The state of networked video
and integrated system design

Introduction
The convergence of Pro AV and Information Technology.
In this paper we discuss the state of networked video and explore various technologies in use.
We also discuss other system components and features necessary to design a complete andsecure integrated system rather than a collection of disparate network video endpoints.

The state of networked video and integrated system design1

Contents3

Why networked video?
Cost
Limitless distance
Boundless creation and consumption points
Architectural flexibility

4

Network video streaming vs. ethernet-as-infrastructure
Latency
Bandwidth

5Compression technologies
Mezzanine, intra-frame, and inter-frame codecs
Mezzanine codecs: TICO and DSC
Intra-frame codecs: JPEG2000 and VC-2
Inter-frame codecs: H.264, H.265 and WebM
H.264/AVC
H.265/HEVC
WebM

8

Low-bandwidth network video applications
Simple matrix switching on the corporate network
One-to-many distribution
Interconnected rooms in disperse locations
Live video reflectors
Corporate video library

11 Beyond codecs: the integrated system
Integration and control
Network management
Security
Content protection
Control interface protection
Network protection
Streaming ecosystem compatibility
HLS and DASH
RTSPBlind multicast
Audio codecs

13 Network video & HDBaseT
Cost
Density

15 Conclusion

The state of networked video and integrated system design2Why networked video?
There are a lot of benefits that can be achieved with network
video if the right technology is selected.
Cost
One of the great promises of networked AV is the ability to reduce the overall cost of an
installation. Re-using existing network infrastructure and cabling can reduce significant
overhead. Any room with a network drop can now support AV. However, based on the typeof infrastructure and system design, there may not actually be a significant cost advantage.

Limitless distanceOnce video is on the network it can be easily sent anywhere in the building or campus. Open thatup to the internet and now it has access to the world.

Boundless creation and consumption points
There is a rich ecosystem of networked products that support AV. AV can be streamed to andfrom BYOD devices such as laptops, phones, and tablets. There are many network streaming
cameras and recording devices on the market at all price points and feature sets. Server-based
video streaming solutions such as video reflectors and content delivery networks (CDNs) open
up interesting opportunities for new solutions in the pro AV space.

Architectural flexibility
Due to the bidirectional nature of Ethernet networks, switch ports are no longer “inputs” or“outputs.” Even some video endpoints have the capability to both encode and decode video.
This makes distribution architectures more flexible, meaning you can reuse existing network
infrastructure that was designed with no knowledge of video distribution. And now adding
devices to the video distribution system is really easy: just drop an encoder or decoder anywhereon the network.

The state of networked video and integrated system design3Network video streaming
vs. ethernet-as-infrastructure
Encoding video means toreformat the data to be suitable
for transmission on an Ethernet
network. This almost always
involves some amount of datacompression to fit highbandwidth video onto lowerbandwidth networks.

Decoding makes the video
again suitable for uncompressedbaseband transmission
technologies such as HDMI® or
DisplayPort. In the networked
AV world, transmitter andreceiver products are often
referred to as encoders anddecoders.

A codec is an encoding/decoding protocol. It is acombination of “coder” and“decoder.”There are many different video coding technologies, or codecs, used
to distribute video over the network, most of which involve someamount of video compression of the latest video formats.
While all codecs used in the pro AV space offer excellent video
quality, they all strike a different balance between bandwidth andvideo latency. How each codec strikes this balance affects
whether content can be streamed on the corporate network, orwhether dedicated Ethernet infrastructure must be designed andbuilt. The implications of this tradeoff are discussed below.
Latency
Latency is delay introduced by the process of encoding and decoding the video. Even video
distributed over a “perfect” network with “zero latency” will still have some latency introduced byany video codecs.
Tolerance for latency depends on the application. For common in-room applications such as
PowerPoint® presentation, up to several hundred milliseconds of latency will go un-noticed.
If a presenter is directly interacting with on-screen content via mouse or keyboard, latencies
up to 200ms are acceptable, albeit noticeable. As a reference, remote desktop applications
typically have latencies in this range.
For applications such as presentations in overflow rooms, in which an audience is observing apresenter via video streamed from another room, even extreme latencies of several seconds will
not be noticeable. This is because the viewer has no reference point for what constitutes “livevideo,” much like a television viewer of a live sports event is unaware of latencies introducedby cable or satellite distribution. For a two-way question-and-answer session the maximum
acceptable latency should be limited to a few hundred milliseconds.
Latency can quickly become problematic when using the network for video distribution andanalog cabling for audio distribution. Video will be delayed as compared to the audio, and thus
out of sync. The human brain is very sensitive to audio arriving ahead of video by even a few dozen
milliseconds. However, this effect can be easily corrected by adding the appropriate amount of
delay to the analog audio path.

The state of networked video and integrated system design4Bandwidth
Bandwidth concerns the amount of network traffic used by a given codec, and determines whatkind of network is required to support its use. The most bandwidth-efficient codecs typicallyuse around 10 Mbps and as such can be used on existing 1 gigabit corporate infrastructure
alongside normal user email and web traffic without much concern. The least bandwidth-efficient
codecs can use up to 10 Gbps to transmit 4K content and will immediately monopolize all theavailable bandwidth of a dedicated 10 gigabit network link, dragging down network operations in
the process.
Perhaps the most surprising fact learned by those new to network streaming is that all but themost bandwidth-efficient codecs are inappropriate for use on most corporate networks.
Many devices that use Ethernet as the distribution infrastructure employ high-bandwidth
codecs. In these cases, the devices require a dedicated network, and therefore the costsavings associated with leveraging the existing corporate network are not realized.
Depending on the application and system design, the cost can even be more expensive
than traditional HDBaseT® systems.
Since these systems can’t stream over the internet, the rich ecosystem of interoperable devices
and services doesn’t exist. Users can’t send high-bandwidth video to a mobile device or laptop,
and it can’t be stored by content management systems.

Compression technologies
If implemented correctly and used in the right applications, mostmodern standard codecs offer excellent image quality. As discussed,
each strikes a different balance between
latency and bandwidth.
10 Gigabits

Mezzanine, intra-frame, and inter-frame codecs

200 ms

65 ms
500 MbIntra-frame codecs treat each frame as an individual entity forencoding. No information from other frames is used to aid in
the encode process. Some so-called “mezzanine compression”
codecs look only within a small number of video lines. By
contrast, an inter-frame codec will look for similarities acrossdifferent frames to achieve far better compression ratios. The
amount of video data used during encoding weighs heavily on theoverall latency of the system, since all that data must be buffered
to be analyzed as a single entity.

10 Mb

10 μs

Mezzanine

LATENCYBANDWIDTH

10 Gb

Intraframe
CODEC TYPE

Interframe

Mezzanine codecs: TICO and DSC
TICO and DSC are competing compression codecs often referred
to as “lightweight” compression. They are primarily used when 2:1
or 4:1 compression is needed to squeeze video under a specificbandwidth threshold with minimal latency impact.

The state of networked video and integrated system design5While latency is effectively nonexistent, the lightweight nature of these codecs requires themost bandwidth of any of the compression techniques discussed. 4K video will saturate a 10G
network link and 1080p video will saturate a 1G network link. These technologies can’t be used
on existing corporate network infrastructure because they’d erase much of the assumed costbenefit associated with streaming technologies. Video signals at this level are difficult to movearound a building without expensive and carefully designed networks, and cannot realistically be
distributed between campuses or over the internet.
The TICO Alliance is gaining traction and interoperability in the broadcast video space,but products relevant to the pro AV space are lacking. DSC is employed in the DisplayPort
specification, and is widely expected to be employed by future HDMI specifications, as well, but
it’s not yet readily available for network video products.

Intra-frame codecs: JPEG2000 and VC-2
JPEG2000 and VC-2 offer significantly better compression ratios than DSC or TICO. For
instance, 1080p and 4K video will compress to several hundred megabytes with these solutions
as opposed to the several gigabytes required by mezzanine codecs. These bandwidths may
fit on a dedicated 1G network link, but are too high to co-exist on the corporate network withapplications such as email and web usage.

Standard video codecs are wellunderstood by both academics
and major industry players in
the field of video.
Pros, cons, and proper
applications for each codec
are well researched, well
documented and field tested.

Most intra-frame codec installations will require a dedicated network involving significant design
effort to properly balance cost and performance. 1G links are fine if they will only ever carry asingle video channel, but once two or more channels must be supported 10G links or higher are
required. Inter-building links are manageable if planned for appropriately but these codecs still
can’t realistically be streamed over the internet. And there is no developed third-party ecosystem
for these codecs; they are closed solutions. You can’t stream to a laptop or mobile device.

The same is not true of
proprietary codecs, which
are unproven in the industry
and may perform poorly inapplications not highlighted in
product demos and marketing
literature.

At 10-65ms, latency is significantly longer than that of mezzanine solutions, but is still
appropriate for most pro AV applications. However, in latency-sensitive applications care must be
taken when combining codec latencies with other latency-inducing devices such as video scalers
and video teleconferencing codecs (VTCs).

Inter-frame codecs: H.264 and H.265
Inter-frame codecs go a step further to achieve bandwidth reductions that are an order ofmagnitude better than even the intra-frame codecs. These codecs look at video frames both before
and after the frame that’s being encoded to take advantage of similarities across the frames.

Relative Information

I
200kb
Average
200kb

I

I

I

I

I

I

By way of example, consider a typical meeting in which a
presenter is showing a slide deck, and her laptop is set to output
video at 60 frames per second. An intra-frame codec such as
JPEG2000 encodes every frame the computer generates as aunique entity. An inter-frame codec will determine that many
frames are showing the exact same content (the presentation
slide) and the bandwidth will essentially drop to zero for those
repeated frames. Even for live video, the content usually does notchange much from frame to frame, so bandwidth remains low andspikes only upon scene changes.
Since these codecs optimize for bandwidth the latency increases.
Latencies are typically in the 200ms range in the best case, withthe option of artificially increasing buffer size (which translates tolatency) to accommodate video transmission over unstable links
or the internet.

The state of networked video and integrated system design

6Keep in mind that latencies for devices in a system are additive. For instance, video
teleconferencing systems (VTCs) use inter-frame codecs and incur their own latency penalty.
Using a network video streaming solution to send video to the codec will double the latency
penalty, degrading the user experience. For these sorts of applications, low-cost zero-latency
HDBaseT links from the laptop to the VTC make the most sense.

H.264/AVCThe Advanced Video Coding (AVC) standard, also known as H.264, is the most common interframe codec in use today. H.264 is used in cable and satellite TV distribution, Blu-ray® discs andmuch of the streaming video used on the internet from providers such as Netflix® and HBO®.
H.264 is also commonly used by remote workers in virtual desktop applications and in video
teleconferencing systems.

Having trouble keeping trackof inter-frame vs. intra-frame
codecs?
Just keep in mind that intra
means within and inter means
between or among.
So intra-frame codecs lookwithin each frame while interframe codecs look at data
across many frames.

Live encoding devices can typically achieve bandwidths as low as 500Kbps with 1080p video.
(That’s a 900:1 compression ratio!) However, at these bandwidths video quality is compromised..
Typically, a 10Mbps stream is recommended for high quality video applications, which is still well
below the bandwidth threshold for using a 1Gb corporate network.
One important thing to understand is that for particularly bandwidth-sensitive applications, thesystem designer can elect to optimize for bandwidth rather than image quality. Most codecs willallow the designer to strike a different bandwidth vs. quality balance, but H.264 is the only codec
discussed that’s suitable for truly bandwidth-sensitive applications. For instance, if streaming toa mobile device over the comparatively expensive cellular network, a lower-bandwidth stream isappropriate.
One downside to H.264 is its lack of 4K support. Due to the extra buffering and compression
requirements, it is realistically limited to 1080p for pro AV applications.

H.265/HEVCThe High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) standard, also known as H.265, is the next generationof H.264. H.265 uses similar but more advanced techniques to achieve compression ratios thatare about 40% greater than its predecessor. These bandwidth savings will become important
as higher-resolution 4K content moves onto the corporate network. However, H.265 encoding isabout 10 times as computationally complex as H.264, so 4K encoders currently exist primarily
in very expensive devices aimed at the broadcast space. Some high-end video conferencing
systems also support H.265 encoding, but only at 1080p. H.265 decoders are significantly
simpler than the encoders and will soon be readily available at reasonable prices.

The state of networked video and integrated system design7

Low-bandwidth network video applications
The low-bandwidth H.264 codec is required to take advantageof existing networks, to enable video transmission at unlimited
distances, and to interoperate with the third-party ecosystem. Here
we take a look at the various use cases where H.264 makes sense.
Simple matrix switching on the corporate network
The most conceptually simple way to take advantage ofstreaming on the network is to use H.264 encoders anddecoders to create a large virtual matrix switch, with the
network as the switching infrastructure.
Proper HDCP support is critical for these applications as theyoften involve sources such as Blu-ray players and cable boxes.

HD

MI

HD

MI

HD

MI
HD

MI

HD

MI

HD

MI

The state of networked video and integrated system design8One-to-many distribution
Using multicast streaming, one content source can easily be sent to many displays without
using lots of outputs on a matrix switch. This application is common for overflow rooms, lobbies,
cafeterias, and digital signage.

MI

R

ST

0-

10

X-

XR

-T

DM

R

ST

0-

10

C-

M

-R

DM

HD

he

o

ts

en

nt

Co

Et

ce
ur

et

R

ST

0-

10

C-

M

-R

DM

R

ST

0-

10

C-

M

-R

DM

rn

Interconnected rooms in disperse locations
Rooms using HDMI and HDBaseT can be interconnected using streaming encoders anddecoders. Any room can become a presentation room and any room can receive the content,even if it’s halfway around the world.

R

ST

0-

10

X-

XR

-T

DM

Et

he

rn

et

50

K-

4
3-

PS

HD

MI

DM

MI

The state of networked video and integrated system design

0

-5

4K

3-

PS

HD

R

ST

0-

10

X-

XR

-T

DM

DM

9

Live video reflectors
Live executive presentations and “town hall” events may be streamed to a reflector service. The
reflector transcodes the video to the various formats required by any receiving devices such as
laptops, mobile devices, and in-room decoders.

Yo
r

-1
0
0
-S

T

k
-R
M

C

To
k

R
T
D

M

-R
M

C

D

M

yo

-1
0
0
-S

w

R

Ne

Si

ap

T
-S
0
0
C

-1

id
V

R

or
e

e
o

R
e
fl

e
c
to

r

ng

-R

M

Et

M

he

D

rn

et

et

rn

he

M
D o
e b
v il
ic e
e
s

Et

T

-1

R

X

R

X

-T

M

D
-S
0

-S

0

0

HD

0
-1
C
M
D

M

-R

R

T

MI

e

rc

u

o

S

Corporate video library
Many corporations and universities maintain extensive video libraries in content managements
systems (CMS) such as Kaltura® or Panopto®. You can stream directly from these systems to
endpoint devices such as laptops, mobile devices and in-room decoders.

Yo
r

C
-1

0

0

-S

k
-R

M

To
k

T
R
D

M

-R

M

C
-1

0

0

D

M

yo

-S

w

T
R

Ne

T
R
-S
D

rn

et

T
R
-S
0
0
-1
M
C

et

rn

he

Et

M
D o
e b
v il
ic e
e
s

-R

0
M
-R

he

D
M

or
e

M

Et

ap

0

C

M

S

ng

C
-1

Si

Beyond codecs: the integrated system
A truly integrated system relies on more than just selection of theright video codec. Irrespective of codec type selected, the devices
must be easily and securely managed and controlled.
Integration and control
Video distribution doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Routes must be set, video sources and displays
must be controlled, and interfaces must be provided to react to user input. A complete solution
provides all the necessary pieces for easy integration.

Network management
A modern video distribution system requires monitoring and maintenance. Users may experience
difficulties, disconnected cables or power from devices, and devices may occasionally fail,especially in larger systems. Additionally, tracking usage data can help AV and IT departments
make more intelligent decisions about future technology investments.
Enterprise network management software enables companies to better support their users
and understand how they’re using rooms. All components of an integrated system must be
manageable, including network video endpoints.

SecurityOnce video devices are on the network they must adhere to standard IT security policies tosafeguard against unauthorized access to content from private meetings. Think about it: while
the CEO is presenting her strategy to the corporate board, the content is now moving across the
network, which is accessible from any network jack in the building. Properly securing this content
is mission critical.
When designing a system, there are two key aspects to consider from a content security
perspective: protection of the content and protection of the control interface. Additionally, many
corporate IT departments now impose security requirements on all networked devices to protect
the network itself.

The state of networked video and integrated system design11

Content protection
Protecting the content is an obvious need. Luckily, standard network encryption technologies are
up to the task. The Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) forms the underpinnings of SSL and
TLS, and as such, is used on the open internet to protect all manner of secure online activities,
from banking transactions to Facebook® logins. AES is also ideally suited for protecting video,
and is the core encryption technology used in HDCP 2.2, the standard content protection
protocol in the professional AV industry.
That said, don’t rely on HDCP to secure content. Many devices (including most laptops) don’t
support HDCP, so relying on HDCP to protect the content is not sufficient. If the laptop doesn’tturn HDCP on, the content will remain unprotected. It’s important to be able to control AES
beyond the automatic HDCP control mechanisms.
HDCP also doesn’t authenticate the user or the specific receiver device. It only authenticates thatthe device is a licensed HDCP device. A nefarious actor may bring in a new device from outside
the organization, and as long as it’s licensed by HDCP, it will happily decrypt the content. An
additional authentication layer, such as a content-specific username and password, should be
required for the most sensitive content.
HDBaseT is not as susceptible to network-based attacks that put video content at risk. For themost secure applications, HDBaseT remains the right approach.

Control interface protection
Perhaps even more important than protecting the content is protecting the control interface.
Content protection is irrelevant if someone can connect to the encoder control interface anddisable the encryption! And once access is gained to the configuration interface, video may
easily be routed to an additional nefarious device. Web-based configuration interfaces must be
protected by HTTPS and the control system interface must also be protected by an encryption
mechanism, such as SSL.

Network protection
Corporate IT departments are very careful about which devices have access to their networks.
An increasing number of companies now require all networked devices to support anauthentication protocol known as 802.1x. This protocol is used to ensure that only devices
explicitly authorized by the IT department have access to the network.
802.1x has specific hardware requirements and is not supported by all devices. Be sure thisrequirement is considered before designing a streaming system or you may find that the IT
department won’t allow it on their network.

The state of networked video and integrated system design

12Streaming ecosystem compatibility
Unfortunately, even when two network AV devices use the same video codec, they may not
be compatible. Different protocols may be used to transport the video data and communicate
system capabilities. Furthermore, different codecs may be used to encode the audio data. It’s
important to support all industry-relevant protocols, especially to ensure compatibility with
devices in the H.264 ecosystem.

HLS and DASHHTTP Live Streaming (HLS) and Dynamic and Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH) are twoof the more common modern web-based video distribution mechanisms. They separate video
packets into small HTTP downloads, allowing the video data to easily pass through firewalls andcorporate proxy servers. Modern CDNs such as Kaltura and Panopto employ these protocols forcontent transmission, so receiving devices must support these protocols for compatibility.

RTSP
The Real-Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) is used to negotiate video format support between
encoding and decoding devices. This protocol is also used to relay playback commands such as”Play,” “Stop,” and “Rewind.” RTSP is popular with streaming cameras.

Blind multicast
With blind multicast transmission multiple receivers are subscribed to the same transmission
stream. Both sides must be configured with the same streaming parameters (e.g., resolution,
bitrate) to ensure interoperability. This format is common in broadcast and digital signage
applications.

Audio codecs
While most of this white paper discussion has revolved around video codecs, audio codecs areimportant as well. The ITU G.711, Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) and pulse code modulation(PCM) standards are both common in the streaming video space.

The state of networked video and integrated system design13Networked video & HDBaseT
Network streaming is great for a lot of applications and enables
exciting new use cases. However, traditional circuit-switched
HDMI and HDBaseT solutions still make sense in many instances,
especially compared to high-bandwidth solutions. Given the costand density advantages of network switching infrastructures,
how can this be?
Cost
Ethernet ports on a network switch are significantly cheaper than HDBaseT ports on a matrix
switch. But high-bandwidth networked encoders and decoders are still significantly more
expensive than comparably-equipped HDBaseT transmitters and receivers. So for simple pointto-point video extension HDBaseT remains the more cost-effective option.
The same remains true for many larger installations. In a networked video installation, every
source and receiver device requires an expensive encoder or decoder, regardless of whether it’s
installed in a rack or remotely. In a circuit-switched installation, in-rack sources and receivers cantake advantage of relatively low-cost HDMI inputs and outputs native to the chassis.

Density
Ethernet switches clearly beat HDBaseT switches for pure density. A 48-port Ethernet switch
can easily be had in a single rack unit. But again, the local in-rack HDMI encoders and decoders
erase much of this benefit. In-rack HDMI inputs can be had in significantly higher densities
on circuit switches than on network encoders and decoders, quickly eclipsing the density
advantage of the network switch.
Installed HDBaseT systems will be used for many years, and new HDBaseT systems will be
designed and installed for some time as well. As network video gains popularity, it will be added
to existing HDMI and HDBaseT systems, thus you’ll need effective and elegant hybrid solutions
to manage that transition seamlessly and reliably.

The state of networked video and integrated system design

14Conclusion
Networked video technologies are not created equal. Low-bandwidth H.264 video is the mostwidely-available codec that allows integrators to take full advantage of the benefits of networked
video: low cost re-use of existing infrastructure, limitless distance, and the well-developed
ecosystem of interoperable devices and services. Higher-bandwidth options optimize for latency
but require the build-out of dedicated network infrastructure, can’t be streamed over the internet,
and don’t offer interoperability with other devices.
However, it takes more than the proper codec selection to build a complete video distribution
system. Systems must securely integrate with control systems for routing as well as control ofvideo sources and displays. And the system must be maintainable, which means it must be able
to be monitored on the network.
For latency-sensitive in-room applications, HDBaseT will remain the dominant technology
for some time, significantly influencing system design and management even as network AV
becomes increasingly popular.
Most modern successful system designs will involve a mix of HDBaseT and network AV, allowing
the designer to take advantage of each when appropriate. Be sure to consider how to integrate
copper, fiber, and Ethernet infrastructures during system design to ensure a successful installation.

The state of networked video and integrated system design15