JamieG Analysis

As a developer I have noticed of late that it is much easier to get into development.  Development tools are all FREE, or can be obtained for a generous period for free and with greatly reduced cost compared to 5-10 years ago.

So what is going on.  Development tools are expensive to develop. Why are they been given away now?

As the use of computers, PDA’s, Mobile phones has increased, the more important factor for these products has not been selling the tools or programs used on them but to simply own a decent portion of the market by having the applications available to them.

The more Applications available for your product the better.  Especially if the tools are NOT-cross platform and lock the end user into the product as an investment.  Ie like not being able to move your (mobile) phone number to any other telco.  Your locked in and the telco can take advantage of this.

Lets have a brief look at the four main players. Microsoft, Apple,  Google and Adobe.

Apple and the iPhone has changed the landscape of development.  Initially some of the development tools for Apple did come with a small cost.  These days they are free for anyone who cares to download them.  Especially iPhone development tools.  Initially a cost was involved to become an iPhone developer.  This is no longer apparent and iPhone development has been pushed onto any developer to pass the Apple developer site.

Apple has identified that it is the plethra of Apps on the App-Store that is locking user into the platform. This reminds me of the early days of the Computer and a factor Microsoft used effectively on its road to dominance.

Google, a leader in Open-Source development tools, is putting an extrordinary amount of investment in giving free tools and development platforms away.  These tools encourage the use of the Internet as a platform.  And as we all know, Google makes more and more money, the more we use the Internet to search or surf.  It is within their interest to get everyone using the internet as much as possible.  Open-source tools that direct users away from walled garden tools are where Google is encouraging us to go.

Microsoft, in which Steve Palmer is famous for shouting “Developers Developers, DEVELOPERS”, is now in a difficult position.  It has a very mature development tool set which once cost a decent amount to obtain.  All the tools are not available for free under limited conditions, or can be obtained for long evaluation periods.  Still, they tend to be the most expensive.  And really, it is probably hard for them to reduce costs or make them free.  Especially when there is a huge business community that are happy to pay for tools and support to go with them.

Microsoft know that developers drive the success of selling infrastructure.  For example, if all the business tools are based on Microsoft development tools. Large organisations are likely to purchase Microsoft server and other expensive business software tools to run them on. The free or near free nature of the tools coming out of Apple, Google and Adobe are definatly making it hard for Microsoft.

Adobe is new to this area with the newly dubbed ”Flash Platform” including Flex, Flash Professional and many other new tools. Adobe is trying to leverage the success of Flash as a Web technology.  These tools are easy to get and very inexpensive.  Adobe hopes that back-end infrastructure technology will drive the profits.  For example video streaming and DRM server purchased at very high prices by the incumbent media gatway companies. However, I am doubt this will work for them.

Adobe Flash technology does have (performance) issues.  The idea behind what Flash has evolved into is, from a developer perspective, very good.  Microsoft has identified that and given birth the Silverlight.  Possibly one of the most impressive developments from the Microsoft Development DEV team ever.  However, those who would likely use these tools, the general web developer, tend to be anti Microsoft.  Silverlight has less traction/takeup then anyone expected. In the business community it is probably very different, however as a general web surfer you will not see evidence of this.

As a developer, it has never been a better time.  The tools are fantastic and next to nothing to get.  I feel like a kid in a candy store..  And the candy is all FREE.

Yet again, the debate about which is better, film or digital, has broken out on a forum site for film owners.  Following is my input into the debate.  I wanted to post it to my blog as I feel my DJ analogy was insightful (to may anyway) so want to share it to a wide audience.

(Background on thread.  Debate on if digital can archive the quality of film, especially at low light..  The performance of the new Canon 5DmkII was mentioned)

—–

To ad to Julio’s points.

The camera he is talking about is the Canon 5DmkII.

Currently this camera is making a mess of the digital film camera industry. I know Sony, JVC etc are all running scared.
They are literately selling 5x what they expected on this product. It’s success has changed the industry completely.
This camera makes all there 50-100K kit all seem obsolete. Tho , there is more to a camera then a sensor. (But strangely many people cannot see past that. Ie form factor, the package etc.)

Now, Nikon will likely bring out a competitor at the November show for Pro still cameras. And.. the Nikon has even BETTER low light performance then the canon.

In the Stills world, Film is totally been abandoned apart for the niche areas where some aspects of film still produce desired results that digital cannot. However, this is not common, and a very expensive way forward.

This will of course happen in the motion film area too. I am a little surprised it has taken longer then it has, however, as I have said, there is more to taking a shot then the camera, its the camera man too. This is a generation thing more then anything else.

I have noticed that film-tech seems to be an ivory tower with man holding onto the romance of film. Personally I don;t care. I am a computer tech that has drifted into the doing digital side of exhibition. I just observe and based on what I see, make conclusions.

Film is simply out of date.
I like to compare it to DJing (For which I did for 10 years when I was a younger lad) evolved from vinyl records to CD’s or other forms of digital playback..

At the end of the day, the punters on the dance floor didn’t really care if it was vinyl or CD, the story that was the track was shared and they enjoyed it.

Tho the debate between DJ’s was heated and went on for years. Today, the top DJ’s basically never use vinyl any more.
WHY, well as I like to point out, what sounds better is not really the issue here. The main reason they don;t use vinyl is because vinyl has limitations. While digital has Blue sky. The DJ’s, though the use of digital, have created new playing styles and performance possibilities. Impossible with vinyl.

This holds true for Film as well. Film is dead to me as.. it simply cannot evolve anymore. But once we are digital, the sky is the limit. Night shots that are impossible using film. etc.

One of my favorite would be a new standard of 60fps for cinema. Can be easily converted down to any common distribution format in use today, and would make a film screen, using clean digital images, look like a window into the world that the film creates. Something film grain, scratches and gate movement can never do.. (60fps for film is possible, but like 70mm unrealistic anymore. too $$$$$$$)

So, to me. Film, please leave the building, its time to ignite the booster and leave orbit, and you don;t have a ticket.)

To finish of, I would like to also visit the definition of what make one better then the other.
If we want to talk about which can be better.
Many of you say, film looks better…. if your looking at an answer print compared to 2k. But then again, apple with apples, there are 8k digital systems out there. That would even arguably compare with 70mm.
If we talk about the typical image a widely distributed film presents on screen compared to 2K.
A typical 2K system will ALWAYS look better due to the massive lossy process the film has to go through.

So which is better. What is possible or what is typical??
Please take this into consideration.

James

You know how you have that bad after taste when you have a certain alcoholic cocktail?  Strangely, the same think hits me more and more when I consider Apple and its recent runaway success.  Is Apple becoming the next Microsoft, to dominate the smart phone market and Portable music player market but with the monopolistic practices like Microsoft is famous for?  Will Apple become a Software company everyone loves to hate 5-10 years from now?

Recently I was considering how Microsoft came to its dominant position by offering the best products in their class, at that time, and using this position to leverage itself into a position impossible to even attempt to displace.

Strangely enough, looking at Apples chess moves over the last few years, they have been doing exactly the same thing.  The more interesting issue is the lack of resistance or media representation of these facts.  Especially considering history and Microsoft.  Did we not learn from our past?

I am not a Apple hater. I think Apple have the best technology around.  OSX, especially Snow Leopard, will definitely be the best operating system available.  The Apple iPhone has a fantastic ecosystem that all other could only dream of.  Apple deserves to be in the dominant position. It has the best products available by a long way. However, does this give them a get out of jail free card? Are we letting Apple hand cuff us like Microsoft did?

Apple use a few business practices that make me very uneasy.

Example 1
One of the biggest recent examples is the Palm Pre support as a iTunes supported device.  So you could use a Palm Pre just like an iPod and sync your library with it.  Of course Apple made a change in the latest iTunes and it no longer works.  In effect, this is like Microsoft making there operating system able to run the IE browser and breaking any attempt to run some ones else’s browser on Microsoft operating systems.  What an outrage this would cause.  The EU fined Microsoft hundreds of millions simply because Microsoft integrated IE into the OS.

Apple is as dominant with iTunes and online music, the fuel for all mobile music devices, as Microsoft ever has been with Windows.  Still, Apple gets a free pass.  Should Apple be forced to open the docking protocol so SANdisk, Zune and other iPod type devices have a chance?

Example 2.
Apple is said it want to vet all Applications for its iPhone device.  To make sure they are of quality and don’t drain the battery.  As such, Adobe Flash, none of the versions, has been aloud on the iPhone?  How can this be considered reasonable.  This is clearly a monopolistic activity poorly spun.  Games and other super power hungry apps are all fine.  Flash Lite or other stand alone Flash players are all a no go.  The reasons given are clearly a smoke screen.

Microsoft wouldn’t even attempt to make excuses like this.  It would be in an anti trust suite fast.  Apple, however, gets a free pass.

The more amazing aspect of this is the willingness for the Apple user’s to willingly place there hands into the handcuffs Apple is selling.  This was the issue that I found a hand time to understand.  Then one day I was speaking to a Apple zealot and it hit me.  They simply cannot see it.  All they can see if the best product in its class, forget the small print.

And really, can you blame them?  No not really.

My realisation here is that I am critical about Apple, not because I hate them, but because I like Apple and am passionate about those areas it lets us down.  If you are an Apple user, I encourage you to also be critical, as in the long run, it will lead to a better Apple.

Sony broadcast, a flagship of the Sony brand, is in its sunset years. As tape work-flows are replaced by tape-less and the professional video arm of any organisation becomes more like an IT division.  What is Sony to do with billions of dollars of investment in servicing an infrastructure aimed at tape-less?

Well in this case, its got its mind set on owning cinema exhibition and projection.

Here are a few links for consider.

• AMC Entertainment to Convert Entire Circuit to Digital Cinema Projection with Sony 4K Systems (309 theatres and 4,628 screens)
• Regal Entertainment Group to Install Sony 4K Digital Cinema Projection Systems Across Entire Circuit (.. agreement for the installation of Sony 4K digital projection systems across its entire circuit over the next 3 to 5 years … Approximately 1,500 of the Regal screens will also be outfitted for 3D digital projection, using Sony’s newly introduced dual-lens adaptor technology.)
• Sony Announces New Exhibitor Agreements as Conversion to 4K Digital Cinema Technology Continues (The new exhibitors are: Muvico Theaters at the Oaks, Thousand Oaks, Calif.; Alamo Drafthouse at the Village, Austin, Texas; The Palace Theater, Canadian, Texas; Lincoln Square Cinemas in Bellevue, Wash.; and Channelside Theaters in Tampa, Fla.)
• Sony Electronics Expands Digital Cinema Deployment Agreement with Sony Pictures to Cover Asia (… DCSS now has agreements with two major studios for Asia –Sony Pictures Entertainment and Twentieth Century Fox. …)

Initially I thought this to ambitious, but the more I think of it, the more sense it makes.

But first let me explain why this was very unexpected by the industry.  In general, cinema owners did not give Sony much of a chance.  However, Sony appear more determined than anyone could guess.

Sony has a history in exhibition already.  In the distant past there was a Sony technology for cinema audio called SDDS. (See wikipedia for a details on Sony Dynamic Digital Sound). In short, it was an expensive new audio format that Sony supported for a very short period of time. Those cinema owners who adopted it where very angry with Sony.  They invested a lot of money only to be left hanging soon after.  Cinema owners are a tight group with long memories.  To them, Sony had lost all credibility.

Then there is the general opinions of cinema technicians and Sony competitors towards the Sony 4K technology.

Sony has not done well in many areas compared to the TI (Texas Instruments) based projection companies NEC, Christie and Barco.  Sony may have the 4K of very teir 2K resolution but in all other areas they are lacking.  These include.

1. Colour consistency across the screen outside DCI spec.  This has been put down to the implementation of the 4K system.  It is actually 4x 2K chips operating independently.  This is said to be greatly improved in the latest revision. (??)
   
2. Questionable longevity.   Sony 4K projectors is based on IDLA projection technology, which has by and large been a failure in domestic projection technology.  Makes you wonder about its commercial implementation.
3. proprietary media-block and interfaces.  The TI projectors makers can use many different media players (Dolby, DTS-Qube, Dorami, GDC) and are documented so anyone can integrate.  Sony has all home grown product.  Access to this API’s is unknown.
4. To gain FIPS (A security requirement DCI equipment need to meet) approval, the projectors are large secure refrigerator type boxes. In a comparison of a typical DCI/TI projector with the same performance and brightness of a Sony equivalent.  The Sony would typically need more equipment and technology.  As such, one would not consider they could compete on price.
5. Sony projectors have the highest running costs of all DCI compliant solutions available.  Lamp cost and longevity is said to be on the poor side compared to all other DCI projector makers.  This is an important issue as your running costs are actually one of the most important considerations.
   

If you consider all the above issues, Sony would likely be a distant last on the consideration stakes for any cinema owners.

As the announcements above indicate, this is not the case.  So how does this all stack up? Currently Sony have more slated projectors going in then anyone else.  And if it keeps going this way, they are likely to gain at least 50% of the market over NEC, Christie, Barco.

If you notice above, the Sony announcements are all done with large cinema organisations.  I have not heard of any small independent cinemas selecting Sony.

Rumour is that Sony is selling its solution for the same, if not less then the typical price the current 2k equipment is going in for.  In my opinion, they must also be guaranteeing the longevity and a level of running cost as well.  Even with the bad sentiment from the past, in large deals like above, that means little to the white collar business man and accountant making the deal.

Sony also has a big roadmap with 4K production as it focus.  They do make great (Expensive) professional gear, but they also need to keep ahead of the consumer end of the market.  4K cinema gives this hi-end of the market a reason for existence.

So what is Sony to Gain.  If one considers Sony are not likely to actually make a great deal of money out of this.  In many ways, they are buying dominance in a upcoming industry.  They are giving their tape based servicing infrastructure a new reason for living with 4K tape-less and cinema support businesses.  They are putting a Sony logo at the start of nearly all films show in all cinemas.  They are building the brand back up to its peek in respect and perceived quality.

Cinema Exhibition portion of the Sony empire is a lost leader.  It will not likely loose or make money, but will position the company so save many segments from going out of business and keep Sony the domestic leader it strives to be.

Every TV in every home..  a SONY!

P.S. Follow this link to my www.cinetechgeek.com site and videos on the Sony cinema projection technology.

This was my first Showest. I enjoyed it, but at the same time came away with a vibe of disappointment.  Not because it did not hold the technical delights I really enjoy being involved in, but for the withdrawn enthusiasm due to the economic crisis.  The problem is that Cinema is having one of the best years ever.

My brother in recent your of attending, had come back with a suitcase full of goodies.  Free clothes, caps, DVD’s food souvenirs.  You name it.  This year…  I got one coolish but cheaply made Star Trek cap.  Otherwise, it was so low key..

DCI was of course what everyone is talking about, and how the VPF is the key. (See the recording of the Showest panel discussing this on cinetechgeek)

3D was the big push and siad to be worth it even without VPF.  Premium pricing carries that.

The bigger surprise was that Art-house and Alternative content has been a getting a lot of interest and welcomed as a new source of income.  It was interesting to see that a lot of the big studio films on preview appeared to be Art-house in nature.  A “we can make this stuff too” type feel.

Operas and retropy (Spell? New word to me. Showing Old films again) was also a topic of interest.  This has partly taken traction based on non-DCI technologies.  And to a degree this makes a lot of sense.  Why use $80K DCI kit when you can use $10K of standard Kit to archive a 90% result. (And most patrons will not even know the difference.) Especially as this is niche content that is likely to get short runs (Harder to amortise but a lot cheaper then DCI). I even hear some cinemas putting in a few non-DCI cinemas simply to play eCinema release Art-house and alternative content.  Especially now as this type of content is becoming more common.

In terms of content for www.cinetechgeek.com, I got over 2 hours I expect.  This will take some time to get all online.  Editing, then compression etc.  This has started and content will start appearing in a day or two.  The videos will include,

• Taping of a panel talking about VPF
• USL and its cool kit
• Dolby,
• QSC
• Christie
• Sony
• NEC
• DataPort
• MiT and some interesting stuff they are up to.
• DTS and Qube

plus a few other smaller videos.

I missed Barco (No one avail to go on Camera) and many other stands.  I do plan to get some info from RealD.  I did their training while at the show, and they have definatly got some cool tech.  I hope to bring this to you later when I have time.  Based on theor power point for the training.