Trimming Television to Sell More Ads

gambit3 writes: "Tech TV has an article about a device called a "Digital Time Machine", that does something called "Time Trimming", which is basically a way to cut single frames from different scenes in TV programs, which, over the course of a 30 minute program, can add up to 30 seconds, which is, incidentally, the perfect length to add ANOTHER commercial."

Sounds like "Cash" on radio

[sulli]

It compresses the audio, taking out blank space, to fit in between 30 sec - 2 min an hour. Rush Limbaugh among others have blasted it for ruining the listener's experience.

PAL Format

[Ooblek]

They would probably have to be pretty selective in trimming frames in places where PAL is the video standard (Europe). It might make the show look like a bad Wang Chung video.

If the show is running in NTSC, they could probably get a lot more out of it than 30 seconds.

The problem with these types of "automagic" machines is that it can never do it perfectly. HP has a device that fits in 1U on a rack and it will force video into your programmed specifications. We used to use it when transferring rented videos into an online editor so that we could cut preview spots together for DTV. The problem is that the video usually looked like crap after it was transferred. I'm sure it didn't make a good case for purchasing the pay-per-view version of it.

This could actually be good

[QuasEye]

Think about it - it's commonplace now to re-edit shows for syndication. Lots of times they cut out a whole gag on The Simpsons to get more commercial time. If they can garner the same amount just by removing the occasional barely-perceptible frame of deadwood, I say go for it. On the other hand, if this is implemented as making every transition between scenes sudden and jolting, it will be much less preferable.

And it has already gotten in trouble...

[pixphys]

http://www.uniontrib.com/news/computing/20011108-1 353-compressedgame.html> [uniontrib.com]

Where's my time-compressing pitch-shifting tivo?

[SuperKendall]

This is only vaguely on topic, but what I don't understand is why no PVR maker offers this feature - let me adjust the playing speed from -100% to +100% (possibly faster), pitch shifting the sound back to normal (just like most voice-mail systems let you do now).

I'd be more keen to watch some things if they'd take a lot less time - I think I might not even skip ads if I was watching at 200% normal speed.

Am I wrong, and Tivo or RePlay offers this feature already?
.

Re:Yep nothing new

[thogard]

The time modifed means they may have cut out entire scenes.

Many years ago you would offten find M*A*S*H running at one of the time slots between the 5:00 and 6:30 news. The reason is that it had so many sub plots they could cut out huge amounts of it. It started out as a 30 minute show and I've seen it run in 1/2 that. I was told that a TV station would get the show from the distributers, it would be sorted by run lenght and so if they ran the news over by 7.5 minutes, they could go pull out a shortend show and then they would be back in time for the all importaint 7:00 primetime network slots. This became very clear when they showed the same epposide two days in a row and they were different cuts.

time compression

[abraxas]

Imagine working for a movie studio taking older films and time compressing them to make them more palatable to today's market. Punch up slow scenes with digital effects such as camera jitter, zoom and cut, or any of a dozen very accepted post-modern camera techniques to increase the cut pace.

I can't take credit for the idea but when I read this in a science fiction novel years ago, it really made me wonder what the average attention span will be in twenty or thirty years.

old hat

[the bluebrain]

I remember in '86 or '87 seeing a program on TV (ironically) about speeding up films on TV to make room for advertising. They had a nice comparison between Humphry Bogart smoking in "Casablanca" at "true speed" and "on speed" (weeeeee!). The latter looked ... unreal - but just in direct comparison mind you.
'Course - I have no link, because them there were (gasp) pre-web days.
Kind of an obvious use of vid-tech though, innit?

It's better than the alternative

[ColaMan]

I'd prefer it to drop a few frames here and there than drop whole scenes.

I noticed this scene-dropping one day on a re-run of "the simpsons" ... some scenes had been removed - it was quite noticeable (and irritating).

But still, yet another ad can be squeezed in. I can't wait.

A few more years, and broadcast TV everywhere will be all shot to hell. The only channels left worth watching in Australia are the ABC (which doesn't have ads, being gov't funded),and SBS (who at least lumps their ads together at the end of each show). The other 3 networks are crap, with over-sensationalised news (how many more "shocking","horrific" news stories can there be?) and it seems more ads than content.

Who's up for making the next slashdot on the internet2 with video comments instead? Count me in :-)

video speed

[AdamBa]

is actually 29.97 frames/second, that is exactly 0.1% less than 30 fps. Actually it technically runs at 59.94 half-frames per second. Anyway, when you convert a movie for TV you take it from 24 frames per second to 60 half-frames per second, then you have to lose 0.1% of the frames to get it down to the proper speed. This is considered unnoticeable and there is a standard for which ones to axe (in an hour, with 108,000 frames, you need to get rid of 108. The convention used is to get rid of the first two frames of every minute that is not a multiple of ten). But this device here is trying to lose more than 16 times as many frames, even to only cut out 30 seconds in 30 minutes. That might be noticed.

- adam

Television Subscription service? or Spam service?

[M3shuggah]

I just had an epiphany! What if we had the option to pay a flat fee per month for more than basic air reception service?... oh yeah, it's called a CABLE BILL.

But wait, with this service it is atleast 1/3 unsolicited forced "spam!"

I understand commercials are a necessary evil that we have become acoustomed to, but why can't I have the option to pay a little bit extra for no commercials. Here's how I think the ideal situation would work...

Most television programs are filmed where approx. ten minutes of every thirty minutes are for commercial sponsors. Why not play the programs back to back, and be able to broadcast three episodes in the place of two episodes with commercials. Hopefully the concept would catch the attention of the masses and have a wide subscription clientele to make up the lost revenue brought in from commercials.

I realize that there wouldn't be much incentive for any parties other than the consumer, but I can dream - can't I?

Of course, it is patented.

[zeiche]

So another company has been awarded a patent for a device that has existed for more than a decade. Only time will tell when they sue Lexicon for enabling 1" type-C machines with the same capability. Or does the fact that it handled digitally make the idea completely different? This is not novel, folks. The shifting up-and-down you've been seeing for years on TBS SuperStation is time compression. And before you jump on the "delay" feature, that has been done too with even older "quad" format. (Klunky, but it worked.) I'd love to see Lexicon go after these guys. RCA can't because their "delay" was well over 20 years ago.

30 minute Shows??

[christooley]

How many half hour shows actually have 30 minutes of the show to compress? Aren't most shows only 20-24 minutes anyway? That means you're not going get a full commercial in every show unless they are going to compress commercials as well. Which means there are probably going to be some upset advertisers.

Re:Just what we need.

[klparrot]

So which frames are they cutting, and do they plan to cut the audio too?

I would imagine the difference would be virtually unnoticeable if they cut out the first and/or last frames of each scene. Thing is, the number of scene changes varies significantly depending on the show, and the process could be difficult to automate (fast action could be mistaken for a scene change, and that's the last place you want to pull frames). Also, now that I think about it, this method probably won't get 30 seconds of extra time per 30 minute show.

To get 30 seconds out of a 30 minute show (which is really only 22 minutes long plus commercials), you have to remove one out of every 44 frames. By timing them right, it shouldn't be noticeable in most shows. The audio is analog, so it should squash without a noticeable loss in quality. As much as I hate the principle of this thing, I don't think we can complain on grounds of it decreasing the audio/video quality of our shows.

I know nothing at all about tv stuff, but..

[superpeach]

Wouldn't the people who sell their programs (for whom I cant think of a name for at this time of night) to TV broadcasting companies not like this little bit of technology very much? Would they be able to sue if a TV station used it to modify, although only very slighty, the program which they were meant to air?

For the viewer there would probably be no noticeable difference unless you closely examined the whole unedited program all the way through beforehand.. but for the big companies selling their shows it seems like it could be another chance to sue someone and get some extra spending money.

They aren't pointless at all.

[mindstrm]

The Slash summary is just misleading as usual.

These devices are used in order to compress a program into the right amount of time so you CAN put the required amount of commericals in.

It's not at *all* a way to 'scam' the consumer into watching more commercials.. just a way to 'shorten' a show so it fits your schedule.

Canadian stations use this too, you can bet on it.

Reminds of good old days in Hong Kong

[shri]

The cinemas in Hong Kong would run the western movies at about 22-24 frames/second to speed up the movies. They would also cut out scenes where there was a lot of "dialog". God forbid anyone would really want to listen to the movie. :)

Re:Not new stuff...

[Abstrakt]

This particular machine has been around for a long time.

True... The actual device might be a new/fancier model, but the practice of time-compression has been around for many years. You'd think the folks at TechTV would know this, being broadcasters themselves.

Many TV shows in syndication (such as The Simpsons and Seinfeld) are routinely time-compressed to squeeze in an extra commercial spot. But the butchering of TV shows does not stop here unfortunately... Usually syndicators will also edit out a brief scene or two from each episode, in order to gain even more commercial time.

Needless to say, "artistic integrity" has never been part of a syndicator's vocabulary...

Cheers.

Re:Just what we need.

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

As much as I hate the principle of this thing, I don't think we can complain on grounds of it decreasing the audio/video quality of our shows.

The audio or video quality, no. The dramatic quality (such as it is) is another thing entirely. I don't know if losing one frame out of 44 can really alter our perception of a dramatic pause -- are there any editor/director types who claim that sort of precision? But that's not the issue.

It's another 30 seconds out of 30 minutes that you're not watching the program. It stretches out the commercial breaks by padding them even more. This in turn adds to the break in dramatic continuity and of course makes it even more tempting to just walk away and do something else during the commercial break -- perhaps indeed during the rest of the show.

I mean, I already notice how excruciatingly long commercial breaks are now. It's getting to where you can forget what you're watching, for the love of Pete. This is just another way for broadcast TV to commit suicide in slow motion.

Re:Pointless device in Canada

[klparrot]

To my knowledge, PBS doesn't receive government funding, though. Some of my Canadian tax dollars help pay for the CBC. In the UK, the TV licence fees pay for the BBC. I think when Ubergrendle said "public broadcaster," he meant funded by the government.

Really, the only difference between PBS and the other networks is that PBS gets its money by begging its viewers. Thanks, but I actually find commercials less annoying.

Re:Pointless device in Canada

[xah]

The US Government does fund public broadcasting, including both PBS and NPR, with the "Corporation for Public Broadcasting," or CPB. The CPB is a quasi-governmental agency. Thus, Congress does not have a direct say in how CPB spends its money. A few years ago, however, the Rush Limbaugh types raised a stink over the CPB funding the supposedly liberal programs on PBS and NPR. I guess they never heard of the McLaughlin Group or Louis Ruykeyser. Public broadcasting is different in America, because in America there is no official "voice of the government" directed at citizens. We only direct the Voice of America at the rest of the world.

It is noticeable

[copyconstructor]

I've noticed this since at least Sept 9, 1999 - see this rec.arts.tv posting:

What's going on? Are they removing frames? [google.com]

I've even started noticing it on video rentals.

Since it seems this doesn't bother too many people other than myself, I guess the networks will get even more brazen in the future. Who knows what else they'll come up with to sacrifice quality for a few more bucks. Oh well, I suppose it's had a good effect for me personally in that I don't watch TV any more because of it, but I sure do miss it sometimes.

Re:So what's wrong with this?

[wadetemp]

Yeah, like you won't notice if coca-cola starts putting 1/60 more water in their coke. Ask yourself why they don't do it.

I am positive I wouldn't notice if they started putting more water in thier Coke. I'm not going to ask myself why they don't do it, though, because if I don't notice, how do I know they aren't? :) You've proved my point quite well.

Re:Just what we need.

[Anne_Nonymous]

Yeah, when I'm 85 and dying in some smelly nursing home someplace, I really want to remember the good times I had watching 18.5 minutes of Sienfeld and 11.5 minutes of commercials every day after work.

Pardon my cynicism tonight, but anybody who watches tv deserves just what they get.

Video Timing

[hanway]

It's funny to hear some people's reactions as if this is the first time anyone has disturbed the pristine timing of their television shows.

Consider all theatrical releases and most high-budget television drama that's shot on 24fps film: when shown at 30fps NTSC, it goes through 3:2 pulldown, which out of necessity assigns a varying number of video fields to each frame. Oddly enough, the resulting effect gives the material a "film look" that is usually considered a good thing. In fact, some processes exist that attempt to give a similar look to shows that are shot on video.

And when the same 24fps film is broadcast in a PAL country at 25fps, all the broadcaster usually does is just speed up the film! That's much more drastic than removing selected frames, yet does playing the film 4% faster destroy it's dramatic value? Probably not, although it seems like musicals would suffer.

Game Show Network

[Krellan]

This is very common on the Game Show Network, and has been going on for months.

Note all the complaining about their "time machine" in the newsgroup [google.com].

It is especially noticeable during Press Your Luck, due to the fast repetitive action of the game board. Michael Larsen [gscentral.net] would have a hard time using his VCR to beat the game today, as the frames now don't appear as smoothly and consistently as they once did!

Another technique used....

[DiveX]

Another techniques used by radio broadcasters is to speed up music by 3-4%. This over time gives a lot more room for more commercials or even more songs (since many stations promote X number of songs per hour).

One poster mentioned that this could be used on commercials, thus giving space for more commercials, but this technique would not be allowed. The contracts (at least those that I have seen) stipulate that such measures cannot be taken during their commercials, but that is not usually the case for music.

I worked in the IT department of a local radio network that owned several local stations (I left when Clear Channel bought them out) for a couple of years.

Re:Restoring Homer

[thesolo]

Every episode of "The Simpsons" broadcast in syndication has a few scenes cut for insertion of extra commercials. I wouldn't mind if they ran this process on each episode if it meant they were able to give us back those scenes.

Good luck, but you will most likely never see those scenes in syndication.

Not only do they cut out several (of the arguably funniest) scenes per episode, but they also fade out to commercials ridiculously early; I mean they don't even allow the scene to properly end. They will literally fade the audio out in mid-sentence of the last line of the scene, so that they can start the commercials earlier.

If that wasn't enough, they then split-screen the ending credits so that they can show ads on half of the screen! This is especially frustrating since the Simpsons often puts gags in the credits, such as voiceovers, songs, etc., which get completely talked over.

Then, as the coup de grâce, in each of the 3 scenes, they randomly flash a barely translucent "THE SIMPSONS ON FOX" banner over the top 1/4" of the screen, and they randomly put in promos for other shows over the bottom 1/4" of the screen!

...And Fox wonders why so many people are trying to download copies of the original episodes online...

Re:Sounds like "Cash" on radio

[gnovos]

People, I can't emphasize this enough: The radio stations are there to make money for Clear Channel stockholders, not as some charity to provide the best possible experience for Rush's listeners.

Any other medium, I would agree, but those airwaves belong to the people, friend. If they are going to take them away from us, they had better provide a little quality...

nothing new

[ProfKyne]

This is nothing new -- they've been doing it for years. Compressing the film by a few seconds (by speeding it up slightly), then flanging the audio down a bit so that the actors' voices don't sound strangely higher than usual. I learned about it a few years ago in some Communication classes, and then noticed it when I saw "Christmas Vacation" on TV. After having seen the movie at least 50 times on video (at the intended speed), I noticed that the timing of the dialogue just seemed "off" somehow. By halfway through the movie I was really unnerved -- it was so strange to hear something that should be familiar, and somehow was familiar, played just a little too fast to be familiar.

That said, I'm glad that this kind of thing is getting more coverage -- it takes an already ad-saturated medium and makes it worse! (One of the reasons I tend to shun the box, but then I bet everyone on /. says that.)

Speeding up movies. OT story

[tetranz]

Hearing talk of speeding up audio and video reminds me of my dad's story of when he was a projectionist in a small movie theatre in New Zealand in the 1950s when electricity was in short supply (why the shortage I'm not sure). The movies were timed to end before 10 pm when there was always a planned power cut. Things didn't always go to plan. If it became clear that they weren't going to make it in time then the only options were to increase the projector speed or miss the end of the movie. Some movies ended at double normal speed :-)

Re:More...

[iamplasma]

You clearly don't watch cricket. We've had plenty of scandals with mikes being on when people didn't realise it.

These have ranged from swearing, insulting players, to worse. In one case, they had a camera looking at the church next to the ground where a couple happened to be having a wedding, and one of the commentators, not realising his mike was on, said it looked like it was a fraudulent "mail-order" marriage.