Guess Who Holds the Keys to 4K Television and Broadcast?

[Phil Holland]

Now this will be a fun thread to look back on in about 360-440 days.

For broadcast 4k is not today, but it is the future. It's not happening tomorrow, but it is happening. Just hard to see at the moment.

 

[Stuart English]

For broadcast to be 4K, you need to have a 4K workflow that works w/ live or near live shows like news, major sports leagues, talk shows, the Olympics, etc. This area is Avid's strong suit. There is simply no way to have a viable 4K network if Avid doesn't do 4K.

If broadcast is to deliver 4K programming (and I believe these guys are smart and will want to when the economics say it's the right time to do it) it will be based on live sports and episodic drama. TV stations will be looking at how to re-direct the 4K data stream provided from 3rd party mobile trucks and hollywood or just as they did at the start of the HD transition.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

For what it's worth, Avid is moving in the direction of 4K. There is a shift happening, some of it you've already witnessed such as the move to 64-bit and the open I/O hardware. Seems to me the first phase is to lay down the foundation for this new platform. They are still working out the kinks and I suspect they will add new features when they feel comfortable that things have stabilized. 4K is on the roadmap, mentioned a few months ago. I love what Adobe is doing, I'm cautiously optimistic about certain aspects of FCP X, but Avid has the potential to be the king of the editorial mountain if they can take advantage of their strengths, eliminate their weaknesses, and bridge the gap between veteran Avid editors and the young guns who have grown up on Premiere and FCP but never cut a frame of film, and perhaps have never had to work in an environment with shared media, multiple post houses, etc. In other words, make Avid state of the art but don't forget its roots. For those in the know, there are some things that Avid does that no other NLE can touch. There are also some legacy things about it that are not very appealing to some people. I believe having a strong, focused Avid is good for the post industry. It makes everyone step up and in the end hopefully benefits everyone working in post. There's a whole lot of potential if handled correctly.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Broadcast TV will never be 4K. It would take an act of congress to change the broadcast specs and they are never going to do that again.

I'm the kinda guy who never says never. I think that Jim Jannard is right, and that eventually, broadcast TV (in whatever form it evolves to) will go to a higher resolution, probably 4K. The only thing on which we differ is how long that will take.

I think the three biggest things stopping broadcast 4K right now are 1) the horrible economy, and 2) the apathy from studios, networks, local stations, and cable systems, and satellite companies in wanting to upgrade from HD, and 3) the lack of available highspeed bandwidth among ISPs. The inertia needed to overcome all three is considerable. (The massive cutbacks in local TV stations lead me to believe that they're going to be very reluctant to gut their facilities and throwaway ever monitor, camera, switcher, cable, DA, and recorder in the building.) And as far as I know, nobody makes a live 4K broadcast video camera yet for commercial sale.

The first time I ever saw HD was around 1989-1990 at an NAB show (analog HiVision). It wasn't a real consumer product until 1999, and it wasn't really widespread until the last few years -- call it 20 years for it to hit critical mass. If 4K follows the same path, you won't see $999 4K monitors at Costco (with 4K source material) for at least another decade.

But I think it will eventually happen. Assuming no unemployment, no war, no deficit, and a strong stock market, it could happen within 5 years of that. But that's a lotta if's. As it is, we don't even have all cable and satellite channels in HD yet. And there are still nationally-syndicated TV shows to this day being shot in standard-def video.

I'd still like to see them first improve HD to provide less compression and 10-bit video. What we have now is highly-compressed 8-bit video all over the place, and it's a huge step down in picture quality for what 1080 could be.

 

[M Most]

I think the three biggest things stopping broadcast 4K right now are 1) the horrible economy, and 2) the apathy from studios, networks, local stations, and cable systems, and satellite companies in wanting to upgrade from HD, and 3) the lack of available highspeed bandwidth among ISPs.

I think you and others here are ignoring the most obvious one, which is that there isn't any real payback for doing it. HD didn't happen because it held the promise of nicer pictures, and it didn't happen simply because consumer electronics companies needed something to sell. Digital broadcast - which was the ultimate enabler for HD - happened because the government wanted to auction off a lot of the frequency spectrum - which it controls - for various reasons, one of which was a reasonably high return. The fact that a lot of things have been done with the reallocated spectrum has little to do with the original reason for digital broadcast, which was re-acquisition of frequency spectrum and better use of what remained. Without those moves you likely wouldn't have high speed wireless services and many of the cell services you now take for granted. Those who think of things like HD and 4K as being driven by some consumer desire for better television pictures are either unaware of the real drivers of broadcast technology, or in denial as to what those things are. Nicer television pictures are, well, nice. But they have no real financial or societal benefit, at least not without offering something in return. At this point in time, I honestly don't see what that would be. Without a real financial driver, things don't happen on a wide basis. And since things like broadcast spectrum and broadcast standards are government regulated, that financial driver usually has to directly benefit the government in order to find wide acceptance. That's not speculation, that's the way it works, both in the US and much of the world.

I understand why 4K distribution is important to a forum that exists to support a company that makes, well, a 4K camera. But don't look to broadcast to provide that distribution. At least not unless and until there is a direct financial benefit to the government to do it. And I really don't expect that in my lifetime. Now that's not to say that other distribution methods won't move in that direction, since it can and would directly benefit them in terms of consumer electronics sales and/or tickets sold to theatrical venues. I'm just saying don't look to broadcast as one of those methods, because discussions revolving around the merits of better images are completely missing the point, regardless of personal interest, and regardless of consumer acceptance of the lack of it.

 

[Stuart English]

I'd still like to see them first improve HD to provide less compression and 10-bit video. What we have now is highly-compressed 8-bit video all over the place, and it's a huge step down in picture quality for what 1080 could be.

Now that's the truth! Unfortunately the compression standard has been set and very substantial investments have been made. A change to H.264 would help, but as Mike quite reasonably asks where is the economic benefit to providing HD programming that a consumer already receives in higher quality?

 

[axel ebermann]

I do not know if you guys ever asked a TV network producer to do an ad-hoc
life feed via satellite in HD instead of SD.

You will see a lot of sweat and rolling eyes...

Why ? Because bandwidth costs money. Lot's of money if you are on air 24/7.
And the networks don't own the satellites.

This is why everything is so heavily compressed.

In my humble personal opinion the whole TV network distribution model where
you have to buy a bundle for 150 bucks a month and get a box from them is on
it's way out anyway.

It will be taken over by a much more diverse online streaming model. And that is where
4k will live at one point.

 

[Dave Blackham]

Michael, you are looking at Avid from the perspective of professional post for film and dramatic TV. If Avid were simply offline Media Composer, it would have gone out of business a long time ago. I stated that MC needs to be able to do 4K because MC is the foundation of Symphony and NewsCutter. These three programs are essentially the interfaces for Avid's broadcast and media asset management solutions. There are certainly other players in the broadcast market, but Avid is a central one. A strong argument can be made that Avid is more of a broadcast company than a professional post company.

From the perspective of shows that are offlined and onlined, you are absolutely correct, MC and (to a lesser extent) Symphony are not seen as finishing tools, so since the show is being cut on DNxHD 36 or SD, the cutting IQ/resolution has no beraing on the finished resolution (as long as you can match back to the source files). But a lot what we see on TV doesn't go through this type of workflow. For many broadcast applications, Symphony *is* a finishing tool. And when you watch the news, Saturday Night Live, MLB/NFL/NBA the Olympics, etc. there is no offline/online as you've described it. Could you imagine a use for Scratch in the Olympics? And while DS, Avid's only 4K capable tool, can certainly cut and finish Olympic promos at 4K resolution, it's not going to take the place of Avid's other products. Avid DS does not make a 4K Olympics possible, nor does Baselight, etc..

For broadcast to be 4K, you need to have a 4K workflow that works w/ live or near live shows like news, major sports leagues, talk shows, the Olympics, etc. This area is Avid's strong suit. There is simply no way to have a viable 4K network if Avid doesn't do 4K.

But again, the point is one small fish an a large pond doesnt control the whole eco system. One day, I have no idea when, I am sure there will be 4K or higher resolution TV or internet delvered programmes to the home. A number of players will enable this to happen but it wont revolve around one company and as Mike point's out there will have to be a financial reason/return to enable 4k distribution to happen.

 

[Les Dittert]

Now that's the truth! Unfortunately the compression standard has been set and very substantial investments have been made. A change to H.264 would help, but as Mike quite reasonably asks where is the economic benefit to providing HD programming that a consumer already receives in higher quality?

I'm with you. The recent trends have been to lower quality HD, and even lower SD.
The main culprits : Streaming vs bluray; there are now way more HD titles in streaming than there are in bluray format. Streaming quality is inferior.
The public also is tending to watch small screens more and more in the form of smart phones etc. This drives down the quality expectations as well. They want titillation and stories, not resolution.

The economy has an even bigger effect. While the 1% might pick up a 4K TV, the rest are scratching there arse figuring out how they are keeping the clerk/chashier job that they cling to while Asia is working for one fifth of their paycheck. Capitalism demands economic entropy. And you are going to ask them to buy fancy TV sets ?
I love 4K ( and 3D ), but don't think these will migrate from the theater very much.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I work in TV every day on Avid, and I think I need to weigh in here. I work in promo. I am at the forefront of ALL deliverables coming in for shows. Granted I work in cable (AETN), not broadcast.

NYC is a promo town, and a majority of it is cut on Avid. At DNX 145. It is not an offline tool. DNX 145 is broadcast quality.

The Avid can be seen as an offline tool if you plan to send your EDL to a color grade, which I have done. But this is not very common.

If you think broadcast is going 4K you are delusional. If you think Avid is holding back 4k broadcast, you are delusional.

What is holding back 4k are the broadcasters and MSO's themselves. Have you guys ever seen what goes on air?

You guys shooting content shoot 4K and deliver 1080p. Hate to break it you, but what makes air is 720p guys. Almost across the board.

I don't see that changing for a longtime.

Maybe Avid will become 4K compliant. But that certainly won't affect my workflow. They can barely handle 10hrs of dailies that come in every day at 1080p. No one is thinking of 4k in my world.

4K is for cinema, and for projects with a budget that command a grade.

Broadcast is about quantity, and having server space. I'm still waiting for 1080p to be come standard.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I hate avid. I think they have held this industry back for the last 20 years. Just had to write that. Flame on the other hand is what push things forward.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I hate avid. I think they have held this industry back for the last 20 years. Just had to write that. Flame on the other hand is what push things forward.

Again, your talking like a DP. Ever tried to share a FC project in four rooms? Final Cut sucks.

I saw that as an unapolegetic Avid fan. I'm aware that Avid has grown slowely. But...I've worked my share on FC as well, and to me there's no comparison. When the chips are down, I'm running 4 rooms, and we're mixing media and have to lay to tape....AVID is the king.

I don't care what anyone says. I have seen FC explode on enough taxing stress jobs that I have serious snake bite, as do most of the pro, high end broadcast editors I work with.

But yeah, Avid does suck and getting up to speed.

But mind you, until FC came around and shook the market up, I guess they never had to. But at least they've adapted. They deserve credit for that. The latest version of Avid is AWESOME.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I hate avid. I think they have held this industry back for the last 20 years. Just had to write that. Flame on the other hand is what push things forward.

Are you talking specifically about their products or them as a company? If the latter, they have made some mistakes in the past. To an extent, they seem to be trying to correct some of those past mistakes. They needed an attitude adjustment, and I think they got it. New CEO seems cool.

Now, if you are talking about Media Composer vs Flame keep in mind they are different beasts. Maybe you are referring to other Avid products vs Flame. As an NLE, it works well and does its job for the most part. Usually the comparison is between MC, FCP, and PP. They all have strengths and weaknesses. They are all undergoing changes to address ongoing needs of their userbase. In terms of collaboration with multiple editors, backwards compatibility, etc. one of them still has a lead. Ultimately, the winner of this race is the one that answers the needs/wants of its userbase. Metadata and the power to move between various tools to achieve a vision will become increasingly more important over the next few years. We've just barely begun to scratch the surface. Is Avid perfect? I think that depends on who's using it and what their needs are. Premiere has had success because it fulfilled a need in the market - the ability to work with RED files natively. That was huge. Really great stuff. MPE great stuff. Does everyone need to work natively with RED files? No. Do the majority of feature film and TV editors work with native R3D files? No. So, we always have to keep an open mind on this because very few tools are ever perfect, but they can work perfectly for certain people. I'm all for improvement. I think all the NLEs can improve. Resolve, as nice as it is, can improve. I'm sure there are things in Flame that can improve. We just need to keep pushing the companies to improve their products. That's a win-win for all.

 

[Robert Kurhajetz]

seems like an excellent example of what William Gibson points out "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed. "

 

[Nick Morrison]

Are you talking specifically about their products or them as a company? If the latter, they have made some mistakes in the past. To an extent, they seem to be trying to correct some of those past mistakes. They needed an attitude adjustment, and I think they got it. New CEO seems cool.

Now, if you are talking about Media Composer vs Flame keep in mind they are different beasts. Maybe you are referring to other Avid products vs Flame. As an NLE, it works well and does its job for the most part. Usually the comparison is between MC, FCP, and PP. They all have strengths and weaknesses. They are all undergoing changes to address ongoing needs of their userbase. In terms of collaboration with multiple editors, backwards compatibility, etc. one of them still has a lead. Ultimately, the winner of this race is the one that answers the needs/wants of its userbase. Metadata and the power to move between various tools to achieve a vision will become increasingly more important over the next few years. We've just barely begun to scratch the surface. Is Avid perfect? I think that depends on who's using it and what their needs are. Premiere has had success because it fulfilled a need in the market - the ability to work with RED files natively. That was huge. Really great stuff. MPE great stuff. Does everyone need to work natively with RED files? No. Do the majority of feature film and TV editors work with native R3D files? No. So, we always have to keep an open mind on this because very few tools are ever perfect, but they can work perfectly for certain people. I'm all for improvement. I think all the NLEs can improve. Resolve, as nice as it is, can improve. I'm sure there are things in Flame that can improve. We just need to keep pushing the companies to improve their products. That's a win-win for all.

I'll agree to all of this. I reluctantly concede that a lot of what Final Cut could do (pre FCX) was awesome. I still envy how fast it can link to media and get rolling. Avid's AMA is good, but not as solid. You are right. They have all have their pros and cons. It's really how you use them. Sounds like when we talk about cameras.

 

[Elliott S Frank]

As M Most says:

I think you and others here are ignoring the most obvious one, which is that there isn't any real payback for doing it. HD didn't happen because it held the promise of nicer pictures, and it didn't happen simply because consumer electronics companies needed something to sell. Digital broadcast - which was the ultimate enabler for HD - happened because the government wanted to auction off a lot of the frequency spectrum - which it controls - for various reasons, one of which was a reasonably high return.

... it's all about the Benjamins.

To date, only a limited community has figured out how to utilize 4K. Utilize, not monetize. Digital video was monetized with wedding videos. 720p was monetized with broadcast HD sports. 1080p was monetized with Blu-Ray.

When someone (Jim Jannard, Mike Cuban, ...) identifies a business model that provides widespread monetization of 4K, we'll see the tsunami of 4k.

 

[Nick Morrison]

As M Most says: ... it's all about the Benjamins.

To date, only a limited community has figured out how to utilize 4K. Utilize, not monetize. Digital video was monetized with wedding videos. 720p was monetized with broadcast HD sports. 1080p was monetized with Blu-Ray.

When someone (Jim Jannard, Mike Cuban, ...) identifies a business model that provides widespread monetization of 4K, we'll see the tsunami of 4k.

This is probably the smartest thing I've read on reduser in like a month. And I mean that as a compliment. Most people here are tack sharp. Elliot I think you've hit the nail on the head with this one.

 

[Peter Moretti]

But again, the point is one small fish an a large pond doesnt control the whole eco system. One day, I have no idea when, I am sure there will be 4K or higher resolution TV or internet delvered programmes to the home. A number of players will enable this to happen but it wont revolve around one company and as Mike point's out there will have to be a financial reason/return to enable 4k distribution to happen.

Avid is not a small fish in a large pond when it comes to broadcast. Sure, Grass Valley and Editshare also make NLE's, but their systems still work with MC (and FC) as do Omneon's servers.

Let me put this another way, Avid has been responsible for a lot of innovations necessary for transformations and major transitions to take place, the most obvious being the digital NLE. People keep on bringing up HD. While DNxHD didn't cause that transition happen, it was pretty necessary for it *to* happen. Or this second go around with 3-D. I'm not saying that Media Composer having 3-D tools for the past four years was the catalyst for the "3-D Revolution," but without those tools it would be much more difficult to produce 3-D movies on a large scale. (Avid's 3-D toolset was actually part of Media Composer before Avatar was released.)

I'm not saying that 4K Avid is going to make 4K TV happen. What I am saying is that w/o 4K Avid, 4K TV essentially can't happen.

I guess I'm also saying that Avid being on board with an idea helps it tremendously. As was the case with HD, I wouldn't be at all be surprised if the first 4K network starts somewhere other than the US. (Maybe it will be in Qatar, Bahrain or Kuwait; the Middle East is a region that Avid has been pursuing pretty hard.) But it won't start anywhere if there is no workflow for it.

 

[Dave Blackham]

Again, your talking like a DP. Ever tried to share a FC project in four rooms? Final Cut sucks.

I saw that as an unapolegetic Avid fan. I'm aware that Avid has grown slowely. But...I've worked my share on FC as well, and to me there's no comparison. When the chips are down, I'm running 4 rooms, and we're mixing media and have to lay to tape....AVID is the king.

Probably difficult to sync if your not comparing like for like.

If you wanting to sync 4 or several edit rooms, then this is what you need.

https://www.mme.tv/focalpointserver/index.html

This software allows many rooms to sync projects and exchange media even across sites and across same type of edit systems or different type edit systems, Includes FCP, Premier, Avid. So long as the edit system can see the media then projects can be in sync. Just use best of breed for the work in hand, for project sync and 4K and 3D it probably isn't Avid right now.

Im not connected to Focal point in anyway but I do know the guys who write the software.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Probably difficult to sync if your not comparing like for like.

If you wanting to sync 4 or several edit rooms, then this is what you need.

https://www.mme.tv/focalpointserver/index.html

This software allows many rooms to sync projects and exchange media even across sites and across same type of edit systems or different type edit systems, Includes FCP, Premier, Avid. So long as the edit system can see the media then projects can be in sync. Just use best of breed for the work in hand, for project sync and 4K and 3D it probably isn't Avid right now.

Im not connected to Focal point in anyway but I do know the guys who write the software.

Very interesting! Thanks!