WHITE PAPER

The Case for Uncompressed Video Contribution

October 2010

For users such as broadcasters and other content producers, there really are no downsides to using uncompressed video transport services when they are available at a competitive price. Provided that the service is reliable and well-managed, uncompressed services will always provide better signal quality, less latency and ease of use as compared to compressed services.

Executive Summary
A revolution is underway in the terrestrial video transport market. Broadcasters are witnessing the development of a market for transporting digital HD video over longhaul networks without using compression. This is occurring today because new technology has been introduced, and because the cost of backbone bandwidth continues to decline. Advanced video transport providers are offering these services because they bring significant benefits to broadcasters, including simplified operations, less latency and better video quality. Uncompressed services are also a good strategy for the carriers own networks, in terms of reduced equipment and operational costs in spite of the expense of higher bandwidth usage. As the range of uncompressed HD services grows, it becomes important to understand their benefits and drawbacks for both users and service providers. For users such as broadcasters and other content producers, there really are no downsides to using uncompressed video transport services when they are available at a competitive price. Provided that the service is reliable and well-managed, uncompressed services will always provide better signal quality, less latency and ease of use as compared to compressed services. This is why uncompressed signals have come to dominate the market for standard definition local loops over the past decade, and why market penetration is increasing for long-haul circuits. For carriers, the principal drawback of offering uncompressed HD video services is the amount of bandwidth consumed. However, there are a number of advantages that counterbalance this cost, and long-term trends are favorable for service offerings. Already, several major providers of local loop services offer uncompressed HD circuits at a modest premium to their uncompressed SD services. Long-haul carriers will increasingly migrate to this same service model, as technology and customer demands evolve, and as carrier networks grow to provide direct, on-network connections to more facilities.

Introduction
Uncompressed video transport services move video signals from sources to destinations in their native signal format without using any form of compression. In the case of SD (Standard Definition) signals, links must operate at 270 Mbps (Megabits per second) in order to transport SMPTE 259M or ITU-R BT.656 signals. For HD (High Definition) video signals conforming to SMPTE 292M, the amount of bandwidth required is a shade under 1.5 Gbps (Gigabits per second). 1080p and other signals that conform to SMPTE 424M require 2.97 Gbps. At these bit rates, the entire video stream, including any embedded audio, closed captions, time code, metadata and other ancillary data is transported intact, without any modifications by the transport network.

Page 1

WWW.LEVEL3.COM

The Amazing Diversity of Compression Technology

One of the truly amazing aspects of video and audio compression technology is the incredible range of products and applications that use it. Everything from thumb-sized audio players to hand-held phones with video screens to stadium-sized video displays can be fed with compressed video and audio signals. To accommodate this wide range of applications, a number of different compression technologies, most of which offer a variety of levels and profiles have been defined and are in widespread use. The most popular compression technologies for professional use are MPEG-2, MPEG4/H.264 and motion JPEG. MPEG-2 is widely used in television delivery because digital televisions in the United States are required to support it. There is also a large installed base of MPEG-2 compression equipment for broadcast contribution applications. MPEG4/H.264 compression is rapidly gaining market share, because it is more efficient than MPEG2 (better picture quality with fewer bits) and it is widely used for Internet video and other streaming applications such as IPTV. Motion JPEG, specifically JPEG2000, is popular for contribution applications because each frame of video is compressed individually, making it easier to edit. Within each of these compression standards, a number of different performance profiles and picture resolution levels are also defined. For example, H.264 provides sixteen different profiles that list specific compression features that can and cannot be used in each profile. These specs permit designers of hand-held devices, for instance, to avoid using powerhungry compression techniques that are much better suited for large video displays. H.264 also defines fifteen different levels to indicate video image sizes ranging from 128x96 pixels for cell phones up to 4096x2048 pixels for digital cinema. For proper operation, the profile and level must match between the encoder and the decoder to ensure that the signal can be correctly interpreted at its destination. What does this mean to a broadcaster using compression? Not only must the encoder and decoder use the same compression technology, but also that the units must use compatible profiles and levels. This requires close coordination between the encode site and the decode site, and quite often a test period prior to each actual use of the equipment. In contrast, with uncompressed signals, the setup issues are greatly reduced or eliminated, as is the need for pre-use testing.

Often, video signals pass through several different video transport providers from their point of origin to where they can be viewed by a consumer. Contribution links are high quality circuits that are used for linking between broadcasters and for collecting signals from remote sources such as sports arenas. Distribution links carry finished programming from broadcasters and other content providers to delivery providers, including local over-the-air broadcast stations, cable TV and IPTV providers, and direct-to-home satellite TV providers. This document focuses on contribution links, which typically have the most demanding technical and quality requirements, although the case could be made for using uncompressed signals to distribute high-quality video to delivery providers. This whitepaper begins with a review of compression, and why it has traditionally been used for HD video contribution applications. Then, a discussion of the many benefits of uncompressed video transport for broadcasters in contribution applications is presented. This is followed by an analysis of the arguments in favor of uncompressed transport from the viewpoint of carriers. Five sidebars are included to cover the diversity of compression technology, to define some video terms and standards, to discuss the impact of contribution links on video quality, to describe an actual example of long-haul uncompressed HD transport, and to describe current standards activities. This paper concludes with a call to action for service providers to deepen their commitment to uncompressed services, and to begin or continue the widespread rollout of uncompressed HD.

Compression for Contribution

Compression has traditionally been used in all types of video transport, including analog and digital transmission. It is always used for delivering signals to consumers, and is frequently used in contribution applications for transferring video content between suppliers. The primary benefit of compression is a reduction of the amount of bandwidth or memory needed for a given video signal, which reduces the cost of the network or storage device required to accommodate the signal. Delivery systems frequently use compression ratios of 100:1 or more, whereas contribution networks tend to range between 5:1 and 50:1 ratios.

COMPRESSION DEVICES
Over the past two decades, the amount of hardware required for MPEG compression has dropped by at least two orders of magnitude, with the refrigerator-sized cabinets sold in the mid-1990s replaced by todays inexpensive PC plug-in cards for SD web streaming or similar applications. New generations of compression technology have appeared, first with MPEG2 replacing MPEG1, and then with MPEG4/H.264 increasingly displacing MPEG2 in many applications. Over the same timeframe, video quality has increased and the bit rate efficiency has improved. Until recently, compression was mandatory, because networks did not have adequate bandwidth in the access network to support the high bandwidths required for uncompressed video. Since many of these technology advances require more processor cycles, each new generation of compression device has required more powerful hardware.

Page 2

The processing loads have also increased due to the migration in video and audio formats, from SD to HD and from stereo to 5.1-channel surround sound. Together, these trends have worked to keep broadcast-quality encoders complex and expensive. High performance encoders used for contribution often cost $15,000 to $50,000 and matching decoders range between $3,000 and $10,000.

Video Standards Glossary

SD Standard Definition HD High Definition 1080P 1080 line HD images operating at 50-60 frames per second SMPTE Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers SMPTE 259M Describes 270 Mbps SD Serial Digital Interface developed by SMPTE SMPTE 292M Describes 1.5 Gbps HD Serial Digital Interface SMPTE 424M Describes 2.97 Gbps (3G) HD Serial Digital Interface ITU-R International Telecommunication Union - Radiocommunications sector ITU-R BT.656 Describes 270 Mbps SD Serial Digital Interface developed by the European Broadcasting Union 4:4:4 Video encoding scheme that uses equal amounts of bandwidth for each of the three main components of a video signal: the overall intensity signal and two colordifference signals. 4:2:2 Video encoding scheme that uses half as much bandwidth for color-difference signals as compared to the intensity signal. 4:2:0 Video encoding scheme that uses one quarter as much bandwidth for colordifference signals as compared to the intensity signal. GOP Group of Pictures Concept common to MPEG standards that governs the number of frames of video that must be buffered by both the encoder and the decoder.

USAGE PATTERNS
For contribution circuits, an encoder needs to be deployed at each circuit origin, and a decoder at each destination, which can be costly. Plus, because this equipment needs to be installed in geographically distinct locations, the effort and expense required to provide control and monitoring of this equipment can be high. As a result, most users tend to buy a small number of encoders and move them from one application to another, or they lease production vehicles with built-in encoding equipment. Either way, each time a new connection is made, the equipment on both ends of the circuit must be properly configured and tested before each use.

BROADCASTER BENEFITS OF UNCOMPRESSED VIDEO

As a rule, broadcasters and other content providers should always prefer competitively-priced uncompressed video services to services that use compressed signals. While many of the reasons for this preference may seem obvious, it is important to review them to get a full appreciation for all the benefits offered with uncompressed video transport. In particular, while the resulting signal is pristine and free from compression artifacts, it is also true that uncompressed services are significantly easier to use and manage for users and carriers alike.

UNIVERSAL FORMAT
Uncompressed video formats are universal standards, able to be transmitted and received by essentially all digital video equipment. There are literally thousands of devices on the market today that are capable of generating, processing, and accepting uncompressed serial digital video, whether it is SD or HD. Whats more, users expect (and rightly so) that an uncompressed serial digital output from one manufacturers device will connect directly to the serial digital input of another manufacturers device. Contrast this with the state of video compression, where different devices need to be precisely configured and (typically) tested before they can be connected. As discussed in the accompanying sidebar on compression diversity, encoding and decoding devices need matching capabilities and configurations in order to work together. This is a particular barrier for JPEG2000 (also known as JPEG2K) today, where there are few system-level stream standards in existence and little or no interoperability between devices from different manufacturers.

LOWER DELAY
With many popular compression standards, the encoding and decoding processes can introduce significant amounts of delay. High bandwidth frame-byframe compression techniques (such as JPEG2000 signals operating between 80 and 120 Mbps) typically require one or two frames of delay at the source (33 to

Page 3

WWW.LEVEL3.COM

Do uncompressed contribution circuits improve the quality of consumer video signals?

Experts answers to this question tend to fall into two groups. The first group says that contribution links can introduce noise and distortions that propagate all the way through to the consumer. The second group says that any distortions introduced in the contribution link are too insignificant to make a noticeable difference in highlycompressed signals delivered to consumers. Which group is right? Well, it depends on how and where the measurements are made. Uncompressed video is mathematically lossless every bit that enters a signal path is delivered unchanged at the output. This means that there cannot be any signal impairments introduced by the transport network. In contrast, the compression techniques currently used by broadcasters introduce changes to signals, which can be measured in the recovered video signal using the proper equipment. Whether or not the changes introduced by contribution compression will affect the final, highly compressed version distributed to consumers is subject to debate. The effect will depend on a number of factors, including image content, compression standard and bit rates used, and other factors. Simple images with low amounts of motion or simple scenes may have no detectible degradation in the final product that can be traced to compression used in the contribution link. However, as consumer video display quality improves and as more bandwidth becomes available for consumer delivery, even small degradations anywhere in the production chain can become more noticeable. In general, broadcasters prefer to use uncompressed signals for creating master image files, for signals that will be heavily processed in post-production, and for content that will be archived long-term or repurposed for multiple applications. With live, uncompressed HD transport, all of these purposes can be satisfied with one original video signal.

80 milliseconds) and another one or two frames of delay at the destination (another 33 to 80 milliseconds). More aggressive compression techniques (such as H.264 below 10 Mbps) require four, six or even more frames of delay at both ends of the circuit. Low delay is essential for any programming that involves interaction between people (on-screen or off). In contrast, uncompressed video transport can deliver video signals with delays that approach the propagation delay of the underlying transport network. Delays as low as 30-40 milliseconds are possible on a signal from New York to London, which falls well within the round-trip delay limit of 150 msec for natural conversation.

BETTER AUDIO/VIDEO SYNCHRONIZATION

Audio content is normally transported with video content, and uncompressed transport makes this process easier in two ways. First, audio content can easily be embedded in uncompressed video, reducing the number of signals that need to be handled. Second, by eliminating compression delays, and the corresponding need to match audio delay to video delay, uncompressed transport can simplify the production process, and reduce the amount of equipment needed.

REDUCED OPERATIONAL COMPLEXITY AND RISK

Reducing the amount of time and skill required to install and configure a video network has obvious benefits for broadcasters. With uncompressed signals, all of the concerns about matching the profiles and levels of compression between the encoding device and the decoding device are eliminated. Also, with less equipment in the end-to-end circuit, overall system reliability will be improved.

FASTER RESTORATION TIME

In the rare event that a real-time video feed fails, the most urgent task is to restore the feed. Every second counts the longer the feed is interrupted, the greater the chance that viewers will pick up their remote controls and switch to another channel. The total restoration time is made up of three parts: the time to detect the failure, the time to correct the failure, and the time for the end-toend system to recover from the failure. All three of these times can be improved by using uncompressed video transport. Failure detection time is improved with uncompressed video because there is no need to decode the signal to detect that it has failed. This saves time by eliminating the buffers used for decompression, allowing the signal to be monitored more readily. Failure correction time will also improve with an uncompressed system, because the success or failure of an attempted corrective action can be more quickly confirmed. When compression and decompression delays are eliminated, it becomes easier for a service technician to verify that a repair has been successful. This in turn helps to speed up the repair process. End-to-end signal recovery time is also improved, because devices that are downstream from the failure will receive a corrected signal more quickly. This is particularly important in systems where the video must be compressed for distribution using a long GOP (group of pictures) encoder each additional frame of

Page 4

restoration delay increases the chance that a frame in the next GOP will be corrupted and cause difficulty for the encoder and decoder.

Level 3 Uncompressed Services

On October 08, 2009, Level 3 Communications announced that it was delivering Denver Broncos home games from Invesco Field in Denver to the game's broadcaster in New York using an uncompressed high-definition video feed. Level 3 delivered the signal entirely on its IP/MPLS fiber-optic network and was the first in the broadcast industry to enable the long-haul end-to-end delivery of uncompressed HD video from a major professional sports league venue. Mark Taylor, vice president of product and strategy for Level 3's Content Markets Group said, When you compress and uncompress a signal the quality becomes degraded, if only slightly; however, an uncompressed video feed maintains the integrity of a signal and allows broadcasters to deliver the highest quality picture possible. Our goal is to keep thinking about what's on the horizon in terms of delivering the best possible service that will support the next generation of video.

HIGHER QUALITY SIGNALS

Another argument for using uncompressed video transport is the positive impact it has on video quality. Uncompressed video removes the possibility of introducing visual artifacts into the video signal due to compression. All commonly-used video compression algorithms use lossy techniques that count on sophisticated models of human perception to hide data removal and image simplification from the viewer. Lossy techniques are required to ensure that any video image, regardless of complexity or degree of motion can be compressed to fit within a pre-determined amount of signal bandwidth. If lossy techniques werent used, it would be impossible to compress an HD signal to less than 50 Mbps, for example, without occasional bit rate peaks above that limit caused by complex images. While the image changes introduced by compression may not be visible to the human eye, further processing of the signal prior to broadcast can make these changes noticeable. For example, many popular compression formats reduce the color space of HD video signals from 4:2:2 to 4:2:0. This change may be hard to notice on a display, but it can definitely impact any further processing of the signal. For example, video that uses a chroma key (green screen) to superimpose one image over another benefits noticeably from the finer level of resolution in the color domain provided by 4:2:2 signals. If video signals are to be extensively processed before broadcast, or archived as master files, then uncompressed transport will help ensure that the best possible quality is available.

Carrier Benefits
The case for uncompressed HD video transport is not as clear-cut for service providers as it is for broadcasters. The most glaring drawback is the simple fact that a 1.5 Gbps uncompressed HD signal occupies almost six times as much bandwidth as an uncompressed 270 Mbps SD signal and 3 Gbps video requires twelve times as much. This higher bandwidth is required at every point along the signal path, including the local loops that connect between the providers network and customer facilities, through any switching or signal routing equipment, and across the core of the carriers network. This can be a problem for carriers who think only about the amount of bandwidth consumed by a service, and dont consider the other related costs. For carriers that do analyze the total costs of providing services, the extra expense of using compression technology can easily exceed the costs of the wider bandwidths.

SIMPLE, UNIVERSAL INTERFACE

Because of the common, well-established standards for uncompressed serial digital video, carriers can reduce the complexity of their service offerings by using a single format for all customers, regardless of image size or frame rate. As a bonus, since all of the important non-video signals used by broadcasters such as audio, closed captions, time codes, picture format descriptions, and metadata can all be embedded into uncompressed signals, the carriers interface to each of their customers can be a single coaxial or fiber optic connector.

Page 5

WWW.LEVEL3.COM

Emerging Standards
Work is currently underway within SMPTE to develop industry-wide standards for encapsulating high bit-rate video into packets that are suitable for transport across IP networks, based on work done within the Video Services Forum in their HBRAV (High Bit-Rate Audio Video) activity group, where Level 3 is very active. These documents will define the way that uncompressed video signals can be carried across these networks, and define a mechanism to correct errors that might occur during transmission. Carriers like Level 3 will benefit from these new standards when equipment suppliers produce compliant equipment, thereby simplifying the tasks of deploying global networks and interconnecting services across carrier boundaries.

Networks that are set up for occasional use with multiple different users (such as those used for news or sporting events) can particularly benefit from the simple, standard operation provided by uncompressed networks. When a broadcaster using uncompressed 1080i video at a sports venue is followed the next day by one using uncompressed 720p video, there is no need to change any of the network equipment or settings at the venue or the carriers facility. This also applies to broadcasters who may choose to use both compressed audio (such as Dolby E) and uncompressed audio for certain applications. Contrast this with the complexity of compression systems, which need to be configured to match the precise set of services that the broadcaster will be using, and reconfigured whenever video or audio formats change. Not to mention the intricacies of transporting metadata and other signals embedded within the original video streams.

EASY MID-STREAM MONITORING

Video transport networks are typically used on an occasional basis, such as on weekends for transporting sports programs that originate from different venues. These circuits are typically connected for a few days, and then disconnected until they are needed again. To support this constant churn, many network operators provide monitoring services where trained technicians can observe the live video and audio signals that are moving across their networks. This monitoring can help to prevent problems before they occur, and to speed up the repair of problems when they do occur. With uncompressed video, the monitoring task is greatly simplified. Since all of the signals are in a standard format, there is no need for a decoder to process compressed streams. Eliminating decoders helps the carrier in several ways, by eliminating the need to configure the decoders for each circuit, by reducing decoding delays to improve the response time to signal defects, and by saving the cost of buying the units. Of course, this does require a carrier with enough backbone capacity to bring the signals back to a central location for monitoring.

CERTAINTY OF DELIVERY
When an uncompressed signal is delivered intact to its destination, with all of the bits originated by the source in the correct order and within the specified signal timing limits, the carrier cannot affect image or sound quality of the signal. This is a tremendous boon for the carrier, because it eliminates any fingerpointing about the quality impact of the carriers choice of compression systems. This also avoids the (mutual) headache of requiring a compression device to be certified by both the carrier and the carriers customers, and precludes any discussion of which type of compression is best for which types of signals. Uncompressed transport allows carriers to focus on what they do best: delivering bits from sources to destinations, and allows broadcasters the comfort of knowing that their video signals are not being modified by the network.

REDUCED CAPITAL EXPENSE

Uncompressed video transport also avoids the expense and complexity of installing and managing video compression equipment. All carriers must consider this question: Is it a better use of capital to purchase dedicated compression equipment to create an encoder/decoder pair for a single video circuit, or would it be wiser to spend that same amount of money on core network backbone capacity that could be installed for use by any type of traffic?

Page 6

Increasingly, carriers are answering this question by investing in the backbone and using low-cost signal adapters to interface high-speed signals to the network. Figure 1 illustrates the tradeoffs between video and network costs for both compressed and uncompressed SD and HD video services. Notice that the relative costs of the video elements are a much larger proportion of the total costs for compressed services. This is due both to the relative costs of the compression equipment and the lower amounts of network bandwidth consumed by compressed services.

Figure 1
ONGOING OPERATIONAL EXPENSE
A commonly used rule of thumb for carrier capital expenses is the onethird/two-thirds rule, which describes the lifecycle cost of network equipment. By the time that a capital equipment item is retired from service, two thirds of its total cost over its lifetime will be due to support and management of the device, and only one third of the total cost can be attributed to the original purchase price of the equipment. Another way of stating this is that a carrier should anticipate two dollars of ongoing expenses for each dollar spent on capital equipment. Applying the one -third/two-thirds rule to video encoders creates a compression paradox. Simply stated, it seems paradoxical for a service provider to consume large amounts of capital to install expensive video-only equipment that is used by a small fraction of their customer base on an occasional basis. This expense seems even harder to justify when the long-term

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -

Page 7

WWW.LEVEL3.COM

downward trends in bandwidth costs are considered. Forward-thinking carriers are confronting this compression paradox by eliminating compression devices (and the associated life-cycle costs) from their networks.

Conclusion
This paper has discussed many aspects of uncompressed video transport, both from a broadcasters and a carriers perspectives. Taken as whole, the evidence clearly points to the desirability of uncompressed HD services for broadcasters, and leans strongly in the direction of its desirability for carriers. The local loop market has been leading this transition, and it is now time for long-haul carriers to make the move. The market for SD transport long ago began the transition, and uncompressed services are now the mainstay for new installations. Considering all the benefits, will growth in the market for uncompressed HD transport be far behind?

The Authors
Ryan Korte has more than 17 years of experience in developing and managing advanced fiber-optic networks for both Fortune 500 enterprise companies and nationwide telecommunications carriers. In his current position as Principal Architect for Level 3SM Vyvx Services, he is responsible for the strategic technology direction and development of all media-related networks, products and services. Ryan is a member of the Video Services Forum and is currently cochair of the High Bit Rate Audio Video over IP (HBRAV-IP) group within that organization. Wes Simpson is President of Telecom Product Consulting, an independent consulting firm that focuses on video and telecommunications products. He has more than 25 years experience in the design, development and marketing of products for telecommunication applications. He is a frequent speaker at industry events such as IBC, NAB and VidTrans and is author of the books Video Over IP and IPTV and Internet Video. Wes was a founding member of the Video Services Forum.

Level 3 Communications, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Level 3, Level 3 Communications and/or the Level 3 Communications Logo are either registered service marks or service marks of Level 3 Communications, LLC and/or one of its Affiliates in the United States and/or other countries. Level 3 and the Level 3 logo are service marks of Level 3 Communications, LLC and/or one of its affiliates in the United States and/or other countries with respect to Level 3's Vyvx service offerings.Level 3 services are provided by wholly owned subsidiaries of Level 3 Communications, Inc. Any other service names, product names, company names or logos included herein are the trademarks or service marks of their respective owners.

Page 8