Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Searchable Audio/Video Technology

Posted by michael on from the locate-oprah dept.

wyldchild37 writes: "Business 2.0 has an article on an interesting new technology - TV That Works Like the Web. A new startup wants to make all television content archived, indexed, and searchable."

9 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. Not Again... by krmt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Didn't we hear about interactive TV before? Isn't that garbage over? Granted, TiVo is fairly popular, and it deserves it, but everyone I know wants to sit in front of their TV and be a vegetable. That's what it's good at, and that's what people use it for. This one'll sink because people would rather be lazy.

    --

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

    1. Re:Not Again... by rde · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why not the computer then?

      Because people are lazy. Given the choice of sitting on their arses and seeing our heroes in glorious high definition is easier than booting, logging on, downloading...

      All this assumes the internet as it is now, of course. For always-on users with speedy access, the computer is as easy. But for the drooling masses television is the first port of call, and if it's available on TV it's not needed elsewhere.

      Also: in the above example, a lengthy search wouldn't be necessary. Interactive->Entertainment->Hot Love Story. Three presses.

      Producers have spent decades making TV the exact opposite of interactive, and they've done an admirable job of it. I know of no better way to kill your mind than TV, even drugs don't do the job as well or as easily.
      QED.

  2. This would be kinda cool. by GuNgA-DiN · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since the advent of the Web, I find myself wishing more and more physical media was indexed and searchable.

    Ever read "Fellowship of the Ring" and wish you could search the book you're holding? Or watched a bunch of shows end wish you could grep for something you remembered hearing?

    As the TV/Computer/Film merge and become more dense we need better ways to pick out pertinent information 'nuggets'. Otherwise, it is just information overload.

  3. Pipe dream by Supa+Mentat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok, I've got well over three hundred channels, a friend of mine has over eight hundred, all of these are constantly putting out new content simultaneously. I cannot begin to imagine the resources that it would take to record this all and then storing it, say digitally, would be a storing all the data that _three_ atom smashers pump out (a shitload of information, and an exageration on my part). There's also the issue of intellectual property, they're gonna have to get more licenses than I want to even begin counting. This seems like an incredibly naieve (sp?) dream. PS first _real_ post. I had to say it I'm sorry.

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
    1. Re:Pipe dream by limber · · Score: 2, Interesting

      hmm. I don't think the resources are 'unimaginable', just ridiculously, ridiculously big. A (really) rough back of the envelope type of calculation on what storage resources might be required:

      - Let's say a DVD holds 8 hours of acceptable quality video.
      - this translates to 15.9 gigs I think? (someone please correct me on the specs if incorrect, I don't even own a DVD player)(what the heck, it'll only be an order of magnitude error or so)
      - TV is what, 75 years old?
      - Assume there have been 1000 channels in the history of tv, even though there are doubtless more now, but obviously less in 1950.

      So 3 DVDs or 48gigs = 1 day of storage for 1 channel.

      48gigs* 365 * 75 * 1000
      = (hmm, where's that calculator)

      1,314,000,000 gigs
      =1314000 terabytes
      =1314 petabytes
      =1.3 exabytes

      (I think. Ahem. Please correct any gross errors in translation/calculation. Don't ask me to land the Mars Observer.)

      For comparison, George Gilder notes that a study showed that the total traffic for the Net was about 1 petabyte a month. (I know, the real figure for comparison would be, 'how many terabytes does the Net contain?' I don't have time for that search! Anyone?)

      Terabyte servers are in use now; it's within the realm of possibility to imagine a million of them. Chuck in the hard drive equivalent of Moore's Law, a breakthrough in holographic techniques, ("Windows 2010 requires a minimum of 1 terabyte of hard disk space...") and hey, you could maybe make some half-assed attempts at this 10 years down the road.

      Of course that's just the storage calculation. I've ignored the gross problems of:
      -digitizing all the historical stuff on tape
      -indexing it all with at least an IMDB-style header of metadata. Full text search would be nice too :-) (hey, a bonus from closed captioning)
      -providing adequate last-mile bandwidth so that 200 million americans can surf different tv programs simultaneously (trust George Gilder!)
      -the IP issues: how hollywood, the courts, and popular sentiment will interact to drive this thing forward.

  4. Fairness by Spoh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If it were implemented, how useful would the tools provided be? This raises the same questions as a Google or an IMDB:

    1) Will the database be open to _all_ content providers, or just big-media?

    2) Will search results be fairly reported, or will they be skewed by paid placement?

    I dug around Dremedia.com looking for answers, but couldn't find anything. Has anyone read anything relevant to this?

    -Tom

  5. not exactly news by markj02 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This kind of work has been going on at CMU, IBM, MIT, and several startups (including Virage) for a number of years. For broadcast TV, you don't even need speech recognition, you can simply use the closed captioning and programming information.

    I don't see this being a big hit with home users: the whole point about TV is to be able to lean back and enjoy the show without fiddling around. Finding and arranging video clips is a lot of effort. People who want to jump around and interact are better served with a combination of text, images, and links to video clips, like what you find on today's news sites.

  6. Finally we can watch a series in the right order! by Mandelbrute · · Score: 3, Interesting
    A lot of Australian TV stations show various programs (eg. B5, Jonathon Creek Mysteries) in the wrong order - or several hours after the correct time to allow more airtime of male footballers dressing up in womens clothing.

    It's a bit disconcerting to watch one episode of a program where the two main characters are sleeping together, and then watch another the next week where they are complete strangers that don't meet until the end of the episode.

  7. Where's Google? by clambert · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Based on Google's latest jump into the catalog market, it won't be long before we start hitting tv.google.com to catch up on our favorite shows.

    --
    mailto:<?=implode("@", array("chris", implode(".", array("php", "net"))))?>