automation & asset management feature


systems are usually chosen as ‘best of breed’ components from individual manufacturers.


Building such a system is a large and expensive undertaking. Architecting, designing, specifying, selecting, procuring, installing, commissioning, and supporting all of these individual hardware


components consumes time, money, and resources. This is easy to justify for premium and tier 1 channels, but what about the others? What if an organisation’s business model or operation changes? Can these assets be easily redeployed in an effective manner and still be used efficiently within the organisation?


Enter the channel in a box


The solution is to rationalise all of these discrete best-of-breed components and replicate their feature set and functionality in a convenient package - a content assembly engine (Figure 2). Essentially a complete ‘air chain’ in a compact frame, the content assembly engine is more widely and


commercially known as a channel in a box (CIAB). The benefits are many: simple architecture which results in a compact form factor, easy setup and configuration, and good green credentials including low power consumption to name a few. Rather than having to source key functionality from a variety of vendors, operators will find everything needed in a one-stop solution from a single provider - and the deployment cost per channel is drastically reduced.


A CIAB has many advantages over a traditional discrete solution. By replicating the discrete solution in a convenient package, the system can offer all of the functionality required from a content assembly engine or an ‘air chain’ including storage, video/audio/text players, live inputs, a video mixer/keyer, routing, a graphics engine, up and down scaling, voice-overs, DVE, closed captions, bug generator, etc.


The system’s role is to replicate all of the typical functionality required in master control operations, including the ability to work with tapes, files, and live feeds and integrate with network and local operations. The CIAB should offer up- and down- conversion to ensure there is a migration path for legacy content. In addition there may be requirements to integrate with archive and media


asset management systems as well as remote disaster recovery or business continuity sites as well as potential spoke sites in a hub-and-spoke centralcast architecture.


Figure 3 gives an example of a mixed architecture which offers the best of both worlds for a multi- channel installation. At the top is a premium channel using discrete best- of-breed equipment, while the bottom two layers consist of CIAB solutions to cover two additional lower cost channels. All are under control of the same automation system.


Hardware considerations for channel in a box


There are now a number of different CIAB approaches on the market, and their feature sets and suitability for different applications varies widely: • An existing video server/player with a simple clip player, which is not considered a true CIAB and is really only useful for simple, jukebox-type playout. By adding simple enhanced graphics functionality, this approach moves closer to the CIAB concept. It’s possible to put this configuration under full automation control, but the resulting system is often expensive with a limited feature set. • A pure IT platform based on off- the-shelf hardware with broadcast quality I/O and features implemented by CPU cycles. This is an attractive proposition but the use of CPU cycles can be problematic. Take the post- production industry, where the IT mantra of ‘as soon as I can’ is appropriate for the use of CPU cycles to complete an edit dissolve or render a graphics sequence. Playout delivery is a real-time process taking place for every frame and at every second, minute, and hour around the clock. In this scenario ‘as soon as I can’ is not acceptable.


• A hybrid IT platform based on a combination of commodity hardware and dedicated compositing hardware ensuring real time frame accurate content compositing. This is an ideal platform as it offers the benefits of using commodity products but offers real performance by virtue of the deterministic delivery of the processing hardware


Above each of these hardware options sits the automation layer. At the minimum, the automation system should provide the absolute maximum reliability and resilience, as well as maximum architectural flexibility to accommodate local and regional


www.ibeweb.com l january/february 2011 l ibe l 13


Figure 2.


There are now real world products on the market that enable integrated platforms for content assembly and


distribution. These


channel in a box solutions offer a wide range of capabilities that can replace conventional master control operations simply and cost- effectively.


programming, opt outs, and opt ins including different time zones, etc. Ironically, one of the most important features of an automation system is its ability to be operated manually. Operators should be able to easily take manual or live control of the system for operational or technical reasons, and the system should assist, rather than fight, manual intervention. Ideally the channel in a box solution should still be capable of being integrated into a delivery chain containing discrete third party devices. This approach allows the broadcaster flexibility in their operation to accommodate requirements outside of the channel in a box capabilities but still allows them to take the benefit in cost reductions by choosing this approach as their primary channel architecture.


In summary Figure 3.


We have looked at the converging technologies and the diverging requirements put on content delivery. We have acknowledged the desired drive to improve operational costs and efficiencies within content delivery platforms for both conventional and new channel types and platforms. There are now real world products on the market that enable integrated platforms for content assembly and distribution. These channel in a box solutions offer a wide range of capabilities that can replace conventional master control operations simply and cost-effectively. Case studies to date show a cost reduction of around 70% compared to traditional best-of-breed discrete installations. In addition, these solutions offer a rich feature set as well as offering migration strategies and future-proof operation.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44