Canon has slated the release of a new camera that will put H.264/AVC into the spot light recently. I have written much over the years about how H.264 will eventually take over as the standardised codec of choice. The Canon HG20/HG21 is the camera that will make consumers love AVC.
The thing that makes the HG20 special is that it supports a more realistic bitrate for the AVCHD codec. Most of the recent cameras from Sony and other brand have only supported up to 16mbit. The Canon unit will support AVCHD up to 24 mbit. This is a huge difference as, the picture quality is greatly improved for shooting more demanding video. This is more then a typical consumer quality camera.
For example, the new Sony EX1 and EX3, $10,000 (On average) cameras are the hottest prosumer cameras around right now. And for good reason. The build and tactile interface is fantastic for one. Plus the quality of the 35mbit MPEG2 is stunning. Build quality means nothing unless you can capture a great picture. MPEG2 at 35mbit does just that.
Now, looking at AVCHD (H.264) at 24mbit. Yes, it is not as high as 35mbit, but it is well known that the newer technology of H.264 is up to 2 times as efficent. 2×24mbit(H.264) = 48mbit(MPEG2) in quality.
I personally do not thing it is twice as good, but one could expect it to match 35mbit easily.
So we now have $1500 consumer cameras matching the quality of $10,000 prosumer cameras. Thats big news to anyone who shoots video on a day to day basis.
The other huge advantage is that storing/archiving your content is easier as at 24mbit over, 35mbit, is a major advantage. This may not sound like a big issue, but video files pile up fast, and it is not unusual to have 10-100 of terrabytes of video.
Standard are very important
Finally, the long term advantage. AVC is a SMPTE specifications which takes it into the future. For example. support for up to 4k resolutions, 4:2:2, 4:4:4 and 10, 12 bit colour. No other SMPTE standard codec supports these characteristics. People talk about the RED all the time using the RED codec. I find it a sign of ignorance that they do not understand the advantages of supporting standards based codecs. H.264 at High 4:4:4 12bit 4k is positioned to become tiff/tga of video. A file format anything can read.
An example of this is that DCI (Digital Cinema Initiative) have standardised that a Digital Film Master has to be supplied in 16bit 2K or 4K TIFF files with uncompressed 48kHz 24 bit stems (audio file for each channel, usually 6 (5.1)). This standard is based on open file formats and not proprietary RedCode or ProRES for example.
The Bad
There is one major issue with AVCHD. Its not easy to edit. As it is a complex codec with long GOP (Group of pictures) When a editing system requests a certain image while playing a time line or rendering a timeline, it needs to go to the nearest I-Frame or full frame before the frame it wants, then calculate down to the exact frame. Very inefficent. Faster computers with more memory will make this less of an issue in the future, but in real terms, it is usually best to transcode the content to a more editable format whitch also keeps all the quality. For example, ProRES for Final Cut Pro. This will, of cause, mean the video content will take up many, many ties the amount of disk space compared to the original. This is common in editing work flows. For example EXCAM (Sony EX1) and RedCode (RED cameras).
AVC also have other iterations of its codec to make it easy to edit. An example of this AVC-Intra used by Panasonic in their t hi-enf ENG range of cameras. This is similar to the old MPEG2-I-frame codecs. Its just a H.264 I-frame codec. As it is I-frame only, it runs at much higher bitrates such as 50 and 100mbit.
The Road ahead
AVCHD still has a road ahead. H.264 is said to have up to 2 times the efficiency then MPEG2. In my experience I do not find this to be the case. But like DV and MPEG2 based codec cameras when they where first released, the real time codec implementation was always very version 1.0 and over time improved As such, I expect AVC to also improve in real time camera capturing in the future.
There has been much discussion over the motives behind Steve Jobs not allowing Abode Flash player on the iPhone. In general, as a developer, there is no reason why flash lite could not work on the iPhone. Full version of flash, yes that is questionable, but not out of the question either. The real reason, as mentioned in the blogosphere is speculated as follows.
1. Flash is a back door to iPhone Applications in which Apple will not get the 30% cut in sales.
2. Apple wants to break the strangle hold Adobe Flash video has on the web.
Item 1 is a no brainer. The excuses quoted by Apple for no flash support are thin, in my opinion, and only really advantage them by cutting out Adobe.
Item 2 is a little more pervasive. Adobe has recently released DRM products giving it similar capabilities as iTunes. Both companies are head to head in becoming a key player in online digital video. Lets look into it deeper.
The idea behind iTunes is well known. A Portal into all your digital media needs. Right now it dominates the Music side. But video wise, its not doing so well but arguably is the leader.
What Apple needs is to offer the digital video distribution market a full package. For example. Video from the iTunes store is on your mobile device (iPod), your TV (AppleTV) and the Web (Quicktime X).
This would then allow them to sell video content that will play everywhere you want it on Apple technology. This then opens the doorway to the DRM utopia. Buy once, play everywhere… But with DRM working everywhere too.
As you can imagine, this is “A dream come true” of the current incumbent distribution companies trying to stay relevant with current business modems in a changing world. Apple would be in a position to offer them the closest thing to it. iTunes would truly become the “One Ring” of the online digital video industry. (Note: there are issues with this I will cover later)
They have the first two, and are working on the last. Topple Adobe Flash as the media player of choice on the Internet and the have checkmate.
Quicktime X is on its way. Here it comes, the Adobe Flash killer (for video). Apple will use the iTunes user base to get it out fast. (Same as the safari web browser which downloaded to all iTunes users be default).
Quicktime X is unlikely to be a Full flash competitor (Animation, vector graphics etc.) It will simply answer the video side of the equation with an implementation that works with Javascript. For example, integrates into the AJAXian side of the Internet.
Quicktime X may not have all the visual interactivity that Flash offers, but this is not needed. AJAX interfaces can look nice and be very effective. It also has some tricks up its sleeve.
Final Cut Studio, the tool of choice for making online video is an Apple tool and very much offers you easy creation of content for all your online digital needs. Of course, these tools will completely integrate into the Quicktime X story pushing you to use it.
Before I go further, let me state that I am not a big supporter of DRM. Tho I do believe that DRM used in the right way can improve your return of investment. DRM, in general, however has proven itself to be ineffective, a waist of money to the producer and a poor experience to the consumer. See the history of Music and DRM. Video is a different story, and I do believe DRM may be able to be used as was tear based distribution models (Cinema, Cable, Rental Store, DVD).
Let me also state that the issue here is not that DRM will or will not be used in the future. The real issue it to convince the incumbent players to embrace the future. Many of us believe that DRM will fail no mater what. It is the perception that DRM will save them that lets them move forward. And this is the game Apple is playing.
As you can see, the picture I have painted is a master peace and what you would come to expect from Steve Jobs. Now to the fly in the soup.
Open Source Software (OSS).
Recently FireFox beta 3.1 released a version of the browser with the HTML 5 video support. This version now also incorporates the open source video codecs Theora for Video and ogg vorbis for audio. See this. What we have here is a technology that is likely what Quicktime X is going to be. Its all open source supported and free to use.
Apple, if it plans to become a Flash video killer, needs as little dilution of the market as posible. These types of developments are not likely to stop Apple, but are likely to muddy the water and slow it down.
"Nokia has filed a submission with the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
objecting to the use of Ogg Theora as the baseline video standard for
the Web. Ogg is an open encoding scheme (On2, the company that
developed it, gave it and a free, perpetual unlimited license to its
patents to the nonprofit Xiph foundation), but Nokia called it
"proprietary" and argued for the inclusion of standards that can be
used in conjunction with DRM, because "from our viewpoint, any
DRM-incompatible video related mechanism is a non-starter with the content industry (Hollywood). There
is in our opinion no need to make DRM support mandatory, though." .....
Here is an example of how muddy the waters are likely to get.
Conclusion
Apple has a good plan here. Exactly how relevant it will be into the future is unknown. But moving the industry into the future of digital media, under any reasoning is fine by me. Apple may become the “One Ring” of digital media for a time. But due to the technologies available, it is likely to fragment and become competitive over time.
There is no denying that the future of how we use computer is changing. The advent of applications that live on the network/Internet is making the developer think twice about where he should be headed. As a developer, you need to be ahead of the curve as by the time your product is ready your product should be in exactly the right spot to get to as many users as possible.
Microsoft, in recent times, has been making a big song and dance about developers. (The Steve Palmer “developers, developers, developers” dance for example) Microsoft does have one thing right, developers are what makes platforms thrive. They know this and have, over the years, done a very good job at giving the developers what they want, for example, the best IDE (Integrated developer environment) in the world.
Unfortunately, this is no longer good enough. Microsoft tools have, in general, been very Microsoft centric. (They generally push you towards using (Paying) for a lot of Microsoft tools and end user licenses.) DOT.NET is also been quite a disaster in many ways with Microsoft themselves been unable to give a well defined description, and those you do use it, find it very buggy and monolithic.
While this has been happening, open source technologies have been thriving. Javascript frame works, Ruby and Rails, php, mysql, java going open source, the list goes on and on. These technologies, most anyway, tend to be easy to learn and resonably lean. For more applicable to the new generation of Rich Internet application (RIA) development.
It is important to point out here that all of the companies Microsoft sees as a threat are all based on such technologies. Google, Yahoo for example. In general, however, name any Web2.0 company and they are not using any Microsoft tools. Its all open source and Mac driving towards there own proprietory software and patents.
Lets not forget Adobe/flash here. Alltho the open source tools are quite capable, a tool set that is capable of making RIA (Rich Internet applications) such as Photoshop express or a Word replacement (buzzword) that is nearly as capable as Word is not possible, and is unlikely to be possible based on the committee based development and speed of open technologies. This is quite a contentious issue especially as Apple has rejected Flash. I would contend that this has more to do with who’s Video playing technology is dominant on the Web. Adobe Flash is at the moment, but Apple with Quicktime X plans to change that. (Its all about video platforms not capabilities. (And the DRM capabilities there-in Philip) but thats another blog post.
As Adobe identified this trend and purchased Macromedia/Flash, Microsoft has now also identified this. As tools like Word and Excel are to go to RIA (Rich Internet Application) type implementations, technologies like Flash are best suited. (Small Note, Flash SWF files as in that created via the Animation tools in CS3 are not the issue here. CS3 has a time line animation background and can tend to be CPU intensive as the programmers are generally not a real programmers as apposed to designers doing some programming) It is flash created via the Adobe Flex FREE SDK that is where RIA on Flash lives. Flash has grown into a RIA tool set as Macromedia/Adobe noticed end users using it in that way. It is only recently that they have started optimizing it for this.
Microsoft is late to the game, as usual, and identifying this trend, has rushed out Silverlight. Silverlight is very much based on the directions of Flash and its Flex development tools, with a Microsoft twist.
Finally, lets not forget, there will always be the need for fully client side tools. Tools that cannot and never will be network based. Example of these are all the Adobe CS3 tool set in which you are manipulating very large files and elegant and complex user interfaces. In general however, any tools that needs a lot of I/O (reading a lot of data) are not suitable (But not out of the question.)
Microsoft Office tools, however, are very suitable. It is not unreasonable to reach a very equivalent RIA implementation. And in general, a version that is well within the requirements of the growing Internet user.
With all that is happening “Where to now developer”.
Well, if your following the Web2.0 dream, its not Microsoft. Its open ource based technologies with a touch of Flash (Youtube and any video sites… Rockyou and other interactive tools.)
If your aiming at business, Microsoft is still hard to pass over. SMS (Small business server) has made huge inroads into small business over the years, and most if not all larger companies very much rely on Microsoft. Tho, Open source technologies are making decent inroads here as well.
Java, now part of open source, has become the black sheep of development in many ways. It was once painted as the future of RIA, but has completely failed in this area and is barely if ever seen these days in a web browser. However, as a enterprise back end technology it is doing very well. It is also having some strength in desktop cross platform apps like Open-Office.
Finally lets not forget embedded devices. An area in which Linux rules. (Ie your ADSL router. ATM machines, Petrol pumps.) A very large industry very much over looked. Embedded systems have tended towards open tools as there is usually a lot of low level development needed, so using an OS you have complete control of and has no licensing costs has tended to dominate.
Finally, the new kids of the block. The Web site developer. Skilled in HTML, Javascript and other web techno loges, these developers are now being told they have the tools to make applications. Javascript frames works have come a long way, and what was once a well made FROM, in some cases is now considered an RIA. This is an area where the definition of what an RIA is a bit grey. But we definitely have a lot of telent growing from this field. And they all love and insist on standards based, if not open source, tools witch they know and love.
One trend is very evident. Open source development is seen as the area where the larger opportunities exist. Good old Microsoft tools are a well payed IT lifestyle but not seen as the future. Microsoft Mesh is their response, and we are yet to see how this will pan out. Microsoft has also made some major inroads to accepting Open ssource as a part of the industry and choosing to live with it instead of fighting it. Has Microsoft has changed it spots, or a wolf in sheep’s clothing? As an older blogger who has seen Microsoft at the peek of its evil empire, I will need a lot of convincing before I give them a chance. It takes a lot of star troopers to make an evil empire culture. Like any cancer, its very difficult to overcome.
There has been a lot of talk about YouTube offering higher quality content. I did hear about this a while ago, but was unable to find any. I thought it may have been a delay in offering this new feature to the rest of the world.
Recently we created a new show reel and so I quickly loaded it to my YouTube account here
Suddenly I noticed a new BUTTON under the Number of “Views: X” text below the video.
“watch in high quality”
This did bring up a considerably better quality version. I imagine this is the H.264 version that would be available to iPhones and other H.264 based Youtube viewers.
This is good to see as typical youtube content can be apsolute rubbish. This does bring the quality of content up enough to be more compelling on larger TV type viering.
In any case, here is the show reel embedded from Youtube.
I am very busy getting some work done before a holiday to Sydney. I have been unable to get much together for my BLOG, however, here is our latest showreel at digitAll/Planet X Studios the company I am a part owner in and the Technical Director.
I also wanted to give vimeo a go. I heard it was a good alternative to YouTube. And I must admit. Its very good. I found it very easy to use and gave great feed back with the status of my video upload and encode. The final quality is also quite good. They also support HD. My only problem is that I uploaded a MPEG2 8mbit file which I used for the DVD. As such it has some interlace content. vimeo did not deinterlace the content. Doh!
