Variety Producer Panel at CES 2013

January 9, 2013, Variety Entertainment Summit, Las Vegas—A panel looked at the evolution and challenges of delivering content to audiences watching across many type of screens. Guy Finley from M.E.S.A. moderated the panel. Panelists were Andy Hendrickson from Walt Disney Animation Studios, Chris Cookson from Sony Pictures TV, Darcy Antonellis from Warner Brothers, Lincoln Wallen from Dreamworks Animation, and Hanno Basse from 20th Century Fox.

Importance of Ultra Violet?
Antonnellis answered that there is lots of growth, over 10M accounts are opened. The number of partnerships and relationships continues to grow as the ongoing migration to a complete digital entertainment ecosystem continues.

Like Flixster model? Use of Ultra Violet increases with social tie-ins?
Antonnellis responded, it’s all about access and engagement, sharing reviews, and show information. Ultra Violet facilitates highly mobile viewing.

Mobility devices are proliferating, are Ultra Violet accounts growing in this space?
Cookson noted strong support for consumer electronics and computers, etc.
Antonnellis added that most devices work with UV.there are many windows to the content.

Industry needs to educate the consumers, develop better branding, and integrate the technologies for transitioning to UV?
Antonnellis stated that Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and others are doing disk to digital storage conversions and are adding in-store conversions to UV. They keep the disks. More retailers are coming on-line. the technology is to quick load tokens from a disk scan and not do a full upload if the content is already in the system.

4k value and adoption timeline?
Basse suggested that this is a natural progression from VHS to DVD to Blu-Ray and now to 4K. The default display will be 84+ inches and the home environment will be host to sports, concerts, etc. The transition time will depend upon affordability and the availability of decent content.
Cookson added that 4K started with the conversions of 35 mm film. The studios found that there is a lot more material in the films than the released prints could show. As a result, there is a lot of material already available because the studios needed to preserve the 35 m quality in their digital releases. HD replicates a 30-year old format for viewing angle.
Now, cinema uses a full field of view for movies, so TV has to match the viewing angles to recreate the cinema experience. SD with 2k pixels needs the viewer to be at a viewing distance of 3-5 x the height to minimize the pixelization. HD is too close at 1.5 X the diagonal. 4K fixes this in theaters, and in 6-7 years will move to the TVs to match. Cinema moved from black and white to color to widescreen, and TV has always followed. With a 4K display, you can keep the viewing distance the same as HD, so you don’t need to get a bigger room to accept a bigger display.

High frame rate?
Cookson noted that 35 mm film has been around for over 100 years. The film has much more information than theaters can project, due to inter-positive losses. Resolution restoration improves quality and now we can access the full image details. Film is more detailed than the HD standard, so film makers need to consider the ability to access more detail and data than we have the ability to use today.
Hendrickson is looking into 4K tools for creative. High frame rate and 4K offer good potential for better viewing experiences. We can do both now, as seen in “The Hobbit”, but must wait for the consumer electronics equipment to appear. One issue is that this combination generates very large data sets. In addition, a CG world takes more rendering, since high frame rates need more detail to show. The computer graphics need to be much more detailed. For animation, the high frame rate and 3-D will create a more believable image.
Wallen considered that the new tools can improve creative. High frame rate can be used for different effects and impact on screens. When compared to live action, which needs cameras, more CG will make it easier to express ideas. High frame rate content raises the question, what form to the consumer? The all screens issue increases complexity and increases the variability in the user experience. This becomes a distribution challenge.
Basse suggested that the technology extends the tools for creative to think of stories. 4k HFR increases the sense of realism, but it is not for all stories. Some directors will want to retain the look of film for their stories. Some directors still think of the creative process in HFR and 4K as being the same as film. Distribution will become ore complex, but will offer more opportunities. The smart TV is the same as a big tablet, leading to better user experience across all venues.
Antonnellis stated that the display process will require 4k rendering across all screens. The existing HFR tools present a learning challenge for filmmakers to separate to components. Film makers are drawn to 4K and HFR to define a more immersive experience. The acclimation process will take time and effort, so expect to see at least a few bad high-resolution films.
The cameras and edit tools exist, so a director can pick and choose what to use for capture and production, as well as what to use for distribution. The biggest issue is data management, since HFR and 3-D generate at least 4X the data and files will exceed 1PB. Data management will require more effort and the whole enterprise has to take an archival perspective of the project: what will users need to access, what to render, and how to find anything in that data morass. There are lots of other issues, so the transition will not be simple.
This change to HFR and 4K will change how people create films. Directors will need to evolve their craft and learn to express their ideas in new ways. HFR is like film going to a digital projector, only now film is not as good as disks.
Cookson retorted that the data management will just evolve with the tools. HFR is not new, TV has always been at 60 Hz. Sports have been at 4K and 60 or 100Hz for a while..

4K broadcast?
Basse offered they have a large collaboration with Panasonic and others to produce 50-60 games in 3-D. field sports lend themselves to 4K and 3-D. In a stadium, they need all the tools; 3-D, 4K , etc. Entertainment needs to work out the issues through experimentation. There are growing opportunities in animation, effects, etc. and all are opening new areas. The big issue will be in archiving the assets.
Antonnellis considered that the industry needs methodologies to manage the storage, and needs to find ways to handle archive. The changing number of channels for distribution means accessing parts of 15PB, changing the game complexity.
Cookson offered that this is just a production versus archive issue. Film has been shown to last over 100 years and even digital movies are archives in 3-color separations on black and white film. You can store 10-12 TB equivalents of data on film.
Basse countered that it is easy to just put contents on film and archive, but one question is what to save? The trends are away from 90-minute linear to increasing auxiliary content. all assets exist, but the issue is how to repurpose them.
Wallen noted that there is a difference between live and animation. Live actors need to send all raw data from the camera. 4K lends itself to live action. There is no consumer interaction, since the 3-D defines all aspects of the performance.
Cookson wondered about different management tools and policies. Should a system be set up to capture a performance or create all images?
Hendrickson mentioned that they are still holding films. They pull them out and remaster into 3-D. But how will we make sense of these assets in 20 years? For example, when moving video into games, the assets are too high resolution for the games. In the future, the games may use the assets directly.
Wallen questioned whether to build or model assets. Building the images increases the information needs and has to make all sub-assets accessible.
Hendrickson observed that in the past, they archived by putting a number on a can of film. For digital assets, there is no can, and the intermediate files may be in the cloud in PB volumes.
Cookson added that scale is critical. One must consider camera costs versus CG and understand the assets.
Hendrickson noted that no two films are made the same way.
Antonellis proposed that mix, production, and distribution are all different, and need different applications to functions properly. Distribution must consider the user experience and external environments. More than one party has to share in the overall responsibilities.