Re: [RE] Video question
Geoff,
>> It is only the live case that is within the scope of problems
>> that is driving the formation of a new project.
IMHO, the transferring video from a camera relies on
robust constant-rate streaming, since video tapes
has mechanical properties that constrain arbitrary
retransmissions or rate changes.
Its not as latency critical, and thus easier to accomplish,
but still within the RE SG scope.
DVJ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-re@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@ieee.org]On
Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 10:38 AM
To: 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)