38 TVBEurope Forum Channel in a Box
Is it feasible for flagship ‘mainstream’ channels (such as BBC1) to be run via CiaB equipment?
Ash: It is feasible, but not in the short term as I don’t think the decision makers are ready for this. In many instances we find CiaB is chosen for redundancy and disaster recovery with the mainstream broadcaster. Ten years is a long time in broadcasting and a decade ago the majority of today’s PlayBox Technology clients would not have considered CiaB, but are now using it to great effect. Cameron: Of course, and we
have examples of that now around the world. In April Hardata secured such a major order and is in final competition for a number of others. Dunn: Absolutely. It’s not
about quality or reliability. I would argue that the reliability and quality of a Grass Valley Smart Playout Center based on K2 Edge playout nodes exceeds most of the solutions we have ever provided via K2 and Profile in traditional environments. There are less moving parts, it’s 100% Linux, and when its software gets upgraded it comes from one place and is installed in one location (this was never the case in discrete environments). Errington: Absolutely. There is nothing special in the BBC process that would exclude it from using this technology.
Stuart Cameron: “The best CiaB solutions allow users to save money by doing more for less, in a smaller space, with lower power”
It is only a matter of time (and the breaking down of prejudice) before this is the case. As it happens the BBC is currently evaluating the technology, having monitored it for many years. Gilbert: Not yet. It’s too
complex and not cost-effective for CiaB vendors to incorporate every possible little bit of glue from the traditional playout chain. If that starts to happen then CiaB doesn’t really provide any advantage. Gittins: Not for some time.
The level of complexity, the dynamic nature of the channel, the extreme reliability required, and the constant need for change are all factors. Maurício: It is possible by concept and makes sense in some particular conditions such as disaster recovery, but for the daily bases needs, if we analyse in detail, we’ll see that it would be necessary to include complementary systems such as extended storages, multi-ingest stations, MAM systems, newsroom systems, etc. This means, we are no longer talking about a CiaB solution on its base concept.
Weigner: That depends on the
Who should operate the CiaB? Is it a graphics person, a scheduler, an IT expert — or is there a new position ‘CiaB operator’?
Benovici:We see borders blending between the classical job descriptions. Graphics operators need to understand IT. In turn, IT needs to know about scheduling and video servers, while scheduling needs to understand graphics. So in different facilities, different resources will operate the CiaB. Indeed, a ‘CiaB operator’ may be a good description for this job. Cameron: This is a very
interesting question and there is no single answer. We find it depends on the client and how they want to operate. The question raises the point that a good CiaB should be designed for use by anyone the client chooses within the facility — and not requiring fluency in software languages. Errington: Operation of a CiaB is still done by an MCR operator in the same way as with any other playout system. An MCR operator was never a graphics expert. There are some differences in how you do trouble shooting, and in how you take things manually to air, but essentially a mix of IT and broadcast knowledge is required in any part of the broadcast chain. Maurício: This will vary from client to client. Nowadays, broadcasters are training their teams in a way they can have different tasks in the channel workflow. But, for us, if a CiaB solution is all about saving money, so the software needs to be very intuitive and automated enough to make it usable to any
operator profile. Another important aspect is the support given to clients. If they want to reduce in-house technical people, providers need to guarantee effective support.
type of channel. Ideally nobody. The whole idea is that the schedule is dropped in with everything prepared including graphics, animations, etc, preferably auto-generated by the traffic/scheduling system. If the channel has lots of live or unpredictable schedule changes we are back at a scenario where you have a one-to-one operator/channel situation and the cost of the playout equipment compared to operator cost becomes insignificant.
Does CiaB have a future in its present form — or does it need any radical rethinking?
Tom Gittins: “A single vendor solution is likely to bring benefits by delivering diverse functionalities via a ‘joined up’ user interface, minimising the need for training”
Ash: CiaB certainly has a good short- and mid-term future. In the long term, there will need to be many radical changes as viewing habits evolve and the number of content-delivery methods increases. Now with thousands of systems in operation and many users giving an enormous amount of feedback to R&D, we will continue to evolve and keep ahead of the game. Benovici: CiaB is still a fairly
Walter Kuntner: “CiaB is a way to deliver linear content in a much better automated and cost effective way”
new concept, so an on-going evolution of this concept is natural — but radical rethinking may be a little too far. Cameron: Certainly the second-generation CiaB systems have a real and expanding future. Clients like the fact that these fully integrated solutions
www.tvbeurope.com July 2013
GENESIX up to 8 HD channels
advanced 2D/3D graphic engine integrated media asset management XDCAM HD, ProRes, P2, DNxHD support edit while capture functionality
www.stryme.com VIDEOSERVER V4
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