40
Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment Geoff Constable Welsh Video Network, Aberystwyth University November 2011

Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment Consumption of Videoconferencing... · Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment ... and TANDBERG was purchased by Cisco,

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

PowerConsumption

ofVideoconferencing

Equipment

Geoff Constable Welsh Video Network, Aberystwyth University

November 2011

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 2 of 40

This page has been left blank intentionally

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 3 of 40

Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 5

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. 7

Introduction.......................................................................................................... 8

Equipment ............................................................................................................ 9

Establishing the duration of the monitoring period...............................................10

CODEC testing to establish a suitable test duration ........................................................................... 10

Screen testing to assess a suitable test duration – Samsung SyncMaster 400 .................................. 15

Conclusions regarding suitable testing periods .................................................................................. 17

Videoconferencing CODEC Tests ...........................................................................18

Polyspan ViewStation SP 128 ............................................................................................................. 19

Polycom iPower 9000 ......................................................................................................................... 20

TANDBERG MXP 6000 ........................................................................................................................ 20

Polycom VSX 8000 .............................................................................................................................. 21

TANDBERG MXP 880 .......................................................................................................................... 22

Polycom HDX 9000 ............................................................................................................................. 22

LifeSize PassPort ................................................................................................................................. 23

LifeSize Room 220 .............................................................................................................................. 24

TANDBERG C20 .................................................................................................................................. 25

TANDBERG C90 .................................................................................................................................. 26

Projector Tests .....................................................................................................27

Hitachi CPX-25 .................................................................................................................................... 27

Casio XJ-A150V ................................................................................................................................... 27

Screen Tests .........................................................................................................28

Studio Tests .........................................................................................................29

Background ........................................................................................................................................ 29

The tests ............................................................................................................................................. 29

Effects of the Shutdown feature ......................................................................................................... 32

Summary and Conclusions ...................................................................................34

CODEC Standby .................................................................................................................................. 35

Newer, faster, hungrier ...................................................................................................................... 36

Studios in Shutdown ........................................................................................................................... 36

Datasheets don’t tell the whole story ................................................................................................ 37

Appendix 1: Equipment in the Test Studio ............................................................38

Appendix 2: Studio Power Test .............................................................................39

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 4 of 40

This page has been left blank intentionally

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 5 of 40

Executive Summary The How Green Was My Videoconference (HGWMVC)? project aims to measure the ‘green’ and other benefits gained by substituting travel with the use of videoconferencing. Part of this is to test the power consumption of the videoconferencing equipment used, as this power consumption is an important part of the total lifecycle carbon footprint of the equipment. In order to evaluate the actual emissions saved by using videoconferencing in place of travel, the savings in carbon emissions gained by not travelling need to be offset against the carbon emissions created by the use of the videoconferencing equipment. To get a picture of the accuracy and completeness of the information supplied by manufacturers, and to give some guidance for the energy used by videoconferencing equipment, tests were undertaken in a controlled environment on both individual videoconferencing CODECs and some associated Audio Visual (AV) equipment commonly found in videoconferencing installations. The CODEC (from encoder-decoder) is the equipment at the heart of any videoconferencing installation – the videoconferencing appliance. The scope of the project does not extend to PC-based desktop videoconferencing, so this was not included in the energy testing. In addition to the power consumed by individual CODECs in a test environment, the measuring equipment was taken to a live fully-featured videoconferencing studio to record the energy consumption at studio level over a period of days. In order to establish accurate and repeatable tests, initial testing was conducted to establish the timespan suitable for taking reliable measurements. A set of discreet states was also defined for each series of tests. These states were defined as ‘standby’, ‘switched on’ (not in a call), in a ‘talking heads’ call, and in a ‘busy’ call (lots of movement and data exchanged). The report describes these states in more detail. The intention was to see if the different states resulted in different levels of power consumption. The videoconferencing equipment tested represents the current top of the range and entry level equipment for each of the three main manufacturers of videoconferencing equipment (by market share), as well as some older equipment that may still be in use. In general, the results appear to indicate that age is no guide to power consumption, although the more modern equipment is generally more power hungry. Similarly, the more versatile the equipment (ie the more modern encoding algorithms supported for audio and video; the more bandwidth that can be utilised; the higher resolutions supported; the more inputs and outputs the equipment supports), the more power the equipment consumes. This generally results in a trend for videoconferencing equipment to be using increasingly more power to support all this versatility, which bucks the trend seen in other IT and AV equipment for more modern equipment to be consuming less power over its lifetime1, despite the corresponding increases in computing power. The test results also indicate that it is generally true that the more expensive the equipment is to purchase, the higher its energy costs will be.

1 http://dssw.co.uk/research/computer_energy_consumption.html

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 6 of 40

Other results indicate that – in almost every case – putting a CODEC into standby does not result in a significant drop in power being consumed by the unit, and that CODECs are not the most significant power consumers in a studio – the screens are. The studio results indicate that a considerable energy saving can be made over time by always putting equipment (manually or automatically) into standby.

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 7 of 40

Acknowledgements Thanks are due to Danny Shaw, Stuart Henderson, Chris Bodley and Mark Burden (and all my colleagues at the Welsh Video Network) for their assistance in conducting the tests and making equipment available from the WVN Swansea offices. Danny also conducted some tests, recorded the results of a number of the tests and helped with research into manufacturers’ figures. I would also like to thank Deirdre Magoris for editing this report. Thanks are also due to Rob Bristow of the JISC Greening ICT programme and to Peter James and Lisa Hopkinson of Suste-IT for their help and support. My gratitude and thanks are also extended to Glen Sykes and his colleagues at Direct Visual, who supplied a lot of equipment on loan, technical support for the equipment loaned and also product details for the Polycom® and TANDBERG equipment. Last but not least, thanks to Craig Moss and his colleagues at LifeSize® Communications, who also loaned equipment and offered help and technical support for, and details of, the equipment loaned. All screenshots are used with kind permission of Enistic Limited, Real-time Smart Metering Systems (www.enistic.com).

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 8 of 40

Introduction Testing of power consumption was seen, from the inception of the HGWMVC project, as an important strand of the work of the project. Following a period of market analysis and equipment evaluation (which is described in the project document Evaluation of the Enistic and Plogg Solutions), Enistic power monitoring equipment was selected and a test procedure was established. The testing had the following aims:

• to determine the actual power consumption of varying types of videoconferencing (and some associated AV) equipment

• to see to what extent – if at all – power consumption varied when the equipment was in different states

• to collate power consumption figures as published by manufacturers of videoconferencing equipment

• to compare the published figures with figures measured in the ‘lab’ and in the field

At the outset, it was necessary to establish a suitable test period and this is documented in the first section of the report below. Having established the suitable test period, and a robust test procedure, the tests were repeated using a number of videoconferencing CODECs in a controlled laboratory environment. The CODECs were deliberately selected taking into account their age, capacity, features and cost, in order to include a wide spectrum of CODECs. A full list of the CODECs selected can be found below. In addition to the CODECs, the following equipment was tested: a 40” Samsung LCD screen; a Hitachi projector (purchased in 2000) and a Casio projector (purchased in 2010). The Hitachi projector was used in WVN supported HE/FE studios between 2000 and 2010, but has now been replaced by the Casio projector. Full-studio testing was also conducted at a WVN studio, which is equipped with a number of alternate inputs and outputs for enhancing teaching and learning. There is a full equipment list in Appendix 1. The tests and results are described in the Studio Tests section of this report. Where the term High Definition (HD) is used, it specifies a system that is capable of capturing and/or displaying images at a resolution of 1,280×720 pixels (720p) or 1,920×1,080 pixels (1080i/1080p). During the course of this project, LifeSize was purchased by Logitech, but is still being branded as LifeSize, and TANDBERG was purchased by Cisco, who now market TANDBERG products under the Cisco brand.

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 9 of 40

Equipment The CODECs tested were as follows (with the dates that the equipment was on sale): Polyspan (now Polycom) ViewStation SP 128 (2001 – Dec 2005) Polycom iPower 9000 (Nov 2002 – Sept 2005) TANDBERG MXP 6000 (2005 – present) Polycom VSX 8000 (Aug 2006 – present) TANDBERG MXP 880 (2005 - 2011) Polycom HDX 9000 (Nov 2006 – present) LifeSize PassPort (Oct 2009 – present) LifeSize Room 220 (Nov 2009 – present) TANDBERG C20 (2009 - present) TANDBERG C90 (2009 - present) The projectors tested were the Casio XJ-A150V and the Hitachi CPX-25 (as used in WVN studios in Wales). The screen tested was a Samsung 40” LCD SyncMaster 400 (also used in WVN studios). The full equipment list for the WVN studio tested is listed in Appendix 1. Illustrative figures from manufacturers’ datasheets and product specifications are also used in this report.

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 10 of 40

Establishing the duration of the monitoring period The original plan for testing equipment for the HGWMVC project in different states (stand-by; idle, out-of-call; in call; sending video and accompanying data) was to test each state for an hour before looking at the figures recorded. However, very soon after testing began, it became apparent that ‘near enough’ figures could be calculated after testing each piece of equipment for five minutes. It was noticed that after taking about ten seconds (as reported on the test software) to ’settle down’ when states were changed, the power consumption in watts, soon settled down to a steady figure. This figure would remain the same (within + or – 0.5 watts) whatever the duration of the test. For this reason it was suspected, following informal preliminary tests, that five minutes of testing each piece of equipment in each state would be sufficient to give accurate results of an equivalent reliability to one hour tests. In order to prove or disprove this theory, a series of tests was conducted on a TANDBERG 6000 and a Samsung 40” LCD screen. Each item was tested in different states for one hour, its state altered, and then the item was tested again in the original state for five minutes. The results and conclusions are presented below. CODEC testing to establish a suitable test duration Test 1: TANDBERG MXP 6000 in standby for differing periods of time

Figure 1: The unit was put into standby at 13:08 hrs. The power consumption at

13:10 was 47.12 watts

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 11 of 40

Figure 2: After one hour of testing the same system in standby (only the last three

minutes are displayed), the power consumption at 14:12 was 47.5 watts

Figure 3: The system was then switched to a different state, and then returned to

standby. At 14:18, five minutes after being returned to standby, the power consumption was 47.5 watts.

The above test was repeated for a second one hour test starting at 14.59. The results are presented in the graph in Figure 4. Looking at the graph the system seemed fairly constant in its power consumption at between 46.99 – 47.50 watts:

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 12 of 40

Figure 4. Start of repeat test of one hour standby – TANDBERG MXP 6000

The five minute test was then repeated and the average power consumption was 46.74 over the five minutes (not illustrated). Then a more lengthy test was attempted – the monitoring software was left on as the system was in standby overnight. The logs showed the power consumption to be stable at 46.79 watts, with only slight occasional variations. Repeating the one hour test continued to yield similar results: 46.80 watts for one hour. The screenshot below (Figure 5) shows the stability of the standby state when left on test overnight. Ignore the columns at either end, which represent parts of an hour.

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 13 of 40

Figure 5: Overnight testing of the TANDBERG MXP 6000

The tests up to this point are summarised in the following table. Test 1: TANDBERG MXP 6000 in standby Duration of test (minutes) Average consumption (watts)

60 47.50 60 47.25 60 46.80

20 hours 46.79 5 47.12 5 46.74

Average of tests 47.03 So, in standby, irrespective of the time span, the system shows consistent results of between 46.74 and 47.50 watts average consumption.

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 14 of 40

Test 2: TANDBERG MXP 6000 at rest, but not on stand by This test involved recording the watts consumed while the unit was not on standby, but idle. The test records were altered slightly in this test so that the maximum and minimum consumption figures reported by the monitoring software were recorded, as well as the average consumption. A 15 minute test was also included for comparison. Results of this test over different time periods are summarised in the following table:

Duration of test (minutes)

Maximum consumption

(watts)

Minimum consumption

(watts)

Average consumption

(watts) 60 47.51 47.12 47.30 15 47.57 47.38 47.51 5 47.77 47.57 47.66

Figure 6: The power monitor graph at the end of a one hour test – TANDBERG MXP

6000, at rest, but not on standby

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 15 of 40

Test 3: TANDBERG MXP 600 ‘busy’ tests - sending a m usic DVD vision and sound as data content; also sending camera image an d microphone sound; receiving camera image and microphone from remote e nd (Technical data: bandwidth: 1920kbps; video encoding:H.264; audio encoding: AAC-LD; Data: H.239; FECC enabled; outbound video resolution: w448p / XGA; inbound video resolution: 1280 x 720)

Duration of test (minutes)

Maximum consumption

(watts)

Minimum consumption

(watts)

Average consumption

(watts) 60 51.85 49.46 50.43 15 51.85 49.85 50.55 5 51.15 49.98 50.54

The above table, and the results of testing on the TANDBERG MXP 6000 in general at different time settings, shows enough consistency between results to justify a shorter time period than an hour for testing purposes. In order to double-check this conclusion using different equipment, tests were also carried out on a Samsung screen. Screen testing to assess a suitable test duration – Samsung SyncMaster 400 Test 4: Samsung SyncMaster 400 screen on standby

As well as testing an example CODEC, it was also decided to test another item of equipment to validate the findings that the time period for testing could be reduced from one hour and still produce accurate results. To this end a Samsung SyncMaster 400 (the screen deployed most commonly in WVN studios) was also tested over various time periods. By the time this series of tests was conducted, an ‘in principle’ decision had been made to conduct tests of fifteen minutes if these showed results consistent with the one hour tests. For this reason, only tests of 15 or 60 minutes were conducted on the screen.

Duration of test (minutes)

Maximum consumption

(watts)

Minimum consumption

(watts)

Average consumption

(watts) 60 1.89 1.75 1.82 15 1.89 1.75 1.82

Here we can see that the power consumption is not only very low, but also entirely consistent in both tests.

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 16 of 40

Test 5: Samsung SyncMaster 400 screen on and displa ying static picture

Duration of test (minutes)

Maximum consumption

(watts)

Minimum consumption

(watts)

Average consumption

(watts) 60 203.16 184.19 188.23 15 182.58 182.16 182.35

These tests showed a more considerable variation, this may have been because the screen had just been switched on in the morning after being in standby overnight. It appeared to consume far more power during the first half hour of this test than during the second half hour, when the results were more consistent with the 15 minute test. It was decided to repeat the test to see whether the ‘warmed up’ screen would produce the same results. Test 5a: Samsung SyncMaster 400 screen on and displ aying static picture

Duration of test (minutes)

Maximum consumption

(watts)

Minimum consumption

(watts)

Average consumption

(watts) 60 185.99 184.12 184.81

These results are closer to the 15 minute test, but still slightly higher (by an average of 2.5 watts). What is clear from the screen testing so far is that there is a clear and dramatic difference between the screen being in standby and the screen displaying a picture. This is clearly illustrated in the screen shot below, which shows the monitoring software output graph before and after the screen is switched on.

Figure 7: Samsung SyncMaster 400 screen - transition from standby to displaying a

picture

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 17 of 40

Test 6: Samsung SyncMaster 400 screen on and displa ying busy picture The results for the power consumption of the screen are not dramatically affected by the screen displaying a ‘busy’ picture (in this case an ‘Austin Powers‘ DVD):

Duration of test (minutes)

Maximum consumption

(watts)

Minimum consumption

(watts)

Average consumption

(watts) 60 202.81 178.52 185.00 15 182.90 180.48 181.09

The Samsung datasheet gives a power consumption rate of 230 watts. Figure 7 also shows that immediately after coming out of standby the power consumption can nearly reach this level, but soon settles down to the levels seen in the table above. Conclusions regarding suitable testing periods Having analysed the data from the tests above, it was decided that, as the variation between a one hour test and a five minute test was consistently very closely matched for a CODEC, a 15 minute test period was sufficient and reliable for CODEC equipment. However, while the 15 minute tests gave good ‘ballpark’ results for a screen when switched on, the one hour test showed wider variance between maximum and minimum values and also recorded higher power consumption results. For this reason, it was decided that screen testing should be as consistent (between tests) as possible, and should also be conducted for an hour, several times if possible.

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 18 of 40

Videoconferencing CODEC Tests The CODEC is the heart of a videoconferencing system. The other components (camera, speaker, microphone(s), screen(s), and any other inputs and outputs) can be regarded as peripherals; the CODEC is the computer that provides an interface between the user and the peripherals, handles audio, video and any accompanying data and connects to the network. The CODEC is sometimes referred to as an ’endpoint’ or just ‘videoconferencing equipment’ (although these terms are less precise). In most of the CODECs tested, the connected microphone, speakers and camera are powered by the CODEC itself and do not have independent power inputs. This is not always the case, however, and where the camera is powered separately, this is acknowledged in the testing totals. In all cases the CODEC power consumption figures do not include the screen, which is powered separately. The next stage of the testing was to conduct repeatable tests in a ‘laboratory’ environment in order to examine the power consumption of various CODECs (of varying vintage and capabilities) under various states. The following tests were conducted on each CODEC:

1. CODEC on standby: All the CODECs tested had either a ‘standby’ setting and/or a ‘screensaver’ setting. In most CODECs, the time before the CODEC goes into standby can be set by the user, and may vary between 10 minutes and one hour. Most also offer the ability to override the standby mode, so that the CODEC never enters this state. In every case the CODEC was attached to a camera, a screen, speakers and a microphone while in this state.

2. CODEC outputting screensaver: Some equipment offers this setting as an alternative to a standby state, or as an additional option. When it was available, this option was only tested if there was no standby setting.

3. CODEC at rest: Here, the CODEC’s camera was positioned so that it was pointed at a consistent, unmoving, plain image. The peripherals were attached as above, and the camera remained still for the duration of the test. The display was of the CODEC’s user interface (ie the camera image was not put into full screen).

4. CODEC in basic call: Here, a call was made (at 1920 kbps or the highest available bandwidth with other default auto-negotiated technical settings) and the camera was pointed at each end in a basic ‘talking head’ or individual meeting scenario. Because each test was slightly different they are not 100% consistent in the video content that was exchanged, but the aim was to emulate a ‘real life’ scenario. For this reason the microphones at both ends were open throughout the call.

5. CODEC in busy call: Here a call was made with a fan constantly moving at the ‘lab’ end of the call, filling the whole screen (thus generating constant movement for most of the screen). Constantly moving paper tapes were attached to the air-conditioning at the far end, sometimes replaced by a toy airplane constantly flying around the area in view, or a switched on fan (again producing constant movement). Simultaneously, data (H.239) was sent from the lab CODEC to the remote end, consisting of a web browser displaying

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 19 of 40

BBC News 24 full screen on a laptop connected to the CODEC. Thus the local and remote CODECS were displaying (in a single screen):

• a constantly changing picture (as picture in picture); • a local confidence image (as second picture in picture); and • full-screen video in a web browser (from the lab CODEC).

The microphones were open at both ends of the call. A video of one of these tests being conducted is available at: http://www.youtube.com/greenvideoconference#p/a/u/0/CGlRNrFgi-U. It should be noted that in every test involving a videoconference call, the tests were made between Aberyswyth University and Swansea University across the Welsh Public Sector Broadband Aggregation (PSBA) Network. The calls were point-to-point (ie there was no intermediary Multipoint Control Unit (MCU) or service provider) and did not involve traversing the JANET network. It should be noted the PSBA is a live network, and conditions on it (and the two universities’ local networks) can vary. Again, this reflects a ‘real life’ scenario, rather than a laboratory network. The following test results are presented in the order of approximate power and age of the CODEC: power measured by their connection and bandwidth capabilities and age based on the date the CODEC first went on sale. Brief details regarding the technical capabilities (potential for inputs and outputs) are also given, and a subjective assessment of the position in the market that the unit occupies (from low end/entry level/low cost to high end/high quality/high cost) are also supplied. For further details regarding these CODECs, the reader is advised to visit the manufacturers’ web sites for product datasheets and specifications. All the following CODEC testing is based on tests of at least 15 minutes duration, with the exception of the TANDBERG MXP 6000, for which the figures are based on the tests described above. Polyspan ViewStation SP 128 This became the Polycom ViewStation, but at the time of its release, the company was called Polyspan in the UK. Released in 2001, and withdrawn from sale at the end of 2005, this was one of the first ‘videoconferencing appliance’ CODECs after a generation of PC-based equipment. It has only limited analogue (ie non-digital) inputs and outputs for audio and video, and an SD camera. The ‘Screensaver’ setting on this unit puts the unit into what is currently known as ‘Standby’ – ie it stops sending an image to the screen (rather than actually sending a screensaver image to the screen, as does the iPower 9000). For this reason, it has been called ‘Standby’ in the table below. The unit does not have H.239 data sharing (as does every other unit tested) and it was not possible to test the data sharing facility which uses an older method, known as T.120, so the ‘busy’ call is simply sending a constantly moving image from each end, and not sending any additional data (as with the tests on more modern equipment). The camera and CODEC are in a single appliance designed to be mounted above a screen.

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 20 of 40

Nature of test Maximum

consumption (watts)

Minimum consumption

(watts)

Average consumption

(watts) Standby 23.32 22.86 22.97 At rest 23.91 23.15 23.24 Basic call (to a TANDBERG MXP 6000)

23.91 22.86 23.04

Busy call (no data) 23.91 22.62 23.10 The Viewstation datasheet gives a power consumption rating of 40 watts. Polycom iPower 9000 The iPower 9000 was first sold in November 2002 and was taken off the market at the end of September 2005. It is a PC-based CODEC, consisting of a standard PC with a Microsoft® Windows® operating system with additional hardware and dedicated videoconferencing software, and an SD camera. This CODEC supported three video inputs and outputs and three audio inputs and outputs. The iPower 9000 is no longer for sale or suppported, but has been included for historical reasons. This unit is similar in design to the iPower 970 that was deployed in WVN studios in 2000, and is the only PC based CODEC included in the tests. Apart from desktop videoconferencing applications, which are sold as software, there are no longer any popular PC-based CODECs on the market.

Nature of test Maximum

consumption (watts)

Minimum consumption

(watts)

Averag e consumption

(watts) Standby (screensaver) 86.96 84.86 85.08

At rest 89.68 88.24 88.45 Basic call (to a TANDBERG MXP 6000)

92.73 90.98 91.43

Busy call (as above) 93.59 90.26 91.57 No data sheet with a power consumption rating could be found for this product. The standby setting on the Polycom 9000 has the effect of displaying a moving banner that displays the words: “Polycom iPower”. The effect this has on the screen (for the tests a Samsung SyncMaster 400 screen was used) is to slightly decrease the watts consumed by the screen - whereas it might consume 182 watts in normal usage, the average during the Polycom iPower 9000 ‘standby’ test was 173.70 watts. Thus the standby setting on this equipment saves only around 10 watts, and this is saved by the screen’s power consumption, the CODEC does not significantly reduce its power consumption in standby mode. TANDBERG MXP 6000 This CODEC is deployed in all FE colleges and HE Institutions in Wales. It is a rack-mountable HD codec with six video inputs and six video outputs, four audio inputs and three audio outputs, HD camera, and multisite capabilities for up to six video and

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 21 of 40

five audio participants. The TANDBERG MXP 6000 is now sold as the Cisco Telepresence MXP 6000. The tests recorded above (to establish timings for tests) were conducted using this CODEC, and so there was no need to repeat the tests for the series of CODEC power tests. The TANDBERG MXP 6000 tests (of varying length) can be averaged and summarised thus:

Nature of test (minutes)

Maximum consumption

(watts)

Minimum consumption

(watts)

Average consumption

(watts) Standby 47.50 46.73 47.03 At rest 47.77 47.12 47.49 Basic call (to another TANDBERG MXP 6000)

52.55 46.86 47.72

Busy call (as above) 51.85 49.46 50.51 The product’s data sheet gives a power consumption value of “up to 65 watts maximum for camera and codec”. Although the camera will need an independent power supply if it is more than 15 metres from the CODEC, it does not need an additional power supply under ‘normal’ conditions (when used with the camera cable supplied), as was the case in these tests. Polycom VSX 8000 This unit first went on sale in the UK in August 2006 and is still available. Widely deployed in secondary schools in Wales, this SD CODEC is designed as a system integrators’ model, and is suitable for studio deployment, having a variety of analogue inputs and outputs allowing connection to a variety of peripheral equipment.

Nature of test Maximum

consumption (watts)

Minimum consumption

(watts)

Average consumption

(watts) Standby (manual button on front of box)

16.72 16.20 16.36

At rest 54.78 53.69 54.15 Basic call (to a TANDBERG MXP 6000)

56.51 53.88 54.85

Busy call (as above) 56.96 54.92 55.35 The VSX 8000 data sheet gives a power rating of 80 watts. The standby setting on a VSX 8000 is analogous to that on a TV set or other domestic electrical equipment – it is almost switched off, and will not react to an incoming call. The unit does have a screensaver mode that is similar to the standby mode on other CODECs – ie the CODEC stops output to the screen, but can wake up when an incoming call is received. This state was not tested.

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 22 of 40

As can be seen, the power consumed by the CODEC is fairly stable whatever it is doing and the effect of the processor being ‘busy’ does not impact on the power consumption to any large extent. The standby setting uses about 40 watts less than the CODEC out of standby, but as there does not seem to be much advantage to having the unit in standby, it may as well be switched off. TANDBERG MXP 880 The MXP 880 is not a top of the range unit in comparison to what is available on the market today. An SD CODEC that would have been considered high-quality when first released, it has two video inputs and outputs, two audio inputs and outputs, and multi-site capabilities (SD) for up to four video and three audio participants. The maximum call speed is 1115 kbps.

Nature of test Maximum

consumption (watts)

Minimum consumption

(watts)

Average consumption

(watts) Standby 22.84 22.71 22.78 At rest 23.37 22.97 23.23 Basic call (to a TANDBERG MXP 6000)

26.95 25.71 25.87

Busy call (as above) 55.50 54.59 54.79 The product’s data sheet gives a power rating value of “40 watts maximum”. This was exceeded in the busy call testing. It can be seen that the TANDBERG MXP 880 is lower in its power consumption than many of the CODECs tested during a basic call, although when a busy call is made this has a more dramatic effect on power consumption than on any other CODEC tested. Polycom HDX 9000 First on sale in the UK in November 2006, this CODEC is still available. A top of the range HD CODEC suitable for large studio deployments, it comes with an array of DVI and Phoenix connections for video and audio inputs and outputs and supports two HD cameras and two screens. As with the LifeSize Room 220, the camera supplied used a separate power supply (although it can be powered from the CODEC if positioned close enough) and this was independently monitored during the tests. Results for the CODEC and camera are again presented thus: (CODEC + camera) = total for test.

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 23 of 40

Nature of test Maximum

consumption (watts)

Minimum consumption

(watts)

Average consumption

(watts)

Screensaver (92.73 + 10.77) = 103.50

(92.41 + 9.94) = 102.35

(92.61 + 10.3) = 102.91

At rest (93.45 + 11.57) = 105.02

(93.12 + 10.50) = 103.62

(93.28 + 10.78) = 104.06

Basic call (as above)

(97.29 + 11.57) = 108.86

(96.64 + 10.43) = 107.07

(96.91 + 10.62) = 107.53

Busy call (as above)

(97.29 + 11.57) = 108.86

(96.25 + 10.43) = 106.68

(96.63 + 10.78) = 107.41

No power consumption figures are given on the Polycom HDX 9000 data sheet. LifeSize PassPort The LifeSize PassPort was launched in the UK in October 2009. A small and compact entry level CODEC marketed as a portable unit, the PassPort is supplied with an HD camera and a limited number of inputs and outputs. The LifeSize PassPort does not have a standby setting, but does have an optional screensaver setting. Due to an oversight the results of the ‘At rest’ test were not recorded, although it can be reasonably estimated that the average figure might be between 12.72 and 13.57 watts.

Nature of test Maximum

consumption (watts)

Minimum consumption

(watts)

Average consumption

(watts) Screensaver 12.89 12.62 12.72 Basic call (to a TANDBERG MXP 6000)

13.80 13.47 13.57

Busy call (as above) 13.80 13.54 13.63 It can be seen from the table above that the LifeSize PassPort had the lowest power consumption figure of all the units tested, whatever state it was in. Although it is an HD CODEC capable of calls up to 2Mbps, it has few inputs and outputs and this may help to explain its low power consumption. The product datasheet gives the following information: ‘Typical power consumption: 75.4 watts, Maximum power consumption: 91.5 watts’. This does seem rather high in light of the testing, and also appears higher than the results of testing that LifeSize made available to the project in an email:

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 24 of 40

Minimum configuration 2 (watts) Maximum configuration 3 (watts)

Sleep/idle In call Sleep/idle In call 30.0 34.6 39.2 43.3

LifeSize Room 220 The LifeSize Room series was launched in late 2009. The LifeSize Room 220 is at the top of the LifeSize range, with an HD camera, support for multiple displays, up to six video inputs, an integrated HD audio phone, eight studio inputs and four outputs, built-in streaming and recording capabilities and the ability to host a multi-way HD conference of up to eight participants. The LifeSize Room 220 does not have a standby setting, but does have an optional screensaver setting and also a ‘sleep mode’ (where the screen goes blank). The camera supplied with this unit used a separate power supply and this was independently monitored during the tests. Results for the CODEC and camera are presented thus: (CODEC + camera) = total for test.

Nature of test Maximum

consumption (watts)

Minimum consumption

(watts)

Average consumption

(watts)

Screensaver (55.84 + 7.28) = 63.12

(55.45 + 7.14) = 62.59

(55.67 + 7.19) = 62.86

At rest (54.47 + 7.68) = 62.15

(54.27 + 7.14) = 61.41

(54.38 + 7.16) = 61.54

Sleep mode (55.54 + 7.68) = 63.22

(54.73 + 6.93) = 61.66

(54.90 + 7.05) = 61.95

Basic call (as above) (58.89 + 7.56) = 66.45

(58.18 + 7.21) = 65.39

(58.42 + 7.28) = 65.70

Busy call (as above) (57.98 + 7.68) = 65.66

(57.33 + 7.14) = 64.47

(57.63 + 7.20) = 64.83

It was not possible to find a data sheet that gave a power rating for this product. However, in an email from LifeSize the following data was supplied for the LifeSize Room 220:

2 LifeSize PassPort minimum configuration: LifeSize Focus camera; mic pod not attached; HD

out attached to HD TV 3 LifeSize PassPort maximum configuration: LifeSize Focus camera; mic pod attached; line-

out attached; HD out attached to HDTV

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 25 of 40

Minimum configuration 4 (watts) Maximum configuration 5 (watts)

Sleep/idle In call Sleep/idle In call 48.2 56.8 73.3 79.4

TANDBERG C20 The TANDBERG C20 is an entry level HD CODEC that supports two screens, speakers, and an HD camera and has an input connection for a laptop or PC. Once again there is not much variation between the unit in its different states.

Nature of test Maximum

consumption (watts)

Minimum consumption

(watts)

Average consumption

(watts) Standby 33.45 32.67 32.77 At rest 37.93 36.64 36.80 Basic call (to a TANDBERG MXP 6000)

38.69 37.74 37.90

Busy call (as above) 39.76 39.11 39.19 The TANDBERG C20 data sheet gives a power consumption figure of 75 watts maximum for CODEC and main camera.

4 LifeSize 220 minimum configuration: LifeSize camera 200 powered separately; one mic pod;

HD DVI out to HDTV; HD out attached to HDTV; Line in/line out not attached 5 LifeSize 220 maximum configuration: LifeSize camera 200 powered from CODEC; two mic

pods attached; HD DVI out to HDTV; HD out attached to HDTV; Line in/line out attached; LifeSize phone attached; LifeSize networker attached; component in to Blu-ray player; DVI-in attached to PC; HD input 1 to LifeSize camera; HD input 2 to DVD

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 26 of 40

TANDBERG C90 This is TANDBERG’s top of the range HD CODEC, which is designed to be at the heart of a complex studio. It has a large array of inputs and outputs. The video input sockets comprise: 4xHDMI; 4xHD-SDI; 2xDVI-I; 2xAnalog Component; 1xComposite or 1xS-Video (YC). The video output sockets comprise: 2xHDMI; 2xDVI-I; 1 Composite. The audio input sockets comprise: 8xXLR Female - Microphone/Line In; 4xRCA - Line 2xHDMI. The audio output sockets comprise: 2xXLR Male - Line Out; 4xRCA; 2xHDMI. The TANDBERG C90 is another CODEC that was supplied with a separate power supply for its camera (although as with other studio-type CODECs it is possible to use the camera without separate power when close enough to the CODEC); and so the test results have been presented as with previous CODECs of this nature.

Nature of test Maximum

consumption (watts)

Minimum consumption

(watts)

Average consumption

(watts)

Standby (81.97 + 10.35) = 92.32

(81.19 + 10.30) = 91.49

(81.44 + 10.35) = 91.79

At rest (84.10 + 12.73) = 96.83

(82.20 + 10.36) = 92.56

(82.59 + 10.45) = 93.04

Basic call (to a TANDBERG MXP 6000)

(84.38 + 10.60) = 94.98

83.37 + 10.36) = 93.73

(83.71 + 10.50) = 94.21

Busy call (as above) (83.94 + 10.48) = 94.42

(82.37 + 10.24) = 92.61

(83.02 + 10.34) = 93.36

As noted with other more modern equipment, there is very little variation in power consumed whatever the state of the unit. The TANDBERG C90 data sheet gives a power consumption figure of 175 watts maximum for the CODEC and main camera, which is above the test results, although TANDBERG’s own test unit may have had more peripherals attached.

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 27 of 40

Projector Tests Two projectors were tested: the Hitachi CP-X25 and the Casio XJ-A150V. Hitachi CPX-25 This projector was first used in the original WVN studios in 2000 and continued to be installed in the vast majority of subsequent WVN supported studios that had a projector until 2011. At the time this was a high quality standard definition projector, and there are still many in use in videoconferencing studios throughout Wales.

Nature of test Maximum

consumption (watts)

Minimum consumption

(watts)

Average consumption

(watts) Standby 8.53 8.11 8.31 Switched on and projecting an image from a PC (VGA input)

175.83 175.14 174.53

Casio XJ-A150V Eventually the Hitachi projector was no longer available or supported, and needed to be replaced in supported WVN studios by a current and supported model. The criteria for choosing the replacement projector were, in order of importance:

1. compatibility with the existing studio (throw, cable connections, etc.) 2. budget 3. energy efficiency

Nature of test Maximum

consumption (watts)

Minimum consumption

(watts)

Average consumption

(watts) Standby 0.24 0.18 0.20 Switched on and projecting an image from a PC (VGA input)

142.52 132.75 135.02

The Casio XJ-A150V is marketed by Casio as a green projector. It has very low power consumption while in standby. In fact, the power consumption while in standby is so low, that it does not appear in Graph 1, below. One feature of the Casio XJ-A150Vis that it has three different power settings: Save: gives maximum priority to low-power, low-noise operation (130 watts) Eco : provides low-power, low-noise operation while maintaining light-source unit brightness to some level (190 watts) Off : gives maximum priority to light source unit brightness (270 watts) The equipment was tested in the first (low-energy) state

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 28 of 40

Screen Tests The tests detailed above indicate that, in a studio full of videoconferencing and audio equipment, the largest consumer of power is likely to be the flat panel LCD screen. While a Samsung SyncMaster 400 was the unit tested, and this unit is at the high end of power consumption by screens according to a survey of comparable screens at other manufacturers sites (see table below), this does not negate the general conclusion that the screen is likely to be the most power-hungry item in a videoconferencing environment, whether in a studio or a more compact installation. The table below represents some of the published figures for rival 40” LCD screens and appears to indicate that the Samsung SyncMaster 400 was a high-energy choice, although it should be borne in mind that the specification and procurement of the equipment took place in 2009, and the figures below are based on similar equipment available in June 2011. Also, although spikes of up to 226 watts were recorded when the Samsung screen was switched on, the tests showed an average running figure of 188 watts. For comparison some examples of 32” screens are also given. Power consumption in watts of 40” LCD screens (from manufacturers’ datasheets)

Screen Full power (watts) Standby (watts) Samsung SyncMaster 400 230 1 Sony KLV-40ZX1M BRAVIA 188 Less than 0.3 NEC Display MultiSync P401 175 1 LG M3800S-BN 88 2

Power consumption in watts of 32” LCD screens (from manufacturers’ datasheets)

Screen Full power (watts) Standby (watts) Mitsubishi 322V 103 or 85 without speakers Less than 5 LG M3204CCBA 100 0.5 Philips BDL3215E/00 69 Less than 1

Projectors are also bigger consumers of energy than videoconferencing CODECs. Thus more energy (as well as lamp life) can be saved by putting the projector into standby when not in use.

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 29 of 40

Studio Tests Background In 2000 the WVN installed studios at every university and FE college in Wales. The studios were designed for teaching and learning and were based on the Polycom iPower 970 CODEC. They had three large CRT screens (providing local, remote and preview screens); a projector; data PC with a monitor, which provided interactive whiteboard functionality; VHS recorder; document camera; and graphics tablet. Because the studios were designed for remote and local teaching (simultaneously if required) they also had two ‘confidence monitors’ and a second camera facing the front of the room, so the teacher could see the outbound and remote pictures while facing the local class and being the subject of the second, front-facing, camera. All the equipment was controlled by a touch-screen panel. Behind the scenes were various mixers, video switchers and splitters, so that inputs and outputs could be seen on different screens, or switched to the CODEC to be sent to the remote site. These studios were also deployed in a number of schools with the same equipment set, although the CRT screens were replaced with flat panel ones. Where flat panel screens were deployed, the studio shutdown sequence places them into standby. These school studios have since been upgraded to have a Polycom VSX 8000 at the heart of the studio instead of the Polycom iPower 9000. These studios (those in the HE/FE project and those in schools) were left switched on all the time and only switched off during the holidays. The only exception was the screens (ie confidence monitors, two flat-panel LCD screens and a PC monitor), which could be switched off manually, or, when the flat panel screens were introduced, placed into standby when the studio was ‘shutdown’ by the central studio control system. In 2009-2010 the equipment in the HE/FE studios was refreshed with modern HD TANDBERG MXP 6000 CODECs. During the procurement, it was specified that the refreshed studios should have energy saving features; the studios can now be put into a shutdown state that switches off, sleeps or puts into standby the following equipment: the AMX touchscreen; the two confidence monitors; camera 2; the two 40” LCD screens; the PC monitor; the VGA matrix; the DVD/VCR recorder; various video signal converters and splitters; and the CODEC. If the studio is not put into shutdown manually, an auto-shutdown feature can be set up, which will put the studio into shutdown automatically if there is no activity in the studio after a default setting of one hour (videos of the touchscreen and the shutdown process are available at www.youtube.com/greenvideoconference). The centralised shutdown takes away the need for the user to switch anything off manually and it is recommended that the studio be placed into a shutdown state by the user whenever it is not in use. One aim of the studio testing was to see to what extent these energy saving features are actually saving energy. The tests Most of the equipment in the studio is housed in a cabinet and within this cabinet the equipment is powered via two power multi-adapters: the first is an Adder controllable eight-way power distribution unit (ePower switch) and the second is a seven-way power adapter, which is plugged into one of the eight sockets on the Adder power

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 30 of 40

distribution unit. While it would be possible to monitor each individual item of equipment, it was not practical to do so in a studio that was ‘live’ and in use during the testing period, so the multi-adapters and any other equipment not powered via the adapters were monitored. The Samsung SyncMaster 400 LCD screen was not tested as part of the studio tests, as it had already been tested separately. Studio tests were conducted between 16:00 on April 11th 2011 and 11:00 on April 14th 2011. Each bar on the graph below (Figure 8) represents one hour of that period, sampled every ten seconds between half past one hour and half past the next hour. The power consumption for that hour is then averaged and may include the studio in different states during the same hour. The studio was left on all night on April 11th 2011, ie not in shutdown mode. During that night, the total electricity consumption ran at about 300 watts. On April 12th, a five minute videoconference took place at 12:00 and then the studio was shut down. It remained shut down until 12.45 when it was brought out of shutdown. A videoconference then took place at 13.00 until 14.30 after which the studio was again shut down. It was left in shutdown (consuming about 180 watts in that state) until 09.00 on April13th. Between 09:00 on April 13th and 09:00 on April 14th, the equipment was left on and not shut down. During this time, two videoconferences took place (see the table below). At 09:00 on April 14th, the studio was put into shutdown state. Bookings for the period are as follows:

Date Time Session booked 11/04/2011 09:00 – 17:00 Power testing 12/04/2011 11:13 – 11:28 Launched videoconference 12/04/2011 13:00 – 14:30 Videoconference 13/04/2011 09:00 – 10:30 Videoconference 13/04/2011 14:00 – 15:00 Videoconference 13/04/2011 15:00 – 15:30 Videoconference

The actual readings for every hour of the test period appear in Appendix 2. The graphs below do not include the power consumed by the screens or the projector. The equipment is powered as follows:

1. Adder controllable 8-way power distribution unit (ePower switch) : the DVD player; data PC; video switch; CODEC; VGA matrix; equipment control system; power supply to camera 2 and confidence monitors; an additional seven-way power adapter

2. Seven-way power adapter : three video splitters; two video signal converters; video scalar (which converts video signals); and the interactive whiteboard

3. Other equipment not powered via the multi adapters : PC monitor; wireless mouse charger; document camera; Wacom tablet

A full equipment list for the studio tested is in appendix 1.

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 31 of 40

Figure 8: Studio test – graph of power consumption for the test period

Between 09:00 on April 13th and 09:00 on April 14th, the studio was switched on. For part of that period it was in use, but for most of the time it was not being used. Figure 8 shows that there is little difference in the power consumed by the studio during that time, whether the studio was in use or not. At 09:00 on April 14th, the studio was put into shutdown, and it is here that significant savings in power consumption can be seen. In other words, savings can only be made by putting the equipment into shutdown, not simply by the equipment not being in use.

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 32 of 40

Figure 9: Details of the period from 0:00 on April 13th (studio in shutdown) to 09:00 on

April 14th

The graph above has a detailed view of the behaviour of the studio during part of the test. The power increase when the studio is used for a videoconference at 09:00 on April 13th (and then used for a second videoconference at approximately 14:00) can be seen clearly, but the far more obvious transition is from shutdown to switched on at approximately 09:00 on April 13th, and then back into shutdown at approximately 09:00 on April 14th. Effects of the Shutdown feature When the studio is shut down, the studio equipment is using approximately 130 watts less than when it is switched on. Factor in the savings that are achieved by the shutdown process also putting the 40” LCD screens into standby (which the screen test reported above indicate is above 180 watts per screen) and the total power savings gained by putting the studio in a shutdown state are more like (approximately) 490 watts. If for ease of calculation (and this is within the bounds of potential error) we round this up to 500 watts, then over a 24 hour period a shutdown studio saves 12 kWh of electricity – which equates to approximately 6.5 kg of CO2 a day, according to figures published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).6

6 http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/reporting/pdf/101006-guidelines-ghg-

conversion-factors.pdf, Annex 3, page 14, table 3c, Total GHG for 2008 = 0.54284

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 33 of 40

While this may seem an insignificant amount, simply shutting down a studio for 48 hours at weekends saves 674 kg of CO2 and approximately £108.007 per year. If we factor in the hours before 09:00 and after 16:00 each day for example, this figure becomes a lot more impressive – 133 hours per week when a studio can be on a low energy setting. This means a saving of 66.5 kWh per week – 3458 kWh per year; which in turn saves 1867 kg CO2 and approximately £300 a year, per studio. Thus the 54 WVN studios in Wales are saving around 100,818 kg (over 100 metric tons) of CO2 emissions as a result of the built-in energy saving features.

7 Based on an electricity price of 8.68p/kWh

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 34 of 40

Summary and Conclusions The test results are shown in the table and graph below. The LifeSize PassPort ‘not in call’ test results were not recorded, an estimated figure calculated from the results of the other tests has been used.

State Standby (watts)

Not in call (watts)

Simple call (watts)

Busy call (watts)

Equipment Polyspan ViewStation SP 128 22.97 23.24 23.04 23.10 Polycom iPower 9000 85.08 88.45 91.43 91.57 TANDBERG MXP 6000 46.80 47.30 49.36 50.43 Polycom VSX 8000 16.368 54.15 54.85 55.35 TANDBERG MXP 880 22.78 23.23 25.87 54.79 Polycom HDX 9000 102.919 104.06 107.53 107.41 LifeSize PassPort 12.8910 13.04 13.57 13.63 LifeSize Room 220 61.9511 61.52 65.70 64.83 TANDBERG C20 32.77 36.80 37.90 39.19 TANDBERG C90 91.79 93.04 94.21 93.36 Casio XJ-A150V 0.20 135.02 Hitachi CPX-25 8.31 174.53 Samsung SyncMaster 400 1.82 188 185

These results can also be displayed in graphical form, which puts the relative energy used by each unit, and the comparison to a projector or screen, into perspective.

8 Actually in true standby 9 Screensaver 10 The LifeSize PassPort has no standby mode, just a screensaver mode 11 The LifeSize Room 220 was tested in sleep mode

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 35 of 40

The results of the equipment tests indicate a number of things that would not necessarily be apparent or obvious. These are considered here. CODEC Standby The CODEC standby state did not reflect what was anticipated. No internationally standardised definition of the term ‘standby’ appears to exist. Certainly the term has been the subject of legislation in some countries and American states, notably Canada12 and California13, and this has applied pressure on the manufacturers of various appliances to minimise the electricity consumed by their products while in standby – so the term has come to be accepted in general usage as meaning a low-energy consumption state compared to when the appliance is actually in use. However, as the legislation does not appear to explicitly refer to videoconferencing

12 Office of Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency Regulations, Standby Power, Bulletin on

Developing Standards, January 2009 (http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/regulations/bulletin/standbypower-jan09.cfm?attr=0)

13 Various pieces of legislation on maximum power consumption of appliances while in standby mode have been enacted by the Californian legislature – details at: www.energy.ca.gov

0 50 100 150 200

Polyspan ViewStation SP 128

Polycom iPower 9000

TANDBERG MXP 6000

Polycom VSX 8000

TANDBERG MXP 880

Polycom HDX 9000

LifeSize PassPort

LifeSize Room 220

TANDBERG C20

TANDBERG C90

Casio XJ-A150V

Hitachi CPX-25

Samsung Syncmaster 400

Watts

Graph 1 : Summary of test results

Standby

Not in call

Simple call

Busy call

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 36 of 40

equipment, it is exempt from the rules governing the ‘standby’ state. In almost every case it does not appear to mean a low-energy state. As can be seen by the results above, in almost every case the standby state kept the unit’s power consumption within a watt or two of its usage consumption and way above any legal maximums that have been defined for other appliances. For all the equipment tested, standby meant that the CODEC stopped sending a signal to the screen. This does reduce CODEC power consumption very slightly, but it saves energy ‘by proxy’ as a screen will detect a lack of signal and go into a standby state itelf, using only about 1% of the power used while displaying a picture. Interestingly, screens are covered by the legislation that has been enacted around the world. Perhaps there is a case for including AV equipment, and specifically videoconferencing equipment (which is often left on all the time to make life easier for the user), in regulations regarding the maximum permitted energy consumption of equipment in a standby state. The exception to this is the VSX8000, which does drop its power consumption considerably when in standby. However, as being in standby renders it incapable of receiving or making a call, it may as well be switched off. Newer, faster, hungrier As one might expect, the more modern equipment generally does have more features and carries more complex options than the older equipment. These include newer algorithms for encoding the audio and video and better resolutions (including HD in many cases tested). They also include a wider array of potential inputs and outputs, which can have the effect of increasing power consumption. The indications are that bringing down the power consumption of videoconferencing equipment is not a priority for the manufacturers, despite their promotion of videoconferencing as a green technology. Studios in Shutdown The limited testing that was done in the WVN studio showed that savings can be made by investing in power control equipment that is managed by the studio controller (in this case a touchscreen user interface). Informal discussions with suppliers indicated that customers typically do not ask for this functionaility. It is difficult to understand why customers are not asking for energy reduction features when they procure equipment, given the various drivers for reduced energy consumption (such as reducing energy costs, carbon footprint, and compliance with policies and legislation). One way to ensure that the importance and effectiveness of power control equipment are considered would be to insist upon it being part of the requirements phase of the procurement process. Automating the shut-down process is perfectly feasible with the equipment available these days, so although educating the user to switch things off manually (or put them into standby) is the best way forward, the automatic method will work as a useful back-up.

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 37 of 40

Datasheets don’t tell the whole story In general, datasheets overstated the wattage levels of the equipment tested. This may be because the manufacturers err on the side of caution, it may be because they don’t test accurately, or perhaps they use a different testing methodology. In the case of the LifeSize PassPort the figures seemed to be wildly overstated in the datasheet, compared to the results of project testing. The datasheets are a useful guide and it is better that a wattage figure is published than not, but they should only be used as a general guide and should be (in general) taken to indicate a maximum figure. The following table compares CODEC datsheet watts figures (where available) to the result of the ‘busy’ test, maximum reading.

CODEC Busy call - maximum (watts)

Datasheet value - maximum (watts)

Polyspan ViewStation SP 128 23.91 40 Polycom iPower 9000 93.59 N/A TANDBERG MXP 6000 51.85 65 Polycom VSX 8000 56.96 80 TANDBERG MXP 880 55.50 40 watts maximum Polycom HDX 9000 108.86 N/A LifeSize PassPort 13.80 91.5 LifeSize Room 220 65.66 79.414 TANDBERG C20 39.76 75 TANDBERG C90 94.42 175

14 This figure supplied in an email from LifeSize UK

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 38 of 40

Appendix 1: Equipment in the Test Studio This is a full equipment list for the studio used for testing, with the power requirements of the equipment based on manufacturers datasheets (N/A means that no manufacturer’s information could be found).

Description While Idle

(watts)

While Active (watts)

No Total

watts per studio

TANDBERG MXP 6000 CODEC and camera 65 1 65

TANDBERG video switch (and additional HD camera) 36 1 36

Kramer composite video distribution amplifier PT-102 N/A 1

Sennheiser radio microphone receiver (EM 100) N/A 1

Elmo document camera HV5500XG 1 AMX 3100 Netlinx controller / Modero touchpanel / ‘breakout box’ 108 1 108

Autopatch 8x8 VGA matrix 60 1 60 40" Samsung SyncMaster 400 LCD screen 1 230 2 460

Iiyama 19" widescreen confidence monitor 2 42 2 84

Adder controllable 8-way power distribution unit (ePower switch) 3.43 8.3 1 8.3

CYP 1:2 HDMI distribution amplifier 1 6 2 12 CYP Scalar CPT380 RGB 9.6 1 9.6 Dell Optiplex 360 Pentium Core Duo PC 65 1 65

HITACHI CP-X25 projector 290 1 290 Dell 15” flat screen PC monitor 1503FP (048BHYJ) <5 25 1 25

Gyration wireless mouse charger N/A 1 Vision FC4 HDMI/VGA converter N/A 2 Sharp DV-RW360H N/A 1 Wacom Tablet N/A 1

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 39 of 40

Appendix 2: Studio Power Test Aberystwyth HD studio power readings and activity 1 6:00 April 11 th 2011 – 08:00 April 14 th 2011 These figures do not include the screens or the projector. The screens would add (from the results detailed in the report above) approximately 360 watts to the studio total while the studio is in use, and approximately 4 watts while the studio is in standby. The auto-shutdown feature was disabled during the test period.

Date Time Average watts used Activity

11/04/2011 16:00 300 Inactive (not in shutdown) 11/04/2011 17:00 300 11/04/2011 18:00 300 11/04/2011 19:00 299 11/04/2011 20:00 299 11/04/2011 21:00 299 11/04/2011 22:00 298 11/04/2011 23:00 299 11/04/2011 00:00 298 12/04/2011 01:00 298 12/04/2011 02:00 298 12/04/2011 03.00 298 12/04/2011 04.00 298 12/04/2011 05:00 298 12/04/2011 06:00 298 12/04/2011 07:00 299 12/04/2011 08:00 299 12/04/2011 09:00 299 12/04/2011 10:00 298 12/04/2011 11:00 306

12/04/2011 12:00 193 During this hour the studio was shut down manually for a period and then restarted

12/04/2011 13:00 325 A videoconference took place between 13:00 and 14:00

12/04/2011 14:00 221 The studio was shut down manually during this hour

12/04/2011 15:00 183 12/04/2011 16:00 182 12/04/2011 17:00 184 12/04/2011 18:00 183 12/04/2011 19:00 183 12/04/2011 20:00 184 12/04/2011 21:00 184 12/04/2011 22:00 183 12/04/2011 23:00 183 13/04/2011 00:00 183 13/04/2011 01:00 182 13/04/2011 02:00 183 13/04/2011 03:00 182

Welsh Video Network Power Consumption of Videoconferencing Equipment

Page 40 of 40

13/04/2011 04:00 183 13/04/2011 05:00 182 13/04/2011 06:00 182 13/04/2011 07:00 183 13/04/2011 08:00 183

13/04/2011 09:00 320 A videoconference took place between 09:00 and 10:30

13/04/2011 10:00 317 Following the videoconference it appears that the studio was not shut down

13/04/2011 11:00 317 13/04/2011 12:00 317 13/04/2011 13:00 318

13/04/2011 14:00 324 A videoconference took place between 14:00 and 15:00

13/04/2011 15:00 317 Another videoconference took place between 15:00 and 15:30

13/04/2011 16:00 316 The studio was not shut down following the videoconference

13/04/2011 17:00 316 13/04/2011 18:00 314 13/04/2011 19:00 314 13/04/2011 20:00 314 13/04/2011 21:00 312 13/04/2011 22:00 312 13/04/2011 23:00 312 14/04/2011 00:00 312 14/04/2011 01:00 312 14/04/2011 02:00 312 14/04/2011 03:00 312 14/04/2011 04:00 312 14/04/2011 05:00 312 14/04/2011 06:00 312 14/04/2011 07:00 312 14/04/2011 08:00 314