14 TVBEurope IT Broadcast Workfl ow 2014 Welcome from the chair
Jeremy Bancroft, director of Media Asset Capital, provides the foreword to our review of the 2014 IT Broadcast Workfl ow conference with his chairman’s assessment of the day’s sessions and talking points
THIS JULY marked the sixth time that I have chaired the London IT Broadcast Workfl ow conference. During the fi ve or so years that the conference has been running, we have heard case studies from organisations across the globe that have all faced similar challenges: how to move from a linear, tape- based workfl ow to one where television content arrives, is stored and processed, and is often delivered, as a fi le. Refl ecting on the changes over that period, it is clear that we have passed the tipping point whereby almost all new broadcast installations are fi le-based. Companies deploying fi le-based broadcast infrastructures can no longer be considered to be at the leading edge of technology transformation. However, there are still precious few standards that allow software platforms from different vendors to be integrated with ease. Software integration projects are often complex and time consuming.
The boundaries between the different systems used by broadcasters have blurred — MAM, channel management, automation, workfl ow, transcode, delivery platforms — it is becoming increasingly diffi cult to see where one stops and the next starts. This makes the selection of platforms and components all the more complex. And where the customer wants specifi c functionality or workfl ows, the time taken to specify the requirements in suffi cient detail for the systems vendors can be lengthy. At this year’s conference, Andy Beale talked about the BT Sport project which had a very tight timescale, determined by late access to a new building, and the commencement of the Premier League season. As a result, there was no time to specify and implement a key element in many fi le-based workfl ow projects — an enterprise MAM solution. Despite being told that the project could not be completed on time, BT Sport managed to convert a building and implement a fi le-based broadcast infrastructure to meet
Jeremy Bancroft sets the scene for the day’s agenda
www.tvbeurope.com August 2014
“Companies deploying
its deadline. This was achieved by focusing on what was most important, what
fi le-based broadcast infrastructures can no longer be considered to be at the leading edge of technology transformation”
was currently available, and utilising integrations that had already been proven in other installations.
Sometimes, however, the solution required just does not exist. This was the situation in which Mark Keller, chief technology offi cer of Hogarth Worldwide, found himself. Hogarth is the production arm of advertising agency WPP, and was looking for a way in which content related to TV commercials could be managed centrally, and workfl ows for content review and approval, and distribution of the fi nished ads could be streamlined. Unable to fi nd a solution to meet its needs, Hogarth partnered with Deluxe and
Microsoft to develop its own platform, ZONZA.
ZONZA uses a private cloud infrastructure to store elements and versions of commercials. The economics of using the cloud for broadcast storage were discussed, and for short-form content such as commercials there is a good business case, particularly when costs to access the content can be recharged to the advertisers. However, Jim McGrath of Discovery Communications had a different perspective on cloud-based storage. Discovery has investigated the use of the cloud for long-form content management and delivery.
Its fi ndings were that bandwidth and access costs meant that for Discovery’s application, the cloud wasn’t currently cost effective. This might have been infl uenced by the fact that the Discovery board is focused on making capital investments in order to reduce
operational costs. A common, but far from universal position for broadcasters.
The work of the Digital Production Partnership (DPP), highlighted by Channel 4’s Kevin Burrows at this year’s conference, has established an excellent framework for the fi le- based contribution and delivery of programmes to UK broadcasters. By involving multiple users and vendors, and focusing on tools to assist in deployment, the DPP has not only managed to implement a standard, but a way of working across the industry in the UK. This is no mean feat.
John Ive quoted research undertaken by the IABM that suggests that almost 50 per cent
of the technology spend of a broadcaster is now on IT equipment rather than dedicated broadcast systems.
This led to the old chestnut of broadcast engineers versus IT engineers raising its head. It was stated that it is easier to train broadcast engineers in IT skills that to instill IT engineers with an appreciation of broadcast workfl ows. This is a truism that Media Asset Capital has witnessed in a number of broadcast IT projects around the world. However, it was noted that there does not appear to be a suffi ciently large new generation of broadcast engineers to replace the ageing (and greying) community, ably refl ected within the conference audience. Perhaps the IT engineers will take heart in the move from baseband video to IP streaming, best summed up by Cinegy’s Lewis Kirkaldie when he stated “SDI must die!” He went on to clarify, to the relief of several broadcast equipment vendors, that this is “a future-facing statement”. Judging by the plethora of IP-based video routing and distribution equipment at this year’s trade shows, perhaps that future is not so very far off.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76