HD Should Be Wired, For Now 119
AcidAUS writes "Current wireless networking standards aren't fit for streaming high-definition (HD) content between a media centre PC and multiple extender devices, according to Intel and Microsoft." From the article: "'You've also got to remember though that wired connectivity is a lot more efficient than when you start putting it [HD content] over wireless,' said O'Shea, adding that the real-world bandwidth of 802.11g would 'probably top out around 22Mbps'. Intel's Gurgen added that in addition to efficiency differences, one must also consider other network traffic when weighing up a move to wireless. 'Remember that at that one time when you're streaming content it's probably not the only thing that's happening. You could be sending e-mails, you could be downloading some sort of update,' said Gurgen. Both O'Shea and Gurgen declined to comment on whether or not the upcoming 802.11n Wi-Fi standard would make wireless streaming of HD content throughout the home viable."
Re: (Score:2)
EM Pollution (Score:4, Insightful)
And there's less interference for everything else wireless we'll want to run. And less EM radiation in the neighbourhood could have health benefits we can't quantify yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
B.E.T. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps not the wisest choice for streaming a high-def signal?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Power over Ethernet [wikipedia.org] is standard, not all that ambitious.
I'm not even sure 2 inch HD screens exist or are physically possible. Wireless HD is for media extender devices... eg. say you live in an apartment, and have an HD HTPC in your living room. If you want to watch HD in your bedroom using the same recorded content, you could potentially link two HTPC's with wireless so you don't have to drill any holes or run any wires down halls and through doorways.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:welcome to... (Score:4, Informative)
Assume no compression (i.e. good video) 800x600 pixels, 32 bits/pxl, 30 fps
Moving that data alone requires 500 Mbps, not counting protocol overhead. Of course, with compression you can easily cut that down by a factor of 10, but that will be lossy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now as to your assumptions. First, why 32bpp? You don't broadcast an alpha channel. 24bpp is enough for RGB, and 16bpp is enough for YCbCr (using 422 sampling, which is fine for vi
Re: (Score:2)
Also don't forget audio, though usually I guess you only have a few tracks of AC3 audio that add another 512kbps max each.
Anyway, at work I use VideoLAN to compress a 1280x720p30 video feed to a 4Mbps stream using MPEG4 without too much quantization during high-motion sequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What a load of crap... (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in France, where I have Free [adsl.free.fr] as an ISP. The ADSL service is 24Mbps and comes with an ADSL Wifi-MIMO equipped modem (built-in 5 port switch as well), and a Wifi "Television box", that streams MP4-Encrypted HD content over the Wifi without problems. And the content is drop-dead beautiful. In addition, I can receive a second HD stream to my computer while one is playing on the TV, though my Athlon 64 3000+ sometimes struggles with the HD content...
(For those that want to be jealous, I pay 29.99 for this service, which includes a fixed IP, 100 Channels of mixed HDTV and standard digital TV, and unlimited calling to everywhere in 40 some countries, including the US.)
Re: (Score:1)
I hate America.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be interesting to see how many the WL network would be capable of handling at once.
I'm not sure how many video streams the network has to be able to carry for people to consider it practical. Obviously, if the network can handle one stream, it's not going to work well for most households, who have more than one TV. And when you get into TIVO-type DVR boxes, then you might need mo
Re: (Score:1)
http://offres.neuf.fr/offres/television/Questions
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh and the "modem" actually is a little Linux embedded computer.
The way the local market works is that Free often is the one
Re: (Score:1)
DRM? (Score:2)
PS: Sometimes I am lucky if I get 22 kBps on Wireless. I would love to get "only" 22 mBps...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What a load of crap... (Score:5, Insightful)
[1] - it seems that the designers of HD-DVD probably agree with this estimate: the capacity of HD-DVD is 30Gb, compared with the 9Gb capacity of DVD, so if they wanted it to support the same length video of DVD just at a higher resolution, this is what they'd have been aiming for. Blu-ray is, of course, larger still. HD-DVD is designed to cope with a maximum bitrate of 36.55Mb/s; blu-ray, again, is designed for a higher bitrate.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What a load of crap... (Score:4, Informative)
AFAIK they're also using MPEG4, which is more space efficient than MPEG2 (and I get a little less than 4Mb/s for non HDTV streams - currently no idea for HDTV streams, I lack an HDMI wire)
Re: (Score:2)
MiMo is backward compatible with 802.11b and g. But if you want full MiMo bandwidth you're right, you will need a special card like that one [materiel.net]. BTW, they claim it's the only one, and it's also available with PCMCIA.
Based around Ralink RA2661 chipset.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What a load of crap... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What a load of crap... (Score:4, Insightful)
Another option, 1080i, uses less bandwidth without a huge quality loss. 1080i is 1080p interpolated: basically even rows refresh, then odd rows, alternating. This way you only have to send about half the signal and the quality is pretty close to as good.
So again, if you use a good codec, and use 1080i or 720p, you can get pretty good HD for under 20Mb/s. Of course when the 802.11n standard comes out (if ever), aside from the increased reach, it is supposed to offer roughly 10x the bandwidth currently offered by 802.11g.
1080i @ 60 fields/sec 1080p @ 24 frames/sec (Score:2)
If you're talking HD movies, they're recorded at only 24 frames/sec. For broadcast in NTSC-standard interlaced video (and for its HD equivalent) at 60 fields/sec, every 5th field is duplicated. Thus, 1080i broadcast HD movies usually take more bandwidth than the original 1080p signal (which can be reconstructed with no loss in quality).
Any chance... (Score:2, Funny)
Pretty please?
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
That 22mbps number is based on real world testing. I personally have never seen 802.11g go above 25mbps - and that was with a Cisco AP and an Intel wireles adapter two feet from eachother. I'd sure like to know what kind of 802.11g AP and wireless card you are using to get 40mbps throughput.
As for wired, it impossible to get 100bits of throughput on a 100mbit link due to overhead. Under optimal conditions, you can get 85-90mbps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perspective (Score:1)
Here are some real questions for/about the original poster.. essentially, boils down to "How much money does this guy make in comparison to someone in the USA?"
I am curious to know how exactly this great service measures up to something equivalent in the USA. If the price was in Euros, that comes to about 38 bu
I've got your crap right here.., (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
With such speed we are even more doomed (as spam receiving people).
Top senders there will look familiar to you:
http://www.senderbase.org/ [senderbase.org]
Either France became completely nuts about e-mail communication or they are spamming.
BTW it includes my own country and ISP too and I am ashamed, no "freedom fries" attitude in my post.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, we're back to calling them "freedom fries" again. Why? Because thin strips of fried potato[e], much like low priced super-DSL service, wants to be free. ;-)
wait until you see real HD... (Score:2)
Yeah, good compression can deliver a pretty good picture. It's a stretch to get a single real HD stream over wireless today, let alone two.
As to being jealous, I think I have 100 channels each of shopping networks, audio stations, pay per view and about 50 movie channels. I get 10 HD channels just with my antenna, and if I paid for the HD pack on DVT I'd get 10 more on satellite. I suppose I co
Re: (Score:1)
Yep, I'm jealous. I remember thinking minitel was pretty cool too, back when I was just dialing into local BBSes here in America.. You lucky French bastards! ;-)
But I'm actually replying because I'm curious about your ISP's name. I would have expected "libre" instead of "free"..
First I thought it might be a UK company that crossed the channel, but the site is all in French, and the contact page lists Paris numbers and says
Call me old-fashioned... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Another problem with wireless networks is that all of the clients share the available bandwith most of the time. This means that you'll find yourself running a number of wireless accesspoints, which all have to be connected somehow to a switch, most probably using conventional wires.
The way I see it, there's no way around having a wired "backbone", considering the rising bandwith demands of futur
One Exception! (Score:2)
Lightning. I live next to a cell tower that "brings" lightning in and this last strike (250 ft away) induced enough voltage on my cat-5 cables (in wall) to blow up 4 ethernet ports (including a switch and an intel motherboard with onboard ethernet.)
All my wireless gear is OK
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Wireless sucks (Score:2)
No, I'm old fashioned (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Of course, the latency would be horrible, but it would be the most adorable topography ever
Too bad...... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah. (Score:2)
Could be something to do with using SMB as the protocol to stream it across, though. When I test my bandwidth I get a good 15Mb/s, usually, with only 3ms ping times. Dunno why everything's so slow, but it is.
Re: (Score:2)
This is consistent with typical 802.11g performance. "Nameplate" bandwidth is 54mbps but the medium is half-duplex - only one side can transmit at a time - so this effectively halves your bandwidth to 27mbps. Then you have wireless overhead: frame headers, retries, and encryption, which can drop your effective bandwidth by 20% to 50%, the biggest factors there being your signal-to-noise ratio and the number of other users.
If you place a laptop within a foot of your AP and run some active testing, you wil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sigh (Score:3, Funny)
So near and yet so far.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not say the truth. (Score:2)
It's definatly possible, you can get full HD Broadcasts over antenna, but because there's not Copy protection on that I guess it's ok. The fact is that it's not that HD or blue ray are going to be inferior technology, it's the fact both of them are going to be so overladen with
Update, indeed (Score:1, Flamebait)
Makes sense. If you're running Windows, the likelihood that your bandwidth is being used for updates is certainly higher.
802.11n (Score:2)
H.264 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It amazes me how much compression is involved. Even the transmission lines from the TV truck to the station compress the signal down to 270M/sec. Bounce it off a few satellites, hand it over to your cable provider, and you're staring at about 11M/sec or less by the time it gets to your house.
So by the time you're staring at that "beautiful" signal o
Re: (Score:2)
Something strange in the article (Score:1)
Anyway, if one HD stream is around 20 Mbps (sounds more realistically), it would still be feasible to stream it wirelessly, although I would agree that depending on the quality of your wireless connection it could be a bit shaky, so that a wired connection is preferable.
But I thi
Well.. considering ms's "other" restrictions... (Score:2)
I don't think M$ should be as worried about pleasing hollywood as they should be about pleasing their consumers.. because as it is now it's looking like m$ will be the worst platform for HD/HTPC for the forseeable future.
Tough one (Score:2)
Or we can dump the cables and watch cleaner, cheaper transfer.
I'll take my time on this one.
On sucking bowling balls through garden hoses (Score:2)
Wait a minute... (Score:2)
(Just busted by elipsis quota for the year.)
Who wants to use a Media Centr PC to stream video? (Score:2)
It makes more sense and is much cheaper to stream video (HD or otherwise) from the source (Set Top Box, HD or DVD player, etc.) to a PC, video phone, pocket computer, etc. I currently use a Slingbox (cost: ~ $199) to stream SD TV to all my PCs at home and I could stream content over the internet too. I think this "other way around" (Streaming device such as the cheapo Slingbox to PCs) is the common sense way to go but I suspect Hollywood, Cable and DSL ISPs, and the PC OS manufacturers would try and restric
Re:Who wants to use a Media Centr PC to stream vid (Score:1)
All my HD content is wireless... (Score:2)
They didn't mention a pretty improtant factor... (Score:1)
Using MPEG-2 vs a higher compression codec like H.264 or WMV-HD will definitely have some impact on bandwidth requirements.
OT Q: Digital Cable bandwidth? (Score:2)
Does watching an "on-demand" program over digital cable take away from your available cable modem bandwidth? Considering it's all coming over the same pipe, and the shows you watch are technically "data", I would assume that to be the case, but I don't know for sure.