Mike Jones Digital Basin
cinematic media rinse cycle


« July 2008
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  
1
3
5
6
8
10
12
13
15
17
19
20
22
24
26
27
29
31
  
       
Today

Blogroll

Newsfeeds

Controls

 
Thursday Dec 13, 2007
 

Integrated delivery - DivX and Stage6

Online Video hosting and Video on Demand websites have become the mediascape hallmark of the decade. Lauded on a range of levels from a 'democratization' of content delivery away from centralized broadcasters, to a paradigm shift in aesthetic expectations, and even as the medium to kill and replace TV.

Of course the centre piece (by popularity if nothing else) is YouTube attracting some 60% of online video viewers. But whilst the menagerie of YouTube alternatives for the moment duke it out over the remaining 40% there is a compelling argument to suggest that YouTube's days are numbered. Maintaining their massive market dominance is hard enough but what is also taking place is the inevitable aesthetic shift in viewer expectations.

YouTube cultivated a very particular visual aesthetic built off the lo-fi punk culture of mobile phone cameras and a DIY ethos. YouTube's great success was the invocation of pixelation and poor quality as assets rather than drawbacks. The YouTube 'look' quickly became the embodiment of 'truth' and 'actuality'. Even advertising started using the YouTube paradigm as an aesthetic choice for traditional TV broadcast.



But times change and with them the culture of user expectation; expectations that are driven by technology. So when quite sophisticated non linear editing systems are built into the OS of every home computer, mobile phones have 5megapixel photo sensors, there's an ever upward speed trend of broadband and ever higher quality focused nature of compression algorithms; the YouTube aesthetic may be under threat from a viewing culture that now has a much higher visual benchmark.

The Flash Video format (FLV), with its move from the old SorensonSpark to the On2 codec, has serviced the online video culture by a capacity to deliver short form streaming media at a watchable quality over very low - sub 400kbps - datarates.

But other codecs may be more forward looking to a time of high quality expectations and big bandwidths. AVC (aka H.264 and Mpeg4 part 10) is much lauded for its ability to not only deliver DVD quality at half the bitrate of Mpeg2 but also to deliver HD at viable file sizes. AVC has also seen much support from hardware manufacturers with numerous media players from mobile to Blu-ray and PS3 all utilizing AVC (generally in the form of the *.MP4 wrapper)

But AVC has a major drawback that has become a bane to many end users. AVC is incredibly inefficient for playback requiring massive amounts of decompression and so a huge and overt drain on the computer CPU. Whilst the quality to size ratio is excellent with AVC all the image clarity in the world won't make for a quality viewing experience if the playback stutters and skips.

One of the new era alternatives aimed at a premium viewer experience of image quality whilst maintaining modest bitrates is DivX. Long the stalwart of particular niche users (such as Gamers, Machinima makes and Peer2Peer dvd pirateers) DivX has been pushing hard as a mainstream alternative for high-quality streaming media.



Moreover DiVX has made significant plays at becoming a format of choice for standalone hardware. There is a remarkably wide variety of DVD players on the market that enable DivX playback directly from optical disc. Similarly there is an even wider set of portable media players and digital cameras that can playback and record video in the DivX codec (a a variant on Mpeg4) using the ubiquitous AVI wrapper.

It's a hard war to fight; the relatively small DivX group have no where near the marketing and profile clout of international consortia behind AVC/h.264, WMV/VC1 and FLV/On2. But DivX is certainly holding its own as a popular encoding and delivery choice and doing so by being clever, not just in regard to the Codec, but by a very holistic approach to digital content.

On a quality level the DivX codec certainly holds its own against AVC and WMV but on its own, being as good as without being significantly better isn't  good enough when you are the small fish. What DivX offers however to compete is superb efficiency and slick ease of playback that makes AVC pale by comparison. DivX is an extremely lightweight compression scheme to unpack and playback on computer, mobile device and standalone disc player. A full 1080p HD DivX file will have little trouble playing back on older or more modest computer where an AVC/MP4 file of the same ilk is more than likely to splutter. Moreover streaming DivX played through the DivX webplayer requires proportional less data speed of connection.

The other tact that DivX embraces as a way to forge popularity in a crowded market place of delivery options is a very holistic approach and a deeply integrated platform that stretches well beyond the DivX codec. DivX is really a suite of tools and systems geared towards both the creation and delivery of digital content across the diversity of platforms.

The DivX codec provides an encoding architecture that can be accessed from just about any video editing system to render directly to DivX from the timeline. DivX files are supported by the DivX player; a very effective and sleek media player and media manager. There is also the DivX webplayer which functions as a browser plug in to play streaming DivX videos. The DivX converter provides a neat application for converting most common file formats to DivX and the the Divx Authoring system allows for DVD-style menu-based discs to produced. Such discs play as DVD's in DivX certified devices but can deliver Mpeg2 quality at much lower bitrates and file sizes.



The last piece of this DivX platform to fall into place is Stage6, the online video hosting and streaming site built around the Divx format. Stage6 obviously follows a line forged by the myriad of similar video hosting services such as YouTube distributing user-generated content. However Stage6 aims squarely at the next phase of user-generated video, one where quality of both production and experience is the focus.



Exclusively using the DivX codec and DivX webplayer, Stage6 doesn't tightly reduce and restrict the resolution of the viewable image and instead embraces much higher spatial resolutions than the standard YouTube 320x240 including 640x480, SD, HD 720 and even 1080.

Obviously by nature of this ability to host larger resolutions Stage6 is very much focused on a user base viewing over fat broadband connections. But rather than a negative DivX plays this element as a point-of-difference for Stage6. Where most other online hosting services are focused on users en-masse with mass access, DivX puts the focus on quality not quantity.

Re-enforcing this idea is the Stage6 system of 'Karma' that governs usage of the site. Positive use of Stage6 - uploading videos that rate well, attracting comments to your videos and leaving comments and ratings on others - builds Karma. Having sufficient Karma allows the user to setup a dedicated channel for their videos and other such advanced features.

The use of the Karma system in Stage6 is designed as a filtration system to bring the cream to the top via what amounts an effective Peer-Review process. Producers looking to use Stage6 as a platform to deliver an ongoing video series or to present a body of work may be disappointed that such a 'channel' service is unavailable until significant karma is accrued. But there is some wisdom in the approach of making a dedicated Channel space more intrinsically valuable and exclusive thus presenting the perception of quality - both in content and aesthetics.

In a number of ways the DivX system - crowned off by the Stage6 VOD platform focused on high quality and high resolution delivery – presents a very holistic and well considered approach to digital media. Rather than a narrow focus on one area of digital content or a patchy approach to leveraging encoding and delivery together, DivX/Stage6 arguably presents the best integrated digital delivery platform available at the current date. No one else can boast of a unified system that encodes, authors, manages and plays digital media across so many platforms and from so many directions. But of course the new Adobe Media Player is in the wings and the once thats strapped to the formidable arsenal of the Adobe creative suite of production tools it may be an unstoppable force.




Comments:

Great overview on Stage6. I've found myself using it more and more lately. I especially like to use the discover feature that lets me spy on what other users are watching at that moment. It's like a peer review, except you can still find entertaining content that might not make it to the front page.

Your comments on H.264 were also interesting, but I'm not sure that I fully understand the technological limitations. While there is DivX support in a few cameras, there is a lot more H.264 support for digital camcorders. Wouldn't the encoding process take even more power then the decoding process and if so, why would they be able to get camcorders to support encoding, but have problems with a cell phone or video iPod playing back the content?

Posted by Davis Freeberg on December 13, 2007 at 04:45 AM EST #

Thanks for your comments Davis.

Its a bit more complicated to talk about h.264/AVC in regard to end-delivery in the same context as AVCHD used in some contemporary video camcorders made by Sony and Panasonic. Whilst they do share the same base codec (h.264/mpeg4 part 10) they are wildly different in bit rate and stream structure. An AVCHD camera records video in AVC at HD frame size, in a transport stream wrapper at 19 megabits per second. When we talk about delivery of HD AVC on BluRay for example we're in the realm of 6-10mbps in a program stream and if its small frame on i-pod we're down to much less than 1mbps.

DivX is not designed as a codec/format for Acquisition of an image such as AVC can be used for (except in the case of some still video cameras and ultra portable devices such as Archos PMP) Its designed for delivery of a final project.

Encoding AVC is actually no where near as problematic as decoding because, whilst AVC encoding is much, much slower and intensive than DivX, you dont have to watch it in real-time as it processes. When you watch it needs to be encoded very quickly to be watchable on the fly. Thus AVC for playback needs to use comparatively low bitrates as hi bitrate AVC is almost impossible to playback smoothly. As anyone who has tried editing AVCHD video in their software editing systems has discovered, real-time performance drops to almost unusable on anything but very fast systems and even then you can forget about real-time effects.

Ipods and cell phones have no problem with AVC because the encoding is done at a low bitrate that those devices can handle.

the advantage of DivX is even at very hi bitrates the files are very efficient to decode and playback. In simple terms you can have a higher bitrate and higher quality DivX file playback easier and more efficiently than an AVC one. The trade off however will be that the DivX file will be bigger in size. But most of the time not by all that much and in many modern contexts file size isnt so much the problem as efficiency of the decode. We see this same element in On2 codec FLV which is why it and not AVC is the most common codec for web-video streaming. Its plays much smoother, much easier, requires less complex and intensive decoding. DivX is much the same.

AVC/h.264 has a very broad industry suppourt as a format designed to be future proofed; its also got international standing as an open format. This is obviously very attractive to major product developers who might shy away from DivX because of its much smaller proprietary nature. Thats certainly understandable from a strategic corporate perspective.

It can be argued that Moore's Law of ever faster computers will ultimately negate the current problem of decode inefficiency of AVC. But right now the only real issue with DivX is that of two files the same in quality the DivX will be bigger than the AVC and this problem of file size is one that is largely not an issue for most uses. DivX can reduce a feature DVD movie to fit on less than a CD and maintain much the same quality. So whilst AVC waits for computers to get faster to get past some of its encode/decode sluggishness, DivX is viable immediately with super efficiency and its slightly larger file size is just not really a issue in todays technology.

I'm not at alls suggesting that AVC is bad or worse but simply that it has inherent drawbucks that balance its benefits. What DivX offers is a very good alternative for Mobile device, SD and HD delivery.

But more importantly than all this, what i like about DivX right now goes beyond just the codec, its the broad integrated approach they've taken - Codec, Player, Encoder, Certified Devices, Authoring software and online VOD system. Its a very well thought out end-to-end solution. And in this regard is somewhat unique.

Thats of course until Adobe brings its Adobe Media Player fully online and then they will have a very complete package: a great delivery format (FLV) built on two great codecs (AVC and On2) delivered in a comprehensive media player application (AMP) and tightly integrated with all Adobe's creative software tools (PremPro, AE, Encore, Flash, Pshop)

Mike

Posted by Mike Jones on December 13, 2007 at 10:09 AM EST #

I agree that the DivX codec is great quality, but Stage6 is a substandard web site. It is barely functional at most of my visits and non-functional the rest of the time. The simple things are missing, like you can't edit your own forum posts and trying to list videos by date or rating results in a mess. The editors always feature either junk videos or corporate commercials on the front page. And worst of all, many great user made videos (not stolen shows) that make it to the top of the ratings are suddenly and mysteriously deleted from their servers.

Filmmakers are leaving in droves because of the wide-spread deletions. It's a shame that a great codec is being squandered by terrible management.

Posted by Edgar Stevens on December 13, 2007 at 10:20 AM EST #

I agree there are some issues there Edgar. But it is still in beta and i dont believe the concept is right. i have hope that bugs will be ironed and it will be come a great delivery medium.

Posted by Mike Jones on December 13, 2007 at 10:24 AM EST #

Thanks for the detailed response. Obviously this kind of technology is pretty complex, but your reply did help to clarify a few questions that rattling around in my brain. I agree that one of the best things about DivX has more to do with the eco-system that they've created than even the quality of their codec. Being able to transfer DivX files to devices that I own and still have them play is far more important than more advanced compression. I'm really enjoying your blog, thanks for sharing your insights on the nuts and bolts behind internet video.

Posted by Davis Freeberg on December 20, 2007 at 04:06 AM EST #

Thanks for reading Davis. Glad you're enjoying the blog and that the article on DivX was useful.

You are absolutly deadright about the 'Experience' of DivX and the ecosystem it has being of prime importance, in many ways more important than the compression itself - something i think other developers forget sometimes.

i definitely think thats the strength of DivX right now is its attempt at an end-to-end system from encoding, to playing, to delivery , to hosting.

Hope you stop by digitalbasin again soon.

mike

Posted by Mike Jones on December 20, 2007 at 09:39 AM EST #

Post a Comment:
  • HTML Syntax: Allowed


 
 
 


Controls