January 2013 www.tvbeurope.com


At the core, the CiaB is an event management system


SHOULD THERE even be a CiaB debate? Were automation systems debated in the past, and should we debate this into the future? Maybe we should start by looking at why CiaB is such a divisive topic. Is it because of the IT element, and engineers not trusting the reliability? Or because it wasn’t invented by the big brand manufacturers? Have we been blinded into thinking this is all an interesting debate? Maybe if there was less focus on negativity and more on positivity then broadcasters could buy in confidence and choose products based on meeting their needs and budgets. Maybe we should take CiaB away from the debating floor and into the business-as-usual arena. I think the biggest issue is that most people still don’t fully understand the technology, and how to compare the various companies’ offerings, because there is so much hype and false information out there. Given that the entire market is going into the integrated solution space, there really isn’t an alternative to go back to, so it is now much more a case of having to prove things work before customers will buy, and show and prove the things you claim. Hopefully this will sort out some of the bad collateral and incorrect information in the market as customers force a correction. What has changed is that the doubters, naysayers and past opponents of the technology have all either developed or acquired their own CiaB solution. What are the marketing cries of these ‘me too’ CiaB vendors, or even some of the traditional automation vendors? l Our box flashes more times than any other box l Our box is brighter than any other box l Our box has purple lights and purple is the best colour l We’ve sold more lights than anyone else (we put more into each box so the numbers look better) l Our lights are Enterprise class l Our lights are unrivalled l Others use lights of variable quality l We just invented the lightbulb (honestly lights didn’t exist before our product launch) l The lights don’t work well enough for real illumination, you need to have separate glass, filament, sockets and power. Obviously I’ve changed the


context slightly for effect, however this is actually a reasonable facsimile of the reality. This is about as clear as


Blinded by the lights?


How do we define CiaB, the products, the market, the use-case scenarios, whether customers should use them at all, reliability — and can one manufacturer supply all you need? Why is CiaB such a devise topic? The view of Mark Errington, chief executive officer, Oasys


Smaller pool I think there are interesting times ahead, but realistically the industry cannot continue to support so many companies doing the same thing, and either by consolidation or attrition there has to be fewer in the future. Something that is clear though, is that the proposition must include MAM, traffic and archive as well as playout. These don’t all have to be supplied by one manufacturer, so now there is the added factor of best of breed workflow solutions versus one stop shop vendor solutions. The major manufacturers are selling much more as a soup to nuts solution, and the resellers and SIs are doing more work with specialist suppliers. So what exactly is a Channel


Mark Errington: The major


manufacturers are


selling much more as a soup to nuts solution,


and the resellers and SI’s are doing more work with specialist suppliers


in a Box? If we focus on the channel and the box part of the definition then we first need to define what is a Channel. My definition is as follows: An output from a system that


is broadcast to air in its entirety without the material being enhanced by another system or piece of equipment. In its


ForumChannel in a Box TVBEurope 19


handler. The second is the edge model where the POD can operate as a self-contained unit where the control and playlists are within the same box as the output. In both cases the cache of materials to be played out can either be stored on the POD itself or in a near-line cache. In the Edge model you can


have client and server on the same system, but in the centralised model you would only have clients to the centralised control servers. In a strict definition of Channel in a Box, this second model would be the only one where you could claim a true Channel in a Box, however in reality the architecture is only relevant to fit for purpose, and purchase and operating costs. The playlists and material


can work in a push or pull model depending on the automation process, and can be native to the system or translated usually through some form of XML schema. At the core, the CiaB is an


event management system. Each item in a playlist is a multi- function event, not a single function event. The primary event (to which each secondary event is tagged) can be any of the following: Live SDI input, Stream input, Fixed Time Delay input, Variable Time Delay input, Static, or a file. Each of these has a defined in and out point, and a defined start and end process. To each primary event you


can add multiples of secondary events, each with their own in and out point, and defined start and end process. Examples of these would be: Audio, Graphics, Branding, Subtitles, Aspect Ratio controls,


The Centralised model only has clients to the centralised control servers Maybe it is because of the


the information and product differentiation that is disseminated in the market. There is certainly insufficient real information to help broadcasters decide on what is the best solution that meets their needs. Manufacturers are allowed to


make up and print any differentiators they like. Un- researched, untrue even, and most likely exaggerated or misleading. Put downs of other vendors are common, and there is no industry watchdog to police and sentence offenders.


large number of manufacturers that have jumped on the bandwagon that this behaviour persists. What’s wrong with actually turning the spotlight around and examining the reality of the products and looking at what they offer to customers — and the critical factors that should determine the choice. After all, there are now over 30 manufacturers offering these solutions, and most have jumped onto the CiaB tagline.


entirety means video, audio, graphics, branding, subtitles, transitions, DVE, and aspect ratio conversion or signalling From the box side, let us look


at the construction of CiaB Solutions. A CiaB is a Play Out Device (POD) that performs the function of playing out a Channel. There are two basic models


for CiaB. The first is a centralised model where the POD operates as a server to a control system client which is the controller and playlist


Evaluating the options What makes each solution different is the extent that they can play a channel with the features required, before extending to secondary servers and equipment. We don’t believe in trying to blind with marketing techno babble, but want to ensure that we can provide full and proper information on which to make an informed evaluation for system selection. So, how does a broadcaster


evaluate each of the solutions against each other? Start by looking at solutions that answer the requirements no matter what the architecture. Use a functional description and not a technical specification. Look at the following attributes: l Market experience and expertise


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  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52