Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

KT-Tech Challenges Nancy and MPEG-4 for Wireless Video

Posted by timothy on from the rise-of-the-pants-cams dept.

Robert Gallagher writes: "Last week, at http://www.kttech.com/comp.html, KT-Tech released a demo of their video codec running at 32 Kbps. According to the web page and discussion on comp.compression, this codec is 'symmetric,' meaning encoding is just as fast as decoding, and that both can be done in software and in real-time. While Nancy is getting good press for its light decoding cost, KT-Tech is apparently trying to get into the two-way wireless communication market. One question to ponder: Would we really want cameras on our cell-phones?"

8 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Symetric ? by kigrwik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > "Symmetric" means that encoding the video is as fast as decoding.

    Well, it *could* also mean that decoding is as slow as encoding :)

    Besides, do we really need yet another proprietary video codec ?
    If it's effective, it won't take long for it to migrate to webcasting, movie previews, etc...
    See how often QuickTime is used, and how compatible it is w/ Linux, won't we risk the same thing again ? and again ? and again ??

    --
    -- don't discount flying pigs until you have good air defense
  2. The telecom industry is always pushing videophones by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Nobody wanted them in 1950 when they first came out.

    Nobody wants them now.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  3. Do we really want cellphones? by JThaddeus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Okay, I guess I am just out of sync with technology but, despite having been in this business for 20 years and online since MILNET/ARPANET in the mid-80s, and despite having written and managed a web product for 5 years, I have absolutely no interest in being connected 24x7. The only use I have found for my cell phone is being able to run to the mall and still get a call if the church youth group needs to tell me that my son broke his leg. But I do not give that number to my coworkers or customers and have told more than one boss that I will under no circumstances wear a beeper.

    What on earth do I need with portals that dump me stock reports faster than I can trade or palm pilots that link me to recipe web sites (or even SlashDot?). I go along with the Chicago economist and Nobel winner Milton Friedman that palm pilots are stupid technology--multi-hundred dollar items that take merely the place of a 49 pad of paper and a stubby pencil. This, I know, puts me out of step with almost all my coworkers but so be it.

    So, what do I want in a cell phone? Not stock quotes; not web access; not images; not even (are you listening Nokia?) centipede! I just want to be able to be reach or be reached by my kids or wife from wherever I am and not have to worry about the g**d*** out of service area or all lines busy messages! Is that to much to ask?

    --
    "Love is a familiar; Love is a devil: there is no evil angel but Love." --William Shakespeare ('Love's Labors Lost')
  4. Re:The telecom industry is always pushing videopho by kigrwik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually there are some cases, with *mobile* phones when a visual input would be helpful.

    "Which flowers do I buy ? The red ones, or the yellow ones ?"
    "I don't know, do they match the living-room ?"
    "Hmm... not sure"
    "OK show me...."

    "Hello, it's me, I can't seem to find your house, can you give me directions ?"
    "Where are you ?"
    "err...can't say exactly..."
    "OK show me....."

    There are countless cases when getting visual info would be helpful.
    But *please*, remember to leave the video off by default !

    --
    -- don't discount flying pigs until you have good air defense
  5. Re:I want one by Proud+Geek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know I've always wanted a camera on my phone that the police could activate remotely to spy on me, just in case it gets stolen.

    Wait a minute, no I haven't.

    --

    Even Slashdot wants to hide some things

  6. Every Cell Phone a Surveillance Camera by stankulp · · Score: 4, Insightful
    There is already a lot of anecdotal evidence that the proliferation of cell phones and the consequent ability of witnesses to contact police while a crime is in progress has been one of the primary reasons for the drop in crime in recent decades.

    With a video camera/cell phone, they could also be recording evidence to be used at trial.

    Violent public crime would become obsolete, and violent criminals would find it hard to remain free.

    --
    We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
  7. YES... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As everyone can guess... that can be a very usefull tool for the "minimal" human rights... as if everybody has a camera and is sending a video feed elsewhere... you got my drift...

  8. Stupid question by nr · · Score: 2, Insightful
    One question to ponder: Would we really want cameras on our cell-phones?

    Do we realy need color screens on out PDAs? I remember the first cell-phones that had no displays at all. Today you can get a phone Nokia with high-res 4096 color screen like the Ipaq. One can ponder the usefullness of cameras in phone. But in the wonderful times of moores law then you can fit a digital high-res color camera on a brick of silicon with the size of your fingernail for a dollar that question seams silly.