[iptv-users] encoding for iptv

Frank Bulk - iName.com frnkblk at iname.com
Wed Aug 19 11:04:50 EDT 2009


Are you talking about testing the encoded quality?  I'll let the others
correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the average/smaller service
provider should spend the resources doing that themselves.  Even if you
purchased some QoE gear, you probably don't have the staff or in-house
expertise to evaluate it anyways.  A better use of your company's time and
money may be to ask on this list, enlist the help of a consultant (who has
done this several times before), purchase some consulting time from one or
two IPTV integrator who have done this before, and get customer references
from a short list of vendors and call them up.


-----Original Message-----
From: iptv-users-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:iptv-users-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of david raistrick
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 8:37 AM
To: iptv-users at puck.nether.net; Bruce Buchanan
Subject: Re: [iptv-users] encoding for iptv

[ extracted to create a new email thread.  please don't "reply" to 
existing threads to start a new one.. compose a new one. ]

> Hi List - I've been on the list for a little bit lurking, but never 
> posted.
> We're looking at possibly doing an IPTV deployment, and I'm quite 
> interested in hearing what sort of off the shelf equipment I would need 
> to test out an encoder (without going and buying a ridiculously 
> expensive dedicated encoder).

> I'm looking to do everything in MPEG-4 as a lot will be on DSL (ADSL2+
> and VDSL2).

I'll start with the last part.  There are a lot of "types" of MPEG-4.  Do 
you mean mpeg4 part 2?   In this era, I'd recommend against it unless you 
have some specific need.  I'd also recommend against mpeg1 or mpeg2 (for 
the video codec).

Modern mpeg4 part 10 (also known as h.264 and AVC) codecs can give 
signficantly better quality for the same bit rates, and support is pretty 
widespread at this point.   Microsoft's VC-1 advanced profile (vc-1 main 
and simple are the same as WM9 main and simple.  advanced gives some more 
options if your player can handle them) is also a decent alternative, 
though support outside the dedicated MS world is a bit more variable.

Since you don't yet have a strong background with encoding, I'd suggest 
buying an appliance to test with.  I haven't worked with them, but 
http://www.qvidium.com/QVAVC-SDCodec.html boxes might be a cheap way to 
get your hands dirty, without having to learn the 
hardware-input-cards+software model straight off.

Are you planning on using a unicast or multicast distribution model? 
You'll need to consider what you're going to use for playback, as well. 
Set top box?  Browser-based player? desktop player (vlc, windows media 
player, qt etc)  All of the above?

To add to the confusion, there are three components to an encoded video 
stream:  video codec, audio codec, and container format.

The container is basically a wrapper that holds the audio and video 
together, and is used to transport the data.  For a multicast architecture 
that -isn't- windows media based, you'll typically use a "TS" wrapper, 
which is an mpeg2 part 1 container.  This will be transported by UDP or 
RTP.  This can also work for unicast...though may not be best for a 
unicast-only model.  Depends on your players. :)  In the MS world, 
microsoft's windows media services software provides a closed-standard 
multicast model that works with WMP and half works with modified 
Silverlight players using the Starlight plugin.

There are a lot of ways to put all of the pieces together, but imo it 
really comes down to what your player(s) support.  If windows media player 
is your target, you need one setup, if STBs are your target you may need 
another one.

anyway, enough rambling for the moment, back to work. :)

david raistrick        http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
drais at icantclick.org             http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
iptv-users mailing list
iptv-users at puck.nether.net

More information about the iptv-users mailing list