Re: [RE] Rev1 of my 1st presention at May meeting is in ResE area
Geoff:
Agreed.
Richard
Geoffrey M. Garner wrote:
> I took a look at the ATSC document that Thomas referenced. It appears
> that the signals described there are carried via
> MPEG-2. I assume that the 19.4 Mbit/s rate is for 1080i29.97 or
> 1080p29.97, and the 38.4 Mbit/s rate is for 1080p59.94.
> In any case, the relevant jitter/wander requirements for these
> compressed signals would be those given for MPEG-2 in slides 16 and 17
> of my 3rd presentation.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Geoff
> ----------------------------------------------
> Geoffrey M. Garner
> Samsung (Consultant)
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Gildred" <john@PIONEER-PRA.COM>
> To: <STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 12:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [RE] Rev1 of my 1st presention at May meeting is in ResE
> area
>
>
>> I can confirm that 1080p is something we will need to support over
>> ResE with NO loss in quality during the course of the streaming
>> session. Keep in mind that the streaming session could mean an all
>> day marathon of James Bond movies in HD. Even if the broadcast is in
>> 1080i, you should consider that set-tops may have the ability to
>> upconvert to 1080p for output (to HDMI or ResE for example).
>>
>> -John
>>
>> On Jun 17, 2005, at 12:09 PM, Richard Brand wrote:
>>
>>> Geoff:
>>> The correction is noted however the 1.48 Gb/s rate is the HD
>>> capture rate at 1920 X 1080 resolution. The ATSC HD specs (Annex
>>> A) allow for a further compression down to 19.4 Mb/s for 1080i
>>> (interlaced) formats which are 30 fps. Today most outlets are
>>> indeed further compressing this bit rate down to as low as 8 Mbs
>>> but they assume that the customer does not have a display that has
>>> concurrent resolution capability. I get my HDTV out of the air and
>>> have an LCD flat panel 1280 X 768 and I can see the degradation
>>> when the signal is further reduced, especially when there is much
>>> motion in the content.
>>> What is not well known outside of the industry, is that the ATSC
>>> spec also allows for a 1080p (progressive) which is 60 fps. and
>>> therefore spec'd at 38.8 M. 1080p was the buzzword at the recent
>>> NAB show and will become fruit for discussion if not reality within
>>> the next two years. 60 fps is a killer for wireless LAN due to the
>>> specified 802.XX frame error rates, and I have had this confirmed
>>> by several large RBOCs.
>>> One more reason for Res Enet.
>>> John/Jim, any further comments?
>>> Regards and Happy Father's day to all fathers,
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> Geoffrey M. Garner wrote:
>>>
>>>> During my first presentation at the May meeting (Description of
>>>> ResE Video Applications and Requirements), I identified
>>>> several typos (the most glaring of which was the indication of
>>>> HDTV rates as Mbit/s rather than Gbit/s). A revision is now
>>>> in the ResE public area (thank you to Mike Teener for posting it);
>>>> the link is:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ieee802.org/3/re_study/public/may05/garner_1_rev1_0505.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Geoff
>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>> Geoffrey M. Garner
>>>> Samsung (Consultant)
>>>
>>>
>>> <rbrand.vcf>
>>
>>
>
>
begin:vcard
fn:Richard Brand
n:Brand;Richard
email;internet:rbrand@nortel.com
tel;work:(408) 495 2462
version:2.1
end:vcard