Mobile TV is alive! - TVBEurope

nowhere is this more pertinent
than when selecting the optimal
CiB approach.
An initial view seems to
polarise between two main types
of channel. Firstly those reactive
and manually controlled channels,
the original MCR, where
channels are almost assembled by
hand. Examples include national
broadcasters with complex junctions
and live events, networks
with inserts and overruns, live
sports and news — all of which
usually require realtime functionality.
Improving the presentation
of these channels has always been
challenging.
With a single ‘super server’ or
‘content engine’ and pre-integrated
automation, things should be
easier. Perhaps they will be in
2011, with updated versions of
many CiB solutions. Indeed those
that can package their solutions
using the latest lower cost yet
increased multi-core processing
horsepower will help address the
realtime I/O, signal path processing
and automation hiccups that
have troubled most first generation
CiB solutions.
At the other end of the scale,
apparently more straightforward
thematic services such as children’s,
music and movies are often seen
as easier channels to manage.
Many suspect that with improved
upstream workflow and direct integration
with channel planning/
traffic systems, thematic channels
would benefit most from CiB and
could now be driven using a more
supply chain type approach.
Coupled with the rapid increase of
global file delivery for high payload
HD, stereoscopic 3D and beyond,
this is now true for the long form
programmes and commercials.
Yet thematic channels have
interesting added complications.
When a single core service is
distributed to multiple regions
for example, the number of
audio channels and subtitles can
increase dramatically in a typical
multichannel thematic workflow.
But, the biggest challenge by far
for thematic channels is in channel
branding and onscreen graphics.
Broadcasters now compete to keep
viewers watching, using much
more than great content, a good
schedule and a simple station ID.
Complex patterns of onscreen promotion
during both programmes
and commercial breaks are now
mainstream; often accompanied
by a voiceover in local language.
Graphics on the main service
promoting ‘coming up next’ and
‘later on’ are now cleverly combined
with multichannel and
multimedia cross promotions.
These inform the viewer what is
over on another channel, on the
radio and online services. While
channel branding is challenging
to reproduce onscreen often using
live data, it’s actually the back end
design and scheduling workflow
that is the biggest difficulty for
many broadcasters.
By adding a graphics or channel
branding capability to their offer,
each manufacturer has further
increased the stakes in the CiB arms
race because they now have to compete
with best-of-breed in standalone
broadcast graphics. In turn
graphics technology vendors have
now entered the fun from the reverse
angle (sic); although most don’t yet
call theirs a CiB. This is actually a
very compelling proposition, as
graphics vendors already have many
of the key interfaces for graphics
management and crucially better
understand the end-to-end graphics
design and scheduling workflows.
Somewhere in the middle,
another type of channel is the selfcontained
regional TV station, in
the US a ‘call letter’ station. Here
the business has to cover everything
24/7 for a single channel with
very few staff. These customers
typically have the smallest budget
and actually represent one of the
most exacting tests for CiB which
begins to look more like a Station
in a box. The solution has to do
absolutely everything and be
extremely resilient; for this type of
channel the critical path is very
tight indeed.
What’s next for CiB
in 2011 and beyond?
Talking with customers in 2010
it’s clear that initial scepticism has
given way and most are trying to
find ways to make it work.
Choosing the right approach to
CiB depends on more clearly
deciding which compromises to
accept in order to streamline
operations and potentially reduce
costs. This could be looked at
sequentially starting with optimal
back end scheduling and content
management workflow, the correct
level of manual control and
finally onscreen performance.
Perhaps selecting CiB from
those vendors already experienced
in automation and workflow is less
risky. Following recent mergers
and acquisitions the new choices
are interesting. Furthermore CiB
TVBEU RO PE CHANNEL IN A BOX
vendors should have an established
relationship with channel management
systems and offer robust and
properly documented API’s.
Most of all though, vendors
need the integration services
capacity to support higher levels
of ongoing integration which this
type of technology requires; which
in turn should be paid for by customers.
Although it sounds like a
traditional ‘product’ (Channel in
a ‘box’), it’s actually a realtime
solution, which requires continuous
refinement, testing and support;
often while on air.
Vendors and SIs could challenge
prospective customers to
be clearer about the scope of
channel type and branding
onscreen and which workflows
they seek to streamline. Working
together could improve the
scope and reduce the risks to
allow CiB the success it undoubtedly
deserves; reducing
risk and lowering the stakes in
the CiB arms race.
Channel management systems
will increasingly play a direct role
in playout solutions; perhaps soon
bypassing automation for some
channels. Perhaps channel management
systems could directly
mount multiple CiB devices rather
like a SOA. CiB could offer a high
performance building block, or
‘service’, receiving programme and
channel branding schedules directly
and assembling video, audio and
graphics from multiple upstream
workflows. For some channels
with low levels of intervention,
operations can now be monitoredby-exception
only requiring assistance
when there is an error —
even remotely.
Improved content validation is
also now more important to facilitate
higher content throughput.
It’s crucial, while unnecessary
intermediate transactions or
manual checks are reduced, that
every piece of content will actually
play out. This can be detailed
visual QC but equally automatic
file checking is now becoming
mainstream too.
By 2012 streaming type
technologies using Flash, H.264
or HTML 5, could be incorporated
to enable even higher levels
of regionalisation and even
the personalisation of services
and promotions.
Martin up for Awards: The 32nd Bavarian Film
Awards ceremony, recently held in Munich,
featured lighting and visuals from Martin
Professional, including Martin EC-20 and LC Plus
LED displays. Media Resource Group of Crailsheim
implemented the lighting concept designed by
Markus Müller (BR). As in previous years, the
Bavarian Broadcasting Corporation, which carried
out the live production, used multi-purpose
spotlights, special effect lighting and LED
technology manufactured by Martin Professional.
The EC-20 is an LED panel with a 20mm pixel
pitch that complies with the IP65 safety rating for
outdoor use. A major advantage of the plug-in
system is the lack of external cabling between panels, greatly reducing the likelihood of errors. Werner Butscher,
production manager at Media Resource Group, said, “The LED panels did not pose any problems whatsoever
throughout the entire production. In fact, it was actually a lot of fun using them.” — Melanie Dayasena-Lowe
www.martin.com
www.tvbeurope.com MARCH 2011 49