Archive for the ‘HDTV’ Category

JPEG2000 Portable Field Recorder

Friday, June 22nd, 2007

Here’s a pretty cool product that we just came across. Codex Digital just announced a JPEG2000 based portable storage solution, the size of a toaster. Intended for use in professional broadcast and cinematography, the product is weather and shock resistant to meet the demands of rigged field environments.Codex Recorder

From their press release:

The Codex Portable is the first portable disk-recorder to handle all formats up to 4K at cinema-quality, and the first to handle both video and data-mode cameras.

Flexible I/O configurations mean the Codex Portable can record from virtually every digital camera available today – including all HD cameras in video mode, plus data-mode from cameras such as the ARRI D-20 TM and DALSA’s Origin®. It can also record Red Digital Cinema’s RED ONE™ camera in 4K data-mode, when it becomes available.

Recording is made to hot-swappable, shock-mounted RAID diskpacks that can hold up to three hours of continuous recording at the system’s highest quality – the first portable recorder (disk or tape) to offer such capability and capacity. The compression method used is JPEG2000, a wavelet-based industry standard, which is visually indistinguishable from the original and is comparable to the highest-quality mode of HDCAM-SR tape.

Product availability is “late 2007″.

More from the company’s website: www.codexdigital.com

Less Then Super Bowl

Thursday, February 8th, 2007

As a lifelong fan of the Chicago Bears it was with great anticipation that I watch this past Super Bowl. I doubted their chances, seemed like the Colts were destined, but nonetheless it was a chance to recall good times from my college days when the Bears last took the title.Da' Bears

Today’s television technology is far superior to that of 1985 and I gathered with friends to watch the game in HD on a relatively new HDTV. It was interesting to watch as everybody just waxed about how great the picture quality was. Being in the field of video compression, I offered a more scrutinizing eye. Keep in mind its difficult to take a contrarian position with someone who spent thousands on a HDTV and hundreds on a subscription to the HD channels.

Okay, the visual wasn’t bad…but it wasn’t outstanding. As a recent attendee of CES, I’ve seen much better. I have recently read that this is a major issue with many electronics retailers today…that being the complaint and support calls for HDTVs.

So what’s going on?

From my experience, I think we are seeing a few things in play. I had a very interesting conversation with a gentlemen from DirectTV at the CES show. I got a lot of insight into both the technology and process required to deliver content over the “last mile”. Basically the same infrastructure has been in place for most of the past decade and compromises need to be made to accomodate all the new content and the desire for HD content.HDTV

One big difference is the size, quality and availability of today’s displays. It was one thing to see video content on a 36″ television, but now we are talking about 48″, 52″ and 60″ being practical and reasonably priced. Also consider that most content is being delivered in either MPEG2 or MPEG4 formats, both of which were conceived and primarily developed for constraints that are no longer prevalent. When you throw an MPEG2 signal on a 60″ display the compression artifacts are going to be evident.

But isn’t bandwidth still the issue?

Yes it is and that still seems to be the crux of the problem. The pipes are getting fatter, but we’re demanding more and more content and more HD content. Any extra bandwidth fills up real quick. When that happens, then more compression is applied and the visual result begins to suffer. As told to me, the content providers are trying to delivery HD content under a data rate of 20 Mbps and often ratchet that down to 10 Mbps. HD content at 10 Mbps will show noticable degradation to even the untrained eye.

Are sporting events even more of a challenge?

Yes, they are and here’s why. The MPEG formats use temporal compression techniques, also known as interframe compression. In the most basic sense, the encoder looks for redundancies that exist amongst sequential frames of video. By removing this redundant content you can achieve far greater compression. Since sporting events have a lot of moving action, a shimmering background of fans and multiple cameras in use, the ability to find redundancies is greatly diminished. If you’re still targeting the same bit rate, then you achieve the target compression by greatly reducing the quality of the video content through spatial or single frame compression. I suspect this is what I was seeing last Sunday.

Okay JPEG2000 gurus, what role might that play in solving this problem?

Good question…I think the jury is still out on this. JPEG2000 will never achieve the same data rates as that of MPEG2, MPEG4 or H.264 in most circumstances. Add to the fact that there is an entire infrastrucure built around those standards…tough to change overnight. But I see three things that might greatly influence whether JPEG2000 makes it into your home, they are:

IPTV - if the on-demand pull model over IP becomes prevalent, then the bandwidth issues are greatly diminished since delivering 400 channels is replaced with only a few high quality streams that you select. There’s a lot of traction for JPEG2000 in these circles as evident by the recent SMPTE meeting for IPTV.

Digital Cinema - here me out on this, the movie industry would love an “author once, deliver to many” model by which to control their content. This would potentially remove a lot of intermediaries who, of course, take a cut of the action. JPEG2000 is really the only format that makes that practical…and the movie industry has already mandated JPEG2000. If you think this concept is too far reaching then I point you to the music industry. When is the last time you bought a CD at Tower Records? Oh that’s right, they closed all their retail stores.

UWB - this seems like a strange choice, but the UWB vendors might stand to be the first folks to get JPEG2000 decoders built directly into televisions. If that gets traction…watch out…can you say disruptive techology.

 

CES 2007

Monday, January 15th, 2007

Another exhausting week at CES in Las Vegas. We stayed at the Bellagio again thanks to Jeff’s poker prowness. It was unusally cold in Vegas, but the sun was shining…not that we saw much of it.

Crew at the Foundation Room

The social highlight was the Microsoft Vista release party at Pure in Caesars. Awesome food, open bar and a live performance by the Pussycat Dolls. Very nice event…thanks uncle Bill!

JPEG2000 and UWB

JPEG2000 had quite a bit of buzz thanks to the UWB vendors. UWB was white hot this year and several vendors were demonstrating in-home video distribution of HD content via a wireless UWB solution. Tzero seems to be taking the lead in this category and had a nice demonstration in their booth. (rumor had it that Bill Gates even made a visit…wouldn’t that be ironic)

So how is this done?

A 1080 HD video signal creates an uncompressed data rate of 1424 Mbs. Encoded in JPEG2000, you can run a 3:1 compression and still be “lossless”. Encode at 8:1 and the result is “visually lossless”. At 3:1 you can get the data rate down to 475 Mbs, at 8:1 you can get it down to 178 Mbs. The wireless UWB pipe is running around 480 Mbs, so you can comfortably get a nice J2K compressed video running within those constraints. The Tzero folks had the compression up around 20:1, so I suspect there is some additional overhead or error correction that they are accomodating.

So why JPEG2000?

There’s a few answers to this question. First is the visual quality. Side by side, the J2K compressed video signal looks more appealing then that of an MPEG compressed video. Yes, this is subjective…but to my eyes, I find the macroblock artifacts to be very unnatural and noticable…especially on an HD monitor.

Another reason is the latency. It’s non-existant with JPEG2000. Not so with MPEG compression. This is problaby not a big deal for watching TV or a movie, but for gaming…that’s big.

Lastly, error resiliency. Ever watch television and have blocks and streaks disappear from the signal? What you are seeing is the MPEG compression trying to recover from an error. Although I’m no expert on wireless communications, I suspect that lots of bits are subject to interruption in the wireless UWB world. When JPEG2000 encounters such a loss of data, the visual result is almost undetectable. There’s a lot of underlying technical reasoning to this, but the visual result is a softening or slight blurring of the area where data is lost. Unlikely you’ll not even notice that when watching a video.

So why do I care?

You might not…but if you have a nice HDTV, lots of components and a gaming module then you have lots of expensive cables running amok. Personally my living room has been taken over by my daughters’ GameCube and controllers. I would love to have a centralized content distribution center that I could access with all my TVs, computers, etc. A wireless solution makes sense provided the visual fidelity is not compromised. I like the idea, I’d buy into that!

HD Photo F.U.D.

Microsoft Vista is being released this month and the marketing machine is kicking into gear. We have already seen a lot of comparisons of HD Photo to JPEG and JPEG2000. Most of the comparisons are not particularly accurate, but to the common person…how are they going to know? I suspect that we are going to have to deal with this issue more directly in the coming weeks.

Of note, we still face the issue of “what is JPEG2000″. The naming convention has lumped it into the JPEG camp and now the HD Photo camp. Its surprising how many “video experts” that we engage who have no understanding of its use as a video format. What to do, what to do?

HD Broadcast Production

Another hot area for JPEG2000 is in HD Broadcast Production. No, we’re not talking about distribution out to your house, but for use in the production facilities. With the increasing demand for HD broadcast content, these folks need to move a lot video content around the studios. Their first requirement is that they would like to preserve content in its highest form for as long as possible, primarily for editing purposes. Second, they usually have an exisisting infrastructure of GigE throughout the studio.

Back to our calculator…HD 1080 uncompressed is 1424 Mbs. Run a “lossless” compression of 2:1 and you can push that around easily over GigE. Cool trick…and I won’t beat the visual fidelity horse yet again.