36 TVBEurope Forum Channel in a Box
Thinking around the box
EARLIER THIS year we ran an extensive feature about Channel in a Box (CiaB). That generated a great deal of interest across the industry, and not a little disagreement about what is meant by the term. Few, it seems, can agree on the definition of Channel in a Box. And anyway, with increasing capacity now available, should it really be Channels in a Box? Is CiaB only about reducing costs? Here to throw some (more) light on the subject are (in alphabetical order) Don Ash, managing partner, director, Sales, PlayBox Technology;
Why is it so difficult to come up with a universally accepted definition of CiaB?
Ash: As one of the originators of the term, I can say it was meant to convey that a single PC could replace the functions of video playout and branding. Typically, these would include the VTRs, channel automation, vision mixer, CG and graphics that, at the time, were the requirements of over 85% of the playout channels worldwide. As more manufacturers came into the market, they considered extra features were mandatory for the term, including ingest, MAM, scheduling, etc. possibly because only their CiaB could do this. In truth, CiaB is exactly what the term was meant to represent — a cost-effective and reliable way to replace the entire master control equipment needed to playout a channel, all in one box. Benovici: This comes down to the question ‘what is a Channel in a Box?’ There are basic and known elements that are found in most of the CiaB solutions —
Charlie Dunn: “The challenge comes from the fact that no two products in this category are the same”
video playback, graphics and a playlist to manage it. The definition of CiaB starts to vary when trying to extend it to include automation, router control, video ingest, etc. Dunn: The challenge comes
from the fact that no two products in this category are the same and they all provide different levels of integration. The advanced level of system integration required for many environments defies a standard definition and that’s why we use the term ‘integrated playout’. The leading solutions today deliver automation, graphics, storage, server- playback, captions, input switching, output scaling and audio processing. Gilbert: It doesn’t exist.
There is no such thing as a ‘Channel in a Box’. There’s no standalone box that will play
Don Ash: “Our technology is fully software centric, so it can run 10 or more IP streaming channels from one box”
out a channel (unless it’s a completely pointless channel). All the solutions require some kind of centralised database or some other server. It’s a misnomer, but it simply needs to be treated as a catch-all phrase, not as a definitive description — much like the term ‘playout chain’. Mehring: The term has been confused in the past because some people who claim to have a CiaB product don’t include a complete offering. For Snell, CiaB is the combination of a playout automation, fully integrated with a one-box solution that replaces as many of the components of a broadcast chain as possible — including video playback, rich graphics, complex audio routing and shuffling, and ancillary data such as CC and subtitling to name just a few.
Ofir Benovici, vice president Marketing for Orad; Stuart Cameron, managing director Cache Media on behalf of Hardata; Charlie Dunn VP of Media Playout Solutions within Grass Valley; Mark Errington, managing director, Oasys Automated Playout; James Gilbert, joint MD, Pixel Power; Tom Gittins, sales director Pebble Beach Systems; Walter Kuntner, owner of ToolsOnAir; Flávio Maurício, project management director, wTVision; Karl Mehring, senior product manager at Snell and Jan Weigner, managing director, Cinegy
Briefly, who should consider going down the CiaB route?
Benovici: One of the strongest values of CiaB solutions is cost- effectiveness. Broadcasters can put a channel on air with less capital investment and fewer operational expenses. However, broadcasters will not achieve
to climb for integrated solutions will be in addressing live requirements. Today, these are more appropriately addressed with discrete automation and best-of-breed components, but that timeline is getting shorter, and better solutions are emerging. Gittins: There are usually
budgetary advantages to adopting a single vendor solution, although careful evaluation of pricing needs to be made. Furthermore, it is worth remembering that adopting a single vendor Channel in a Box solution that comfortably meets a broadcaster’s needs today, will inevitably mean taking the risk that it may not do so tomorrow. The buyer should consider whether the chosen Channel in a Box platform will continue to fit the bill in the future if its embedded control system is only able to handle a limited, fixed range of devices. Maurício:When starting a
new channel, broadcasters need to be very assertive on the investment they undertake. Usually they start with a lower investment and, as the channel
“The next hill to climb for integrated solutions will be in addressing live requirements”
some of the things that can be done using a ‘best of breed’ approach. But, in many cases, the CiaB capabilities are sufficient where resources and cost- effectiveness are a factor in getting on air. Dunn: Everyone should consider some variant of this as an eventuality in their business. The payback in using a more integrated approach is bigger if it can be done on a larger scale. We see most of the ‘traditional’ deployments today where there’s still a lot of live content in the schedule. The next hill
We make no apologies for returning to an issue that continues to exercise minds throughout the industry.
Philip Stevens takes the chair for our latest CiaB debate
www.tvbeurope.com July 2013
Charlie Dunn
starts growing, they require paths for growth without exponential investment. That’s why modular solutions have become so popular. Weigner: Traditionally, CiaB solutions were aiming for the entry-level (read: cheap) market segment with little or no budget. These solutions have now gone upmarket and the ‘high-end’ vendors feel the squeeze and the need for bigger numbers — so they try to have a competing offering, walking the tightrope and not cannibalising their existing customer base.
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