Trans-Atlantic 8K/UHDTV Streaming With UltraGrid and Commodity PCs

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Trans-Atlantic 8K/UHDTV Streaming With UltraGrid and Commodity PCs

Posted by timothy on Thursday October 18, 2012 @03:29AM from the now-that's-push-media dept.

An anonymous reader writes "During the 12th Annual Global LambdaGrid Workshop in Chicago, researchers have demonstrated interactive multi-point streaming of 8K/UHDTV (i.e., 16x Full HD resolution) using commodity PC hardware running Linux and open-source UltraGrid software. The transmissions featured GPU-accelerated JPEG and DXT compressions implemented using the NVIDIA CUDA platform, which are also available as open-source software. The streams were distributed from the source to one location in the USA and to another location in the Czech Republic over 10Gbps GLIF network infrastructure."

58 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Acronym overload by JK_the_Slacker · 2012-10-18 03:33 · Score: 1

BINGO!

--
I'm waiting for a "-1 somepeoplejustshouldn'tgetmodprivileges" meta-moderation.
1. Re:Acronym overload by wonkey_monkey · 2012-10-18 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  BINGO!
  You could at least tell us what that one stands for.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
2. Re:Acronym overload by viperidaenz · 2012-10-18 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  It's his name-o
3. Re:Acronym overload by wonkey_monkey · 2012-10-18 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Could you spell that for me? Three times ought to do .
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
4. Re:Acronym overload by viperidaenz · 2012-10-18 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  B - I - N - G - O
  B - I - N - G - O
  B - I - N - G - O
  And Bingo was his Name-O!
  
  ps: I'm not yelling slashdot.
So? by rmstar · 2012-10-18 03:36 · Score: 1

Uhuh. So... what?
16 times Full HD sounds like 16 channels on TV.
Perhaps the submitter should have spent a word or two explaining why this was interesting/important/whatever.
1. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  No. 16x resolution doesn't mean 16x bandwidth. Video codecs don't work that way.
2. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  I do not know about satellite TV, but cable tv compresses the source so bad, that 720p TV looks blocky on a 1080p TV with little movement. Cable TV providers, like comcast are ruining HD TV by the crappy quality because they only care about money, not about quality. If they ever got on this bandwagon, they would fuck it up.
3. Re:So? by Gr8Apes · 2012-10-18 03:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yeah, a click on TFA indicates this was streaming 8K video, which is roughly 16 times the resolution of 1080 (whether that's 1080i or 1080P is ambiguous).
  The real story is that there's now a significantly large 10G internet connection. A side note - they're streaming 16X HD content, which is generally about 8GB for 2 hours compressed, or 4GB per hour, which is about (consults anachronistic pocket calculator) 9 Mbps for the HD stream or roughly 144Mbps for 16X that assuming the same compression efficiency and/or loss acceptance.
  Not sure why 10G was needed, other than as a POC for the technology. 1Gbps should have been plenty.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
4. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  You don't encode/decode 16 channels at the same time on your TV. Also as a quote:
  
  The size of these data streams is much higher than those that can be supported by today’s networks. To address this challenge, SITOLA researchers are developing new capabilities for video compression and processing using graphical processors and advanced protocols for video distribution in the computer networks
  Remember, this is point to point, not broadcast.
5. Re:So? by wonkey_monkey · 2012-10-18 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Well, as a back-of-the-envelope calculation, they kinda do.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
6. Re:So? by 54mc · 2012-10-18 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  This is exactly what I was confused about. If something can run on commodity PCs but requires a 10Gbps connection, it's not something that's going to be ready for prime time for quite a while.
  
  --
  Joy! Beautiful spark of the gods!
7. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  This is 16 times the resolution of current HD. What? Something better than HD? Ultra HD! This is the thing you don't need that will get you to buy all new stuff that you don't need. All made possible by Internet infrastructure you won't see become common for at least another decade.
  This story is just saying they have demonstrated the hardware and infrastructure that is capable of providing the service.
8. Re:So? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-10-18 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  No, they kind of don't. Or at least they shouldn't, and if they do, something is broken. Higher resolution allows you to capture higher spatial frequencies in the image, but if there aren't any (a part of the picture is a white wall, for example), the extra information to encode and compress simply isn't there. Of course, there are always going to be visually hideously complex scenes with tiny details, like a dense jungle or a gravel path, but the current typical applications for this take place in artificial settings, in an operating room or a conference hall, and the details are probably going to be only in the places where you need them.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
9. Re:So? by citizenr · 2012-10-18 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  I do not know about satellite TV, but cable tv compresses the source so bad, that 720p TV looks blocky on a 1080p TV with little movement. Cable TV providers, like comcast are ruining HD TV by the crappy quality because they only care about money, not about quality. If they ever got on this bandwagon, they would fuck it up.
  This is because US is retarded and uses MPEG-2 while rest of the world swims in sweet h.264.
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
10. Re:So? by Gr8Apes · 2012-10-18 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  10G isn't all that expensive, but it's not commodity by any means at this time. The prices are in the range of 100Mbps ethernet gear in the earlier part of the 90s, but honestly, other than geeks, I don't see most people needing it any time within the next 5 years. Note that's just about when 10G should hit upper end commodity prices, and be usable by the upper end of the masses if it maps to past trends.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
11. Re:So? by LaminatorX · 2012-10-18 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Blame the market. When choosing among two or three TV providers, consumers tend to favor quantity of HD channels over quality of picture.This may be because you don't get to see the picture before you subscribe, or it may be that most people wouldn't know quality if it bit them. Just the same, the market rewards carriers who cram lots of 10-15Mb/s streams down their pipes, so they do.
12. Re:So? by Gr8Apes · 2012-10-18 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  I know that satellite uses H.264, or was, a while ago. AT&T Uverse and FIOS both use MP4 I'm pretty sure. Cable - no idea - their picture quality sucked so badly I dropped them years ago and every time I see them again, even on small screens, I cringe at the artifacts. I'd have to check my OTA feeds, but I do recall at least a few being MPEG2 last time around, and one was broadcasting in 720p while another multiplexed 5 channels and compressed their main HD channel severely as a result, giving distinct visible artifacts in the stream.
  So I don't think your blanket statement holds water :)
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
13. Re:So? by wonkey_monkey · 2012-10-18 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  but if there aren't any (a part of the picture is a white wall, for example), the extra information to encode and compress simply isn't there
  But for all those blank areas that don't require many more bits, won't there be plenty of other parts of the image which now do require more bits because there's more detail in them compared to a smaller version of the same scene?
  To put it another way, how is encoding one of these 8K HD videos that much different to encoding 16 separate HD videos, each being a crop of the whole?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
14. Re:So? by L1mewater · 2012-10-18 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  To put it another way, how is encoding one of these 8K HD videos that much different to encoding 16 separate HD videos, each being a crop of the whole?
  It's not significantly different, except that there is a slight savings on overhead. G.P. is being kind of weird, and assuming that the higher resolution display would mean that a higher proportion of the 8K image would be stationary, or something.
15. Re:So? by TheSync · 2012-10-18 06:57 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Note that this experiment was specifically not on commodity Internet, but on the Global Lambda Integrated Facility.
  10 Gbps is usually delivered on OC-192 / STM-64 / 10G SONET.
  8K UHDTV (4320p) has been defined by SMPTE as a resolution of 7680x4320 (33.2 megapixels).
  JPEG 2000 for 2K Digital Cinema Packages are 250 Mbps, a rate determined to be adequate by the industry. This group used 2 Gbps for 8K, which is reasonable considering it is ~16 times the resolution of 2K.
16. Re:So? by Gr8Apes · 2012-10-18 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  There's at least 2K, 4K, 8K and 10K cameras out there - all higher resolution than what we know as HD. Very useful if you need to crop film and retain HD capabilities, for example.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
17. Re:So? by fustakrakich · 2012-10-18 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  How come resolution isn't still measured by vertical resolution? 4320P is 4K to me. And 8K should be HD x 64
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
18. Re:So? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-10-18 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  No, I simply mean that artificial scenes are often kind of dull (not in any subjective sense). And the fact that portions of scene are either stationary or at least amenable to motion compensation is already widely exploited, that is, of course, an assumption in all modern codecs.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
19. Re:So? by PPH · 2012-10-18 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  Uhuh. So... what?
  16 times Full HD sounds like 16 channels on TV.
  Maybe if the broadcasters get enough extra channels, they'll re-run 'My Mother the Car' on one of them. I can't wait!
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
20. Re:So? by TheSync · 2012-10-19 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  how come resolution isn't still measured by vertical resolution?
  Because back in the analog day, broadcast engineers cared about vertical lines of resolution. The horizontal resolution was just a factor of bandwidth.
.CFG by sycodon · 2012-10-18 03:36 · Score: 1

I bet the config file (Which one? I don't know) is about 100 pages long.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
MJPEG? by afidel · 2012-10-18 03:39 · Score: 1

Ewww, MJPEG looks like crap compared to just about any other video format at the same bandwidth. It's computationally easy, but it's certainly not what you'd hope for in a production standard.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
1. Re:MJPEG? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  It's 33.2 megapixels of data @ 30Hz or 60 or whatever it's at. A lot of pixels being pushed needs something computationally easy to achieve it in real time.
2. Re:MJPEG? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  Great, now we just need content worth watching...
3. Re:MJPEG? by citizenr · 2012-10-18 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  why? hardware h.264 decoder barely scratches the surface of my GPUs performance. Im pretty sure you could run 16 instances at the same time one modern GPU.
  MJPEG is evil.
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
4. Re:MJPEG? by L1mewater · 2012-10-18 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Decoding is much, much easier than encoding.
5. Re:MJPEG? by citizenr · 2012-10-18 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Decoding is much, much easier than encoding.
  so? Moore's law. Currently h.264 encoder chips cost $10. You could build 16x full HD h.264 encoders array for ~$160 today. Probably cheaper than one Nvidia card they used for mjpeg. Hell, a cluster(fuck) of 16 Raspberry pi's (broadcom can encode fullhd effortlessly) would be cheaper than what they used. All this is Today.
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
6. Re:MJPEG? by TheSync · 2012-10-18 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect this was JPEG 2000, not just "MJPEG". CESNET has previously done 4K IP streaming with JPEG 2000.
  JPEG 2000 is the standard for digital cinema, and has the advantage of having limited loss in multi-generations of decode/recode.
  Many TV networks use JPEG 2000 at 100-150 Mbps for IP transmission contribution to the network centers from major sports stadiums.
  Cisco has a device to do up to 12 channels of HD video over IP as uncompressed (1.5 Gbps) or JPEG 2000.
7. Re:MJPEG? by L1mewater · 2012-10-18 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Caveat: I wasn't part of this project, and don't entirely know what their purpose was or what exactly they meant to communicate by saying that participants at the receiving location could "control the stream interactively." I'm guessing it just means start, stop, pause, fast forward, and rewind or something. You can't just say, "Oh, I can buy an h.264 encoder chip for $10." I mean, you can say it, but it doesn't tell us anything. There are tons of different h.264 encoders of varying qualities, targeted to different applications, and with different design tradeoffs. I cannot say anything about the specifications of these particular h.264 encoders to which you refer, except that encoding to h.264 does not guarantee any particular level or performance or quality. UltraGrid claims to be designed for very low latency. That by itself strongly favors MJPEG encoding over h.264. H.264 is dependent upon latency in order to get most of its benefits.
8. Re:MJPEG? by viperidaenz · 2012-10-18 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  How much processing do you need to do to stitch 16 h.264 streams in to one? Before you say "You don't, you decode them separately on the other end" That would make the title "Trans-Atlantic 1080p Streaming with UltraGrid and Commodity PCs, done 16 times"
Spelling mistakes, links broken by jupiterssj4 · 2012-10-18 03:45 · Score: 1

sofware? Also that link has an extra . on the end, break it
GLIF=Global Lambda Integrated Facility (I think?) by NinjaTekNeeks · 2012-10-18 03:47 · Score: 3, Informative

Didn't know what GLIF was so I looked it up : http://www.glif.is/

And here is a map of the infrastructure: http://www.glif.is/publications/maps/GLIF_5-11_World_4k.jpg (6Mb)
doesn't matter. by Nyder · 2012-10-18 03:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

I do not know about satellite TV, but cable tv compresses the source so bad, that 720p TV looks blocky on a 1080p TV with little movement. Cable TV providers, like comcast are ruining HD TV by the crappy quality because they only care about money, not about quality. If they ever got on this bandwagon, they would fuck it up.

--
Be seeing you...
Re:GLIF=Global Lambda Integrated Facility (I think by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 03:51 · Score: 0

I read that one as GILF. That isn't something I'd wish to see in ultra HD.
Great this is absolutely wonderful! by fredrated · 2012-10-18 03:52 · Score: 2

Now we just need content worth watching...
1. Re:Great this is absolutely wonderful! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  Porn industry has that part "handled."
2. Re:Great this is absolutely wonderful! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know about you, but I wouldn't mind having the Adult channel in 8K quality
3. Re:Great this is absolutely wonderful! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  But then you'll be able to see that all those 18yo models are actually in their thirties.
10Gbps by girlintraining · 2012-10-18 03:55 · Score: 1

... Well, we know it wasn't Comcast.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Its the same in the UK by Viol8 · 2012-10-18 04:02 · Score: 1

Our Freeview digital broadcast service has "HD" channels, but they're only HD so long as nothing moves, whereupon the picture dissolves into nasty motion blur and thats using H264. Still, the SD channels are even worse - the mpeg2 blocking effects makes some of the more compressed ones unwatchable.
1. Re:Its the same in the UK by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 04:15 · Score: 0
  
  Bluray excepted, HD in practice is typically worse than full quality SD - which you used to get with analogue broadcast (if you had good reception). Many people have spent a lot of money buying the emperor's new clothes.
2. Re:Its the same in the UK by viperidaenz · 2012-10-18 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. I love interlaced 50hz 576 line PAL resolution. Its just as good as that interlaced 60hz 480 line NTSC.
  
  My 720p DVB-T signals I get now have nothing on them.
3. Re:Its the same in the UK by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 07:19 · Score: 0
  
  I'm assume you're being sarcastic, but if you look at any area of your picture that should have lots of detail (e.g. grass) you'll notice that much of the detail is missing from your 720p DVB-T.
How about playback performance? by hackertourist · 2012-10-18 04:14 · Score: 2

Streaming, for me, generally equals lousy playback. Stuttering, taking lots of time to resynchronize when you skip back or (worse) forward. Usability is sacrificed in an effort by the broadcaster to retain control.
1. Re:How about playback performance? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Piratebay until they get their act together
Blatant lies about CUDA! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 05:37 · Score: 0

"NVIDIA CUDA platform, which are also available as open-source software" According to Wikipedia CUDA is freeware and I bet it requires the proprietary nvidia drivers to run as well...
Please prove me wrong!
i'll check back later by hurfy · 2012-10-18 07:41 · Score: 1

Bookmarked for when i get 10Gbps internet service...
Display by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 08:12 · Score: 1

So there is currently no 8k display available, unless it's in a lab somewhere. Heck, a 70mm IMAX film print is estimated to only be the equivalent of a little above 6k. Combined with no display now or even in the very near future being able to show this, and no readily commercially available camera able to capture at this resolution, my question is why they're doing this and yet sticking with 30 frames a second when humans are readily shown to be able to differences until somewhere above a hundred frames a second.
Re:GLIF=Global Lambda Integrated Facility (I think by frosty_tsm · 2012-10-18 09:29 · Score: 1

I read that one as GILF. That isn't something I'd wish to see in ultra HD.
Four years ago the G meant Governor.
yawn by strack · 2012-10-18 12:46 · Score: 1

yawn. i want my 2160p 36 inch 120hz monitor already.
Dang! by PPH · 2012-10-18 13:45 · Score: 1

Y'all let me know when I kin stop smackin' the TV whenever the vertical hold gets wonky.

--
Have gnu, will travel.