DOCSLIB.ORG

Preferred, Obsolete Or In-Between? Developing a Criteria

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Preferred, Obsolete Or In-Between? Developing a Criteria Preferred, Obsolete or In-Between? Developing a Criteria Catalogue for AV-Material Preservation Planning at the German National Library of Science and Technology (TIB) // ABSTRACT // RESULTS // CONCLUSION The born-digital audio-visual (AV) holdings • files need to be valid of the German National Library of Science preferred • lack of (open source) AV validation and Technology are analyzed regarding the software present file formats. The most frequent AV • testing render ability cannot replace file formats are examined in terms of validation [1]. suitability as preservation format based on a catalogue of criteria. Furthermore their accepted MKV, ffv1 Vs 3, PCM risk of obsolescence is evaluated using // FUTURE WORK view paths. The examined file formats are obsolete established • evaluate if view paths add a crucial value not preferred as preservation formats, but in order to determine the right time for MPEG-4, AVC, AAC Vs 4 they are not obsolete either. migration WebM, VP8, Vorbis MPEG-PS, MPEG Video • get a deep insight of the equipment and // INTRODUCTION Vs 2, MPEG Audio Vs 1 requirements of the designated Video Audio community Container AV formats Codec Codec • schedule a regular check if the view critical MPEG-4 AVC AAC Vs 4 paths still apply to the designated 27% WebM VP8 Vorbis community MPEG MPEG • establish automated evaluation of (digital MPEG-PS Are the file formats preferred as preservation formats? 57% Video Vs 2 Audio Vs 1 to digital) migration of AV content 8% divers (42 formats) • evaluate if tentatively migrating into a 8% preferred file format can replace Are the file formats obsolete? validation // REFERENCES [1] J. Houpert, P. Melas, W. Bailer, and P. Walland, “Recommendations and techniques for content in a 'born Merle Friedrich [email protected] Orcid: 0000-0001-7158-8583 robust' form,” 2015. Accessed on: Jun. 25 2018. Preservation Planning for Digital Audio-Visual Material at the (TIB): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3386323 Preferred, Obsolete or In-Between? Developing a Criteria Catalogue for AV-Material Preservation Planning at the German National Library of Science and Technology (TIB) // ABSTRACT // CRITERIA CATALOGUE // TO THE RESULTS The born-digital audio-visual (AV) holdings of the German National Library of Science and Technology are analyzed regarding the present file formats. The most frequent AV file formats are examined in terms of suitability as preservation format based on a catalogue of criteria. Furthermore their risk of obsolescence is evaluated using view paths. The examined file formats are not preferred as preservation formats, but they are not obsolete either. // COMMON CRITERIA FOR FILE FORMAT SELECTION • adoption • platform independence • disclosure or documentation • transparency and • metadata support [2]. // REFERENCES [2] M. Todd, “File formats for preservation: Technology Watch Report,” https://www.dpconline.org/component/ Merle Friedrich [email protected] Orcid: 0000-0001-7158-8583 docman/?task=doc_download&gid=375, 2009. Preservation Planning for Digital Audio-Visual Material at the (TIB): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3386323 Preferred, Obsolete or In-Between? Developing a Criteria Catalogue for AV-Material Preservation Planning at the German National Library of Science and Technology (TIB) // ABSTRACT // RESULTS // TIB’S HOLDINGS The born-digital audio-visual (AV) holdings • file format consists of of the German National Library of Science • a container (C), and Technology are analyzed regarding the • a video codec (V) and present file formats. The most frequent AV • an audio codec (A) file formats are examined in terms of • worst weighting is the overall result suitability as preservation format based on • because e.g. a preferred result in Adoption Transparency Platform Independence Disclosure Metadata Support a catalogue of criteria. Furthermore their Format Overall platform independence does not risk of obsolescence is evaluated using C MPEG-4 ++ ++ o + + + compensate a critical result in view paths. The examined file formats are transparency V AVC + ++ - + + - not preferred as preservation formats, but • evaluated file formats are weighted they are not obsolete either. A AAC, Version 4 ++ ++ - + + - critical as preservation format C WebM + ++ o ++ + + // COMMON CRITERIA FOR V VP8 + ++ - + + - FILE FORMAT SELECTION A Vorbis + ++ - + + - • adoption C MPEG-PS ++ + o + + + • platform independence V MPEG Video, Version 2 ++ + - + + - • disclosure or documentation A MPEG Audio, Version 1, Layer 2 ++ + - + + - • transparency and • metadata support [2]. ++ preferred + accepted - critical o not rated // REFERENCES // TO THE CRITERIA [2] M. Todd, “File formats for preservation: Technology Watch Report,” https://www.dpconline.org/component/ Merle Friedrich [email protected] Orcid: 0000-0001-7158-8583 docman/?task=doc_download&gid=375, 2009. Preservation Planning for Digital Audio-Visual Material at the (TIB): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3386323 Preferred, Obsolete or In-Between? Developing a Criteria Catalogue for AV-Material Preservation Planning at the German National Library of Science and Technology (TIB) // ABSTRACT // VIEW PATHS // TIB’S HOLDINGS The born-digital audio-visual (AV) holdings A View path consists of the information on • two view paths for each of the examined of the German National Library of Science • the hardware platform, formats and Technology are analyzed regarding the • the operating system and • view paths work independent from each present file formats. The most frequent AV • the viewer application other file formats are examined in terms of which enables the designated community to access the content of the → no component is used twice suitability as preservation format based on file [5]. • the examined file formats are not a catalogue of criteria. Furthermore their obsolete risk of obsolescence is evaluated using File Operating Viewer view paths. The examined file formats are Hardware System Application not preferred as preservation formats, but Format they are not obsolete either. Intel® Windows Windows Core™ i7- 10, Version Media Player // OBSOLESCENCE MPEG 4, 8700 1803 Version 12 • the risk to become inaccessible [3, p. 93] AVC, to our designated community AAC Vs 4 Intel® Windows 8.1 VLC Media Core™ i5- Pro, Version Player • one factor to measure obsolescence 3470 6.3 Version 2.2.2 → if no rendering software is available [4]. // REFERENCES [3] D. Pearson and C. Webb, “Defining File Format [4] H. M. Ryan, “Who's afraid of File Format [5] J. F. Steenbakkers, “Digital Archiving in the Twenty- Obsolescence: A Risky Journey,” IJDC, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. Obsolescence? Evaluating File Format Endangerment First Century: Practice at the National Library of the 89–106, https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v3i1.44, 2008. Levels and Factors for the Creation of a File Format Netherlands,” Library Trends, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 33–56, Endangerment Index” School of Information and Library http://muse.jhu.edu/article/193231, 2005. Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 2014. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • © 2019 Jimi Jones
    © 2019 Jimi Jones SO MANY STANDARDS, SO LITTLE TIME: A HISTORY AND ANALYSIS OF FOUR DIGITAL VIDEO STANDARDS BY JIMI JONES DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Library and Information Science in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2019 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor Jerome McDonough, Chair Associate Professor Lori Kendall Assistant Professor Peter Darch Professor Howard Besser, New York University ABSTRACT This dissertation focuses on standards for digital video - the social aspects of their design and the sociotechnical forces that drive their development and adoption. This work is a history and analysis of how the MXF, JPEG 2000, FFV1 and Matroska standards have been adopted and/or adapted by libraries and archives of different sizes. Well-funded institutions often have the resources to develop tailor-made specifications for the digitization of their analog video objects. Digital video standards and specifications of this kind are often derived from the needs of the cinema production and television broadcast realms in the United States and may be unsuitable for smaller memory institutions that are resource-poor and/or lack staff with the knowledge to implement these technologies. This research seeks to provide insight into how moving image preservation professionals work with - and sometimes against - broadcast and film production industries in order to produce and/or implement standards governing video formats and encodings. This dissertation describes the transition of four digital video standards from niches to widespread use in libraries and archives. It also examines the effects these standards produce on cultural heritage video preservation by interviewing people who implement the standards as well as people who develop them.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended File Formats for Long-Term Archiving and for Web Dissemination in Phaidra
    Recommended file formats for long-term archiving and for web dissemination in Phaidra Edited by Gianluca Drago May 2019 License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Premise This document is intended to provide an overview of the file formats to be used depending on two possible destinations of the digital document: long-term archiving uploading to Phaidra and subsequent web dissemination When the document uploaded to Phaidra is also the only saved file, the two destinations end up coinciding, but in general one will probably want to produce two different files, in two different formats, so as to meet the differences in requirements and use in the final destinations. In the following tables, the recommendations for long-term archiving are distinct from those for dissemination in Phaidra. There are no absolute criteria for choosing the file format. The choice is always dependent on different evaluations that the person who is carrying out the archiving will have to make on a case by case basis and will often result in a compromise between the best achievable quality and the limits imposed by the costs of production, processing and storage of files, as well as, for the preceding, by the opportunity of a conversion to a new format. 1 This choice is particularly significant from the perspective of long-term archiving, for which a quality that respects the authenticity and integrity of the original document and a format that guarantees long-term access to data are desirable. This document should be seen more as an aid to the reasoned choice of the person carrying out the archiving than as a list of guidelines to be followed to the letter.
    [Show full text]
  • FFV1 Video Codec Specification
    FFV1 Video Codec Specification by Michael Niedermayer [email protected] Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Terms and Definitions 2 2.1 Terms ................................................. 2 2.2 Definitions ............................................... 2 3 Conventions 3 3.1 Arithmetic operators ......................................... 3 3.2 Assignment operators ........................................ 3 3.3 Comparison operators ........................................ 3 3.4 Order of operation precedence .................................... 4 3.5 Range ................................................. 4 3.6 Bitstream functions .......................................... 4 4 General Description 5 4.1 Border ................................................. 5 4.2 Median predictor ........................................... 5 4.3 Context ................................................ 5 4.4 Quantization ............................................. 5 4.5 Colorspace ............................................... 6 4.5.1 JPEG2000-RCT ....................................... 6 4.6 Coding of the sample difference ................................... 6 4.6.1 Range coding mode ..................................... 6 4.6.2 Huffman coding mode .................................... 9 5 Bitstream 10 5.1 Configuration Record ......................................... 10 5.1.1 In AVI File Format ...................................... 11 5.1.2 In ISO/IEC 14496-12 (MP4 File Format) ......................... 11 5.1.3 In NUT File Format ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pragmatic Audiovisual Preservation
    http://doi.org/10.7207/twr20-10 Pragmatic Audiovisual Preservation Ashley Blewer DPC Technology Watch Report October 2020 © Digital Preservation Coalition 2020 and Ashley Blewer 2020 ISSN: 2048-7916 DOI: http://doi.org/10.7207/twr20-10 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. The moral rights of the author have been asserted. First published in Great Britain in 2020 by the Digital Preservation Coalition. Pragmatic Audiovisual Preservation Foreword The Digital Preservation Coalition (DPC) is an advocate and catalyst for digital preservation, ensuring our members can deliver resilient long-term access to digital content and services. It is a not-for- profit membership organization whose primary objective is to raise awareness of the importance of the preservation of digital material and the attendant strategic, cultural and technological issues. It supports its members through knowledge exchange, capacity building, assurance, advocacy and partnership. The DPC’s vision is to make our digital memory accessible tomorrow. The DPC Technology Watch Reports identify, delineate, monitor and address topics that have a major bearing on ensuring our collected digital memory will be for the future. They provide an advanced introduction in order to support those charged with ensuring a robust digital memory, and they are of general interest to a wide and international audience with interests in computing, information management, collections management and technology. The reports are commissioned after consultation among DPC members about shared priorities and challenges; they are commissioned from experts; and they are thoroughly scrutinized by peers before being released.
    [Show full text]
  • Ffsake: Further Fluff with Ffmpeg
    ffsake: further fluff with ffmpeg Talking Tech, Spring 2017 2/5/17 Ethan Gates What is ffmpeg? ● Leading open-source framework for processing and manipulating audiovisual material ● Aims to decode, encode, transcode, mux, demux, stream, filter and play “anything that humans and machines have created” ● A combination of tools and libraries ○ ffmpeg - media conversion ○ ffprobe - metadata analysis/extraction ○ ffplay - playback ■ libavutil - various utilities (e.g. math equations) ■ libavcodec - codec library ■ libavformat - format (wrapper/container) library ■ libavdevice - device library (drivers for common/open hardware) ■ libavfilter - filter library ■ libswscale - scaling library ■ libswresample - audio sampling library Who’s using it? ● VLC Media Player ● YouTube ● Media Player Classic ● Chromium/Google Chrome ● Handbrake ● Facebook ● Audacity ● DaVinci Resolve ● DCP-o-matic ● Axle But what can it do? ● Make derivative copies ● Re-wrap files ● Edit files ● Generate checksums ● Create test files/streams ● Extract/insert metadata ● Generate informative (or just plain cool) audio/video effects ● Livestream video/screencapture * Thanks for this slide, Andrew Weaver Installation All about that configuration! $ brew info ffmpeg $ brew install ffmpeg --with-sdl2 --with-freetype --with-openjpeg --with-x265 --with-rubberband --with-tesseract Translation: with ffplay (playback), with added text/titles support, with JPEG 2000 codec, with H.265 (HEVC) codec, with extra audio filters, with OCR support Tasks to Cover I. Making a test file/signal
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana University Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative (MDPI)
    Indiana University Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative (MDPI) White Paper: Encoding and Wrapper Decisions and Implementation for Video Preservation Master Files Authored by: Mike Casey, Director of Technical Operations, MDPI Reviewed by: Carla Arton, Film Digitization Specialist, IU Libraries Moving Image Archive Jon Cameron, Digital Media Service Manager, IU Libraries Jon Dunn, Assistant Dean for Library Technologies, IU Libraries Heidi Kelly, Digital Preservation Librarian, IU Libraries Brent Moberly (Appendix author), Software Developer, UITS, IU Brian Wheeler, Senior Systems Engineer, IU Libraries Special thanks to Dave Rice for astute comments and suggestions Copyright 2017 Trustees of Indiana University This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Release date: March 27, 2017 Indiana University Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative Encoding and Wrapper Decisions and Implementation for Video Preservation Master Files 1. Overview There is no consensus in the media preservation community on best practice for encoding and wrapping video preservation master files. Institutions engaged in long- term video preservation typically choose from three paths, each of which are currently seen as viable for this purpose: 10-bit, uncompressed, v210 codec, usually with a QuickTime wrapper JPEG 2000, mathematically lossless profile, usually with an MXF wrapper FFV1, a mathematically lossless format, with an AVI or Matroska wrapper No single path can be said to be widely adopted, in part because there are relatively few institutions engaged in digitizing video for long-term preservation, especially at scale. It appears as of this writing that institutions are roughly evenly divided between the three paths listed above.
    [Show full text]
  • VIDEO DIGITIZATION at the AUSTRIAN MEDIATHEK Chives Obtain a Quality Assurance Instrument for the Recording of Their Media
    ARTICLE 8LIIQTPS]QIRXSJWYGLERSRPMRIGIVXM½GEXMSRWIVZMGITVSZMHIWFIRI½XWJSVFSXLTEVXMIWEV- VIDEO DIGITIZATION AT THE AUSTRIAN MEDIATHEK chives obtain a quality assurance instrument for the recording of their media. In the past, sound Herman Lewetz, Austian Mediathek9 carrier owners had to implement quality control by means of a cost-intensive strategy: mul- tiple recording of a single sound medium and time-consuming comparative analysis. The avail- In September 2009 the Austrian Mediathek started a project called “Österreich am Wort“. EFMPMX]SJSFNIGXMZIQIEWYVIQIRXVIWYPXWEPPS[WJSVEHVEWXMGEPP]WMQTPM½IHUYEPMX]QSRMXSVMRK Its goal is to digitize and publish via the web about 10,000 full-length recordings within three years. The misfortune for me personally was that in the proposal for this project someone had For companies or organisations dealing with the process of mass migration of analogue media, claimed 2,000 of these to be video recordings. This meant I had to start what we so far suc- long-term evaluation is an important tool for supporting the continuous internal improve- cessfully had postponed: Video digitization. ment process. For example, slow deterioration over time can be made visible. Besides the cost savings due to precise situation assessment, there is another advantage for service providers: Requirements [LIRYWMRKTPE]FEGOHIZMGIWSJHMJJIVIRXUYEPMX]MXQE]LEZIFIIRHMJ½GYPXXSEVKYIXLILMKLIV costs for recording with high-quality machines to their clients. With the help of the automatic, %WE½VWXWXIT[ISYXPMRIHXLIVIUYMVIQIRXW[IXLSYKLXMQTSVXERXJSVEHMKMXM^EXMSRWGLIQE reference-based analysis, quality differences between average and high-class playback devices that best supported long-term preservation. Unlike audio digitization there is still no widely become easily measurable. By documenting the measurement results, the client can easily see accepted archive format for video.
    [Show full text]
  • JPEG 2000 and FFV1
    Campbell1 Savannah Campbell December 16, 2016 Digital Preservation Nicole Martin The Great Video Codec Debate: JPEG 2000 and FFV1 “I think that too much ink is being spilled over the issue of JPEG 2000 vs FFV1” – George Blood1 As analog video formats become increasingly obsolete and magnetic media degrades over time, video tapes will need to undergo digitization so that their content can be preserved. Through this process, the images and sounds encapsulated in the tape’s magnetic particles will be transformed into a series of 0s and 1s: a representation of the video stream that a computer can read and play back. When a cultural heritage institution decides to digitize its video collection for preservation purposes, it becomes necessary for the institution to consider which format should be used for the resulting files. While an uncompressed format would capture all of the data in the video as is, uncompressed encoding results in large files that rapidly fill precious storage space on hard drives and servers. On the other hand, lossy compressed formats like Apple ProRes make digital video files easy to work with in production environments due to their efficient encoding and smaller file sizes, but they compress the image irreversibly—a loss of information that conflicts with the goal of preserving the original content as it was. There is another video codec option for audiovisual archivists: mathematically lossless. With lossless video codecs, the resulting files are still compressed, but in a way that preserves all of the 1 George Blood. Personal interview by Savannah Campbell. 28 Nov. 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • FFV1 Video Codec Specification
    FFV1 Video Codec Specification by Michael Niedermayer [email protected] Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Notation and Conventions 3 2.1 Definitions ............................................... 3 2.2 Conventions .............................................. 3 2.2.1 Arithmetic operators ..................................... 3 2.2.2 Assignment operators .................................... 4 2.2.3 Comparison operators .................................... 4 2.2.4 Mathematical functions ................................... 4 2.2.5 Order of operation precedence ............................... 4 2.2.6 Range ............................................. 5 2.2.7 NumBytes ........................................... 5 2.2.8 Bitstream functions ..................................... 5 3 General Description 5 3.1 Border ................................................. 5 3.2 Median predictor ........................................... 5 3.3 Context ................................................ 6 3.4 Quantization ............................................. 6 3.5 Colorspace ............................................... 6 3.5.1 YCbCr ............................................ 7 3.5.2 JPEG2000-RCT ....................................... 7 3.6 Coding of the sample difference ................................... 8 3.6.1 Range coding mode ..................................... 8 3.6.2 Huffman coding mode .................................... 11 4 Bitstream 12 4.1 Configuration Record ......................................... 13 4.1.1 reserved for future use
    [Show full text]
  • Digital File Formats for Videotape Reformatting: Part 4. Detailed
    Federal Agencies Digitization Guidelines Initiative Digital File Formats for Videotape Reformatting Part 4. Detailed Matrix for Encodings (multi-page) This document presents the information on multiple, easily printable pages. Part 3 provides the same information in a unified table to facilitate comparisons. September 8, 2014 The FADGI Audio-Visual Working Group http://www.digitizationguidelines.gov/audio-visual/ ATTRIBUTES: Sustainability Factors: Disclosure • Scoring conventions: Good, Acceptable, Poor • Questions to Consider: Does complete technical documentation exist for this format? Is the format a standard (e.g., ISO)? How stable is the standard? Are source code for associated rendering software, validation tools, and software development kits widely available for this format? Uncompressed Acceptable 4:2:2, 8-bit (UYVY and Some documentation is available. Published standards do not exist for YUY2) these codecs, but documentation is available from multiple sources. Some of the best documentation is brief and available at fourcc.org. Microsoft and Apple also have some documentation available at their websites. SMPTE ST 377 offers some additional information about these encodings. Uncompressed Good 4:2:2, 10-bit (v210) Not a published standard. It is attributed to both QuickTime and AJA. Apple has some documentation on the structure and ordering of components of this format on their Apple Ice Floe site. JPEG 2000 - Good Lossless Two sets of disclosure around this format: ISO/IEC 15444-1:2004. Information technology -- JPEG 2000 image coding system -- Part 1: Core coding system (formal name); JPEG 2000 core coding (common name), especially the Broadcast Profiles, and SMPTE ST 422 (although ST 422 is MXF-specific and does not yet specify how to handle interlacing).
    [Show full text]
  • Defining the PREFORMA Challenge
    Defining the PREFORMA Challenge Bert Lemmens PACKED WP2 Lead OPFPREFOMA Webinar: - Information PREFORMA Day Challenge Brussels,14th 4th AprilJune 20142016 PCP Schedule January 13th: Project kick-off June 12th: Publication tender August 12th: Deadline submission August 18th: Individual evaluation September 24th: Consensus Meeting October 6th: Invitation to Negotiation October 17th: Award decision November 1st: Start design phase PREFORMAOPF Webinar: – Consortium PREFORMA Meeting Challenge Girona, 13th14th OJunectober2016 2014 Challenge Brief Empower memory institutions to gain full control over the technical properties of digital content intended for long-term preservation. OPF Webinar: PREFORMA Challenge 14th June 2016 Challenge Brief i.e. container, encoding, embedded metadata, etc. Empower memory institutions to gain full control over the technical properties of digital content intended for long-term preservation. OPF Webinar: PREFORMA Challenge 14th June 2016 Challenge Brief i.e. text, image, sound Empower memoryand moving institutions image to gain full control over the technical properties of digital content intended for long-term preservation. OPF Webinar: PREFORMA Challenge 14th June 2016 Challenge Brief Empower memory institutions to gain full control over the technical properties of digital content intended for long-term preservation. i.e. deposited & digitized content OPF Webinar: PREFORMA Challenge 14th June 2016 Challenge Brief Empower memory institutions to gain full control over the technical properties of digital content intended for long-term preservation. i.e. developing a preservation strategy (transformation, re- packaging, emulation) OPF Webinar: PREFORMA Challenge 14th June 2016 Challenge Brief i.e. addressing people that produce preservation files Empower memory institutions to gain full control over the technical properties of digital content intended for long-term preservation by memory institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Arkki PLAYSTREAM Brochure
    SEAMLESS Playout & Streaming Key features Arkki PLAYSTREAM • Real-time playlist seeking • Slow motion • Trim editor • Sub playlist As media companies and production outfits grow the number of • External event (Live, Command, channels and delivery methods for their subscribers, the need for CG graphics) a cost-effective solution for delivery of content becomes more • Playlist & Content Scheduling pronounced. The media workflow increases in complexity and • Drag and Drop makes investment in specialized or dedicated equipment more • Multi-select copy-paste and expensive. advanced Playlist editor • Playlist timeline Arkki PlayStream is an innovative and cost-effective platform for • Management of playlist’s gap fill with secondary playlist broadcast and media customers to digitize and playback their • File or Live input content, either as a complement or replacement of an existing • Cg playout delivery chain. Built on an open IT-based platform, Arkki • Cg editor PlayStream is powered by MediaPower proprietary technology, • Advanced Multilevel Graphic ensuring seamless integration not only with the other products of Engine plus Editor the Arkki Suite but also 3rd party systems, to provide a highly • Web Playlist Manager and full editor flexible and highly scalable end-to-end solution. Arkki PlayStream is designed to deliver and playout broadcast quality video in Proxy, Key benefits SD, HD and UHD formats, and support a variety of input / output • Deliver VoD and Live Streaming or local / central storage combinations and built-in redundancy. over the Internet • Includes powerful discovery engine Now, Media Companies can have a resilient, cost-effective video to deploy content to any device or playout, and streaming platform, provisioned with powerful user web browser applications and tools with Arkki PlayStream.
    [Show full text]