitors at all size and price levels. Naturally the continuing advances, coupled with the oft-misunderstood benefits of "the cloud," can be confusing to customers. Leading storage vendors are attempting to clarify these issues for users in the face of increasingly challenging technology requirements.

EditShare grew from a small creative shop into a leading worldwide storage provider. According to Andy Liebman, EditShare founder and CEO, "Judging from 'requirements documents' we get every day from customers seeking out new shared storage systems, the adoption of UHD/4K in both acquisition and postproduction is now in full swing. Everybody is talking about multicamera editing with data rates between 100 MB/s and 2,000 MB/s per stream—in DNxHR, ProRes, DPX and other high-quality formats. This is a mind-boggling amount of data that has to move in and out of storage in real time—many times what we were dealing with a few years ago in the era of uncompressed HD.

"To meet this new UHD/4K challenge, you need blindingly fast local storage like our high-performance, fault-tolerant XStream EFS scale-out NAS," Liebman continues. "As we have been saying for many years, shared on-premises storage isn't going away anytime soon. Even if you weren't concerned about the security aspects of the public cloud, you couldn't get your editing done just with cloud storage. It's not fast enough for editing this type of content.

"Of course, we realize customers are totally in love with the idea of accessing their content anywhere, and they associate this concept with 'the cloud,'" Liebman says. "And so that's why we promote using our EditShare Flow MAM to transcode all your local UHD/4K content into low-resolution proxies and then expose everything to the internet via our secure On-Premise Private Cloud—so your team can access, view and edit content remotely. It's the best of both worlds: local high-performance storage and remote access that originates on-premise too."

While SSDs can help, just throwing flash drives at the problem won't deliver the performance content creators need for the most demanding projects. For example, OpenDrives manufactures high-performance, purpose-built shared storage products (from all-SSD to all-HDD) for uncompressed 4K, 6K, 8K, HDR and HFR media and entertainment workflows. OpenDrives is used by motion picture studios, television networks, broadcasters, online content creators and advertising agencies. Recently OpenDrives was the production and postproduction storage for Deadpool, Only the Brave and David Fincher’s Mindhunter.

Jeff Brue, OpenDrives co-founder, explains, “At OpenDrives, we created a platform that enables true real-time collaboration among editors, VFX artists, colorists and directors. Our high-throughput/low-latency products allow artists to work in native uncompressed formats. OpenDrives’ application-aware operating system accelerates project load times through intelligent and adaptive pre-fetching for critical functionality like Adobe and DaVinci database files. OpenDrives also significantly increases the number of concurrent users. This empowers content creators to work on increasingly complex projects and seamlessly adopt new features like the shared projects functionality in Adobe Premiere Pro—something that just isn't possible with traditional data storage hardware and software."

For many, the middle approach—a hybrid SSD/spinning disk unit—is an appealing tactic. This technology combines a set of SSDs together with a set of spinning drives in a single rack-mounted chassis. Facilis Technology's TerraBlock shared storage line, for example, includes hybrid product options.

"As the need for storage continues to grow, facility managers are realizing that there are big differences between storage systems when it comes to performance at 4K and beyond, especially with multistream and file sequence workflows," says James McKenna, vice president, marketing and pre-sales engineering. "One of the reasons for Facilis' continued success is that we've found the sweet spot for performance, scalability, flexibility and cost. Our customers tell us we provide the greatest ROI in storage for postproduction, and it's something we're very proud of."

NEW TECHNOLOGY OFFERS NEW OPPORTUNITIES

Avid, EditShare and Facilis are established players in the world of shared storage. But as the number of creative shops has increased with the diversification of media outlets, the storage market has heated up. The launch of Apple's Final Cut Pro X really demonstrated the sector's renewed vigor. LumaForge popped onto the scene to provide easy-to-set-up storage solutions optimized for FCP X and Adobe Premiere Pro.

"Shared storage used to be primarily the domain of dedicated post houses and facilities," explains Patrick Southern, chief workflow officer for LumaForge. "Now YouTubers, in-house content departments, DITs and on-set editorial teams are all using shared storage. We fully believe in NAS and high-speed Ethernet as the future for 4K, 8K, VR and beyond. SSDs are still very expensive compared to spinning disk storage, but they are also much faster. Our Jellyfish line of storage uses both SSD and RAM caching to significantly increase performance. However, as the price of SSDs continues to drop, full SSD systems will become a more practical solution for smaller teams."

Southern continues, "Many people ask us about direct connections via Thunderbolt 3 to our systems. Currently the cable lengths for full-speed Thunderbolt 3 are very limited. Unless you are sitting at the same table, connecting to shared storage via Thunderbolt 3 is impractical. Small teams are discovering that 'sneakernet' is inefficient for multi-editor projects. Now that there are affordable, high-speed shared storage options available, there are fewer reasons to buy a plethora of hard drives."

File sharing via QNAP

As with all electronics in the modern era, Asian hardware manufacturers have made shared storage products accessible at nearly any price point. "I observe a radical departure from conventional postproduction as we have known it in the past," says Bob Zelin, independent engineer at Rescue 1 Inc. "Today, a modern post or graphics facility is simply a bunch of computers tied to a 10G [Ethernet] network switch, which connects to some sort of shared storage system. That's it. And with the recent introduction of Taiwanese network attached storage products from companies like QNAP, Synology, Netgear and Thecus, the price to accomplish this is literally a fraction of what it was just a few years ago. All of these products work flawlessly with modern editing and graphics software from companies like Blackmagic, Avid, Adobe, Apple and Maxon."

These advances are all great news for users. Systems perform better, cost less, and are easier to install and maintain than ever before. Naturally, expectations are going to continue to increase—what was good for HD is taxed for 4K and will be outdated as higher resolutions become the norm. While we have not achieved the golden triad of good, fast and cheap, modern storage solutions are about as close as we can possibly come.

This story first appeared on TVT's sister publication Creative Planet Network. 

For more background, read Parts I and II.

COLLISIONS AND BROADCASTS

If computers in an open network talk freely with one another and two computers start talking at the same time, you have a “data collision.” Collisions may be arbitrated via Carrier Sense Multiple Access/Collision Detection (CSMA/CD), which tells the computers on the network to stop talking and try again at random, usually avoiding a successive collision. With Ethernet switches, these collision domains are broken up because switches provide dedicated paths between hosts. Thus, other computers don’t see that traffic. An Ethernet switch breaks up collision domains. 

Nevertheless, each computer needs to announce itself to the network from time to time. It does this by broadcasting to all computers in the network. Ethernet switches do not block broadcasts. However, routers will not pass broadcasts from local hosts. Routers break up broadcast domains.

SUBNET MASKS

The subnet mask identifies which bits in an IP address belong to the network and which belong to the host. A subnet mask consists of a contiguous series of ones (1) followed by a contiguous series of zeros (0). It contains exactly 32 bits, broken up into four successive groups of eight bits (octets), in dotted decimal notation. It defines the network portion (designated by the contiguous string of ones), and the host portion (designated by the contiguous string of zeros) of the IP address. The default subnet masks for Class A, B and C IP addresses are: 

Table 8

Click on the Image to Enlarge

Examining an IP address of 192.168.2.10 with the default Class C subnet mask applied, the network address is 192.168.2, and the host address is 10. Let’s discuss how this works: 

Consider the IP address 192.168.2.10 and a Class C Subnet masks. Looking at one above the other, we get:

IP Address 11000000.10101000.00000010.00001010

Subnet Mask 11111111.11111111.11111111.00000000

The result is 11000000.10101000.00000010.00000000

This is the network address portion of the IP address. A subnet mask separates the network and host portions of an IP address.

CLASSFUL ADDRESSING

Before 1993, subnet masks were not used. The address class determined the size of the network and the subnet mask was implied but not used. The classes of addresses allowed for some networks to have a great many hosts, while others were smaller. This is called “classful addressing.” Though it still exists, you may never have to deal with classful addressing. Classful addressing means the subnet is fixed by the address class and cannot be altered.

CLASSLESS ADDRESSING

In 1993, Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) was introduced. IP address classes are ignored by assigning subnet masks. You might use Class A address space (10.x.x.x) and use the Class C subnet mask (255.255.255.0) to manage those addresses. This could create multiple networks in the Class A space, each with a limit of 255 addresses. Or suppose your IT department assigned you address space of 10.34.134.0/23. The /23 is an example of CIDR notation. The /23 says the subnet mask has 23 contiguous ones (1). That means the 23 contiguous ones (network) are followed by nine contiguous zeros (host). So what does this mean? First, let’s see what the subnet mask looks like in binary: 

11111111.11111111.11111110.00000000 shows a string of 23 ones. The first two octets each are 255. The third octet’s last bit is zero (0), so is value is 255 – 1 = 254. The subnet mask is 255.255.254.0. 

The third octet of the IP address is 134. We can figure out what this is in binary using a table: 

Table 9

First, we ask if 134 is bigger than 128. It is, so we set a 1 beneath the 128. 

Next, we subtract 128 from 134. The result is 6. The next number to the right not larger than 6 is 4. We set a 1 beneath the 4. 

Now, subtract that 4 from the 6 we had before, and we get 2. The next number to the right that is not larger than 2 is (surprise) 2. We set a 1 beneath the 2, and we have identified the binary ones (1) for the octet value 134. Set the remaining bits to zero (0) and we’re mapped to binary. 10000110 = 134. 

In this example, the subnet mask uses the first seven digits of the octet. The last digit is part of the host address space. With 9 bits available for the host address space, you have 512 host addresses including the network and broadcast addresses (more on this later). Your total address space includes the addresses from 10.34.134.0 through 10.34.135.255. 

Tom Norman, CPBE, is Project Engineer for Diversified.

For some time we’ve thought mainly about how file-based storage is used to contain unstructured data; i.e., those files relative to moving (video) or static (photographic) images. File-based storage has traditionally been suitable for structured data—such as computer information when employed on personal computers or office workstations. This type of data can be appropriately organized, that is “structured,” for applications such as email, discrete sets of “office” documents, and project-related applications.

As “media”-related data came into the workforce, the storage of that data was also managed in the same way, despite the absence of true organization (or “structure”) to that data and no “best practices” for how to manage it. This type of media-centric data became known as “unstructured” data; a term which lives on through today.

In the early days of digital graphics (generated as individual files), photographic images (also individual files) or video (as contiguous groupings of inter-related files), few realized that digital media would expand to the degree it has in the past decade-plus years. Little work was done to address this eventual quantum shift in data storage needs and requirements. As linked sets of JPEG images for professional video media moved to streamed “strings” of compressed data, the volumes of files continued to grow in terms of both the formats and the quantities of actual content.

There were those who believed that asset management solutions might provide the needed organization of unstructured data. Those MAM-like processes however would still rely on traditional file-based storage solutions on the physical media (tape, hard drives, etc.), with content driving many new features and functions. Harddisk capacities increased, metadata became more important, better caching methodologies were developed, and transfer bandwidths grew to address the speeds and file-sizes of this new era.

When content creation exploded, driven by things such as digital cameras and personal mobile devices, and coupled with social media connections which now seem second nature, it became apparent that the overhead needed for file-based storage of media put huge bottlenecks in the processes of moving from one medium’s format to another. Another method for storage was needed—that methodology is called “object-based storage.”

Fig. 1: Advantages in utilizing object storage for unstructured data in archiving, cloud and geo-dispersed applications.

ALTERNATIVE STORAGE
Object-based storage, which is specifically formulated to address unstructured data, is the new alternative to file storage. This relatively recent “object-technology” is built around the concept of extended metadata and collected sets of associated data. An object can be thought of as a container—a “wrapper-like” entity that captures the unstructured data and its applicable bits-about-the-bits (aka “metadata”)—and houses it in a storage space that is designed for easier retrieval than file-based storage (Fig. 1).

In object storage, each object will be assigned a unique identifier that enables servers to retrieve it from any physical location. This is a core principle in object storage which is how cloud-based data is managed on a global basis.

Object storage systems—sometimes called “object stores”—can be software-only or hardware based. Smaller stores are typically hardware-based, but large data center size solutions will employ software-based solutions that allow the storage to be deployed on a much broader basis.

SCALABILITY
Object stores provide infinite levels of scalability, something that traditional file- or block-based storage systems cannot equal. Still there are challenges in making object stores work in a block- and file-based domain.

Interfaces continue to be a key component in making file- and block-based external shared storage successful. The two external shared storage system protocols (block and file) have flourished primarily because they are as widely used and are as available as the networking interfaces that drive them.

Traditionally, block-based storage solutions have utilized Fibre Channel and Ethernet (iSCSI) as their interfaces. For file-based solutions, the interface is usually Ethernet (e.g., CIFS/SMB and NFS).

Due to issues surrounding data protection, indexing, and addressing in large-scale data repositories, block and file (and RAID) are not very well suited for data center size storage applications. Disadvantages include RAID’s inability to scale sufficiently (and efficiently) and file-based protocols that run into issues with metadata management when the storage volumes approach petabyte-sized data and/or contain multiple billions of files. We add, however, that some enterprise-class storage providers have developed high-performance provisioning for billion-plus files or when capacity reaches or exceeds five or more petabytes.

Despite its advantages as an answer to storing data at the multipetabyte level, user applications still expect to see the functionality of the more traditional NAS or SAN interfaces. These needs complicate object store integration, making them less than straightforward compared with using block- and file-based systems. Nonetheless, object stores have taken off in popularity, especially in the last 2–3 years. Object store providers offer a variety of options for making this relatively new storage form work with key applications.

DISPERSED STORES
Object stores offer a means to provide dispersed (locally in the data center) and geo-dispersed (across countries and continents) data protection. Object stores do this without RAID, using protection mechanisms typically employing a form of erasure coding—otherwise known as forward error correction (FEC).

Lost or corrupted data can be recovered using a subset of the original content which, through algorithms, let the system reconstruct those lost storage elements mathematically; often in the background and with minimal disruption.

Erasure coding is far more scalable than RAID and is more efficient (time wise) although at a cost of additional CPU overhead. From a business continuity/disaster recovery (BC/DR) perspective, users benefit from erasure coding by allowing these “subsets” of erasure-coded data to be distributed geographically in distant locations or on adjacent floors (or buildings) on a campus-wide system. Object stores also offer failure protection capabilities, another feature leveraged when installations have more than one location for their storage platforms. Failure protection (as background rebuild task) is an erasure-coding feature void of the complexities, significant down time delays, and risks encumbered when having to rebuild RAID arrays employing multiterabyte hard disk drives.

Storage systems always run the risk of data loss or corruption. Very large-scale data repositories face this problem just like smaller systems. Most spinning disk and solid-state storage media are reliable, but not totally error-free. When storage media does fail, it may be because of silent (unknown) corruption or issues that result from unrecoverable read errors (URE). This obviously places all the data at risk.

SCRUBBING THE DATA
A technique called data scrubbing helps to validate and then rebuild potentially corrupt or missing data. Erasure coding algorithms along with the typical “write-once” (read many) nature of object store data enables failed data to be recreated in the background, with little or no impact to operations. This is another reason why object stores are becoming the first choice for long term, deep archives—as well as near term cyclical storage.

In a future article, we’ll take the next steps in discussing configuration, performance balances, and the chief advantages to an object store’s rich metadata management.

Karl Paulsen is CTO at Diversified (www.diversifiedus.com) and a SMPTE Fellow. Read more about this and other storage topics in his book “Moving Media Storage Technologies.” Contact Karl atkpaulsen@diversifiedus.com.

LONDON—The growing medium of virtual reality requires a rethink of how to view storage. VFX houses are paving the way, says Dave Frederick, senior director of media & entertainment at Quantum.

Virtual reality 360-degree video is creating new film, television and gaming experiences that enable audiences to control where their attention is focused. The ability to interact with the content environment is arguably the most significant change in the audience viewing experience since the advent of cinema itself.

Changing a 100-year-old paradigm is not without technical challenges, however. Among the first responders to answer the call are visual effects artists. With a strong skill set in compositing, an understanding of 2D and 3D space, and a flare for the dynamic, VFX artists operate on the front lines of VR post production. The challenges inherent to VR—including camera stitching, rig removal and panoramic image manipulation—require many of the same skills.

Because VR 360-degree is a new medium, production budgets often are limited. It’s not unusual for VFX artists to be called upon to create compelling visuals to fill the void. Skilled artists can create a posse of 20 cowboys in a scene when a live production budget might support only three. A realistic ocean backdrop can be added to ship-board scenes without requiring a drop of water.

HIGH DEMANDS

To create images that surround the audience, images from multiple cameras are stitched together into a large panoramic image—the equivalent of 6K or 8K resolution. For content targeting high-end head-mounted displays with 3D stereoscopic playback, finishing resolutions can be even higher.

High-performance scale-out storage is therefore an essential element of the VR post-production workflow. It’s critical that storage be fast enough to support large file sizes and also meet the performance requirements of editing and color grading VR 360-degree, which often differ from the demands of VFX and animation. Editing and grading require storage arrays that provide unblinking sequential playback of ordered frames on disk. Visual effects and animation can require both sequential and random performance.

Fibre Channel storage area networks (SANs) are favored for sequential playback of large frames and files because they deliver deterministic, guaranteed bandwidth to each connected workstation.

For animation work, file reads and writes are smaller but occur randomly, and come from a greater number of connected workstations. Random storage performance is most economical using an IP-based network attached storage (NAS) system. The “best effort” nature of IP protocols matches well with the iterative nature of animation, which does not typically require sequential playback of large files.

UNFIFIED APPROACH

In practice, maintaining two different storage systems can be expensive and lead to costly duplication of large files. This is why some post facilities are turning to unified storage that combines technology from both SAN and NAS. By supporting both IP and fibre channel connections to the same shared storage infrastructure, a unified SAN-NAS approach allows post facilities to avoid the time-consuming network-based transfer of files between workflow stages. It both minimizes down time and gives artists more time to create.

The random performance required for animation work can be further enhanced by solid state drives (SSDs), which use flash memory instead of spinning disk. Elimination of the time needed for drive heads to find file bits means that SSDs can perform anywhere from 10 to 100 faster than hard disk drives (HDDs).

All-flash arrays offer exceptional performance, but they can be expensive. A more affordable option is a hybrid array: a combination of SSDs and HDDs. Intelligence in the array controllers monitor the most readily used files and keep them in the flash storage portion of the array. If files are not used in a given time period, they are demoted to the more economical HDDs in the array.

BRIDGING THE EDITORIAL DIVIDE

The efficiency gains from a unified SAN-NAS storage solution provide a big boost to VR 360-degree post workflows. Artists are happier and more productive because the creative software they use responds fast. They are better able to create engaging content on time and on budget. Facilities that take advantage of this creative approach can start with a small unified storage configuration and then increase performance and capacity as needed. With such a flexible, powerful storage solution, VR content production companies can fulfill their viewers’ wildest visual dreams today—and are prepared to take viewers even further in the future.

This story first appeared on TVT's sister publication TV Tech Global.

In my April column (“Auction Over, Now Let’s Assess the Damage”), I wrote about the damage in terms of unanticipated (by the FCC) interference to DTV reception after the repacking of the 600 MHz band.

The FCC has noted that there will be very little additional interference after repacking. Their studies examine both co-channel (CCI) and adjacent channel interference (ACI). There are other kinds of interference known, but the FCC does not consider these in its calculations.

I am referring to interference to DTV reception by certain pairs of undesired signals that generate third-order intermodulation products, which happen to fall into the desired channel and to certain triplets of undesired signals that generate triple beats whose spectrum overlaps the desired channel. My April column explained these additional kinds of interference.

THE CHICAGO EXAMPLE
Recently the FCC published the list of TV channel allotments following its repacking of the UHF channels. Now we can assess the likelihood of such interference as may be found within about three years when all stations will be operating on their new channels.

I chose stations in Chicago as examples. You can follow my calculations for your station in your community by emulating my example.

First, the FCC chose its “Scenario No. 7” as the basis for reallocating stations in the 600 MHz band. This is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1: FCC Scenario 7—The Frequency Planning Basis of the 600 MHz Band

Click on the Image to Enlarge

The UHF TV spectrum extends from Channel 14 to and including Channel 36. The spectrum sold to broadband operators extends from Channel 38 to and including Channel 51. This spectrum is 35 MHz wide and was sold in blocks of 5.0 MHz each. Some broadband operators now own two or more contiguous blocks. The power of a 15 MHz block is yet to be determined, but the power limit for two contiguous blocks will be 3 dB higher than for a 5.0 MHz block, so the radiated LTE signal power density (watts per MHz) is constant between 5, 10 and 15 MHz emissions from base stations.

If the FCC were to hold all LTE signals to the same radiated power then the coverage of a 5 MHz system would exceed the coverage of a 10 or 15 MHz system. This is because receivers for LTE signals must have the same bandwidth as the signal from the base stations with which they communicate.

Fig. 2: Mkr. 1 608.5 MHz; Mkr. 2 617.5 MHz; Mkr.3 626.5 MHz; Mkr. 4 635.5 MHz

Assume that these LTE signals are 5 MHz wide each. If one of these overloads a DTV receiver near a base station, third-order distortion products will spread to be 15 MHz wide. Likewise, if a 10 MHz LTE signal overloads a DTV receiver, the LTE signal will be spread over 30 MHz; 10 MHz will be below the LTE signal and 10 MHz will be above the LTE signal. (See Fig. 2.) A 15 MHz wide LTE signal will spread out over 45 MHz.

You may wonder why all LTE signals are not 5 MHz wide. The answer is that in a second auction successful bidders in the first auction now owning two or more 5 MHz blocks can and will combine them into what I call a “super block” of 10, 15 or even 20 MHz width.

You might think that broadband systems would all start off with 5 MHz LTE signals, increasing their bandwidth as the business grows. But that would make all the cell phones in service obsolete. So I expect that systems will start up with all the bandwidth they now own.

Systems on the air in three years can be 5, 10, 15 or even 20 MHz systems. It also means that when they start radiating at their maximum power allowed, whatever interference results will be immediately evident if this interference blocks DTV reception near a base station.

CHANNEL 37
Now suppose that an LTE signal is 10 MHz wide as in Fig. 2. The signal occupies blocks A and B (617–627 MHz). If it overloads a receiver, third-order products will extend 9 MHz below block A to 606.5 MHz below block A (617–622 MHz), and third-order products will also extend 9 MHz above block B up to 636.5 MHz.

In Fig. 1, we see that Channel 37 is between 608–614 MHz. Channel 37 is used for medical telemetry in U.S. hospitals. However, base stations transmitting on both blocks A and B (617–627) may jam Channel 37 transmissions if the base station signal overloads nearby hospital receivers.

The situation with a 5 MHz LTE signal on block A is quite different. Third-order distortion products from block A only fall between about 614 and 617 MHz so there is very little noise in Channel 37 from a 5 MHz wide LTE signal on block A, and there is no noise in Channel 37 from a 5 MHz LTE signal on other blocks.

The FCC wisely provided a guard band between 614 and 617 MHz. But this is too small a guard band where a 10, 15 or 20 MHz LTE is deployed because the third-order distortion spectrum extends further downwards from 617.5 MHz into the TV spectrum.

Fig. 3: Twelve examples of the third-order interference spectrum products generated by pairs of downlink LTE blocks

Click on the Image to Enlarge

Fig. 3 (courtesy of my colleague Stanley Knight), shows the spectrum spreading for various combinations of undesired signals at the frequencies (shown vertically); the spectrum ends in a TV channel. However, the power per MHz (spectrum density) rolls off sharply as the frequency approaches zero power.

An interesting case would be with one 5 MHz LTE on block A and a second LTE on block G. It can be shown that third-order distortion products would be found centered at 590 MHz, Channel 34. I believe that this unanticipated interference will be to Channels 33–36. Channels below 34 will also be subject to interference of this kind from an undesired ATSC signal and a base station or by signals on certain pairs of DTV channels pairs.

Fig. 4: Current and repack Chicago DTV assignments and their interference noise due to IM3 and triple beats

In Figs. 4 and 5, Knight plotted the situation that will exist in Chicago, after the repacking and all stations are at full power. He took into account the third-order distortion products, not only from base station emissions, but also the TV signals.

In Fig. 4, Knight compares the interference (noise) in Chicago today in blue with the noise after repacking in red. This demonstrates the effect of packing signals closer, which is what repacking is all about. Note that there is no noise now above block E. This is the downlink signal from base stations. That changes after repacking.

At some sites, receivers may be overloaded by the combination of base station signals and remaining TV signals in the 600 MHz band. Fig. 4 indicates that the noise level increases by about 6 dB with repacking. And it also extends the noise power spectrum across Channel 37 by about 5 dB. There is no noise above the highest base station downlink frequency Ed.

Fig. 5: Scenario 7—Chicago repack and broadband block interference noise due to IM3 and triple beats

Fig. 5 compares the interference noise for a number of downlink base station blocks, so it is clear that this interference—when you take into account both downlink base station and cell phone (uplink) emissions and TV signals—extends across the 600 MHz TV band.

Closing on a cheerful note, these unanticipated signals can be kept out of receivers by means of a low pass 75 ohm filter, which passes signals on and below Channel 36. That is how this problem is dealt with in Europe.

Charles Rhodes is a consultant in the field of television broadcast technologies and planning. He can be reached via e-mail atcwr@bootit.com.

For more information on the repack, visit TV Technology's repack silo.

In the 1957 movie “Desk Set”with Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn, the story line revolves around the introduction and use of a computing machine (EMERAC) at a network broadcaster to help improve efficiencies. In today’s real world of media asset management, workflow efficiency and throughput are still top-tier goals, but are now achieved through innovative Media and Entertainment (M&E) software apps and in cloud computing. The varied and diverse solutions available today enable management to better handle all aspects of MAM. In fact, the more recurrent or complex a given workflow, the more beneficial these solutions become to automate the steps in managing the business of content.

Unfortunately, at some firms, investments are being made at a department level leading to “islands of automation” with duplication of content, huge costs and a lack of agility and collaboration. These poorly integrated technology stacks are insufficient to meet the needs of a rapidly evolving digital media landscape that includes the challenge of managing, producing, repurposing, distributing and monetizing large volumes of content.

In recent years, companies have struggled with conventional OTS (off the shelf) or homegrown MAM software in an attempt to solve these issues, but the solutions lack scalability across diverse departments and locations, and do not support strong upstream and downstream collaboration across the content supply chain. Media enterprises that invested heavily in on-premise MAM software often did so because of a lack of high-speed IP networks, integration with existing legacy production and broadcast systems, and a reduced dependency on internet performance and local area connections. In addition, on-premise deployments were subject to data storage restrictions and had a fixed production environment due to slow software upgrade cycles.

CONSUMER VIEWING HABITS

Stepping back for a moment, the need for improved management of all aspects of the business can be attributed in part to the change in consumer viewership behavior. New behaviors are driving second screen viewing, personalized viewing instead of family viewing and instant gratification through binge watching instead of regular drip-fed consumption of content. These changes shape the need for more high-quality premium entertainment content, increasingly targeted to specific audiences rather than the one-size-fits-all content approach of television. Going forward, personalization will remain the central theme of any TV viewing experience. This will drive innovation in content and ad targeting, especially in the over-the-top multiscreen space. Content creators will be tasked with the need to offer relevant and engaging content like never before.

The changes in viewing behaviors have also driven an increase in third-party content production houses. To best take advantage of these newly available content sources, M&E enterprises need tightly embedded content logistics workflows, with seamless integration across departments within the enterprise—production, marketing, technical operations and multiplatform distribution. Just like other industries, M&E enterprises should adopt an enterprise resource planning (ERP) solution that can act as a one-stop-shop to manage, review, process and publish content across all the platforms and devices of the broadcast universe.

More specifically, what they need is a media ERP suite that automates the content supply chain and builds a connected enterprise using both cloud and on-premises resources. An automated content supply chain is different from a conventional content supply chain as it can more quickly cope with changes and enables stakeholders to collaborate anytime, anywhere, on any device.

In the hybrid cloud model, the application software (MAM, database, BPM and enterprise service bus) and metadata are on the cloud while content storage, streaming, transcoding, auto QC and accelerated file delivery applications are on premise. Designers can partition workflows across the private side and the public side—based on a variety of drivers—and achieve the security, reliability, performance and reach that are needed for each function.

ENHANCING WORKFLOWS

In essence, hybrid cloud technology brings content to the center of the business, automates business processes and ensures concurrence and mobility of workflows using the same virtual resources. It provides strong integration with legacy systems and enables workflow orchestration across enterprise, supply chain and partner ecosystems. This in turn helps organizations enhance efficiencies and reduce costs.

Other advantages of SaaS (Software as a Service) based ERP are many. For instance, end users pay only for the services they use and the scale they need, knowing they can move up or down the functionality/scale ladder as necessary. Moreover, centralized software execution and management requires no end user software patching/upgrading; it can be deployed for small, medium or large systems and has rich APIs available for customization as needed.

Moving MAM to the cloud with solutions like Prime Focus Technologies CLEAR Media ERP vastly improves throughput and workflow efficiencies for every aspect of the content production, management and distribution while lowering total cost of operations (TCOP). As viewing behaviors continue to evolve, broadcast and production facilities will inevitably require new MAM solutions to remain competitive and relevant in the market. Prime Focus Technologies' CLEAR Media ERP with Hybrid Cloud infrastructure just may be the perfect solution they’ll be looking for.

T Shobhana is vice president and head of global marketing & communications for Prime Focus Technologies.

Broadcast and video production systems are moving rapidly into the IP realm. Therefore, understanding IP basics is now part of the engineer’s toolkit. To understand how IP works, we need to start with some background material. 

OSI REFERENCE MODEL AND TCP/IP SUITE

The OSI Reference Model was developed as a framework for moving data through a system, each layer interoperating with its adjacent layers while remaining agnostic to other layers. Its seven layers are listed below with information about their functions.

The TCP/IP Suite’s functional equivalents are shown in the far right column. Even though the TCP/IP Suite is more commonly used in practice, when you hear someone talking about Layer 2, Layer 3, etc., they are talking about the OSI Model.

To remember the layers from the bottom up, remember Please Do Not Throw Sausage Pizza Away. Top down, remember Angry People Seem To Never Dance Properly, necessarily incorporating the split infinitive.

BINARY NUMBERS

Computers think in binary. To understand IP addressing and subnetting, you need to understand binary. For IPv4 addressing, we use 8 bit binary numbers. 

We all understand how to count to nine. After nine, we need another digit. We call this decimal, or the base 10 numbering system. If we raise 10 to a power, zeros following the one are equal in number to the power. Consider 102 = 100, or 103 = 1000. Any number to the zero power is equal to one. 

Making a table, we see:

In binary, there are two possible values for any digit, zero (0) or one (1). When we count in binary, we want to translate to decimal because we think in decimal. To make this work, we give a Decimal Weight (DW) to each digit in a binary number. 

The weight of each binary bit is twice the value of its neighbor to the right. This is based on the number two raised to the power of one less than the decimal weight’s position, going from right to left. In Table 3 below, DW is Decimal Weight and DWP is Decimal Weight Position.

To calculate the decimal value of a binary number, you just add up the decimal weights of the bits whose values are one. Here are some examples.

If the binary value is one, we add the DW to the total value. Example 1 is 64 + 32 + 16 + 8 + 4 + 2 = 126. 

Can you see there are 256 possible values in an 8-bit binary number? They range from 0 – 255. Since there’s no 256, we carry, incrementing the number to the left by one and setting the value 256 back to zero. Let’s increase the IP address 192.168.2.255 by one. After carrying, you get 192.168.3.0. In binary, using only the last two octets, we have: 

2.255 = 00000010.11111111, adding one results in

3.0 = 00000011.00000000

As you can see, there are exactly 10 kinds of people in the world. There are those who understand binary, and those who don’t. 

Not too long ago, the words “public cloud” and “media enterprise” had almost nothing in common. Well, at the 2017 NAB Show the public cloud was being praised at nearly every turn by big and small equipment, services and software vendors. The public cloud is only about 11 years old, starting when Amazon first offered IT infrastructure services in 2006. It’s amazing to see the progress this once controversial service has made.

According to International Data Corp., worldwide spending on public cloud resources is expected to increase from $67 billion in 2015 to $162 billion in 2020, attaining a 19-percent CAGR. This is amazing growth and the media enterprise is not immune to this trend.

PUBLIC IS HOT, PRIVATE IS COOLING
Where do we stand today in terms of IT adoption? Let’s turn to a recent survey report from cloud management vendor RightScale, the “2017 State of the Cloud Report.” The report summarizes the results from a survey of 1,002 IT technical professionals across a broad cross-section of organizations about their adoption of the cloud. The report has been compiled annually since 2012, so RightScale has a good memory for how trends have changed since their first report. Here are some of the salient points that are relevant to building media infrastructure and related applications.

Fig. 1: Ninety-five percent of respondents are using the cloud in one form or another.

The survey shows (Fig. 1) that the hybrid cloud is the preferred enterprise strategy with 67-percent adoption while private-only is at 5 percent. Importantly, 95 percent of respondents are using the cloud in one form or another. The percentage of respondents adopting private cloud is 72 percent, down from 77 percent in 2016. This is an important trend and means more companies are trusting the public cloud.

Hybrid cloud is perfect for the media facility. Not all workflows are ready for public-only, whereas some intelligent sharing of local/private and public is practical and leads to more confidence in public-only. All media services organizations (production, post, broadcast, corporate, theatrical, etc.) use apps spanning from editing to media asset management to scheduling to project management and beyond. There are major benefits to the public cloud-based apps model and according to Gartner this segment had a growth rate of 20 percent in 2016 and a value of $38 billion (http://tinyurl.com/Gartner-saas-2015). Many vendors at the NAB Show offered either subscription apps or apps that you can own and run in a cloud of your choice.

One reason for the cooling of the private cloud is the trust in public has surged over recent years. Early on, private was the go-to choice because the public providers lacked trust and overall security was suspect. Well, the pendulum has changed sides and public (at least the major providers) has gained noteworthy respect. One reason for this is that the providers are showing substantial profits (sustainability metric) coupled with long-term growth prospects. It is accepted that private offers key advantages for massive data rate workflows (e.g. live, uncompressed HD/UHD).

Fig. 2: Usage patterns when running apps or experimenting with public and private clouds

USAGE PATTERNS
Cloud users are running apps in 1.8 different public clouds and 2.3 different private clouds, (the values in the table are averages across all responders). It’s true that fewer companies are using private clouds, but those that do are using them more often. The so-called multicloud strategy is prevailing across all responders. End users don’t want to be locked into one cloud vendor, so they spread the risk across about two, (Fig. 2.) Plus, each cloud provider offers a variety of services with differing performance levels. So, using the multicloud strategy allows end users to cherry pick what they need from the clouds they use.

For a real-world example, consider Walmart. Their strategy uses OpenStack for its private cloud and relies on Azure, Rackspace and possibly other public clouds.

Not too long ago, the main reason to use the public cloud was to leverage the pay-as-you-go (CapEx/OpEx) model to save money. In 2017 the priorities are completely different. According to the survey, the top four reasons for cloud use are:

• Faster access to infrastructure
• Greater scalability
• Higher availability
• Faster time to market

Interestingly, the ninth reason for the same question was “cost savings.” It’s amazing to see this has fallen near the bottom of the list. Why? Cloud users have learned that the other benefits outweigh cost savings. This explains why using a trusty spreadsheet to calculate cloud ROI is very difficult. How do you put a price on the ability to scale or faster time to market? Most savvy executives understand this, so don’t require a bulletproof ROI to sign off on cloud-based projects.

Another survey question asked, “What are your top cloud challenges?” For the cloud beginners the first choice was “security” and third was “managing costs.” This is not surprising since beginners are not confident in their cloud skills and don’t want to get slammed with a security breach. For the cloud-focused (mature) architect the first choice was “managing costs” and the fourth was “security.” The general trend is, more experienced users worry less about security.

This does not mean that security is not important. To the contrary, public cloud providers focus on this since it is a major differentiator to on-premise systems. Who has more security experts working for them, Amazon or your application development group? Security is a joint responsibility between you and the cloud provider.

KINGS OF THE HILL
Finally, respondents were asked what cloud providers they are using to run apps. The order was: Amazon AWS (57 percent); Microsoft Azure (34 percent) up from 20 percent in 2016; Google Cloud (15 percent) up from 10 percent in 2016 and IBM (8 percent). Oracle and Digital Ocean had a combined 5-percent usage. The multicloud approach is creating opportunity for Azure and Google. While it’s true that AWS has the market-leading position, there is potential for the others to continue gaining on AWS.

This survey shows the pace of the public cloud and its acceptance by all corners of business. As a media professional, keep both eyes trained on it and always think “cloud first.” That is, ask, “Why won’t the cloud work for me?”

Al Kovalick is the founder of Media Systems consulting in Silicon Valley. He is the author of “Video Systems in an IT Environment (2nd ed.).” He is a frequent speaker at industry events and a SMPTE Fellow. For a complete bio and contact information, visitwww.theAVITbook.com.

I try to head to the NAB Show in Las Vegas every year, and this year was probably one of the best experiences I have had. There was a lot of cinematography talk, along with plenty of new lighting units to get to know. I wanted to share a few that stood out to me and how I have or would put them to use. You will notice all of these are LEDs, which goes to show how they are really taking over lighting technology on set. All of these are efficient and have beautiful results.

DIRECTIONALITY & MOBILITY
If you are familiar with Aputure’s 120d, you know how wonderful a single-source LED can be. The new 300d is three times more intense than the 120d, and, as I always say, if you can start lighting with bigger sources, it is much easier to cut and soften than it would be starting with something smaller and running out of output.

What is really attractive about this series in Aputure’s arsenal is the directionality of the beam and ability to control the beam’s angle. The 300d isn’t physically that much larger, but packs in a much bigger punch with its intensity.

What I consider one of the biggest advantages this light has over other LEDs of this intensity, is its mobility. Other lights with large outputs can be cumbersome and slow on set. The 300d is easy to move around, which will ultimately make your setups faster.

I have not had the chance to get my hands on the 300d for a shoot, but I know I would use it for either a key, a hard back and even outside windows to give daylight direction like I have done with clunkier HMI lights. I have had to do this with the Aputure LS1, but the 300d would be even better suited because of its narrow beam—a huge plus for an LED.

SkyPanel_Firmware 3.0 Source Matching

SET AN EFFECT
The SkyPanel from ARRI has been a favorite amongst LED units that is beautifully soft and versatile. This year, the 3.0 version of its firmware was released, and introduces an array of great features, including the ability to set an effect.

With the new firmware, you can set your SkyPanel to simulate a variety of effects such as a cop car, fireworks, paparazzi and lightning. This allows you to pass on having to come up with practical ways to create effects by panning lights or changing the frequency of your units by hand. You can also select from 46 preprogrammed sources like cool fluorescents or candles to match your SkyPanel to the sources around you in the environment or the other sources you are using to light a scene.

These capabilities, along with the ability to dial in RGBW values at your fingertips, have everyone realizing that tools such as gels are becoming obsolete for some units. It is becoming easier and faster to accomplish lighting effects and obtain the colors and frequencies we desire.

Obviously, it’s great to have the SkyPanel serving as an effect light or any function for that matter on set. There have been many projects now where SkyPanels are my main lights. Not only can you change so many things about what they are outputting now, but they make beautiful soft keys.

FULLY SUBMERGIBLE
One company that has really gotten everyone’s attention this year is Digital Sputnik. I did not just want to learn more about the company’s new lights. I wanted to learn about their technology in general.

The DS family of lights is very versatile and can be stacked in different configurations, and although each unit is made up of multiple LEDs, they create a narrow beam unlike a panel would.

The newest edition released this year for Digital Sputnik was the Voyager series. These lights are tubes that can be fully submerged in water, and come in 4-foot and 2-foot units. They come with built-in batteries so there is no cabling to have to deal with while on location. You can dial in a few different things with Digital Sputnik’s application on your smartphone, getting specific with the hue, saturation, intensity and temperature. I have not used these yet, but am extremely eager to see what they do, especially underwater.

These are just some of the units that caught my attention this year and are helping lead the way in lighting technology. What is really great about all of them is the color accuracy, versatility and ability to control them wirelessly. It’s very exciting to be able to embrace new technology every year, but it also can be overwhelming. It’s truly about getting your hands on what you are interested in and taking them out on a shoot yourselves.

Julia Swain is a cinematographer based in California, whose narrative films include “Killing Animals,” “Jilted” and “Cassidy Red.” She continues to shoot on a variety of formats, seeking to create compelling visuals for every story and brand. She can be contacted throughTV Technology.

Audio over IP (AoIP) continues to gain traction with TV broadcast and production facilities for many good reasons: it reduces overall costs, improves workflows, minimizes equipment needs and greatly simplifies and reduces infrastructure. Additionally, AoIP solutions leverage the Internet of Things (IoT) by seamlessly accommodating most commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products for fast and easy integration, enabling a gradual introduction of islands of AoIP on an as-needed or budgeted basis. All of these greatly increase the overall cost efficiencies of AoIP solutions with significant cost-savings that can be realized when broadcast and business operations are integrated onto a single AoIP platform.

Axia Fusion AoIP mixing console

Another significant advantage of AoIP is that it supports enterprise-level solutions. Since most broadcast and production facilities have already been converted from analog to digital, and employ internal networks, it makes sense for their next step to be the transition of audio to IP. This applies to the broad base of critical operations across TV broadcast and production facilities, including: distributed and decentralized routing; mixer hardware and software; site-to-site connectivity; multiple-line call management; signal distribution and format conversion; real-time audio processing; audio measurement and monitoring; and IP intercom and communication.

Before implementing an AoIP solution however, it is most important to understand the technology and a little of its history to better evaluate the equipment and interoperability protocols available from different manufacturers.

AUDIO TRANSMISSION EVOLUTION

The classic analog studio takes much of its inheritance from the telecommunications industry when only two-way point-to-point audio was possible. The move to digital and the adoption of early standards such as AES3 allowed for audio transmissions to be synchronized within the studio environment and capabilities were later enhanced with a matrix, which enabled more channels and more control. This configuration was replaced by audio over Ethernet for network audio inside the studio and was then followed up by audio on an IP network, allowing audio to move in and out of the studio environment. The next iteration with a centralized server room allowed a distributed architecture for supporting geographically separated locations.

One driving force behind the transition from an analog structure to an IP audio network is reduced costs. Broadcast and production studios can achieve overall reductions with a common transport mechanism for audio, control, messaging and other data traffic such as files and email and VoIP phones. Even more savings are realized through faster installations because baseband to AoIP interfaces (such as Telos Alliance xNodes) can be conveniently placed near the equipment they serve; CAT 5e or 6 cabling can be used to the Ethernet switch and configuration is done using a PC and browser.

STANDARDS-BASED

These benefits provided a concrete value proposition for vendors to develop and market a variety of AoIP protocols. The current AES67 protocol, issued in 2013, ensures the interoperability of the various AoIP protocols available in the marketplace and was rapidly adopted by all major broadcast audio equipment vendors. Today, the most current and yet most mature AoIP protocol is Livewire+ AES67, which is ideally suited for all levels of TV broadcast and production workflow. This latest version picks up where AES67 leaves off by increasing system capacity and reducing costs, among other advantages.

With Livewire+ AES67, all connections including audio, logic, metadata and backfeeds are made using a single IP connection. The full interconnectivity via IP includes linear, low-latency audio, GPIO (General Purpose Input/Output), discovery of audio streams and more sophisticated control and monitoring protocols for instant routing at the destinations. Livewire+ AES67 leverages standard, off-the-shelf Ethernet switches to route audio and one switch can handle thousands of channels. The packets and streams are fully compatible with other IP traffic, so a single cable can carry real-time uncompressed digital audio, device control messages, program-associated data and even routine network traffic including email, file transfers and web browsing.

Livewire+ AES67 is based on a set of communication standards including STP (Scheduled Transfer Protocol) and UDP (User Datagram Protocol), QoS (Quality of Service) and IGMP (Internet Group Management Protocol), among others. STP and UDP are used to provide fast, efficient transmission over the network, while QoS is used to ensure the overall performance of the service (making sure high priority data gets sent first) and IGMP is used to establish multicast groups. In short, by using the right set of well-established networking standards, Livewire+ AES67 assures broadcast users highly reliable and low-latency delivery of audio streams.

HOW IT WORKS

AoIP is intended to run exclusively on a controlled local network infrastructure. It replaces much of the dedicated broadcast infrastructure such as routers, distribution and patching systems that have traditionally been used for managing multiple audio signals as they pass through a production or broadcast facility.

Audio sources are connected to an audio I/O device and the baseband to AoIP interfaces convert the audio to uncompressed, 24-bit/48 kHz digital audio and then packetize the audio into RTP streams. Each audio source is given a channel number and each interface is assigned an IP address for identification and routing purposes. The interfaces are networked to each other over a standard Ethernet IP network.

FUTURE PROOF

AoIP environments can easily adapt to any audio channelization format as well as accommodating control-data channels alongside the audio payload. The packet switching and serial design of Livewire+ AES67 allows greater flexibility and responsiveness in accommodating future changes in I/O configurations if needed. And IP audio networks provide broadcasters the flexibility to grow and change at will. Network capacity can be extended simply by adding more switches.

Finally, when choosing an AoIP protocol, it’s also important to carefully look at the feature set and user interfaces of the gear. Have some of your on-air peo­ple examine the control surfaces and talk through what’s on their wish list to see what capabilities they need right away and what they may want down the road. Drill down on specific pain points or throw out new scenari­os—like handling phone calls or having a producer in a different room. Having a highly configurable system, and one that picks up where AES67 leaves off, will allow you and your team to make clever solutions.

John Shur is president of the Telos Alliance TV Solutions Group.

Figuring out the amount of bandwidth a video signal requires on an IP network isn’t terribly hard, but it does require some familiarity with the underlying technologies and packet formats. Getting the correct answer is important for tasks such as estimating the number of videos that can be carried over a given network connection or for calculating the costs of a long-haul connection to carry signals between two facilities.

In this column, we’ll look at how much bandwidth will be consumed for a 1080p59.94 video signal when it is transported over two popular formats for uncompressed IP video transport that are available today.

The first format is SMPTE ST 2022-6, which was originally designed for moving uncompressed signals over a long-haul network, including all of the embedded audio and any other signals contained in the HANC and VANC spaces. This format is still popular today because it is very easy to take an SDI signal source (SD, HD or 3G), convert it into ST 2022-6 for transport over an IP connection, and get back exactly the same SDI signal at the destination without changing a single bit. It has been widely implemented by a number of equipment suppliers, and interoperability has been proven at several industry events, including VidTrans, which is hosted by the VSF (Video Services Forum).

The other format is newer, but it allows transportation of each type of media essence (video, audio, etc.) as a separate IP packet stream. This approach eliminates the need to embed and de-embed audio and other signals into SDI streams for transport and, as shown in the following calculations, reduces the amount of IP network bandwidth needed for video transport. The VSF TR-03 recommendation is based on RFC 4175, which takes groups of pixels and directly maps them into RTP packets. This recommendation is expected to evolve soon into SMPTE ST 2110-20, which will use a similar packet format.

PACKET PAYLOADS

The first step in calculating signal bandwidth is to figure out how much media essence can be transported in each packet. For ST 2022-6, this step is easy—each packet carries a fixed payload of 1376 bytes. For VSF TR-03, several alternatives are possible, so to simplify calculations, each video line consisting of 1,920 pixels will be divided into four equal parts of 480 pixels each. With 4:2:2 sampling, each pair of pixels requires four 10-bit samples (two luma and two chroma), which equates to 40 bits or 5 bytes. Thus, 480 pixels will occupy (480/2)*5=1200 bytes.

PACKET HEADERS AND OVERHEAD

As shown in the calculations in Fig. 1, at each layer as packets move through the protocol stack, new headers are added. For ST 2022-6, a High Bitrate Media Header is added. For TR-03 (and soon ST 2110-20) an 8-byte payload header is used. Then, the 12-byte RTP header and 8-byte UDP header are applied, followed by an IPv4 header of 20 bytes. At the Ethernet layer, the standard Ethernet header of 14 bytes is often extended by a 4-byte VLAN label, and the required 4-byte Frame Check Sequence is appended to the packet, for a total of 22 bytes of overhead. When transmitted over a standard path, each Ethernet frame is preceded by an 8-byte preamble and followed by an inter-frame gap equal in duration to 12 bytes, for a total overhead equal to 20 bytes in duration.

PACKET RATE CALCULATIONS

Once the size of each packet is known, the other factor needed to calculate a signal’s bandwidth is the number of packets per second. This needs to be calculated using the original signal rates. 

For ST 2022-6, since the entire 1080p59.94 payload is transported, this calculation must be based on the full video frame. With 2,200 samples per line, 1,125 lines per frame, and 20 bits per sample (in 4:2:2 10-bit sampling), the total number of bytes per frame is 6,187,500. With 1376 bytes per packet, this translates to 4,497 packets per video frame. At 59.94 frames per second, the total packet rate is 269,550 packets per second.

For TR-03/ST 2110-20, only the active video area is transported. Since each packet carries one-quarter of a video line, one full video frame will require 4x1080 = 4320 packets. At 59.94 frames per second, the stream will consume 258,941 packets per second.

To get the total bit rate, all that remains is to multiply the packet rate by the size of the packet in bits. As the bottom row of Fig. 1 shows, the bandwidth of a 2022-6 signal is about 200 Mbps higher than the nominal 2.97 Gbps required by a 1080p video, whereas the TR-03/ST 2110-20 is almost 300 Mbps less than the raw SDI.

WHAT ABOUT AUDIO?

The only other high-bandwidth signals that are commonly found in a modern production facility are audio signals. In ST 2022-6, the audio signals are carried inside the SDI payload, so there is no extra bandwidth required for audio (provided the number of audio channels is less than what the SDI can carry).

In TR-03/SMPTE ST 2110, more bandwidth will need to be allocated for audio, although, with a 48 KHz, 24-bit stereo signal occupying less than 3 Mbps, audio streams are generally not a major burden on a gigabit-class network.

A NOTE OF CAUTION

The actual amount of bandwidth allocated (i.e. the CIR or Committed Information Rate) in any network connection that carries an IP video signal needs to be greater than the raw bit rate calculated in this article. In particular, due in part to the bursty nature of video (blocks of pixels with gaps where the VANC would be), additional bandwidth should be provisioned through each network hop above and beyond the amounts calculated in this article. Since the recommended amount of added bandwidth is currently being studied by the SMPTE committee, this will have to be the subject of a future column.

Wes Simpson is active in standards development and technology training. Please visittelecompro.tvfor more information.

Broadcast TV antenna and transmitter manufacturers’ exhibits at the 2017 NAB Show were as packed as I’d seen since the DTV build-out a decade ago. One of the advantages of having these manufacturers in one place is that if one can’t deliver exactly what you are looking for, a short walk might reveal one that can. Here’s what I saw.

Broadcast engineers had a lot to look at and research. Most stations being moved to another channel as part of the FCC incentive auction repack will need a new antenna, a place to put it, and a new transmitter. Another antenna and transmitter may be needed to stay on the air while the main antenna is being replaced. Even stations that aren’t being repacked (including FM stations) may find they need an auxiliary antenna or site to stay on the air while work is being done on their primary site.

Although plans for a transition to ATSC 3.0 are still being formulated, smart engineers are making sure equipment they specify will work with ATSC 3.0.

Spinner AMS

ON THE SHOW FLOOR
Last year I described a product Spinner was showing that could detect arcs in antenna systems even when the arc occurred after multiple power dividers; but I was disappointed it wasn’t sized to work with the large line diameters used with high-power broadband antenna systems in the United States. Spinner recognized the demand and this year showed a version of its Antenna Monitoring System (AMS) that will work with line sizes up to 9 inches.

Spinner also had an item on display that they have been selling for many years, but which I hadn’t noticed. Their “Direct Access Unit” is a short piece of line permanently inserted in the transmission line at the top of the tower to allow an RF sweep of the line without the need to remove a section of line and install a test transition.

Considering the climbers, rigging and effort required to remove an elbow or section of large transmission line on the top of a tower, this device could pay for itself the first time a line has to be tested after the installation crew has left. The data sheet lists only 50 ohm units.

Fig. 1: The back of GatesAir Maxiva transmitter

GatesAir showed an updated version of its Maxiva solid-state transmitter that should make it easier to install and service. Fig. 1 shows the back of the transmitter.

Comark’s PARALLAX transmitter, which was still in prototype phase at last year’s NAB Show is now a finished product ready to ship. Both companies said they are offering low-VHF (Channels 2–6) versions of their transmitters for those stations that swapped out their high-VHF or UHF channels for low-VHF channels and cash.

Continental Electronics showed high-power UHF solid-state transmitter using Toshiba Gallium-Nitride power FETs in Doherty configuration. I’m not aware of other broadcast manufacturers using this device, at least in the United States, so it will be interesting to see how it performs.

The repack will be keeping antenna manufacturers busy for the next three years. While it’s likely most of the antennas will be similar to these they are replacing (probably a slot antenna), especially when directional patterns are required, I’ve seen more interest in broadband antennas capable of operating over several UHF channels.

Panel antennas, which I’ve covered before, are the most common broadband antenna, but broadband pylon designs, such as the cavity-backed slot, have been attracting attention due to lower windload and less complicated installation than panel antennas.

New this year was the Dielectric TFUGTH-BB pylon with a bandwidth of 60 MHz (10 channels). It is designed as a topmount antenna, compared with the full UHF band sidemount TFU-WB series introduced last year. Both antennas have sufficient input power handling to support multiple stations on one antenna.

Alive Telecom joined Dielectric and RFS to offer a cavity-backed slot antenna, the ATC-BCSE. While Dielectric and RFS have focused on making a standard antenna product that can be manufactured and ready for delivery on short notice, Alive offered a wider variety of pattern options and a nice, smooth elevation pattern. They had a model of the antenna on display at the NAB Show. When evaluating any of these broadband antennas with directional patterns, be sure to get a pattern for each of the channels on which they will be used. Patterns may vary from channel to channel!

ATSC 3.0
ATSC 3.0 is on the air now in Korea. Sinclair has an ATSC 3.0 experimental SFN operating in the D.C.-Baltimore area, and WRAL has an ATSC 3.0 experimental station on in Raleigh, N.C. Pete Socket, director of engineering and operations, described the construction of the station at WRAL in a presentation at ERI’s NAB Show breakfast.

While all the pieces of the ATSC 3.0 standard have not been finalized, a broadcaster could find all the components needed to put an ATSC 3.0 signal on the air from manufacturers at the NAB Show, as proved by the ATSC 3.0 broadcasts in Las Vegas.

Both the Comark and GatesAir transmitters include exciters with firmware, which can be switched to ATSC 3.0 with a license key. Rohde and Schwarz offered a software-defined modulator add-on to its current THU9 exciter that allows switching to ATSC 3.0. The Teamcast and Pro-Television exciters support ATSC 3.0 and can work with many new and existing transmitters. Enensys (which announced its acquisition of Teamcast at the show), Unisoft and Triveni showed packages broadcasters could assemble to begin broadcasting ATSC 3.0.

Receivers were harder to find this year. NAB showed the gateway it developed under its Pilot program. Avateq and Triveni joined forces to provide a device that provides full RF analysis of the ATSC 3.0 signal as well as analysis of ATSC 3.0 tables and data structure. DekTec’s DTA-2131 and Atsc3Xpert software-defined receiver was used in a number of the demos at the show. I heard comments about additional ATSC 3.0 test receivers becoming available, some based on a later version of the LG LGDT3307A demodulator chip LG showed last year, but no release dates or public announcements.

ATSC 3.0 offers capability far beyond that of ATSC 1.0 and it would be a shame to squander all the work that went into ATSC 3.0 by limiting it to replication of the same linear programmed, “single stick” ATSC 1.0-style broadcasts. Sinclair Broadcast Group has a plan for fully exploiting the capability of ATSC 3.0, which Louis Libin presented at show.

The plan builds on stations sharing spectrum and bandwidth and dynamically changing transmission characteristics as business demands—targeting different devices, users and services throughout the day and week. Universal coverage is assumed, which means multiple transmitters—an SFN—is required. Different spots can run on different transmitters in an SFN for targeted advertising. Broadcasters pool spectrum and data and are assigned broadcast “packets” to meet their needs. These “packets” could be on VHF or UHF or even split over multiple stations. “Packets” is in quotes because I’m not referring to IP packets alone, but the frequency and modulation over which these packets are carried. This is a different approach to broadcasting—a completely different universe. To better understand it, visit http://sbgi.net/one-media/ and start with the 2017 NAB Vision Paper available from that web page.

Next month I’ll consider repack antenna options—specifically the benefits of using elliptical or circular polarization. Recent tests with a full CP signal from the new antenna at One World Trade Center showed some interesting results.

If there are topics you would like me to cover or items I’ve missed, email me atdlung@transmitter.com.

To follow our online coverage, visit our repack silo, www.tvtechnology.com/repack.

For starry-eyed pilgrims like this foot-sore columnist, the NAB Show is an endless spree of techno-splendor. But let’s face it. The real purpose for exhibitors is to showcase their new products and sign mega-buck deals for new equipment.

So it was striking how many post-production companies this year have discovered that the road to fortune is paved with free giveaways to further the acceptance of the uniqueness of their products.

AVID MEDIA COMPOSER|FIRST

Even before the exhibit halls opened, Avid’s CEO Louis Hernandez told their Avid Connect pre-show gathering that the whole Avid MediaCentral environment would be extended to the cloud using Azure servers, thanks to their new partnership with Microsoft.

Hernandez also announced they would offer Avid Media Composer|First, a free version of their flagship NLE. Although it’s a fully featured version of Media Composer, Media Composer|First is limited to four video tracks and eight audio tracks and outputs to streaming social media channels. It joins their existing, free offering of Pro Tools|First, which has been available for download for more than a year.

Avid CEO Louis Hernandez said Avid is reaching for the cloud.

Pro Tools|First is available from the Avid website now and is actively involved in cloud collaboration. You can register for Media Composer|First on the site today and download it beginning June 29. Its cloud component will be coming in the near future.

LIGHTWORKS FREE

EditShare’s v14.0 of their Lightworks NLE is available on Windows, Mac and Linux as a version gratis: Lightworks Free. It has all the same tools as Lightworks Pro, except you don’t get advanced features such as project sharing, stereo 3D editing or Avid DNxHD codec support, and its output is limited to exporting to You Tube or Vimeo at up to 720P.

However, the Lightworks site provides a large library of tutorials to help you get started and there is an active community of users to share advice. As an editor you get to import a long list of formats, play with more than 100 built-in FXs and train on the same user interface that was employed to cut a whole bunch of feature films (such as all of Scorsese’s flicks).

MISTIKA

Another powerful edit system that is seeing the advantage of free training is SGO’s Mistika. Actually, SGO has taken the Mistika hero suite and broken it down to its components, with the first to be released being Mistika VR for stitching equirectilinear virtual reality images together. The next will be Mistika Color. Once they are all available, you can reassemble the modules to get the original Titan, which will then be called Mistika Ultima.

This takes considerable learning to master. So SGO is also releasing Mistika Insight, a free software intended for education and training that lets students and freelancers learn the Mistika technology. Supported by weekly webinars and online tutorials, Mistika Insight runs on Mac, Windows and Linux.

MYNC

One of the niftiest freebies dangled in front of us at the 2017 NAB Show may only be available through June 30, although Grass Valley, a Belden Co., may extend the offer. This little pip is called Mync, a “personal content management tool.” Originally bundled with GV Browser in EDIUS v8 back in 2015, Mync has now been cut out on its own in two versions: Basic (free) and Standard (not much more).

Mync is a video player running on Windows, which is no big deal. But it’s also a video organizer, and one that can handle the kind of files you’ll get from smartphones, USB flash drives, memory cards and DSLR cameras. And that is a big deal. Imagine being able to browse and search files shot on your iPhone.

Mync can create a storyboard that can be shared with others over YouTube, FTP, Facebook or Vimeo, even trimming shots and exporting to an XML file. And that’s with the free Basic version. The standard version adds the ability to import professional file formats, and export unlimited storyboards and MP4 movies.

But just being able to organize your cell phone photos/videos on the free Basic version is a gift in itself. Claiming absolutely no inside knowledge, but just judging from Grass Valley’s nomenclature, I’ll bet there is going to be a Mync Pro somewhere in our future. Until then, you ought to grab that Mync Basic while it’s still there for the downloading.

CINEXINSERT

The final unexpected gift from the video gods I found at the NAB Show was truly unexpected. Not just unexpected that it’s free. Unexpected that it works at all.

If there is one thing everyone in postproduction knows, it’s that once a master file has been rendered, you can’t unmix the soup. So if even a single subtitle has to be changed, the whole production has to be remastered, re-exported, and, equally time-consuming, re-QCd. But somehow “everyone” didn’t tell the folks at Cinedeck.

By treating the rendered master as data instead of video, they figured out a way to insert edit into it without having to remaster the whole kit-and-kaboodle. It’s called CineXinsert, and this utility to their recorder has proved to be a rather disruptive technology in the post houses of Hollywood that specialize in making deliverables, although it’s gradually catching on.

So what does Cinedeck do next? They’re giving a version of this technology away for free and calling it cineXtools BASIC. I’ve spoken with them, and their goal is to reach more users to let them know the impossible is possible.

The catch is that cineXtools BASIC only works on rendered master files with two soundtracks. That pretty much eliminates the next “Star Wars,” but makes it perfectly applicable for corporate videos, house of worship productions, student projects and anyone who simply wants to see the way this magic works.

Of course, Cinedeck will be glad to sell you the full version once your budget is convinced it’s worth it.

Jay Ankeney is a freelance editor and post-production consultant based in Los Angeles. Write him atJayAnkeney@mac.com.

PRINCETON JUNCTION, N.J.—When we look at where television audio standards stand today, it’s hard to reconcile the initial mono sound broadcasts from television’s infancy to where it has evolved with the capabilities of the next generation of broadcast standards, part of ATSC 3.0. This progression of television audio from mono led first to stereo, then a second audio language program (SAP), to ATSC 1.0 digital with the availability of Dolby AC3 Surround Sound—each step advancing audio technology on a steady progression towards making sound more realistic and engaging.

Visitors to the Next Generation TV Hub at the 2017 NAB Show check out immersive audio for ATSC 3.0.
Now, however, new doors are being opened for content developers to leverage the ATSC 3.0 next-generation audio standards and offer a more immersive sound environment, as well as provide end users with a more personalized sound experience. An exploration of ATSC 3.0 audio standards capabilities demonstrates their impact on how we deploy and engage with new sound systems that are evolving along with rapid advancements in the digital world.

3D IMMERSION & AUDIO OBJECTS
Building upon surround sound that’s laid out in a plane (5.1)—such as with initial surround sound systems like Dolby AC3—ATSC 3.0 audio standards take sound to a full 7.1+4 implementation, meaning seven channels of sound in a plane, one channel for a subwoofer (or the low frequencies), and four channels overhead.

On first look, this may just seem like throwing more sound into the mix, but how that sound is delivered is what makes it so unique. With audio experts having a detailed understanding of how the ear works and how humans perceive sound, the new standards can be used more effectively to convey directionality. And, what’s more, this can be done not just on fully equipped home theater speaker systems leveraging all channels, but on something as simple as a sound bar attached to a digital TV. It’s even possible to replicate this immersive 3D sound environment using ordinary headphones.

Imagine the sound of raindrops hitting leaves over your head in a scene filmed in a tropical forest or the oncoming sounds of a helicopter approaching from the side and crossing overhead before moving on and away from you. The possibilities for sound technicians truly are expansive and these new ATSC 3.0 standards involved are designed to scale and accommodate newer, more sophisticated audio scenarios as they emerge, making for a truly immersive 3D, and much more attractive, user experience today and for the future.

While there’s likely to be some time delay related to broadcasters implementing full capability of the new standards, (as well as end users not running out to purchase advanced sound systems), there are other aspects of the new audio technologies that are going to probably be used right away, and that will ultimately be very impactful.

For example, the coding technology for next-generation audio systems has moved away from being simply channel-based systems. In today's 5.1 implementations, there are five channels of surround sound and one channel for subwoofer, or low frequency, with fixed assignments: front left, front right, center, the two rears, and then the subwoofer. All sounds fall into these channels. Next-generation audio standards additionally incorporate object audio, whereby audio objects can move and be maneuvered into different positions to register sound information.

As an example, imagine someone filming a skateboarder while they run a circuit in a skate park, where the sound tech is following the skater using a joystick to control the movement of a sound object in three dimensions. In this scenario, the sound will follow the skateboarder around the course and record a more realistic representation of sound as it changes with the skater’s movements. This allows for more diversity as objects can be positioned and moved to accommodate a lot of unique and intriguing audio scenarios.

Another change enabled by next-generation audio standards—including audio objects instead of just channels—is that it allows viewers to control and choose objects that they want to hear (personalization). This enhances the user experience by vastly increasing a viewer’s control over audio content. For example, because you are dealing with objects, it makes it possible to offer controls that allow viewers to turn one object up, or turn another down, based on their own personal preference. For example, you might broadcast a football game where one object is the home team announcer and the other is the visiting team announcer. With next-generation audio systems, it’s fairly simple to give the viewer control over the audio so that they can choose and customize an audio experience tailored to their individual likes (choose which announcer to listen to in this example). Another scenario might be a visually-challenged viewer looking to “turn up” an object that is providing some audio detail describing what is coming over the television screen (known as descriptive video). Personalized audio is likely to be simpler to implement than full immersive audio (especially regarding fitting into existing station workflows) and will be very attractive to many viewers.

BUILT FOR THE FUTURE
Technology is always evolving, as are the capabilities of devices. Because it’s understood that evolution will happen, ATSC 3.0 has been developed to gracefully move from what we have today to what will be coming in the future. The need for this is something learned from past experience and incorporated into the entire standard, not just the audio portion. Throughout the entire system, each layer signals to the layer above what technologies will be used. ATSC 3.0 has set the stage for carrying both the old technology and new technology as it comes online—a win-win scenario for all involved in broadcast television and the viewing public at large.

HIGHLIGHTS FROM NAB
In my opinion, one of the primary themes of this years NAB was ATSC 3.0. ATSC 3.0 is clearly a reality—with demos, products, conference sessions and significant mention in the keynote speeches from FCC commissioner Ajit Pai, NAB’s Senator Gordon Smith and Sam Matheny. There was a well-attended Next Generation TV Hub in the LVCC Grand Hallway that demonstrated the reality of many new features of the ATSC 3.0 system: Better Pictures, Immersive Sound, Mobility, Gateway Devices, Targeted Ad Insertion, Audience Measurement, Emergency Alerting, Content Delivery to Automobiles and a broadcast from Black Mountain. The ATSC Pavilion in the Futures Park area of North Hall gave a deeper dive into many technologies and features for ATSC 3.0—including the systems currently being deployed in South Korea for the launch of UHDTV services for the 2018 Olympics.

Dr. Richard Chernock is the Distinguished Lecturer Chair for the IEEE Broadcast Technology Society (IEEE BTS). He is currently the Chief Science Officer at Triveni Digital. In that position, he is developing strategic directions for monitoring, content distribution and metadata management for emerging digital television systems and infrastructures. Dr. Chernock is active in many of the ATSC, SMPTE and SCTE standards committees, particularly in the areas of future DTV, monitoring, metadata, and data broadcast. He is chairman of the ATSC Technology Group on ATSC 3.0 (TG3) and chairs the AHG on service delivery and synchronization for ATSC 3.0. He was previously chairman of the ATSC Technology and Standards Group (TG1). Previously, he was a Research Staff Member at IBM Research, investigating digital broadcast technologies.

For more on this subject, visit ourATSC 3.0 silo.

LOS ANGELES—The venerable anamorphic format was developed for cinema by Twentieth Century-Fox in the 1950s. The studio wanted breathtaking, widescreen movies in order to compete with the newer medium of television. The resulting process, dubbed “CinemaScope,” used special lenses to optically squeeze a wider image onto a standard 35mm film frame, and audiences responded. The 2.40:1 aspect ratio brought grandeur to epic titles, but cinematographers began using the format’s unique magnification traits, field of view and focus fall-off as techniques for visual storytelling. Filmmakers found that the wide frame could hold two close-ups at once, and in the late 1960s the format began to be used by daring cinematographers like Gordon Willis, ASC and Robert Surtees, ASC for more intimate, character-driven stories. Audiences began to subconsciously associate the anamorphic image with feature-film image quality.

After a comparative lull in the 1980s and ‘90s, the format came back to feature filmmaking in a big way, driven partly by the need to add flavor to today’s digital imagery. And the trademark flares and other visual signatures of anamorphic are now making headway in television.

BACK TO THE ROOTS

Cinematographer Peter Menzies, Jr., ACS recently filmed the three episodes of the remake of “Roots,” the television miniseries that changed television in the mid-1970s. He and his collaborators wanted to shoot anamorphic, but felt that the full 2x squeeze would be unsuitable for television’s 16:9 frame.

Cinematographer Peter Menzies, Jr., ACS recently filmed the three episodes of the remake of “Roots,” on an ARRI ALEXA fitted with anamorphic lenses with a 1.3x squeeze.

“I remembered that Vantage Film offers anamorphic lenses with a 1.3x squeeze, and we tested those on the 4x3 ALEXA,” said Menzies. “I could use the entire chip area and all of the lens. I felt very comfortable doing so based on my experience with anamorphic film. Shooting full anamorphic would have been a waste—we’d end up with a smaller image area than if I’d shot spherical.

“Another big advantage is the format’s ability to give all the actors separation from the backgrounds,” he added. “It’s a performance piece, so that was important, and the producers enjoyed the look. These Hawk 1.3s gave us an incredible depth of field across people’s faces and maintained great texture in the background. The separation is extraordinary, but we still carried enough depth of field for the performances. The results are beautiful. It’s just a great look.”

Scott Williams uses the Hawk 1.3x anamorphics on “Girlfriends’ Guide to Divorce,” the single-camera comedy-drama that was Bravo’s first foray into scripted series television. He says the producers liked the fact that he could record on the ARRI ALEXA at near-4K resolution. The S-log image is unsqueezed inside the ARRI ALEXA cameras, so there’s no need for another step in post. Williams switched to the Hawk glass when he started season two.

“These 1.3x lenses really add a lot, but they never take over,” Williams said “The slighter squeeze means you get all the good stuff of anamorphic, but it’s a little less obvious. The backgrounds are like an impressionist painting, and the way they render faces, and the way the fall-off in focus travels from front to back—it all heightens it visually.”

The wide frame allows him more freedom in terms of blocking and coverage. “The reality in television production is that so many voices come into play between the time something is shot and when it’s finished,” he said. “It only takes one person saying, ‘Where’s the close-up here?’ So we end up having to shoot in a more predictable way sometimes. That leaves the lighting and technical choices. And that’s what is so exciting about these lenses for me—they’re a way of adding another whole layer without violating any of the mandates.”

In April 2016, Bravo renewed the show, and Williams is prepping to shoot three six-episode seasons of “Girlfriends’ Guide to Divorce” consecutively.

VINTAGE FEEL

Michael McDonough, ASC uses Hawk Vintage 74 lenses on “Fear the Walking Dead.” He had worked with other anamorphic glass on the pilot, but was looking for lenses that would deliver a vintage feel with modern housing and mechanics. Hawk Vintage 74 lenses, designed to deliver the idiosyncratic optical characteristics of older glass, fit the bill perfectly and allowed him to sometimes skip filtration, depending on the situation.

Michael McDonough, ASC uses Hawk Vintage 74 lenses on “Fear the Walking Dead.”

The pilot was shot in 2.40:1 aspect ratio, and the other episodes are framed in a 16:9 extraction. “It’s worth it, for everything that anamorphic gives you,” McDonough says. “The drop-off, the focus, the beautiful bokeh and flares—I look at the image and I feel it’s cinematic, even in 16:9. The Vintage 74s give me what I’m looking for in terms of softness and flares. They focus the intensity in the center of the frame and there’s that certain fall-off at the edges. I find anamorphic very much like human vision—there’s almost a sense of peripheral vision within the frame.”

Christopher Probst is one of the hottest shooters in the fields of music video and commercials. His clips with director Joseph Kahn for Taylor Swift swept the 2015 VMA Awards, and the “Blank Space” video has topped 1.2 billion YouTube views. In the commercial realm, his “Kobe vs. Messi: The Selfie Shootout” spot for Turkish Airlines was recently named ad of the decade by YouTube.

Probst believes in choosing the right tool for the job and capturing the look in-camera whenever possible. He often works with Hawk anamorphic lenses, including C- and V-Series, V-Lite and Vintage 74 anamorphic glass, depending on the look he envisions.

“The contrast and flare properties of certain lenses can really affect how a sharp, modern sensor renders a scene,” he says. “You can affect the image with lighting and exposure, but optics are becoming much more critical. With the Vintage 74s, Vantage is very smart to offer a series of lenses with reduced contrast, more veiling flare and more anamorphic flare.”

With the unique flavor of anamorphic becoming more common in television cinematography, no doubt lens makers will be quick to offer more lensing options.

“Innovation makes everyone step up their game, which is great for all directors of photography,” says Menzies.