Newsgathering Transmission Techniques of the Future Kevin Dennis October 5, 2012 Orlando Ennes Workshop
Newsgathering Transmission Techniques of the Future
Kevin Dennis
October 5, 2012
Orlando Ennes Workshop
Vislink is Built on a Firm Foundation
“Remote location based live
coverage is the heart of coverage is the heart of
Newsgathering”
• Advancements in video encoding technology
– H.264 versus MPEG-2
• Advancements in licensed microwave technology
– Implementing HD/SD H.264 encoding
– Modulation, FEC, high power Linear Amps
Presentation Outline
• Advancements in bandwidth capacity of public
access networks (Cellular and Wi-Fi)
– 3G, 4G, LTE, WiMax
– HD/SD Bonded Cellular Video Transmission
• Comparison of strengths and weaknesses of
licensed microwave transmission versus public
network transmissions
• Advancements in video encoding technology
• Advancements in licensed microwave technology
• Advancements in bandwidth capacity of public
Newsgathering Transmission Techniques of the Future
• Advancements in bandwidth capacity of public
access networks (Cellular and Wi-Fi)
• Comparison of strengths and weaknesses of licensed
microwave transmission versus public network
transmissions
H.264 (MPEG-4 AVC / Part10) versus MPEG-2
• H.264/MPEG-4 AVC is a block-oriented motion-compensation based codec standard
• First version of the standard was completed in 2003
• H.264 video compression is significantly more efficient than
MPEG-2 encoding providing two-fold improvement as compared
to MPEG-2
• H.264 HD encoding not excessively expensive to implement as
compared to MPEG-2
H.264 (MPEG-4 AVC) vs. MPEG-2
H.264 is approximately twice as efficient as MPEG-2
Video quality comparison of H.264 (solid blue line with squares) and MPEG-2 (dotted red line with circles) as a function of bit rate compared to 100 Mbps source material.
H.264 (MPEG-4 AVC) vs. MPEG-2
Low Motion Video - there is very little video quality
difference between H.264 and MPEG-2
Video Images posted by Jan Ozer, Video Technology Instructor
H.264 (MPEG-4 AVC) vs. MPEG-2
High Motion Video - H.264 retains image
continuity while MPEG-2 becomes “blocky”
Video Images posted by Jan Ozer, Video Technology Instructor
H.264 AVC versus MPEG-2 HD Encoding Features
MPEG-2
• 4:2:0MP@HL, 4:2:2MP@HL, 8-80Mbps
• Good HD picture quality from as little as 12Mbps (MPEG-2)
• Contribution quality at ~18Mbps
• Low Latency ~50mS (decoder dependent)• Low Latency ~50mS (decoder dependent)
H.264 (AVC)
• Good HD picture quality from as little as 5Mbps (H.264)
• Contribution quality at ~10Mbps
• Low Latency ~300mS (decoder dependent)
• Advancements in video encoding technology
• Advancements in licensed microwave technology
• Advancements in bandwidth capacity of public
Newsgathering Transmission Techniques of the Future
• Advancements in bandwidth capacity of public
access networks (Cellular and Wi-Fi)
• Comparison of strengths and weaknesses of licensed
microwave transmission versus public network
transmissions
Digital ENG Contribution Techniques
Microwave Transmit Systems
o Mobile (truck/van, SNG/ENG)
o Portable (tripod or airborne)
o Wireless Camerao Wireless Camera
High-Definition H.264 (AVC)
• H.264 (MPEG-4 Part 10)
• Video compression standard is a
two-fold improvement in efficiency
compared with MPEG-2
•Able to transmit high-definition
video at low bit rates using DVB-T
(COFDM) with greater range and
Vid
eo
Qu
alit
y
(COFDM) with greater range and
reliability than systems using HD
MPEG-2 compression
•H.264 is well suited for the real
world of ENG Newsgathering from
mobile platforms in multipath rich
environments.
Vid
eo
Qu
alit
y
Video quality comparison of H.264 (solid blue line with squares) and MPEG-2 (dotted red line with circles) as a function of bit rate compared to 100 Mbps source material.
DVB-T (COFDM) Bandwidth
Code
RateQPSK 16
QAM64
QAMQPSK 16
QAM64
QAMQPSK 16
QAM64
QAMQPSK 16
QAM64
QAM
1/2 4.98 9.95 14.93 5.53 11.06 16.59 5.85 11.71 17.56 6.03 12.06 18.10
2/3 6.64 13.27 19.91 7.37 14.75 22.12 7.81 15.61 23.42 8.04 16.09 24.13
1/4 Guard 1/8 Guard 1/16 Guard 1/32 Guard
2/3 6.64 13.27 19.91 7.37 14.75 22.12 7.81 15.61 23.42 8.04 16.09 24.13
3/4 7.46 14.93 22.39 8.29 16.59 24.88 8.78 17.56 26.35 9.05 18.10 27.14
5/6 8.29 16.59 24.88 9.22 18.43 27.65 9.76 19.52 29.27 10.05 20.11 30.16
7/8 8.71 17.42 26.13 9.68 19.35 29.03 10.25 20.49 30.74 10.56 21.11 31.67
Note: Payload data throughput is scaled down by 1/4 for 6 MHz bandwidth systems and by 7/8 for 7 MHz systems
COFDM System Numbers - 2 GHz
QPSK 1/2 +38 dBm -95.0 dBm
QPSK 3/4 +38 dBm -93.0 dBm
Mode Pout LabThreshold
16 QAM 1/2 +36 dBm -90.0 dBm
16 QAM 3/4 +36 dBm -86.5 dBm
64 QAM 1/2 +33 dBm -84.5 dBm
64 QAM 3/4 + 33 dBm -78.5 dBm
RF Advancements and Improvements
• Existing 5W Digital power amplifiers can be replaced with
ultra-linear 10W Digital power amps
– Provides 3dB additional system gain
– Higher MER performance
• Pre-Distortion correction for wireless camera systems
– Internal feedback circuit to further linearize RF spectral mask– Internal feedback circuit to further linearize RF spectral mask
LMS-T Advanced Modulation
• Link Research designed modulation
– Derivative of DVB-T
– 9.4MHz spectrum (c.f. 7.61MHz of ‘8MHz’ DVB-T)
– LDPC error correction scheme
• Overall LMS-T has 65% more throughput than • Overall LMS-T has 65% more throughput than DVB-T (COFDM) and has more robust RF performance
• Ideal for HD Wireless Camera systems
• Ultra-Low Latency ~45mS
• Advancements in video encoding technology
• Advancements in licensed microwave technology
• Advancements in bandwidth capacity of public
Newsgathering Transmission Techniques of the Future
• Advancements in bandwidth capacity of public
access networks (Cellular and Wi-Fi)
• Comparison of strengths and weaknesses of licensed
microwave transmission versus public network
transmissions
Advancements in Public Access Networks
• 3G – Third Generation• Upload speeds ~ 200 - 800 Kbps
• 4G – Fourth Generation
• Upload speeds ~ 1 - 5 Mbps
• LTE – Long Term Evolution
• Upload speeds ~ 5 – 7 Mbps
• WiFi – wireless local area network
• Speeds ~ 300 – 600 Kbps
• WiMAX - Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access
• Speeds ~ 1 – 4 Mbps
• 3G – Third Generation• Upload speeds ~ 200 - 800 Kbps
• 4G – Fourth Generation
• Upload speeds ~ 1 - 5 Mbps
Advancements in Public Access Networks
• LTE – Long Term Evolution
• Upload speeds ~ 5 – 7 Mbps
• WiFi – wireless local area network
• Speeds ~ 300 – 600 Kbps
• WiMAX - Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access
• Speeds ~ 1 – 4 Mbps
Live Portable Cellular Video Transmission Systems
• Live HD/SD – almost anywhere, almost any time
• 3G/4G LTE Bonded Cellular Modems
• H.264 (AVC) HD/SD Encoding
• Dynamic Bandwidth Optimization
• WiFi Reception and Transmission
• Supports multiple camera interfaces
• Supports file transfer
• IFB comms
• Wireless Edge Device Remote Control
• IP Termination Receiver
21
Bonded Cellular Transmission
• Simultaneously aggregates available bandwidth from multiple
cellular network connections– creates a single virtual “high-speed” bandwidth connection
• Multiple cellular providers “bonded” together– improves network upload speeds– improves network upload speeds
– improves network connection persistence
• Can be implemented with various service provider’s modems– 3G, 4G, LTE, WiFi
• Uses H.264 HD/SD Adaptive Bit Rate (ABR) Encoding to transmit
live video via public access networks over the internet
• ABR dynamically adjusts the encoder’s video data rate (typ. Mbps)
adapting to the fluctuations characteristic of cellular networks
Cellular Video Transmission Workflow Diagram
• Advancements in video encoding technology
• Advancements in licensed microwave technology
• Advancements in bandwidth capacity of public
Newsgathering Transmission Techniques of the Future
• Advancements in bandwidth capacity of public
access networks (Cellular and Wi-Fi)
• Comparison of strengths and weaknesses of licensed
microwave transmission versus public network
transmissions
Advantages & Limitations of Legacy Newsgathering
Advantages
• High bandwidth (Fat Pipe)
at minimal OPEX
• Rapid deployment
Advantages
� Very rapid deployment
� No expensive vehicles
� Good coverage indoors
Advantages
� Unlimited coverage area
� Worldwide spectrum
access
Terrestrial ENG Diversity WCSDigital SNG
• Rapid deployment
• Wide coverage area
• Dependable/Reliable
Disadvantages
• Requires skilled operators
• Requires heavyweight
vehicles
• Leased receive sites are
expensive
• One-way transmissions
� Good coverage indoors
and across densely
populated city centers
� Best option for “moving
event” coverage
Disadvantages
� Limited coverage area
� Camera battery powered
� Must own or lease
receive sites
access
� Single to multiple
distribution points
Disadvantages
� Requires very costly
vehicles
� Must pay recurring
satellite usage fees
� Requires skilled operators
HD/ SD Newsgathering via
Bonded 3G / 4G NetworksAdvantages
• Story acquisition without
spectrum licenses, expensive
vehicles or costly
infrastructure
• One button operation
• Dispatch non-technical
trained Journalists / trained Journalists /
Freelancers
But…
• No coverage guarantees
• 3G/4G bandwidth is limited
and asymmetrical
• latency can be several
seconds
• Civil authorities may override
• Cellular congestion
HD SDI
NLE
3G/4GBonded
Ideal for spot story coverage and fill-in content
Cellular Video Transmission vs. Licensed Microwave
CONS PROS
• Variable data rate availability vs. Fixed data throughput
• Unpredictable signal strength vs. Relatively stable receive carrier level (RSL)
• Unknown “network” availability vs. Pre-determined frequency coordination
• Eminent domain black-outs vs. Secure specific user spectrum allocation• Eminent domain black-outs vs. Secure specific user spectrum allocation
• Limited to Network accessibility vs. Controlled portable deployment (ENG/SNG)
PROS CONS
• Lower Capex/Opex vs. higher Capex and complex/costly infrastructure support
• Immediate venue accessibility vs. Scheduled venue event coordination
• Inexperienced technical operators vs. Experienced ENG/SNG operators
• Portable system design (hand-carry) vs. Larger hardware infrastructure
Summary
• H.264 (AVC) HD/SD Encoding
– Very efficient encoding – roughly half the bandwidth required for same picture quality as MPEG-2
• Advancements in Licensed Microwave
– Use of H.264 encoding provides high quality, robust RF transmission/receptiontransmission/reception
– Strive for higher linearity / system gain
• Advancements in Public Access Networks
– Bandwidth and speeds are ever increasing
– Bonded Cellular video transmission
• Another tool for ENG and OB applications
• Dependent upon cellular coverage and infrastructure utilization