“… developers will be free to use their own technological measures to secure content. The RTMP specification does not provide any requirement or restrictions on a developer’s own measures to secure content.”

See the full Adobe release here.

This is unexpected news as it means open source implementations of DRM type service will now be possible.  This greatly reduces the value of the the Flash Media Server and Adobe DRM-server, tho open source servers such as RED5, have already been ready to fill this space.

Unfortunately, in my mind, there may still be a big hole in all this development.  Being able to make the RTMP packets for the secure interface build into Flash is one thing.  A more interesting development would be the capability to sit in between the encrypted file and the video decoder.  This would allow progressive streaming, as done with most video providers such as YouTube, but with custom encrypted data. This would allow distributors to easily write a custom decoder in the Flash player.  However, it is not clear if this announcement makes this possible.

Example.

• Server has AES128bit encrypted video data with some tweaking to make it unique to that distributor.
• End user accesses the file using typical progressive download with offset capabilities. (Like YouTube)
• End user uses custom Flash video player that can decode the custom encrypted content.
• Flash player then has direct access to the H.264 codec in the Flash player.
• The end user has typical video experience we all use and understand today, however, the content cannot be viewed outside of the control of the distributor.
• This system can also be used with Adobe-AIR and media files based on local hard drive.

This is not a bullet proof DRM, but it will stop most people and at the same time, be cheap to implement and as cheap as it comes for distribution.  Anyone capable of bypassing this type of DRM is likely capable of bypassing even the most expensive DRM.  As every distributor can easily write their own custom DRM, it also means if  a distributor person has their system bypassed, it does not effect you with your custom version.

It is important to look at this with an eye to the future.  DRM content is definitely NOT the future for most content, however, custom content with neche appeal is likely to maximise the ROI utilising some of there techniques.  DRM is not completely dead, its just growing up and should only be applied when it actually does work for a specific business model.

It is simply more apparent now, those business models and not common.

Otherwise following is my brief outline and reasoning for this being a revolution in Film acquisition.

As a Still camera, the 5D is a resonable upgrade to compete with Nikon’s new range. However, the Nikon range does still appear to have an advantage in over all still quality.

In the Video area, the 5D looks better then the RED-scarlet (3k imager with bayer filter = less quality then 5D)  RED has withdrawn the current Scarlet specs.  Becuse of the 5D or not, the general still camera industry has surpased the scarlet product and currently I would expect a RED-1 type feature set in the Scarlet body if they plan to still “blow us away” as it is put.

The 5D, from my understanding, can function as a video capture device while at the same time capturing 22mega pixel stills.  This indicates that it is doing a real time sample from 22mega pixel for 35mm sized imager, to 1920×1080.  As such we are geting a large over sampling of the captured image down to 1920×1080 HD resolutions, we will be getting an amazingly clean image.  The 5D also has a new sensor that is more sensitive to light giving you images that look amazing in low light.  This also lets the film maker get away with less lighting (Saves costs) and also get a look usualy only available in much more expensive kit.

The big question is the video codec used and effective quality obtained.  36.5mbit H.264, at double the effective quality as MPEG2, will no dough give us amazing images.  H.264 has also been extended to be able to do 4:2:2, 4:4:4 10bit, 12bit colour and up to 4K image sizes. Will the camera be able to take advantage of this?  Does it now?   Strangely I have not bee able to find any details on the Internet as yet. Even is the  camera does not support these standards yet.. future versions are likely to.

The limitation to 30p (30 frames per second) is most likely more of a marketing issue then a technical one.  After all, this camera is not ideal for a film maker.  The form factor is for a still photographer, not a film/video maker.  I personally expect to see a new Canon XL-video camera in the future that has 5D core technology in the centre with the film makers form factor around it.  Add all the different frame rates and other film/video centric options. (And double the costs of the 5D most likely) and we have the future of Canon Video product line.

If nothing else, this camera indicates that a 35mm sized imager should now be standard for any PRO video camera.  Raw 4k imagers are also old hat.  We now expect over sized images giving us a over sampled result down to 2 or 4k sizes.  These are ideas RED is even struggling with.

RED may have started from scratch with nothing to loose by making a film/video camera taking full advantage of current technology.  However, once Canon and Sony also take this position, canabalising the current product ranges, RED is unlikely to match the experience and knowledge of either of these two companies.

Canon are at those cross roads now.  Sony are likely to get their last as they are the leaders in the top end.

This will be an amazingly popular camera as armature film makers can really justify its costs as it is inexpensive and can also be used as a very good stills camera, which is also an item any Film/video maker should have in his bad.

UPDATE: Angelo Tilocca has contacted me and has pointed out what we both consider to be a misunderstanding.  To clear it all up, let me quote him in regards to the use of Microsoft and Silverlight by the ABC.

—

Thanks James.

Confirming that ABC Commercial has launched its integrated ABC Shop
Media Player and its Downloads Manager.

This gives you access to a huge catalogue of ABC related DVD, CD and audio
products to buy or rent in a high quality downloadable format that can be
stored and played back at your convenience, on your home computer.

http://shop.abc.net.au/html/downloads/default.shtm

We have used Silverlight for these applications.

I have no visibility in terms of the broader ABC's use of Microsoft
other than we use Office across the board.

And that we offer WMV and/or Flash Video for all ABC streaming video
services (http://www.abc.net.au/vod/news/).

Trust this clarifies any misunderstanding.

Regards
Angelo

—

The original Post follows.

————————————

I was recently at a conference on “The Business of Digital Content” run by AMIA. I managed to land a seat next to Angelo Tilocca, Manager Content Licensing, ABC. (Australia’s public broadcaster)  As iView was recently released by the ABC allowing viewers to “Catch Up” on shows recently show on the ABC, I asked him about the technology and where the ABC is likely to take it.  Finally, if they planned to use Adobe’s new DRM system and/or the Adobe Media Player (AMP) technology?

Surprisingly the answer was “No, we are going to implement Silverlight for our long terms online strategy.” I picked myself of the floor and asked “WHY?” Angelo Tilocca came back with a comment to the effect that.  Adobe DRM system does not cut it.

I left it there.  I did not want to push it, and really, I did not expect to get this type of information out of him.  If the ABC was going to be using Silverlight in a big way, you would expect it to be a major headline similar to NBC using Silverlight for the Olympics site.

In many ways, this is more controversial as the ABC is an independent organisation. The NBC has historical connections to Microsoft, so it is not surprising to see them adopt Silverlight in such a hi profile site.

The ABC is considered to be the local equivalent of the BBC.  The iView technology follows in the foot steps of the BBC’s iPlayer.  The BBC and the iPlayer have, over the past year, generated some very interesting chatter in the blogosphere.  Especially about the use of DRM.  The BBC was highly criticised for the initial version of the iPlayer was based on Microsoft DRM and as such was restricted to Windows.

The BBC responded to this by re-releasing the iPlayer as a Flash player, initially with On2 proprietary codec, but moved to the new H.264 support now available in adobe flash player.  Still, others criticised this asking why a public broadcaster, who even makes an open source codec called Dirac was not pushing free and open codecs.

Considering the heat the BBC has gotten over these decisions, the ABC is in an interesting position.

Does Adobe DRM Cut it

This decision does point out that Adobe’s online video technology, even as it is so prominent with web video, is not up to scratch when it comes to the requirements for the larger content gatekeepers and their perceived need for DRM. (I am not here to argue the pros and cons of DRM).

Is the Adobe DRM system ready?  Apart from Adobe Media Player (AMP), I have not seen any independent implementations.  And the DRM server has been available for about 6 months now.

Video and DRM is a market Microsoft has been spending big on for years.  Adobe does have its Acrobat DRM type technology, but it’s a different ball game.

Microsoft does have a very large DRM and video streaming product range.  From its products aimed at Cable companies to the new support for Silverlight for Web.  Microsoft would seemingly have a more complete and field tested vision.  Realistically, this is not an a surprising decision, however politically, it could be a bumpy ride.

Microsoft focus

Let me tell a story about Microsoft’s priorities.

In my company we sell e-Cinema digital playback systems used for art house or new form media (Operas) in Cinemas.  A recent contract with the US lead us to require encryption of content.  The US company had already developed a system using Microsoft DRM but wanted to jump onto our technology as it was superior in many ways.

At the start, we both tried to contact Microsoft for a DRM SDK for implementation of it into our technology.  One would expect, as the US partner had already spend a lot of time and development on this and wanted to go forward, that Microsoft would be ready to help.

Microsoft ignored all attempts to contact their key people from Australia, and eventually from our partners in the US, trying to go contact DRM department directly.

This show how focused they are on Silverlight and the future of Video and DRM. Everything else is on the back burner for now.

In the end, we developed our own proprietary encryption system. c’est la vie.

See Gizmoto review here.

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.

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.

Another example of this muddy water is this.

"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.

Recently we created a new show reel and so I quickly loaded it to my YouTube account here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCl0PVC617U

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.

Well here is a great first attempt at this technology..

From http://www.convergent-design.com/ we have the Flash XDR (See some cool comments here)

This device makes any HD-SDI camera capable of recording better then HDCAM images at a fraction of the cost and with a tapeless work-flow.   This is a dream come true for a lot of film makers I have spoken to.

Still, the product did come in a little short with no H.265-Intra support.  But I expect it to support this in the next release as H.264 matures.   If it supported H.254-Intra (10 bit) like the new Panasonic solid state cameras did.  It would be perfect.  H.264-Intra is basically the same as an I-frame MPEG2, but with better performance.  (In general, H.264 IBP long gop is considered to be nearly twice as good as MPEG2  ie 4mbps MPEG2 is similar to 2mbps H.264.  Still we are talking i-frame only, so its not that much of an improvement, but is substantial.)  Still, going from 8bit as MPEG2 can only go up to, to a 10bit colour space is probably going to push 160mbit, the XDR max throughput.

We are talking about getting images similar in quality to a VIPER, Sony-F23/F35,or other top end cinema cameras with hi-end 10bit colour workflows.

The key here is that you can plug it into any camera you like.  From cheap cameras, to expensive ones.  From 1/3 CCD to full frame 35mil CCD.  Shooting a film is not always possible with the one camera.  They all have advantages and disadvantages.  This kind of tool gives you the room to move.  To hire inexpensive gear but get a A1 quality result from it.

This will be a hot product.  I hope the 10bit H.264-Intra support is capable in software upgrade…

NOTE for 20080422: The Maxell iVDRis a 10-bit 4:2:2 master- quality video and native full HD video soulder mounted cam corder was also announced..  google “Maxell iVD”.

A number of years ago, back when the HDCAM deck was released, I was lucky enough to go to NAB.  During this time, I was in the market for a Telecine, of which the Cinealta was my favourite.  During this time, I was introduced to the head tech developers for the VTR division. Specifically the HDCAM guys who were there to show of the new VTR.

Being a pretentious tech, I ripped the device apart explaining to them why it is completely the wrong direction to go.  In the end, they asked me to dinner that night to continue the discussion. Apart from being a Post Production Tech, I had been trained in Computer science, and Robotics and Digital Technology while at University.  Ie, I could explain it to them on a level they could better understand then the typical Post Production tech.  In the end they are computer techs more than Post production techs.  They just build what they are told to build.

I approached the idea from the stand point of being a Post Production tech, then using my IT training to actually get to the crux of what would best suit the Post Production environment.

Following is a brief example of what I tried to teach them.

Digital = Data.  A digital betacam and beyond may be all digital based video devices, but they are all restricted/bound by non upgradable codecs and interfaces. Ie proprietary DigiBeta codec or HDCAM codec, or industry standard SDI/HDSDI and YUV interfaces.

To look at the issue more holistically I told them they needed to split the VTR up into 3 subsystems.

1.       The Data Transport.  Ie store BITS (on tape) as fast and reliably as possible.  Ie a tape data backup device.

2.       The Codec transport.  Ie where you can drop in any form of compression you like, utilising newer and better ones as they are developed.  This also makes the device very future proof.  Very important when they cost $160,000.00 AUD (Similar in US dollars) per unit. This would also allow faster than real time transfers (Well as fast as the Data Transport can go) or slower then real-time transfers but STILL SPOOLABLE of uncompressed or non-standard codecs.  At the time Cineon and DPX was what I pointed at.

3.       Independent Interfaces. YUV, SDI, HDSDI where standard industry interfaces.  But what about HDMI, DVI, Ethernet, SATA, fiber-channel, and other hi-speed data transport interfaces.

Finally I told them they needed to build a subsystem around all this with quite a bit of memory to cache a lot of the data so they can effectively use the tape mechanism.  (Tapes hate writing small amounts of data at a time.)  This also lets them build the Codec transports that can spool and view data files.  For example, imagine a stream of DPX files going to tape and the HD monitor playing/spooling  them back as it does it.

At the end of the day, I was trying to convince them that the most important issue here was DATA.  How we get it, how we use it should not be dictated by the archival medium we use.

I also tried to open there eyes to the fact that MPEG2, other forms of data in conjunction with tapeless workflow or distribution technologies would reduce the need for the VTR as it was known back then. (Well I didn’t mention this too much.  Didn’t want to scare them

The conversation went on all night.  There was a reasonable language barrier, so I was hoping describing it over and over with different scenarios would help them understand the concept.

I got a lot of “Ar-so” and other “Light going on above head” type reactions.

Amazingly enough the new SRW-5800 HDCAM SR Deck appears to be very close to what I described, with a few more modem tweaks based on current technologies.

If so, I must applaud the Sony VTR development team.  This could be one of the best products to come out of Sony in a long time.

Pity I cannot afford one.

Philip comments on H.264 for consumer cameras:

> It’s nice to have high quality codec choices, but I don’t see AVCHD as
> it is currently implemented in the cheap HD camcorders reaching the 
> appeal of HDV.  Cheap and convenient seems to sell more than great 
> quality. For the majority. There are definitely those who want and 
> will pay for the best possible quality.  That would be a niche 
> business for someone.

Yes, I agree, probably in the current format AVCHD is not as good as HDV.  Especially at the ulta low bitrates currently in use.

If it was at the same bitrate as HDV.  It is better.

I also expect it to improve over time like HD and MPEG2 did.

It is also firmware upgradable for a lot of cameras. (Not that many would bother I suppose but worth mentioning)

H.264 WILL do, under profile High 4:2:2 and High 4:4:4, 10 or 12 bit colour and up to 4k resolutions.

All very likely feature sets considering that variable Camera/videoCamera that came out at CES that does super high frame rates at variable resolutions. It was a big hit at the CES.

CMOS chips are likely to keep getting better very quickly. A standard for recording these resolutions and quality is required.

This, to me, is the long term, well medium term as I expect this to happen fast, as this is a key technology that will bring domestic cameras up to touching quality that we see the ulta hi end with uncompressed 10bit HD, which is the standard for most DI’s.  And as we know, the Consumer electronics for cameras is just improving every day. (Sells more cameras as you upgrade)

I wouldn’t be surprised in RED adopted this as, really they, when they decide to make money and get of the HYPE train, will look towards returns.  And that is most likely consumer electronics.  And you want to be using some type of SMPTY standard then.  And H.264 with more recent profiles are the only SMPTE standards that fit well with what RED are doing.

This made me consider the fact that files I make on my Xacti would drop directly into flash player9.3 without any conversion or transcoding. The example below show how this DOES WORK. I have even tried 720p. Also worked very well but had a lot of video tareing.

I wanted to point this out as it is an example of what is likely to happen in the future.

I am the producer AND distributor of this content.

As Microsoft any many others are now marketing the “Home Server“. Placing home videos on this server, or transcoded purchased DVD’s is going to be common place.

Simply going to your friend’s place, and typing up your home server IP address and you have the example below.

The file directly out of my Xacti camera is 27.5meg in size. Goes for 5 min. H.264 320×240 30fps AAC audio 48kHz. Copied as is from camera to my server at work. (Limited space on my Blog server)

Get the Flash Player
to see this player.

This is a link to 720p at 30fps content I uploaded to my server in the office. Ie, its not on a terribly fast link. Its about 27meg in size.

Get the Flash Player
to see this player.