pinter@castor.bucknell.edu (01/15/91)
Two questions about DVI technology:
1) When authoring an application, what happens at the final step?
Let's say you have the application working on you 600 Meg
hard drive. Is it a simple matter to transfer it into a format
that is acceptable for pre-mastering, or does this take some
special program? If so, how much does such a program cost?
2) Does anyone know how the new DVI chips announced recently will
affect the price of boards, and when? After all, if the board set
that costs $4650 today will be available for $2000 in a month, I'd
just assume wait. Also, will the new boards be better in any way?
Marco Pinter
pinter@sol.bucknell.edutj@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Terry Jones) (01/15/91)
This news group is new here so I don't know if I missed a lot but here goes. From recent announcements I would assume that DVI is looking like dated technology even though the chips are just announced. I sort of feel that JPEG and MPEG hardware is going to be more widely accepted. What are others feeling?
rkl@cbnewsh.att.com (kevin.laux) (01/15/91)
In article <573@hydra.bucknell.edu>, pinter@castor.bucknell.edu writes: > Two questions about DVI technology: > > 1) When authoring an application, what happens at the final step? > Let's say you have the application working on you 600 Meg > hard drive. Is it a simple matter to transfer it into a format > that is acceptable for pre-mastering, or does this take some > special program? If so, how much does such a program cost? > > 2) Does anyone know how the new DVI chips announced recently will > affect the price of boards, and when? After all, if the board set > that costs $4650 today will be available for $2000 in a month, I'd > just assume wait. Also, will the new boards be better in any way? > 1) If you have DVI, then you have their Production Tools. There is a program called VLayout that will add padding for CD-ROM. Although I have not actually mastered a CD-ROM yet, it would appear that after processing your files with VLayout, that it is merely a matter of running SD (Nortons Speed Disk) to insure contiguous disk space and then using SY-TOS to back up the files onto an Archive tape that then can be sent to a CD-ROM house for production. 2) The new DVI chips are VLSI whereas the chips used on the ActionMedia 750 boards are from a Silicon Compiler. Of course VLSI is better by definition (smaller geometry, faster, etc). The new chips are purported to be twice as fast as the current chips. I do know about pricing and availability, but I cannot say because of proprietary disclosure agreements I signed, so I suggest that you contact/talk to Intel directly. --rkl
rkl@cbnewsh.att.com (kevin.laux) (01/15/91)
In article <1991Jan15.040230.26507@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>, tj@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Terry Jones) writes: > From recent announcements I would assume that DVI is looking like dated > technology even though the chips are just announced. I sort of feel > that JPEG and MPEG hardware is going to be more widely accepted. > I wouldn't make that assumption at all. JPEG and MPEG are proposed standards for Still and Motion Video respectively and haven't been approved yet (although we all know that there probably won't be any major alterations). Don't forget that those who have chips based on just *one* algorithm are just going to be first, not necessarily lasting. Those who can manufacture chipsets that can run *any* algorithm are going to be the ones with the most flexibility and will last in the long run. As far as DVI is concerned, it is a chip that runs Microcode (in a Very Long Instruction format, which is why it can do 1 instruction per clock cycle). If you want to implement different algorithms on the DVI chipset, you can. This is not necessarily true of, say C-Cubed chipset, which has JPEG built into the silicon itself. --rkl
young@brahms.udel.edu (Philip Young) (01/15/91)
In article <1991Jan15.040230.26507@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> tj@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Terry Jones) writes: >From recent announcements I would assume that DVI is looking like dated >technology even though the chips are just announced. I sort of feel >that JPEG and MPEG hardware is going to be more widely accepted. DVI technology has been available for almost two years. The MPEG standard for digital video is still one or two years away from being formally adopted. Also, Intel has announced that they will provide MPEG compatability by the mid 90's. I wouldn't call DVI dated - it's just maturing faster then MPEG. Intel has received criticism for not waiting for the MPEG standard. Some people feel Intel is attempting to force a defacto standard on the industry by beating the standards to the market. However, even though the DCT based methods are theoretically superior; Intel has a viable product whose time has come. They can't really be expected to wait for the standards commitee?
jim@newmedia.UUCP (Jim Beveridge) (01/15/91)
In article <1991Jan15.040230.26507@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>, tj@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Terry Jones) writes: > From recent announcements I would assume that DVI is looking like dated > technology even though the chips are just announced. I sort of feel > that JPEG and MPEG hardware is going to be more widely accepted. The first chip to do JPEG is from C-Cube, and they are currently only shipping the still frame version of the chip. The real time version is still not available. Even in compressed form, the bandwidth required for a full JPEG screen far exceeds the abilities of an IBM bus to transfer. (I don't believe it to be a problem for the Apple NuBus) JPEG still requires LOTS of data moving around. To keep track of it, you pretty much require the full resources of the system to move it off the hard disk and pump it into the chip fast enough. Of course, there are ways around this problem with a private bus and private hard drives, but that is $$$. The MPEG standard is still under discussion and won't be ready for at least a year. Don't expect commercially available MPEG boards for a couple of years. DVI is shipping now, but is VERY expensive, particularly for the production level video that requires that you send a tape to Intel. The "home-brew" comperssion that the DVI chips now do is very grainy and not suitable for production. The good news is that the production level does not require almost the entire power of the CPU to keep the picture running. Jim -- "If I wanted a .sig, I would have written one"
mcastle@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Mike Castle (Nexus)) (01/16/91)
In article <425@newmedia.UUCP> jim@newmedia.UUCP (Jim Beveridge) writes: >The first chip to do JPEG is from C-Cube, and they are currently only >shipping the still frame version of the chip. The real time version >is still not available. Even in compressed form, the bandwidth >required for a full JPEG screen far exceeds the abilities of an >IBM bus to transfer. (I don't believe it to be a problem for the >Apple NuBus) JPEG still requires LOTS of data moving around. >To keep track of it, you pretty much require the full resources >of the system to move it off the hard disk and pump it into the >chip fast enough. > >Of course, there are ways around this problem with a private >bus and private hard drives, but that is $$$. Which 'IBM' bus are you referring to? I can see where the data transfer rates necessary would be too high for an ISA bus too handle, and perhaps even EISA. But I think the MCA design (from what I've heard) would be able to handle that kind of throughtput. Anyone who has actually done any work with EISA or MCA have any comments? This is just pure speculation on my part, so I could be way off about this. Just curious. -- Mike Castle (Nexus) S087891@UMRVMA.UMR.EDU (preferred) | ERROR: Invalid mcastle@mcs213k.cs.umr.edu (unix mail-YEACH!)| command 'HELP' Life is like a clock: You can work constantly, and be right | try 'HELP' all the time, or not work at all, and be right twice a day. |
tj@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Terry Jones) (01/16/91)
I believe the NeXT Dimension board from NeXT is actually using JPEG to do their real time compression and de-compression of video and the Unit he demonstrated at Seybold was real and was slick. I don't think it is outrageously expensive either. I think it uses the C-Cubed chip and an i860 video processor and I think a 68040 as well. No shappy quantity of cycles there! tj
andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) (01/16/91)
In article <573@hydra.bucknell.edu> pinter@castor.bucknell.edu writes: > >Two questions about DVI technology: > > 1) When authoring an application, what happens at the final step? > Let's say you have the application working on you 600 Meg > hard drive. Is it a simple matter to transfer it into a format > that is acceptable for pre-mastering, or does this take some > special program? If so, how much does such a program cost? I am just a beginner with DVI, but I will try to tackle this one. The DVI boards you get for a PC allow you to do edit-quality capture and compression. Once you get your application working on a hard disk, you will still need to submit your source materials (1" video tape I believe) to be captured/compressed in the DVI lab. My guess is that you submit the video source material, a story board on how it fits together, and the controlling software, but I am guessing here. You see, I have not got all the DVI docs yet. -- Andrew Patrick, Ph.D. Department of Communications, Ottawa, CANADA andrew@calvin.doc.CA andrew@doccrc.BITNET Bill Watterson for President!
lindahl@arrisun3.utarl.edu (Charlie S. Lindahl) (01/16/91)
In article <425@newmedia.UUCP> jim@newmedia.UUCP (Jim Beveridge) writes:
The first chip to do JPEG is from C-Cube, and they are currently only
shipping the still frame version of the chip. The real time version
is still not available. Even in compressed form, the bandwidth
required for a full JPEG screen far exceeds the abilities of an
IBM bus to transfer. (I don't believe it to be a problem for the
Apple NuBus) JPEG still requires LOTS of data moving around.
To keep track of it, you pretty much require the full resources
of the system to move it off the hard disk and pump it into the
chip fast enough.
I understand that the high-end color NeXT is using JPEG compression on
their DIMENSION board (using the C-Cube chip). I assume that the bus width
on the NeXT (being NuBus, and faster than Mac's NuBus) should be able
to handle the compressed video (citing from the previously-submitted
article).
Does anyone know the details of the Dimension board to be able to tell us
that's wants to know? Has anyone actually SEEN real-time compressed
video on a DIMENSION-equipped NeXT?
--
Charlie S. Lindahl
Automation and Robotics Research Institute
University of Texas at Arlington
Internet EMAIL: lindahl@evax.arl.utexas.edu
Standard disclaimer: Ain't no opinion but my own.jim@newmedia.UUCP (Jim Beveridge) (01/16/91)
In article <1964@umriscc.isc.umr.edu>, mcastle@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Mike Castle (Nexus)) writes: > In article <425@newmedia.UUCP> jim@newmedia.UUCP (Jim Beveridge) writes: > >required for a full JPEG screen far exceeds the abilities of an > >IBM bus to transfer... > > > > Which 'IBM' bus are you referring to? I can see where the data transfer > rates necessary would be too high for an ISA bus too handle, and perhaps > even EISA. But I think the MCA design (from what I've heard) would be > able to handle that kind of throughtput. > > Anyone who has actually done any work with EISA or MCA have any comments? I should have said, "ISA" bus, not IBM. The Microchannel and EISA buses *can* handle the data rates necessary. However, you need an operating system capable of driving them at their rated speeds. These buses improve performance under MS-DOS dramatically, but you still don't see anything close to what they could do under an operating system like Unix that can make use of good SCSI and ESDI controllers. MS-DOS just can't handle keeping multiple devices active at the same time and continuing processing while these devices are active. The other problem is that just because a hard disk controller card plugs into an EISA or MCA bus doesn't mean it takes full advantage of it. The cost of a SCSI card that can use burst mode under an EISA bus is several times that of an ISA SCSI card. Ergo, many manufacturers sell the cheap card. The NEC 33E (an EISA system) sells the high performance SCSI card at substantial extra cost. It normally ships with a card that is better than ISA cards, but still not stellar in terms of performance. It achieves around 300k per second. (This number is for sustained transfer rate of a large file) I typically see maximum data rates from the hard disk on an ISA bus around 200k/sec with a decent hard disk and processor. It can easily drop to 50k per second with a badly fragmented file system or slow hard disk. The one MCA bus I got to play with ran at 400k/sec under MSDOS. This still falls far short of the 10 to 15 Meg per second many controllers advertise (Yes, I know, that number is sustained throughput, etc, etc) Jim -- "If I wanted a .sig, I would have written one"
korcuska@plato.ils.nwu.edu (Michael Korcuska) (02/05/91)
In article <4687@mcrware.UUCP> eric@mcrware.UUCP (Eric Miller) writes: > >This is one of the fundamental strengths of a system like CD-I. You have almost >a dozen of the largest consumer electronics OEMs in the world making players >based on ISO and other international standards. And the FMV technology is >based on MPEG, which is being standardized by everybody from Philips to NTT >to BellCor. > As I understand it, CD-I does not have full-motion video compression available and it is unclear when they will have it. Do you know something about the timetable for this capability? It looks to me that for those of us who care about FMV should not be jumping on the CD-I bandwagon especially with its reliance upon CDs for storage. 650 megs just doesn't provide the space for a huge amount of video and the 150KB/sec data transfer rate for CDs doesn't leave much room for improving video quality. It seems that by the time CD-I has full motion video we might see DVI supporting MPEG. Or am I totally wrong?? -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Korcuska The Institute for the Learning Sciences korcuska@ils.nwu.edu Northwestern University -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
eric@mcrware.UUCP (Eric Miller) (02/05/91)
In article <809@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu> korcuska@plato (Michael Korcuska) writes: > >It seems that by >the time CD-I has full motion video we might see DVI supporting MPEG. DVI and CD-I may well end up both supporting MPEG (I hope so!). As I have said before, DVI and CD-I will probably co-exist peacefully for many years. The main difference is how you as a publisher perceive your audience. If you are publishing "consumer" titles you should publish in a format that will be supported by 10's of millions of consumer machines. If you are publishing "computer user" titles, then you should publish on a medium that is accessible to a MAC or an IBM/PC. With any luck, the standards for Full Motion Video will be universal enough so that publishers of "cross-over" titles don't have to worry about re-mastering all of their data. (Encyclopedias, reference books, some games...) >650 megs just doesn't provide the >space for a huge amount of video and the 150KB/sec data transfer rate for >CDs doesn't leave much room for improving video quality. You can fit 72 minutes of high-quality FMV on a CD-I or DV-I disc. That seems comparable to one side of a laser disc. What with multi-disc players becoming more popular, I can't see this as a realistic limitation. We are limited currently to 170 KB/sec of video data, but I will never underestimate the power of science to pack incredible amounts of data into CDs and to decode it in real time. Eric Miller Manager, New Media Systems Microware Systems Corp
rkl@cbnewsh.att.com (kevin.laux) (02/06/91)
In article <4926@mcrware.UUCP>, eric@mcrware.UUCP (Eric Miller) writes: > In article <809@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu> korcuska@plato (Michael Korcuska) writes: > >It seems that by > >the time CD-I has full motion video we might see DVI supporting MPEG. > > DVI and CD-I may well end up both supporting MPEG (I hope so!). As I have said > before, DVI and CD-I will probably co-exist peacefully for many years. The > main difference is how you as a publisher perceive your audience. If you are > publishing "consumer" titles you should publish in a format that will be > supported by 10's of millions of consumer machines. > > If you are publishing "computer user" titles, then you should publish on a > medium that is accessible to a MAC or an IBM/PC. With any luck, the standards > for Full Motion Video will be universal enough so that publishers of > "cross-over" titles don't have to worry about re-mastering all of their data. > (Encyclopedias, reference books, some games...) I think CD-I will just fade away. They have taken too long and not delivered enough. The i750 chipset runs microcode that is dynamically loaded and therefore will be able to run all sorts of compression/decompression algorithms. I can't see Intel not supporting JPEG or MPEG. If they don't write the microcode, I'm sure someone else will. As for computer/consumer titles, a standalone system with the i750 chipset could automatically detect the algorithm needed and load it. I'm not too worried about different publisher's formats. > >650 megs just doesn't provide the > >space for a huge amount of video and the 150KB/sec data transfer rate for > >CDs doesn't leave much room for improving video quality. > > You can fit 72 minutes of high-quality FMV on a CD-I or DV-I disc. That seems > comparable to one side of a laser disc. What with multi-disc players becoming > more popular, I can't see this as a realistic limitation. We are limited > currently to 170 KB/sec of video data, but I will never underestimate the > power of science to pack incredible amounts of data into CDs and to decode it > in real time. While the capacity/data transfer rate of the media is a factor, the decompression time is more critical for video quality. Consider that a frame of FMV must average 5KB in order to be played back at 30 fps. How compressed is that 5KB? The latest i750 chipset provides twice the decode time than the previous generation, allowing for more sophisticated algorithms to be run to decompress the video. This will certainly improve video quality (but doesn't mean that the quality will also be twice as good). 72 minutes of FMV will fit on a CD, but CD-I can only play back into a small window (I think I was told 100 x 64 at COMDEX last November). DVI provides for full screen playback (256 x 240). Lastly, I read in the Feb 91 Byte magazine's Microbytes column, that Iterated Systems has developed a hardware/software combination to deliver FMV on a standard AT computer with a VGA screen. Their system is based on Fractal Transforms. They claim 1.5 minutes of FMV will fit on a 1.44MB floppy, 40 minutes on a 40MB hard drive, and *10* hours on a CD. You need the hardware to compress it, but only the software to decompress it. -- ________________________________________________________________________________ R. Kevin Laux Email: rkl1@hound.att.com AT&T Bell Labs Voice: (908) 949-1160 Holmdel, NJ 07733 Fax: (908) 949-0959