Presented by the Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication at The University of Georgia, winning a Peabody Award is considered a career accomplishment and an initiation into excellence by many broadcasters.

Upwards of a thousand programs apply for consideration each year. Each qualifying program goes through a rigorous preliminary recommendation process that includes 30 panels of two scholars and a student from the Grady College at The University of Georgia. Each application is considered by the Board, but the recommendation process ensures a greater chance of winning the award. The final decision is unanimous among a Board of  15 prestigious and scholarly judges. There are no categories and no limits on the number of winners, therefore each winner has equal merit among the others (whether submitted by an independent producer or a studio mega-producer, classified as a full-documentary, or a TV program).

With past winners including The Sopranos, The Simpsons, The Colbert Report, and Lost, the Peabody Awards are among the most prestigious awards given in Broadcast– though few people know about it. This year’s winners include Modern Family, Glee, and Forest Whitaker’s Brick City, to name a few.

I had the fortune of being part of the preliminary judging process during my time at UGA, and because of it, this past weekend I had the pleasure of attending the 69th annual Peabody Awards at the Waldorf Astoria in New York City. Each student judge is invited to the ceremony after all of their work in the selection committees. In exchange for our presence at the show, students are given a travel stipend and asked to assist with running the program. The jobs include backstage production assisting, escorting winners on and off-stage, and PR work– depending on your area of interest.

It was my job to assist with winner interviews. Because of the history of the Peabody Awards, archival interviews are conducted with each winner to hear about their experiences with their productions and what winning a Peabody means to them. These interviews are specifically for the Peabody historical archives (each interview lasting five to ten minutes); interviews with the press were conducted in a separate room. As part of my job, I was to greet the winners at the door of the reception after their rounds with the press. The room was much more intimate than the press room, with had more than 50 members of the media all jumping at the chance to photograph the winners. Instead, this room was more private: with only the winners, a few Board members, two film crews, and a staff photographer to pleasantly greet each winner with a smile.

Despite being a more intimate room, the winner’s reception was still a [chaotic] whirlwind of people coming in from accepting their award–full of excitement, wanting to mingle, wanting to take personal photos, and still having to get through the photo station and to an interviews. The only other place that was more chaotic was the press room; the award ceremony ran beautifully–like clockwork.

Though glamorous, the Peabody Awards have a greater meaning: excellence in the media—in the forms of broadcast, TV, and digital. The diversity of winners at the Awards examples the vastness of possibilities in the industry– recognition can come at any level of experience. The room was constantly full of emotion and excitement, I can imagine the thrill it would be to win the Award and to feel the gratification for something you’ve put your heart into. For me, the experience was a great networking opportunity and a great chance for practicing the “Hollywood” talk. It felt good to be in a room full of people who all were doing big things in the industry.

Among  the excitement, I didn’t have much time to mingle with the executives and the winners during most of the show, but once it slowed down, I got to talk for about five minutes with some of the New York-based HBO execs, and I got to freak out Tim Bricknell (Producer of The No.1 Ladies Detective Agency and Associate Producer of Cold Mountain) with my excitement to meet him.

I also had a chance to greet and congratulate Forest Whitaker– probably one of the nicest men in Hollywood because he is so personable and humble despite his accomplishments. I was also fortunate enough to shake hands with Ed O’Neill (Jay on Modern Family, best known for playing Al Bundy on Married… With Children) who is also great in person. The other person who was surprisingly cool: Kevin Clash—who puppets and voices Elmo from Sesame Street.

For more information on the Peabody Awards, visit their website, Twitter, or Facebook. Click here for the list of this year’s winners.

Why is that? Why are people so obsessed with this show? I think a lot of it has to do with the desire for adventure. The yearning to return to a simpler way of life where the primary goal was survival, where most of your time was spent trying to find food and shelter and escape predators. But we don’t really want this. We don’t really want to give up our houses and our indoor plumbing and our medicine and grocery stores. We love to daydream about it though. And what is the modern day replacement for a daydream? Television, of course. Thus, we love this show.

Hurley, Sawyer, and Kate are stunned at the direction the show has gone in.

As much as the show’s producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse insist Lost is a character-based show, I don’t know anyone who has watched or still watches it for the characters. If the writers really believe this, then let’s be honest: they’ve failed. Few of the characters feel like real people. They are mostly card stock, their backstories shoddily created, their motivations changing inexplicably, their actions contradicting actions they have taken before, all in service of the plot. They are pieces moved around on a board to move the action forward. And this would be okay, if the plot were worth it. I don’t need real characters to enjoy a show. They can be subservient to the plot. Because what is the real reason I and most people I know watch this show? We want answers. Lots and lots of answers. Because this show has introduced some of the most inexplicable, insane plot points and occurrences I’ve ever seen on television. Don’t get me wrong. Long ago I gave up on finding out why there was a polar bear in the jungle, or what the meaning of the numbers is, or how the enormous four-toed Egyptian statue got there. But I did hold out hope for some big answers, such as “what the hell is the deal with the island, anyway?”

But then along came last week’s episode, “Across the Sea”. And it was a total travesty. Arguably the worst episode in the entire show. May just be the downfall of the whole series. I’ll admit, it’s possible the network interfered with the grand plan and dumbed it down for the less-than-average viewer. Maybe it’s just impossible to build a show off suspense for six years and have it pay off at the end. But our beloved producers sure seemed arrogantly proud of the episode. And the episode was stupid. It moved like molasses, it had horrible acting, writing, and costuming. It had special effects that I could have made with finger paintings. It was as though my trusty dog Toto had pulled aside the curtain to reveal Lindelof and Cuse furiously working the controls. And working them incredibly poorly. My heart was sick. I threw up on my shoes. It took my pretty little picture of the island and clubbed it to death like a baby seal.

Most of you non-Lost watchers probably think I’m crazy. You probably look at me with pity like an abused housewife going back to their husband again. “You should have gotten out at the end of season 4, like I did,” they say. “You sound stupid when you talk about this,” they say. And finally, after all this time, I’m just about willing to admit they are right. What’s the only thing holding me back? The two-and-a-half hour extravaganza finale on Sunday, of course.

As much as I feel abused by Lindelof and Cuse, as much as I currently feel like they have spent six years thumbing their noses at the audience with unparalleled arrogance and startling mediocrity so close to the end, I’m still willing to give them one last chance. So there I will be on Sunday, at a Lost party, eating Lost-themed snacks and drinking Dharma beer, reminiscing with others on the good times. Either way, come Sunday night, whether I like it or not, I will be separated from the island forever. But to paraphrase Bogey, “We’ll always have ‘The Constant’.”

– Shof

AppleInsider.com first reported that Final Cut is being redesigned with the prosumer in mind and shifting focus away from the hardcore professionals.  A few years back, Apple designer Randy Ubillos completely redesigned iMovie to streamline and improve the ease of use for their entry-level customers (with both celebration and outrage).  With the recent scaling back of the Final Cut team, Ubillos is reportedly in charge of doing the same thing with the pro-level software.  Currently, Apple sells two different versions of Final Cut.  Final Cut Studio is designed with the pro in mind, while Final Cut Express is designed for the prosumer who doesn’t need all of the advanced features.  According to AppleInsider, the Express version is currently outpacing Studio in sales and Apple is looking to better capitalize on this market.

As a pro-user who needs the advanced features and power, this was extremely worrying.  The first reason for this is that I simply want and need more features and power.  I want to be given more tools to aid me in filmmaking.  I do not want features taken away in the name of simplicity (like in the initial release of the redesigned iMovie).  The second reason I was worried was much more deep-rooted.

Final Cut Pro has seen its level of success because of its embrace by the film industry.  A large reason I am using the software is because I am confident that it is an industry standard.  It is robust, stable, much cheaper than Avid, and professionals in both Hollywood and the Indie world have embraced it.  As an aspiring filmmaker, why would I spend time learning an editing software that the professionals do not use?  Final Cut has been embraced by some legendary filmmakers.  The Coen Brothers, Francis Ford Coppola, and Walter Murch are all champions of the software, and learning Final Cut has proven to be a marketable skill (check out this page to watch many professionals discuss FCP). If Apple begins to cater to the prosumer instead of the professional, they run the risk of alienating the industry.  This is a serious risk.

Apparently, Apple thought so as well.  Within hours of this news breaking, Apple responded with the following statement to CNET:

“Final Cut Pro is the first choice for professional video editors, and we’ve never been more excited about its future,” Apple spokesman Bill Evans told CNET. “The next version of Final Cut is going to be awesome, and our pro customers are going to love it.”

Hopefully, there is really nothing to worry about and we will get a fantastic piece of software that is easier to use, more robust, and further embraced by professionals.  The current Final Cut suite was released last summer and many expect the new version to be released very soon.  By all indications, we should know in a few months whether to upgrade or jump ship to a more compelling Adobe solution.

The application will solve a set of complex problems:

• Parallax – know the depth of a shot by seeing the actual positive and negative parallax values at any distance with the subject in focus
• Separation – learn how various objects in each shot will affect the on-screen image quality based on separation and distance from the cameras (includes “Maximum Positive On-Screen Offset”)
• Lens – determine the appropriate lens or zoom to achieve the desired 3D effect
• Shooting style – choose “Converged” or “Parallel” style to customize shots and plan post-production workflow
• Camera Setup – set camera model, lens type and interaxial range; test real shots with interactive shot settings and quickly rearrange the setup real-time
• Stereo Solver™ Mode gives the exact settings needed to accomplish any shot while ensuring far objects’ parallax never goes over defined maximum on-screen offset
• S3D Calculator Mode functions as a pure 3D reference calculator with interactive value tables

Still, I imagine it’s only a matter of time before an enterprising iPhone programmer does the math and releases an app with identical calculations for a much lower pricepoint. Additionally, I’m certain the excellent cinematographer’s resource that is pCam will be updated to include these calculations as 3D becomes a larger portion of the professional market.

[RealD 3D | iTunes]

Only a short train ride from Cannes, Juan Les Pins is the small town we are staying in. This a view from the park where we enjoy Paninis from some local street vendors.

This is the entrance to the Lumiere, the main theatre where the “In Competition” films premiere, including Chongqing Blues, On Tour, The Housemaid, Wall Street – Money Never Sleeps, and many others. Robin Hood also premiered here.

The area right outside of the Festival is absolutely gorgeous. It has some amazing architecture and landscaping, not to mention the beach!

Setting up the Red Carpet right outside of the Lumiere on Tuesday afternoon.

Another view of the outside of the Lumiere.

In addition to feature films and documentaries, many short films premiere at The Cannes Film Festival. This is the poster right outside the Short Film Corner.

Right when you walk in, this large sign is the first thing you see before having the opportunity to screen hundreds of films.

Another view of the streets and buildings surrounding the festival.

One of the grand hotels where all of the Celebrities stay. They are quite luxurious inside, perhaps even too much so…

Ben Sidoti can be found online at:

• Linked In
• Vimeo
• Flickr
• Tumblr
• Twitter

Drawing comparisons to Andy Kaufman’s joke-on-the-audience routines, K-Strass embarrasses the stations that put him on with his absurd antics. Unfortunately, I feel it is a bit of a missed opportunity. Why? Because, unlike Kaufman, K-Strass just really isn’t that funny. It was an opportunity that, I feel, could have been so much more. But judge for yourself.

Who is K-Strass? Nobody seems to know. He has disappeared back into the woodwork. The phone number and website have both been cut off. The only clue is a trace on the registry, which leads to a man named Joe Pickett. Pickett operates a company called the “Found Footage Festival” which tours the country screening little-known humorous home videos and the like. Basically, a company that YouTube has rendered unnecessary. But a little connecting the dots would seem to indicate that Pickett, or someone near him, engineered this elaborate prank. And that footage will probably be showing up in his touring festivals in the near future.

In the meantime, this prank is just a further indication of the power of internet video, especially YouTube, to put egg on the face of the traditional news media while at the same time entertaining millions. The news stations seem to be aggressively pursuing copyright claims, so watch this video, and the one linked below, before they disappear.

– Shof

Digital video (especially HD video) is made possible through the use of complex mathematical algorithms that transform the light that the camera sees into 1’s and 0’s that can be recorded to a tape or harddrive.  These algorithms in the video world are known as codecs, and there are literally too many codecs to count.  They all have their pros and cons and work better or worse depending on the situation and hardware/software you are using.  Almost all of these codecs are intellectual property of whomever created them, and therefore they come with their own terms of use and legal licensing.

Recently, one codec has gained a lot of popularity and is currently used by dozens of cameras, iPods, and internet sites to record and playback video.  This codec is called H.264.  It is praised for its ability to process high-quality video while maintaining low bit rates.  In other words, you see a pretty picture, but the file is kept relatively small.  This codec was developed by the Video Codec Experts Group (VCEG) and the Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG), and therefore it  comes with certain terms and conditions that people must agree to in order to use. Another popular codec called MPEG 2 is also owned by the Moving Picture Experts Group, and therefore also has similar terms.  Currently, MPEG2 is used by all cameras that shoot on HDV tape (Canon XHA1, Canon HV30, etc), and H.264 is used on a ton of the hugely popular DSLRs including the Canon 1D, 5D, 7D, 550d and others.  Besides cameras, the codec is also the standard format for video on all iPods, iPhones, iPads, Flips, and is even used primarily by YouTube and Vimeo.  All of this sounds good so far.  We have a high quality codec that can compress video efficiently and many people are embracing it.  This provides a consistent standard in products we use to shoot video and in websites and devices we use to watch video.

Where is the problem?  Well the problem lies when you read the fine print.  Buried deep in MPEG’s License Agreement, they state that video shot on this codec can only be used in “personal use and non-commercial” purposes.  Doesn’t matter what camera you buy or how much you spend, if it uses either MPEG2 or H.264 you technically will have to pay royalties to MPEG if you want to sell your footage.  For the majority of consumers, this will never be an issue.  They won’t be selling their footage anyway.  However, many professionals are also using these cameras, and that could be very troubling for them.  They will have to pay MPEG for video they shoot.  But wait… there is more.  The hole gets deeper.

This same restriction applies to video editing software.  So even if you do not use a camera with MPEG2 or H.264, if you edit with it in Final Cut, Adobe Premiere, Sony Vegas, Avid, or others they can technically charge you the same way.  MPEG has created a situation where it is difficult for both camera manufacturers and software developers to purchase a license that allows the users to use the codec however they may want.  Ok, well all of this just affects professionals right?  If I am a soccer mom, or baseball dad this shouldn’t affect me?  Well, even that is a little tricky.  Down the hole we go again..

MPEG has recently renewed their “free internet broadcasting AVC license.”  What this means is that people are allowed to stream video online royalty-free as long as the video is “free to stream.”  In other words, consumers can upload their video for others to watch as long as they don’t charge to watch it.  Well Youtube and Vimeo, have advertisements on their sites.  They make money from these ads.  In some eyes, this is non-free usage.  Both the site and the user who uploaded could be in violation and therefore have to pay.

Now there are additional problems when we talk about official MPEG decoders and some open-source ones, but I think for the most part the point has been explained.  The crux of her article is saying that technically MPEG could start charging anyone who has ever shot on these cameras, edited video, or uploaded/downloaded video to these sites.  This is pretty much everyone.

It has been known for a while now, that there are some dicey license agreements, and you should be careful in the way you export a video in H.264.  However, everyone assumed the problem was just caused when you were finishing the video.  This is one of the first articles that explains that the problem starts the moment you press record.  But is it really a problem?

Yes, I will be the first to admit that all of this news is very alarming.  I had no idea that the new Canon 550d I bought had this ridiculous agreement written in.  That technically speaking, I could never sell any of the footage I will ever shoot with it, no matter how beautiful it looked.  The fact that this same agreement is included in the 1d, 5d, and 7d (professional grade cameras) is downright atrocious.  Maybe Vimeo and Youtube are really freaking out, running for the hills, and hitting the panic button.  But then again… maybe they’re not.  Once the alarms stop ringing, the dust settles, and rational thought starts reclaiming its place, I don’t think we need to run around screaming that the end of indie filmmaking is near.  At the end of the day, I don’t think MPEG will do anything at all.  Could they?  In the short term, yes.  Would they?  In the long term, it would be business suicide.  No one would pay.  NO ONE. A new codec would rise from the ashes written by another company with more open standards and that would be it.  Sure us Canon DSLR aficionados would be a bit upset, but I wonder if even that could be sidestepped with a firmware update.

So what about the future? Over the past few weeks, a lot of press has covered the on-going spat between Apple and Adobe.  Steve Jobs has publicly denounced Adobe’s Flash on several occasions (explaining why the iPhone and iPad are Flash-less and will probably always be), and Adobe has since fired back with their own criticism of Apple.  All of this discussion has underscored the future battle over which formats and codecs will play majority of the video online in the future.  As it stands right now, most of the video is played with Flash (aided with H.264 encoding), but more of the big players (YouTube and Vimeo) are moving towards an HTML5 standard in the very near future.  If and how HTML5 will continue to rely on H.264 (or the other favorite Ogg/Theora) remains to be seen.  While all of this speculation is very interesting, I feel confident that I will be able to use my 550d, edit with Final Cut, and upload on Vimeo/Youtube for the foreseeable future.  Far from the death of indie filmmaking, I think we are still in a very exciting rebirth.

With graduation comes an unrivaled sense of optimism. With that sense of optimism (for me) also comes uncertainty. Will I have to live with my mom until I’m thirty? Who will want to hire me when I’m so green? What am I going to be doing in the upcoming months? These are the questions that go through my mind.

With a film degree, (Telecommunications, really) that sense of uncertainty is even stronger, because jobs come and go in the industry. I don’t think I know anyone who is 100% confident about getting a job. Getting hired is not something you can prepare for months in advance. Productions want you when they want you, and if you’re unavailable, they can find someone else. Snap your fingers. It’s that fast. If it’s something you can do, there’s someone else out there who knows the person hiring, that has done it better, has done it before, and can beat you out of the job. I’m not saying that there’s no hope, I’m just being completely realistic.

At the same time though, I know people in the industry who are consistently working, and the fact that they can do that makes me feel confident that I can too. With this degree, even if you’re really good at what you do, you’re never guaranteed a job, especially if no one knows you.

Having said all of that, as green as I am, I understand that I might have to work for free a few times. In some cases, it is necessary for them to know who I am, and to be able to make the connections in order to get future jobs. I am aware of the fact that it can be beneficial in many ways. A few days or hours of free labor is worth it to be able to establish the relationship with other filmmakers, even if it is a negative experience or a neutral one. In saying that, I really do hope that I’ll be able to support myself through filmmaking, and that I won’t be working for free forever, but it is something that I am completely willing to do.

In school, the best lesson that I learned is that there is always room for mistakes because we are students. Everyone is still learning. The stakes are low; you’re not on a million-dollar film production. And that means a lot of room for error.

No matter how much preparation there is in a film program, it’s always different in the real world. On a student production, there are always people who don’t want to be there (though as the production levels in college get more advanced, this becomes less common). Being around people who are not yet professionals always adds a little complication to the process, especially on top of the production itself, which is already complicated enough.

The other thing that I’ve realized in school is that pursuing a film degree and a career in film is a lifestyle, not just a full-time job. There are no pre-determined hours, no nine-to-five. It’s about sacrificing time for what you love, twelve hours days on set, early call times, and sometimes not being able to see your friends and family. All that being said, film school is a preview for what’s to come—and the close relationships you establish with your peers becomes a new family for you, and all of the time spent on set is only a reinforcement for the love that you already knew was there for filmmaking.

My friends in other majors have often expressed to me that they hardly know anyone else in their classes, if they even speak to them. The memories that I’ll have after graduation are ones that I know are unique to a film major—establishing close friendships, memories of working hard on set, and working closely in teams. The situations that are unique to a film major have allowed me to also become close with my professors. In fact, I have never felt alone throughout the course of my education. There’s always some sort of support system that exists because it is already established that everyone is working at it out of love, and everyone is willing to help each other out.

At this point, with all of what I know now, I know I’m ready to set foot on my first professional set. I’ve interned at two places—a radio station and a news station. Neither of my internships has been in film production, but regardless I still come away with the sense that I’ve learned something from both of them. I gained a sense of how to run a business, how to be a professional, and what’s generally appropriate in the workforce. At my internships I also was able to realize what I love—and that’s filmmaking. After trying a few other things, I don’t want to do anything else. A lot of times I look back on those experiences and think about how I might not have done as well as I could have simply because in my heart I knew I didn’t belong there. I don’t regret those decisions, I am grateful for them. My advice to others is to get as many internships as they can, because it’s true that they’ll help you realize what you really want to do.

In October, I plan to move to LA. I am going out there with no contacts, no job leads, and never having been there before. If you want to call that crazy, fine. Everyone who majors in film has to be a little nuts. All that said, LA is the place to be. I plan on moving out there with four of my friends from school to pursue a job as an Office PA or an Executive Assistant, with the eventual hopes of becoming a producer. Though it might be tough getting off the ground (especially since the only real preparation I can do is to keep working jobs now—as opposed to interviewing like other graduating seniors would do) I feel confident that LA has what I want. Why October? One of my roommates has a job lead and has been asked to be out there by then. I’m ready to go at any point, though. Any point sooner than October, but hopefully not any point later.

If I don’t sound scared at all, that’s not true. I am scared, but my optimism and excitement outweigh the fear. LA will be a new city to me where I know no one except for my roommates and I’ll have to go out there and get my first real job without any understanding of what’s to come. It would be unnatural for me not to feel a little insecure about it, but that’s something I can easily overcome.

Especially knowing that I’ll be in a place that’s all about living, sleeping, eating, and breathing movie making.

If you would like to contact Jessica, she can be reached via Email or Facebook. Read more of her writings on her blog and view her work on YouTube.

I admit, that’s a bit of hyperbole and the cameras, when configured properly, are perfectly capable of 3D but far from suited for it. At the moment, we’re standing at a crossroads in 3D technology. Like the coming of sound, there are numerous systems and ideas of how the technology should work. The additional questions of post-only 3D adds to the complications.

We should first address the strengths of 3D, and yes there are strengths. Much like two-dimensional deep space, the addition of the z dimension allows the viewer to search through the frame finding what is important and immersing themselves in the image. This, however, is a fragile illusion that, because of its similarity to real life, is broken by “unnatural occurrences”. These “unnatural occurrences” manifest themselves most readily in blurred objects resulting from a shallow depth of field.

Forced 3D Depth of Field in Avatar

Our eyes have a natural depth of field. Hold your finger close to your eye and focus on it to quickly see the incredible imaging properties of your natural stereoscopic system. In our three-dimensional world, where our eyes focus creates a natural and constant depth of field. We focus where we want as our eyes explore the world. When our focus is chosen for us through the use of shallow depth of field, we get headaches.

A far more effective and relatively rare form of 3D keeps a natural looking deep focus instead of forcing focus planes upon us. This allows the eye to explore the 3D environment, naturally focusing on what’s important and internally blurring out the rest. If 3D wants to gain acceptance as natural filmmaking, this is the route that must be taken.

While large sensor cameras like the RED, Sony F35, or Canon 5D Mark II are capable of deep focus through heavily stopped down lenses, it’s an impractical, lighting heavy way to make films. Even a 2/3″ sensor, as used in Avatar, can be too shallow to shoot natural 3D.

Ironically, the 1/2″, 1/3″, and 1/4″ sensors prosumers celebrated leaving behind with the DSLR and RED revolution are exactly what 3D needs. These sensors offer the deep depth of field that is the bane of student films but the tonic for 3D. Additionally, these smaller sensors lead to smaller bodies which allows smaller rigs and smaller intraocular distances improving all aspects of the 3D camera workflow.

To this point, the only film I know of which employed this deep focus strategy throughout the entire 3D piece was the Dreamworks animated picture Kung Fu Panda which I did not have the opportunity to see in theatres. Like Dreamworks, live-action filmmakers will realize they must step away from the shallow focus tool which has proven invaluable for telling 2D stories but which does not carry over to the 3D world.

]]> http://poetzerofilm.com/2010/05/the-rise-of-3d-and-the-era-of-the-tiny-sensor/feed/ 2 http://poetzerofilm.com/2010/05/the-rise-of-3d-and-the-era-of-the-tiny-sensor/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/poetzero/~3/WWq1o4-TA4s/ http://poetzerofilm.com/2010/05/who-needs-cable/#comments Tue, 04 May 2010 18:49:25 +0000 John Merizalde http://poetzerofilm.com/?p=2806 According to a new study released last week by the Yankee Group, one in eight consumers will eliminate or scale back their cable, satellite or other pay-TV services this year. This may come as a shock to many, but the demise of cable has been foreseen for a few years now, and will probably be driving the waves of Web 3.0.

Rising cable and satellite TV prices have driven many to seek alternatives in streaming content online. This growth has been fueled by increased internet speeds, but is also due to increased competition between TV Networks. Companies are now featuring many popular shows such as Desperate Housewives and Saturday Night Live on streaming-video sites such as Hulu, often immediately after they premiere on television.

Aside from these factors, consumers are more and more turning to portable digital devices, such as the iPhone and other smart phones, and increasingly larger tablet devices like the iPad. This is a generation that demands convenience and mobility. Many prefer the option to view their favorite films and programs on the go, no longer restricted to the traditional viewing arenas of the theater or the living room.

Because of this increased demand, content producers have reacted accordingly, and this is now leading an exodus from the couch to the computer.

Many people only have a handful of prime-time shows they watch frequently, and because of this it leaves all the other hundreds of channels they’re paying for superfluous and costly. With most of the big shows already online for free, the change is no-brainer.

At the moment some complain that a reason they stay with cable is because of live-events, specifically sports. This will not be a valid complaint for long, because increasingly sports games are being shown online (mostly for pay) and it won’t be long before all follow suit. A great example is the upcoming 2010 Fifa World Cup, the largest sporting event in the world, which will be shown live online.

There is only a small gap of time left for computer-users to enjoy this free content, though. As more and more people make the switch to online television and revel in the free content, networks will surely begin charging for its use. Granted, it probably won’t be anywhere near the cost of cable, and payment will be per show and not per channel. These are small inconveniences, and are a vast improvement over the current system.

So my advice is, cut the cable now, and enjoy the free online content while you can.