Read the COW Magazine Online - Creative COW Magazine

Re: Following up re: digital delivery
Chris Blair 5:29:21 pm
Last year we uploaded hundreds of
media files to a client in the Middle
East, including the contents of DVDs
that were anywhere from 1-2GB. We
tried several digital delivery services,
and we found that the upload speed
was almost wholly dependent on
our connection speed. They were no
faster (in our experience) than using
straight FTP software and connecting
to a server somewhere.
We use a professional level FTP
software application (in our case
CuteFTP Pro). We encode the spots
to the specs of the particular station
or cable system (usually MPEG-2 or
QuickTime H.264, but also a few other
formats/codecs). Then we log onto
the station or cable system using FTP
addresses, user names and passwords
they provide. Next, we just drag and
drop the file to the specific directory
they’ve given us (which can be
navigated to automatically by the FTP
software).
Now if all that sounds simple,
IT’S NOT. We end up going round and
round with stations and cable systems
about finding the files, even though
they’re uploaded to the SAME place
time after time.
I will say that account execs LOVE
this process because they literally
don’t have to do anything — except
call and email you looking for their
files, even though they’ve been uploaded
to the same directory, on the
same server, for the 35th time this
year.
Delivery questions to ponder
Michael Klinger 9:21:14 am
Over those years, we’ve become
steadily more ambitious
with uploads and downloads.
At first, it was just a few files
from a voice record, then more
and more and more, pushing
our luck along the way. We
are now routinely moving finished
or reference QuickTime
or other media around as large
as 4GB.
Even so, many variables
are out of our control, including
maybe the most difficult:
the client’s perception of what
is a realistic experience to deliver
this way.
Case in point: A couple of nights ago, we uploaded a 4 gig file to
London from Los Angeles. It had to be done in one of the short list of required
high-quality file types (including uncompressed). Based on their
list and relative quality consideration we chose the least of the evils,
and went with ProRes HD 1080.
Like others here have experienced, it had to be loaded to their site
and the company receiving the file wasn’t willing to come and get it
from ours. Even though we have a decent connection and the receiving
end had a decent connection, we weren’t getting even 1/10th of
our potential upload speed. It ended up as a 7+ hour upload — even
though there was no other activity in our office at the time.
No harm done, I suppose in the middle of the night with no tight
deadline, but of course, my client didn’t anticipate this. Their only point
of reference is what it is like to load a YouTube video and they want to
know what is wrong with us, why would it take 7 hours?
Re: speed of free “FTP” sites
Erik Freid 7:21:27 am
There are companies like Media Silo that host a UDP server on the cloud
that send data faster than FTP, via a Java applet that opens in a browser.
First, understand the difference between UDP and FTP. FTP basically
sends out a small packet of data, waits for verification from the server,
then sends more. It is relatively slow to do, and there is a file size limitation
of around 2GB -- unless the ftp server is running 64-bit, and then you
can be pretty stable to 4GB before it fails.
UDP is faster because it sends out larger packets to the other side,
and does not verify packet receipt. It just sends and sends. Companies
like Aspera, FileCatalyst, etc., use a secondary TCP stream (from the hardware
server to another server, or from the Java applet running in the
browser) to verify delivery, which does not slow down the transfer.
All that said, you cannot go faster than your bandwidth. FTP maxes
out at about 1.5 Mbit/s, regardless if you have more bandwidth. Depending
on the controls set on the software and license purchased, UDP can
go up to 50-100 Mbit/s.
I have seen a transfer freeze an entire network because it took up all
the available bandwidth. Everyone complained that their internet was
unusably slow, but they were getting 80 Mb/s on the UDP transfer: 1GB
every two minutes.
Most of the new systems let you set a “speed limit” on the transfer to
avoid this flooding of the gates, so to speak.
Re: Following up re: digital delivery
Mark Grossardt 7:25:24 am
We’ve only just begun using Extreme
Reach, and so far, I’ve been impressed.
They were founded by the guys who
started DG FastChannel, so I get the impression
that ER is the new and improved
version of DG. They take a high quality
MPEG-2 or ProRes HQ master file, and
encode it specifically for each station’s
playback server, so that automated reencoding
by the stations shouldn’t be an
issue.
(Incidentally, the ProRes HQ file is a
much more accurate representation of
the spot sitting on my NLE timeline than
the MPEG-2 format for either ER or DG).
The list of stations using ER is large
and growing, though not quite as ubiquitous
as DG’s. If a station isn’t partnered
with them yet, they can also dump the
spot to Beta SP and have it delivered,
much like DG also does.
Lest I start to sound like an ER honk,
I’m really hoping that ER’s HD delivery
prices start coming down, as the price is
still about 10x that of SD delivery. That’s
enough to make me want to actually call
up each station to request their HD formatting
specs/FTP address info — and
we all know how much fun that conversation
can be.
I once had a guy tell me I could just
email a flash file. Seriously.
Re: Automation
Chris Blair 5:29:21 pm
The problem you’re likely going to run
into with stations and cable systems is
that most of their systems are automated.
People are not involved, and trying
to convince a station to give your file
special treatment will be difficult, if not
impossible.
We can’t even get stations to implement
Telestream provided fixes for a field
reversal issue, which is just a tiny, simple
plug-in that Telestream will provide and
help setup for the station.
The reason? It would mean setting
up a special watch folder for these problem
files, which the stations and cable
systems refuse to do. And believe me,
we’ve asked.
In fact, we got Telestream to figure
out the problem by sending them several
of the files stations were having problems
with. Within an hour, they emailed
back and said that there was nothing
wrong with our encoded files, but that some of their presets for playout
servers did indeed reverse the fields -- usually a 720x480 to 720x486
conversion issue or vice-versa.
They said it was an easy fix, but the station would need to set up
that special watch folder, since the plug-in wouldn’t need to run on
“non-problem” files. The stations refused, saying they couldn’t do that,
because their engineers and IT people wouldn’t allow changes to the
system -- despite the fact that it fixed a glaring problem with the quality
of their spot playback!
Re: Delivery questions to ponder
Michael Klinger 12:41:13 pm
When you build a business model around providing services with scarce
equipment, best to think ahead to its eventual obsolescence and give
thought to what the replacement revenue streams will be.
For a long format hi-def project delivered to a network, we currently
get about $500 for a 60 minute HDCAM-SR master. Our clients
usually pay their own shipping. Subtract about 100 bucks for the stock,
and that leaves $400 for the “labor” and profit per tape. We do these all
day long.
There are other functions that add more value and a larger price/
profit on some masters, such as Dolby E encoding, and closed caption
authoring and encoding. Nevertheless, the pure operation of putting
the deck into record bills out $200 to $300 per hour, an amount that
will help to re-coup the $100,000 cost of the equipment in a reasonable
time period.
At some point, I no longer have to buy $100k decks, but I also no
longer have the revenue and profit of offering a service on a relatively
scarce piece of equipment. So I contend that there is a lot to consider in
order to adapt a business model in coming years, following the needs,
trends, and profit centers: adapting from offering the services of scarce
equipment, to adjusting it to a cheaper, better delivery model that represents
a viable business.
I look forward to this evolution.
n
And that’s just the beginning. In addition to the Digital Delivery forum,
you can find these issues being discussed in forums for Telestream Episode,
Compression Techniques, Broadcast Video, Business & Marketing, Adobe
After Effects, Apple Final Cut Pro, and more. Just click the Search button on
any of the terms in this article, and you may be amazed by what you find!
24 The Asset Management and Distribution Issue — Creative COW Magazine
Creative COW Magazine — The Asset Management and Distribution Issue 25