Yep – they’re on the way. Discovery TV and ESPN are already on board, and about ten more players are set to begin broadcasts later this year, according to an expert in the field. And that expert, Noam Shalev of Highlight Films, is ready for the world of tomorrow with a new and better – and cheaper – way to develop content for 3D TV broadcasts. In fact, he says, his company is already working on a deal to produce a 3D TV series for a “large nature broadcaster than is going to begin 3D broadcasts. The series will be filmed underwater, showing viewers a dimension of underwater life they have never seen before,” Shalev says.

Bet you won’t think you don’t need a 3D TV when that series comes out!

While you would think that 3D technology – whether in the production of the technology or the content for broadcasts – would be an affair for Japan and Hollywood, it turns out that Israeli ingenuity has gained an important foothold in several aspects, both on the hardware, software, and even content ends -  of the coming 3D revolution. For Shalev’s Highlight Films, that foothold comes in the form of a better – and especially cheaper – way to produce 3D content.

“The rule of thumb in the industry is that the cost of 3D production is at least three times the cost of standard, 2D production,” says Shalev. “Through judicious use and unorthodox tweaking of the available tools, software and hardware, we’ve been able to reach the same professional results that large studios have, at a much higher cost.”

Shalev, who has been in the movie production business for 19 years, both inside and outside of Israel, has been working with his head of production, Aviv Peres (no relation), to develop the unique workflow that enables them to deliver 3D content for as little as half of what other major players in the field can. “We deliver by far the best quality at a price no one can touch, from what I can tell, and I know the industry well,” Shalev says. Besides the aformentioned TV series on underwater life, Shalev is also producing a full-length 3D movie on the Dead Sea – the first ever made about that body of water – which will be Israel’s entry into the New Seven Wonders of the World contest.

It’s important to note, however, that Shalev hasn’t exactly invented something new; call him a technique innovator, instead. “The cameras and software that go into making a 3D production are very complicated, and new stuff is coming out all the time,” he says. “The only way to learn how to do what we do is to work with the equipment and software.” While, in time, he expects other producers to be able to duplicate his success, Shalev says that by that time he expects to move ahead of the pack, anyway. “Filming for 3D is much different than filming for 2D, and my camera crews are top-flight, so I would imagine that it would take awhile for competitors to catch up with us.” With that, Shalev is investigating whether his production methods are patentable.

Meanwhile, Shalev has begun producing promotional films and travelogues using his methods, and response has been great, he says, with TV channels and producers around the world expressing interest. You can view some of his movies on the Highlight Films site, although, Shalev says, the standard 3D red and blue paper glasses most people will have as they watch on a small computer screen won’t do his work justice.

An Israeli company that has invented something new in the 3D arena is Elrom Studios, the people that put Hebrew subtitles at the bottom of your favorite movies and TV shows. And, says Noam Gal, Director of the Support Department in Elrom’s Development Group, the company’s already popular ELR Studio package is even more popular, thanks to the addition of support for 3D subtitles.

While there are no plans for 3D TV broadcasts in Israel anytime soon, Gal says, there are plenty of other countries that need subtitling services and software for their 3D broadcasts – and Elrom is ready with a simpler, better and cheaper solution, eliminating the problem of “sinking” subtitles in 3D content. “As the 3D image deepens, the subtitles seem to move backwards, so the viewer feels something is ‘off,’ even if they don’t know exactly what it is,” Gal says. “Our technology more precisely positions the subtitle, keeping it consistent with the video.” It may sound like a minor technical fix, but it’s actually a very significant accomplishment in the subtitle business – an accomplishment that has been generating a lot of interest, Gal says.

And if you are someone who watches TV – or uses a video or stills camera, a computer monitor, or any other device with a screen, you might as well get used to the idea of 3D, Highlight’s Shalev says. “The whole video industry is working on this, and they have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in it already. It’s not just TV,” Shalev says, “it’s the whole array of video products.” And while, for now, you really do need glasses to get the full 3D effect, within two or three years we will begin seeing the first TV sets and screens that let you experience 3D without glasses, he says. It’ll be a whole small world in – not on – the small screen, coming to a screen near you, sooner than you think!

Related articles

• Why NOW is the wrong time to buy a 3D TV (lehsys.com)
• Poll: Can You See 3D TV? (wired.com)
• Sony, Japanese Broadcasters Offer 3-D TV Series (voices.allthingsd.com)

And who are the people we rely on for movie and TV reviews? Well, traditionally, they have been “professional” reviewers writing for newspapers and magazines, or hosting TV or radio shows. For many people (including me), that goes even now, in the internet era; when I want to check out a movie review, for example, I’ll usually surf to Rotten Tomatoes, which gathers up reviews for movies from major newspapers and well-known blog sites. I feel I can “trust” the writers of those reviews.

Until the internet, most publications restricted their reviews to entertainment items – movies, plays, music, etc. But there was surprisingly little peer-review of consumer items (except for cars). What did you do if you wanted to know whether a particular TV set, video camera, refrigerator, etc. was worth the money? Why, you’d “shop around” – a term which consumers took to mean doing things like asking friends, quizzing salespeople, etc. But for the most part, buying a major appliance was an act of faith, because there were only a limited number of friends who probably bought the same item you were interested in – and of course, the salesperson wasn’t going to knock his/her own product.

But today, when you can ask anyone you want about anything, you’re not limited to checking out an item among people you personally know; you can find out what people think about consumer items on thousands of websites, where millions of people have posted tens of millions of opinions on hundreds of millions of items! Theoretically, no one should ever make a mistake buying anything anymore; when considering a product, all one has to do these days is check out the internet and see what “the cloud” has to say about the item in question. No longer does spending money have to be an act of faith; all you have to do is take your own online poll of what others who have spent money on the same item you’re considering say. How can you go wrong?

Here’s how: Have you ever posted an online review at a site like Amazon? Probably not; most people don’t unless they have some kind of motivation. Amazon.com has become one of the premier review sites for products of all kinds today. The site sells everything, and the product page (for every product) has useful information of all types about what you’re buying – including, and most important for our purposes, reviews of the product.

Who’s doing the posting? Well, we assume it’s people who have bought the item. But how do we know? Maybe a negative review was posted by someone working for a company making a rival product who is seeking to push sales in their direction – or who is afraid of losing their job?

While it’s hard to believe that someone would bother “gaming” review sites like this, it makes sense when you begin to realize just how pervasive internet shopping is – both for those who buy online and those who check out products on sites like Amazon before buying retail. In one sense, posting a review in an online forum can amount to free advertising – both positive and negative – when used astutely. And apparently there are some who do use review forums astutely, posting reviews for any number of reasons – promotion (self or product), revenge (against hated corporations, etc.), on-line socializing (participating in the “review community”), etc. Doesn’t anyone post a review for its own sake? Of course – but you have to be plenty motivated (or bored, or angry, etc. ) to bother with reviewing products, imho.

The possibility (and possible phenomenon) of product opinion manipulation has been noticed by others – including noted author Stephen Dubner, who co-wrote the book Freakonomics. Dubner notes in a blog posting that he checked out one particular reviewer whom he says, redates reviews in order to keep them near the top of the review list of chronological reviews on Amazon (the left review column), as well as on top of the overall review list for a product (the right review column). “I noticed this only because the same two-star review of Freakonomics kept magically appearing near the top of the reviews page,” Dubner writes, adding that the reviewer, for his own motives, posted a negative review of his book which, citing a scholarly study, may have impacted online sales.

I checked out the reviewer in question and discovered that, indeed, he was at the top of the Freakonomics review list – as well as at the top of reviews on dozens of other pages! Books, movies, CDs – the reviewer in question has over 2,000 to his credit, many of them quite extensive and well-written. Interestingly, every couple of days, five or six reviews appear under his name, many of them for older movies or books. Is there “redating” of reviews going on, like Dubner says? It’s impossible to know (unless you’re an employee of Amazon and have access to their server data). But it certainly makes you wonder!
This is not to imply any nefarious intent on the part of the reviewer, by the way; his profile indicates that he’s retired, so it’s possible that Amazon reviewing is this gentleman’s second career. But even if he’s on the up and up, is it not possible that others are gaming the system – for fun and profit? Most disturbing to me is the fact that Dubner’s blog posting is from 2005, while the reviewer is still hard at work, with his name still at the top of the review list on all the products he’s reviewed, for all I know (I didn’t check out all the 2100 plus product pages). And he’s not even the number one reviewer on Amazon, meaning that if there are “tactics” at work here, there may be a couple of thousand other people who are using them even more effectively You’d think Amazon would want to do everything it could to assure consumers that they can rely on reviews appearing on product pages. I didn’t look too deeply into other review sites, but if Amazon can be manipulated, others can be as well, cant’ they?

Related articles by Zemanta

• 1 reviews of quirky (rateitall.com)
• okay, let’s review (text-patterns.thenewatlantis.com)

Honestly, are there really any luxuries any more? Cellphones used to be in that category, but since the powers that be have more or less eliminated pay phones, they’ve become a necessity for anyone who has to contact work or home on the road. Cars are a luxury only if you live in the center of Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, and have enough money to take taxis when you need to. Your annual vacation? Absolute necessity – if you want to retain your sanity, that is!

If cutting is out of the question, then maybe “downmarketing” can be an option – for example, using a cheaper product or “house brand.” In some cases, cheaper products are perfectly acceptable substitutes, but in others, the switch isn’t as successful. For example, for gas from discount stations vs. gas from full price stations, substituting works. When it comes to “fake” vs. “real” Bissli, however, it doesn’t.

One area where the cheap – as in free – alternative works as well, or even better, than the full price version, is in the area of satellite/cable TV. Because of the broadcasting and pricing policies of both YES and HOT, and the geopolitics of opinion-making in the Arab world, Israeli consumers can get broadcasts at least as good (some would say better) using a satellite dish and a digital receiver.

As it turns out, the age of terrestrial analog TV broadcasting – where you attach “rabbit ears” to your TV and turn on the set – is almost over anyway. Sometime next year, analog broadcasts of Channels 1, 2, and 10 will be ending, and in order to watch any TV, you will have to shell out for a Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) decoder. Experimental DTT broadcasts began in August, and you can buy decoders (they run between NIS 300 and up, depending on features) in many electronic stores already. Note that as the time for DTT broadcasts to take effect draws near, the price of the decoders is likely to drop.

But if you’re a TV “maven,” you’ve probably subscribed to either YES or HOT, paying upwards of NIS 200 a month for the various “channel packages” the companies are so good at marketing. But what are you getting for your money? Last year’s sitcoms (and a very poor selection of them); endless repeats of B movies (except for a very occasional blockbuster); and, worst of all, endless “promos” for the most tasteless programs that air during prime adult time – broadcast during the hours kids are watching, and even on the channels geared to them! As a (now former) YES subscriber, this was my biggest beef with the company, and it seems to be a concern of many YES customers, based on what people tell me. Since YES and HOT are not allowed to accept ads (yet), I suppose this is their way of “breaking up” their programming. But couldn’t they find a better way?

As it turns out, those same last year’s sitcoms and B movies with the occasional blockbuster – sans the tasteless promos – are available for free to owners of satellite dishes and a satellite receiver, pointed at the southern sky and aimed at the Amos and Nilesat satellites. Amos, Israel’s own communications satellite, carries the satellite broadcasts of Channels 1, 2, 10, the Knesset channel, Middle East TV, and a Russian English language news channel – all free to air (FTA) – while Nilesat carries about 550 FTA channels. Most of them are in Arabic, of course, but about a dozen or so entertainment channels “speak English,” broadcasting the same mix of movies and TV series that you get on the YES and HOT entertainment channels. For free – meaning that there are no subscription fees to pay to anyone; once you pay for the satellite receiver and/or satellite dish, you don’t have to shell out another shekel!

Dubai provides no fewer than six channels with consistent English language programming, including some series available on the YES and HOT channels, and including three movie channels, which to me are indistinguishable from the YES movie channels. In addition to the Dubai FTA channels (their schedules can be seen at http://www.dmi.ae/dubaione/ and http://www.mbc.net), the Fox people provide an entertainment and movie channel (see http://www.foxme.tv/ and http://www.foxmoviestv.com/, click on the “English” button). And, there are a couple of others available as well (see http://www.city7tv.com and http://kuwaitlink.localweb.com/ktv2/).

Along with CNN, Euronews (broadcasting in five languages), several other news stations, and even a couple of sports and children’s channels with partial English language programming – supplementing the regular Israeli TV channels – you’ve got a full and complete TV package, quite similar to what you get with YES and HOT. Minus the tasteless promos (replaced by Arabic language commercials for things like Cadillacs, Doritos, and Kentucky Fried Chicken!), and the price, that is!

The FTA stations broadcasting to the Arab world even include stations that you would have to subscribe to in other parts of the world, like Nickelodeon and MTV Arabia (the latter broadcasting exclusively in English, and a lot less “racy” than other MTV channels). I suppose it’s part of the efforts to “win the hearts and minds” of Arab populations of less than friendly countries – MBC Persia, for example, is designed specifically to deliver Hollywood blockbusters with Farsi subtitles to Iranians. You can certainly see plenty of examples of the radicalism taking hold in Muslim countries on some of the other 525 Arabic language stations (if you’ve ever wanted to watch Hizbullah, Hamas, or Fatah TV, here’s your chance).

You can buy satellite receivers from a number of suppliers, both online and off (http://www.thm.co.il/ sells various models for between NIS 255 and NIS 725). Depending on where you live and how the dish is positioned, you may be able to pick up many Nilesat stations using an 80 centimeter YES dish (if you’re a current customer); YES tends not to remove the dishes when you cancel the service. For guaranteed reception, install a one meter dish (a do-it-yourself kit is NIS 525 at http://www.thm.co.il/; and in any case, you can get the Israeli stations without upgrading the dish). Or for a bit more, you could have a pro put together the system for you. Either way, your ROI (return on investment) will be no more than a few months, taking into account the money you’ll be saving on your cable or satellite subscription. It’s like cutting out a luxury – but getting an even better substitute!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Historic Day for Television/Cable/Web as Comcast Buys NBC from GE (beet.tv)
• Freeview has TV top spot in 10m homes (guardian.co.uk)

Yes they do, but few seem to bother pulling out the camcorder unless it’s a really special occasion. As small and convenient to use as video cameras are nowadays, it seems that they’re still too big and inconvenient for casual, everyday use – and are reserved only for “special” pre-planned occasions. As if baby’s first word (which is anything but preplanned) isn’t special enough!

I bet I’m pretty typical in that I don’t even bother using my camcorder anymore – for anything. Instead, I just pull out m digital camera, which besides shooting still photos, can also do video. In fact, a camera’s video capabilities has become, for me, one of the key features I look for nowadays. Recently I got a Kodak EasyShare Z712, which takes nice video – and in fact I use it as much for video as for still photography. Now, this camera is by no means one of those mini devices that fit into a pocket; it’s more reminiscent of a full size SLR, and it’s only slightly smaller than the Samsung camcorder that we have lying around somewhere (I use it so rarely I’ve lost track of where I put it!).

So it’s not just about size – it’s about convenience, too. But what about quality? Aren’t camcorders better than digital cameras for taking video? Yes they are, but for most everyday home shooting, the extra quality available with the camcorder gets trumped by the convenience of the digital camera. The buttons on the digital camera are easier to use, and the wheel selection for type of picture is pretty intuitive (although I think there are too many selections, as I usually stick to that standard settings anyway). Even in the case of the slightly smaller digital camera, the form factor makes a difference. And, I found, the ability of the camcorder to take photos wasn’t enough to make me want to use it exclusively. And, the Kodak takes far better photos and video than I could get with my cellphone, another option for taking video on the fly, and is a lot easier to snap pictures or video with.

Speaking for myself, then, convenience – the ease of use, and the size, is what I base a decision on which device to take with me on a family outing. But now there’s a third choice – not quite a camcorder, but no digital still photos. It’s called the Flip and it’s taken America by storm. It’s the top selling single video camera in the U.S. today – having taken 13% of the market – and selling like hotcakes. And, it’s only $129 at Amazon.

The original Flip runs on 2 AA batteries, is about 4 inches high, and weighs about 3 ounces (smaller than many cellphones!). Last week, the company announced a newer, even smaller version called the Flip Mineo. that uses rechargeable batteries. It’s not available in Israel yet – indeed, most Israelis haven’t even heard of it – but come September, after vacation season, you”ll for sure be seeing lots of them at your kids’ next school play.

So what’s behind the charm of the Flip? For one thing, Oprah, as in Winfrey, America’s talk show goddess. Oprah introduced the Flip to America last year on her daily syndicated TV show (http://tinyurl.com/29keok) and – well, flipped over the Flip. Oprah liked the Flip for the same reason I like my digital camera – small, easy to use, and decent quality video.

The most convenient thing about the Flip is the way you transfer video to your computer. All video is recorded and stored on a 2 GB memory card, sufficient for about an hour’s worth of video. To transfer the video to your PC (it works with Macs, too, but some users have had trouble with using the Flip video with iMovie), where you can watch it, transfer it to a DVD (using a program that will convert the video from its native MPEG-4 format), or upload it to Youtube or Myspace directly (a feature provided by the Flip’s included software). You can also connect it to a TV to watch fresh video on the big(ger) screen. The videos themselves are shot in full frame VGA (640 x 480), 30 frames/sec (constant frame-rate), progressive scan. And when you’re done filming, you just slide out the built-in USB connector, insert it into your computer, and copy it to your hard drive.

The reports on the Flip’s video quality have been mixed, although most buyers realize they are not going to get the same quality as they would with a thousand dollar camcorders. Many users say the Flip performs well in low light situations, but not in heavy zoom situations (its zoom is only 2X, anyway). For most people, according to dozens of review web sites, the simplicity (there are four buttons to choose from, and that’s it) and the convenience (fits into a pocket easily) of the Flip is enough to get them to plunk down their money.

What most of these buyers probably didn’t realize before buying a Flip is that their digital camera most likely has the same capabilities as the new device – if not more capabilities. The specs for my Kodak, for example, also offers ull frame VGA (640 x 480), 30 frames/sec (constant frame-rate), progressive scan – plus QVGA. It can also take up to 80 minutes of video on a 2GB SD/MMC card – but you can flip out the card and put another one in if you want to take more video than the memory card has space for before you unload it onto a computer. Not to mention its – are you ready? – 12X optical and 4.2X advanced digital zoom, with a total zoom range of 50X. And, of course, a 7.1 multipixel still camera thrown into the bargain (on the other hand, the Kodak is $188 at Amazon, as opposed to the cheaper Flip). So is a Flip worth the money? Well, before you buy, you can try and see how easy it is to deal with Flip sized and quality video – by using your digital camera to take video. Maybe you’ll decide you have enough gadgets anyway, and that you can use that $129 for some other hobby – like eating!