x264 on broadcasting

[kevinsert]

Just curious why broadcast companies doesnt use x264 ? thanks

[Dark Shikari]

Avail Media (now AvailTVN) exists almost solely for this purpose: they sell head-end services using x264 and run thousands of real-time transcoding boxes worldwide for millions of end-users.

The main reason that most broadcasters don't use x264 is that it doesn't come as a box/app that Just Works and most broadcasters don't have the resources to build a system from the ground up themselves; a broadcast system isn't just an encoder, it's a lot of other stuff, too. So instead you get companies who build a system around it and sell it.

[kevinsert]

thanks for your quick answer Dark Shikari :)

[drmpeg]

The typical broadcast encoder is running on some custom silicon from one of the companies producing compression chips (like Ambarella, ViXS, Magnum and some others). These chips usually have such wacky architectures, that porting x264 would take just as long as starting from scratch. If you did port to a custom architecture, you probably wouldn't be allowed to commit to the code base (because it doesn't make sense for 99.9% of the user base) and you lose the advantage of open source.

And of course, you have to have a good interlace (MBAFF) solution, strict VBV compliance, VBI and closed caption processing, Transport Stream multiplexing, audio encoding, web based user interface, reasonable power consumption, and so on and so forth.

Ron

[Dark Shikari]

The typical broadcast encoder is running on some custom silicon from one of the companies producing compression chipsDSPs are usually not powerful enough; I know of a major vendor that got completely screwed at the dawn of the H.264 age because they figured they could just port their DSP-based MPEG-2 encoder. They ended up not even having enough power to do deblocking and had to do intra-vs-inter decision before even performing a motion search.

Good hardware broadcast encoders (e.g. Ateme) use FPGAs or similar.

[TEB]

DSPs are usually not powerful enough; I know of a major vendor that got completely screwed at the dawn of the H.264 age because they figured they could just port their DSP-based MPEG-2 encoder. They ended up not even having enough power to do deblocking and had to do intra-vs-inter decision before even performing a motion search.

Good hardware broadcast encoders (e.g. Ateme) use FPGAs or similar.

Other examples are Tandberg Iplex, Motorola 5100, Cisco encoders and so on. Moto uses a standard red hat 1 u server with a FPGA on a dedicated pci board with the cpu's handeling the transportstream multiplexing, decoding and filtering and so on..
http://www.motorola.com/Business/US-EN/Business+Product+and+Services/TV+Video+Distribution/Video+Processing/Encoders/MPEG-4+Encoding/SE-5100_US-EN

[kevinsert]

wow cisco doing encoders ? didnt know that :) im ccna(cisco cert) and preparing for ccnp thats a shame for me :p

[TEB]

hehe.. well its cisco that bought Sci-Atl which again makes encoders..

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps9178/index.html

[popper]

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps9178/index.html
"The performance advantages can be expanded by a software-driven design that allows for rapid feature enhancements through software up-grades of new DSP/FPGA code. Already deployed at multiple sites around the world, the new Scientific Atlanta AVC MPEG-4 encoders provide a flexible, expandable, versatile, single-slice encoding architecture designed to deliver superior performance for years to come."

they make 'single-slice encoding architecture' sound so much better than a Multi-slice encoding architecture'

OC as you say, "strict VBV compliance, VBI and closed caption processing, Transport Stream multiplexing, audio encoding, web based user interface, reasonable power consumption" are all good things to have in any OSS suite too.

will we have all that+ some day along with auto adaptive .TS DVB muxing and playout for personal use etc, an all in one 'turn key' solution on a liveCD/liveUSB stick (but even windows7 still cant boot off a liveUSB in anything but safe mode OC so thats out) anyone can boot, and use out the nearest box you have available.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Plus neat-o stuff like supporting tape / realtime ingest over HD-SDI or some analog interface, including dithering and high quality colorspace conversion... And watch folders ;)

Toss in one of those saucy little BlackMagic UltraScope setups, and you've got a mean ingest / encoding bay :)

~MiSfit

[Revgen]

Well, if you count Youtube as a broadcaster... then no, there some internet based broadcasters who do it.

Otherwise, it's more like DS described.

[popper]

Well, if you count Youtube as a broadcaster... then no, there some internet based broadcasters who do it.

Otherwise, it's more like DS described.

actually there are NO Internet Broadcasters,(there are only a few 'JANET' broadcasters and other Private networks,)
for the very simple reason, most of the worlds consumer ISPs Go out of their way to filter off For No Good reason any and all of the IP Multicast and IP Broadcast protocols data traffic on the networks trying to flow to and from end users IP Multicast capable broadband kit (generic Docsis 1,2 and 3 CM's etc) sat on their desks.

And the youtubes and other internet web side providers of this world dont seem interested in providing even the simplest 'Multicast capable tunnels' for end users to connect to and/or supply this potentially massive bandwidth saving Multicast A/V and data content.

some IPv4 to IPv6 tunnel brokers around the world DO allow such Multicast protocol traffic to flow, http://www.sixxs.net/misc/coolstuff/ http://go6.net/4105/freenet.asp but again no real website A/V companys Or other 3rd partys seem interested in setting up Multicast IPv6 or Multicast IPv4 tunnels and pushing real IP Multicast/Broadcast user content over these free links, or automate and collate the 'sap announce' messages for public use and selection, and thats a shame.

[kieranrk]

actually there are NO Internet Broadcasters,(there are only a few 'JANET' broadcasters and other Private networks,)
for the very simple reason, most of the worlds consumer ISPs Go out of their way to filter off For No Good reason any and all of the IP Multicast and IP Broadcast protocols data traffic on the networks trying to flow to and from end users IP Multicast capable broadband kit (generic Docsis 1,2 and 3 CM's etc) sat on their desks.

And the youtubes and other internet web side providers of this world dont seen interested in providing even the simplest 'Multicast capable tunnels' for end users to connect to and/or supply this potentially massive bandwidth saving Multicast A/V and data content.


Please don't equate something as complicated as delivering IP multicast over legacy infrastructure to a conspiracy theory.

[popper]

Please don't equate something as complicated as delivering IP multicast over legacy infrastructure to a conspiracy theory.

what are You talking about, you think its some oddball conspiracy theory LOL.

were it's actually a simple known fact..., the World's ISP Industrial Grade Multicast capable routers and related kit DO come pre-configured for Multicast out the box as it were, and have done since virtually the begining of the (legacy) net, their networking teams Do infact go out of their way to turn this IP Multicast option OFF.

Now if consumers and other people then choose to not use IP Multicast on the IP network, were its available on some small ISPs around the world, then fine, if noone uses it then theres no MC or BC traffic to filter ....

but not having or being given the choice to use generic IP MC/BC is a totally different matter, No equating to any "conspiracy theory" except were you imply it above.

i guess you dont remember, or ever used the old 'MBONE' tunneled overlay IP network days.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%27MBONE%27+tunneled+overlay+IP+network&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=null&oq=