SMPTE has joined forces with the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and Entertainment Technology Center (ETC) to publish an updated report on AI and its impact on media.

The document is the result of a task force on AI standards in media that began in 2020 and is an updated version of the Engineering Report released in 2023.

It aims to provide media professionals with a background of both AI and Machine Learning (ML), said the organisations.

The report includes a technical understanding of the two technologies, as well as the impact they are likely to have on the media landscape. It also explores AI ethics and discusses the role that standards can play in AI/ML’s future.

“The AI in Media landscape is evolving at an unprecedented pace, and the SMPTE AI Taskforce remains committed to keeping up with this transformation,” said SMPTE standards director Thomas Bause Mason.

“The revision to the Engineering Report reflects new developments such as the Model Context Protocol (MCP), enhanced security considerations, open source in AI, and emerging frameworks like ISO/IEC 42001 among others. By incorporating these updates, we aim to provide the industry with clear guidance on AI/ML as well as interoperable AI practices for media workflows.”

The report is open to all and can be found here.

There’s little doubt IP-based production and contribution continue on a rapid upward trajectory in the Media & Entertainment Industry.

Offering clear advantages like flexibility, cost-efficiency and scalability, IP transport of media essences and metadata throughout studios and in other production settings has become the go-to technology for many media organizations looking for an effective alternative to SDI or a way to augment their existing baseband infrastructure.

However, choosing which IP transport makes the most sense as well as the IP contribution link solution best suited to a given application can be complicated. From a technology point of view alone, literally hundreds of data points must be compared to arrive at a solid decision. And that’s only part of the story.

The other part –and some might say an even more fundamental aspect—is consideration of the non-technical factors that go into selecting the right IP transport and contribution link technology. Things as seemingly unrelated as the revenue potential of a given production or ideal deployment of production personnel can play significant roles in making the right decision about what IP alternatives are best.

Non-Technical Factors While anticipated revenue establishes financial guardrails for all other considerations that factor into decision making, the financial equation actually starts with the size of the event in the case of remote mobile production or live studio shows to be produced in a brick-and-mortar facility.

The bigger the event and corresponding audience size, the greater the budget ad agencies and brands will spend on commercial placement. For example, the average price of a 30-second spot during the most recent Super Bowl—watched by a global audience—averaged $8 million. In contrast, a 30-second commercial during a local University football game could cost around a thousand dollars.

While a rather extreme example, the difference clearly illustrates how size and audience dictate revenue potential, which determines production budget and ultimately the technology—including IP transport and contribution technology—from which to choose.

Many other non-technical considerations factor into selecting the appropriate IP transport and contribution technology for a given project or facility. For instance, how personnel are deployed to support a preferred workflow plays a role as well.

Will everyone be on site for a remote live production, or will only select personnel, such as camera operators and an engineer in charge, be remote while others work from a brick-and-mortar production control room (PCR)? Or will even those PCR personnel work remotely from their homes or offices via their laptops, an internet connection and a cloud instance with virtual production tools?

Ross Video has recently published a new white paper, “How to Select the Right IP Transport,” which examines these and other important considerations that go into selecting the right IP transport and contribution alternative.

A perfect companion for “The Future of Signal Transport in Media" white paper that Ross Video published last year, the latest work offers guidance on what to consider in addition to the technical characteristics of various alternatives when selecting the IP transport and contribution solution that makes the most sense for any given media organization.

To read the new white paper, click here.

With so many alternatives available when it comes to leveraging IP production transport and contribution, deciding on which path to take can feel a bit overwhelming.

Not only are there numerous technical and video quality issues to keep in mind but non-technical factors that in most situations will play an even greater role in which way a media organization ultimately chooses to go.

Money, Money, Money

If money were no object, making decisions about the best IP transport around which to build a video production network would be rather simple. With unlimited funds, bandwidth isn’t really an issue, so why even compress video? Ditto for network management. If money were not an issue, organizations could simply throw more IT personnel at network hiccups, Precision Time Protocol (PTP) clock setup and synchronization maintenance, orchestration and the like.

But for most media organizations most of the time, money is a major factor—whether it’s the revenue-generating potential of the event covered or the production budget associated with those potential earnings.

That’s why those producing the few events at the pinnacle of live television production with massive advertising revenue to support the biggest production budgets, like the Olympics or World Cup, may choose to move uncompressed 1080p HD or even 4K UHD across their SMPTE ST 2110-based production network while a small- to medium-sized TV station with limited financial resources may decide on an NDI network moving an AVC or HEVC compressed video.

As the term implies, “uncompressed” in effect means “untouched.” No effort has been made to reduce the amount of data required. AVC or HEVC on the other hand apply a good deal of compression to reduce the amount of data that must move across the network. So, how much data?

By way of comparison, an uncompressed 1080p 60 HD signal translates into 3000 Megabits per second (or 3Gigabits per second). The same signal compressed using the HEVC codec ranges from 3.5 to 15Mbps, but a nice midpoint is about 10Mbps. Clearly, the bandwidth needed for the latter is far less.

Between these two extremes there are a number of other alternatives, such as IPMX and Dante AV when it comes to IP transport protocols, and JPEG XS and JPEG 2000 when it comes to codecs. Each changes the equation, not simply in terms of how much network bandwidth is necessary but also when it comes to many other technical and non-technical factors, such as latency, workflow, network management and where production personnel will be located.

On top of these decisions, it’s necessary to take on a similar balancing act to select the IP contribution link that best meets a media organization’s needs.

Ross Video has published a new white paper, “How to Select the Right IP Transport,” which examines these and other considerations Media & Entertainment Industry organizations should think about before making a decision about which alternatives best suit their individual needs.

This examination does not seek to recommend one alternative over another but rather to equip readers with the knowledge and background they will need to assess their organization’s requirements and evaluate various options.

Click here to read this new white paper.

It really doesn’t matter whether it’s a brick-and-mortar studio, an Outside Broadcast (OB) truck or trailer, a virtualized production workflow running in the cloud or some combination of these.

When it comes to producing video, signal processing is central to the task. Simply stated, modern day signal processing encompasses the multitude of signal manipulations and modifications required to produce a show—everything from timing, synchronization, routing and distribution to production switching, character generation, audio mixing and even loudness monitoring.

Three fundamental approaches are available to meet these video production processing demands, including modular, integrated and virtualized. A fourth is a derivative of these in which two or more are combined. There are pros and cons to each.

For instance, modular processing offers extensive functionality through a broad selection of modules and extremely low latency performance—major pluses in its favor. Being hardware-based, processing modules are exposed to p obsolescence if there is a major shift in technology or what producers need. That can be particularly painful if an organization’s investment in modular processing isn’t fully amortized.

While the specifics may differ, integrated and virtualized signal processing also have their own sets of pluses and minuses. Needless to say, a hybrid of these approaches will reflect the advantages and disadvantages of its constituent parts.

Selecting the right option can be tough given the sheer number of factors that go into making an informed decision. Beyond having a clear understanding of the basic differences in processing and the strengths and weaknesses of each, a series of other factors must be considered.

For example, is the signal processing approach under consideration going to be deployed at a green field site, or will it augment an existing production workflow? Will the signal processing solution be installed in a studio where space, power and cooling requirements are relatively easy to accommodate, especially when compared to an OB unit? Does the media organization favor an OPEX or CAPEX spending model? How comfortable is the staff with the cloud?

The questions go on and on, and as each is answered a clearer picture emerges of the right direction to go.

Of course, there’s more to setting coarse than that. Each signal processing strategy must be evaluated in the context of what is happening in a rapidly evolving industry where one resolution gives way to the next, where standard dynamic range and high dynamic range must coexist to serve the widest possible audience and stereo and 5.1 surround are the warmup act for an immersive audio future.

Ross Video and TV Tech have produced a new white paper to help readers navigate the modern day signal processing landscape. In it, readers will find an examination of available signal processing alternatives with an eye towards assisting them in determining which best meets their needs today and positions their organizations for the long run.

While Ross is well-known throughout the video production industry for its wide array of signal processing technology, every effort has been made to examine the subject of modern signal processing in an objective manner. Readers not only will walk away with a clearer understanding of signal processing in modern video production workflows but also valuable guidance on selecting which approach is best for their individual circumstances.

Whether it’s modular, integrated or virtualized—or even some combination of those options— modern signal processing will play a central role in video production for the long haul. Our new white paper, “Navigating Modern Day Signal Processing,” will give readers the background they need to proceed with confidence in charting their organization’s way forward.

Click here to download the white paper.

Broadcast and media workflows are going through an accelerated period of change in large part as a response to the pandemic. 

Where in-studio workflows were the rule for decades, remote methods of working have emerged. Broadcasters and other M&E Industry professionals have learned firsthand over the past couple of years that it is possible to maintain –and even enhance—productivity when critical members of their production teams work from home or elsewhere.

This situation raises important questions for the media: Where do we go from here? If working remotely offers media enterprises and their workers flexibility and other numerous benefits and doesn’t impinge on productivity, what’s the best strategy for moving forward.

Many are considering a full-on transition to the public cloud and virtualized workflows as the smartest direction. But before making that choice, it’s important to do so only after being fully informed about both its strengths and weaknesses.

A new white paper from Dell and TV Tech examines some of the myths and misunderstandings that have grown up around the public cloud. While a full-on transition may benefit some organizations, others can derive the same types of benefits from on-prem and co-lo alternatives. Click the link to download your copy of this informative white paper.

Media content in broadcast and streaming environments is extremely valuable. This is  particularly true for first-run broadcast shows and recently released movies. Content and its  associated metadata are intellectual property (IP) and create great value for many  companies. 

In the past, content has been stolen and publicly released and content has been  locked from use by ransomware attacks. Unsecured communication links can also allow  passwords to fall into unauthorized hands and disrupt control channels that move and playout  the media content. Security should be integrated into each part of the system and should not  be an afterthought. It is an easy step to bypass in the design and implementation stages  which will save time and money but the potential ramifications on future losses are  significant.  

This paper is not a “how to” guide for implementing the security methods but will provide an  overview of the important considerations and the tools available to provide secure access  within the Zero Trust model. This includes access and communications within and outside of  the secure system. 

System designers, developers and integrators and especially management  need to be aware of the consequences of not deploying the necessary security. Broadcast  systems can no longer be treated as trusted closed systems as every communication must be  secured.

Click here to download the white paper. 

PHOENIX—Even while content providers, pay-TV operators and telcos grapple daily with the consequences of COVID-19, they must find a way to build responses that address staffing, call center management, customers with overdue bills and a host of other critical issues—all while flying blind because of the unprecedented nature of the pandemic, according to a white paper released today by NAGRA Kudelski.

The paper, “Shaping Post-COVID Resilience for the Premium Content, Pay-TV and Telco Businesses,” draws on information gleaned from customers of NAGRA Insight, the company’s software-as-a-service platform leveraging big data and AI to identify the individual behavior of TV viewers.   

Decision-making in this environment is difficult because the COVID pandemic has “no previous reference” with which to compare and make decisions against, says the white paper.

“The only solution is to build a new reference on the fly and extrapolate from it, or move forward by trial and error, and adapt strategies along the way,” it says.

The 14-page document advises readers to “go back to basics” by following three rules when staging a recovery for the business consequences of the virus, including using “up-to-date, real-time data,”  “adopting an industry-specific response” and updating and adapting more frequently.

It counsels businesses to identify which of three phases—stabilize, back to work or grow—they are in and use the correct response for each. It chronicles the four main challenges businesses must address during each phase, including how decisions are made, how businesses work, how they engage customers and how they drive and accelerate transformation.

The paper also offers a discussion of how NAGRA Insight can help businesses overcome these challenges by assisting them in building decision-making scenarios, acquiring personalized recommendations on a per-subscriber basis, accessing relevant data and monitoring the effect of initiatives.

It concludes with examples of how major operators around the world have benefited by using the NAGRA Insight solution.

To download a copy of the white paper, visit the company’s website. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound effect on once sacrosanct broadcast workflows. Nowhere is this more evident than in the newsroom.

Morning editorial meetings have become virtual. Reporters, MMJs and photographers are working nearly exclusively in the field, cutting back station visits to a minimum, and many anchors, meteorologists and others are presenting from ad hoc, at-home sets. Even when the pandemic finally passes, many of these workflow changes will remain.

TVTechnology magazine in partnership with Avid Technology has produced an informative new eBook, “The Newsroom of the Future: Leading TV News Voices Discuss What’s to Come for Local Broadcasters,” examining these and other changes. Written by TVTechnology contributing editor Phil Kurz, the eBook offers:

•  “Newsrooms Chart a Path to the Future,” an article looking at how and why local newsrooms are evolving as seen through the eyes of three leading industry news executives.
• A Q&A with Sinclair SVP of News Scott Livingston on what the newsroom on the future will look like and how it’s taking shape today.
• “The Incredible Shrinking Newsroom,” an article examining the evolving technology needs of TV news departments.
• An interview with ITV’s David Woolston on the largest U.K. commercial broadcaster’s desire to be “cloud-first and cloud native.”

Click here to get your FREE copy of this highly informative eBook.

MILAN—With ATSC 3.0 preparing to launch in the U.S. in the next year, Fincons Group, an IT business consultancy based in Italy, has published a white paper that highlights some of the Next Gen TV features and what lessons European broadcasters could take from them in the eventual updating of the existing Hybrid Broadcast Broadband TV (HbbTV) and future marketplace demands.

While Fincons notes that the U.S. had used HbbTV as a model for the development of ATSC 3.0, it now says that things have flipped as a number of systems in Europe have become outdated and are in need of an overhaul to keep pace with evolving technologies and to support innovation.

Topics covered in Fincons white paper include the importance of user experience and keeping up with consumer expectations; how to unlock the addressable advertising potential of Hybrid TV; AI powered OTT advertising; the impact of second screen advertising; and how to balance content and advertising.

“It is clear that next generation connected TV technology has come full circle and Europe needs to tackle new developments,” said Oliver Botti, head of international business development and innovations at Fincons Group. “European broadcasters can’t risk falling behind their U.S. competitors, meaning the time is now for savvy broadcasters to invest in developing their platforms and improving user experience to stay ahead of the curve in the European marketplace.”

The whitepaper, titled “After Laying the Foundations for Hybrid TV in the USA, European Broadcasters Can Now Benefit From Further Impulse Coming From USA ATSC 3.0.,” can be downloaded here.

For a comprehensive source of TV Technology’s ATSC 3.0 coverage, see ourATSC3 silo.

While advanced graphics, like 3D and hybrid virtual/hard studio sets, have the power to enhance studio productions and impact ratings, the technology truly driving benefits for broadcasters are those workflow tools behind the graphics. Learn how embedding graphics into live programming powerfully, efficiently, and cost effectively, helps broadcasters steal the show.

 Click here to download