A Typical Scenario

Picture this: you are putting together your IP-based video distribution system, surrounded by an array of tools from different vendors.

These tools use the same protocols, meaning they should be interoperable – but in fact, slight differences in their implementations mean that often they are not. To make sure everything works smoothly, you’ve had to schedule an extra phase of interoperability testing. Some workflows, it turns out, are broken, and you’re going to have to fix that – leading to more delays that jeopardise your deadline.

Sound familiar? Unfortunately, it’s quite a common scenario in the media industry.

Could there be a simpler way to build these distribution workflows?

This blog post explores the complexity of video distribution strategies that juggle multiple vendors and suggests a simpler, more unified approach.

Challenges of Video Distribution Strategies with Multiple Vendors

The complexity of IP distribution distribution workflows stems from the huge number of specialised tasks involved. These usually include:

• SRT input
• Encoding
• Framerate conversion
• Transcoding
• Logo insertion
• Watermarking
• Playout
• Monitoring
• In some cases, recording for time delay or for compliance requirements.

Often, each of these tasks requires a dedicated solution running on a specific piece of hardware. In the highly fragmented video-technology industry, each one is supplied by a different niche vendor, leading to the messy situation described above.

Complicating matters further, each tool requires its own API. Users end up having to navigate a variety of interfaces, making integration, maintenance, and updates both complex and time-consuming.

An Example Video Processing Workflow

Because of this complexity, typically several pieces of equipment would be required. Let’s look at a typical example of a video-processing workflow:

• One piece of equipment for framerate conversion and transcoding
• A second piece of equipment for logo insertion
• And a third for audio watermarking.

This leads to high upfront costs as many machines must be bought, but also high operating expenses as each machine needs to be maintained, operated (consuming electricity), and eventually replaced. It also leads to a lack of accountability: when things go wrong (as they often do due to incompatibility issues, even when using the same standard protocols), it can be hard to pinpoint what the exact source of the problem is, often resulting in each supplier blaming the others.

But even within each discreet task, there is often unnecessary complexity. Let’s look at one example more closely: watermarking audio streams.

An Example: Watermarking Audio Streams

Once upon a time, audio and video streams were sent as two separate SDI streams, each one requiring dedicated hardware. Nowadays, multiplexing audio and video has become standard practice, making workflows more efficient. But some complexities remain. Let’s break down the workflow for inserting a watermark into the audio stream:

1. Extract the audio from the SDI stream, separating it from the video, using an XLR.
2. Add the watermark, embedding it into the audio stream (generally during the audio processing stage).
3. Re-embed the watermarked audio back into the original SDI stream, while ensuring proper synchronisation with the video component. Again, you will need an XLR.
4. Encode the complete SDI stream (watermarked audio + video) to prepare for distribution.

Here, the complexity is largely due to the SDI format where two streams are intertwined.

A Unified Video Distribution Strategy

Clearly, there is a need for a unified solution that simplifies distribution workflows and increases accountability. But how is that possible in the fragmented video tech market with multiple niche players?

One way to solve this problem is to have a vendor that, instead of selling niche products, offers a solution that makes tailored products to meet specific needs across the entire workflow.

EasyTools: A Modular Framework

Our vision at EasyTools is to reduce complexity by providing a single piece of equipment, from one vendor, for the entire workflow. We have achieved this by designing a flexible framework that efficiently organises various modules – each one performing specific tasks – into a structured system, similar to an assembly line, tailored to the unique requirements of each situation.

This means there is a single API that can handle multiple functionalities, reducing complexity as users only need to develop, learn and use a single interface.

EasyTools in Action: Video Processing

Let’s go back to our video-processing example mentioned above. As we saw, a typical setup would require three pieces of equipment.

With EasyTools, all three processes – framerate conversion, logo insertion, and watermarking – would require just one machine. Effectively, this approach divides hardware investments by three, while also drastically reducing operational costs.

But beyond just cost reduction, using EasyTools also avoids the risk of incompatibilities between different tools, and ensures full accountability across the entire workflow. No more vendors finger-pointing instead of fixing broken workflows.

EasyTools in Action: Audio Watermarking

Looking at the audio watermarking example, EasyTools does this directly on IP instead of SDI. This results in a simpler process with less equipment and fewer steps. Again, we see lower hardware costs, no more interoperability issues, and greater accountability across the workflow.

Solving Complexity with a Unified Approach

Our website shows that we offer solutions for video contribution, processing, distribution, and monitoring. Technically, it would be more accurate to call each of these a “function” or a “module” from a larger framework that works as a coherent whole. Each module can be bought independently, or along with the other modules for a unified solution across workflows. Even more interestingly, licences bought for one “module” can be converted to licences for a different “module” as needs change. So, for example, someone who bought a contribution solution can transform it into a monitoring solution or a transcoding solution (or vice-versa) once the event is over.

A unified solution such as EasyTools simplifies video workflows and addresses interoperability issues, reducing both upfront and operational costs and ensuring accountability.

Learn more about the EasyTools solution and how it can be used for video contribution, processing, distribution, and monitoring.