BBC announces the closure of the Digital Media Initiative | Hacker News Reader

BBC announces the closure of the Digital Media Initiative

bbc.co.uk

49 pointsnyodeneD25 comments

I was working at the BBC at the time this was first suggested (on web stuff, not video) and saw the edges of this project. From the start it felt like the start of a good idea, but with a huge remit and no focus.

The idea of being able to edit video locally using a low quality version of the file, seems like a good one. All the rendering is done on high end servers working at full capacity with no wasted machines. Users can edit from their desktop without having to use a high end machine too. Until you talk to anyone who works in video - how can they be sure the video is lit, focused and presented correctly without viewing the source file. And the process of uploading files, waiting for edit versions and downloading the final files, even over a decent connection added huge overhead.

Felt like there wasn't enough discussion with the actual teams that would use this.

But as I say, I was not involved nor did it affect me and my team directly so I could be way off in my very small view of the project.

I was involved, but on the BBC Worldwide side. I had numerous meetings with the core BBC public service team working on this, over a period of about two years.

Each one of these meetings simply felt like going over the same ground, and any feedback we'd given regarding what would work for BBCW was either forgotten or ignored. In the end we just forged ahead with our own digital projects as the business required.

I must admit I'm not surprised this project has been shut down.

The irony is that we (the company I work for) already do low-resolution web-based proxy editing. The BBC has know about us since 2006 - we were even part of the original DMI tender process, but have been sidelined through all of that, with preferred vendors and consultants taking over (actually, we were also part of two of the six large-consultancy bids on the second round, but that tender was again dropped when Siemens were idiotically awarded the contract instead).

You're absolutely right about proxy content not being right for all markets - especially Drama - but it's not just a question of getting a good enough quality encode. If you don't have a calibrated display on your BBC desktop, then it's pretty meaningless. We are used as a production tool for logging and rough-cut editing on high shooting ratio (typically reality) programmes before an offline edit, and will save a lot of hours in editing suite time.

The DMI has been in the way of us being able to sell to the BBC for many years now, even though it has been a ghost ship for most of the last year. We were unsurprisingly delighted (as a company, of course, not as licence payers) that it has been officially dropped today.

I'd be interested to know what technology platform was being used. Around the time this project was being commissioned, the UK govt and the BBC were VERY close to Microsoft.

As part of the NHS's connecting for health project, a huge amount of money was spent on MS licenses and associated infrastructure.

Time to make public these contracts with Siemens and see what's what. Like that's going to happen...

Here's a hint.

http://mediasmiths.com/portfolio/bbc-digital-media-initiativ...

Wonder how long that page will stay up for.

This page seems mainly concerned with Fabric, the part of the 'initiative' that appears to be working.

Which was largely non-video related, and implemented on IBM WebSphere

Payers of the licence fee would appreciate more of this kind of information, thanks

There's a bit more info from somebody on the inside over at http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1eyrdo/bbc_ab...

£100m? That just isn't OK, I wonder who will be losing their job.

Probably no-one, there will be a lot of "lessons learned" though.

The failed NHS IT project cost over £12 billion: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/sep/22/nhs-it-project...

Not entirely accurate - components of that programme (eg PACS and the Spine) are successes. Not to say that on their own they're worth £12bn, but it's not true to say that the £12bn was completely wasted.

No-one - it's the civil service. (The BBC pretend they aren't, but they are, just as much as the NHS)

For context, the BBC got £3.7 billion from the licence fee in the 2011-2012 financial year. £100M over a few years is certainly poor, but it's not disastrous.

I just assumed all major broadcasters were digital now...does this mean they are still recording and editing in analog?

Almost certain it's all digital now. This project was an end-to-end workflow tool that was intended to work through the entire organisation.

They are digital but most are far from tapeless.

From a Post-Production point of view, we deliver very, very few programmes as files. It's all generally still on tape, and at the moment HDCamSR or HDCam in the main.

The Digital Production Partnership[1] looks to be changing that. All the major UK broadcasters working together to a common set of specifications, who'd have thought?

In Channel 5's delivery specifications they state that after July 1st, 2013 they will no longer accept tapes. We'll see.....

[1]http://www.digitalproductionpartnership.co.uk

They are, but this was about ingesting and sharing all video throughout the business. So if you shot a clip in Scotland I would be able to access and use the clip in London, working first with a low quality version, before getting a render farm to spit out the HQ video.

Perhaps a slight bit of irony there that the TLA of "Fabric Archive Database" is FAD.

Is the produced code open sourced or publicly downloadable? That's possibly what BBC should do, providing £100M actually produced something worth open sourcing.

It's very unlikely to be useful, unless you are running the same platform and have an interest in implementing business rules for the same use cases as the BBC have. Much of the interesting functionality will have been licenced from outside providers, and most of the cost will have been paying Siemens, paying Siemens to cancel the contract, and other staff and consultant fees.

There's a damning inspector general report on this, dating back to 2011:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/c...

Here's a key conclusion, along the themes of "this is what happens when the people with the money don't really understand what the developers are doing":

The BBC transferred too much financial risk to the contractor, Siemens, given the level of technological innovation involved. This approach meant that that BBC did not have a good enough understanding of the contractor’s design and development work, and was unable to intervene effectively even when it knew delivery was at risk. This resulted in a two year delay in securing the technology for the Programme. We welcome the BBC’s commitment to consider more carefully the appropriate degree of risk transfer for future contracts. It should have a close understanding of the design and development approach being taken by a contractor and should retain the ability to intervene without waiting for non-delivery or contract termination.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com