Re: [backstage] DOGs on the BBC TV online streams?
On 14/01/2009 18:53, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: 2009/1/14 Gavin Johnson gavin.john...@bbc.co.uk This thread reminds me of our ongoing debate about use of the internal network in relation to the position of digital kit and broadcast sources. The centralist view is that you put all your encoders in a big data centre and route all the analogue through. route all the analogue through - I seem to remember spending a happy few years in the 1990s ripping out everything analogue and replacing them with fibre optic systems. Perhaps you are referring to uncompressed digital video (or broadcast quality), not analogue? Yep, I was forgetting about the subterranean codecs. Anything my browser can't see must be analogue ;-). G - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
I've been a little quiet recently but I'm still reading all the conversations. Anyway, I wanted to ask the backstage community a challenging question. Say, we had a ton of media assets from a BBC programme which we owned all the rights to and wanted to distribute widely. Not just video, but images, sound, subtitles, metadata about the programme scripts, etc. How would you 1. Package it? 2. Distribute it? 3. Licence it? (this isn't such a worry) As far as I know this is still new territory some exploring. Nine Inch Nails (not exactly my taste in music) uploaded 405 Gig of Live HD footage online the other day - http://newteevee.com/2009/01/09/nins-newest-game-changer-hd-concert-footage-via-bittorrent/ They packaged everything it would seem in a zip/tar and included a README files, some further notes about the footage, which was conveniently formatted for easy editing and even a Final Cut Pro sequences with the footage pre-organized for editing. Distribution was of course done on Bit Torrent using there own Tracker. Some thoughts I wonder how long it took to actually build the zip files and upload them? We were considering MXF - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MXF but it looks difficult and time consuming to build, however the BBC did help build it so we could get help. Matroska, Nut and QuickTime are also look worthy. Distribution wise, Bit Torrent, P2Pnext, Edonkey2k, Usenet, Archive.org, Blip.tv, rapidshare (joking!) who knows, but YouTube isn't going to cut it. What do you guys think? Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [x] private; [] ask first; [] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)2080083965 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] DOGs on the BBC TV online streams?
2009/1/19 Gavin Johnson gavin.john...@bbc.co.uk On 14/01/2009 18:53, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: 2009/1/14 Gavin Johnson gavin.john...@bbc.co.uk This thread reminds me of our ongoing debate about use of the internal network in relation to the position of digital kit and broadcast sources. The centralist view is that you put all your encoders in a big data centre and route all the analogue through. route all the analogue through - I seem to remember spending a happy few years in the 1990s ripping out everything analogue and replacing them with fibre optic systems. Perhaps you are referring to uncompressed digital video (or broadcast quality), not analogue? Yep, I was forgetting about the subterranean codecs. Anything my browser can't see must be analogue ;-). Someone told me the other day that they had an analogue Sky digibox! G - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
I'd go for some along the lines on what done at www.thetvdb.com, details of what's available is held in a set xml structure that people can use to pick/choose what parts of the content they want. D -- From: Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 6:36 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute I've been a little quiet recently but I'm still reading all the conversations. Anyway, I wanted to ask the backstage community a challenging question. Say, we had a ton of media assets from a BBC programme which we owned all the rights to and wanted to distribute widely. Not just video, but images, sound, subtitles, metadata about the programme scripts, etc. How would you 1. Package it? 2. Distribute it? 3. Licence it? (this isn't such a worry) As far as I know this is still new territory some exploring. Nine Inch Nails (not exactly my taste in music) uploaded 405 Gig of Live HD footage online the other day - http://newteevee.com/2009/01/09/nins-newest-game-changer-hd-concert-footage-via-bittorrent/ They packaged everything it would seem in a zip/tar and included a README files, some further notes about the footage, which was conveniently formatted for easy editing and even a Final Cut Pro sequences with the footage pre-organized for editing. Distribution was of course done on Bit Torrent using there own Tracker. Some thoughts I wonder how long it took to actually build the zip files and upload them? We were considering MXF - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MXF but it looks difficult and time consuming to build, however the BBC did help build it so we could get help. Matroska, Nut and QuickTime are also look worthy. Distribution wise, Bit Torrent, P2Pnext, Edonkey2k, Usenet, Archive.org, Blip.tv, rapidshare (joking!) who knows, but YouTube isn't going to cut it. What do you guys think? Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [x] private; [] ask first; [] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)2080083965 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
Say, we had a ton of media assets from a BBC programme which we owned all the rights to and wanted to distribute widely. Not just video, but images, sound, subtitles, metadata about the programme scripts, etc. How would you 1. Package it? 2. Distribute it? 3. Licence it? (this isn't such a worry) Given the current state of play, there's two options. 1) HTTP host on bbc.co.uk somewhere. (Prepare for a bandwidth bill you can also use to prop your office door open with) 2) P2P with BitTorrent. If the licence permits, Archive.org is exceptionally feasible... I would choose the latter. Have some superseeds on the BBC network so that ISP's customers can use more lcoal peers... Package up a selection of various torrents with combinations of files. Avoid MXF like the plague, even if the corp did have a hand in its inception. At the moment there seem to be so many incompatible variants that it's pointless. Also if you're going to be distributing direct to joe public some kind of intermediary format like MXF is just asking for trouble. Keep It Simple Stupid. Of course, if you want to offer an expert-mode torrent which has all the various metadata files as well, go for it. :) ZIPs I find somewhat pointless unless they're collecting a group of relevant and related files; BitTorrent has its own CRC and error checking built in to the protocol, no need to zip up files and then torrent the zip, just torrent the files direct (like NIN did). Various user advantages to that approach. Licensing... CC non commercial attribute sharealike would work wouldn't it? Finally, what's the subject matter of the content? ;) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
2009/1/19 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk: Say, we had a ton of media assets from a BBC programme which we owned all the rights to and wanted to distribute widely. Not just video, but images, sound, subtitles, metadata about the programme scripts, etc. A ton? Assuming you mean metric tonne (1000kg) and you are using Seagate 1.5TB disks[0] that would be over 2 Peta Bytes of data. :D How would you 1. Package it? Something Open and Standardised obviously. If you just want to get the files to someone's machine then tar should be fine. Compression can be done with Gzip or Bzip but Media files don't compress very well! If you intend to update the files maybe some kind of Rsync or CVS, SVN (but these work best with isolated changes to the files). 2. Distribute it? Almost certainly BitTorrent. Works on any platform. 3. Licence it? (this isn't such a worry) Public Domain or something like CC-by-SA or GFDL (GPL for software). I wonder how long it took to actually build the zip files and upload them? Depends on what kind of compression is used. Tar uses no compression (unless you Bzip or Gzip it) so should go about as fast as your Hard Drive can manage. If you really want to compress and you are worried about time, run command before you leave work, it should be done by the next morning easily. We were considering MXF - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MXF but it looks difficult and time consuming to build, however the BBC did help build it so we could get help. Matroska, Nut and QuickTime are also look worthy. Never heard of it. You have to pay to rent the standard (the EULA is very clear about it being leased not sold). Also have to surrrender rights to an unamed Arbitrator and submit to sole US jurisdiction. Not going to do that so I can't read the standard so can't say how good it is. It certainly has a lot more hoops to jump through just to read the thing. I can read RFCs so much easier (if it's not very knew I have it on my HD, ah bulk download). Distribution wise, Bit Torrent, P2Pnext, Edonkey2k, Usenet, Archive.org, Blip.tv, rapidshare (joking!) who knows, but YouTube isn't going to cut it. BitTorrent or Archive.org (preferably both). What do you guys think? Are you sure you want to know what I think about? ;) Andy [0] http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/ds_barracuda_7200_11.pdf -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
Were we reading from the same crib sheet Andy? ;) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
Hey, BitTorrent would be the way forward considering all the arguments the ISPs would kick up if you tried to unicast it from BBC servers - like when iPlayer traffic started up I guess. It being legit content, might open up more to the idea of BitTorrent distribution? ZIPping large video content is a large negative - just wastes time. Processing power to even lightly try and compress already compressed files as you know is silly, and takes a long time and a lot of PC churning. If it's uncompressed however, compress away. But then we're talking niche... anyway - yeh as mentioned in a previous reply, TARring together some bits and pieces is efficient, compressing isn't. I guess if it was to be rolled out conventionally, partnering with someone that has a huge edge network - Google, Akamai, etc... would do the trick nicely. Or BitTorrent with content edge pushed to the ISPs. Packaging should be done in a viable format - as in useable... or popular, that's the right word? Some would say use the most free, some would say use the most popular - is there one that fits into both categories? Of course we can do subtitles on WMV, but that's locking in somewhat - but packaging the subtitle file then causes audience to narrow to those that know how to use it. What's the audience? If it's technical or editing people, then use some open, good quality format that can convert to many others. Then package the subtitles in a nice non-cryptic standard - you could have an XML base for the metadata. Is there any meta format that the big editing suites share? Preferably an XML style one - so the small guys can compete too and still use the information. Just throwing some ideas around... :) --Matt On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Christopher Woods chris...@infinitus.co.uk wrote: Were we reading from the same crib sheet Andy? ;) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
2009/1/19 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk: 1. Package it? File formats: Packaging: None. Direct files on... 2. Distribute it? BitTorrent clients are now wide spread enough for a mass market audience. But I would sadly still expect that even in 2009 a BBC programme which we owned all the rights to means some minor specialist audience, so that isn't a bonus. And if you are dealing with a lot of files (405 Gig of Live HD footage online the other day could be a lot of files, but since its HD video, it is probably some very large files...) which I suppose is the case when dealing with an ongoing series, rather than a one off programme, as you mention, then BitTorrent on its own is a bit sparse. You'd want keyword searching, content recommendations based on collaborative filtering, donation of upload capacity to spike recommendations to friends also on the tracker, that kind of thing. So, good thing the BBC has been paying for the development of Tribler already, then. 3. Licence it? (this isn't such a worry) I cuss the non-commercial restrictions. They packaged everything it would seem in a zip/tar Pointless. and included a README files, some further notes about the footage, +1 conveniently formatted for easy editing Please support free formats. and even a Final Cut Pro sequences with the footage pre-organized for editing. Shame on them for supporting Apple. Doing that for Cinelerra/etc and including a copy, would be good though. I wonder how long it took to actually build the zip files and upload them? Upload them means what for BitTorrent? We were considering MXF It looks proprietary to me, so that was a mistake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MXF but it looks difficult and time consuming to build Oh good :-) however the BBC did help build it Did they ensure it was a free standard? Cheers, Dave - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
2009/1/19 Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com: 2009/1/19 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk: 1. Package it? File formats: File formats: Whatever is closest to original. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
2009/1/19 Matt Barber m...@progressive.org.uk: Packaging should be done in a viable format - as in useable... or popular, that's the right word? Some would say use the most free, some would say use the most popular - is there one that fits into both categories? The closest you're going to get is probably MPEG4, not entirely free due to Patents in some countries. Ogg Theora is more Free but less popular (although it can be played on most PC Platforms, but less popular on portable devices). Of course we can do subtitles on WMV, but that's locking in somewhat I think Ogg also does subtitles. What's the audience? If it's technical or editing people, then use some open, good quality format that can convert to many others. Then package the subtitles in a nice non-cryptic standard - you could have an XML base for the metadata. Is there any meta format that the big editing suites share? I'm not sure about the big editing studios but Wikipedia has a list of common subtitle formats[0]. MPlayer also has a list of formats it supports[1], VLC also has a list[2]. Andy [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtitle_(captioning)#For_software_video_players [1] http://www.mplayerhq.hu/DOCS/HTML/en/subosd.html [2] http://www.videolan.org/vlc/features.html -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
+1 BitTorrent +1 MP4 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
