The article and the JVC spokesman say some things about compression that just don't make sense.
Uncompressed HD is approximately 1.5 Mbps. Tapes that record uncompressed HD are large (think 2" tape in a 12 or 15" diameter tape pack) and record 15 - 30 minutes. The recorders for these are made by Sony, and cost well upwards of $100K. The tapes cost upwards of $1000. Recording just the active picture (the part that shows up on your screen) takes around 450 GB/hour. People in HD post-production do this today.
The D-VHS deck I've seen records the ATSC-encoded digital broadcast signal, at 19.4 Mbps. This is way compressed, and works out to 8.7 GB/H. You use an ordinary (high-quality) VHS casette in the deck.
VHS has about the bandwidth of an NTSC broadcast video signal. The ATSC (HD) signal is designed to fit into the same broadcast spectrum as an NTSC signal. So lo and behold, it isn't too hard to get it to go onto the same piece of tape.
Given the errors in the basics, I wouldn't read too much into their description of the copy-protection scheme.
Re:Is the backbone ready for this?
on
VDSL Demoed
·
· Score: 1
The backbone doesn't need to handle the bandwidth, if people like Akamai and InfoLibria have their way. They put servers at the ISP headend, and charge content providers for cacheing their material at the "edge of the web".
Consider that much news footage is shot in DV25 these days. This is a 25 Mbps format. I think VDSL + edge servers looks really interesting for full-quality video delivery.
I'm not forgetting the quality-of-implementation and distance-from-CO issues; I just figure they'll get worked out eventually.
Slashdot Mirror
The article and the JVC spokesman say some things about compression that just don't make sense.
Uncompressed HD is approximately 1.5 Mbps. Tapes that record uncompressed HD are large (think 2" tape in a 12 or 15" diameter tape pack) and record 15 - 30 minutes. The recorders for these are made by Sony, and cost well upwards of $100K. The tapes cost upwards of $1000. Recording just the active picture (the part that shows up on your screen) takes around 450 GB/hour. People in HD post-production do this today.
The D-VHS deck I've seen records the ATSC-encoded digital broadcast signal, at 19.4 Mbps. This is way compressed, and works out to 8.7 GB/H. You use an ordinary (high-quality) VHS casette in the deck.
VHS has about the bandwidth of an NTSC broadcast video signal. The ATSC (HD) signal is designed to fit into the same broadcast spectrum as an NTSC signal. So lo and behold, it isn't too hard to get it to go onto the same piece of tape.
Given the errors in the basics, I wouldn't read too much into their description of the copy-protection scheme.
The backbone doesn't need to handle the bandwidth, if people like Akamai and InfoLibria have their way. They put servers at the ISP headend, and charge content providers for cacheing their material at the "edge of the web".
Consider that much news footage is shot in DV25 these days. This is a 25 Mbps format. I think VDSL + edge servers looks really interesting for full-quality video delivery.
I'm not forgetting the quality-of-implementation and distance-from-CO issues; I just figure they'll get worked out eventually.