Bear with me people, I'd dead on my feet, but I can tell you that there was some great stuff shown at this week's BBC R&D open days.
My two stand-outs were Dirac, a BBC-created video Codec co-developed with open-source programmers; and demos that convinced me that HD TV really is going to be BIG.
Dirac, probably shaded it, though.
It's a free Codec (anyone can use it anyway they want) and is set to remove one massive barrier to making available on the internet all BBC TV output – by saving the corporation very many millions of pounds in streaming license fees in coming years.
And, of course, if other broadcasters adopt it (and it's likely they will if the Beeb adopts it) then Real, MS and others are going to have to do big rethinks - cos their incomes from streaming license fees is not going to grow as they'll have imagined. In fact, they are likely to nose dive.
I've put up my initial take on Dirac on DVdoctor's front page and will follow up with more on this Codec and the other R&D goodies - hopefully over the weekend.
Oh, and not in any way incidentally, here are some Dirac-related links:
The MPlayer news page (MPlayer lets those of you who want to fiddle do so)
Bob C
excellent stuff! it's good to hear that Dirac's coming along so well. I tried to download and compile the source the other day but the instructions went way over my head... i think i'll be waiting for a propper release... i know Dirac is being designed for distribution, but does anyone have thoughts on using it for aquisition? i don't really know enough about it to consider it's use in a desirably lossless application.
mark.
The people I spoke to were saying that there would an applet (a bit like MS's encoder tool, I guess) for transcoding to Dirac.
It would have few options, though, essentially just a range of quality/resolution settings.
However, the expectation seems to be that Dirac can and will be detected and usable by well-behaved editing programs (assuming any settings to ignore 3rd party Codecs are turned off).
But, really, because the Codec is totally free and has zero restrictions, it's quite possible that it could be adopted for a whole bunch of things, such as being built into hardware.
Bob C
Yep, I enjoyed the day. Despite having worked there for 37 years, I was still surprised at some of the projects and how well they're progressing; like Chris Clarke's low-latency MPEG coder work that is aiming at a contribution codec with a total delay of only 20msec (that's just one field). And Richard Russell's 2:1 compressor aimed at getting 1080p/50 into 1.5Gb/s, I saw that being developed some months ago, it's an inspired piece of work (with a latency of only 4 lines at 1080p/50, 2 lines at 1080i/25, 1 line at SD rates). Wonderful stuff.
this may interest people about the BBC's view on Internet video
"From: "TVL - EmailEnq"
To:Subject: Case Ref:
Date: Mon 05/09/05 06:17 AM
TV LICENSING
BRISTOL
BS98 1TL
Tel : 0870 243 0229
Fax : 0870 240 1187
E-Mail: [email=tvlcsc@capita.co.uk]tvlcsc@capita.co.uk[/email]Dear Mr XXXXXXX,
Thank you for contacting us.
Irrespective of where the live broadcasts originate, if your computer is capable of receiving live broadcasts over the Internet, a television licence is required. The current fee is £126.50.
Yours sincerely
Michael Williams
Customer Services Centre
anyone else see/hear the cashtill ringing .......................................
maybe my idea that it would be 'attached' to your tv licence wasn't so wacky ........
To be fair, that view is a precise reading of the wording printed on the licence. You are licenced to receive tv signals, irrespective of the method. If the only aparatus you have for watching tv is a computer, and it's only connection to the world is via the net, and there's no live streaming of programmes, then you're in the same situation as someone with a tv display and tape/disc player who only uses it to watch pre-recorded stuff, because that's not a tv receiving station as defined in the licence.
if you look at the actual act
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040692.htm
You will see it think that this interpretation is SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED.
Computer apparatus is ONLY subject to it if it Receives the signals via wireless telegraphy UNLESS it is specifically sold or rented to receives this program material. This change in 2004 was basically so that TV tuner cards WERE subject to license requirements BUT PC's betting broadcast over the net were NOT
Here is an exerpt:
Meaning of "television set"
11. - (1) In Part 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967, "television set" means any apparatus which (either alone or in association with other apparatus) is capable of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service but is not computer apparatus.
(2) In this regulation, "computer apparatus" means apparatus which -
(a) is designed or adapted to be used (either alone or in association with other apparatus) for storing or processing data, but not for doing so in connection with the reception by means of wireless telegraphy of television programme services; and
(b) is not offered for sale or letting as apparatus for use (either alone or in association with other apparatus) primarily for or in connection with the reception (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) of such services;
and "processing" includes displaying.
Tessa Jowell
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
9th March 2004
I remember having just this exact discussion with Geoff Hoone when he was Shadow Minister of Technology right before Labor won the election at the
New Connaught Rooms when I was giving a lecture on communicatons networking and digital media in the future.
The decision at that time was TVtuner card... it is a TV no tuner card, not a TV
John
Interesting...
Amazingly sounds like common sense has won over the licence fee debate. If you buy a tuner card, it may be seen as intent to watch TV. If you buy a computer with internet connection, the intent cannot be proven and just because the BBC (or whoever) should choose to make it's content available via the net should not mean an obligation to buy a licence. Otherwise it is no better than firms who posted goods to households and said "if you don't return them within x days we consider you've bought them".
More generally, http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7537 in the New Scientist may be of interest.
What seems significant to me is that BBC R&D were showing a number of ways of verifying whether the would-be net-recipient of programmes was qualified to do so.
By that I mean they were showing key-verification systems that could, for instance, be set to block access from homes that did not have TV licenses, and individual PCs also.
The idea being, of couse, that people who haven't paid for TV licenses can't watch BBC programmes over the net.
Mention was made of ways of enabling viewing by qualifying people who were not resident in the UK - such as members of HM Forces.
Bob C
Alan , or anyone else that may know , has anyone seen comparison of h323 and dirac ?
I know what h323 is capable of , I use it daily , but as I am not part of the BBC tests I can't/haven't seen dirac in action.
Dirac is classed as "an interesting project". The current HD transmission tests uses MPEG4 Level 10 H.264. I've not seen any comparisons lately.
The whole issue of restricting viewing to the uk appears to have been much more easily solved by simply restricting connections to the uk isp's. FAR MORE SIMPLY than attempting to introduce yet another viewing software standard into the market place. It looks like they are currently just using REAL player and WMP.
Sharyn
but not for the new streaming version that people are beta testing .......
it allegedly uses dirac ( and i say that because they wouldn't let me try it out )
their use of realmedia scares me , it is poor quality , and real is capable of more/better.
I am in the process of proposing a realmedia server , with intention of streaming our own sourced video to distance learning students and uk tv programs to 'intranet' customers.
A 500 seat license will cost £1,000
A blade server plus drive rack and 1TB of hard-drives will all come in under £7,000
so for £8,000 we will be able to stream degree level support media to anyone on our backbone , which covers from Lochaber in the South to Lerwick in the North.
I've looked at some h264 recently , made by serious producers , as trailers for films.
Some of it truly sucks ...... even quicktime can't fast forward / rewind without major lipsync and the better players like Vidolan , just don't hack it either.
Change to hidef divx and less problems.
sharyn : restricting output to uk isp's is being easily circumvented by many users around the world ........ rearrange the following words
access open server proxy uk located in
and the real stupidity is that many education sites are housing them , not to enable access to bbc etc , but to allow access to their restricted content , which would be better done ( and probably more legal ) by making VPN connections.
a quicker way will be when people set up slingboxes ... wait and hear the UK tv stations cry .......
Gary
I agree, the technology to get around it is easy, and it is almost silly to think that it will not occur on a massive scale. I wonder if they really care, or if it is more for an official "well we lare operating within the limits of our charter and so we only offer it to UK license holders wink wink nod nod'
Back a while ago on these boards we raised the whole issue of does all this make sense, in the internet world and do the various licensed based tv organizations need to completely re think the whole model.
It certainly could be argued I would think that BBC should have gotten world wide web rights for the content, and had a system set up that for a resonable charge anyone could have seen the content.
It is like the record business, IF they had looked at the market and the technology and what needed to be done, THEY would have been the apple making billions, in stead they chose to try to fight the flow of technology and fail.
SHARYN
But that is the answer :
They are doing everything they can reasonably do to only allow legal use of the programs.
In education you can make any TV program available for electronic viewing on your own network
Where i work , over 75% of the students are distance learning , and therefore not connected to our intranet , nor are we able to allow all access via VPN.
We therefore cannot let them have access to our off-air recordings.
we need the new licence that is being hammered out to be done this side of hell freezing over ..... it has taken them over 10 years to get to the present system.
I hear you, again that is why we still think the license model simply will not work in todays global world. I see all the talks, and white papers etc, but all the thinking is still "island mentality"
in the mean time need to check and see how much of an investment in Sling Media stock we are going to make ;-))
Sharyn
If you are looking for investment , maybe you could get TIVO to look into making it available again in the UK.
Or slingbox to make slingbox2 with tivo functions :)
do you want the record on the hosting sling box side or just an ability to have the remote viewer record on their pc?
Sharyn
I think all should be on the slingbox end ..... a tivo with attitude ......
That way you only get remote viewing , you can tell main site to record , but not allowed to record at the viewing end.
Blatant advert and links to software hosted on sharing sites removed.
The poster is based in Vietnam , and appears to work for the company whose products he linked to.
Just get this program
[more blatant adverts deleted]
[more blatant adverts deleted] - and user banned by mooblie.