PDA

View Full Version : HD video distribution over the data network



metrognomicon
06-03-2006, 02:09 PM
Not over cat5 -- over either the house data network or a separate a/v data network. Is anyone making a complete solution for this yet? Netstreams has something coming supposedly by year end. VBrick does it but only 480p if I understand their spec correctly. I wish we could use Kaleidescape players for general distribution!

I'm getting questions about it...one smart and reasonable prospective client is balking at a large Extron matrix based distribution we've proposed, and my answer is basically, "yeah, over the data network is really the way to do it and it'll solve a lot of problems, but there's no complete solution yet, and it'll probably take years before anything on the horizon will be capable of the massive number of sources and destinations in your system." Am I talking out my a**? Seems like analog distro over cat5 is just making it into our mainstream, and while there's no reason to think that won't be thoroughly eclipsed by a network solution, I just don't see it happening for a couple of years.

Thoughts?

Special-Ed
06-05-2006, 05:13 PM
no way at this time would i even try to do video distribution over ip. i'd stick with component video switcher matrixer for my hidef stuff

ed

AHEM
06-05-2006, 08:40 PM
www.tecstream.com

Buzz Goddard
07-05-2006, 12:41 PM
"yeah, over the data network is really the way to do it and it'll solve a lot of problems, but there's no complete solution yet, and it'll probably take years before anything on the horizon will be capable of the massive number of sources and destinations in your system."

NetStreams had demonstrated the technology for uncompressed hi-def over a data network and will show the system at CEDIA in September. It won't ship until next year though. We are currently shipping the Panorama system which does hi-def over CAT5e up to 1000', but it is analog, not networked.

FRR
07-05-2006, 06:29 PM
That would mean that you have to have a properly designed data network with commercial grade hubs/routers. Nothing like a huge file being downloaded to cause a bit of a network contention issue on a 100mbs linksys or D-link piece of networking crap.

Can you say $$ and gigabyte networks.

Buzz Goddard
07-05-2006, 09:25 PM
You are correct. This requires a special gigabit switch and careful management.
But it clearly is the way forward for many reasons. It is not cheap, but neither are any other hi-def multi source/zone solutions. And networking mean it is scalable, very flexible and, well....logical.

metrognomicon
07-05-2006, 11:37 PM
Yeah, I can't wait to see the Netstreams system in operation.

No doubt all this'll require a robust network, but even right now that doesn't take ridiculous money to do. Relatively.

Buzz Goddard
07-06-2006, 10:38 AM
A "robust network" ain't that hard to create. From an integrators point of view it is really about properly pulling and terminating CAT5e and speccing the right switch. Since we will be providing the switch, pre-configured, all of the heavy lifting has been done already.
Not only does this approach expand system capabilitys, it also makes the installation MUCH easier.

Dean_Roddey
07-06-2006, 04:15 PM
I would assume it also means only supporting those switches that fully support QOS, right? I.e. if you aren't setting up your own parallel network, you'd have to be setting aside some amount of the available bandwidth for media distribution so that it's guaranteed to be there when needed on the single network.

Buzz Goddard
07-07-2006, 07:28 AM
We can only support system performance with our switches. We've found, even for audio (which is of course much less bandwidth intensive) that the majority of switches do not funtion properly in an uncompressed streaming media environment, even though their published specs indicate they would).
Obviously QoS is ciritcal and overall network performance is a very high priority for us.

metrognomicon
07-07-2006, 07:46 AM
Buzz,
Care to make any recommendations on switches you've found that work well?

Buzz Goddard
07-07-2006, 04:17 PM
Buzz,
Care to make any recommendations on switches you've found that work well?

We haven't released our video switch yet. Just getting some for the audio and control side was difficult. Other then our own SW324 and SW208, the only one we found was a Cisco enterprise level switch which was about 3 times the price.
You can find some of the specs here:
SW324 (http://www.netstreams.com/ProdDesc.aspx?ID=38#features)

metrognomicon
07-07-2006, 06:56 PM
Duh, I missed that you're with Netstreams. Cool.

Buzz Goddard
07-08-2006, 10:33 AM
Sorry, my fault. I have made my affiliation obvious, which of course it should have been all along.

AudibleSolutions
07-09-2006, 05:12 PM
I will predict this right now, in advance of product and empirical evidence. Distribution of video over a network for transmission of live motion video will be much more problematic, then the offhand comment in the post that began this thread suggests, " 'yeah, over the data network is really the way to do it and it'll solve a lot of problems, but there's no complete solution yet, and it'll probably take years before anything on the horizon will be capable of the massive number of sources and destinations in your system.' Am I talking out my a**?"

Anyone other than Buzz or Mr. Roddey care to define QoS or at least state what it does? Anyone here able to setup a managed switch? Anyone here know how to segment a network or why that might be useful? Damn, Kaleidescape had to insist on a dedicated subnet for it's products and that's only 480P and I'll bet a "companded" video signal.

I read some of what passes on these sites for knowledge and..............
Clients make the foolish assumption -- evidently shared by many participating here -- that anything IP is inherently better. In and of itself it is not at this point in time. In a given installation, especially a super large installation, the likes of which I'd wager rarely would occur with anyone participating on this site, an IP distributed audio system can have very real advantages. But Netsteams or Zon's use of meta-data in audio distribution is not inherently superior to other, older technologies in and of itself. Indeed the main advantage at this point in time is in wiring simplicity and the cost of CAT5 or gigabyte Ethernet cable over other means of distribution. ( I am not considering the advantages of pre-programmed systems but rather discussing the technology ).

Ultimately, what you want is the best signal at the display. You can achieve that with serial digital coax, CAT5 carrying baseband video (with built in compensation ) or you can use or will shortly be able to use IP. The technology of how to get that picture to the display is besides the point--at least and until we have a pure digital chain from source to display without converters, a la HDMI. The idea that IP is a superior mode of distribution of HD content is foolish. Further assuming that most CI firms have the networking knowledge to pull this off without help and re-education is more laughable. Buzz would know better the about of basic networking questions Netsteams fields but I'd wager that over half of tech support calls are based upon this. Moreover, the inability to understand and set up a managed network will lead to even more unhappy clients and distribution difficulties with video distribution over networks.

Buz knows what a fan of Netstreams I am but the idea that IP is better because it's IP is just plain foolish. Stupid is an other word for it. Asinine still an other. Unless the content is already in packet form--which at present means it's compressed-- there is no advantage for transmission over Ethernet than any other technology. At this point in time, the installation determines the technology at least as much as the lines you carry. Ethernet is no better than any other technology as a mode of video transmission and for most in this business it requires skill sets that are serverely lacking which will make it still more difficlut to bring off successfully. You guys think you will retrofit this into someone's house without any idea of how to segment a network or setup QoS?

Alan

ejfiii
07-09-2006, 06:55 PM
Alan, I agree with every word you wrote with the exception of this:


Kaleidescape had to insist on a dedicated subnet for it's products and that's only 480P and I'll bet a "companded" video signal.

A Kaleidescape installation needs neither a dedicated subnet nor is it only 480p. 1080i looks wonderful as the room players have some stout video processing on board.

avophile
07-09-2006, 07:12 PM
The good news, I would wager, is that we will be able to deliver dependable HD audio/video streams on the home network before such an animal appears on the World Wide Web. A home owner will be able to elect to have his service upgraded independent on the determination by some content provider that the area he happens to live in is worthy of an early roll-out of these services.

VOIP, alarm calls, video verification of alarms, all will be competing with online A/V services for bandwidth, with an obvious conflict in terms of prioritization of data streams.

Various content providers are ramping up their offerings of set-top boxes in order to sell us content, but the experience they can deliver will lag behind what we will be able to offer for some time to come. Other entities will allow us to download content in chunks in advance, to be consumed later, probably with built-in sunsets when the content will perish.

In the near future, we will be implementing content delivery systems based on networks (hard to justify doing HD distribution over component video when you know there are powerful elements pusshing the "a-hole bill" that seeks to mandate the closing of HD over analog- even if it seems many studios are not electing to implement the flag that disallows analog playback, the tool is there and you are subjecting your clients to the risk of its wide-spread implementation).

If we are providing high quality playback devices, our clients should be offered SLAs with QoS guarantees so they get every last packet delivered in the proper time and order.

metrognomicon
07-09-2006, 11:32 PM
Alan, I hate to get into it with you, but putting audio and video on a network does solve problems, it's not impossible for the network to support HD video, and it's not hard to find/hire/train people who know how to administer one. This is the future, no question about it, only question is when does it get to a state where we can make it reliable, easy to use, and profitable. I'd argue soon, and I'd also argue that it'd be better to investigate and prepare for it than argue about why it'll never work.

AudibleSolutions
07-10-2006, 07:01 AM
Alan, I hate to get into it with you, but putting audio and video on a network does solve problems, it's not impossible for the network to support HD video, and it's not hard to find/hire/train people who know how to administer one. This is the future, no question about it, only question is when does it get to a state where we can make it reliable, easy to use, and profitable. I'd argue soon, and I'd also argue that it'd be better to investigate and prepare for it than argue about why it'll never work.

In a retrofit job the network solution, what with the triumph of structured wiring, may indeed make it a problem solver. And indeed, as Doug points out, there may be additional reasons once product development catches up with product release. But the technology is not in and of itself inherently superior. Moreover, I'd suggest that the technology will in all probability lead, as with CD servers and satellite radio to distribution of lower fidelity sources. Big deal? I have argued that in background music systems 320mbs is more than sufficient. We have evidence that more people are content with video over their computer monitors, which tends to be "companded." And how good might that look on a 50 inch HD display? Perhaps as good as composite video and that may be good enough.

The point is that IP technology is not inherently better than other means of video destribution. The advantage of analog video destribution over CAT5 is that inexpensive and fewer wires with less labor time can be used to send all types of video to a display. The price for that is expensive hardware. But this distribution method is not in and of itself superior to traditional distribution over coaxial cable. What makes the CAT5 video solution "better" is the particular installation in which it is used. Marketing trends and Microsoft's desire to grow its business via advertising may increase the desirability to distribute network video content. I don't hear anyone clamouring for video distribution over HDMI and that is, technologically and measurably a better means of distribution that analog. ( and I am aware of HDMI's problems and limitations ). Using a network for distribution is merely an other tool. It is not a technological ne plus ultra.

Alan

FRR
07-10-2006, 10:33 PM
Anyone other than Buzz or Mr. Roddey care to define QoS or at least state what it does? Anyone here able to setup a managed switch? Anyone here know how to segment a network or why that might be useful? Alan

Stating the obvious, QoS is a Quality of Service guarranty, but you knew that. QoS is usually used by service providers when providing guarrantied bandwidth for premium services such as Frame Relay and ATM. There is no such thing as QoS for Ethernet because Ethernet is a collision sensing/collision detecting type protocol. The last time I checked you have to package Ethernet packets in Frame Relay or ATM frames/packets to guarranty service never mind a bunch of other bits and bits that need to be managed and setup.

Why do I know this and more, because I've got over 15 years of telecomms back ground, mostly in data communications/networking and design. As to Alan's point there is a lot to know and learn before you can properly design and implement a robust data network that can deliver QoS type services.

ambleside
07-11-2006, 10:24 AM
>Define QoS

Quality-of-service - set up various VLANS on a switch and set priority for the traffic so it can be routed accordingly.....Many switches use the trunks (PVE in Linksys world, Trunks in Cisco world) to establish priorities for the links between switches which are critical because traffic slows below back-plane speeds. One needs priority settings that are speed sensitive, not just round-robin, for data or voice. It would also help if the application itself did some smart multi-casting if it's needed...doing without (like Kaleidescape) makes configuration easier (however it also eliminates streaming same thing to multiple players.) Management usually refers to humans being able to monitor traffic or performance of the switch, recieving alerts when certain conditions are met to intervene or look at a misbehaving piece of hardware or software - not really relevant to our world.

Now, on the other hand, don't ask me to recognize to scope output of what a poorly placed filter looks with a misbehaving amp on a CATV circuit....(luckily I work with guys who know that side just fine.)


I don't think we're as far off....What takes tricks at 1G becomes easier at 10G (and its really just the backplane that needs to be 10G.) Also, I'd assume that NetStreams is worrying about synching multiple streams, like they did for audio. Asynch video won't work for video games but it won't be nearly so hard to manage - hence the Kaleidescape quality....it's buffered...

Also, while I've hard to really search all over the place for the "right" answers in analog audio + video signal quality engineering, the stuff in the 1st paragraph is taught to everyone studying to be a CNE (Cisco Network Engineer) - they teach this stuff at community colleges...

Even though I know this stuff, I contract it out. Setting up the right VLANS to keep video traffic (IP Cameras) from Kaleidescape traffic from Wifi from control so each has priority over a 8 switch, 168 port network, took all of about 2 hours - including documentation - at $65/hr....Not really out of reach...If only one had VLANS for grounding paths.....

ejfiii
07-11-2006, 11:56 AM
Man, just when I think I know something about networking I read something like this or from Vette.


It would also help if the application itself did some smart multi-casting if it's needed...doing without (like Kaleidescape) makes configuration easier (however it also eliminates streaming same thing to multiple players.)
BTW - I dont understand this quote as i can stream the same stream to multiple players.

Buzz Goddard
07-12-2006, 07:48 AM
As can be seen by reading some of this thread, there are lots of issues involved in setting up a reliable entertainment network.
The vast majority are solved with a properly designed and setup managed switch. That is part of what NetStreams sells.
In other words, the hardest parts are done for you.
We have spent, literally, years on this.
The issues are similar with audio, which is why we started there.
Setting up a DigiLinX system is not complicated, and requires NO configuration of the switch at all. It typically takes well under one hour of configuration (and no "programming" skills).
The IP approach has big advantages in scalability, ease of setup and future integration capabilities.

Sorry, this is getting to sound a bit too much likes a sales pitch, but at the core is the philosophy that NetStreams was founded on. We've thought long and hard about both the technical and the practical challenges and we believe we have a fairly elegant solution. Certainly we did not invent IP nor the concept of network-based entertainment distribution and control. We're just focused on making it easy for you to implement.

joelw
07-12-2006, 10:57 AM
The MS Vista version of Media Center Edition is capable of streaming up to seven simultaneous HD streams to Media Center Extenders (MCX).

Given this and the number of tuner cards that can be hosted, it's not far off from becoming a viable solution.

The missing element is a MCX that is integration friendly, and something other than a Xbox 360.

Joel Winarske
www.indyelectronics.com

Dean_Roddey
07-12-2006, 02:12 PM
There is no such thing as QoS for Ethernet because Ethernet is a collision sensing/collision detecting type protocol. The last time I checked you have to package Ethernet packets in Frame Relay or ATM frames/packets to guarranty service never mind a bunch of other bits and bits that need to be managed and setup.


Not really true. QOS was not part of ethernet from the beginning of course, so it wasn't built in. But there are various QOS scenarios used in ethernet based systems today, AFAIK. If you pop up the network properties under Windows there's a QoS Packet Scheduled component that you can configure.

And, on the wired network, isn't the whole collision detection thing pretty much gone today? Isn't that the point of twisted pair type networks, in that there's a separate line for signalling outside of the data transmission line?

ambleside
07-12-2006, 04:02 PM
To have a collision these days on ethernet, you need a hub - switches took care of that. Once upon a time, switches were rare, expensive beasts that sat between hubs...these days you can't even buy a hub if you wanted...

Dean_Roddey
07-13-2006, 01:49 AM
Just for my own edification though, wasn't the move from a single conductor coaxial system to a twisted pair system what really got rid of the collistions for the most part? In a single conductor system, all you can do is send and listen back to what you sent and see if it got scrambled. In a twisted pair isn't it more of a 'see if someone has indicated on the signalling line that they are sending, else indicate that you are about to send and then send'?

ambleside
07-13-2006, 10:47 PM
10base2, 10baseT and all other ethernet devices work on the collision detection model. Hubs were/are repeaters, repeating the same electrical signal - even if someone on another cable is sending a signal at the same time. Switches can block collissions by throwing a full packet away (as opposed to the single rise/fall of a bit) or have a store and forward capability (non-blocking switches.) Almost all 10/100 switches have that sort of buffering - otherwise they wouldn't work.

It made sense to use a blocking protocol when a network was made up of a single large cable running through a building (10base5 - 500m max network length.) 10base2 let us use t-drops and smaller, easier to terminate cables but kept the blocking protocol. Once we got to 10baseT in a serious way (1991/92), the blocking stuff should have been dropped due to overhead but there were too many ethernet devices already deployed to roll things back....

mehlenberger
07-21-2009, 02:30 PM
First off let me state that I DO work for the manufacturer.

There is a technology called MoCA that is being widely deployed in residential IPTV installations. Most notably, it's used by Verizon for connecting their STBs. MoCA is simply IP (or Ethernet) over Coax. These solutions quickly enable reliable transport & connectivity over existing coax wiring. I'm interested in getting feedback from this community as to the viability of this product in the CI space. Any input you have would be greatly appreciated.

PAAI
07-21-2009, 03:10 PM
I am interested in more information. Is there a way to outfit existing buildings with new IP "boxes" to handle content for digital signage or media streamers? How about adding high speed internet to an existing apartment building based on only coax drops to the apartments.

This would be an alternative to wireless internet and more secure.

mehlenberger
07-21-2009, 05:34 PM
I am interested in more information. Is there a way to outfit existing buildings with new IP "boxes" to handle content for digital signage or media streamers? How about adding high speed internet to an existing apartment building based on only coax drops to the apartments.

This would be an alternative to wireless internet and more secure.

Certainly. These are a few of the vertical market segments really prime for this type of solution. The key limiting factor to consider is a MoCA network can only support up to 16 nodes. In most applications I've seen, that doesn't seem to be a big deal as most large environments have multiple Coax networks.

MoCA has no problem handling the performance / reliability requirements of digital signage.

bluemanta
07-21-2009, 09:44 PM
Distributing analog Audio or Video signal over data network is highly un-efficient usage of the network.
Rather than distributing the AV signal, a more efficient way is to distribute the digital content as a file and then decode the file at the client's end.

To this extend,Windows Media Center and Media Center Extenders works perfectly, capable of "streaming" full HD up to 4 concurrent clients per single Media Center. This includes live HD TV streams from up to 6 tuners.

mehlenberger
07-21-2009, 11:37 PM
If you're using media centers and media extenders MoCA Ethernet over coax is an excellent transport that eliminates the challenges commonly associates with wireless.

Nded
09-05-2009, 09:59 PM
FYI, the recently launched Just Add Power HDMI over IP devices do what the OP and other members have desired - distribute HD content over a standard Ethernet IP network infrastructure. The HDMI over IP Right Sized Matrix solution supports up to 200 output nodes and practically any number of inputs. We will be demonstrating the system at CEDIA next week.