HD Video Specs.?

HD video these days stays in the digital domain from acquisition to display unless you have some really arcane hardware. Then it will depend on which nationality of analogue HD video you have to handle.

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

FM?

I bought one of these some time ago:

I still haven't used it but opening it up and looking at the chips led to the reference design for some or all of it. The big chip had a heatsink glued on but the other chips were revealling. Sorry I can't remember where the information is but the device is not very expensive.

Old Guy

FM? Really? That was only used for HDTV on satellites for Europe and AFAIK only until the early 90's, if that ever came off the ground. They had some tricks to compress the (humongous) bandwidth a bit but, expectedly, this whole HD system that the authorities tried to foist onto providers fizzled. I remember a Scandinavian early adopter saying that he now has the most expensive table lamp ever made.

If this is really for analog HDTV I'd try the Smithsonian :-)

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Or did you mean FM as in videotape? If so then my previous reply was not very useful.

Old Guy

I find it becoming increasingly difficult to buy videotape. It's going out of style, fast. The next round we'll probably have to purchase via the Internet.

I think that's why they are pushing fiber to the homes. Uncompressed, 32 bits at 1000x1000 would be 32 Mb per frame, 960 Mb/s. Of course, they don't really want everybody to watch TV at that rate, but it's a good selling point.

Now that they are de facto gradually getting their old monopoly status back many are doing ... nothing. The only thing our telco pushes is the price. Upwards. They always tout super-fast Internet for cheap in their TV ads but every time I called over many years I got the same answer. "Sorry, but that's not available in your area" ... "Do you know when it might become available?" ... "No, we don't". So all we get is 1.2Mbps. I think even Lithuania is at 10x that speed. And this ain't the hinterlands.

If the OP really wanted analog HDTV, the best search word would be "HD-MAC", but are there any real broadcasts today or even in the 1990's ? I very much doubt that.

AFAIK HD-MAC is dead as a door knob. Since roughly two decades I believe.

There were some trials in Japan when I lived there. The bigger stores in Tokyo had them on display as high definition novelties. That analogue HDTV incarnation never took off and early adopters got burned.

Difficult to know if the UHDTV standards will take off apart from in cinemas 4k and 8k is pushing it in a domestic setting and there is very limited programme material available (just the odd test broadcast).

The inquiry is from a security/surveillance camera company. ...Jim Thompson

If you control both end of transmission, you can just come out with any kind of simple encoding/decoding. One reason i can think of using uncompressed data stream is for lower power/cost at the remove nodes.

If you want compression, just mp4.

I sure hope they aren't saddling the old HD-MAC horse. You might want to inquire and probe whether they are really aware of the fact that analog HDTV has gone lalaland last century. No kidding, I had situations in the past where, after inquiring, the guys at the other end of the phone line went "Oh, really? Durn!".

Yep. Power over the coax is part of the specification. ...Jim Thompson

Is this an existing installation with analog NTSC SD cameras connected with coaxial cable ? Otherwise, I would have recommended using CAT 5/6 twisted pairs and PoE (Power over Ethernet) and MPEG 2/4 digital transfer.

For existing coaxial networks, I would suggest using a digital camera producing MPEG2/4 stream, modulate it with DVB-C (single carrier

Still assuming that the existing analog SD-TV system has used different RF frequencies for each camera, so that they can be multiplexed into a single trunk cable to the control room, some DVB-C style cable TV system would be sufficient.

While a TV-service would require a quite low GoP (Group of Pictures) so that the channel zaps would take less than a second, I guess that in a surveillance type application, you could use a much larger GoP, transmitting a full big I-picture every few seconds and only transmit the changes in P or B-pictures in between, thus reducing the required bit rate.

Cameras don't have any compression capability, though, and TCP/IP Ethernet doesn't support isochronous transfer. So, most digital HD video will be in uncompressed (i.e. not MPEG) form, and used to be a Firewire-preferred situation (because Firewire has always had isochronous transport, there is a known 'sufficient' buffer size for the bits).

Ethernet (PHY) can handle the stream, but TCP/IP switches and routers maybe can't.

SMPTE 292M (HD-SDI)?

Else ATSC:

TM

Well on my first try using: SMPTE hd video standards

Yeilded on the first page

and

To get to many of the standards mentioned.

?-)

Might need something better than RG-59 coaxials to transfer over 1 Gbit/s over any significant distances.

For the OP, there seems to be an organization HDcctv that deals with such closed circuit TV issues.

If the video material is going to be stored, it still needs to compressed at the recorder at latest.

Why not do it in the camera head already, which would simplify cabling etc. ?