backtop

Print 26 comment(s) - last by timmiser.. on Jun 2 at 12:37 AM
Silicon Image and CeRoma work on creating high-def system-on-a-chip

Silicon Image has announced that CeRoma, a leading designer and manufacturer of system-on-a-chip (SoC) solutions for digital video broadcasting, will integrate Silicon Image’s Multistandard High-Definition Video Decoder (MSVD-HD) IP core in a chip for set-top boxes and DTVs.

Silicon Image claims that its MSVD-HD is the only IP core currently available on the market that is able to decode a 1080p at 60 frames per second video stream at low clock speeds.

“The MSVD-HD IP core is capable of decoding two different HD video streams concurrently, so now, only one IP core is required in the set-top-box, video player or digital TV SoC,” said Ron Richter, director of HDMI IP Products at Silicon Image. “Silicon Image can now provide semiconductor companies with immediate access to the latest video standards using our MSVD-HD IP core technology, enabling quick time-to-market, low-cost and low-power implementations.”

The MSVD-HD IP core provides an integrated solution for the three most current high-definition video decoding standards – H.264, MPEG-2 and VC-1 – all in a single design.  The MSVD-HD IP core also boasts very low power consumption, an industry-low gate count of just 970 kgates, and a low clock frequency of 150 MHz when decoding two 1080i60 parallel video streams.

“We chose Silicon Image’s MSVD-HD core for a number of reasons – its Full HD video and content capabilities, the smallest gate-count, and extremely low frequencies,” said Uri Avimor, vice president of research and development with CeRoma. “More importantly, integrating this IP core into our library will allow CeRoma to develop the most advanced set-top box and DTV products, while providing a very quick time-to-market delivery at attractive low costs.”

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
True Resolution?
By Mitch101 on 5/31/2007 12:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone know the true resolution cable and sattelite HD feeds are sending? As I recall neither are sending full HD resolutions but instead are sending pseudo HD and upscaling the resolution to 1080i. They do this to conserve bandwith.

FRom my undestanding the only way to get true 1080P content is to buy an HD-DVD or Blue-Ray disc.




RE: True Resolution?
By RamarC on 5/31/2007 12:30:45 PM , Rating: 3
most cable systems send the feed as acquired from the satellite/tower. some recompress at the same res (720p/1080i) but at a higher compression ratio. the cable system is barred from scaling the feed up or down... 480p can't be passed off as HD and 1080i can't be downscaled to 480i on the wire. any rescaling has to be down by the box or tv.

1080p is only available through hd/bd disc, ps3/xbox360 content, or media center content (divx, wmv, etc.).


RE: True Resolution?
By konfoo on 5/31/2007 1:56:54 PM , Rating: 1
Taking a few 'premium' HD channels - D* is doing 1280x1088i (although I sometimes see progressive feeds). Cable and E* 1920x1080. Compression from best (higher bitrates, better PQ) to worst (lower bitrates, more artifacts) - Cable -> E* -> D*. E* cheats by compressing the red and blue components on their SD feeds though, I have no idea if they do a similar thing on their HD feeds. It would not surprise me since 10Mbits is marginal if not too low for high-motion 1080i. D* transmit everything at 29.97fps, often even progressive sources, and usually they mess these up. The pulldown is horrid at times.

I love the posters who reply without a clue.


RE: True Resolution?
By Bytre on 5/31/2007 3:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
E* (dish network) carries _some_ HD channels at 1920x1080i, but a number of their channels are "DishHD" at 1440x1080i. Dish channels are mpeg2 or mpeg4. Depending on the channel, the program being broadcast, which satellite you're getting it from, and what else may be playing (ie: sports packages, PPV events), they bandwidth may be as high as 16mbps or starved much lower, 10.5mbps (for the mpeg2 channels - I'm unaware of what the bandwidth is on the mpeg4 ones as I don't have an mpeg4 receiver).

The bandwidth, and quality of the encoder, is generally the more important aspect of picture quality, not the raw resolution, although it is more important on fixed pixel 1080p displays than another display which will be scaling or an analog projector.


RE: True Resolution?
By Justin Case on 5/31/2007 3:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
> E* cheats by compressing the red and
> blue components on their SD feeds though
> [...]
> I love the posters who reply without a clue.

Er... component video is YUV (actually, YCbCr), not RGB, so it would be kind of hard to do anything to "the red and blue components".

Luminance (Y) is transmitted in full resolution. Cb and Cr (used to derive the color) are usually transmitted at 1/2 or 1/4 resolution (in fact, most professional formats work in 4:2:2, so it's halved right during the original recording).

When converted to RGB (by your TV set), chroma is filtered (interpolated), but the actual detail in each channel (R, G and B) is exactly the same. The difference is between luma (brightness) resolution and chroma (color) resolution, not between different color components.

Looks like you could use a few clues yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YCbCr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2#Video_coding_....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC


RE: True Resolution?
By dbwells on 5/31/2007 4:25:49 PM , Rating: 1
I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure the little 'b' and little 'r' in YCbCr stand for 'blue' and 'red' (though, granted, they are not the same as the blue and red in RGB) Maybe you should read your own links? ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YCbCr

DW


RE: True Resolution?
By krotchy on 5/31/2007 6:56:15 PM , Rating: 2
He is 100% correct, that link you provided agrees with him. The reason subsampling the colors is standard in video transmission is it doesnt matter. Your eyes see detail in luminance and smear in the colors to sort of fill in the blanks.

The two chroma channels are actually [Blue - Luma] and [Red - Luma] where [Luma = 0.21*Red + 0.71*Green + 0.072*Blue].

This allows them to send essentially the black and white picture at full detail. Then you can send the colors subsampled without losing the main detail. Also old analog black and white TV's could tune the same channels as color TV's since the Luma channel is identical in both black and white and color TV specs.


RE: True Resolution?
By Justin Case on 6/1/2007 2:33:12 PM , Rating: 2
There is a reason why it's called "CbCr" and not "BR". You'll also notice that there's no "G".

Since luminance (Y) is transmitted separately, you only need two color channels. Subtract the luminance "contribution" of those colors from the luminance channel and you get the third color channel. That's what the Cb and Cr channels are; the red and blue "complement".

If they were sampled at 1/2 or 1/4 resolution (4:2:2, 4:2:0 being the most typical patterns for MPEG formats), that is the maximum detail you'll be able to "guess" about the third color channel. The rest is interpolation (but that applies to all three, so there is no difference). Every pixel (regardless of color) gets full luma resolution, but reduced chroma resolution.

I provided the links merely as a "long" explanation of a subject that wasn't really on-topic for this discussion; I did not learn about chroma subsampling or video colorspaces from Wikipedia, I learned it from working 10 years as a post-production "factotum" and graphics software programmer. ;)


RE: True Resolution?
By timmiser on 5/31/2007 7:04:58 PM , Rating: 2
"Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information."

-Michael Scott


RE: True Resolution?
By Justin Case on 6/1/2007 10:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
You can at least be sure that the information is reviewed on a daily basis by people familiar with the subject.

The issue isn't that people shouldn't question Wikipedia (they should). The problem is when people assume that, because site X or person Y or book Z says someting, that should not be questioned.

The information referenced in Wikipedia is certainly more reliable, more accurate and more complete than 99% of websites out there.


RE: True Resolution?
By timmiser on 6/2/2007 12:37:14 AM , Rating: 2
That's what she said.


RE: True Resolution?
By dnd728 on 5/31/2007 3:38:50 PM , Rating: 2
I figured IP stands for Internet Protocol, as in IPTV.


RE: True Resolution?
By dnd728 on 5/31/2007 3:44:45 PM , Rating: 2
Must be intellectual property...


Really useful (NOT)
By Justin Case on 5/31/2007 1:02:36 PM , Rating: 3
Considering that even Sony's high-end format (HDCAM SR) still doesn't record 60 full frames at 1080, this is about as useful as a SATA-6Gb/s standard.

Here:

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/Disp...

Capable of recording:
- (all formats) 23.98 / 24 / 25 / 29.97 / 30 PsF
- (1080) 50 / 59.94 / 60 i
- (720) 59.94 P

In other words, you can have 60p at 1280x720, and you can have 1920x1080 at 30p/60i, but you cannot have 1920x1080 at 60p.

(BTW, in case you're wondering, "PsF" essentially means "progressive capture with segmented recording", and is used to ensure compatibility with interlaced equipment).

Sure, you can get even 1000 fps with some special HD cameras, but those can only record about 20 seconds of footage at a time, so I don't see any TV networks using them for production...

So if any network does start transmitting in 1080p @ 60 fps, it's safe to say it's just interpolating from 1080p @ 30 or 1080i @ 60. In other words, they'd be doing something that could easily be done locally by the (HD)TV set.




RE: Really useful (NOT)
By bunnyfubbles on 5/31/2007 4:50:56 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the major problem was bandwidth limitations in broadcasting a 1080/60p signal...


RE: Really useful (NOT)
By heffeque on 5/31/2007 5:44:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, specially in the US were MPEG-2 is used as the typical compression method on digital TV instead of h.264.


RE: Really useful (NOT)
By Ajax9000 on 5/31/2007 8:59:47 PM , Rating: 2
In brief

ATSC set up American digital HDTV at the same time MPEG2 was being drafted -- there really wasn't much option other than to pick it (and be aware that ATSC seriouly looked at analogue HDTV, digital was not a foregone conclusion).

MPEG2 however could not compress a 2 Mpx image stream into a 6MHz terrestrial broadcast channel (well, not without turning it into cubist blobs). A 1 Mpx image stream (i.e. 720p) compresses quite reasonably with MPEG2 into 6MHz. An interlaced 2 Mpx image stream (i.e. 1080i) isn't quite as easy to compress which is why most 1080i terrestrial broadcast signals are actually 1440x1080i not 1920x1080i (plus there is some MUSE-related camera hardware history too).

Other than the fact that it has taken a bloody long time to get HDTV to its current half-baked state and the broadcast industry probably has little stomach to even contemplate "HDTV v.2"; if we were to have HDTV2 it probably would be based on 1080p using H.264 (or similar).

I'd like to see HDTV2, but I certainly aint holding my breath ...

Adrian


RE: Really useful (NOT)
By Ajax9000 on 5/31/2007 9:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
EDIT:

Actually, having HDTV2 based on 4K@72Hz would be even cooler ... :-)

Adrian


RE: Really useful (NOT)
By Justin Case on 6/1/2007 2:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, there are two problems before the broadcasting stage.

The first is that, at 4:4:4 sampling (RGB high-quality mode), you'd need three HD-SDI interfaces just to transmit the uncompressed video from the camera to the deck (where it will be compressed to HDCAM SR or whatever). But that's not a big problem because most stuff is recorded in 4:2:2, and that means you'd "only" need dual-link (which is already standard on most high-end cameras and decks). Also, the next HD-SDI standard will double the bandwidth, so 60p at 4:4:4 would be doable with dual-link.

But the main problem is the recording formats. 1080 @ 60p simply isn't supported by any "standard" recording format (D5 HD, HDCAM SR, DVCPRO HD, etc.). It would be perfectly possible to add support for it, all they have to do is increase the compression (or speed up the tape, but that's more complicated), but I guess the chips that deal with the data after decompression just wouldn't be able to handle twice the frame rate, so it hasn't happened yet. Hopefully HDCAM will be updated after the new 3 Gb/s HD-SDI becomes the norm.

For broadcast the data rates are much lower and compression artifacts are less important. Given the way motion-compensation scales with frame rate, 60p compressed at the same bitrate as 30p would probably carry slightly more visual information (although each individual frame would look slighty worse).

But until there is an established HD video production format that supports it, TV networks simply have no easy way of producing in 1080 @ 60p.


does not compute
By Anosh on 5/31/2007 1:34:26 PM , Rating: 2
the two following sentences in the article do not make sense:
quote:
Silicon Image claims that its MSVD-HD is the only IP core currently available on the market that is able to decode a 1080p at 60 frames per second video stream at low clock speeds.


quote:
industry-low gate count of just 970 kgates, and a low clock frequency of 150 MHz when decoding two 1080i60 parallel video streams.




RE: does not compute
By hellokeith on 5/31/2007 3:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
It does appear to be a contradiction, unless there is a clarification that the chip can do 1 stream of 1080p60 or 2 concurrent streams of 1080i60.


RE: does not compute
By Martimus on 5/31/2007 3:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
That makes perfect sense. If it can do one 1080p60 signal, it should be able to do two 1080i60 signals with the same bandwidth. Although I am sure that some of that bandwidth is used up by the protocol, so it may not be a direct 2:1 ratio.


RE: does not compute
By heffeque on 5/31/2007 5:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
Basically it means that it can't process two 1080p streams at the same time, wich isn't such a bad thing taking into consideration that 1080p (and 1080i) is overkill for 90% of the TV sets. At 10 feet from the TV you need a 50 inch screen to start to tell the difference from 720p to 1080i/p. Most people don't have 50 inch or bigger screens.

http://img399.imageshack.us/my.php?image=resolutio...


1080p nonsense
By paulpod on 5/31/2007 5:15:17 PM , Rating: 3
Again, a company is using 1080p@60 nonsense for pure marketing hype.

Movies are filmed at 24fps! What good does 60fps do?!?!? The real breakthrough would be displays running at 48, 72, or 96 fps. (In addition to 60fps for video source. 120 fps would work well for both.)

The best use for end-to-end 1080p@60 would be live sports, but that is never discussed.

All modern HDTVs, STBs, player, etc. can losslessly convert film that comes in on 1080i@30 to 1080p@24 using simple field compares.

No matter how film material is delivered, to stupidly display it at 60fps with 3:2 frame repeat judder is nothing to brag about.

When a film like "The Incredibles" is rendered in both 24 and 60 fps version, then we have a use for 1080p. The key thing is to display 60 DIFFERENT frames per second.




D'oh!
By therealnickdanger on 5/31/2007 10:32:57 AM , Rating: 2
When I first read it, my eyes saw "Silicon Optix" and got excited. I thought all set top boxes would come with HQV chips... LOL! Oh well...




1080p/60
By Shoal07 on 6/1/2007 7:57:37 AM , Rating: 1
Go here: http://www.atsc.org/ Read the standards. There is NO 1080P/60fps standard. It was deemed, at the time the standards were decided, to be too big (Mb/s wise), technologically infeasible (not impossible, infeasible), and the picture quality was not as good due to the high data rate and all the processing required. Therefore, the ONLY 60fps standards are 480p and 720p. 1080i does 60 FIELDs a second, but it is considered 30fps by the standard authority. Yes, we know 1080p/60 is possible, but you’ll only get 1080p/60 from non-standard sources, which I can’t think of any besides something you may do with your PC. Besides, all the 1080p TVs are only 1080p/30. Why would anyone invest in a non-standard format that uses more bandwidth, has no noticeable quality increase, and even a potential quality decrease?

The 4 most common “HD” standards used:

480p (up to 60fps)
1080i (30fps, 60 fields/s)
720p (up to 60fps)
1080p (up to 30fps)

And a previous poster was right. At the proper viewing distance, there is no difference between 720p and 1080p to anyone (your eyes cannot make out the detail; it’s beyond their physical capability). Only at insane close distances where you move your head to follow the game is it even possible to see a difference. Same with 1080i, but you may have some tearing/blurring effect due to the “i”.




"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki