Information Technology Council
Subcommittee for Video on Demand
Report of the
Working Group for Video/Audio
Architectures & Compression:
a New Media Ecosystem
2005-08-02
Download the PDF of the Full Report (3.1MB)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As a result of the Project Plans outlined in the University of UtahÕs Information Technology Council Strategic Planning Report (http://www.it.utah.edu/leadership/policies/IT_StrategicPlan.pdf), a campus-wide committee was formed to explore issues and develop guidelines for Video-On-Demand (VOD) for the University of Utah. As of Autumn 2004, several working groups were formed within that committee to examine networking demands, digital asset management systems, content acquisition, and best practice guidelines and standards for the digitization and distribution of video, audio and multimedia. This document is a summary report of the activities of the Working Group for Video/Audio Architectures & Compression.
TASKS: A specific group of Tasks was defined for the Working Group that included:
- conducting Environmental Scans (internal and external) of existing video/audio media architectures and codecs in use across the University campus,
- analyzing the applicability of the MPEG-4/H.264 digital media architecture as a University standard, and
- determining the desire for and scope of assistance and professional development options for VOD content contributors and end users.
FINDINGS-- INTERNAL ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN:
Emergence of a VOD New Media EcosystemÉ
The current state of affairs in the digital distribution of video and audio media may be conceptualized as a vibrant and evolving ecosystem of the preparation, distribution and maintenance of content that is delivered through broadcast transmissions, satellite, cable, fiber, the Internet, computer networks, wireless networks, game consoles, web conferencing and collaboration, cell phones and Personal Digital Assistants. Media is created once, but consumed through different types of devices.
Autonomy vs Resource EfficiencyÉ
Currently, the creation, storage, and distribution of digital video and audio assets on campus are primarily conducted (with some exceptions) by individual, autonomous departments. The redundancies in service may be considered a fiscal and resource management weakness. At the same time, with localized control, services are more quickly responsive to change and adjustments in requirements.
Too Many FormatsÉ
The variety of digital media architectures and file formats that are currently in distribution is a detriment, not only for the producers who are digitizing and compressing multiple files for multiple players and different bandwidth connectivity to the Internet, but also for the end-user who must install and maintain a variety of media players.
Centralized StorageÉ
As demand for digital assets increases, the need for greater capacity to store these assets (on-line, near-line, & off-line) likewise expands. Centralized storage is considered acceptable, but groups with high levels of expertise and resources prefer to manage their own assets.
Centralized Back-up & ArchivingÉ
The 365/24/7 support and maintenance offered by centralized services for file back-up and archiving is a mission critical consideration.
Centralized Distribution ServersÉ
Increasing demands for viewing and perusing digital assets puts a heavy load on networks and Internet connections. Load balancing, efficiencies, and guaranteed Quality of Service can be achieved through centralized distribution services, servers, and even the build out of parallel Content Distribution Networks to carry the load of digital media.
Localized Media CreationÉ Although most would embrace a standardized storage and distribution system across the University for digital media assets, there is a strong indication that individual departments and groups prefer to manage their own acquisition, authoring, and compression of media files.
University-wide StandardsÉ Given training and resources, many groups were positive about the establishment of University-wide guidelines and standards for digital media compression. If such standards were crafted and provided to the University community, individual, autonomously managed departments and groups would likely embrace the specifications.
Training and Help DesksÉ It could be considered a mandate for the University to provide professional development opportunities and training to content providers on campus. For end-users, it is a necessity to provide Help Desk assistance as they are asked to download and view digital media as part of their academic and research undertakings.
FINDINGS-- EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN:
MPEG-4 Digital Media ArchitectureÉ The UniversityÕs various departments each subscribe to different technologies, depending on their needs and their support and maintenance resources. Because we are witnessing the emergence and wide adoption of the MPEG-4 standardized, non-proprietary media architecture across multiple profiles and consumption points of the New Media Ecosystem, there is an opportunity for the University to promote common methods of content preparation and distribution. The tools and best practices for exploiting the MPEG-4 architecture are either already in place or emerging quickly.
Need for Consistency & InteroperabilityÉ The threat to the University, if some consistency is not promoted throughout the delivery of digital media through networks and the Internet, will be a proliferation of files and formats which cannot be played, cannot be shared, and (where appropriate) cannot be re-purposed. None of these conditions are acceptable within an academic institution (except where information must be protected for financial, privacy, patent, copyright, unpublished research, security or other similar circumstances).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the opinions and information gleaned from the internal and external environmental scans conducted by the Working Group for Digital Video/Audio Architectures & Compression, Ònext stepÓ recommendations can be offered. If implemented, each should be aggressively supported and maintained in order to provide long-term consistency and adherence to established guidelines and accessibility to centralized services.
- Create a website incorporating best practices into guidelines and parameters that the University recommends.
- Create a list of existing services on campus that could help or create VOD deliverables.
- Add FAQs about digital media delivery and playback to campus Help Desk's repertoire.
- Create and deliver training and professional development opportunities. Capitalize on the IT Managers Group, Webmaster Forums, and Marriott Library Media Streaming Services tutorial modules currently in development.
- Post these and other VOD committee findings, recommendations and training aids on the web, available from the OIT web site.
MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP
FOR VIDEO/AUDIO ARCHITECTURES
AND COMPRESSION
Working Group Facilitator
Paul E. Burrows, Media Solutions
Members
David Adams, TAC Center
Richard Glaser, Marriott Library
Nancy Lombardo, Eccles Health Sciences Library
Jimmy Miklavcic, Center for High Performance Computing
Dave Packham, Office of Information Technology
Tyler Smith, Instructional Media Services
SITUATION ANALYSIS
Background
As a result of the Project Plans outlined in the University of UtahÕs Information Technology Council Strategic Planning Report (http://www.it.utah.edu/leadership/policies/IT_StrategicPlan.pdf), a campus-wide committee was formed to explore issues and develop guidelines for Video-On-Demand (VOD) for the University of Utah. As of Autumn 2004, several working groups were formed within that committee to examine networking demands, digital asset management systems, content acquisition, and best practice guidelines and standards for the digitization and distribution of video, audio and multimedia.
This document is a summary report of the activities of the Working Group for Video/Audio Architectures & Compression. This Working Group was charged with conducting an environmental scan across the University to review the video/audio media architectures and codecs in use (both proprietary and standards-based). The goal was to identify preferred methods of preparing and distributing digital video and audio, especially in light of Video-On-Demand capabilities. These preferred methods would be folded into campus guidelines captured in a website and communicated through workshops and committee meetings. Circumscribing the conclusions and recommendations of the Working Group were the University of Utah Information Technology Council's strategy of building central coordination of initiatives with distributed local control of day-to-day operations.
Scope: the VOD Ecosystem
In the mid 1990s, the first iterations of QuickTime were able to deliver postage-stamp sized digital video from a computer's hard drive using a variety of proprietary compression algorithms and playback decoders. Most individuals judged the quality inferior and without merit or application. Visionaries saw the potentials of digital video and audio distribution and playback through devices other than television sets connected to broadcast or cable TV systems.
Over a decade later, we have witnessed a proliferation of digital content that is delivered through broadcast transmissions, satellite, cable, fiber, the Internet, computer networks, wireless networks, game consoles, web conferencing and collaboration, cell phones and Personal Digital Assistants. With the flood of content, the overwhelming mandate is to maximize the quality of the viewing experience (Quality of Experience, QoE) while minimizing the impact of delivery on bandwidth infrastructures (Quality of Service, QoS).
The current state of affairs may be conceptualized as a vibrant and evolving ecosystem for the preparation, distribution and maintenance of video and audio content. Ideally, within this ecosystem, participants are able to build on each otherÕs contributions. Shared experiences lead to improvements in implementation, QoE, and QoS, with resulting savings in development, storage, and distribution costs.
The distribution chains for content can be classified as:
- Classic
- Broadcast distribution via terrestrial, cable & satellite
- Packaged media such as CD and DVD via retail
- New Media
- Internet/IP based distributions
- Wireless/Mobile based distributions
Classic distribution chains are closely associated with the ÒpushÓ of selected content from centralized services to consumers. Consumers are welcome to drop into pre-determined schedules of playback or tightly controlled media release dates.
New Media distribution chains are most often based on the ÒpullÓ of personally relevant content by the consumer (students, faculty, staff, administration) from a large array of diverse and distributed content sources. Media-On-Demand, determined when consumers desire it, in the form that they prefer, is a necessary part of the VOD Ecosystem. A consumerÕs Point-of-Presence is reached through both Classic and New Media channels. Content is received on televisions, personal computers, set-top media devices (DVDs, CDs, game consoles), cell phones and PDAs, radio, and personal media devices (iPods, portable media players). The various reception devices can be referred to as Consumption Profiles.
In a report from the MPEG-4 Industry Forum entitled ÒMPEG-4: The Media StandardÓ (November 19, 2002), the New Media delivery and consumption profiles are visualized as an ecosystem that Òliberates multimedia for delivery across any network to any user of any device.Ó It is often referred to as ÒMedia Convergence.Ó The following illustration is drawn from the ForumÕs report and flows from the creation and production of content on the left, through encoding, storage, and distribution processes, with final delivery to various consumption profiles on the right.
VOD / NEW MEDIA ECOSYSTEM
Courtesy MPEG-4 Industry Forum
It is important for the Working Group to recognize the New Media Ecosystem as it builds recommendations for the encoding and transport of video, audio, and multimedia content within and outside of the University for the benefit of students, faculty, staff, and administration. The recommendations must be built on technologies and solutions that can satisfy the demands of the New Media Ecosystem while also supporting the Office of Information TechnologyÕs strategy to embrace centralized coordination with distributed control (that is affordable and feasible to implement for any and all departments and entities within the University).
Working GroupÕs Areas of Interest
Based on discussions within the larger VOD Committee, Areas of Interest were identified by the Working Group for deeper investigation and summarization:
- What are the uses and need for creating and distributing digital video and audio over the various pipelines, networks, and delivery mechanisms?
- Who are the audiences for digital video and audio?
- End-users play video and audio files with what type and quality of computers?
- What are the bandwidth connections between servers and end users' points of presence?
- Where are the available video and audio acquisition, production, and editing facilities and services on the University campus?
- Where are the available digitization/ingestion facilities and services on the University campus?
- Where are the available storage devices for large quantities of video and audio media?
- Where are the available distribution and delivery servers on the University campus, both locally controlled by individual departments and centrally operated by campus-wide IT infrastructures?
- Is Download or Streaming of digital media files a preferred end-user experience?
- Is Download or Streaming of digital media files a preferred method for delivering media?
- What is the anticipated production quality for source materials either created locally or obtained from third-party content providers?
- What are the preferred media architectures for server delivery (i.e., Windows Media, QuickTime, Real, MPEGs, etc.)?
- What are the preferred media architectures for user playback (i.e., Windows Media, QuickTime, Real, MPEGs, etc.)?
- What are the preferred compression codecs and associated parameters?
- What digital rights management options are needed and available?
- What is the best way to promote University media architecture and compression guidelines?
- What types of training and professional development should be offered to media developers and distributors from on-campus?
- What Help Desk options are available for end-users?
Working GroupÕs Specific Tasks
The Areas of Interest were subsequently distilled into a specific group of Tasks for the Working Group:
Environmental ScanÉ
- Gather and summarize Use Cases for current instances of digital media storage and distribution from selected University departments and entities.
- Conduct a campus-wide survey of web managers and IT personnel with regard to their use and delivery of digital video and audio content.
MPEG-4 ArchitectureÉ
- Review the ISO standards-based MPEG-4/H.264 architecture as an option for standardized digital video and audio delivery in a New Media Ecosystem, serving content to a variety of Consumption Profiles, including cell phones, PDAs, web browsers, Internet collaboration tools, Video over IP, and even High Definition digital broadcasting and the next generation DVD-Video discs.
- Test MPEG-4 file compatibility as related to encoders, servers, and players.
Guidelines & AssistanceÉ
- Prepare preferred guidelines for media compression parameters and playback across platforms, players, and bandwidths.
- Determine Referral Services for content production, compression, and delivery.
- Identify Help Desk Services to facilitate end-user/consumer assistance.
- Outline web-based and face-to-face training and familiarization workshops for those across the University community who require background information, advice, or professional development opportunities on "how to proceedÓ with rich media delivery across a New Media Ecosystem that accommodates VOD.
SWOT ANALYSIS
The Specific Tasks of the Working Group can be reported within the framework of a SWOT Analysis. An environmental scan of existing video, audio, and multimedia preparation and distribution methods across the University of Utah looks internally and externally, revealing Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats as we explore the VOD environment and a New Media Ecosystem.
Internally, the Working Group gathered a handful of Use Cases while also conducting a University-wide survey that explores the GroupÕs designated Areas of Interest. The results of the internal analysis, in summarizing existing circumstances, will reveal possible strengths and weaknesses.
Externally, the Working Group observes the opportunities provided by the adoption of the standards-based MPEG-4 architecture to satisfy VOD demands and the anticipated Consumption Profiles associated with a New Media Ecosystem.
Environmental Scan: Internal
Use Cases
The Working Group for Video/Audio Architectures & Compression was composed of representatives from departments across campus active in media creation and distribution. Group members were asked to summarize their current use of digital video/audio and/or Media-On-Demand services to University students, faculty, staff, and administration.
Use Case #1:
Marriott Library Student Computer Labs/Multimedia Center
The Marriott Library is engaged in a multi-stage process of delivering digital video and audio to its patrons (http://data.scl.utah.edu). Initial implementation is targeted for the Multimedia Centers within the Library, followed by the Computer Labs that they support. Ultimately, they hope to support the campus as a whole, as well as accommodate off-campus requests for media delivery. For a full discussion of the history and development of the project, link to http://data.scl.utah.edu/fmi/xsl/stream/about.xsl .
User access is managed by a customized media asset database, restricting access to media playback on the basis of Access Control Lists, or ACLs. These ACLs are based on IP, IP range or subnet (visible or hidden) or the UniversityÕs Network Identification (the uNID) to authenticate individual users or defined groups. Future authentications of group-based affiliates will be implemented through Lightweight Directory Access Protocols (LDAP).
Some examples of restricted access to media assets, based on intellectual property rights restrictions and other use agreements, include:
- Limiting access to VHS and DVD playback (through QuickTime streaming) to users within the libraryÕs Multimedia Center Lab.
- Limiting access to television streams (such as UTV) to Student Computing Labs in the Marriott Library, Student Union, and the Peterson & Sage labs.
- Limiting media access to staff presentations to library staff computers.
An important security feature of their system is the random generation of the pathways to their video streams. These pathways are automatically regenerated on a daily basis, thus creating a constantly moving target for individuals who attempt to hack into their system.
The media asset database also gathers statistics on media utilizations. The system tracks the actual content that is viewed, as well as the time of viewing. IP addresses and domain names from the requesting computer are also logged.
The bandwidth connectivity to computers in their labs is 100 Megabits/second. The actual media servers are connected at 1Gigbit. Off-campus access to media files will require at least a Òbroadband levelÓ speed (DSL, Cable Modem, Satellite) at no less than half-a-Megabit/second. Two levels of files are envisioned, one for slower broadband, another for high speed Internet connectivity, depending on the source of the file and its intended audience (libraryÕs analog collection, computer managers meetings, short courses or live streaming, for example).
At the present time, the Library supports the MPEG-4 Part 2 media format, force played via the QuickTime architecture and player, within a unicast framework. Multicast capability is also enabled, and is currently being tested.
The Multimedia Center is in the process of converting its analog library holdings to digital and is working to improve its workflows, storage, and backup processes.
Posting media files for distribution is accomplished through a database front-end used by staff and consultants to dynamically generate QuickTime reference files and HTML embed tags/SMIL files (Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language). The same database will be used in conjunction with the Marriott LibraryÕs online cataloging system and the ÒCONTENTdmÓ digital asset management system in order to allow public search and media access to the Multimedia CenterÕs assets.
Use Case #2:
Technology Assisted Curriculum Center, Marriott Library
The Technology Assisted Curriculum Center provides a number of media services to University instructors, including media streaming. They supply online media that is otherwise inconvenient or impractical to use in a traditional classroom experience. In most cases, these are media clips an instructor would normally show in class using a video cassette or DVD.
The media assets managed by the TAC Center have a number of uses and benefit both the fully online course format as well as the traditional classroom. Their Media-On-Demand philosophy is that of maximum accessibility through all connection speeds and client configurations.
Typically, media prepared at TACC will stream (RTSP) in QuickTime, Real and WindowsMedia, each at High, Medium and Low bit rates. Other special cases employ progressively downloadable media, usually of a larger size and quality, with one file format and a single, fixed bit rate to speed processing time or to accommodate a specific target audience.
Posting, delivering, tracking and assisting the end user are handled by a digital asset management system developed by TACC. This system includes several interfaces:
- for instructors or TA's (who insert media assets into courses by providing clip URLs and by following online helps for their use)
- for students (where the system provides the media assetÕs basic information, icon links to available formats, and simple, adaptive online help)
- for administrators and facilitators (who add media to the database)
This system, though designed around the evolving needs of TACC, is efficient, flexible and easily extensible to accommodate any conceivable format or delivery method. It is designed with open technologies and is available for use by others.
Use Case #3:
Eccles Health Sciences Library
The Eccles Health Sciences Library provides a variety of video assets to two major types of end-users. The first type of user accesses library content from various points of presence with widely varying Internet connection speeds, both on-campus and off. For this group, the Library supplies RTSP video streaming files in both Real SureStream and WindowsMedia High/Medium/Low data rates.
The second type of user accesses content from higher speed Internet connections, usually from within the Library or via University networks. In addition to the RTSP video streams made available to the first type of user, the second group is able to access higher quality, larger data rate, larger screen size QuickTime and WindowsMedia files that can be downloaded and played.
The Eccles Library reports that the greater percentage of their users prefer to download the available video assets and fold them into lectures and presentations for later viewing in classes, seminars, or other group settings.
The variety of video assets provided include:
- On-demand playback of previous, live webcast events
- Course lectures composed of a speaker and PowerPoint presentations or other computer-based visualizations
- Special one-off presentations or guest speakers
- Patient cases, which are typically streamed and made available for download
- Clips excerpted from existing media and converted for digital dissemination
- Original works that include edited media, skits, patient simulations and various promotional materials.
Use Case #4:
Instructional Media Services
Instructional Media Services captures extensive numbers of lectures and presentations from numerous academic departments and courses across campus. Many are streamed live as well as recorded to digital videotape for later digitization and redistribution over the Internet for both on-campus and off-campus users (usually within 12-24 hours).
In some instances lectures are acquired and converted to MPEG-2 file formats for DVD-Video disc re-distribution.
Use of live RTSP streams to accommodate attendee overflows for lectures and presentations from an origination auditorium to other rooms is regularly scheduled, although no off-campus redistribution is provided.
Off line, many excerpts from programs or original source materials are converted to digital video files for incorporation into PowerPoint presentations or other multimedia modes. Cross-platform compatibility is of vital importance because these video assets are likely viewed on a variety of computers.
Use Case #5:
Media Solutions
Media Solutions accommodates a variety of clients as they seek to acquire, edit, convert and distribute video and audio materials via multiple Consumption Profiles, including broadcast, DVD-Video disc, CD-ROMs, websites and Internet streaming and downloading, as well as individual files optimized for inclusion in presentation packages and multimedia authoring tools. Their clients may ask for digitization services alone, or require more fully packaged solutions (media fulfillment and replication) and consultations on digital media storage and deployment over intranets and the Internet. Media Solutions specializes in careful needs assessment in order to match client requirements or expectations with final deliverables.
Use Case #6:
Utah Education Network
As part of its obligations and service to support K-12 education and educators, the Utah Education Network recently installed and is operating a digital asset management system, known as the eMedia service. It delivers full-length and segmented video acquisitions to UtahÕs schools (http://www.uen.org/emedia). Other media types, including text articles and images, are slated for posting by early 2006, harvested from the original Utah Collections Multimedia Encyclopedia (UCME) project.
Currently, QuickTime (as MPEG-4) and WindowsMedia files for High/Medium/Low data rates and Internet connectivity are supplied for downloading and re-purposing video assets.
Utah State Core Curriculum standards and objectives are associated with appropriate media assets and are searchable based on these criteria. A comprehensive metadata scheme is in use to categorize the descriptive (subjective), technical (objective instantiations), and rights restrictions associated with individual assets or collections. Developed by Media Solutions, the metadata schema is known as UMAP, the Utah Metadata Application Profile, and conforms to the IMS Global Learning Consortium Learning Resource Meta-data
Best Practice and Implementation Guide for the IEEE 1484.12.1-2002, Learning Object Metadata Standard: LOMV1.0 Base Schema plus Utah Localized Extensions (http://www.imsglobal.org/metadata/mdv1p3pd/imsmd_bestv1p3pd.html) .
Use Case #7:
Marriott Library Digital Technologies Division
The Digital Technologies Division leads the Marriott Library's digitization efforts by creating high-resolution digital facsimiles of selected collections, establishing standards and best practices, and serving the needs of the University of Utah's faculty, students, and other patrons (http://www.lib.utah.edu/digital/index.html). They also accept contract work from institutions and individuals outside the University.
Their current collections are clustered into several categories, including:
- Art and Architecture
- Geography and Maps
- Historic Photographs
- Journals and Archives
- Memoirs and Manuscripts
Of note are three premier collections the Division has either spearheaded or collaborated with other institutions:
- Mountain West Digital Library
http://www.lib.utah.edu/digital/mwdl/ - Western Waters Digital Library
http://westernwaters.org/ - Utah Digital Newspapers
http://www.lib.utah.edu/digital/unews/index.html
ITC Campus Survey: Digital Video & Audio Distribution
Survey Overview
In order to arrive at a broader understanding of how departments and colleges across the campus are providing digital video and audio materials to their constituents, or have future plans to accommodate the need, the Working Group built and posted a web-based survey.
An invitation was extended to 531 individuals from the University of Utah; their eligibility was based on participation in these campus groups:
- Web Managers
- IT Managers
- PC Managers
- Mac Managers
- LINUX Managers
- UNIX Managers
The survey was open for responses from May 10-20, 2005. It was entitled ITC SURVEY #1: DIGITAL VIDEO & AUDIO DISTRIBUTION. A separate companion survey was built for another Working Group of the Video-On-Demand Committee (DAM) and was entitled ITC SURVEY #2: DIGITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT; results of Survey #2 are included in the report from that Working Group.
The Invitation to Participate in SURVEY #1 is included in the appendices of this report. In that invitation, respondents were acquainted with the purpose of the survey as follows:
SURVEY #1 specifically explores the encoding and distribution of video and audio content across the University...from low-resolution, web-ready files to full-quality digital video, using either network or Internet-based delivery.
Because of your direct involvement in content delivery over networks and the Internet for the University, we want you to participate in this questionnaire. Help us discover if digital video and audio files are being distributed, in what formats, and through what servers within the University. Your participation in this "environmental scan" is critical to ascertaining the breadth and depth of services that are currently deployed and that have an impact on the administration and sharing of digital audio and video throughout the many divisions and departments that constitute the University of Utah.
The Survey Questions were divided into six sections:
SECTION 1: WHO YOU AREÉ
Information about respondent locations, responsibilities, and the constituents served.
SECTION 2: THE NEED FOR DIGITAL VIDEO & AUDIOÉ
Queries about respondentsÕ involvement in distributing digital video and audio media, and for what purposes.
SECTION 3: ISSUES RELATED TO DIGITAL VIDEO & AUDIOÉ
A lightning round asking Likert Scale-based opinions on key issues related to digital video and audio collections delivered over networks and via web servers within the University of Utah.
SECTION 4: CURRENT ACTIVITIES & TOOLSÉ
Questions related to the acquisition, preparation, and delivery methods for digital video and audio media.
SECTION 5: WHAT IFÉ
Ratings on how beneficial certain projects or plans may be relative to the acquisition, preparation, and delivery of digital video and audio media.
SECTION 6: CONCLUSIONSÉ
Additional thoughts and comments about the creation, encoding, and distribution of digital video and audio content across the University.
The six sections and questions for SURVEY #1 are included in the appendices of this report.
Survey Results Summary
Information about respondent locations,
responsibilities, and the constituents served
Within the 10-day period of time that Survey #1 was posted, the Working Group received a 6% return from respondents supplying answers to our questions. We can surmise that the timing of the survey at the end of Spring Semester may have accounted for fewer responses. Unfortunately, the timing for the creation of the survey, its posting, and subsequent data summarization was difficult to alter for the survey creators.
The respondents served a variety of departments across the campus, including:
Cardiovascular Genetics |
CHPC: Center for High Performance Computing |
College of Humanities |
College of Mines and Earth Sciences |
CPCSS/Dean's Office/College of Pharmacy |
Department of Educational Psychology |
Development Office |
Drug Information-Pharmacy Services-UHosp |
Environmental Health and Safety |
Health Sciences Center |
Health Sciences Development |
Instructional Media Services |
KUED |
Marriott Library |
Media Solutions - OIT |
Middle East Center |
Neuroscience Program, Ph.D. |
Office of IT |
Plant Operations |
School of Computing |
School of Computing / Flux / Emulab |
Student Affairs |
Technology Assisted Curriculum Center, Marriott Library |
Undergraduate Studies |
University of Utah Medical Group |
Uonline (TAC Center, Marriott Library) |
Utah Education Network |
Utah Museum of Natural History |
Women's Resource Center |
Of the University offices responding, 18.8% served Academic Affairs, 15.6% served Health Sciences, and 15.6% served Instructional Technology & Outreach. Interestingly, another 18.8 % did not know to which overall University office they reported.
SECTION 2: THE NEED FOR DIGITAL VIDEO & AUDIOÉ
Queries about respondentsÕ involvement in
distributing digital video and audio media,
and for what purposes
Currently 56.3% of respondents are already distributing digital video and audio media over networks and Internet connections. Approximately 43.8% do not, at the present time.
According to open-ended responses, the primary purpose for posting digital media is in support of education or staff training, with some research activities.
The media were specifically targeted for these audiences:
- 40.6% Faculty
- 37.5% Graduate Students
- 37.5% Undergraduate Students
- 28.1% Public
- 25.0% Educators: K-12
Of the 43.8% who do not currently distribute digital video & audio media, 71.4% have received requests to do so, for the primary purpose of staff training or media archiving. Half of these requests were targeted for staff, and the other requests were equally divided between Educators: K-12 and Undergraduate Students.
In terms of the respondents' own determination of worthwhile uses of digital video & audio, most of the open-ended responses emphasized the ability of digital video and audio media to support education and courses (on-campus access, off-campus access, distance education). Also of importance was the ability to support and provide public and high profile lectures and addresses, in addition to video conferencing.
Virtually the same uses and abilities were identified in comments supplied to the respondents from their colleagues, staff, clients, administrators, or students.
SECTION 3: ISSUES RELATED TO DIGITAL VIDEO & AUDIOÉ
A lightning round asking Likert Scale-based opinions on key issues related to digital video and audio collections delivered over networks and via web servers within the University of Utah.
Respondents were asked to rate from ÒNo ImportanceÓ to ÒVery ImportantÓ the nature of various issues, variables, or conditions related to the distribution of digital video and audio media. The following chart reports the actual percentages, with top ranking ratings highlighted:
No |
Low |
Neutral |
Impor- |
Very |
||
1 |
Quality of the user's experience |
0.0% |
0.0% |
9.4% |
31.3% |
59.4% |
2 |
User's ease of use for media interfaces |
0.0% |
3.1% |
0.0% |
37.5% |
59.4% |
3 |
User's method of connecting to the digital video & audio delivery service |
3.2% |
6.5% |
9.7% |
61.3% |
19.4% |
4 |
User's bandwidth connection (pipeline) to the delivery service |
0.0% |
9.4% |
25.0% |
28.1% |
37.5% |
5 |
Quality of the user's computer |
0.0% |
21.9% |
25.0% |
28.1% |
25.0% |
6 |
Speed of the user's computer |
0.0% |
15.6% |
28.1% |
21.9% |
34.4% |
7 |
Age of the user's computer |
3.1% |
15.6% |
28.1% |
37.5% |
15.6% |
8 |
User's familiarity with viewing media files |
0.0% |
15.6% |
46.9% |
34.4% |
3.1% |
9 |
Quality of the original video or audio source material |
0.0% |
0.0% |
21.9% |
50.0% |
28.1% |
10 |
Media architecture in use (e.g., Windows Media, Real, QuickTime, Flash, MPEG-4, etc.) |
3.1% |
6.3% |
15.6% |
56.3% |
18.8% |
11 |
Compression settings, codecs, and setups used to digitize and deliver video and audio |
3.1% |
0.0% |
40.6% |
37.5% |
18.8% |
12 |
Compression "wizards" that assist you in codec selections and setups |
0.0% |
6.3% |
40.6% |
46.9% |
6.3% |
13 |
Accommodating multiple bit-rate versions of movies |
0.0% |
16.1% |
32.3% |
32.3% |
19.4% |
14 |
Accommodating multiple delivery profiles (cell phones to PDAs to Internet to set-top devices to HDTV) |
3.2% |
22.6% |
32.3% |
25.8% |
16.1% |
15 |
Reliability in quality of service |
0.0% |
0.0% |
3.2% |
41.9% |
54.8% |
16 |
Efficiency in quality of service |
0.0% |
0.0% |
9.7% |
58.1% |
32.3% |
17 |
Performance in quality of service |
3.1% |
0.0% |
3.1% |
59.4% |
34.4% |
18 |
Edge serving or Content Delivery Networks that isolate digital video and audio traffic |
6.5% |
9.7% |
45.2% |
29.0% |
9.7% |
19 |
Closing firewall data ports for RSTP/UDP or RTP/UDP streaming |
9.7% |
9.7% |
54.8% |
16.1% |
9.7% |
20 |
Opening firewall data ports for RSTP/UDP or RTP/UDP streaming |
0.0% |
6.5% |
51.6% |
19.4% |
22.6% |
21 |
Security issues |
0.0% |
3.1% |
21.9% |
25.0% |
50.0% |
22 |
Physical resources to acquire and edit video and audio source material |
3.1% |
0.0% |
25.0% |
50.0% |
21.9% |
23 |
Physical resources to convert source video and audio to digital formats |
3.1% |
6.3% |
18.8% |
43.8% |
28.1% |
24 |
Physical resources to store digital video and audio files |
0.0% |
0.0% |
19.4% |
48.4% |
32.3% |
25 |
Physical resources to post and deliver digital video and audio files |
0.0% |
0.0% |
21.9% |
43.8% |
34.4% |
26 |
Personnel resources to acquire and edit video and audio source materials |
0.0% |
6.3% |
25.0% |
50.0% |
18.8% |
27 |
Personnel resources to convert source video and audio to digital formats |
0.0% |
6.3% |
31.3% |
43.8% |
18.8% |
28 |
Personnel resources to manage the storage of digital video and audio files |
0.0% |
3.1% |
28.1% |
50.0% |
18.8% |
29 |
Personnel resources to manage the posting and delivery of digital video and audio files |
0.0% |
6.3% |
28.1% |
46.9% |
18.8% |
30 |
Training/professional development for the acquisition and editing of video and audio source materials |
0.0% |
12.5% |
34.4% |
43.8% |
9.4% |
31 |
Training/professional development for converting source video and audio into digital formats |
0.0% |
15.6% |
18.8% |
53.1% |
12.5% |
32 |
Training/professional development for the posting and delivery of digital video and audio files |
0.0% |
15.6% |
18.8% |
56.3% |
9.4% |
33 |
Technical support for the acquisition and editing of source video and audio |
0.0% |
3.1% |
34.4% |
43.8% |
18.8% |
34 |
Technical support for converting source video and audio into digital formats |
0.0% |
3.1% |
31.3% |
43.8% |
21.9% |
35 |
Technical support for the posting and delivery of digital video and audio files |
0.0% |
3.1% |
34.4% |
46.9% |
15.6% |
36 |
Technical support to assist end-users in successfully viewing and retrieving digital video and audio files |
0.0% |
0.0% |
21.9% |
40.6% |
37.5% |
37 |
Referrals to third-party services for the acquisition and editing of video and audio source materials |
15.6% |
9.4% |
53.1% |
9.4% |
12.5% |
38 |
Referrals to third-party services for converting source video and audio into digital formats |
16.1% |
16.1% |
45.2% |
16.1% |
6.5% |
39 |
Referrals to third-party services for the posting and delivery of digital video and audio files |
15.6% |
15.6% |
46.9% |
15.6% |
6.3% |
40 |
Establishing University-wide guidelines for compressing digital video and audio |
6.3% |
6.3% |
21.9% |
34.4% |
31.3% |
41 |
Establishing centralized on-line storage for digital video and audio media |
3.1% |
12.5% |
34.4% |
31.3% |
18.8% |
42 |
Establishing centralized near-line storage for digital video and audio media |
6.3% |
12.5% |
37.5% |
28.1% |
15.6% |
43 |
Establishing centralized off-line storage for digital video and audio media |
12.1% |
15.6% |
37.5% |
21.9% |
15.6% |
44 |
Consistent backup and archiving of digital video and audio collections |
3.4% |
3.4% |
17.2% |
34.5% |
41.4% |
45 |
Contracts with external service providers for media storage |
21.9% |
6.3% |
53.1% |
15.6% |
3.1% |
46 |
Contracts with external service providers for edge serving of digital video and audio media |
25.0% |
12.5% |
50.0% |
9.4% |
3.1% |
47 |
Accommodating robust digital rights management and intellectual property protections for digital video and audio media files |
15.6% |
9.4% |
28.1% |
25.0% |
21.9% |
48 |
Authenticating end-users in order to restrict access to digital video and audio collections |
15.6% |
12.5% |
15.6% |
37.5% |
18.8% |
49 |
Maintaining open access privileges for any user to access digital and audio collections |
6.3% |
15.6% |
21.9% |
40.6% |
15.6% |
50 |
Creating user- or group-defined privileges in order to determine an end-user's search, browsing and download capabilities |
6.5% |
9.7% |
35.5% |
38.7% |
9.7% |
51 |
Folding digital video and audio collections into full-blown Digital Asset Management Systems |
6.7% |
13.3% |
33.3% |
36.7% |
10.0% |
52 |
Leave the production, conversion and distribution of digital video and audio media to individual departments, divisions, and groups across campus (following a distributed rather than centralized model) |
19.4% |
19.4% |
32.3% |
22.6% |
6.5% |
Most responses clustered around ÒNeutralÓ to ÒVery Important,Ó with a notable exception; of less importance was the use of service providers or third-party vendors to supply acquisition, editing, digital conversion, and posting or hosting of University digital media assets (Issues 37, 38, 39, 46). Apparently, respondents prefer to keep such work either within their own departments or at least within the UniversityÕs dominions.
Other trends included:
- Bandwidth and Quality of Service were Important to Very Important issues
- Media Architectures in use were Important
- Closing or Opening Firewalls was viewed as Neutral, even though security issues were Important to Very Important
- Having the physical resources to acquire, edit, convert, store, and host digital video and audio media was Important
- Having the personnel resources to acquire, edit, convert, store, and host digital video and audio media was Important
- Training and Professional Development was Important
- Technical Support was Important
- Establishing University-wide guidelines or centralized services was judged Neutral to Important
- Consistent backup and archiving was Very Important
- Digital Rights Management, Authentication and Open Access were Important
- Using Digital Asset Management (DAM) systems for digital video and audio collections was Neutral to Important
- Following a Distributed Model was Neutral to Important with weighting toward No and Low Importance
SECTION 4: CURRENT ACTIVITIES AND TOOLSÉ
Questions related to the acquisition, preparation,
and delivery methods for digital video and audio media
There was an even split between those who do and don't currently acquire and edit their own digital video and audio media. For those who do their own acquisition and editing, 53.3% offer their services to individuals outside of their immediate group, while 40% do not.
About 59.4% currently digitize and compress their own digital video and audio materials, while 34.4% do not. For those who do their own compression, 54.5% offer their services to individuals outside of their immediate group, while 36.4% do not.
In terms of software tools used to compress digital video and audio media, the preferences are wide and varied. In terms of hardware tools used to compress digital video and audio media, Canopus and Apple are mentioned most often.
Regarding targeted computer platforms, both Windows-based and Macintosh operating systems were ranked high and almost evenly.
In terms of preferred media architectures. QuickTime and WindowsMedia ranked the highest for video, and MP-3 for audio. MPEG-4, as a relatively new technology, tied with Real Media.
For the bandwidths that are accommodated, Internet-2 and 28.8/33.6kbps ranked lowest (below 12.5%). Otherwise the field is widely dispersed.
It was thought by our respondents that most consumers would use wired or wireless computers to receive digital media. PDA's were rated at 12.5%, with cell phones currently at 3.1%.
Our respondents thought that most consumers would receive digital video and audio media through wired and wireless connectivity, both from within and outside the campus. Basically, the Point of Presence and Consumption could be anywhere.
There was an even split between those who deliver digital video and audio media as RTSP Streaming versus Progressive Download. These were not mutually exclusive options.
There is a distinction between the delivery of digital video and audio media using ÒMulticastÓ protocols (all users watch live and at the same time, like a broadcast) or ÒUnicastÓ protocols (a single user watches anytime on his or her own time, like on-demand).
The norm today is ÒUnicast,Ó although with large numbers of on-demand requests, the network infrastructure and Quality of Service can suffer. As one respondent noted, their live broadcasts are conducted as ÒUnicast,Ó recognizing, however, that Òwe have low traffic.Ó
The integration of digital video and audio as learning objects embedded within websites and web pages was a predominant use, although Video-On-Demand was ranked as just below 50%.
The servers and storage solutions used to deliver digital video and audio were reported in open-ended questions, and the results were wide and varied with no particular technology predominating.
Firewalls are problematic within networks when attempting to deliver RTSP streaming media. Firewalls are security measures which protect the communication pathway between a server and the end user requesting information from the server.
The two-way communication which is required between a streaming video server and an end user's request for a streaming movie (and the on-going bit rate negotiations which ensue) is disallowed by a firewall on the end user's network or Internet Service Provider. Consequently, the request for a streaming movie is bounced.
For further discussion on the issues of streaming vs. progressive download and firewalls, visit http://stream.uen.org/medsol/digvid/html/4C_streamingprotocol.html.
Interestingly, 68% of our respondents did not actually know if they had ever had a firewall problem with streaming media delivery. Granted, a stream failure is difficult to diagnose from the end users point of view. There were 20% of our respondents who could identify firewalls as the source of stream failures.
Ratings on how beneficial certain projects or plans
may be relative to the acquisition, preparation, and delivery of
digital video and audio media
A key decision to be made within the University is the extent to which centralized services and coordination can facilitate the creation, conversion, posting, hosting, and delivery of digital video and audio media. In harmony with University ITC preferences, central coordination should co-exist with distributed or local controls.
The survey asked respondents for their ratings on how beneficial central or distributed services would be.
Respondents were evenly split at 25.0% in rating the ÒNeutralÓ or ÒVery BeneficialÓ nature of the University offering centralized resources for the acquisition, preparation, and delivery of digital video and audio media.
In rating how beneficial it would be for the University to offer centralized video and audio encoding and compression facilities and personnel, 28.1% rated such service as ÒBeneficialÓ or ÒVery Beneficial.Ó
Slightly more respondents rated as ÒBeneficialÓ and ÒVery BeneficialÓ if the University offered centralized storage for active digital video and audio media files.
Edge servers or CDNs (Content Delivery Networks) isolate high demand digital video and audio traffic to independent and robust networks, leaving the existing networks to handle standard HTML and other web-based and LAN traffic. Almost 80% of respondents concluded that providing parallel CDNs was Neutral to Very Beneficial.
If the University were to establish common guidelines and best practices for the media architectures, encodings, and codecs used to deliver digital video and audio media files, 43.8% rated this as ÒVery Beneficial.Ó
Offering ÒTraining and Professional DevelopmentÓ to IT, web developers/managers, and video/audio producers on-campus in order to establish baseline skills and competencies for the creation and delivery of digital video and audio media files was well supported. 
Offering ÒTechnical Support and Help DeskÓ assistance for Departments engaged in digital video and audio acquisition, editing, encoding, storage, and delivery was desirable.
Likewise, offering ÒTechnical Support and Help DeskÓ functions to assist End Users attempting to view digital video and audio files were considered desirable.
Additional thoughts and comments about the
creation, encoding, and distribution of
digital video and audio content across the University
In concluding thoughts offered by our respondents, several comments are worth quoting:
- Overall, I'd like most aspects of digital media authoring (acquisition, editing, programming) kept to the distributed model; each dept / group doing its own. Then, I'd like to see digital media distribution/delivery organized, standardized, supported, and maintained by the University in a centralized model.
- I think that centralized storage, campus standards for digital audio/video content, and education/support for the end user are most important. Most areas of campus will resist centralized locations to do the digitization/compression/distribution, at least at this time.
- How much will it cost in terms of direct costs to departments and in indirect costs, plus what other funds will be needed to run the operation(s)?
- Online video and audio will only grow in prevalence, and we should not only be prepared for it, but we should lead the way.
Analysis of Environmental Scan: Internal
As evidenced in the summary of Use Cases and the results of Survey #1: Digital Video & Audio Distribution, it is encouraging that so many different departments are actively engaged in creating and distributing digital video and audio assets across networks and the Internet. One of a UniversityÕs great strengths is its ability to recognize a need, particularly in the educational and research arenas, and seek solutions to provide a service to its constituents and customers, in this case faculty, students, the administration, and even the general public.
Autonomy vs Resource EfficiencyÉ Granted, given the autonomy of individual departments and groups within the overall University structure, a diversity of solutions arise, each controlled and maintained by different administrations, faculty, and service agencies. Currently, the creation, storage, and distribution of digital video and audio assets on campus follow this tendency. The redundancies in service may be considered a fiscal and resource management weakness. At the same time, with localized control, services are more quickly responsive to change and adjustments in requirements.
Too Many FormatsÉ The variety of digital media architectures and file formats that are currently in distribution is a definite detriment, not only for the producers who are digitizing and compressing multiple files for multiple players and different bandwidth connectivity to the Internet, but also for the end-user who must install and maintain a variety of media players. A possible solution to this dilemma is reviewed in the next section of this report, the External Environmental Scan. In that section, the ISO standard MPEG-4 architecture for digital media is introduced and explained as a potential distribution format that satisfies almost any need within a New Media Ecosystem.
Centralized StorageÉ The newest compression algorithms are more efficient, create smaller file sizes, and offer perceptually better viewing and listening experiences. Nevertheless, as demand for digital assets increases, the need for greater capacity to store these assets (on-line, near-line, & off-line) likewise expands. The results of Survey #1 show that content producers and distributors would welcome well maintained and robust centralized storage servers for digital assets. However, those groups with resident expertise and existing facilities and personnel resources prefer the benefits of local implementation and local control.
Centralized Back-up & ArchivingÉ Another benefit of centralized storage is the back-up and archiving routines for the digital assets that are created and distributed. Few would argue that economies are achieved if such services are offered University-wide. The 365/24/7 support and maintenance offered by centralized services is a mission critical consideration.
Centralized Distribution ServersÉ Increasing demands for viewing and perusing digital assets puts a heavy load on networks and Internet connections. Simple HTML pages have minimal impact on the Quality of Service individual departments can offer. However, multiple requests for both short-form and long-form time-based media, such as digital video and audio, can quickly burden networks and reduce the QoS. Efficiencies and guaranteed QoS can be achieved through centralized distribution services, servers, and even the build out of parallel Content Distribution Networks to carry the load of digital media. Survey respondents were not averse to this type of University-wide facilitation.
Localized Media CreationÉ Although most would embrace a standardized storage and distribution system across the University for digital media assets, there is a strong indication that individual departments and groups prefer to manage their own acquisition, authoring, and compression of media files.
University-wide StandardsÉ Given training and resources, respondents were positive about the establishment of University-wide guidelines and standards for digital media compression. If such standards were crafted and provided to the University community, individual, autonomously managed departments and groups would likely embrace the specifications.
Training and Help DesksÉ It could be considered a mandate for the University to provide professional development opportunities and training to content providers on campus. These activities support the UniversityÕs overall mission, while recognizing the need to keep individuals and groups engaged in similar activities appraised of current developments, standards, guidelines, and best practices. For end-users, it is a necessity to provide Help Desk assistance as they are asked to download and view digital media as part of their academic and research undertakings.
Environmental Scan: External
The challenge facing producers and distributors of digital content is to minimize the effort required to prepare video, audio, and multimedia files for distribution across numerous and varied Consumption Profiles (from broadcast to personal computers, wireless connections, PDAs, and cell phones). At the same time, content providers must enhance the end-users Quality of Experience and the Quality of Service that delivers digital content to the eyeballs and ears of consumers.
As considered earlier in this report, it is important for the Working Group to acknowledge the New Media Ecosystem as recommendations are built for the encoding and transport of video, audio, and multimedia content within and outside of the University for the benefit of students, faculty, staff, and administration. The recommendations must rely on technologies and solutions that can satisfy the demands of the New Media Ecosystem while also supporting the Office of Information TechnologyÕs strategy to embrace centralized coordination with distributed control (that is affordable and feasible to implement for any and all departments and entities with the University).
The members of the Working Group for Digital Video/Audio Architectures & Compression, as well as the entire Sub-Committee for Video-On-Demand, are unanimous in their desire to avoid producing and distributing redundant digital content (especially video and audio) in multiple architectures, file formats, and dedicated players, across a range of bandwidths and Internet connection data rates. Some sort of Òuniversal, cross-platformÓ solution is desired that obviates the creation of multiple bandwidth files for proprietary WindowsMedia, Real Media and QuickTime architectures. We seek to satisfy the principle of COPE: Create Once, Peruse (or Play) Everywhere.
MPEG-4 ISO Standard Architecture
Within the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), a working group was established in the late 1990s. Known as the ÒMoving Pictures Experts GroupÓ, they defined an Òarea of workÓ intended to developÉ
Éinternational standards for compression, de-compression, processing, and coded representation of moving pictures, audio, and their combination, in order to satisfy a wide variety of applications.
Beginning in the early 1990s, the MPEG Working Group developed MPEG-1, followed by MPEG-2. As of 2000, they released the specification for MPEG-4, an international, standardized media architecture.
Although unrelated to media architectures and the playout of audio or video content, the MPEG Working Group is also working on standards for metadata and tracking the life cycles of intellectual content through the MPEG-7 and MPEG-21 areas of work:
In excerpts from a description of MPEG-4, as published by Apple Computer, the architectureÉ
Éprovides an open playing field. As an open, industry standard, anyone can create an MPEG-4 player or encoder that will work with other manufacturerÕs devices.
Media companies save time and resources by encoding material once for playback everywhere. No longer will content providers need to encode, host, and store media in multiple formats. Instead, a single format can reach a broad audience equipped with playback devices from not one, but a multitude of companies across a wide array of platforms. Finally, content creators have a format that will reach a global audience and will stand the test of time. While other formats and versions come and go, MPEG-4 will safeguard multimedia content for a secure future.
Like MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 previously did for CD-ROMs and DVDs, MPEG-4 promises to create interoperability for video delivered over the Internet and other distribution channels. MPEG-4 will play back on many different devices, from satellite television to wireless devices.
To ensure that different products that use MPEG-4 each implement the standard in the same way, Apple, together with Cisco, IBM, Kasenna, Philips and Sun Microsystems, formed the Internet Streaming Media Alliance (ISMA). Other participants include AOL Time Warner, Dolby Laboratories, Lucent Technologies, National Semiconductor, Sony, and 25 other companies. The ISMA defines profiles that companies implement to ensure interoperability.
In addition to being adopted by many of the InternetÕs premiere content providers, the MPEG-4 standard is receiving tremendous support in other industries. For example, the new standards for high-quality multimedia on wireless devices, 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project) and 3GPP2 (3rd Generation Partnership Project 2), are based on the solid foundation of MPEG-4.
(http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/)
It appears that the MPEG-4 architecture, as an international standard, will be able to support the New Media Ecosystem that educational institutions, such as the University of Utah, seek to embrace.
The MPEG-4 architecture departs from many of its predecessors because of its underlying structure. It is not simply a flat stream of composited video or audio data. Instead, it accommodates individual media components, referred to as ÒMedia Objects.Ó An object is a specific event or media item, such as text, image, video, audio, 2D and 3D animation, or interactivity. Individual objects are described as ÒPrimitivesÓ and may be acquired as either ÒNaturalÓobjects (recording visuals or audio) or ÒSyntheticÓ objects (generated by software and hardware tools). When combined and synchronized, these discrete primitives form a ÒCompound Media ObjectÓ that contains multiple ÒScenes.Ó Both primitives and compounds can be delivered across any of the New Media Ecosystem channels and consumption devices, each object encoded with the most appropriate codec, each object delivered at its own data rate or bit rate.
Because of its standardization and non-proprietary nature, MPEG-4 and its industry participants have defined what are known as ÒConformance Points.Ó The manner in which content is encoded and delivered matches pre-specified degrees of complexity, otherwise called ÒProfiles.Ó Within a Profile are various ÒLevelÓ descriptions, spelled out as individual parameter settings (resolutions, sizes, etc.). If media objects are distributed, matching established Levels within Profiles, then a Conformance Point has been achieved. More generally, the industry states that ÒInteroperabilityÓ has been realized.
Industry-wide Interoperability is the goal, without the proprietary impediments often associated with company-specific implementations of media architectures, codecs and players (such as WindowsMedia, Real Media or QuickTime).
Ratified as part of the MPEG-4 standard is ÒPart 10,Ó also known as ÒAVC-Advanced Video CodecÓ or more popularly, ÒH.264.Ó With H.264, media objects can be encoded for optimal performance within any Profile and Level, playable from cell phones to High Definition broadcast television. With one architecture, any Conformance Point can be realized at the consumerÕs Point of Presence with whatever reception device they control and interact with. More importantly, the Quality of Service is enhanced because the Profiles within H.264 deliver superior quality media, but at a third to half the data rates associated with earlier architectures, and with up to four times the frame size. A notable example is the ability to deliver digital video signals to cable and satellite subscribers using half the normal bandwidth of MPEG-2 encoded signals, but with perceptually improved quality. Examples of frame sizes, frame rates, and representative data rates are displayed in the following table of selected Conformance Points:
MPEG-4 H.264 VIDEO PARAMETERS
CONFORMANCE POINT |
FRAME SIZE |
FRAME RATE |
DATA RATE |
Wireless, Mobile Content |
176 x 144 |
10-24 fps |
50-60 kbps |
Internet and Standard Definition Video |
640 x 480 |
24 fps |
1-2 Mbps |
High Definition Video |
1280 x 720 |
24p |
5-6 Mbps |
Full High Definition Video |
1920 x 1080 |
24p |
7-8 Mbps |
Digital and Intellectual Property Rights management and acknowledgements are fast becoming a legal necessity, in addition to being a professional courtesy. The MPEG-4 media architecture is capable of embedding the rights management metadata within the structure of MPEG-4 objects and streams. Use restrictions, permissible playouts, and payment information can accompany any media item as it journeys from server to server, computer to computer, set-top device to set-top device.
MPEG-4 objects are also ÒPlayer Agnostic.Ó If a device, set-top, desk-top, or portable can play ISO Standard MPEG-4 scenes matching pre-established Profiles and Levels, then the player is ISO compliant. No longer must an end-user be forced to download a Real Player and a QuickTime Player and a WindowsMedia Player or some other player in order to experience and interact with content posted in one or several media architectures. With an ISO compliant MPEG-4 file, an end-user may choose their preferred player (or one that is already pre-installed on a computer) and play the content. Both QuickTime and Real players are ISO MPEG-4 compliant and will play ISO MPEG-4 content. Other players, such as the VLC Player from VideoLan, are cross-platform, universal players. To date, WindowsMedia players cannot play ISO MPEG-4 content without the additional installation of third-party plug-ins or functionality. Microsoft continues to develop and deploy WindowsMedia versions of MPEG-4 as a proprietary spin-off of the ISO standard. The industry hopes for a change in attitude, which would happily mean any MPEG-4 content can be played through a very ubiquitous player, WIndowsMedia Player, on a majority of end-usersÕ computers or Consumption Point devices. If no change occurs, then other players, such as QuickTime 7 for Windows and Real Player, will need to be downloaded and installed on Windows-based computers.
A formidable entry in the ÒPlatform and Player AgnosticÓ lineup of architectures and tools is MacromediaÕs Flash. Flash files are well known for their small file sizes, web-friendly delivery mechanism (efficient packetizing), and extremely rich interactivity. Within the last few years, Flash has been able to fold video and audio files directly into the Flash authoring environment as objects that can be manipulated and blended into the overall design of a Flash file with text, images, and interactivity. The Flash Player version 7 is reported as having a 90% installation across all computers in the USA as of March 2005.
(http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/flashplayer/version_penetration.html)
In a recent webinar attended by Media Solutions staff, the question was posed to the hosts if MPEG-4 H.264 compression and profiles would be incorporated into the Flash family. Due to restrictions placed on early announcements about unreleased products, the hosts could not directly comment. However, the impression was left that MPEG-4 H.264 would be embraced by Flash and Flash video files. If the Flash Player is MPEG-4 compliant, there is already a huge, installed base of players at the consumers Point-of-Presence.
Testing MPEG-4 Compatibility
The testing of MPEG-4 compatibilities is a work in progress. Compatibility is related to three core technologies used in Media-On-Demand: Encoding content, Serving content, and Playing content at the end userÕs Point-of-Presence.
The Marriott LibraryÕs Multimedia and TAC Center created an aggregator website in which numerous MPEG-4 test files were posted. These files were encoded by a variety of compression tools and delivered from different server architectures (both RSTP Streaming and HTTP Progressive Download). The test siteÕs URL is http://services.tacc.utah.edu/mp4/items.php .
Compression Tools: The MPEG-4 encoding compression tools used to date included:
- Sorenson Squeeze 4
- Opensource DVD ripper HandBrake
- QuickTime Broadcaster
- Discreet Cleaner 6 for Mac
- Apple Compressor
- Canopus Procoder 2
- QuickTime Pro MPEG-4 Codec
Findings: No significant issues related to compatibility were encountered while testing various encoding applications. When parameters within the compression tools were configured correctly, the resulting media files were capable of being delivered via streaming and progressive download.
Servers: The servers available for testing were as follows:
SERVER |
DESCRIPTION |
Flash Communication Server TACC |
TACC's Flash Comm Server Trial |
QuickTime Streaming Server SCL |
Student Computing Labs, Marriott Library, |
Real Helix Server TACC |
TACC's 30 trial server |
Real Helix Server UEN |
UEN's Helix Server |
Windows Media Server TACC |
TACC's Windows Media Services, W2K3S |
Findings: AppleÕs QuickTime Streaming Server and Real Networks' Universal Helix Server were equally compatible with various combinations of media files and playback clients.
Players: Players for .mp4 files of MPEG-4 video or audio ÒprimitiveÓ objects are either stand-alone media players or players that require a third-party plug-in to interpret the .mp4 structure. Candidate players include:
Player |
Computer Platform |
Source |
Apple QuickTime Player |
Mac and Windows |
http://www.quicktime.com/ |
DivX Codec (plug-in) |
For Windows Media Player |
http://www.divx.com/ |
DivX Player |
Windows |
http://www.divx.com/ |
3ivx Decoder (plug-in) |
For Windows, Windows Media Player and Mac |
http://www.3ivx.com/ |
EnvivioTV Player |
Windows, Windows Media Player and RealMedia |
http://www.envivio.com/ |
RealNetworks RealOne Player |
Windows, Mac and GNU/Linux/Unix |
http://www.real.com/ |
Dicas mpegable DS Suite |
Windows |
http://www.mpegable.com/ |
Philips Platform4 PC Player |
Windows and PocketPC |
http://www.mpeg-4.philips.com/ |
IBM MPEG-4 Video for JMF |
Java Player for JMF-enabled platforms |
http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/mpeg-4 |
ENST Osmo4 |
Windows |
http://www.comelec.enst.fr/osmo4/ |
MPEG4IP MPEG-4 Player |
GNU/Linux/Unix |
http://mpeg4ip.sourceforge.net/ |
VideoLanÕs VLC Player |
Mac OS X, Windows, Linux BeOS and others |
http://www.videolan.org/ |
Findings: Real Networks' Real Player, VideolanÕs VLC player and AppleÕs QuickTime Player were the most compatible players. Microsoft's Windows Media Player (using various plug-ins since it is not natively capable of playing ISO compliant .mp4 files) and the Dicas Mpegable player proved to be somewhat less compatible. (Note: the Dicas Mpegable player is no longer distributed.) A more comprehensive matrix of compatibility will be built and included in a Compression and Delivery Guidelines website (as outlined in the Recommendations Section of this report).
Analysis of Environmental Scan: External
It is no surprise that industry players actively engaged in the research and development of digital media architectures and file formats aggressively promote their proprietary technologies, encouraging content providers and end-users to embrace their tools and players. Like most private and public sector entities, the UniversityÕs various departments each subscribe to different technologies, depending on their needs and their support and maintenance resources.
Because we are witnessing the emergence and wide adoption of the MPEG-4 standardized, non-proprietary media architecture across multiple profiles and consumption points of the New Media Ecosystem, there is an opportunity for the University to promote common methods of content preparation and distribution. The tools and best practices for exploiting the MPEG-4 architecture are either already in place or emerging quickly.
Since many existing installations of servers and media players have been updated to accommodate the MPEG-4 media architecture, adoption of a system-wide standard does not necessarily demand the purchase and implementation of new equipment.
The threat to the University, if some consistency is not promoted throughout the delivery of digital media through networks and the Internet, will be a proliferation of files and formats which cannot be played, cannot be shared, and (where appropriate) cannot be re-purposed. None of these conditions are acceptable within an academic institution (except where information must be protected for financial, privacy, patent, copyright, unpublished research, security or other similar circumstances).
Recommendations
Discussion
Based on the opinions and information gleaned from the internal and external environmental scans conducted by the Working Group for Digital Video/Audio Architectures & Compression, Ònext stepÓ recommendations can be offered. None are particularly earth-shattering in scope. However, if implemented, each should be aggressively supported and maintained in order to provide long-term consistency and adherence to established guidelines and accessibility to centralized services.
Guidelines & Parameters for Compression
The Working Group suggests that comprehensive information about compression settings be researched, organized and published via the Internet through demonstration websites. At the present time, there exists a tutorial website built by Media Solutions that examines two dozen parameters that govern the quality of digital media delivered over the Internet. This website is located at http://stream.uen.org/medsol/digvid/index.html .
Part of this website posts dozens of media samplers that help compare and contrast the effects of different parameter settings across different media architectures, such as QuickTime, Real, and WindowsMedia: http://stream.uen.org/medsol/digvid/samplers.html .
A recent addition to the Media SolutionsÕ website is a comparison of media architectures at different data rates using the same 1-minute source video file. MPEG-1, MPEG-2, and MPEG-4 profiles are part of this comparison: http://stream.uen.org/medsol/digvid/html/sampler_compare_archs.html .
Embedded links back to the tutorial website help explain what the parameter settings mean.
The Working Group recommends that the next iteration of this site should employ specific MPEG-4 profiles and levels as established for both RTSP streaming and HTTP progressive download versions of media files. Demonstration media targeted for cell phones, PDAs, and even various flavors of High Definition ATSC video (480p, 720p, 1080p) should be included, as well as the methods used to acquire, compress, and deliver the files. System recommendations for best playback performance should also be appended.
MPEG-4 Player Comparisons & Compatibilities
As part of the Guidelines & Parameters reference website, the Working Group also recommends that the MPEG-4 players itemized earlier in this report be fully tested against various servers, streaming delivery, download, and players. The results of those tests should be reported in a comprehensive grid analysis of their compatibilities with ISO MPEG-4 media files.
Referral Services
Although respondents to Survey #1: Digital Video & Audio Distribution generally preferred to implement their own media acquisition, authoring, and compression activities, the Working Group recommends that a list be created and published of the departments, groups, services and contacts able to provide either assistance or actual work order deliverables for University faculty, students, administrative offices or other campus service agencies. The listing of Referral Services can be folded into a website posted through the University IT website (http://www.it.utah.edu ).
Help Desk
Currently, the Office of Information Technology supports a Campus Help Desk as the first contact point (581-4000) for repair or help with telephone, voice and data communications, Campus Information Systems, UTV cable TV, and the High Speed campus access (ANA) system. http://www.it.utah.edu/services/helpDesk/index.html
We recommend that any Frequently Asked Questions about digital media delivery and playback be added to the Help DeskÕs repertoire.
Web-Based Training & Professional Development
Given the response to Survey #1 regarding the desire for training and professional development opportunities, the Working Group recommends the design and creation of web-based and face-to-face training and familiarization workshops for those across the University community who require background information, advice, or assistance in "how to proceedÓ with rich media delivery across a New Media Ecosystem that accommodates VOD.
The Web Masters Forums that are conducted throughout the year are an excellent point of contact, as are the IT Managers meetings. The Marriott LibraryÕs Media Streaming service is in the process of developing interactive training modules to assist their Multimedia Center consultants in developing and posting video and audio digital content. Their tutorials are a possible template for on-line training and step-by-step instruction sets for a wide range of topics, including the definition of media architectures, explanations of MPEG-4, how to edit and compress digital media using specific tools, and setting up streaming servers.
VOD Website
The entirety of the findings, recommendations, and training aids from this Working Group as well as the other Working Groups within the VOD Committee should be collated and aggregated into a comprehensive website, located within the structure of the current University of Utah Office of Information Technology web presence: http://www.it.utah.edu. Media Solutions has agreed to design and build the site, in cooperation with the web manager for the IT site. A preliminary outline and sitemap is included in the appendices of this report.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
E-mail Invitation to Participate in Survey #1: Digital Video & Audio Distribution for the University of Utah
TO: Web Managers, IT Managers, PC Managers, Mac Managers, LINUX and UNIX Managers
FROM: The ITC: Information Technology Council, The University of Utah
DATE: 10 May 2005
RE: ITC Survey #1: Digital Video & Audio Distribution
ITC SURVEY #1: DIGITAL VIDEO & AUDIO DISTRIBUTION
https://websurveyor.net/wsb.dll/9849/ITCsurvey_1.htm
(open for responses May 10-20, 2005)
Greetings fellow IT, computer and web-engaged administrators, managers, and designers across the University of Utah campus. What follows is information about the ITC SURVEY #1.
_____
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS...
The Information Technology Council (ITC) for the University of Utah has several projects underway that are investigating existing, new, and perhaps improved methods for handling digital data on campus. ITC's overall mission is to facilitate the development of the University's Information Technology and e-Commerce infrastructures, resources, and applications. Narrowing the scope, ITC has formed several working groups in order to examine VOD, Video-on-Demand, digital compression and delivery for video and audio files, as well as digital asset management.
As part of our review of existing conditions on campus, we have created two surveys, both of which we're asking you to complete. This e-mail pertains to SURVEY #1.
SURVEY #1 specifically explores the encoding and distribution of video and audio content across the University...from low-resolution, web-ready files to full-quality digital video, using either network or Internet-based delivery.
Because of your direct involvement in content delivery over networks and the Internet for the University, we want you to participate in this questionnaire. Help us discover if digital video and audio files are being distributed, in what formats, and through what servers within the University. Your participation in this "environmental scan" is critical to ascertaining the breadth and depth of services that are currently deployed and that have an impact on the administration and sharing of digital audio and video throughout the many divisions and departments that constitute the University of Utah.
_____
TAKING SURVEY #1...
To access SURVEY #1: DIGITAL VIDEO & AUDIO DISTRIBUTION, use this URL:
https://websurveyor.net/wsb.dll/9849/ITCsurvey_1.htm
> Your time commitment is approximately 15 minutes for SURVEY #1.
> The survey is live and accepting responses from May 10-20, 2005.
> If you wish to forward the completion of SURVEY #1 to a colleague, feel free to provide him or her with the survey's URL.
> Even if you are not currently creating or distributing digital video and audio files, please access the survey and provide your opinions on many issues surrounding Video-on-Demand for the campus.
Regarding the handling and use of the responses you submit for our surveys, please review the University of Utah's Privacy Statement < http://www.utah.edu/privacy/ >
Thanks in advance for participating in SURVEY #1! Look for another e-mail regarding SURVEY #2 on Digital Asset Management.
The Working Group on Compression Guidelines
Committee for Video-on-Demand
Information Technology Council-ITC
The University of Utah
[If you have any questions regarding the two surveys, contact pburrows@media.utah.edu (Paul Burrows).]
APPENDIX B:
Sections & Questions for
Survey #1: Digital Video & Audio Distribution
for the University of Utah
Survey #1 can be downloaded as a PDF capture of the original web-basedsurvey (as posted using the WebSurveyor service with which Media Solutions contracts).
Download PDF of Survey #1 (1.2MB)
APPENDIX C:
Draft of Sitemap for VOD Website
The following outline represents a draft of a work in progress to define and build a web presence for the University of UtahÕs strategies and plans for Video-On-Demand services. The VOD website is intended to be less of an administrative report and more of an actual reference site for context, technical background information, orientations, primers, and guides to best practices and procedures.
The first representation of the sitemap shows the three main sections of the VOD website, with content shown for the first, second, and third levels.
Section 3, Guidelines and Best Practices for the University of Utah, consists of a sitemap that is several layers deeper. These additional branches are represented in the following, more visually dense, hierarchy.
The same sitemap for the entire website is presented below in an outline mode.
▼ -1- Video or Media On Demand Services
¥ Introduction and Context for the University of Utah
¥ Technical Background Information
Taken from "Digital TV Over Broadband: Harvesting Bandwidth," by Joan M. Van Tassel, Focal Press 2001.
pp. 146-150
Back in 1994 and 1995, when people first wanted to send out audio and video over the Internet, not only did telephone lines seem too narrow to send AV material, but also the speed of 1200 baud and 14.4 kbps modems was too slow to bring the data into the computer. Until 1996, the only way to get AV was to get it with the "download and play" method. This technique means the entire audio or video file is transported across the Internet to the client computer and stored on the hard drive.
When the whole file is transferred, the user plays it from the hard drive. This method allows the delivery of reasonably high-quality audio and video, even over a low bandwidth network. Unfortunately, at 1996 speeds, the receiver had to wait for a long time (sometimes hours) for the download to occur, plus it required what at that time was a huge amount of disk storal space. (In 1996, a 450-MB hard drive was state-fo-the-art in the consumer market.) Moreover, the entire process raised serious copyright issues, since an actual digital copy exsited on users' hard drives.
These problems provided incentives for online wizards to develop new techniques to deliver AV material. It was clear that the video either had to be digital originally, or analog video had to be digitized in order to take advantage of extreme compression. The extreme compression techniques came from work in fractal and wavelet compression, as well as the H.320 family of standards, which advanced to become H.323 and H.324.
The technique for sending DV across the Internet or other computer network is called "streaming." ...Streamed media is played out from a server. On the user side, enough material is buffered to allow smooth playing until more arrives. This lets video and synchronized audio begin playing on the user's machine before the whole file is received. Due to variability in Net congestion, buffering may or may not work, and there can be delays while more material is buffered. Many owners of intellectual property like this kind of streaming because it plays the content almost immediately, and a complete copy may never reside on the receiver's hard drive at any one time. Finally, the streamed video and audio are integraated with text, graphics, and photos, and it all plays inside the Web browser.
Smooth-playing video requires that the streamed data arrives continuously, in the proper sequence without interruption. The term used to describe this kind of time-sensitve data is isochronous. "Iso" means equal and "chronous" means related to time. So isochronous means that the time increments must be equal; that is, smoothly delivered.
It is no easy task to deliver continuous data over a computer network. This type of network is packet-switched, which means that a message is broken down into packets and sent every which way. They take different paths, arrive at different times and in different sequences than the order in which the original material was arranged. Sometimes packets may lose out to the transport of other, more high priority packets. The way engineers solved this problem was to create a "playout" buffer. The technique involves measuring the amount of average packet delay and then storing just enough material in a buffer to insure that by the time the buffered video has all played, new packets will have arrived that can play.
In order to display streamed video, the user needs a "player." This is software that accepts the incoming stream and decodes it. It also includes an interface that lets the user customize the way the stream will be displayed--volume, size of video window, and stop, start, pause, fast forward, and rewind controls, as well as a slider bar to access different parts of the stream. The three most popular players are the RealPlayer from Real Networks, Windows Media Player from Microsoft, and QuickTime from Apple Computers.
Creating streamed video is fairly simple, well within the capability and financial reach of the average video hobbyist. The process starts with the video, which must either be recorded with a digital camera or digitized. The video is compressed and encoded in the same format as the software players that the desired receivers have on their PCs. ...Once encoded in these formats, the material can go to users around the world.
...ITV has some problems. The biggest one is the inefficient way video reaches users over the Internet. For the most part, every stream of video that a user requests goes out as an individual stream from the server to the user: one request, one user, one stream. If 100,000 users want to see the video, 100,000 streams must be sent out. This method is called "unicast," or "video on demand" (VOD).
It makes sense for little-requested material to be uniqcast, but it is a wildly inefficient use of bandwidth to unicast popular material.
The alternative to unicasting is "multicasting," a technique that falls between broadcasting and unicasting. Its way of distributing video brings the streams to servers that are closer to end-users, usually the Internet Service Provider (ISP). The ISP notifies people when the material is "live" and they "tune in" to the stream. ...Multicast reduces bandwidth requirements through the network because the minimum number of packets are replicated to service a multiplicity of receivers. Multicasting also reduces connection requirements, which alleviates overhead imposed on the network and the server.
¥ Samplers of VOD Content
¥ University of Utah Strategies for VOD
▼ -2- Getting Help & Advice
¥ As a producer of media
¥ As a consumer of media
¥ University of Utah OIT Help Desk
¥ University sponsored Seminars, Tutorials & Webinar Options
▼ -3- Guidelines and Best Practices for the University of Utah
▼ Digital Video & Audio Architectures
¥ Introduction and Context
▼ University of Utah Guidelines & Best Practices
▼ For Acquisition & Production
¥ Within your department
¥ University options
▼ For Compression
¥ MPEG-4 H.264 Architecture and the New Media Ecosystem
¥ Others
▼ Technical Background Information
¥ Needs
¥ Production Workflow
¥ Consumption Profiles/End User Computers
¥ Distribution Data Rates
¥ Media Architectures
¥ Streaming
¥ Video Standards
¥ Video Formats
¥ Quality of Source
¥ Screen Activity
¥ Ingestion Equipment
¥ Codecs
¥ Editing and Compression Tools
¥ Movie Data Rates
¥ Quality of Compression
¥ Video Frame Rates
¥ Video Frame Sizes
¥ Audio Sample Rates
¥ Audio Sample Sizes
¥ Other Optimizers
¥ Storage Requirements
¥ Additional Links
▼ Digital Media Samplers (streaming & progressive download)
¥ QuickTime
¥ RealMedia
¥ WindowsMedia
▼ MPEG
¥ MPEG-1
¥ MPEG-2
¥ MPEG-4 Part 10, AVC (H.264)
¥ Flash
▼ Network Issues
▼ Introduction and Context
¥ Signal propagation and routing
¥ Bandwidth issues
¥ Demand exceeding current capacities
▼ University of Utah Guidelines and Best Practicies
▼ For Storage
¥ Within your department
¥ University options
▼ Levels
¥ On-line
¥ Near-line
¥ Off-line
¥ Backups and Archiving
▼ For Retrieval and Distribution Servers
¥ Within your department
¥ University options
¥ Content Delivery Networks
¥ 24/7 Maintenace and Support
¥ Firewall and Router Issues
¥ Security Issues
▼ Technical Background Information
¥ Environmental Survey of Current Network Connectivity across the U
▼ Digital Asset Management
¥ Introduction and Context
▼ Primers and Background Information
¥ Managing Content
¥ Essence
▼ Describing Content: Metadata
¥ Introduction
¥ Primer
▼ Schemas
¥ Build Your Own
¥ Established Standards
▼ Sharing Metadata
¥ Crosswalks between schemas and DAM systems
¥ XML translations
¥ OAI harvesting (Open Archives Initiative)
▼ Options for Building DAM Sytems
¥ Build your Own
¥ Open Source
¥ Commercial Products
▼ Existing University Services & Providers
¥ Marriott Library Digital Technologies
¥ Marriott LIbrary Multimedia Computer Labs
¥ Marriott Library TAC Center
¥ Eccles Health Sciences Library
¥ Utah Education Network
▼ Intellectual Property Rights Management
¥ Introduction
¥ Primers
¥ Options
¥ University Policies & Procedures