With so many alternatives available when it comes to leveraging IP production transport and contribution, deciding on which path to take can feel a bit overwhelming.
Not only are there numerous technical and video quality issues to keep in mind but non-technical factors that in most situations will play an even greater role in which way a media organization ultimately chooses to go.
Money, Money, Money
If money were no object, making decisions about the best IP transport around which to build a video production network would be rather simple. With unlimited funds, bandwidth isn’t really an issue, so why even compress video? Ditto for network management. If money were not an issue, organizations could simply throw more IT personnel at network hiccups, Precision Time Protocol (PTP) clock setup and synchronization maintenance, orchestration and the like.
But for most media organizations most of the time, money is a major factor—whether it’s the revenue-generating potential of the event covered or the production budget associated with those potential earnings.
That’s why those producing the few events at the pinnacle of live television production with massive advertising revenue to support the biggest production budgets, like the Olympics or World Cup, may choose to move uncompressed 1080p HD or even 4K UHD across their SMPTE ST 2110-based production network while a small- to medium-sized TV station with limited financial resources may decide on an NDI network moving an AVC or HEVC compressed video.
As the term implies, “uncompressed” in effect means “untouched.” No effort has been made to reduce the amount of data required. AVC or HEVC on the other hand apply a good deal of compression to reduce the amount of data that must move across the network. So, how much data?
By way of comparison, an uncompressed 1080p 60 HD signal translates into 3000 Megabits per second (or 3Gigabits per second). The same signal compressed using the HEVC codec ranges from 3.5 to 15Mbps, but a nice midpoint is about 10Mbps. Clearly, the bandwidth needed for the latter is far less.
Between these two extremes there are a number of other alternatives, such as IPMX and Dante AV when it comes to IP transport protocols, and JPEG XS and JPEG 2000 when it comes to codecs. Each changes the equation, not simply in terms of how much network bandwidth is necessary but also when it comes to many other technical and non-technical factors, such as latency, workflow, network management and where production personnel will be located.
On top of these decisions, it’s necessary to take on a similar balancing act to select the IP contribution link that best meets a media organization’s needs.
Ross Video has published a new white paper, “How to Select the Right IP Transport,” which examines these and other considerations Media & Entertainment Industry organizations should think about before making a decision about which alternatives best suit their individual needs.
This examination does not seek to recommend one alternative over another but rather to equip readers with the knowledge and background they will need to assess their organization’s requirements and evaluate various options.
Click here to read this new white paper.
