Re:HDTV is dead. Long live HDTV
on
The Joys of HDTV
·
· Score: 1
>> You sound like somebody...
> HD decoder boxes are not like Tivo
> boxes "except higher resolution."
HDTV is based on MPEG2 video compression. MPEG2 decoding is the bulk of the computational load at the receiver as you need to buffer anchor frames for motion compensated prediction (read memory requirement), do inverse DCTs and so on. HDTV MPEG2 decoding is very similar to what your DVD player as well as what your Tivo box does. The main difference is the resolution.
Beyond the MPEG2 decoder,you need electronics that will handle the physical communication layer (costwise negligible), the monitor (not negligible) and memory. This is your basic HDTV. Add to this more features packaged in a set-top
box if you must (again negligible compared to the price of the monitor).
The only savings coarse compression may buy you are probably a lower clock and reduced memory in MPEG decoding. You are hallucinating if you think this will be comparable to the price of the monitor which is around thousands of dollars.
Reread what I have written. I am not comparing the quality of Tivo or DVD to HDTV. I am comparing the costs and the technology which are very similar except for the HDTV monitor, which is quite expensive. Even then this is only part of the HDTV story. The main problems slowing HDTV proliferating are based on broadcaster issues: Expensive studio equipment, cable must carry issues, etc.
These will be resolved if FCC is serious.
Re:HDTV is dead. Long live HDTV
on
The Joys of HDTV
·
· Score: 1
> The only solution for the consumer-end will
> likely be so compressed [ala digital cable &
> DSS] that consumers will be unable to tell the
> difference between NTSC and HDTV.
I don't know how you are making this stuff up. HD decoding boxes are very close to Tivo decoding boxes, just higher resolution. The only price issue in consumer side is probably the cost of the TV monitor, i.e., sending "very compressed" data doesn't reduce costs.
The broadcast side is expensive though. But networks have money and they were quick to get their free spectrum. So instead of bitching they should get on with it.
> This is what we call the "big plate of crap"
> theory.
Hmmm, it was intended to be mildly amusing. I didn't realize I had to tag everything for the enjoyment of the masses. Relax a little bit. The boogie man isn't all bad.
> Even if you never look at the downloaded code,
> the electronic trail will look like you did --
> which is perhaps the most insidious aspect of
> this version of sharing....
It also goes the other way.
If you write closed source code and you download GPLed source code, PACMAN and his viral friends are going to come and get you.
IANAL but I heard that "innocent until proven guilty" doesn'y hold in a civil court and we are all civil here. On this count I too will side with Microsoft. Damn the squatters, they do no good, hoorah Microsoft, they build good mice and joysticks.
> Its not obvious as you think it would be.
> Without fail, when I describe my TIVO to
> people, they think it sounds pretty mundane,
> and worth not much more than a VCR.
It is irrelevant whether it is "not obvious" to you,
your grandmother or other lay people. It should be "not obvious" to people skilled in the art.
> Its very easy to sit on the sidelines and
> snipe at what people have done. Everything
> is obvious in retrospect.
I didn't read the patent in detail so
I will just snipe at you. Just because you
like a product doesn't mean the patent is justified.
> Was this really OBVIOUS in 1998?
If you are referring to playing video from the
hard drive, YES IT WAS. You may want to check
what people did in research labs even much before
1998.
Modulation can be done time domain, frequency domain, code domain, etc.
I believe the main motivation for using short pulses in time domain is to combat multipath interference/fading.
It is true that the harmonics of one short pulse leaking into the spectrum will not be disruptive for other communications (due to very low power). But if you have the whole wireless infrastructure on this method (lots of power), everything else in the nearby spectrum will get very noisy.
So those short pulses have to be rounded a bit to curb the leakage.
To my knowledge Time Domain has been trying to get their tech. into wireless for ever now. Renewed lobbying efforts I suppose...
Mommy, why don't people pay attention to me?
Why don't others do my hw for me,
drop everything they are doing to educate me?
The stupid people who are not supposed to breed
have modded me up.
Boooohooooo.....
I will go cuddle with my imac now.
Slashdot Mirror
>> You sound like somebody ...
> HD decoder boxes are not like Tivo
> boxes "except higher resolution."
HDTV is based on MPEG2 video compression. MPEG2 decoding is the bulk of the computational load at the receiver as you need to buffer anchor frames for motion compensated prediction (read memory requirement), do inverse DCTs and so on. HDTV MPEG2 decoding is very similar to what your DVD player as well as what your Tivo box does. The main difference is the resolution.
Beyond the MPEG2 decoder,you need electronics that will handle the physical communication layer (costwise negligible), the monitor (not negligible) and memory. This is your basic HDTV. Add to this more features packaged in a set-top
box if you must (again negligible compared to the price of the monitor).
The only savings coarse compression may buy you are probably a lower clock and reduced memory in MPEG decoding. You are hallucinating if you think this will be comparable to the price of the monitor which is around thousands of dollars.
Reread what I have written. I am not comparing the quality of Tivo or DVD to HDTV. I am comparing the costs and the technology which are very similar except for the HDTV monitor, which is quite expensive. Even then this is only part of the HDTV story. The main problems slowing HDTV proliferating are based on broadcaster issues: Expensive studio equipment, cable must carry issues, etc.
These will be resolved if FCC is serious.
> The only solution for the consumer-end will
> likely be so compressed [ala digital cable &
> DSS] that consumers will be unable to tell the
> difference between NTSC and HDTV.
I don't know how you are making this stuff up. HD decoding boxes are very close to Tivo decoding boxes, just higher resolution. The only price issue in consumer side is probably the cost of the TV monitor, i.e., sending "very compressed" data doesn't reduce costs.
The broadcast side is expensive though. But networks have money and they were quick to get their free spectrum. So instead of bitching they should get on with it.
> This is what we call the "big plate of crap"
> theory.
Indeed, you are full of it.
> That's stupid, did you forget the sarcasm tags?
Hmmm, it was intended to be mildly amusing. I didn't realize I had to tag everything for the enjoyment of the masses. Relax a little bit. The boogie man isn't all bad.
Pardonne
> Even if you never look at the downloaded code, ...
> the electronic trail will look like you did --
> which is perhaps the most insidious aspect of
> this version of sharing.
It also goes the other way.
If you write closed source code and you download GPLed source code, PACMAN and his viral friends are going to come and get you.
IANAL but I heard that "innocent until proven guilty" doesn'y hold in a civil court and we are all civil here. On this count I too will side with Microsoft. Damn the squatters, they do no good, hoorah Microsoft, they build good mice and joysticks.
> Its not obvious as you think it would be.
> Without fail, when I describe my TIVO to
> people, they think it sounds pretty mundane,
> and worth not much more than a VCR.
It is irrelevant whether it is "not obvious" to you,
your grandmother or other lay people. It should be "not obvious" to people skilled in the art.
> Its very easy to sit on the sidelines and
> snipe at what people have done. Everything
> is obvious in retrospect.
I didn't read the patent in detail so
I will just snipe at you. Just because you
like a product doesn't mean the patent is justified.
> Was this really OBVIOUS in 1998?
If you are referring to playing video from the
hard drive, YES IT WAS. You may want to check
what people did in research labs even much before
1998.
Modulation can be done time domain, frequency domain, code domain, etc.
I believe the main motivation for using short pulses in time domain is to combat multipath interference/fading.
It is true that the harmonics of one short pulse leaking into the spectrum will not be disruptive for other communications (due to very low power). But if you have the whole wireless infrastructure on this method (lots of power), everything else in the nearby spectrum will get very noisy.
So those short pulses have to be rounded a bit to curb the leakage.
To my knowledge Time Domain has been trying to get their tech. into wireless for ever now. Renewed lobbying efforts I suppose...
Pardonne
Mommy, why don't people pay attention to me? Why don't others do my hw for me, drop everything they are doing to educate me? The stupid people who are not supposed to breed have modded me up. Boooohooooo..... I will go cuddle with my imac now.