MacOS X 10.5 to introduce HD Video Conferencing

zozo
Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
don't know if this is more a Future Hardware or MacOS X topic... feel free to move it where you see fit



"Along with the launch of 10.5, Apple will release the iSight 2 which will be capable of HD (720p, up to 1080i) video-conferencing. This functionality will require the equivalent of today's high-end hardware and ram and of course a high-speed broadband connection or LAN. Initial prices are set to be around 199$ for the new HD capable iSight 2 camera"





feeling bold today

ZO
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 23
    omegaomega Posts: 427member
    Source?



    And did you mean 10.5?



    From most reports I though that was well into the future due to the OS release slowing down after Tigger.
  • Reply 2 of 23
    mmcgann11mmcgann11 Posts: 66member
    "Along with the launch of 10.5, Apple will release the iSight 2 which will be capable of HD (720p, up to 1080i) video-conferencing. This functionality will require the equivalent of today's high-end hardware and ram and of course a high-speed broadband connection or LAN. Initial prices are set to be around 199$ for the new HD capable iSight 2 camera"





    Uh, right. First off. 720p up to 1080i? 1080i is basically, in terms of data, 540p, so it's lower resolution, particularly if it is 720p/60. This seems awfully confident of vastly better compression from h.264, which right now is at about 8MB/sec., beyond all but the fastest broadband.



    And knowing what HD sensors cost now, and allowing for two years of cost reduction, I'm still not buying $199.



    Sorry, it doesn't seem likely.
  • Reply 3 of 23
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,219member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mmcgann11

    ....



    Uh, right. First off. 720p up to 1080i? 1080i is basically, in terms of data, 540p, so it's lower resolution, particularly if it is 720p/60. This seems awfully confident of vastly better compression from h.264, which right now is at about 8MB/sec., beyond all but the fastest broadband.



    And knowing what HD sensors cost now, and allowing for two years of cost reduction, I'm still not buying $199.



    Sorry, it doesn't seem likely.




    For example, 720p at full resolution is really 1280 x 720 x 60 pixels/second. Now multiply those numbers. The number you get is 55,296,000. This is the number of pixels displayed by a 720p monitor every second. Now 1080i at full resolution is really 1920 x 540 x 60. Now multiply these numbers.. This time, you get 62,208,000. This is the number of pixels displayed by a 1080i monitor every second.
  • Reply 4 of 23
    mmcgann11mmcgann11 Posts: 66member
    1280 by 720?



    Yeah...except one minor problem: the ATSC standard is 1920 by 720.



    So why don't you stick to math (that is what your fingers are for) ? and leave the hard stuff to those of us who have been writing professionally about HDTV since the early 90s.



    1280 by 720 isn't really HD unless you're DirecTV. Both ABC and Fox broadcast in 720P by 1920.



    Oh, and 1080p by 1920 is coming.



  • Reply 5 of 23
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,219member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mmcgann11

    1280 by 720?



    Yeah...except one minor problem: the ATSC standard is 1920 by 720.




    I am afraid that you misspoke here. HDTV has the defined aspect ratio of 16:9 (or 1.777778 ). The lowest resolution HDTV pixel count is 1280 x 720, assuming square pixels. Your 1920 x 720 pixel count has an aspect ratio of 24:9 (or 2.666667). 24:9 is not part of the ATSC standard.

    Quote:

    Originally posted by mmcgann11

    So why don't you stick to math (that is what your fingers are for) ? and leave the hard stuff to those of us who have been writing professionally about HDTV since the early 90s.



    I won't go there.

    Quote:

    Originally posted by mmcgann11

    1280 by 720 isn't really HD unless you're DirecTV. Both ABC and Fox broadcast in 720P by 1920.



    Oh, come on. You know better than that. 720p is defined as HDTV. I am afraid that I am going to have to give you a homework assignment. It is just a single web page, so that you can do it. Read this page. It will be on tomorrow's quiz.

    Quote:

    Originally posted by mmcgann11

    Oh, and 1080p by 1920 is coming.



    Now, now. Remember that aspect ratio thing that we talked about before? Well, the aspect ratio of 1080p x 1920 is 9:16. The proper ratio is 16:9 (or 1920 x 1080).

  • Reply 6 of 23
    maccrazymaccrazy Posts: 2,656member
    It's getting bitchy!
  • Reply 7 of 23
    wilcowilco Posts: 985member
    Someone just got served!
  • Reply 8 of 23
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacCrazy

    It's getting bitchy!



    friends dont let friends post drunk



    umm... ZOned i think you're ahead of the curve here, we're still waiting for HD compress/decompress to be done in hardware, ATi has stepped up to the plate, so let's see what be happenin...



    http://www.ati.com/products/H264.html
  • Reply 9 of 23
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mr. Me

    There is this wonderful thing called math. You might try it sometime. For example, 720p at full resolution is really 1280 x 720 x 60 pixels/second. Now multiply those numbers. Come on, it won't hurt you. The number you get is 55,296,000. This is the number of pixels displayed by a 720p monitor every second. That was fun, wasn't it. Now 1080i at full resolution is really 1920 x 540 x 60. Now multiply these numbers. It fun and you will learn something. This time, you get 62,208,000. This is the number of pixels displayed by a 1080i monitor every second. Now, can you tell me which number is larger? Oh, come on. You can do it



    1080i is such a dirty hack ~ the pixel difference per frame is not that much better than 720p



    I WANT MY 1080P



    AMEN.



    ummm... my point was... good smackdown Mr. Me, abrasive, perhaps, but entertaining.





    .........
  • Reply 10 of 23
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,219member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sunilraman

    1080i is such a dirty hack ~ the pixel difference per frame is not that much better than 720p



    I WANT MY 1080P



    AMEN.



    ummm... my point was... good smackdown Mr. Me, abrasive, perhaps, but entertaining.





    .........




    Thank you.

    Clarification: The number of pixels per second in 1080p is the same as that of 1080i. 1080p has 30 progressive frames per second. 1080i has 60 interlaced half-frames (540 lines) per second.
  • Reply 11 of 23
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mr. Me

    Thank you.

    Clarification: The number of pixels per second in 1080p is the same as that of 1080i. 1080p has 30 progressive frames per second. 1080i has 60 interlaced half-frames (540 lines) per second.




    interlacing, like PPPoE for DSL access, are tools of the devil..!!!



    umm... okay i'll sit down now...
  • Reply 12 of 23
    zozo Posts: 3,115member
    errrr... seem to have started a bitch fight..



    720i = 1280 x 360

    720p = 1280 x 720



    1080i = 1920 x 540

    1080p = 1920 x 1080



    All standards can be found at there is 30 and 60fps



    All 4 are considered "HD TV"



    Yes, thats a lot of data to be pushed, but it will come.



    There ARE HD Conferencing solutions on the market today (or "coming soon") so, I don't see why Apple wouldn't be able to come through with at least a 720p iChat solution. I would be VERY surprised if Apple would be able to come out with a 199usd HD iSight, nonetheless, here's to a bit of dreaming.



    In Satellite TV, we are looking at around 8Mbit for future 1080P broadcasts (we're going directly in MPEG4 H.264). Given that MPEG2 vs MPEG4 H.264 is easily a 4 to 1 compression ratio, and we have a test HD channel today in MPEG2 at 32Mbit at 1080P... well... I can easily see many households and businesses having AT LEAST 4-8Mbit internet connections. Maybe "only" 2-4 mbit UPSTREAM, but still, enough for a very good 720i or p broadcast. Here in Paris I have a 20mbit DSL connection with 2mbit upstream. I dare not think what we'll have in a year and a half
  • Reply 13 of 23
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ZO

    errrr... seem to have started a bitch fight..



    720i = 1280 x 360

    720p = 1280 x 720



    1080i = 1920 x 540

    1080p = 1920 x 1080



    All standards can be found at there is 30 and 60fps



    All 4 are considered "HD TV"



    Yes, thats a lot of data to be pushed, but it will come.



    There ARE HD Conferencing solutions on the market today (or "coming soon") so, I don't see why Apple wouldn't be able to come through with at least a 720p iChat solution. I would be VERY surprised if Apple would be able to come out with a 199usd HD iSight, nonetheless, here's to a bit of dreaming.



    In Satellite TV, we are looking at around 8Mbit for future 1080P broadcasts (we're going directly in MPEG4 H.264). Given that MPEG2 vs MPEG4 H.264 is easily a 4 to 1 compression ratio, and we have a test HD channel today in MPEG2 at 32Mbit at 1080P... well... I can easily see many households and businesses having AT LEAST 4-8Mbit internet connections. Maybe "only" 2-4 mbit UPSTREAM, but still, enough for a very good 720i or p broadcast. Here in Paris I have a 20mbit DSL connection with 2mbit upstream. I dare not think what we'll have in a year and a half




    don't forget 24fps for movies in 720p and 1080p

    ...bitchfest on this thread aside actually, i am starting to think, the world of HDTV including videoconferencing would be way cool...



    i want hardware encoding/decoding co-processor though, my CPU can be used for something else (like downloading pr0n)
  • Reply 14 of 23
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,219member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ZO

    errrr... seem to have started a bitch fight..



    720i = 1280 x 360

    720p = 1280 x 720



    1080i = 1920 x 540

    1080p = 1920 x 1080



    All standards can be found at there is 30 and 60fps



    All 4 are considered "HD TV"



    Yes, thats a lot of data to be pushed, but it will come.



    There ARE HD Conferencing solutions on the market today (or "coming soon") so, I don't see why Apple wouldn't be able to come through with at least a 720p iChat solution. I would be VERY surprised if Apple would be able to come out with a 199usd HD iSight, nonetheless, here's to a bit of dreaming.



    In Satellite TV, we are looking at around 8Mbit for future 1080P broadcasts (we're going directly in MPEG4 H.264). Given that MPEG2 vs MPEG4 H.264 is easily a 4 to 1 compression ratio, and we have a test HD channel today in MPEG2 at 32Mbit at 1080P... well... I can easily see many households and businesses having AT LEAST 4-8Mbit internet connections. Maybe "only" 2-4 mbit UPSTREAM, but still, enough for a very good 720i or p broadcast. Here in Paris I have a 20mbit DSL connection with 2mbit upstream. I dare not think what we'll have in a year and a half




    You might be well-served to read.
  • Reply 15 of 23
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    i think 1080p discussion is interesting:



    "What is 1080p?

    The terms 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i were never formally defined. Yet they are universally understood. But 1080p is anything but unambiguous. There are at least three conflicting, very different meanings currently in common usage:

    1080 progressive at 30 frames per second is one of the 18 formats. This 1080p is (or could be) in use every day. The same applies to 1080p24.

    If 1080p is to 1080i what 480p is to 480i then 1080p is 60 frames per second. Monitors that can do this are rare. There are no 1080p60 sources.

    When the maker of a digital display finds a way to improve upon 1080i he will usually say his display does 1080p. The improvement is usually some way to reduce flicker.



    You should refrain from using the term 1080p when referring to the receiver or the monitor interface since this usage is ambiguous. Instead use 1080p30, etc.



    Usually 1080p just means flicker reduction. Some time in the future motion adaptive processing will likely become available. This is probably the best hope for eliminating the jumpiness that currently plagues 1080i. Since the motion vectors (described below) are necessary for creating the missing frames, the receivers will probably be integrated with the monitors, eliminating the monitor interface."






    (edited to clear up some stuff



    1920x1080-24p sources now exist from film, eg, apple's quicktime hd trailers. very expensive pure-digital cameras, perhaps like those used in star wars episode 3 or for matrix reloaded / revolutions special effects, may eventually trickle down to the masses to be able to handle 1920x108030p and 60p ~~ 1080-60p will be sweet for playback and frame-by-frame analysis of fast motion. in any case a high-speed say 100frame per second source from 35mm film can produce a nice 1920x1080-60p broadcast source... any film source from 4k can be manipulated digitally to produce decent 1920x1080 24p, 30p, or 60p... a pure digital source, well, we gotta wait a few years, but it's round the corner



    right now i still feel 1080i is a dirty hack, if not for the interlacing, even as the author of that article suggests, it is also because you only get a full 1920x1080 frame 15 times per second



    edit2:

    apple's 23" cinema display can do 1920x1080 60p no worries



    edit3:

    when it's hooked up to a dual-powermac g5 2.5ghz or better



    edit4:

    personal preferences: i don't like interlacing because of artifacts when viewed on a computer.



    ...........
  • Reply 16 of 23
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,219member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sunilraman

    i think 1080p discussion is interesting:



    "What is 1080p?

    The terms 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i were never formally defined. Yet they are universally understood. But 1080p is anything but unambiguous. There are at least three conflicting, very different meanings currently in common usage:

    1080 progressive at 30 frames per second is one of the 18 formats. This 1080p is (or could be) in use every day. The same applies to 1080p24.

    If 1080p is to 1080i what 480p is to 480i then 1080p is 60 frames per second. Monitors that can do this are rare. There are no 1080p60 sources.

    When the maker of a digital display finds a way to improve upon 1080i he will usually say his display does 1080p. The improvement is usually some way to reduce flicker.



    You should refrain from using the term 1080p when referring to the receiver or the monitor interface since this usage is ambiguous. Instead use 1080p30, etc.



    Usually 1080p just means flicker reduction. Some time in the future motion adaptive processing will likely become available. This is probably the best hope for eliminating the jumpiness that currently plagues 1080i. Since the motion vectors (described below) are necessary for creating the missing frames, the receivers will probably be integrated with the monitors, eliminating the monitor interface."






    (edited to clear up some stuff



    1920x1080-24p sources now exist from film, eg, apple's quicktime hd trailers. very expensive pure-digital cameras, perhaps like those used in star wars episode 3 or for matrix reloaded / revolutions special effects, may eventually trickle down to the masses to be able to handle 1920x108030p and 60p ~~ 1080-60p will be sweet for playback and frame-by-frame analysis of fast motion. in any case a high-speed say 100frame per second source from 35mm film can produce a nice 1920x1080-60p broadcast source... any film source from 4k can be manipulated digitally to produce decent 1920x1080 24p, 30p, or 60p... a pure digital source, well, we gotta wait a few years, but it's round the corner



    right now i still feel 1080i is a dirty hack, if not for the interlacing, even as the author of that article suggests, it is also because you only get a full 1920x1080 frame 15 times per second



    edit2:

    apple's 23" cinema display can do 1920x1080 60p no worries



    edit3:

    when it's hooked up to a dual-powermac g5 2.5ghz or better



    edit4:

    personal preferences: i don't like interlacing because of artifacts when viewed on a computer.



    ...........




    Two things: Even though you quoted it, you seem to ignore the phrase "There are no 1080p60 sources." You also blithely ignore the fact that there are only four (4) monitor interfaces. These are 1080i, 720p, 480p, and 480i. 1080i is transmitted to the receiver as 1080p30 which outputs to the monitor as 1080i60.
  • Reply 17 of 23
    mmcgann11mmcgann11 Posts: 66member
    720p by 1920 was in the original ATSC format (a total of 18 formats, including 1080p/60) table, but I guess it got yanked, as too data intensive (only recently have CRT displays been able to even come close to that resolution with any light output)...but assuming that pixels are square is foolish and ill-informed, as the original HD displays were CRT and often used Trinitron style horizontal rectangular pixels.



    Now, to suggest that 1080 interlaced is merely 1080P encoded and transmitted as such is just dead wrong. It is broadcast at 1080i. Interlaced video has a 1/30th second line offset, so while there are 60 fields, they do not equate to 30 frames, but rather 60 half frames. The difference between those half frames is what causes a number of motion artifacts. As an example, how far does a race car move in 1/30 at 180MPH? The answer: a lot. To even suggest this says you don't understand scanning, video display or broadcast transmission systems.



    Oh, and my source? CBS Network's chief engineer. I bet he knows more about this than you.



    This why progressive is vastly superior, and CBS and NBC blew it picking 1080i over 720p.



    And yes, there are 1080p/60 sources. Some call them computers. Also, a number of high-end video scalers output 1080p/60, which while not ideal in terms of picture quality (upconversion artifacts), is a true 1080p/60 source.



    Hmmm, only four monitor interfaces? I suppose one could say that from a very narrow, and uneducated standpoint. I happen to be looking at a native 1080p display right now. But I guess, I'm just hallucinating, since there are no "interfaces" for it. And I guess those 2400p displays (a dot for dot match for film) currently in development are just fictitious, too.



  • Reply 18 of 23
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,219member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mmcgann11

    720p by 1920 was in the original ATSC format (a total of 18 formats, including 1080p/60) table, but I guess it got yanked, as too data intensive (only recently have CRT displays been able to even come close to that resolution with any light output)...but assuming that pixels are square is foolish and ill-informed, as the original HD displays were CRT and often used Trinitron style horizontal rectangular pixels.



    Now, to suggest that 1080 interlaced is merely 1080P encoded and transmitted as such is just dead wrong. It is broadcast at 1080i. Interlaced video has a 1/30th second line offset, so while there are 60 fields, they do not equate to 30 frames, but rather 60 half frames. The difference between those half frames is what causes a number of motion artifacts. As an example, how far does a race car move in 1/30 at 180MPH? The answer: a lot. To even suggest this says you don't understand scanning, video display or broadcast transmission systems.



    Oh, and my source? CBS Network's chief engineer. I bet he knows more about this than you.



    This why progressive is vastly superior, and CBS and NBC blew it picking 1080i over 720p.



    And yes, there are 1080p/60 sources. Some call them computers. Also, a number of high-end video scalers output 1080p/60, which while not ideal in terms of picture quality (upconversion artifacts), is a true 1080p/60 source.



    Hmmm, only four monitor interfaces? I suppose one could say that from a very narrow, and uneducated standpoint. I happen to be looking at a native 1080p display right now. But I guess, I'm just hallucinating, since there are no "interfaces" for it. And I guess those 2400p displays (a dot for dot match for film) currently in development are just fictitious, too.







    Yes, you got me there. Here I was quoting a link that I had posted earlier. But you, you sly dog, you spoke to a CBS engineer! I bow to my superior.
  • Reply 19 of 23
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    whoa this bitchfest has melted my brain



    but yes mcgann, thanks for clearing that up, there ARE 1080-60p sources, and there ARE 1080-60p capable monitors ~ exactly my point, is that when you look at material generated on FILM eg 35mm (including like i said 100"progressive" frame-per-second recorded 35mm FILM) AND played back on for example, a 23" apple cinema display on a dual-g5 powermac 2.5ghz. such a display IS 1080-60p capable. jeez. also, guess how i could generate a 1080-60p source? simple. lightwave 3D or any other 3D program. generate the pure digital 1920x1080 frame, and with this thing called 3D animation, one can generate OMFG 60frames per second



    mr. me, i understand your comments, but you see, that's the power of the Computer side of Computer-TV conversion. computers are smarter. and better. if a little buggier sometimes...



    mr. me, i don't mean to give you a nasty smackdown, i understand the constraints and 'standards' and infrastructure challenges that broadcast television works with. however, i think one should start to be aware that your 'average' g5 mac is getting quite capable, and quite powerful, and much more flexible in terms of creating and receiving various digital video content, including "HDTV" as well, particularly over the next several years.



    .........
  • Reply 20 of 23
    zozo Posts: 3,115member
    well, this fun discussion has updated some of my knowledge of HD (which I thought I knew well enough already... guess not)



    Regarding 720p vs 1080i: you'll see all sports channels are at 720p. Why? Because of "progressive" and that with "i" it was a mess to see a ball or fast action...
Sign In or Register to comment.