Slashdot Mirror
HD Should Be Wired, For Now
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."
Another benefit in going with wires, is that you could potentially power some devices with Power over Ethernet, right?
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.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
I live in France, where I have Free 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.)
... of your ISP expanding over to North America? -- especially in Saskatchewan, Canada. Our current offerings are very limited.
Pretty please?
The really heartbreaking thing is that I live 5 km from the French border...
So near and yet so far.
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
I can stream full HD content wirelessly - if it's compressed.
Well, 100 baseT is inadequate for streaming good video.
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.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Video is due to it's very nature very redunant. The majority of the content which was in frame X is still there in frame X+1 and frame X+2, it may have just moved a little. Good compression (MPEG4 at a high data rate) simply takes advantage of this, and will not be noticable to the viewer while still reducing the data rate 3-5x.
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 video but not so great for computer images).
Second, 800x600 isn't HD. The minimum resolution to be called HD is 720p, which is 1280x720 (roughly a 1 megapixel image). Some folks will try to pass 480p off as HD, but it's not, it's ED.
So taking a typical movie in HD, that's 1280 * 720 * 16 bpp * 30 fps * 1/4 (compression gains) = 110 Mbps. Still a little too much for fast ethernet, but GigE could support several such streams without a problem.
DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!