WO2015067914A1

WO2015067914A1 - Video validation

Info

Publication number: WO2015067914A1
Application number: PCT/GB2013/052957
Authority: WO
Inventors: Philip Morris
Original assignee: UNIQUE DIGITAL Ltd
Current assignee: UNIQUE DIGITAL Ltd
Priority date: 2013-11-11
Filing date: 2013-11-11
Publication date: 2015-05-14
Anticipated expiration: 2016-05-11
Also published as: GB201609674D0; GB2535113A

Abstract

A system (10) for automatically checking whether video clips (24, 26, 28, 30) are suitable for display on a cinema screen (46, 48, 50, 52), the system (10) comprising: an inbox (14) into which proposed video clips (24, 26, 28, 30) are, in use, placed by candidates (126, 18, 20, 22); a validator (12); a first outbox (85) for storing validated video clips; a second outbox (82) for storing non-validated video clips; and means for selectively forwarding the validated video clips from the first outbox (85) to an agent (86) and for returning the non-validated video clips from the second outbox (82) to their respective candidates (16, 18, 20, 22) along with a validation report(84), wherein the validator (12) comprises a computer adapted to execute one or more validation algorithms (58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68) during playback of each video clip (24, 26, 28, 30) and to generate the validation report comprising a pass/fail indications (80) for each validation algorithm(58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68).

Description

Title: Video validation

Description: This invention relates to a system and method of validating video, and in particular, but without limitation, to a system and method for validating video as being suitable for use in cinema advertising.

Many commercial organisations nowadays use video advertising, for example, on television, on fixed or portable display screens, in cinemas, online and so forth. However, the quality and reproducibility of on-screen/video media depends on the parameters of the video itself as well as the equipment that is used to display the video. For example, a video clip optimised for television broadcast may not be suitable for use on a cinema screen due to differences in various parameters, such as aspect ratio, sound levels, refresh rates, pixel density etc. Therefore, it is often not possible, say, to use video footage shot for use on DVD on a cinema screen. The reason for this is that incorrectly transposing from one video format to another may result in poor video quality, and undesirable physiological effects such as disorientation and vertigo, etc. in viewers.

Moreover, to ameliorate against adverse physiological effects in viewers, various cinema standards have been adopted, which impose, for example, maximum sound pressure levels, pan rates, pixel densities, refresh rates, strobe frequencies and so on. As such, all advertising video content that is intended for use in cinemas needs to comply with these standards and it is the responsibility of the advertising agent placing the advertising, or the cinema concerned, to ensure compliance with these standards.

On the other hand, advertisers and film makers in particular, often want to present video that is at the very limits of the standards, principally to increase the impact of the video and to improve audience attention. To do this, vide advertising often contains low frequency rumbling sounds, which reverberate particularly well in cinema environments, exaggerated stereo and 3D sound effects, concealed strobe lighting effects, such as rapidly-changing or - moving background images and so on. In addition, the physical formatting of the video needs to be correct, for example, the aspect ratio, refresh rates etc., if it is to be correctly displayed on a cinema screen.

A need therefore exists for a way to validate and pre-check video footage prior to being displayed.

To date, much of the aforementioned checking and validation is performed manually, i.e. by a person watching the video on a display screen. However, many of the parameters that need to be checked cannot easily be determined by visual inspection on a computer monitor, say, or by listening to the accompanying soundtrack through a set of headphones.

Specifically, a computer screen may appear to be able to correctly display a video image that is a few pixels over-size, but when that same video is reproduced on a 30m wide cinema screen, the mismatch between the actual pixel size of the video, and the native resolution of the cinema projector can cause the video to be displayed very poorly indeed, in actual use.

This invention aims to provide a solution to one or more of the above problems and/or to provide an improved and/or attentive way of checking and validating video for use in cinemas.

According to the invention, there is provided a system for automatically checking whether video clips are suitable for display on a cinema screen, the system comprising: an inbox into which proposed video clips are, in use, placed by candidates; a validator; a first outbox for storing validated video clips; a second outbox for storing non-validated video clips; and means for selectively forwarding the validated video clips from the first outbox to an agent and for returning the non-validated video clips from the second outbox to their respective candidates along with a validation report, wherein the validator comprises a computer adapted to execute one or more validation algorithms during playback of each video clip and to generate the validation report comprising a pass/fail indications for each validation algorithm.

Suitably, the validator comprises a validation computer. The validation computer may play back the video clips faster than real-time, for example, in processor-time.

Suitably, a first group of validation algorithms are executed in respect of all video clips in the inbox, and a second group of validation algorithms executed in respect of selected subset of video clips in the inbox. The first group of validation algorithms are suitably adapted to validate the video clips based on their content and/or intrinsic properties.

The intrinsic properties may be any one or more of the group comprising: horizontal picture size; vertical picture size; aspect ratio; maximum sound level; minimum sound level; maximum image brightness; minimum image brightness; duration of maximum image brightness; duration of minimum brightness; apparent width of 3D or stereo sound effects; the presence of sound or visual effects likely to cause adverse physiological responses in viewers; the presence of strobe lighting effects; excessive low-frequency sound effects; excessive high- frequency sound effects; and the presence of single-frame images.

Suitably, the second group of algorithms correspond to acceptable parameters of projection equipment that the video is to be displayed upon, for example, based on the acceptable video parameters or acceptable projection equipment parameters.

The validation algorithms may stored in a memory of the validator or validation computer.

Suitably, each proposed video clip is associated with a data sheet specifying one or more target cinema establishments and/or one or more individual items of projection equipment. The system may further comprise a database populated with the parameters corresponding to the second group of validation algorithms. The database may comprise an online database accessible to any one or more of the candidates.

Advantageously, the invention provides a means for automatically validating video clips according to validation criteria determined by the validation algorithms, i.e. without user intervention. By automatically validating the video clips using validation algorithms, rather than human intervention or decision-making processes, the validation is entirely objective and thus removes any subjective interpretation of the video clips suitability for display on a cinema screen. The system also reduces, or eliminates human error, for example, where a human might accidently use incorrect validation criteria where, say, validation for one type of cinema projection equipment is performed rather than another. The system additionally provides the benefit of increased throughput as the video clips can be played back at any speed, and not necessarily in real-time, as is necessary when validating via human assessment. In addition, the laborious work of cross-checking the video parameters against the projection equipment parameters is performed automatically.

Groups of validation algorithms are suitably used. A first group of validation algorithms are suitably adapted to determine the characteristics of the video clips themselves. This first group of validation algorithms may be configured to check for video parameters including:

Horizontal picture size: Such an algorithm may check for the horizontal picture size of the video clip, for example, in pixels and to validate (pass) the video only if the video clip has: a certain exact horizontal size; a horizontal size lying between acceptable maximum and minimum values; or a horizontal size being an integer multiple of a certain value.

Vertical picture size: Such an algorithm may check for the vertical picture size of the video clip, for example, in pixels and to validate (pass) the video only if the video clip has: a certain exact vertical size; a vertical size lying between acceptable maximum and minimum values; or a vertical size being an integer multiple of a certain value.

Aspect ratio: Such an algorithm may check for the aspect ratio of the video clip and to validate (pass) the video only if the video clip has: a certain exact aspect ratio; or an aspect ratio lying between acceptable maximum and minimum values.

Sound pressure: Such an algorithm may check the volume or sound pressure of the video clip and to validate (pass) the video only if the video clip has a maximum volume, at any instant, not exceeding a certain threshold value.

Other similar validation algorithms may be performed to check for excessive low- frequency or high-frequency audio, dark/light changes, excessive use of 3D or stereo sound effects, strobe effects etc.

The first group of algorithms are suitably based on a set of acceptable video parameters provided, for example, by a regulator, or by a cinema proprietor.

A second group of algorithms suitably relate to the projection equipment that the video is to be displayed on. This second group of validation algorithms are suitably adapted to pass or fail the video clips if they can, or cannot, respectively, the video clips on selected cinema projection equipment.

The second group of algorithms are suitably based on a set of acceptable video parameters provided, for example, by a cinema proprietor, or by a cinema projection equipment manufacturer. These parameters may include, but are not limited to, refresh rates, physical screen size, digital projector resolution, sound system parameters such as the number and placement of speakers of different types, etc.

The validator suitably comprises means for implementing the acceptable video parameters provided by any one or more of the regulator, cinema proprietor, or cinema projection equipment manufacturer as threshold values of parameters in the validation algorithms. To avoid unnecessary repetition of work, each time a validation algorithm is created; it is suitably stored in a memory of the validator for future reference.

A second aspect of the invention provides a method of validating video clips as being suitable for display on a cinema screen, the method comprising the steps of: a candidate sending a video clip to an inbox of a validation computer along with a datasheet indicating target cinemas or items of cinema projection equipment for the video clip; the validation computer executing a first group of validation algorithms on the video clip to validate the content of the video clip; and if the video clip passes all of the validation algorithms of the first group; executing a second group of validation algorithms to validate the compatibility of the video clip with each of the items of cinema projection equipment specified in the datasheet.

Suitably, if the video clip fails any one of the validation algorithms of the first group, the validation rejects the video clip to a second outbox for onward transmission to the candidate along with a validation report, without executing any of the validation algorithms of the second group.

Suitably, if the video clip fails any one of the validation algorithms of the second group, the validation rejects the video clip to a second outbox for onward transmission to the candidate along with a validation report.

Suitably, the method further comprises the step of generating the algorithms based on parameters provided from an external source.

Suitably, the method further comprises the step of storing the generated algorithms for subsequent use in a memory of the validation computer.

Suitably, the validation computer performs a select sequence of validation algorithms, that is to say, all of the algorithms from the first group and a select one or more from the second group and determines whether the video clip passes or fails the validation for individual pieces of projection equipment. Suitably, if the video clip fails any one of the first group of validation algorithms and wherein the video clip is sent to the second outbox and returned to the candidate along with a validation report specifying the shortcomings.

Suitably, if the video clip passes all of the first group of validation algorithms but fails one or more of a sub-set of the second group of validation algorithms, the sub-set being determined by the video clip's data sheet specifications, further comprising the step of sending the video clip to the second outbox for onward transmission to the candidate along with a validation report specifying the device-specific shortcomings.

Suitably, if the video clip passes all of the first group of validation algorithms and all of the sub-set of algorithms of the second group, the sub-set being determined by the video clip's datasheet, further comprising the step of sending the video clip to the first outbox for onward transmission to a selected cinema establishment.

The onward transmission is suitably via an agent.

Suitably, the validation computer simulates the playback of the video clip based on parameters corresponding to a specific cinema specified in the video clip's associated datasheet, and executing the validation algorithm or algorithms on the simulated playback.

The method may be executed in the real-time of the video clip, or in processor-time of the validation computer.

An embodiment of the invention shall now be described, by way of example only, with reference to Figure 1 of the accompanying drawings, which is a schematic system diagram illustrating the operation of the invention.

In Figure 1, a validation system 10 according to the invention comprises a validation computer 12 operatively connected to an inbox 14. Candidates 16, 18, 20, 22 wishing to place video advertisements, in the form of video clips 24, 26, 28, 30 at various cinema establishments 32, 34, 36 are sent to the inbox 14, for example, as e-mail attachments 37, or via FTP or some other suitable electronic transmission means. Each video clip 24, 26, 28, 30 is associated by a data sheet 38, 40, 42, 44, which specifies one or more target cinema establishments 32, 34, 36 for the advertisement, and optionally the individual screens or projection equipment 46, 48, 50, 52 for each cinema establishment 32, 34, 36.

Each subscribing cinema establishment 32, 34, 36 provides to the validation computer

12, the parameters for each of its screens or projection equipment 46, 48, 50, 52, and the validation computer 12 compiles a database 54 containing this information. The database 54 is optionally made available to each of the candidates 16, 18, 20, 22, for example, via online publication 56 so that each of the candidates 16, 18, 20, 22 can optimise their video clips 24, 26, 28, 30 for display on specific screens of pieces of projection equipment 46, 48, 50, 52.

The inbox 14 thus contains a series of communications from candidates indicating the video content 24, 26, 28, 30 that they wish to display on specific screens or cinema projection equipment 46, 48, 50, 52.

The validation computer 12 then selects individual communications 37 from the inbox 14 and validates them.

Validation by the validation computer 12 is performed by the validation computer 12 using a set of validation algorithms 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, which are stored in a memory 70 thereof, which may be physically resident on the computer 12 itself, or accessible remotely, but stored on an external server (not shown).

A regulator 72 specifies various allowable and unallowable parameters 74 for video clips viewable in cinemas and these are made available to the validation computer 12, for example, via online publication. Based on these parameters 74, the validation computer 12 implements a first group of algorithms 58, 60, 62, which are performed on every video clip 24, 26, 28, 30 added to the inbox. These validation algorithms 58, 60, 62 may, for example, bar strobe lighting effects, rapidly rotating 3D sound effects, prolonged periods of total darkness, etc. This automatically ensures compliance with various legal requirements for cinema advertising.

Based on the validation criteria for each piece of projection equipment 46, 48, 50, 52, which are stored in the database 54, the validation computer 12 additionally comprises a second set of device-specific algorithms 64, 66, 68, which are specific to individual pieces of cinema projection equipment. From the second group of validation algorithms 64, 66, 68, the validation computer 12 selects an appropriate algorithms based on the wishes of the individual candidates 16, 18, 20, 22, which are specified in the data sheets 38, 40, 42, 44 associated with each video clip 24, 26, 28, 30 in the inbox 14. By providing device-specific algorithms 64, 66, 68, the total amount of validation performed by the validation computer can be reduced as there is no need to validate video clips 24, 26, 28, 30 for equipment 46, 48, 50, 52 that the candidates 16, 18, 20, 22 do not wish the clips to be displayed on.

Thus, the validation computer 12 performs a select sequence of validation algorithms, that is to say, all of the algorithms from the first group 58, 60, 62 and a select one or more from the second group 64, 66, 68 and determines whether the each video clip 24, 26, 28, 30 passes or fails the validation 80 for each establishment 32, 34, 36 or piece of projection equipment 46, 48, 50, 52. At this stage, there are several possible outcomes. Taking, as an example, a video clip 24, whose data sheet 38 specifies displaying the video 24 on one screen 46 of a first cinema establishment 32 and on all screens 50 of a second cinema establishment 34:

First, the video clip 24 may fail the regulator's validation steps 58, 60, 62, in which case, the video clip 24 will be sent to the second outbox 82 and returned to the candidate 16 along with a validation report 84 specifying the shortcomings. Because the clip 24 failed the regulator's validation requirements 58, 60, 62, there is no need to perform the device specific validation steps by running algorithms from the second group 64, 66, 68. This saves time and effort, and frees-up the validation computer 12 to proceed with another request from its inbox 14. The candidate 16 may then rectify the clip 24 and re-submit it.

Second, the video clip 24 may pass all of the regulator's validation steps 58, 60, 62, in which case, the video clip 24 will be subject to a sub-set of validation algorithms from the second group 64, 66, 68, depending on its associated data sheet 38 specifications. The video clip may, however, fail all of the device-specific validations 64, 66, 68, in which case the video clip 24 will be sent to the second outbox 82 and returned to the candidate 16 along with a validation report 84 specifying the device-specific shortcomings.

Third, the video clip 24 may pass all of the regulator's validation steps 58, 60, 62, in which case, the video clip 24 will be subject to a sub-set of validation algorithms from the second group 64, 66, 68, depending on its associated data sheet 38 specifications. The video clip may, however, fail some of the device-specific validations 64, 66, 68. In this case, the video clip 24 will be sent to the second outbox 82 and returned to the candidate 16 along with a validation report 84 specifying the device-specific shortcomings; and sent to the first outbox 85 and forwarded to the establishments 32, 34 for which it has passed directly, or via an agent 86. The clip 24 passing all of the validation criteria can then be shown in certain establishments only, or on specific screens of certain establishments, but not on others.

Fourth, the video clip 24 may pass all of the regulator's validation steps 58, 60, 62, in which case, the video clip 24 will be subject to a sub-set of validation algorithms from the second group 64, 66, 68, depending on its associated data sheet 38 specifications. The video clip also passes all of the device-specific validations 64, 66, 68, in which case, the video clip 24 will be sent to the first outbox 85 then forwarded to the relevant establishments 32, 34 either directly, or via an agent 86.

The invention enables the video clips 24, 26, 28, 30 to be simulated in the actual establishments, by applying validation criteria to the simulation. This represents a significant departure from existing technologies in which a human validator would have to estimate or judge whether the sound or image he/she is watching would, in actual fact, reproduce similarly on an actual projection system. By contrast, the invention provides the means not only to check for the intrinsic compliance of the video clips, but also whether actual use of those clips in an actual cinema (as defined by the cinema proprietor's parameters) would still pass the regulator's requirements. Moreover, by running a simulation of the sound and/or video in the invention before it ever gets to the cinema, the need for real-time corrections to be applied, e.g. by the projectionist or a computerised projectionist, is greatly reduced or even eliminated.

It will be appreciated that the invention, as described herein, has the potential to significantly reduce workloads by validating according to selection criteria, and by permitting rejection at various stages of the validation process. Also, by validating electronically rather than manually, the validation can be carried out in "processor-time" (i.e. at the maximum speed that the validation computer's processor can handle) rather than in real-time, as would be the case with manual validation. Further, subjectivity is removed, as is a considerable amount of manual intervention, such as selecting appropriate validation rules, matching rules (or algorithms) to specific establishments and/or pieces of projection equipment etc. As such, the invention provides for much greater granularity in the validation process, avoids unnecessary work and manual intervention, and is implementable in an online, automatic environment, which is a significant step forwards compared with existing, human-based validation agencies. As a result, the lead-time from shooting to broadcast can be significantly reduced, regulatory compliance can be improved and/or guaranteed and the incidence of onscreen errors or defects can be avoided or reduced.

The invention is not restricted to the details of the foregoing embodiment, which is merely exemplary of the invention. For example, any number of candidates, cinema establishments, projection equipment, algorithms, validation computers etc. could be used. Moreover, whilst the invention has been described with reference to validation of video clips for use in cinema advertising, the invention could equally be used to validate video clips of greater length, such as entire programmes or feature films, or for use in other large format, public spaces, such as digital billboards, etc. Suitably, the invention is implemented in a web- based environment, and in such a situation, the various components could be provided on a distributed network, rather than on a single machine or group of machines. A client interface, such as a web-based portal, is ideally provided to enable candidates, cinema proprietors, advertisers, validators, regulators etc. to interact with the invention online, to download and/or upload data and to correspond with one another as and when the need arises.

Claims

Claims:

1. A system for automatically checking whether video clips are suitable for display on a cinema screen, the system comprising: an inbox into which proposed video clips are, in use, placed by candidates; a validator; a first outbox for storing validated video clips; a second outbox for storing non-validated video clips; and means for selectively forwarding the validated video clips from the first outbox to an agent and for returning the non- validated video clips from the second outbox to their respective candidates along with a validation report, wherein the validator comprises a computer adapted to execute one or more validation algorithms during playback of each video clip and to generate the validation report comprising a pass/fail indications for each validation algorithm.

2. The system of claim 1, wherein the validator comprises a validation computer.

3. The system of claim 2, wherein the validation computer plays back the video clips faster than real-time.

4. The system of claim 2, wherein the validation computer plays back the video clips in processor-time.

5. The system of any of preceding claim, comprising a first group of validation algorithms executed in respect of all video clips in the inbox, and a second group of validation algorithms executed in respect of selected sub-set of video clips in the inbox.

6. The system of claim 5, wherein the first group of validation algorithms are adapted to validate the video clips based on their intrinsic properties.

7. The system of claim 6, wherein the intrinsic properties are any one or more of the group comprising: horizontal picture size; vertical picture size; aspect ratio; maximum sound level; minimum sound level; maximum image brightness; minimum image brightness; duration of maximum image brightness; duration of minimum brightness; apparent width of 3D or stereo sound effects; the presence of sound or visual effects likely to cause adverse physiological responses in viewers; the presence of strobe lighting effects; excessive low-frequency sound effects; excessive high-frequency sound effects; and the presence of single-frame images.

8. The system of any of claims 5 to 7, wherein the second group of algorithms correspond to acceptable parameters of projection equipment that the video is to be displayed upon.

9. The system of any of claims 5 to 8, wherein the validation algorithms are based on the acceptable video parameters or acceptable projection equipment parameters.

10. The system of any preceding claim, wherein the validation algorithms are stored in a memory of the validator.

11. The system of any preceding claim, wherein each proposed video clip is associated with a data sheet specifying one or more target cinema establishments and/or one or more individual items of projection equipment.

12. The system of any of claims 5 to 11, further comprising a database populated with the parameters corresponding to the second group of validation algorithms.

13. The system of claim 12, wherein the database comprises an online database accessible to any one or more of the candidates.

14. A method of validating video clips as being suitable for display on a cinema screen, the method comprising the steps of: a candidate sending a video clip to an inbox of a validation computer along with a datasheet indicating target cinemas or items of cinema projection equipment for the video clip; the validation computer executing a first group of validation algorithms on the video clip to validate the content of the video clip; and if the video clip passes all of the validation algorithms of the first group; executing a second group of validation algorithms to validate the compatibility of the video clip with each of the items of cinema projection equipment specified in the datasheet.

15. The method of claim 14, wherein if the video clip fails any one of the validation algorithms of the first group, the validation rejects the video clip to a second outbox for onward transmission to the candidate along with a validation report, without executing any of the validation algorithms of the second group.

16. The method of claim 14 or claim 15, wherein if the video clip fails any one of the validation algorithms of the second group, the validation rejects the video clip to a second outbox for onward transmission to the candidate along with a validation report.

17. The method of any of claims 14 to 16, further comprising the step of generating the algorithms based on parameters provided from an external source.

18. The method of claim 17, further comprising the step of storing the generated algorithms for subsequent use in a memory of the validation computer.

19. The method of any of claims 14 to 18, wherein the validation computer performs a select sequence of validation algorithms, that is to say, all of the algorithms from the first group and a select one or more from the second group and determines whether the video clip passes or fails the validation for individual pieces of projection equipment.

20. The method of claim 19, wherein the video clip fails any one of the first group of validation algorithms and wherein the video clip is sent to the second outbox and returned to the candidate along with a validation report specifying the shortcomings.

21. The method of claim 20, wherein the video clip passes all of the first group of validation algorithms but fails one or more of a sub-set of the second group of validation algorithms, the sub-set being determined by the video clip's data sheet specifications, further comprising the step of sending the video clip to the second outbox for onward transmission to the candidate along with a validation report specifying the device-specific shortcomings.

22. The method of claim 20, wherein the video clip passes all of the first group of validation algorithms and all of the sub-set of algorithms of the second group, the sub-set being determined by the video clip's datasheet, further comprising the step of sending the video clip to the first outbox for onward transmission to a selected cinema establishment.

23. The method of claim 22, wherein the onward transmission is via an agent.

24. The method of any of claims 14 to 23, further comprising the step of the validation computer simulating the playback of the video clip based on parameters corresponding to a specific cinema specified in the video clip's associated datasheet, and executing the validation algorithm or algorithms on the simulated playback.

25. The method of any of claims 14 to 24, executed in the real-time of the video clip.

26. The method of any of claims 14 to 24, executed in processor-time of the validation computer.

27. A system or method substantially as hereinbefore described, with reference to, and as illustrated in, the accompanying drawings.