Voom switching to Windows Media 9.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Charles Tomaras wrote:
> Just noticed this press release from last month. It appears Voom will
> be switching over to WM9 series codecs in the coming months. First
> with their SD content and then the HD content. This should bode well
> for additional channel capacity as the WM9 series codecs are
> extremely efficient. I noticed conversation about this on a Windows
> Media mailing list where some of the technical folks said they had
> heard this will all be accomplished via firmware/software upgrades
> directly from the satellite without the need for modification of the
> STB's.
>
> Press release:
>
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass [...] AB04PR.asp
>
> Charles Tomaras
> Seattle, WA

This will be a great proof-of-concept for WM9. I look forward to hearing
about the results from Voom users.

--
David G.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"21C BBS" <dontlook@here.net> wrote in message
newsHpsc.11261$yc4.147@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> Within these hallowed halls, Charles Tomaras of <tomaras@tomaras.com>
> added the following to the collective conscience:
>> Just noticed this press release from last month. It appears Voom will
>> be switching over to WM9 series codecs in the coming months. First
>> with their SD content and then the HD content. This should bode well
>> for additional channel capacity as the WM9 series codecs are
>> extremely efficient. I noticed conversation about this on a Windows
>> Media mailing list where some of the technical folks said they had
>> heard this will all be accomplished via firmware/software upgrades
>> directly from the satellite without the need for modification of the
>> STB's.
>>
>> Press release:
>>
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass [...] OverallNAB
> 04PR.asp
>>
>> Charles Tomaras
>> Seattle, WA
>
> Interesting, what happens to all of those who bought their Voom receivers?

Re-read my post:

"this will all be accomplished via firmware/software upgrades
directly from the satellite without the need for modification of the
STB's."

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"kryppy" <kryppy@.> wrote in message
news6t4b0lklgfkj9s0qojcf6mo0qol3ldt0s@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 May 2004 00:10:42 -0700, "Charles Tomaras"
> <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote:
>
>>Just noticed this press release from last month. It appears Voom will be
>>switching over to WM9 series codecs in the coming months. First with their
>>SD content and then the HD content. This should bode well for additional
>>channel capacity as the WM9 series codecs are extremely efficient. I
>>noticed
>>conversation about this on a Windows Media mailing list where some of the
>>technical folks said they had heard this will all be accomplished via
>>firmware/software upgrades directly from the satellite without the need
>>for
>>modification of the STB's.
>>
>>Press release:
>>http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/apr04/04-19BroadcastOverallNAB04PR.asp
>>
>
>
> Good lord, if the voom firmware didn't have enough problems already.
> Now it's going to incorporate M$ stuff. Yikes.

Is there some problem with Windows Media 9 series technology that none of us
are aware of? Those codecs are very robust. If you have something
intelligent to say about them based on fact then please post your comments.
If you are just in the closed minded and biased habit of spelling Microsoft
with a $ because you think it makes you look cute, I will offer my opinion
that it only makes you look like someone who is lacking information. You
might find this current article about the public misperception of Microsoft
of interest:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/33924.html

If you would like to learn more about Windows Media 9 there is solid
information about it at this link:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/w [...] rview.aspx

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <p4CdnR48T6MIDC_dRVn-tw@comcast.com>,
"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> writes:
>
> "kryppy" <kryppy@.> wrote in message
> news6t4b0lklgfkj9s0qojcf6mo0qol3ldt0s@4ax.com...
>>
>> Good lord, if the voom firmware didn't have enough problems already.
>> Now it's going to incorporate M$ stuff. Yikes.
>
> Is there some problem with Windows Media 9 series technology that none of us
> are aware of? Those codecs are very robust.
>
Microsoft had hired (several years ago) some of the very brilliant
people in transform coding. AFAIR, even a guy named 'Malvar' works
there, and he has done some really good stuff WRT lapped transforms.

(Lapped transforms don't solve all problems, but can help to mitigate
the 'stairstep' artifacts with a smooth tradeoff towards the 'gibbs'
type artifacts instead. There are some sweet spots that practically
migitate both... The gibbs effects are mostly associated with the
Fourier type transform (infinite window), while the stair step
effects are more related to the DCT... The lapped transforms allow
for some tuning, and can support better compression.)

JOhn

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vUwsc.7294$j24.2949@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:c8u4ip$rgm$1@news.iquest.net...
> > In article <p4CdnR48T6MIDC_dRVn-tw@comcast.com>,
> > "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> writes:
> >>
> >> "kryppy" <kryppy@.> wrote in message
> >> news6t4b0lklgfkj9s0qojcf6mo0qol3ldt0s@4ax.com...
> >>>
> >>> Good lord, if the voom firmware didn't have enough problems already.
> >>> Now it's going to incorporate M$ stuff. Yikes.
> >>
> >> Is there some problem with Windows Media 9 series technology that none
of
> >> us
> >> are aware of? Those codecs are very robust.
> >>
> > Microsoft had hired (several years ago) some of the very brilliant
> > people in transform coding. AFAIR, even a guy named 'Malvar' works
> > there, and he has done some really good stuff WRT lapped transforms.
> >
> > (Lapped transforms don't solve all problems, but can help to mitigate
> > the 'stairstep' artifacts with a smooth tradeoff towards the 'gibbs'
> > type artifacts instead. There are some sweet spots that practically
> > migitate both... The gibbs effects are mostly associated with the
> > Fourier type transform (infinite window), while the stair step
> > effects are more related to the DCT... The lapped transforms allow
> > for some tuning, and can support better compression.)
> >
> > JOhn
>
> I believe WM9 is MPEG4. But with industry standard modifications so that
> there will be inoperability and the functionality to meet the needs of
HDTV.
> An important industry group has approved WM9 for industry use and
Microsoft
> has actually shown some flexibility in working with members of the video
> community. Time will tell if it provides the compression and video quality
> the industry demands. (More channels and better quality).
>
> Richard.
>

WM9 and MPEG4 are different. They are competing formats for the "next gen"
video compression technology to replace the current mpeg-2 being used in
DVDs. They both rely on similar principles to compress video, but one
belongs to Microsoft and the other to a consortium of other companies.

I hope that other companies (cable, satellite, etc.) start using a better
video codec as well. I definitely think the current compression being used
to transmit digital television is not very good. Either they need to
allocate more bandwidth per channel or get a better compression technology.
One problem with upgrading the codec is that these new compression
technologies (WMV9 and MPEG4) require a substantial amount more computation
than the previous MPEG2 decoding. I imagine many current cable/satellite
receivers don't have enough horse power to simply undergo a firmware
upgrade.

Brad

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"kryppy" <kryppy@.> wrote in message
news:2ki5b01ims4fc937h1hflcd9h2v624a7ci@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 May 2004 17:21:47 -0700, "Charles Tomaras"
> <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Is there some problem with Windows Media 9 series technology that none of
>>us
>>are aware of? Those codecs are very robust. If you have something
>>intelligent to say about them based on fact then please post your
>>comments.
>>If you are just in the closed minded and biased habit of spelling
>>Microsoft
>>with a $ because you think it makes you look cute, I will offer my
>>opinion
>>that it only makes you look like someone who is lacking information. You
>>might find this current article about the public misperception of
>>Microsoft
>>of interest:
>>http://www.technewsworld.com/story/33924.html
>>
>>If you would like to learn more about Windows Media 9 there is solid
>>information about it at this link:
>>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/technologies/overview.aspx
>
>
> Given Microsofts history of releasing bug ridden bloatware, can you
> blame me? I have no bias against MS.


Let's keep our conversation in the near present, say for the last few years.
What bug ridden bloatware are you referring to. Windows XP? Office 2000,
Office XP, Office 2003? Windows Media Player 9? Internet Explorer 6? XBox?
Which applications are so bad that you would refer to them as bloatware? If
you don't like the extensive feature set of Office you are free to use the
lean and affordable Works Suite. So please lay out some facts and not just
some generalized terms like bug ridden bloatware.

And even if they do have a riddled past...at what point are you going to let
it go and start judging them for thier current products. They've got 8
Billion dollars devoted to R&D this year...surely they must be making
something good don't ya think?


>I will use whatever software and
> OS I find appropriate for my task at hand.
>
> I have my doubts that the current Voom box will have the horsepower to
> run these most awesome and wonderful codecs at any rate.
> What is the current minimum computer required for successful HDTV
> playback with WM9 anyway?

I believe the spec is 2.3 gigahertz but I'm not quite sure how that relates
exactly to a stand alone device like an STB which does not need to run
Windows XP in addition to it's decoding routines. I'll try to find out more
information about hardware requirements and post as appropriate.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Sixtysixzero" <jean.dumont@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:xCIsc.42975$Fk4.1902592@wagner.videotron.net...
> 3.4GHz Pentium IV or 3000+ Athlon
> 128mb video card
> 512mb ram recommended


Here are the actual requirements for WM HD running on a "home computer" and
not on a stand alone box:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/w [...] ingPC.aspx

I've gotten it to run successfully on an Athlon XP 2700 which runs a bit
slower than the stated requirements.





>
>
> "kryppy" <kryppy@.> wrote in message
> news:2ki5b01ims4fc937h1hflcd9h2v624a7ci@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 24 May 2004 17:21:47 -0700, "Charles Tomaras"
>> <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Is there some problem with Windows Media 9 series technology that none
>> >of
> us
>> >are aware of? Those codecs are very robust. If you have something
>> >intelligent to say about them based on fact then please post your
> comments.
>> >If you are just in the closed minded and biased habit of spelling
> Microsoft
>> >with a $ because you think it makes you look cute, I will offer my
> opinion
>> >that it only makes you look like someone who is lacking information. You
>> >might find this current article about the public misperception of
> Microsoft
>> >of interest:
>> >http://www.technewsworld.com/story/33924.html
>> >
>> >If you would like to learn more about Windows Media 9 there is solid
>> >information about it at this link:
>> >http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/technologies/overview.aspx
>>
>>
>> Given Microsofts history of releasing bug ridden bloatware, can you
>> blame me? I have no bias against MS. I will use whatever software and
>> OS I find appropriate for my task at hand.
>>
>> I have my doubts that the current Voom box will have the horsepower to
>> run these most awesome and wonderful codecs at any rate.
>> What is the current minimum computer required for successful HDTV
>> playback with WM9 anyway?
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Charles Tomaras wrote:
> "Sixtysixzero" <jean.dumont@videotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:xCIsc.42975$Fk4.1902592@wagner.videotron.net...
>> 3.4GHz Pentium IV or 3000+ Athlon
>> 128mb video card
>> 512mb ram recommended
>
>
> Just received the following information from a reputable source
> involved in design and manufacture of set top boxes and windows media
> devices on the minimum requirements for HD with Windows Media 9.
>
> "733MHz processor +
> Win CE or XP Embeded
>
> Manufacturers are just now looking into on chip WMV encoding and
> decoding which is expected to lower the system requirements for the
> set top boxes even more."

Those requirements you state must be for embedded devices with hardware
decoding support. The minimum hardware for the available WinMedia9 HD
encoded DVDs is a P4 3.0GHz+, 512MB RAM, and a 128MB video card.

--
David G.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Within these hallowed halls, Charles Tomaras of <tomaras@tomaras.com>
added the following to the collective conscience:
> "21C BBS" <dontlook@here.net> wrote in message
> newsHpsc.11261$yc4.147@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
>> Within these hallowed halls, Charles Tomaras of <tomaras@tomaras.com>
>> added the following to the collective conscience:
>>> Just noticed this press release from last month. It appears Voom
>>> will be switching over to WM9 series codecs in the coming months.
>>> First with their SD content and then the HD content. This should
>>> bode well for additional channel capacity as the WM9 series codecs
>>> are extremely efficient. I noticed conversation about this on a
>>> Windows Media mailing list where some of the technical folks said
>>> they had heard this will all be accomplished via firmware/software
>>> upgrades directly from the satellite without the need for
>>> modification of the STB's.
>>>
>>> Press release:
>>>
>>
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass [...] OverallNAB
>> 04PR.asp
>>>
>>> Charles Tomaras
>>> Seattle, WA
>>
>> Interesting, what happens to all of those who bought their Voom
>> receivers?
>
> Re-read my post:
>
> "this will all be accomplished via firmware/software upgrades
> directly from the satellite without the need for modification of the
> STB's.".

You snipped the preamble

"I noticed conversation about this on a Windows Media mailing list where
some of the
technical folks said they had heard"

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>
> Just received the following information from a reputable source involved
in
> design and manufacture of set top boxes and windows media devices on the
> minimum requirements for HD with Windows Media 9.
>
> "733MHz processor +
> Win CE or XP Embeded
>
> Manufacturers are just now looking into on chip WMV encoding and decoding
> which is expected to lower the system requirements for the set top boxes
> even more."


http://www.electronicstalk.com/news/tex/tex560.html

Texas Instruments has a 1ghz DSP chip already certified. What other
processor the set top will require may be determined by other features you
wish to implement. There maybe some very interesting equipment if the
players finally give into the fact that WMV maybe there only out for
increasing bandwidth. The idea of a complete change out of equipment for DTV
or Dish doesn't seem on the to-do now list. Dragging feet seems like the
mantra for everyone with the changes required for HD except Voom.

Jolt

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Charles,

The big advantage of WM9 is that it requres less bandwidth than
MPEG-2. In terms of picture quality WM9 is not superior to MPEG-2.
Microsoft is being careful not to make that claim. From my own test
(using source material from a JVC GRHD1 camera) WM9 quality is very
good, but MPEG-2 still looks better. I guess that could be a
subjective debate, but the real issue I can see with this is that all
the source HD material is currently in MPEG-2 format, which means for
most of their broadcasting VOOM will likely be reencoding MPEG-2 data
to WM9 and in that will cause a noticable loss of quality. I believe
this is the primary reason why the WM9 movie samples available at
www.microsoft.com are the quality they are. Not everyone has the
resources to do a detailed comparison, but you can download the WM9
samples and then download HD encoded using MPEG-2 samples from
www.dvico.com and there's a very noticable difference (more so than
from my own test). I would think Microsoft would put more into
producing better quality samples, but that doesn't have much to do
with this.

The real benedit of VOOM adapting WM9 is the gain in bandwidth, which
should translate into more channels. The tradeoff will be loss of
picture quality of HD content for the marjority of their HD
programming.

-James








"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
> Is there some problem with Windows Media 9 series technology that none of us
> are aware of? Those codecs are very robust. If you have something
> intelligent to say about them based on fact then please post your comments.
> If you are just in the closed minded and biased habit of spelling Microsoft
> with a $ because you think it makes you look cute, I will offer my opinion
> that it only makes you look like someone who is lacking information. You
> might find this current article about the public misperception of Microsoft
> of interest:
> http://www.technewsworld.com/story/33924.html
>
> If you would like to learn more about Windows Media 9 there is solid
> information about it at this link:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/w [...] rview.aspx
>
> Charles Tomaras
> Seattle, WA

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

JamesMason wrote:
> Charles,
>
> The big advantage of WM9 is that it requres less bandwidth than
> MPEG-2. In terms of picture quality WM9 is not superior to MPEG-2.
> Microsoft is being careful not to make that claim. From my own test
> (using source material from a JVC GRHD1 camera) WM9 quality is very
> good, but MPEG-2 still looks better. I guess that could be a
> subjective debate, but the real issue I can see with this is that all
> the source HD material is currently in MPEG-2 format, which means for
> most of their broadcasting VOOM will likely be reencoding MPEG-2 data
> to WM9 and in that will cause a noticable loss of quality. I believe
> this is the primary reason why the WM9 movie samples available at
> www.microsoft.com are the quality they are. Not everyone has the
> resources to do a detailed comparison, but you can download the WM9
> samples and then download HD encoded using MPEG-2 samples from
> www.dvico.com and there's a very noticable difference (more so than
> from my own test). I would think Microsoft would put more into
> producing better quality samples, but that doesn't have much to do
> with this.
>
> The real benedit of VOOM adapting WM9 is the gain in bandwidth, which
> should translate into more channels. The tradeoff will be loss of
> picture quality of HD content for the marjority of their HD
> programming.
>

I think you make some good points, but I wonder if the transcoding
they'll be using will really degrade picture quality by much.
Professional multi-pass encoders tend to do good work.

Also, as far I can tell from most of what I've read, there are no
stations transmitting 1080i with a full 1920 resolvable lines of
resolution. My understanding is that it's more like 1440 in the real
world tests. If that's the case, I wonder if the comparisons you
mentioned are valid. Maybe you were looking at a higher "real"
resolution MPEG2 stream than what was provided with WM9 sample.

I like that WM9 was adopted as a real HD DVD standard because you can
fit an entire movie on existing DVDs. No new disk producing technology
required. Even if the resolution is not as good as the other adopted HD
DVD standards, it should make for more reasonably priced disks.



--
David G.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <KMmdnfkQ7YSsTi_dRVn-iQ@comcast.com>,
"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote:

> And even if they do have a riddled past...at what point are you going to let
> it go and start judging them for thier current products. They've got 8
> Billion dollars devoted to R&D this year...surely they must be making
> something good don't ya think?

How much MS stock do you own? You sure are defensive about MS. Anyone
say the slightest thing about MS that can in any way be construed as
critical and you think the guy has some big chip against the company and
its products.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Last time we met, Charles Tomaras <tomaras@tomaras.com> had said:
>


> What bug ridden bloatware are you referring to. Windows XP? Office 2000,
> Office XP, Office 2003? Windows Media Player 9? Internet Explorer 6? XBox?
> Which applications are so bad that you would refer to them as bloatware? If
> you don't like the extensive feature set of Office you are free to use the
> lean and affordable Works Suite. So please lay out some facts and not just
> some generalized terms like bug ridden bloatware.


The first 3 iterations of IE and Windows were atrocious; the latest
are ok, not great (I'm typing this on a win2k box right now), compared
with their competitors, but it took them about a decade to get it
right. I also I noticed you left out the most similar product,
Windows CE, which was lousy when it was launched and is still very
slow and buggy (ask BWM how they like it...).


I don't doubt Microsoft will eventually produce a decent avs system
for the home, but that doesn't help Voom users who will most likely
have to put up with something that's slow and buggy for the next 5-10
years.


I notice that you live in Seattle and Microsft is at the top on your
corporate client list. Do you honestly expect us to believe this
doesn't cloud your opinion ? Given Microsoft employees have been
fired for taking pictures of G5s at their office[1], you would be
stupid to say anything negative about them in a public forum like
this.



[1] http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3341689/


dv

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The geographical center of Boston is in Roxbury. Due north of the
center we find the South End. This is not to be confused with South
Boston which lies directly east from the South End. North of the South
End is East Boston and southwest of East Boston is the North End.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

David G. (david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I think you make some good points, but I wonder if the transcoding
> they'll be using will really degrade picture quality by much.
> Professional multi-pass encoders tend to do good work.

Unfortunately, this sort of encoder can only be used on movies (or other
pre-recorded programming) where Voom has direct access to uncompressed
digital sources. Otherwise, it's the same type of single-pass encoder
(albeit much better than ones we consumers can buy) that every other
satellite, cable company (and now digital TV stations) uses.

--
Jeff Rife | "Oh, that would really dress up my resume:
SPAM bait: |
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | Reason for leaving last job: paper jam."
uce@ftc.gov | -- Nora Wilde, "The Naked Truth"

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b201e11c41be5d398b43a@news.nabs.net...
> Charles Tomaras (tomaras@tomaras.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> I believe the spec is 2.3 gigahertz but I'm not quite sure how that
>> relates
>> exactly to a stand alone device like an STB which does not need to run
>> Windows XP in addition to it's decoding routines.
>
> Of course, that 2.0GHz+ spec also requires a modern hardware video
> accelerator card...without it, you would probably need a 5-6GHz general
> purpose CPU. So, unless the Voom box has a really programmable video
> accelerator, I would think it might be dicey to decode HD on an STB that
> sells (at about cost) for $750.


Jeff..I'll repost what I posted in a followup to the above after
consultation with sources who are designing STB's. Here are the requirements
for WMHD in a set top box:

"733MHz processor +
Win CE or XP Embeded

Manufacturers are just now looking into on chip WMV encoding and decoding
which is expected to lower the system requirements for the set top boxes
even more."

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:z7Usc.10728$be.3747@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> David G. wrote:
>
> > JamesMason wrote:
> >
> >>Charles,
> >>
> >>The big advantage of WM9 is that it requres less bandwidth than
> >>MPEG-2. In terms of picture quality WM9 is not superior to MPEG-2.
> >>Microsoft is being careful not to make that claim. From my own test
> >>(using source material from a JVC GRHD1 camera) WM9 quality is very
> >>good, but MPEG-2 still looks better. I guess that could be a
> >>subjective debate, but the real issue I can see with this is that all
> >>the source HD material is currently in MPEG-2 format, which means for
> >>most of their broadcasting VOOM will likely be reencoding MPEG-2 data
> >>to WM9 and in that will cause a noticable loss of quality. I believe
> >>this is the primary reason why the WM9 movie samples available at
> >>www.microsoft.com are the quality they are. Not everyone has the
> >>resources to do a detailed comparison, but you can download the WM9
> >>samples and then download HD encoded using MPEG-2 samples from
> >>www.dvico.com and there's a very noticable difference (more so than
> >>from my own test). I would think Microsoft would put more into
> >>producing better quality samples, but that doesn't have much to do
> >>with this.
> >>
> >>The real benedit of VOOM adapting WM9 is the gain in bandwidth, which
> >>should translate into more channels. The tradeoff will be loss of
> >>picture quality of HD content for the marjority of their HD
> >>programming.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I think you make some good points, but I wonder if the transcoding
> > they'll be using will really degrade picture quality by much.
> > Professional multi-pass encoders tend to do good work.
> >
> > Also, as far I can tell from most of what I've read, there are no
> > stations transmitting 1080i with a full 1920 resolvable lines of
> > resolution. My understanding is that it's more like 1440 in the real
> > world tests. If that's the case, I wonder if the comparisons you
> > mentioned are valid. Maybe you were looking at a higher "real"
> > resolution MPEG2 stream than what was provided with WM9 sample.
> >
> > I like that WM9 was adopted as a real HD DVD standard because you can
> > fit an entire movie on existing DVDs. No new disk producing technology
> > required. Even if the resolution is not as good as the other adopted HD
> > DVD standards, it should make for more reasonably priced disks.
> >
>
> The best codec is VP6 and it was being adopted in China for DVD players.
> There was going to be a one off one time $2 price for the codec per
> player. That would insure the best compression and the lowest price. I
> have hope that the Chinese cannot be bought off on this one.
>
China has gone retail with its new "DVD" standard and consumers in China are
going nuts. The players won't play conventional DVD's! Many think it is a
major play to negotiate more favorable terms on the licensing of technology.
Unless they can license the video source material for their new format it
will fall on its face.

Richard.

Richard.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Charles Tomaras (tomaras@tomaras.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > Of course, that 2.0GHz+ spec also requires a modern hardware video
> > accelerator card...without it, you would probably need a 5-6GHz general
> > purpose CPU. So, unless the Voom box has a really programmable video
> > accelerator, I would think it might be dicey to decode HD on an STB that
> > sells (at about cost) for $750.
>
> Jeff..I'll repost what I posted in a followup to the above after
> consultation with sources who are designing STB's. Here are the requirements
> for WMHD in a set top box:
>
> "733MHz processor +
> Win CE or XP Embeded

I wonder just how many existing STBs have WinCE embedded installed? I
suspect the number is close to zero. So, that's a meaningless number for
a STB that *doesn't* have the right OS.

Second, Microsoft has been known for "fudging" requirement specs like this
to the point that you can't really do what they say with that level of
power. I highly doubt that 733MHz speed is accurate. Even if it is,
most STBs have processors running at less than 300MHz, so the point is
moot.

> Manufacturers are just now looking into on chip WMV encoding and decoding
> which is expected to lower the system requirements for the set top boxes
> even more."

I suspect that without this, there will be no HD Windows Media decoding
in STBs. This would improve on what even a standard AGP graphics
accelerator can do...like having hardware MPEG-2 decoding (which allows
you to view HD on as little as a 500MHz Pentium III). But the problem
with putting it in silicon is that you then lose the ability to change
with the times. WMV 9 on chip means WMV 10 is right out, even if it turns
out to be a lot better.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Sherm [...] riever.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b21407e884749db98b441@news.nabs.net...
>> Manufacturers are just now looking into on chip WMV encoding and decoding
>> which is expected to lower the system requirements for the set top boxes
>> even more."
>
> I suspect that without this, there will be no HD Windows Media decoding
> in STBs. This would improve on what even a standard AGP graphics
> accelerator can do...like having hardware MPEG-2 decoding (which allows
> you to view HD on as little as a 500MHz Pentium III). But the problem
> with putting it in silicon is that you then lose the ability to change
> with the times. WMV 9 on chip means WMV 10 is right out, even if it turns
> out to be a lot better.

WMV9 is a frozen codec at this point having been offered to standards
bodies.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in
news:TImdnaeY38M6KSvdRVn-vg@comcast.com...

> Jeff..I'll repost what I posted in a followup to the above after
> consultation with sources who are designing STB's. Here are the
> requirements for WMHD in a set top box:
>
> "733MHz processor +
> Win CE or XP Embeded
>
> Manufacturers are just now looking into on chip WMV encoding and
> decoding which is expected to lower the system requirements for the
> set top boxes even more."
>

As a current Voom customer, I'd love it if the STB can decode WMV9 with
just a firmware upgrade. This means the rollout will happen sooner
rather than later. But it seems very doubtful. The best I think we can
hope for is a user-swappable hardware module that plugs into the back of
the STB.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Charles Tomaras (tomaras@tomaras.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Please provide a link to ANYTHING supporting your claim that MS badmouthed
> Office XP.

First, just go read all the "reasons to upgrade" that Microsoft gives,
showing the things that Office XP doesn't do. Although the list is large,
it's pretty lame with no real new features. Then report any bug (or
read about them in the Knowledge Base) in Office XP and see that the
*only* fix is now to upgrade to Office 2003, despite the fact that Office
XP is still fully supported. That seems to me like Microsoft doesn't have
faith in Office XP anymore.

There were quite a few comments in the media about the tone of language
that was used at the Office 2003 release announcement. Unfortunately,
I just can't find the right combination of keywords that will hit them
at the top on Google...everything returns 5000 other results.

You really do need to take off your Microsoft-aimed rose-colored glasses
and look at what really goes on. Some of us have the ability to buy
and use Microsoft products without having to put on blinders.

--
Jeff Rife | "But as much as everybody loves you, there is
SPAM bait: | one question that keeps coming up...how dumb
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | WAS she?"
uce@ftc.gov | -- Tempus to Lois Lane

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Keith Jack (kjack2@video-demystified.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Low cost chips are available for STBs that can decode it.
>
> http://www.sigmadesigns.com/products/em8620Lseries.htm

On this page, I see a chip that can decode it.

I don't see anything to indicate that it is "low cost". The cheapest
devices I have found that contain the chip are $350 (DVD players) at
retail, while similar devices that *don't* have the chip are $50.

I also don't see a single announcement of any STB manufacturer using this
chip.

--
Jeff Rife | "Ho! Ha, ha! Guard! Turn! Parry!
SPAM bait: | Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!"
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov | -- Daffy Duck, "Robin Hood Daffy"

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b228eb5e5e13289989682@razor.nabs.net...
> Charles Tomaras (tomaras@tomaras.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> Please provide a link to ANYTHING supporting your claim that MS
>> badmouthed
>> Office XP.
>
> First, just go read all the "reasons to upgrade" that Microsoft gives,
> showing the things that Office XP doesn't do. Although the list is large,
> it's pretty lame with no real new features. Then report any bug (or
> read about them in the Knowledge Base) in Office XP and see that the
> *only* fix is now to upgrade to Office 2003, despite the fact that Office
> XP is still fully supported. That seems to me like Microsoft doesn't have
> faith in Office XP anymore.
>
> There were quite a few comments in the media about the tone of language
> that was used at the Office 2003 release announcement. Unfortunately,
> I just can't find the right combination of keywords that will hit them
> at the top on Google...everything returns 5000 other results.
>
> You really do need to take off your Microsoft-aimed rose-colored glasses
> and look at what really goes on. Some of us have the ability to buy
> and use Microsoft products without having to put on blinders.

As I suspected...nothing concrete from you but your heresay interpretations
which are seen through your own gloomy color of glasses. Furthermore do you
really believe there is anything positive either financially or politcally
to be gained for Microsoft by changing a codec they are successfully
presenting as a standard for STB, chip manufactures, HD DVD makers etc?


>
> --
> Jeff Rife | "But as much as everybody loves you, there is
> SPAM bait: | one question that keeps coming up...how dumb
> AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | WAS she?"
> uce@ftc.gov | -- Tempus to Lois Lane

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b2297c013234876989685@razor.nabs.net...
> Randy Sweeney (rsweeney1@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > So Jeff, you had to buy new hardware when you upgraded your home PC to
WM9
> > from WM8 and WM8 from WM7?
>
> To decode the new HD codecs, yes, I have to upgrade the machines that
don't
> already have really fast processors and high-end video cards.

That's probably not a function of Microsoft's software but of the inherent
power of your machine.
The software ran... it provided the same (or more) functionality as the
previous rev.

You implied that MS's business plan is to force an update the absolutely
newest hardware to use each software rev in the Windows Media Player.

That does not seem to be correct.

> > I have checked the MS WM9 website, its says all you need is a Win98SE on
a
> > 233 Pentium to upgrade to the latest version (which is free).
> >
> > Are they lying?
>
> Yes, as far as HD is concerned.
>
> Those specs are for the basic player, and not for performance of various
> codecs.

Even the best codec can't create machine speed.

Perhaps you know of another more efficient codec which could produce HD on
your old machine if the MS WM9 is so bad.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Charles Tomaras (tomaras@tomaras.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > Randy Sweeney (rsweeney1@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >> I have checked the MS WM9 website, its says all you need is a Win98SE on
> >> a
> >> 233 Pentium to upgrade to the latest version (which is free).
> >>
> >> Are they lying?
> >
> > Yes, as far as HD is concerned.
>
> No Jeff they are not lying whatsoever.

I didn't personally read the site. I took the poster at his word that
all it said was "Pentium 233 and Win98SE". That's obviously not what
is necessary for HD, though, and the post I responded to was misleading
in that respect.

> It's almost like you have a vested interest in MS failing in this area.

You extrapolate that from me saying a few things here that skirt around
the issue? That's pretty bad from a logic standpoint.

It amazes me how many people assume that all issues related to Microsoft are
black and white.

> Everyone asks me if I have a Microsoft connection, are you somehow connected
> with one of thier competitors? Do you somehow feel that getting HD
> resolution down a smaller pipe is bad for the consumers who are begging for
> more HD content from thier cable and sat operators?

I'm not even going to bother to address that issue...I'm too busy deciding
what tech to buy with the money that is coming into the company I work for
because of the MS codecs being *too* successful.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Rhyme [...] eFinal.jpg
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |