Author: Philip

Before we determine whether or not a computer is likely to replace an editor, we need to discuss just exactly what is the role of an editor – the human being that drives the software (or hardware) that edits pictures and sound? What do they bring to the production process? Having determined that, perhaps we can consider what it is that a piece of computer software might be capable of now or in the future.

First off I think we need to rid ourselves of any concept that there is just one “editor” role even though there is only one term to cover a vast range of roles in post production. Editing an event video does not use the same skills and techniques as editing a major motion picture; documentary editing is different from episodic television; despite the expectation of similarity, documentary editing and reality television require very different approaches. There is a huge difference in the skills of an off-line editor (story) and an on-line editor (technical accuracy) even if the two roles are filled by the same person.

So let’s start with what I think will take a long time for any computer algorithm to be able to do. There’s no project from current technology – in use or in the lab – that would lead to an expectation that an algorithm would be able to find the story in 40 hours of source and make an emotionally compelling, or vaguely interesting, program of 45 minutes. Almost certainly not going to happen in my lifetime. There’s a higher chance of an interactive storytelling environment à la Star Trek’s Holodeck (sans solid projection). Conceptually that type of environment is probably less than 30 years away, but that’s another story.

If a computer algorithm can’t find the story or make an emotionally compelling program, what can it do? Well, as we discovered earlier, not all editing is the same. There is a lot of fairly repetitive and rather assembly line work labeled as editing: news, corporate video, event videography are all quite routine and could conceivably be automated, if not completely at least in part. Then there is the possibility of new forms of media consumption that could be edited by software based on metadata.

In fact, all use of computer algorithms to edit rely on metadata – descriptions of the content that the software can understand. This is analogous to human logging and log notes in traditional editing. The more metadata software has about media the more able it is to create some sort of edit. Mostly now that metadata will come from the logging process. (The editor may be out of a job, but the assistant remains employed!) That is the current situation but there’s reason to believe it could change in the future – more on that later in the piece.

If we really think about what it is we do as editors on these more routine jobs, we realize that there are a series of thought processes that we go through and underlying “algorithms” that determine why one shot goes into this context rather than anther shot.

To put it at the most basic level, an example might be during editing content from an interview. Two shots of the same person have audio content we want in sequence but the effect is a jump cut. [If two shots in sequence feature same person, same shot…] At this point we choose between putting another shot in there – say from another interview or laying in b-roll to cover the jump cut. […then swap with alternate shot with same topic. If no shot with same topic available, then choose b-roll.]

That’s a rudimentary example and doesn’t take into account the value judgment that the human editor brings as to whether another interview conveys the story or emotion as well. Most editors are unfamiliar with their underlying thought processes and not analytical about why any given edit “works” – they just know it does but ultimately that judgment is based on something. Some learned skill, some thought process, something. With enough effort that process can be analyzed and in some far distant time and place, reproduced in software. Or it could except for that tricky emotional element – the thing that makes our storytelling interesting and worth watching.

The more emotion is involved in your storytelling output, the safer your job – or the longer it might be before it can be replaced. 🙂

Right now, the examples of computerized editing available now – Magic iMovie and Muvee Auto Producer use relatively unsophisticated techniques to build “edited” movies. Magic iMovie essentially adds transitions to avoid jump-cut problems and builds to a template; Muvee Auto Producer requires you to vet shots (thumbs up or down) then uses a style template and cues derived from audio to “edit” the program. This is not a threat to any professional or semi-professional editor with even the smallest amount of skill.

However, it is only a matter of time before some editing functions are automated. Event videography and corporate presentations are very adaptable to a slightly more sophisticated version of these baby step products. OK, a seriously more sophisticated version of these baby-step products, but the difference between slightly and seriously is about 3 years of development!

In the meantime, there are other uses for “automated” editing. For example, I developed a “proof of concept” piece for QuickTime Live! in February 2002 that used automated editing as a means of exploring the bulk of material shot for a documentary but not included in the edited piece. Not intended to be direct competition for the editor (particularly as that was me) it was intended as a means of creating short edited videos that were customized in answer to a plain language query of a database. The database contained metadata about the Clips – extended logging information really. In addition to who, where and when, there are fields for keywords, a numeric value for relative usefulness of the clip, a field for keywords to search for for b-roll [If b-roll matches this, search for more than one clip in the search result, edit them together and lay b-roll over all the clips that use this b-roll.]

So, right now, computer editing can be taught rudimentary skills. This particular piece of software knows how to avoid jump cuts and cut to length based on the quality criteria. It is, in fact, a better editor than many who don’t know the basic grammar of video editing. Teaching the basic grammar is relatively easy. Teaching software to take some basic clips and cut into a news item or even basic template-based corporate video is only a matter of putting in some energy and effort.

But making something that is emotionally compelling – not any time soon.

Here’s how I see it could pan out over the next couple of year. Basic editing skills from human-entered metadata – easy. Generating that metadata by having the computer recognize the images – possible now but extremely expensive. Having a computer edit an emotionally compelling piece – priceless.

It’s not unrealistic to expect, probably before the end of the decade, that a field tape could be fed into some future software system that recognizes the shots as wide, medium, close-up etc; identifies shots in specific locations and with specific people (based on having been shown examples of each) and transcribes the voice content and the text in signs and other places in the image. Software will recognize poor exposure, loss of contrast and loss of focus, eliminating shots that do not stand up technically. Nothing here is that difficult – it’s already being done to some degree in high end systems that are > $300,000 right now. From there it’s only a matter of time before the price comes down and the quality goes up.

Tie that together with a template base for common editing formats and variations and an editing algorithm that’s not that much further on than where we are now and it’s reasonable to expect to be able to input one or more source tapes into the system in the afternoon, and next morning come back to review several edited variations. A couple of mouse-clicks to choose the best of each variation and the project’s done, output to a DVD (or next generation optical disc), to a template-based website, or uploaded to the play-out server.

Nothing’s far fetched. Developing the basic algorithm was way too easy and it works for its design goals. Going another step is only a matter of time and investment. Such is the case with anything that is repetitive in nature: ultimately it can be reproduced in a “good enough” manner. It’s part of a trend I call the “templatorization” of the industry. But that’s another blog discussion. For now, editors who do truly creative, original work need not be worried, but if you’re hacking together video in an assembly-line fashion start thinking of that fall-back career.

Earlier I wrote about podcasting and the rapid uptake. Well, there’s every indication that video podcasting, of some sort, will follow. I think this is a tremendous opportunity for content creators because podcasting isn’t about broadcast but in fact an opt-in subscription service. In any discussion of these subjects it keeps echoing in my mind that RSS – is really simple subscription management (and yes, conditional access is possible) and Blogs.

To draw some parallels with traditional media: blogs are the journalism and writing and RSS would be the publishing channel (the network). Blogs and podcasting are bypass technologies – they bypass traditional channels. If pressed for an explanation for the truly astounding growth of podcasting and blogging to a lesser degree, I would hypothesize that they are to some degree a reaction against the uniformity of voice of modern media, where one company owns a very large proportion of the radio stations in the US (and music promotion and billboards) and news media is limited to a half dozen large company sources with little bite and no diversity.

The “blogsphere” (hate that word but it’s in common use) broke the CBS faked service papers during the last Presidential election campaign, and even in the last few weeks has been instrumental in the firing of a high level CNN executive and revealing the “fake” White House journalist and his sordid past. Collectively at least this is real journalism – and more importantly, it’s investigative journalism of the sort that isn’t done by traditional news outlets.

Blogging is popular because it’s easy and inexpensive. Sign up for a free blog on a major service, or download open source blogging software like WordPress (like I use) running on your own server. In a few minutes your voice is out there to be found. In my mind it harkens back to days of Wild West newspapers where someone would set a printing press and suddenly, be a newspaper publisher. But unlike a newspaper, blogs have an irregular publishing schedule. You can bookmark your favorite blogs and check them (when you remember), or you can be notified by your RSS aggregator application when there’s a new post (the URL for the RSS feed for this blog is in the bottom right of the page if you want to add it to your favorites).

Podcasting is easy and inexpensive unless your podcast becomes popular – then the bandwidth expense becomes considerable. Podcasting is a superior replacement for webcasting or streaming that does not have to be in real time. It’s produced and automatically delivered for consumption when it suits the listener. Those are the key attributes that, in my opinion, contribute to its success. There’s no need for a listener to tune in at exactly the time it’s “broadcast” – listen or miss it – or even to remember to visit some archive and download. My own experience on DV Guys totally parallels this. DV Guys has a nearly-five-year history as a live show (Thursday 6-7 pm Pacific) but has always been more popular through its archives pages.

Shortly after the advent of podcasting we set up a podcast of the live show available by the next day. Since then DV Guys has enjoyed more listeners than at any other time in its life. People tended to forget to visit the archives site weekly, or every second week. Even visiting every couple of weeks was too much of a commitment for a show that, while entertaining and informative, wasn’t at the top of everyone’s “must do” list. But with a podcast DV Guys is ready, available whenever a listener has a few moments – at the gym, during a commute, while waiting for a meeting or at an airport. DV Guys, like most radio, is consumable anytime. Importantly, it puts the listener in control, not the creator, of the listening experience.

Podcasting audio has another advantage – it’s easy to create. Almost as easy as blogging but not quite so easy. There are, consequently, proportionally fewer podcasts than there are blogs, because of that higher entry requirement. Even then, most podcasts are simply guys (mostly guys) talking into a microphone from a prepared script, or a few people together talking around a microphone. More highly produced podcasts are rarer.

The simplicity of publishing a blog means that it can be published for as few as half a dozen people – in fact there are people looking to use blogs and wikis as part of a project management tool. Podcasting can reach thousands but in broadcast terms that’s a tiny niche market.

Here’s a new truism – almost all markets are niche markets. What these new publishing models do is aggregate enough people in a niche to make it a market. There’s a lot of money to be made in niches. Particularly in the US, where there are a multiplicity of cable channels, small niches in the entertainment industry can be aggregated with appropriate low cost distribution channels, into profitable businesses. There are a lot of niches that are too small to be have their needs met by even a niche cable network, so cable channels get subdivided, or there’s no content for small niches.

RSS, low cost production tools and P2P is your new distribution channel. This is the other side of the production revolution we’ve been experiencing over the last 10 years, when the cost of “broadcast quality” content has dropped from an equipment budget of $200,000 upward (for camera, recorder and edit suite with titling and DVE) to similar quality at well under $20,000 (and many people doing it for under $10,000). At the end, a computer (or computer-like) device will be one of the inputs to that big screen TV you covet and you’ll watch content fed via subscription when it suits. If it’s not news, it can come whenever, ready to be watched whenever.

The relative difficulty of producing watchable video content will further limit the numbers (as happened from blogging to podcasting) and the current state of video blogs will make experienced professionals cry. That should not stop you planning for your own network. Instead of “The Comedy Network”, the “Sci-Fi Network” etc, prepare for a world of the “The fingernail beauty network” or “Fiat maintenance network” or “Guys who like to turn wood on a lathe network”, et al. Content could be targeted geographically, or demographically. There are very profitable niches available. Two that I’ve been involved with, at the video production level were for people who like to paint china plates (challenging to light) and basic metalwork skill training. There’s no need to fill 24 hours a day 7 days a week with this network model. When new content is produced, it’s ready for consumption when viewers want. We do something similar with our Pro Apps Hub where we publish content from out training programs piecemeal, as it’s produced, before we aggregate the disc version.

Note that I am not, basically, talking about computer-based viewing. My expectation is that software and hardware solutions will evolve into something usable as a home entertainment device. “TV” is a kick-back, put your feet up experience, video on the computer is a lean-forward pay attention experience. While both could be used for the end target of this publication model, what I’m really talking about is content for that lean back experience.

Now, I don’t expect “Hollywood” (as a collective noun for big media) to embrace this model early, or even ever, but that doesn’t mean it’s not going to become viable. The most popular content will probably still go through the current distribution channels, however they evolve. It also doesn’t mean we’ll be restricted to small budget production either. It could (should) evolve models where the viewers were in much closer touch with the producers, without the gatekeeper model.

For example, the basic skill training video series I produced back in Australia was niche programming. There were, effectively, 75 direct customers in the small Australian market (smaller, I should point out, than California alone). No customer or central group had money for production but each one had $150 – $300 to buy a copy of a product. Since these were very simple productions requiring a small crew and being produced in a regional city, each project had about a 30% profit margin. If the same proportions applied to the US market, the budget would have doubled but the profit would have quadrupled or more.

Take another more current example. Star Trek Enterprise has been canned but the last season had 2.5 million viewers an episode with a budget of $1.6 million an episode. If each viewer paid 75c for the episode, delivered directly to their “TV storage device” (somewhere between a Media PC, Mac Mini or TiVo) then the producers would turn a profit of $200,000 an episode or 12.5% margin on what they were getting from the network. At 99c a show, that’s nearly 50% more revenue than was coming from the network. And the audience isn’t limited to just the US market – that same content can be delivered to Enterprise fans anywhere in the world. As the producer I could live on 13 episodes at $200,000 profit above and beyond previous costs (which presumably included some salary and profit). Moreover, producers wouldn’t be locked into rating cycles and the matching boom/bust production cycle.

It doesn’t matter if each high quality (HD if you want) episode takes 20 hours of download “in the background”. When it’s complete and ready to watch it appears in the play list as available.

Bandwidth would be a killer in that scenario – even with efficient MPEG-4 H.264 encoding, a decent SD image is going to require 1-1.5 Mbits/sec and HD is going to want 7 or 8 Mbits/sec. Assuming 45 minute episodes (sans commercials) that’s around 700 MB an episode per person, or in HD about 5 GBytes, per subscriber. Across 2+ million subscribers that’s going to eat my profit margin rather badly without another solution. There are technologies in place that could be adapted.

Assuming the bandwidth challenge is resolved. What’s left?

Two things mostly: the device that stores the bits ready for display on the TV and software to manage the conditional access (you only get the bits you bought) and playlists. Something like a video/movie version of the iTunes music store. We’ll need to wait for a big player like Apple or Sony to wield enough muscle for that, but in the meantime, we see the beginning with Ant but as a computer interface and without the simplicity and elegance of a Dish/Direct/TiVo user interface. But it will come.

Will you have your network business plan ready? I’m working on mine already.

Wired has another take. Videoblogging already has a home page and for a bit of thinking on the flip-side, how this might all work for the individual wanting to aggregate a personal channel, Robin Good has a blog article on Personal Media Aggregators in one of my favorite (i.e. challenging) blogs.