Streaming Video Hits the Big Time�� And the Small Time

MOST CAMPAIGNERS have discovered by now that the World Wide Web is a critical tool in modern elections. A Web page of rich graphics and photos with text outlining positions and platforms is a valuable resource for creating awareness, disseminating information, raising funds and even building communities. But that's not all the Web can offer. Streaming video can bring live events, pre-recorded visual messages and the power of video to browsers and constituents anywhere.

Streaming video is admittedly in its infancy, but live Web coverage of the 2000 Republican and Democratic National Conventions shows that "webcasting" campaign events can open the political process to thousands. In smaller campaigns where television costs are prohibitive, streaming may also be the only way for candidates to disburse an audio-visual message. And, as the technology matures, it will offer campaigns a powerful medium to create memorable imagery, emotional appeals, and, of course, spin.

You can imagine candidates broadcasting stump speeches and campaign events online: Picture a small local campaign harnessing the medium most Americans use for news and entertainment without the expense of television advertising or the filter of news sound bites. In many ways, the Web is democracy in action. Now the lights and cameras are ready to follow.

Anatomy of a Web Stream

"Streaming" is a convenient catch phrase for any video on the internet, but streaming video specifically refers to video played from a server and viewed in real-time by a remote computer connected by the Internet or a network. In other words, a streamed video file is never actually downloaded to the viewer's local hard drive, but rather simply played through a window or player. And, without long download times and large file sizes, streaming opens the door for effective video presentations like the live broadcast of conventions, rallies and other campaign events.

Ironically, most of the video you'll see on the Web today is not streamed at all, but indeed downloaded to a local hard drive and played from there. This method is effective where control of image quality is critical -- for example, for Hollywood movie trailers since playback efficiency is not dictated or compromised by Internet congestion. And, for short pre-recorded campaign spots, downloadable video may be the easiest way to put a video on the Web since it can be as easy as adding a link to a Web page.

Streaming is clearly the future of Web video, if for no other reason than viewer impatience. Fortunately, the process of creating streaming video can be surprisingly accessible and affordable, especially compared to television. Today's inexpensive digital camcorders offer more than sufficient image quality to feed a streaming video encoder. And that encoder doesn't have to bankrupt any budgets, either.

A typical RealVideo or Windows Media encoder (RealNetworks and Microsoft each offer free versions of at least their basic products) is a software application installed on a standard, though up-to-date, desktop computer. You'll need a video digitizing capture card, though not one with fancy compression like those used for video editing. Simple digitizing cards from Osprey or WINNOV cost just a few hundred dollars and feed the encoder software the appropriate digital video format. The software both compresses the signal for lower bandwidth requirements of the Internet and converts it to a format that will work with the client's browser. From there, it takes a reasonably fast internet connection (DSL or cable modem is fine) to send the stream to a server, where it can be distributed to viewers.

Convention Streamers

Can it really be that easy? Well, the first part can. The 2000 Democratic Convention is a good example. C-Span covered the convention both online and on TV using the same professional equipment, sending a digital version of the output to the servers at Yahoo's Broadcast.com for streaming over the Web. C-Span may well have a larger budget than most campaigns, but BridgeMedia, which produces streaming video content, also covered the entire event for eMediaNews.com and put the whole production together within just two days. With limited time for planning, they used a portable Panasonic MX-50 s-video switcher, four digital camcorders (one Sony DSR-30 and three JVC DV-GR500s), a Videonics PowerScript Character Generator (a.k.a. Titler) for captions and a WINNOV capture card feeding a Real Producer encoder.

That's a fairly affordable collection of gear for producing such a high-profile event. Though each of the camcorders costs about $5,000, these can be rented. Thankfully, even that rig is more than adequate for producing most campaign events. BridgeMedia's camcorders are large, shoulder-mounted units with high--quality professional lens and features, but they actually use the same video format as much less expensive consumer Mini-DV format camcorders. Hand-held and tripod-mountable Mini-DV camcorders are available from several manufacturers for $2,000 to $4,000 for semi-professional models or less than $2,000 for good-quality automatic ones. This gear is also available for rental.

In hindsight, and with greater lead time to plan, BridgeMedia could also have used a digital switcher like Videonics MXProDV (less than $2,500) that would both cost less and actually produce better quality. Since the camcorders natively record digital data, the digital switcher would eliminate two quality-jeopardizing video conversions from digital camcorders to the analog switcher, then back to digital for encoding. There are even capture cards that will accept the digital output from the MXProDV directly and are optimized to work with Microsoft Media Encoder.

Tricky Part

Of course, the server is the tricky part. Most campaign organizations don't have video servers in the back room or on the bus, nor are they likely to have the expertise to distribute potential thousands of live or on-demand video streams. The actual "broadcast" of video over the Internet tends, therefore, to be the more puzzling aspect of streaming and the one that may prevent more organizations from getting into it. Yet, on the surface, a video server is not entirely different from the server that hosts a campaign's Web page, except a video server needs quite a bit more bandwidth.

As with a Web server, a video server has to be able to handle several requests at a time. The difference with video is that those requests are much larger and sustained over a long period of time. While it's possible for larger organizations to create an appropriate infrastructure, there's a much easier way for those just beginning with streaming video. A variety of companies now offer streaming video services and utilizing them is a safe way to test the waters.

High-profile companies like Broadcast.com, Akamai and Digital Island are the best known, offering premium services able to handle extreme capacities of high-demand streaming content. Yet several smaller organizations -- like Streariver.net or VideoHost.com -- now offer services that are likely to be more in line with the needs of smaller campaigns.

Surprisingly Accessible

While the idea of creating video, let alone streaming video, is often filled with mystery, putting the pieces together is more accommodating now than ever before. Both digital production tools, like DV camcorders, and Web-hosting services make the process surprisingly accessible.

The Republican and Democratic National Committees set the stage for video streaming in elections to come, with this year marking the first time so many viewers had online "televised" access to the proceedings. Yet the trend is clear and streaming of political content -- local, state or national -- will grow dramatically during and between elections.

Michael Conway is vice president of marketing for Videonics, Inc.

COPYRIGHT 2001 Campaigns & Elections, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group