4 ms·

I was working at the BBC at the time this was first suggested (on web stuff, not video) and saw the edges of this project. From the start it felt like the start

by ljf 13y ago

I was working at the BBC at the time this was first suggested (on web stuff, not video) and saw the edges of this project. From the start it felt like the start of a good idea, but with a huge remit and no focus. The idea of being able to edit video locally using a low quality version of the file, seems like a good one. All the rendering is done on high end servers working at full capacity with no wasted machines. Users can edit from their desktop without having to use a high end machine too. Until you talk to anyone who works in video - how can they be sure the video is lit, focused and presented correctly without viewing the source file. And the process of uploading files, waiting for edit versions and downloading the final files, even over a decent connection added huge overhead. Felt like there wasn't enough discussion with the actual teams that would use this. But as I say, I was not involved nor did it affect me and my team directly so I could be way off in my very small view of the project.

phillc73 13y ago
I was involved, but on the BBC Worldwide side. I had numerous meetings with the core BBC public service team working on this, over a period of about two years. Each one of these meetings simply felt like going over the same ground, and any feedback we'd given regarding what would work for BBCW was either forgotten or ignored. In the end we just forged ahead with our own digital projects as the business required. I must admit I'm not surprised this project has been shut down.
jermy 13y ago
The irony is that we (the company I work for) already do low-resolution web-based proxy editing. The BBC has know about us since 2006 - we were even part of the original DMI tender process, but have been sidelined through all of that, with preferred vendors and consultants taking over (actually, we were also part of two of the six large-consultancy bids on the second round, but that tender was again dropped when Siemens were idiotically awarded the contract instead). You're absolutely right about proxy content not being right for all markets - especially Drama - but it's not just a question of getting a good enough quality encode. If you don't have a calibrated display on your BBC desktop, then it's pretty meaningless. We are used as a production tool for logging and rough-cut editing on high shooting ratio (typically reality) programmes before an offline edit, and will save a lot of hours in editing suite time. The DMI has been in the way of us being able to sell to the BBC for many years now, even though it has been a ghost ship for most of the last year. We were unsurprisingly delighted (as a company, of course, not as licence payers) that it has been officially dropped today.

by ljf 13y ago

phillc73 13y ago

I was involved, but on the BBC Worldwide side. I had numerous meetings with the core BBC public service team working on this, over a period of about two years. Each one of these meetings simply felt like going over the same ground, and any feedback we'd given regarding what would work for BBCW was either forgotten or ignored. In the end we just forged ahead with our own digital projects as the business required. I must admit I'm not surprised this project has been shut down.

jermy 13y ago

The irony is that we (the company I work for) already do low-resolution web-based proxy editing. The BBC has know about us since 2006 - we were even part of the original DMI tender process, but have been sidelined through all of that, with preferred vendors and consultants taking over (actually, we were also part of two of the six large-consultancy bids on the second round, but that tender was again dropped when Siemens were idiotically awarded the contract instead). You're absolutely right about proxy content not being right for all markets - especially Drama - but it's not just a question of getting a good enough quality encode. If you don't have a calibrated display on your BBC desktop, then it's pretty meaningless. We are used as a production tool for logging and rough-cut editing on high shooting ratio (typically reality) programmes before an offline edit, and will save a lot of hours in editing suite time. The DMI has been in the way of us being able to sell to the BBC for many years now, even though it has been a ghost ship for most of the last year. We were unsurprisingly delighted (as a company, of course, not as licence payers) that it has been officially dropped today.