Design Con 2015
Breaking News
Blog

Wireless network supports uncompressed video in a compressed world

NO RATINGS
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
UmeshShah
User Rank
Rookie
re: Wireless network supports uncompressed video in a compressed world
UmeshShah   7/2/2009 7:50:26 PM
NO RATINGS
Why can't someone come up with a hybrid wired(backbone)/wireless combined with Mesh network to achieve support of uncompressed 3-6 streams among devices? I recall that recently Powerline group has reached multiple gbps over powerline (use this as a backbone) and then overlay 802.11n with Mesh network! Something tells me that it should be possible.

aboutjack
User Rank
Rookie
re: Wireless network supports uncompressed video in a compressed world
aboutjack   5/26/2009 2:43:33 AM
NO RATINGS
As a cable replacement technology WHDI is exactly on the right path with its uncompressed approach. An HDMI cable is a passive connector. Period. How/why should a replacement for that cable function with compression? As for those quibbling about the bandwidth limitations on multiple simultaneous such connections, just how many different signals does an HDMI cable carry, please? Oh... one, that's right. I'm actively developing a client project using a WHDI-based video component system and love the simplicity and ease of implementing a direct unit-to-unit wireless HDMI link with this technology. One more time, in unison: WHDI is an HDMI cable replacement technology. One cable. One signal.

crutschow
User Rank
Rookie
re: Wireless network supports uncompressed video in a compressed world
crutschow   9/10/2008 8:17:19 PM
NO RATINGS
MP3, at the compression rates typically used for downloads, can generally be detected as not sounding as good as uncompressed (CD) audio in blind listening tests on a high quality audio system. That may be one of the reasons that "compression" has a bad reputation.

MattFell
User Rank
Rookie
re: Wireless network supports uncompressed video in a compressed world
MattFell   8/6/2008 5:32:12 PM
NO RATINGS
Its likely the solution is a mix of compressed and non-compressed wireless home video. Certainly compression can result in transcoding degradation, but if the downstream codec is ran at a much higher bitrate than the upstream codecs, (say 5x) then transcoding artifacts can be minimized to the point of being imperceptible. Also lower-efficiency codecs can introduce novel coding techniques that reduce latency, which would partially address the latency issue. Regarding gaming, there are psychophysical limits beyond which latency is a factor, but as long as these limits are not violated, then latency is manageable. On the other hand, a system that provides for no compression may be perfectly acceptable in a household in which their is only one TV, or in which the other TVs use wired connections. Ultimately I see possibilities for both uncompressed video, and mildly-compressed video for use-cases where there are more than one wireless video distribution stream in the home.

mgwright
User Rank
Rookie
re: Wireless network supports uncompressed video in a compressed world
mgwright   8/6/2008 12:35:57 AM
NO RATINGS
I appreciate all of the thoughtful comments. Rick is certainly correct in pointing out that non-standard approaches could be a probalem in any scenario. And as several of you point out, the video sources are compressed. But I'd also like to emphasize my main point. Even if a technology could move one uncompressed HD stream, that isn't going to address the wishes of consumers. Indeed I can see the need to support five or six streams. No technology -- wireless of wired -- is going to do that in any other manner than a point-to-point connection. But inherently, consumer want a network scenario. The stream simply has to be compressed. The industry should start there and then figure out the technology solution. Maury Wright Site Editor Digital Home

Noam Geri
User Rank
Rookie
re: Wireless network supports uncompressed video in a compressed world
Noam Geri   7/31/2008 9:02:24 PM
NO RATINGS
As co-founder and VP Marketing of AMIMON, one of the companies behind WHDI, I would like to offer my perspective to the question of compressed vs. uncompressed: Most sources are indeed distributed to the home in compressed format. The video source device (e.g. DVD player, STB) typically decodes the content and then provides the decoded content to the display in uncompressed format (e.g HDMI). There are many reasons why the connection between sources to displays rely on delivery of uncompressed video. These include copy protection issues, proliferation of codecs, graphic overlays and support for legacy devices. Furthermore, many important sources are generated locally in uncompressed format such as gaming and PC graphics. The result is the world we live in: a world where content is distributed to the home compressed or generated in the home uncompressed, and delivered from the decoding device to the display uncompressed. The migration from wired connections to wireless will not change this paradigm, which is why the top CE companies have decided to create a new standard for wireless uncompressed HDTV based on AMIMON?s WHDI technology. For an in depth analysis of compressed vs. uncompressed please visit: http://www.amimon.com/PDF/Compressed_or_Uncompressed.pdf

MichaelHT
User Rank
Rookie
re: Wireless network supports uncompressed video in a compressed world
MichaelHT   7/31/2008 8:32:12 AM
NO RATINGS
The most interesting article to be written is about the irony of how compression got to be such a bad word to consumers when the source of all content, Hollywood and the broadcasting industry, relies on it to give consumers their content. It's of course vague to just say "compression", there's all kinds, but if manufacturers that are actually using compression for wireless HD are trying hard to conceal this for marketing reasons, that is a VERY interesting and untold story. I have a feeling it comes down to misinformation and lack of education where HDTVs and CD players are sold: the retail channel. There are still MANY "professional" retail salespeople who claim anything played on a turntable sounds better than the "compressed digital garbage" on iPods, etc.

ExMagis
User Rank
Rookie
re: Wireless network supports uncompressed video in a compressed world
ExMagis   7/31/2008 3:13:16 AM
NO RATINGS
Check out this company, Amedia Networks. Although in relatively lower profile, they have indeed made real progresses in pursuing wireless video solution. Take look of their website at www.amedia-networks.com

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
re: Wireless network supports uncompressed video in a compressed world
rick merritt   7/30/2008 7:29:46 PM
NO RATINGS
To me the bigger question is whether any somewhat or non-compliant version of WiFi for video can gain real traction. Anyone remember Magis?

Bowho
User Rank
Rookie
re: Wireless network supports uncompressed video in a compressed world
Bowho   7/30/2008 5:35:06 PM
NO RATINGS
Amimon claimed that their technology could transmit uncompressed 1080p stream, which is 3 Gbps, over 40 MHz channel at 5GH band. This translates to a spectrual efficiency of 75 bits/s/Hz. Anyone who with a bit communication theory concept would know such technology simply doesn't exist. What Amimon could possiblly do is to deploy a so called Joint Source and Channel Coding (JSCC) technology that compresses the video in a different way that could be "smarter" than standard compression solutions. But it is indeed a compression. So, Amimon's claim of uncompressed video is just a marketing tactic (surprisingly enough, many CE companies are willing to join in such tactic to help confusing consumers). Ironically, if Amimon's solution truely has any merit, it would be lie in its proprietary compression technology, not the wireless technology.

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Flash Poll
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week