1. 1 Scalable Video Coding the 2012 disrupter?

2. Today’s Discussion H.264 AVC SVC fundamentals Simulcast SVC in videoconferencing –Vidyo –Radvision –Cisco –Polycom © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 2

3. H.264 / MPEG-4 AVC Overview Standard for video compression Includes multiple profiles –2003: 3 profiles –2009: 16 profiles 3 for scalable streams, 13 for single layer streams –2012: 21 profiles 5 for SVC, 2 for multiview (3D) Common vernacular is to refer to H.264 AVC and H.264 SVC, but this may be technically incorrect © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 3

4. H.264: traditional videoconferencing Transcoding MCU A B C D a b+c+d b c d a+c+d a+b+d a+b+c © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 4

5. Scalable Video Coding A video bit stream is called scalable if part of the stream can be removed in such a way that the resulting bit stream is still decodable. Scalability here implies: –Single encode –Multiple possibilities to transmit and decode bitstream © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 5

6. Five SVC Profiles (Jan 2012) Scalable Baseline profile and Scalable Constrained Targeted for conversational and surveillance applications. Support for Spatial Scalable coding is restricted to ratios 1.5 and 2, between successive spatial layers. Interlaced video not supported. Scalable High profile and Scalable Constrained Designed for broadcast, storage and streaming applications. Spatial scalable coding with arbitrary resolution ratios supported. Interlaced video supported Scalable High Intra profile Designed for professional applications. Contains only IDR pictures for all layers. All other coding tools are same as Scalable High Profile. © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 6

7. H.264 SVC Basics Straight forward extension to H.264 AVC with very limited added complexity Layered approach –One base layer –One or more enhancement layers Base layer is H.264/AVC compliant. Enhancement layers enable Temporal (frame rate), Spatial (resolution) or Quality (SNR) improvements. Enhancement layers can be dropped. © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 7

8. Scalable Video Coding © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 8

9. Scalable Video Coding © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 9

10. Prediction and Update operators

11. SVC Strengths Can provide optimum video quality over range of bit rates Can provide optimum video quality over range of endpoint power Fits well with the dynamic and best-efforts philosophy and variable performance of the Internet Resilience to packet loss and graceful degradation as bits are lost Has been implemented in all-software solutions running on industry standard platforms, including mobile © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 11

12. SVC Weaknesses Requires more encoding horsepower Requires more bandwidth No native interoperability today between vendors No native backwards compatibility today Gateway solutions exist, but is a gateway a scalable, resilient, cost-effective long term solution? © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 12

13. Google Talk Skype Telepresence Microsoft Lync Apple Facetime IBM SameTime Videoconferencing Islands H.323 SIP 13 SVC © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC.

14. Simulcast © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 14

15. Simulcast Same goals as SVC Allows endpoint to send multiple versions of video Each version is standards-compliant Typical case: encode SD and HD streams or encode SD, HD, and CIF © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 15

16. Simulcast 1080p 360p 1080p 720p 360p Tablet/Smart Phone user 720p Room system Switched infrastructure, not transcoded Video is standard H.264 Legacy System Diagram courtesy of Cisco © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 16

17. H.264/AVC Simulcast vs. SVC Simulcast –Encode and send multiple bit-streams simultaneously SVC –Transmit a single bit-stream with base and enhancement layers H.264 simulcast SD HD SVC HD+SD © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 17

18. Simulcast Strengths Compatible with old standards Should work with almost any legacy system since all streams can be decoded individually Eliminates need for transcoding Should work with new, low-cost video switching infrastructure © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 18

19. Simulcast Weaknesses Requires more encoding horsepower Requires more bandwidth in all cases Needs new video infrastructure - switched © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 19

20. Source: Stefan Karapetkov Wainhouse Research internal communications H.264/AVC Simulcast vs SVC © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 20

21. H.264/AVC Simulcast vs SVC Curves depend on motion content, bit rate, number of enhancement layers; SVC generally provides 10-30% bit rate savings for equivalent quality Source: Prof. V.M. Gadre, Dept of EE, IIT Bombay and TI DSP Labs study (Bangalore) © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 21

22. Technology © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC.22 Legacy VCSVCSimulcast Room EPDSPSWDSP Personal EPSW MCU*DSPSWSW + DSP GW*DSPSWDSP GKSW VM and Cloud compatibility LowHighMedium-Low * Other examples exist

23. The Vendors © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 23

24. SVC Room System SVC Desktop SVC-VideoRouter SVC Room System SVC Desktop ` Vidyo All calls must go through low-latency video router © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 24

25. Polycom Largest pure-play videoconferencing vendor Announced intention to deliver SVC solution in conjunction with Microsoft Lync one year ago – missing in action Now appears to be working on simulcast solution 25 © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC.

26. Radvision Announced SVC solution April 2010 Supports temporal enhancements only SVC implemented in Radvision MCU – supports multipoint and gateway functionality SVC implemented in SCOPIA software endpoint Uses unequal error protection methods to protect base layer Pending acquisition by Avaya announced March 2012. 26© 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC.

27. Radvision Radvision MCU H.264 SVC H.264 AVC H.263 © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 27

28. Cisco Investigating SVC for several years Announced intention in Nov 2011 to support simulcast in 2012 Currently in process of slimming down from ~9 video clients to 2 (and then 1)…. Jabber branding 28© 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC.

29. Cisco’s Unified Conferencing Cloud – On-premise – Switching – Transcoding Transcoded Multipoint Conferencing  Lowest bandwidth consumption  Maximizes interoperability Switched Multipoint Conferencing  Lowest Latency  Ability to virtualize  High scalability Webex Conferencing  Cloud or On-Premises  Global reach  Scheduled and Ad-Hoc Cisco TelePresence Conductor © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. 29

30. Closing Thoughts Innovation and improvement continues in the video compression standards work New algorithms take advantage of silicon performance advances and software coding improvements New algorithms present challenges for backwards compatibility and interoperability 30© 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC.

31. Closing Thoughts Video and visual communications are becoming commonplace Millenial workers have grown up with the Internet, YouTube, Facebook, etc….. This changes everything Movement to mobile devices, remote workers, and any-to-any communications drives interest in the newer video compression algorithms 31© 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC.

32. By 2020 the software will always work…..

33. Version 2.0a April 2, 2006 © ParkWood Advisors LLC, 2006 All Rights Reserved 33 New capabilities change behavior in unpredictable ways Mainstream Collaboration time 19801990200020102020 Relative Impact of Capability On behavior Succession of H.264 AVC profiles Simulcasting H.265

34. Closing Thoughts SVC as just another codec in the stack is of limited value – real value is in migration to switched architecture and to the cloud The disruptive force created by Scalable Video Coding may be less than first thought –Simulcast may be alternative –SVC may be standardized with signaling and adopted by multiple vendors The devices and applications we will be using in 2017 probably haven’t been invented yet 34© 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC.

35. 35 Wainhouse Research Market research & consulting firm –Founded 1999 Focus –Videoconferencing, collaboration, & unified communications Clients –End Users –Manufacturers –Channel Partners –Financial Community FREE Newsletter Wainhouse.com/bulletin © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC.

36. Andrew Davis Videoconferencing Boston Richard Norris Videoconferencing Paris Stacy Austin-Li Chinese UC&C Specialist Madison, WI Scott Walters Hosted Collaboration Services Pittsburgh Ira Weinstein Videoconferencing Ft Lauderdale Marc Beattie Hosted Collaboration Services Boston Make Smarter Decisions Stefan Karapetkov Videoconferencing San Jose Bill Haskins Unified Communications Denver Andy Nilssen Personal Web-Based Collaboration Tampa Alan Greenberg Distance Ed & eLearning Austin Steve Vonder Haar Streaming & Webcasting Dallas 36

37. 37 Wainhouse Research Services Market Intelligence : 6 annual subscriptions –1. Group Videoconferencing (VC) products and services –2. Personal and web-based VC products and services –3. Streaming and webcasting products and services –4. Audio conferencing products and services –5. eLearning solutions –6. Unified communications (UC) products and services –Special combination bundle for end user organizations Consulting –Strategic, operational, and competitive advisory services –Product and service evaluations Summit Conference Events –Collaboration Summit Europe & North America –CSP Summit Europe & North America © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC. Subscriptions are company-wide: available to all employees Benefits: Stay up to date Save time Make better decisions 37

38. 38 Thank You andrewwd@wainhouse.com