Re: [RE] Video question

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

I don't think there is any confusion here. All streams of data ranging from kilobits per second for low quality audio to 3 gigabits per second for 1080p/60 are potentially valid for transmission over a consumer network. It all depends on the functionality of the display device. If it is a dumb video display you may need to send it uncompressed video. If it has any one of a number of possible decoders then you can send the video compressed in those formats at lower data rates. All I was pointing out is that there are many other potential data rates for video between the 25Mbs DV and HDV formats and 1.5Gb/s (or higher) of uncompressed HD video.

Fred

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortel.com]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 2:38 PM
To: Tuck, Fred
Cc: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [RE] Video question

Lest we confuse...

There is a significant difference between the requirements for transmitting live video from a camera in DV vs. transferring recorded video from a camera.

It is only the live case that is within the scope of problems that is driving the formation of a new project.

Geoff

At 10:26 AM 7/1/2005 , Tuck, Fred wrote:

Also I would expect as the HDV or other HD formats evolve that 50 or 100 mbs variants will emerge. If you want to do high quality frame accurate editing of your video you don't really want to capture it in an MPEG format with P and B frames. You want the original in an all I frame format like DV. That takes a lot more bandwidth.

Fred Tuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-re@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jim Battaglia
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 12:37 PM
To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [RE] Video question

Mike,

I was also add conventional (digital) consumer camcoders to your list. It is my understanding that most of these still use DV, which is no where near as compressed as MPEG-2. I realize that many camcorder manufacturers are moving to MPEG compressed format, but there are still a a lot of DV cameras out there.

It's not inconceivable that you may want to move this content on a home network without further compression.

Jim

Michael Johas Teener wrote:

Not speaking for Kevin, but

based on earlier conversations with CE vendors,

MSOs, and content providers, uncompressed video is useful for: 1) Games (from console to display) ... currently only SD quality (that's about 270 Mbit/sec in the US, as you noted) ... GigE can carry ... but the next generation consoles support HD at 1080i or roughly 1.5Gbit/sec ... 2) Overlaying the UI from a STB or other residential gateway ... currently requires uncompressed video because low cost STBs do not include MPEG2 *encoders* ... 3) Security/monitoring cameras ... although the fidelity requirements are rather low, so cheap compressors are becoming available that meet this need ... On 6/30/05 9:36 PM, "Geoffrey M. Garner" <gmgarner@comcast.net> wrote:

In the discussions so far, the digital video has been assumed to either enter the residence from a service provider or originate in the residence at a DVD player. It seems that both cases, at least at present, use compressed digital video. Are there applications that involve uncompressed digital video (or are there expected to be such applications)?

-- Jim Battaglia Digital Entertainment Networking Pioneer Research Center USA, Inc. 101 Metro Drive, Suite 264 San Jose, CA 95110-1343 408-437-1800x203 408-437-1717 (fax)