Over the past few weeks, when not distracted by such minor trifles as the General Election, the media have been getting themselves into a bit of a tizzy over the tax domicile disagreements between multi-millionaire entrepreneurs Duncan Bannatyne and James Caan of Dragons' Den fame.  As the Dragons' production team head back into the Den to record another series of the BBC2 hit, I’m reminded of a time when things were a little more harmonious in the den - and the story even has a tenuous connection to digital production workflows...

It was the spring of 2007 and I was working with the Dragons' Den production team to implement a trial of BBC R&D's Ingex automated tapeless production system. Ingex is an open-source software solution that runs on commodity PC server hardware and provides anyone that cares to implement it a cost-effective file-based HD/SD studio recording solution. We knew that introducing this (then) very new technology would not come completely without teething troubles, but it was an honour to be working on such a well known and established BBC brand with the kind of technology that fundamentally changes the production landscape.  However, in a prudent bit of risk-mitigation, the first three outings of Ingex on DD were run in parallel with a tape-based workflow, with all of its inherent foibles, as well as at least one misunderstood advantage…

It is easy to forget that part of the television magic of DD lies in the fact that pitches are delivered in real-time, with few (if any) interruptions.  Pitches in the Den can run for hours, necessitating multiple tape changes.  These tape changes were generally a source of consternation in the Den.  They would often break up the natural rhythm of a pitch and were typically put off until the last possible moment as the gallery PA’s clock wound down and the camera operators began to get a "tape end" warning in their viewfinders.  Of course, the file-based Ingex kit was largely immune to such stoppages, and other hiccups notwithstanding, could be comfortably left to record for hours on end until the internal disk cache filled up.  As it was a trial, we were recording using a low-end Avid codec, so our 1 TB internal cache was not likely to fill up in a hurry - a distinct advantage over the much more finite resource of a 43 min Digi...

However, one of the inherent and often overlooked benefits of a tape-based workflow is that a tape change marks an ideal time for Dragons, punters and production crew alike to, ahem, unleash their personal dragons and take a much needed comfort break. During one particularly intense web technology related pitch, in which the crew had already done the first tape change with barely a slow down in proceedings, the second tape change came as a great relief to many of us.  The punters were carefully sequestered from the Dragons during these mass excursions, but the crew could use one of two loos, the closer and less crowded of which was the one frequented by the (male) Dragons.  I made my way into serpent-infested territory and stumped up to do the needful. Duncan and James were already there, taking care of their respective business requirements. An innocuous conversation began between the three of us in which I offered up a couple of throw away generalities on the dos, don’ts and what-fors of technology implementation projects. Then, with business taken care of, we were back in the Den taking up our respective posts, James and Duncan in front of the cameras and me behind a trio of screens displaying the Den cameras’ output.  As I watched the next stage of the pitch ensue, both Duncan and James proceeded to quote, verbatim, my throw away technology lines. I beamed brighter than most of the studio lights, and had something juicy (pun intended) to relate to my fellow geek compatriots as we watched the action and tinkered at command lines.

The DD production team are now in the next evolutionary stage in their use of file-based workflows.  Under the able guidance of BBC Studios and Post Production, who are now providing Ingex as a managed service to internal and external productions after having made extensive operational enhancements to the system, DD will be completely file-based this series with nary a tape back up to be seen.  While this undertaking is not entirely without risk (what worthwhile technology implementation is ever completely without risk?), Ingex has grown into a robust and reliable technology, which delivers consistent results - and which, thanks to the open approach taken by the BBC, is free for download and use by anyone who wants it. As hard disk technology continues to grow in capacity and file-based recording technologies become more and more ubiquitous, my concern for the DD team, as well as the broadcast industry as a whole, is this: when will we next get to use the loo?

It seems like the transition to "tapeless" or file based working has been a long time coming, but most companies and individuals we talk to seem to agree that 2010 is the year that it's really becoming real for them. With two major tapeless production initiatives on the road for delivery this year (BSkyB and the BBC), time apparently running out for tape-based cameras, and increasing numbers of companies opting for file-based production, now is the time where the prototypes and the promises end, and the real day to day delivery has to start. See - I knew I could complete that paragraph without using "where the rubber hits the road" if I tried hard enough!

Mediasmiths is actively supporting a number of our clients through their transition to file-based working, and what we've noticed is that even the most forward-thinking and best prepared of organisations still encounter practical challenges and issues. Those issues can be anything - from realising that the level of training and change management to really bed in new workflows needs to a bit more than budgeted for, or simply that two pieces of equipment that have been guaranteed to work together and seamlessly exchange MXF files... just don't, quite. 

 Along the journey we've also noticed that although the traditional vendors are doing their bit to help move the industry into tapeless working (and help mop up minor additional requirements like HD and 3D along the way), there is a quiet revolution happening, with a number of innovative and cost effective solutions emerging from non-traditional vendors to help address problems like how to track how assets are used across the business, or put in place post-production storage solutions that support Avid, Apple and Adobe editors, all at the same time. As Mediasmiths we're pretty well known for being technology agnostic and vendor independent - but we're also known for our love of smart technology and innovative products, and we like our clients to know about them as well.

Taking all of this into account, and following chats with clients and our friends at Object Matrix, Vidispine, GridIron and ERA, we've decided to host a gathering for anyone that wants to come along and spend some time talking about challenges with digital workflows, meet up with other folks who may well be encountering some of the same issues, and chat through some practical solutions. We'll have some of those innovative vendors there as well, but the idea is that it's a conversation and an opportunity for some networking, not somewhere you'll be getting the hard sell or a bunch of vendor waffle. We're going to call it the Workflow Innovation Group - and if it's useful, helpful, and anyone bothers to turn up, we'll look to run similar sessions on an irregular basis throughout the year. We might also rename it if anyone can come up with a snappier title.

We've (royal we've - thanks to Nick at Object Matrix!) prepared a flyer for the meeting - feel free to click here to download for reference and give it to anyone you think might be interested. Key details though - When? 29th of June, lunchtime onwards.Obligatory raffle with prizes? Oh yes. Where? Cardiff, at the Millennium Centre, right on Cardiff Bay. For those who are Doctor Who or Torchwood fans, that's the big building behind the plaza where the Tardis lands from time to time to refuel, and the lift comes up from the Hub. Shameless stereotypical geek? Me? Never....

RSVP to wig@mediasmiths.com and we do hope you can join us there.

3D has become the hot topic of 2010, but it seems to me that most of the focus to date has been on the technology involved - such as how to set up stereo camera rigs, 2D to 3D converters, the different methods of delivering 3D in cinemas and the availability of 3D TV sets and glasses. As yet, there doesn’t seem to have been anything like the same level of visibility for the impact that moving to 3D will have on the people working in the creative chain. Our work with 3D so far show that this impact is going to be profound, and are going to derail some trends that have been gathering momentum for a while, particular in areas like post production. We’re going to be talking about both the technology and these impacts on workflows a lot on this blog – starting today with the impact of 3D on post production.

Historically, the job of an editor has been to help translate a creative vision into an on-screen reality using some quite complicated tools – first with film, then tape and ultimately computer files. Editors originally had to be able to translate the emotional, sometimes visceral language of storytelling into technical actions in order to represent a true creative vision in the edit, and along the way also developed advanced technical skills used to compensate for problems in the original shot material. This ability to 'fix it in post' evolved over the years to be a godsend for good production teams, and somewhat of a crutch for not-so-good ones...

Dramatic reductions in the cost of editing from Adobe, Apple, Avid and others, coupled the wider adoption of such tools in film and TV courses has over recent years diluted the 'craft' of editing – the perception has grown that essentially anyone with a decent computer can become an editor. While good editing undoubtedly remains a difficult skill to develop, intense pressure on production costs and a desire by some production organisations to move parts of the editing process such as storyboarding and shot selection to other members of the production teams, has meant that there is simply less time allowed for what we have traditionally called "post".

Having spent some time watching an industry veteran (Steve Archbold, who has worked on 3D material at BSkyB) editing 3D material, it is abundantly clear that 3D simply isn’t compatible with that model. Production in 3D is not simply adding depth and foreground to 2D material, it is a very different way of presenting material and one that our brains will take some time to become accustomed to viewing. Poor editing on 2D material will be amplified in 3D, jump cuts will jar considerably more, and standard 2D screen language on presenting key story themes will no longer work.

Many "traditional" creative techniques cannot be used, such as framing protagonists with foreground elements, as this either creates too much stereo depth for the eye to resolve, or means that foreground elements break frame whilst appearing in front of the screen plane, something our brains cannot resolve. This will not only make shooting more difficult as production teams need to learn how to set up new shots, but it will also require the creation of new methods in post-production both to fix problems that cannot be re-shot, and to move towards creating a whole new screen language for 3D. As fixing 3D material is inherently a very technical process as well as a creative one, particularly if 2D material is being corrected, the editor will now need a much greater understanding of 3D spatial details as well as the capabilities of 3D tools for finishing. Whereas in the past, the technical capability of equipment was simply a means of facilitating a creative vision, 3D really blurs the line between technical and creative work.

While this is good news for good editors, it may create a two-class system in post-production if there is widespread adoption of 3D, with only the best funded broadcasters and production companies being able to afford capable 3D-skilled editors. Because getting 3D wrong doesn’t just offend the viewers’ aesthetic sensibilities, but actually physically tires the eyes and brain, there is clearly a significant challenge to ensure that the great creative and entertainment potential of 3D isn’t spoiled because of compromises, inexperience and incorrect choices taken during production and post production. We’re going to be watching and supporting developments with keen interest.

The Advertising Standards Association (ASA) recently announced that they were going to consider investigating eight complaints made against a Marks & Spencer TV ad - the issue being that the combination of (fictional character!) Gene Hunt's comments linked to the appearance of an underwear model were offensive and demeaning to women. The Daily Mash produced quite a brilliant satirical take on this in its "M&S Ad Offensive to Everyone" article.

Ofcom lists the number of audience complaints, although it does not list complaints (excluding those that refer to fairness or privacy) where there were fewer than ten complainants, on their website. The BBC has its own complaints procedures and received a whopping fifteen thousand in September, although entirely separate issues on Nick Griffin and Terry Wogan made it an unusually high month.

All of this has led me to consider the question on when should one take complaints seriously? Is there a statistically significant number that might be considered representative of a significant number of members of the public? Ten complaints hardly seems to be statistically significant (although of course they could just be the visible manifestation of a wider group), but how many hundreds or thousands of people offended should we judge to be sufficient to allow a complaint to be taken seriously? One of the issues with any number-driven complaints procedure is that anyone who is sufficiently cranky, or any public group that is sufficiently organised can have a disproportionately high impact in terms of being taken seriously.

For all the people who get offended by particular language sexual images or religious views, there are usually equal numbers of other people who have no problems with them. However, those views generally tend not to be voiced - hard though it may be to believe, there are those of us who know how to use the remote to switch away from things that offend us. There are even those of us who as parents are prepared to make our own judgements about what we allow our children to watch, rather than relying on those of the Daily Mail. Mainly we don't spend our times complaining, because we have better things to do with our lives than get in a froth about what is on TV. If we don't find anything we want to watch, either because we are offended by language, violence or sex, or because X-Factor is on, then we can always find something to watch from our LoveFilm subscription, Sky+ box, iPlayer or YouTube. And even then if we can't find anything to watch, then we could listen to the radio, read a book, write a blog or maybe even talk to our families.

So basically, we don't have the complaints unit of each broadcaster or Ofcom on speed dial to register constant complaints, because we have choices, and we know how to exercise them. I started getting annoyed with AA Gill's restaurant reviews in the Sunday Times because he seemed to spend less and less time on actually reviewing a restaurant than prattling on about some inconsequential aspect of his journey to get there, or something "The Blonde" said. So now I just skipped the review. Sadly the AA Gill syndrome has extended to other feature writers and now Clarkson seems to forget that generally speaking, a motoring review should actually include some information about the car. But I didn't phone up News International to make a complaint, I just switched to the FT Weekend.

So here is my suggestion - instead of figuring out what is the right number of complaints to take seriously, or how do to counterbalance the sane people with the chronic whingers, why not just get rid of all complaints procedures that relate to offensive material? Bin the lot of them, and let the money currently spent on complaints procedures go back into programming, "offensive" or not. I can see a continued role for dealing with genuine complaints about factually incorrect content or impartiality issues, where an objective arbitration process could be applied. If a person is not capable of changing a channel if they get offended then they should not be taken seriously full stop. For the really seriously offensive stuff, like the Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross scandal, the BBC Trust were perfectly capable of responding to the public without the need for a process, and indeed the broadcasters should be trusted to manage this process themselves, because as they surely know,more offended viewers will ultimately mean fewer of them.