When it comes to HD production and postproduction, ad agency producers are rolling up their sleeves. exploring and growing. While those that SHOOT surveyed seem to be taking it all in stride, the transition to digital television is not without its challenges. Among the biggest gripes are the multiple finishing specs and requirements from television networks.
Scott Hainline, VP executive producer of Hill Holiday, Boston, also finds the growing trend for networks to declare that they will only accept one single master, either SD or HD, extremely unfair to the clients who pay for the media time because the network seemingly does not want to go through the hassle of dealing with both SD & HD versions.
“I’m talking about the practice of the networks doing a ‘center cut’ of an HD master to run it on SD programming. I think this is bordering on criminal, but I understand the trend is to have more networks adopt this strategy. At the moment ESPN and National Geographic are the only networks that insist on this policy. I am lobbying now, in this article, that all other networks do not go down this road until every TV set in America is HD compatible,” he says.
“I am not in favor of shooting in 16:9 format only to protect the 4:3 aspect ratio. This is also, in my mind, undermining the natural integrity of 16:9 and what it has to offer, and it is only to protect ourselves because of the networks non-commitment to HD.”
Hainline suggests the creation of a free website paid for by the networks that agency producers can access that will clearly spell out what is required in finishing, that will have the most up-to-date specs for networks and be a guaranteed place that will disperse this information and help with the transition.
In the meantime, SHOOT asked a handful of agency production execs: A) How active is your shop is HD from a production standpoint for commercials and/or branded content? From a postproduction standpoint? and B) As the start date for the transition to digital television nears, how is your agency adapting? And, what’s the most challenging part of this transition for your department?
Below Hainline and others share their answers and strategies:
Mary Cheney
SVP/Executive Producer, Leo Burnett USA, Chicago
A) As an industry, HD utilization continues to grow, but it may not always be the best choice. As with any format-related question, the decision to use HD is dependant on the intended use of the message. When Leo Burnett produced the “Army of One” campaign, we shot all 24p in order to save our clients money, but also because it allowed us to create the right look and feel for the work. Overall, we’re fairly active in the use of HD for our clients. Some clients haven’t been as interested in HD, as their buys don’t support its use. Some like to have all their ads finished in both SD and HD. From a postproduction standpoint, this is valuable especially when finishing for cinema. Of course, we always weigh the value of finishing in HD in so far as cost versus how the ad will be used and for how long it will run. Sometimes there really is no need to finish in HD.
B) The most challenging part of this transition is having a good grasp of those options and how best to employ them. As a production department, we’ve always adapted to new technologies and formats–and our talented producers have evolved. (New technologies do not always demand new talent.) The skill sets required to produce great work don’t change across platforms–the knowledge with which producers apply their skills is what changes–so it’s really all about learning and growing. When you have bright, talented people who are passionate about doing great work, you just need to roll up your sleeves, explore and grow.
Joe Grundhoefer
Director of Broadcast/ Content Production, Partner, Carmichael Lynch, Minneapolis
A) I would say (in the year or so that I have been here) we have done about 35 percent of our productions as HD shoots. We have shot more in HD than we’ve finished in HD, but that has to do with both media buy plans (a lot of stations do not have HD capable airing, so it isn’t worth it for the client to finish in HD if their media plan does not support it) and overall budget/creative needs. Pending the idea, shooting HD can be cheaper/wiser than shooting on film, so sometimes that is the reason for choosing that method. As the media support for HD increases, our finishing in HD should follow suit.
B) Education about the technology and how we can use it is something we are, and have been, focused on. One thing we have done is bring in post artists/vendors to do Q & A’s on HD and the process of doing work using it, and we’ve made sure to open those up to not only Production and Creative, but Media and Account Management, also. We want all departments to have an understanding (to varying degrees as needed) of Hi Def and what it all means to their area of expertise. I would have to say that educating the client and getting them to understand that HD is not something to shy away from is the toughest part of the process on the pre-award side of things. There is still this fear that HD will cost much more, and we have to do our job to help them understand when it is right to use it, and why it isn’t a financial mistake. Once again, the media has a lot to do with this conversation. As for once we’ve gotten the client onboard…it would be the multiple finishing specs and requirements from stations. That is still pretty wonky. We have upgraded CLIP (our editorial facility) to AVID Adrenaline bays and also upgraded our Final Cut bays, and all rooms have HD screens for viewing. We’ve also purchased various HD cameras and firedrives for the projects that we produce in-house.
Scott Hainline
VP Executive Producer, Hill Holliday, Boston
A) We have not been proactive to shoot in HD/24p yet. We are still overwhelmingly dedicated to film. We are, however, being more proactive in finishing in HD for HD broadcast.
Two of our clients (Liberty Mutual & John Hancock) are leading the charge at Hill Holliday. They, in fact, have been the proactive ones and we have been willing participants. Liberty Mutual, for example, is determined to produce the highest quality production values and be on the cutting edge. They’ve been running on HD broadcasts for nearly two years and, after committing to finishing in HD, can only see themselves on this level permanently.We should be encouraging all of our clients to finish in HD to help acclimate them for the future.
I personally feel even more dedicated to HD finishing, having produced the Liberty work.
B) I guess you could say we are adapting by growing more knowledgeable about HD and educating ourselves about it. This leads into the second part of the question about what is the most challenging part. Well, it’s just that, seeking out the information to be better versed for our clients and us.
The specs from the networks change often so it’s important to be abreast of all of the specifications from each and every HD network. Having an editorial company that is active in accumulating this information is also invaluable. We should be active in lobbying for a common HD Format Standard that works at every network. The confusion about 1080i vs. 720p, surround sound mixes, closed captioning, stereo mixes on alternate channels, ISCI Codes that sometimes match with the SD Masters and sometimes don’t, D5, HD-Cam, HD-CamSR, all lead to potential confusion and perhaps spots not running properly. It also has increased, unnecessarily, the cost of dubbing and shipping.
There is a misconception that the networks are up and running and they are the proponents of HD broadcasting. This is not entirely true. I believe the advertising community is several steps ahead of the networks and is frustratingly waiting for them to catch up. Educating the producers here at Hill Holliday is easy, convincing the clients to commit to HD and the small increase in finishing prices as well as added schedule time is a bit harder, but convincing the networks to play along and make it easier for us all seems to be the most difficult hurdle to get over.
Vic PalumboDirector of Broadcast , Production, Fallon Minneapolis
A) We are very active in the HD realm. At this point most of our client’s commercial projects are shot on film and finished in HD. We have been educating the production staff about the process and continue to learn about new equipment, technologies, etc. We also rely on the great relationships with our postproduction vendors who keep us up to date. It’s hard to finish content ideas that are generally “web only” in HD, given the more challenging budgets. But, we are looking to change that in the coming year by continuing to upgrade our in-house capabilities.
B) Staff from our in-house editorial facility, The Assembly Line, help keep our department apprised of new advancements in HD and distribution. In fact, three months ago, we finished our first in-house HD project for the Children’s Defense Fund, “Susie Flynn for President (SHOOT 5/11/07),” which is now on air.
Additionally, to make our digital workflow more efficient, we added a digital distribution conduit for transmitting spots directly to broadcast hubs. Our principal challenge is to educate our clients and account staff regarding why it’s necessary to begin finishing spots in HD. Granted the HD finishing process is more expensive, but given how close we are to the Feb ’09 deadline, it’s possible that our current content may have a life beyond that, in HD. Our clients have been very receptive to our recommendations — and the work looks great.
Will St. ClairExecutive Producer, DDB Chicago
A) We’re active in HD across a range of fronts: For clients who air traditional content on high-profile programming (i.e., Super Bowl, AcademyAwards, etc.), we deliver in HD regularly, and factor that in from the inception of those projects. So we plan for it in both production and post. We are hopefully getting to a point where we think less in terms of strict boundaries between “commercials” and other content, so that what drives the decision about HD or any format is the concept and its audience first and work toward the best execution from there. We routinely produce in HD when it makes sense, and have done so for commercials, for non-spot work, web content and for pitches. Over the last couple of years we’ve also brought HD capabilities in-house as well, so that we’re able to shoot, edit and finish HD in-house when duty calls.
The advantage that HD will increasingly bring to bear is its versatility. When it comes to delivering a “final” project, more and more what starts out as “just a video” or “just a viral piece” can end up in a myriad of final uses, from long-form web content to TV to in-theater to retail networks and beyond. Capturing the initial images in HD allows that content to migrate between these forms more readily. Nontraditional, long-form work often begets that world more than ever: HD fosters the ability to shoot these kinds of projects more nimbly and at great resolution in an increasingly economical way. DDB’s work for things like Bud.tv can involve more than 300 minutes of finished content, all shot and finished this entirely in HD. Shooting things like this on film would encumber the project budgetarily and schedule-wise. HD not only relieves those pressures, but does so while allowing maximum flexibility for migratory end use.
B) We’re adapting by getting educated, being open to the advantages (and limitations) of HD, and most importantly by relying on our production and post partners to help us navigate. By far the most challenging aspect of the transition is the reluctant and uncoordinated response that traditional media channels (networks, cable) have had to the transition. That’s left everyone on the other side with the current situation of an oft extended deadline and the sensation that there are as many different HD delivery specs as there are channels.
Damian StevensDirector of Integrated , Production, Multimedia Saatchi & Saatchi LA
A) We had a discussion with Toyota over a year ago and decided we would get ahead of the curve and start working in HD. Currently, most everything we shoot from spots to long-form content is finished in HD. The majority of our spots are shot on 35mm but then finished in HD. Everyone here prefers to shoot spots on 35mm because of the look of film vs. video. The one exception would be the Tacoma truck spots–some of which are shot on HD due to the “found footage” look of the campaign. The irony with the Tacoma work is we end up laying off to 3/4″ or 1/2″ multiple times to degrade the image. All of our long-form work to date has been shot and finished in HD. HD is a much faster and cheaper way to go when shooting so much material.
B) We are hitting the HD thing head-on. Currently, we enter into every job with an HD finish in mind. During the bidding process, the producers have to take into account the additional time and money involved with working in HD. Much of our work involves CG, comping, etc, so we really have to pay attention to the details to insure we can deliver on time and on budget. Another challenge is the fact that every network has different specs for delivering in HD. To further complicate the situation, ESPN only has one feed so if you want to broadcast in HD, you have to make sure you have shot for 4:3 center-cut-protect. We tend to shoot edge to edge in the 16:9 format considering the majority of our work is automotive. Cars and trucks are horizontal unlike a bottle of beer. I’m looking forward to the time when all networks agree on a single format/resolution and can take one feed without having to center-cut-extract.
Apple and Google Face UK Investigation Into Mobile Browser Dominance
Apple and Google aren't giving consumers a genuine choice of mobile web browsers, a British watchdog said Friday in a report that recommends they face an investigation under new U.K. digital rules taking effect next year.
The Competition and Markets Authority took aim at Apple, saying the iPhone maker's tactics hold back innovation by stopping rivals from giving users new features like faster webpage loading. Apple does this by restricting progressive web apps, which don't need to be downloaded from an app store and aren't subject to app store commissions, the report said.
"This technology is not able to fully take off on iOS devices," the watchdog said in a provisional report on its investigation into mobile browsers that it opened after an initial study concluded that Apple and Google effectively have a chokehold on "mobile ecosystems."
The CMA's report also found that Apple and Google manipulate the choices given to mobile phone users to make their own browsers "the clearest or easiest option."
And it said that the a revenue-sharing deal between the two U.S. Big Tech companies "significantly reduces their financial incentives" to compete in mobile browsers on Apple's iOS operating system for iPhones.
Both companies said they will "engage constructively" with the CMA.
Apple said it disagreed with the findings and said it was concerned that the recommendations would undermine user privacy and security.
Google said the openness of its Android mobile operating system "has helped to expand choice, reduce prices and democratize access to smartphones and apps" and that it's "committed to open platforms that empower consumers."
It's the latest move by regulators on both sides of the Atlantic to crack down on the... Read More