Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Full-Screen Video Over 28.8k: The Claims Continue

timothy posted more than 13 years ago | from the well-maybe-a-monkey's-cousin-at-least dept.

Television 459

gwernol writes "Over at Screen Daily they are claiming that an Australian company has demonstrated a high quality, full-screen video-on-demand service that is delivered over a 28.8k modem. They claim this will 'eliminate the need for broadband.' If this is true, then they'll change the world. Of course, the basic technology has been around for a while, see this article from 1998 or this one from earlier this year. I remain extremely sceptical. If this is real, why won't they allow proper independent testing? But it is interesting that they're getting funding. Could this be the last great Internet scam?"

Several readers also pointed out this brief report at imdb.com as well. We've mentioned this before, but the news here is the reportedly successful demo. It would be a lot easier to swallow if he'd let people test it independently, but video-over-28.8 sure is tantalizing.

cancel ×

459 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Could it be? (-1, Offtopic)

puhtime2go (516969) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236071)

first puh!

Re:Could it be? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236214)

goatse.cx [goatse.cx]

Your lameness filter violated the postercomment compression filter. Comment aborted.

Video over 28.8 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236082)

Video over 28.8 sounds tantalizing, but hard to beleive. Still, it would be neat.

Of course they have to innovate the dialup service in australia because of the broadband whoring that goes on in australia. 100 mb a month traffic limits and shit. I send more traffic than that per day of quaking.

Invaded (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236083)

Slashdot has been Invaded by High Bandwidth Martians!
o o
/ \
| |
\ ______/
/ \
| [@][@] | __________________
| ^^ |_/ \
| VVVVVV <_ I LOVE YOU ALL. |
\_______/ \ HONEST... /
* | | \________________/
/ ___/ \____
|| / \
|| | | *** | |
|| | |* *| |
|| | | *** | |
\\ | | | |
\\ | |_____| |
\\ VVV _[_]_ VVV
\\ / \
\\__/| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
__/ | \__
/______|______\
LAMENESS FILTER

This Martian is Copyright © 2001 keesh. You may redistribute it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 or later.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

lunchroombob (415936) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236084)

fp

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

puhtime2go (516969) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236096)

Nope.

Well if its full screen over 28.8 (1)

yadung (60166) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236086)

What can you get over broadband?

Re:Well if its full screen over 28.8 (2, Interesting)

Tensor (102132) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236185)

Yes but the article is extremely short on technical data.

What is this FULL-SCREEN video ?? 320x200 ? 640x480 ? true NTSC @ 29.97 FPS ? DVD resolution ? HDTV ?

Or is it 1/4 tv resolution zoomed to fit the screen ? with 1/2 the fps ?

Maybe all they did was improove the zoom, iterpolation and anti-aliasing algorithms in the player. So they send a crappy video and it ends up looking ok.

Anyway its all hot air until we get some technical data.

Re:Well if its full screen over 28.8 (1)

AJWM (19027) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236266)

true NTSC @ 29.97 FPS ?

Well no, this is Australia. It'd be PAL at 25 FPS.

(Not that I think it's anywhere near that, either. And since PAL has a slightly larger field the bitrate is the same as NTSC anyway, at least with DV.)

Last great Internet scam?!?! (1, Funny)

Ledge (24267) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236089)

Is the Internet going away and nobody told me? Somehow I doubt that anything happening today will be the _last_ great Internet scam.

Here it is!!! (-1, Troll)

fp_troll_bitch (320424) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236091)

2nd prist biyatches!! Now I gotta waste time typing cause of the 20 second thing la la la la la la la yep yep yep yep yep da da da.

Thank you.

PS- Michael eats ass.

If you believe that... (3, Funny)

Futurepower(tm) (228467) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236094)


Yes, and I am able to compress all of Slashdot down to 10 bytes.

Re:If you believe that... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236116)

Sure - here they are:

firstpost\0

:)

Re:If you believe that... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236118)

Well, if you only count the meaningful content, and not all the crap, then yes, you can...

Re:If you believe that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236223)

Some moderator is being extremely arsy about this topic, aren't they? :-)


Compression, of course, relies on reducing the data size to the information content, and since the information content on Slashdot is extremely low, I imagine you could compress the daily news + postings to around 16K - the articles, and the +5 posts attached.

Re:If you believe that... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236127)

LINUXR00LZ

Re:If you believe that... (1)

bmongar (230600) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236142)

Heck, I can compress every file in the world to 1 byte. Oh you want to decompress? Well it is a bit lossy.

Re:If you believe that... (4, Troll)

istartedi (132515) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236158)

"Yes, and I am able to compress all of Slashdot down to 10 bytes."

FIRST POST
0123456789

Well, what do you know, he's right!

Fractal compression (2, Funny)

drsoran (979) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236209)

Remember the DOS trojan that was floating around about 8 or 9 years ago that claimed to be fractal compression program with amazing results? It could compress a 2 megabyte file down to a few hundred bytes. How did it achieve these amazing results? Deleting the file and filling the rest with junk. :-)

I can watch me (1)

FallLine (12211) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236227)

0123456789
MONEY=EVIL

See, isn't that simple?

Video != only need for broadband (1)

blindbat (189141) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236100)

They claim this will 'eliminate the need for broadband.'

As if video is the only need for broadband.

I need it to keep on top of the ever changing Linux binaries.

Yes, this certainly will eliminate the need. (1)

Wakko Warner (324) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236105)

Because, hell, all I use the Internet for is streaming video. Really! I never download a single thing.

Morons.

- A.P.

It's all in the buffering (3, Funny)

Trak (670) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236108)

You click on download, the viewer launches, and the status bar reads "Buffering..." for eight hours, then the full-screen video plays in full detail. It's amazing!

Re:It's all in the buffering (2, Funny)

Unknown Bovine Group (462144) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236180)

No, it's a video of screenshots of 'Pong': Compresses over 28.8 reeal nice. "Your results may vary".

Re:It's all in the buffering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236184)

Haha, it's funny cause it is true.

I remember my old dial-up days trying to watch a real video that's quality was beyond what the modem could handle in real time. It would buffer a bit of the video, play it, and then stop for more buffering. What you could then do is move the time slider to the beginning and watch the video all the way through once it was entirely buffered. If you hit stop though, it would start the process all over. I never could figure out why you have to rebuffer the same data after you have already downloaded the thing!

uh, so who's gonna buy this out, and for how much? (0)

Anomymous Coward (303315) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236110)



Holmes expects many programme suppliers to want to form alliances once they understand the potential. "This is the first time I have ever heard of a technology that can service so many houses from one server at such high quality ... People have asked me to speculate and I blush at the options. It will offer many new revenue streams and enable households to be reached that are currently monopolised by very large companies."


And they dont expect this new technology to be bought, and exploited, by one of these already existing monopolies? And once purchased, don't they assume that it will just add to the existing monopolies?

Call me a skeptic, but this is going to be something that AOL or MS or someone pays a lot of money to buy, and then makes it completely proprietary. And that's assuming that it GETS to the consumer market without getting squashed by legal troubles.

Eliminate Broadband? (5, Insightful)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236111)

Pshah!

With all the great things I have with broadband (at the same cost of 28.8 service), plus, if you can compress a stream for 28.8, imagine what you can do with broadband!

This won't eliminate broadband. It'll strengthen it!

End of Broadband? (4, Insightful)

JanneM (7445) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236112)

Funny, I find a broadband connection incredibly useful, and yet i never watch video over the net...

The real advantages of a broadband conneciton is that you are always connected; you are accessible to others via mail and messaging at all times (just imagine that you had to explicitly connect your telephone to use it, then disconnect it again afterwards). The speed, while very nice, is actually not as important.

/Janne

Re:End of Broadband? (1)

szomb (318129) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236169)

Bullshit. I used to use a 24/7 56k dialup line and even run a server on it, but in no way is the speed of my current SDSL replacement "unimportant."

Re:End of Broadband? (1)

Unknown Bovine Group (462144) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236193)

(just imagine that you had to explicitly connect your telephone to use it, then disconnect it again afterwards)

Yes, that would be horrendous! You'd have to have some kind of "cradle" or "talk button" to turn the telephone on, and THEN you'd be forced to type in the IP of the phone you're trying to connect to (perhaps they'd call that IP# the "phone number"). Imagine!

Re:End of Broadband? (4, Funny)

garcia (6573) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236235)

umm, how is this any different than having a 24/7 dialup connection (or at least close). PPP on demand would do just about the same thing as well.

Broadband is great b/c I don't have to wait 5 mins while my porn comes up, I don't have to wait 15 hours for my whatever.tar.gz to download, and I certainly don't have to worry about my roommate stealing all the bandwith downloading MP3s.

Even if 28.8kbps can support full motion video you can't do much else while it is downloading.

Too bad... (0, Flamebait)

CMiYC (6473) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236113)

...that its coming out of Australia. Even if the claims in the article were true, we'll never see it (in the US anyway). I'm sure the Australian Government will find a reason to ban it.

Re:Too bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236139)

To make your sig correct:

...that its coming out of Australia.

s/its/it's. Thank you.

Re:Too bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236149)

Aren't they concerned about international video defamation... or international video defication...

It's Not Only About Speed... (5, Insightful)

omnirealm (244599) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236114)

With the advent of wireless technology, speed is not the only issue at hand. Energy is going to be a major factor to consider. While we may be able to compress video into oblivion, the processing power required to perform the compression/decompression may be too high for handheld wireless deviced with limited battery power. Broadband availability for desktop computers is rapidly becoming a non-issue.

People are going to want to send and receive video emails from their handhelds. We need a technology that will be able to strike a balance between energy required to transmit the signal (bandwidth) and the energy required to compress and decompress the signal (signal processing).

Re:It's Not Only About Speed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236240)

Broadband availability for desktop computers is rapidly becoming a non-issue


If by "rapidly" you mean "80% availability by 2005", I guess you're right, but that doesn't sound rapid to me.


Try a Google search for "last mile".

easily done (4, Funny)

LocalYokel (85558) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236115)

Lossy compression can do wonderful things. =)
http://lzip.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

I hope this isn't another Pixelon...

Great! (1)

gwizah (236406) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236117)

Hmm, another absurd claim...Color me skeptical, but Ive seen several attempts at producing high-quality, low-bandwidth video and Ive concluded that those two words comibined cant make sense. There are many codecs available today that claim to produce tiny file sizes that download quickly and play full screen, Unfortunately they rarely deliver. The article seems real light on the details, No description of connectivity besides a 28.8 modem, no details on the display, resolution, nothing. I think this company is either set to revolutionize the media industry, or they just pulled the biggest funding scam ever. Until *I see it* I wont belive this hype.


Now if I can receive Full screen Quality on my good ol' p133, 800*600, on a 28.8 modem through my noisy copper, Im golden...

What's that? (4, Funny)

pogofish (514289) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236119)

Yes sir, full screen video over a 28k connection.


So what am I seeing? It looks rather blank.


Well sir, that's a white cow in a snow field. It just scared out some snow hares.


Over 28k you say? Where do I sign?

SLASHDOT SUCKS EGGS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236121)

Problems:

*People can post just characters thousands of lines long and fuck up the entire system.

*The moderation scheme is totally screwed. good posts are not getting moded up, bad posts are not getting modded down. Mod points just don't seem to exist. What little points there are are used to get rid of the thousand line junk character posts. The only posts going to 4 and 5 are slashdot editor buddies.

*Slashdot.org refuses connection 1/3 of the time now instead of 1/4.

*Error messages out the ass.

Don't use the new slashcode. It really sucks bad.

THE ERRORS ARE EVEN FUCKED: look...
_If_you_this_error_seems_ to be incorrect, please provide the following in your report to Source Forge:

* Browser type
* User ID/Nickname or AC
* What steps caused this error
* Whether or not you know your ISP to be using a proxy or some sort of service that gives you an IP that others are using simultaneously.
* How many posts to this form you successfully submitted during the day

* Please choose 'formkeys' for the category!
Thank you.

Smoke and Mirrors (5, Insightful)

topham (32406) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236122)

A 28.8Kbps modem delivery good video and sound? Uh-huh. It's the Holy Grail. The last guy I heard demoing it ended up being on a wanted list for fraud. For all we know the machine had a 802.11b wireless card and was receiving multiple transmissions of the datastream. (Assuming any level of auditing was actualy done to verify that any data was over the 28.8 connection.)


I don't even think it would be that hard to fake.

Re:Smoke and Mirrors (4, Funny)

Nick Number (447026) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236173)

For all we know the machine had a 802.11b wireless card and was receiving multiple transmissions of the datastream. (Assuming any level of auditing was actualy done to verify that any data was over the 28.8 connection.)

Perhaps a GPS beacon as well.

MP3... (2, Informative)

Nate Fox (1271) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236128)

I'm just as skeptical as the next geek, but remember: MP3 changed everything in audio. Compressing a 60M song to ~6M?!? 10-12X compression with only minor quality loss? No one believed it when they were told, but once we started hearing it ourselves, we couldnt believe our ears. I hope they have made the next quantum leap in compression. I doubt it, but I hope.

Re:MP3... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236197)

10:1 is believable. I can get 10:1 with images trivially (less than 50 lines of code), and I think of audio as much less variable than images. 1000:1 isn't believable - especially for a streaming format which starts with "no delay". As CSICOP says, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Re:MP3... (1)

orichter (60340) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236225)

>>I'm just as skeptical as the next geek, but remember: MP3 changed everything in audio. Compressing a 60M song to ~6M?!? 10-12X compression with only minor quality loss?
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>

This statement only makes sense if you assume broadband was already streaming uncompressed video, and we are looking for an improvement over that. The fact is that MPEG is already compressed by a massive amount over raw video, and it requires about 1 Mbps to stream properly (320x240). You are suggesting that we compress this already compressed data by a factor of 50. In other words, by your analogy, we take the 6M mp3, and reduce it in size to 100K with minimal quality loss. I'm not saying this is absolutely impossible, but it is certainly a source of great skepticism.

Re:MP3... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236250)

As it happens, the next geek was much more skeptical than you.

Re:MP3... (1)

mother_superius (227373) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236253)

True enough, but this is much, much more incredible. You need broadband to get streaming audio of high quality. This guy is not only getting that over a 28.8, but he's getting VIDEO to boot! That's just an incredible leap in technology.

Damn! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236129)

Slashdot has been Invaded by Full-Screen Martians!
o o
/ \
| |
\ ______/
/ \
| [@][@] | __________________
| ^^ |_/ \
| VVVVVV <_ I LOVE YOU ALL. |
\_______/ \ HONEST... /
* | | \________________/
/ ___/ \____
|| / \
|| | | *** | |
|| | |* *| |
|| | | *** | |
\\ | | | |
\\ | |_____| |
\\ VVV _[_]_ VVV
\\ / \
\\__/| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
__/ | \__
/______|______\
LAMENESS FILTER

This Martian is Copyright © 2001 keesh. You may redistribute it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 or later.

Fullscreen, but... (1)

stikves (127823) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236130)

With higher compression tenchniques (like WMA, DivX, etc) you can achive "good" quality on "low" bitstream. (For example 64Kbit WMA is "listenable" up to a certain extent).


But these compressions usually involve many "roundings" in order to decrease "compression artifacts". What I think about this 28K stream is (since I cannot test it) it will probably be "good" or "avarage" but never "perfect".

Re:Fullscreen, but... (2)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236172)

Actually, isn't 64Kbs the default for Media Player when you're recording? I left it on there one time, my brothers recorded a few CD's, and it sounded surprisingly good.

Re:Fullscreen, but... (1)

stikves (127823) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236243)

I do not want to start a flamewar, but i want to say that 64Kbit is not "good" for me. For MP3, even 160Kbit is not good for me. But it depends on what you expect and also on your sound hardware.

Sound good (2, Funny)

bomek (63323) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236132)

As long as i can put The Matrix at dvd quality on a floppy disk.

Re: Sounds good (1)

babymac (312364) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236224)

Well, in one of the articles linked it mentions that you could squeeze a gigabyte onto a 1.4 MB floppy. 1 GB translates out to about 30 minutes of DVD quality video. So it would still take 4-5 floppies to fit a full length movie.

Still, if you can put a DVD quality Matrix onto 5 megabytes... I will be fucking flabbergasted. You could then get 128 full length movies on a single CD-R! By the way, I'll believe it when I see it.

CTP

Re:Sound good (1)

ErikTheRed (162431) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236260)

Yeah, that will really make the MPAA shit.

Yeah, full screen video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236135)

of a game of pong

Proprietary 'secret' Technologies (3, Insightful)

Whyte Wolf (149388) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236140)

These 'secret' proprietary processes always seem to generate a lot of hyp, investment/funding, whatever and never seem to generate the proposed technology. A good example's a Calgary company that hyped its 'new' large-scale flat screen (non morticed screens) technology. It ended up that the founder had fraudulently demonstrated 'their' tech to shareholders using a compeditor's equiptment.

I can't help but think of 'The Spanish Prisoner.'

Buffer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236144)

Question. The article mentions "No Download Time", but that isn't exactly what a buffer is. If I spend 2 hours buffering 30 minutes of a 40 minute flick, I could show it to you, after the buffer period, streaming, and it'd finish before you got to the "live" part...

Or is it "IT"? (1)

GeneOff (238946) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236145)

Is this the net's version of IT, or "Ginger" by Dean Kamen, the New Hampshire inventor whose product just might change the world.


If we could only find out what _it_ is.


theITquestion.com [theitquestion.com]

Re:Or is it "IT"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236246)

IT is a hydrogen-fueled, Sterling-engine propelled scooter. It will not change the world. Dean even said so. The idea, however, is still quite cool.

Yeah... (1)

FatRatBastard (7583) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236146)

... they forgot to mention that thier "full screen" is a 16x16 2 bit screen. Smells like a bunch o' bull if you ask me.

If they could compress data enough to shove that much information down a 28.8 modem with little or no loss of quality, then you should be able to get surrond sound quality voice over the phone line. Pardon me if I sound skeptical, but if the folks at Ma Bell couldn't improve the basic quality over POTS that much, what makes me believe some ponces from down under could.

Broadband and video... (1)

C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236152)

even video over cable modem is still vaporware IMHO what to say over 28.8...

I still remember ISPs and media focused promissing real-time-full-screen-VHS-quality-30-frames per second video over cable/DSL/ISDN... All I can get now is real-time-AM-radio-quality-sound with what seems to be a slide-show in nakednews.com with a 256 Kbps ADSL.

so, untill I _SEE_ this video over 28.8K I'll deny the possibility of such a thing...

Re:Broadband and video... (2)

hearingaid (216439) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236218)

I can get 30 fps video no problem on my megabit DSL...

'course, I'm using a proprietary transmission protocol... [apple.com]

Re:Broadband and video... (2)

passion (84900) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236267)

Yeah - but it's not full-screen.

Full Screen, Eh....? (1)

CodingFiend (236675) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236154)

I think they forgot to specify that the screen is 32x32x8.

The last? It was one of the first and best (4, Interesting)

rjamestaylor (117847) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236156)

Remember Pixelon [google.com] ?

The above is all that in necessary to say on this subject, but due to the postercomment compression filter, I have to add this meaningless paragraph.

Not by a long shot (2)

rgmoore (133276) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236159)

Could this be the last great Internet scam?

Of course not. It's obviously a scam, but it's equally obvious that scams are not going anywhere. Human nature hasn't changed. As long as there are people who are desperate to belive there will be people willing to tell them what they want to hear. As long as the net is less than people want it to be- which is to say as long as it exists- there will be snake oil salesmen promising that they can make it into what people want.

Re:Not by a long shot (1, Redundant)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236207)

Poor writing by the author. It's the latest internet scam. Not the last.

for the trolls (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236164)

hey i need that link at sourceforge that pops up the goatsex guy 10000000 times and search is down...anyone know it????

bah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236166)

too bad 28.8 is much too slow to get first post here

Pixelon (2, Informative)

Ioldanach (88584) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236168)

For anyone who's ever heard of Pixelon [redherring.com] , we'll believe it when we can test it ourselves.

Eliminate broadband? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236175)

Eliminate the need for broadband? Well, I guess if you're planning on using the Internet as a substitute for television -- but that seems like a pretty stupid use of the Internet.


I mean, how can I do a linux install over video?

shades of pixelon? (2)

prizog (42097) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236182)

Here's Slashdot's last article about a company like this:
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/06/27/1156210.sh tm l

Good thing he doesn't have it patented, tho. As soon as he releases software, the algorithms will be available to everyone.

Even if this is true... (1)

The_Messenger (110966) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236186)

...they're forgetting about Counter-Strike. You can take my DSL when you pry it out of my cold, dead NIC.

Neat, but it still doesn't solve The Real Problem. (3, Insightful)

Rimbo (139781) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236188)

The problem isn't just the bandwidth. The problem with the idea of video-on-demand is that, unlike broadcast, your costs scale with your audience. The technological problem of fitting high-quality signal over a tiny pipeline is a great one to solve, but video-on-demand's real problem is that the cost scales.

It's like choosing an O(exp) algorithm when you know an O(1) algorithm is available.

See, if I start broadcasting a signal, the more people that tune in, the more I can charge for pay-per-view or advertising. But the neat thing is that my cost is fixed; no matter how many people tune into that signal, it costs me the same amount to spray EM waves all over the place.

But with VoD, every new viewer means new bandwidth. Meaning that my costs go up with each new customer. And since the cost of additional bandwidth is not a linear equation, at some point there's diminishing returns, regardless of how small the stream is. My profit margins wither and die if there's enough demand for my video stream.

The only real solution for this from a business perspective is...get this...distributed file sharing, such as Napster or Gnutella. With tools like these, I'm able to avoid the added demands on my server by making the folks who want the service into servers themselves.

So the real technical problem to solve with VoD is not to make the streams smaller, although that certainly doesn't hurt, but to make money off of folks' file transfers. Obviously a direct tax on each transfer is going to cause problems, but an advertising-based model, where each transferred file has an advertisement attached with it, could work wonderfully.

Too bad for the RIAA and MPAA that they're too busy suing file-sharing users and pushing unsuccessful VoD goose-chases to figure this out, eh?

This is a cool technology if it's real. I wouldn't be surprised if it is real. But it won't make the internet into the great media-delivery tool the media corporations want it to be.

Re:Neat, but it still doesn't solve The Real Probl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236238)

The only real solution for this from a business perspective is...get this...distributed file sharing, such as Napster or Gnutella.


What about multi-cast?


And since the cost of additional bandwidth is not a linear equation


No, it's not linear. It gets cheaper per unit as you by more, so there is not point of diminishing returns (as far as delivering the same stream to more people goes. More bandwidth on one physical link, yes, there are diminishing returns).


So the real technical problem to solve with VoD is not to make the streams smaller, although that certainly doesn't hurt, but to make money off of folks' file transfers. Obviously a direct tax on each transfer is going to cause problems, but an advertising-based model, where each transferred file has an advertisement attached with it, could work wonderfully.


Too bad for the RIAA and MPAA that they're too busy suing file-sharing users and pushing unsuccessful VoD goose-chases to figure this out, eh?


And to think, with that great business model, the RIAA and MPAA still have all the money and your posting it on slashdot.

Re:Neat, but it still doesn't solve The Real Probl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236245)

But with VoD, every new viewer means new bandwidth.

Not with multicast. The logistical and technical hurdles of charging people to join a multicast group, plus actually getting ISPs to support it is probably prohibitive though. Also it's difficult to do it "on-demand" because it's just one stream. There are ways, but it's all pretty complex.

Re:Neat, but it still doesn't solve The Real Probl (1)

agdv (457752) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236265)

Of course, the problem you're talking about is the fact that if two people want the same video stream, the stream travels twice through the pipe. Same stream, same bits. If they could have distributed caches so that they only need to send the data to those caches, from where people download them, a lot of the traffic would disappear. The nearer (hops-wise) to the receiving end it is, the more traffic it avoids, but also the more caches you need. The way I see it, ISPs could 'suscribe' to video feeds, for which the users pay per view.
In fact, if any venture capitalist is reading this, please send me a few millions, and I'll put it to personal^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H good use immediately.

Alright! (1)

GiorgioG (225675) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236196)

Full-screen p0rn for everyone!

it all depends on the screen size... (1)

stryk9 (245844) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236199)

but 3 pixel by 3 pixel video isn't very entertaining. However, I suppose it could be useful for broadcasting those fun-packed documentary videos of tournament level
tic-tac-toe matches.

"I too have developed technology for getting video over my 28.8. I just place my television over my modem and wallah! video over 28.8." -m

Decoding, not compression (2, Interesting)

zealot (14660) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236200)

It's certainly possible that they can compress video/audio data this much. There are types of compression available far greater than what are commonly used... the reason being that they demand way too much computing power to encode and decode. For example, neural networks have been used to compress data like pictures to tiny, tiny size. But if you've ever seen neural network algorithms, you know that there's a lot of computation going on.

That said, assuming they have the compression, nobody probably has a cpu for decoding it.

Cold Fusion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236203)

Are these the same jokers that claimed they had done cold fusion?

Notty Blightly

I'll believe it when I see it (2)

koreth (409849) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236204)

Which will probably be never. Though the claims in the article are so vague as to be impossible to evaluate meaningfully. What does "excellent picture quality" mean, really? Are we talking "looks better than a crappy antenna on a 13-inch set," or "you could play it on a 10-foot screen and people would think you had a movie projector?" How about "CD-quality audio?" To some people, a 64kbps MP3 qualifies; others claim any existing lossy audio compression sounds unacceptably bad to them.

But the outfit's complete unwillingness to do anything but canned demos is what really makes me think the guy in charge is doing more than just feeling like a snake-oil salesman.

If it's for real, they'll file for patent protection and we'll all get to see how it works. And if it's for real, they deserve a nice solid patent or three, but my guess is it's just a scam.

Its got to be a metric conversion issue... (1)

addison (80477) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236208)

Whats 28.8 converted to real (USA) units?

Any compression experts know.......? (2)

deglr6328 (150198) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236210)

I don't believe the claims of the story are even remotely posible, but what about using wavelet lossy compression (eg. jpeg2000) for video? any experts know what kinds of compression it would be able to achieve? as far as I know, all current video compression still uses discrete cosine transformations for the lossy portion of compression.

pr0n (1)

psychalgia (457201) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236212)

faster pr0n? sorry, I was asleep till I realized this stories potential.

Uh, no (1)

zentec (204030) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236215)


Mr. Nyquist, where are you please? It seems the Aussies have forgotten your theorems.

Re:Uh, no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236255)

FOA, wouldn't shannon be the scientific deity to call on here? Secondly, no theorems are really relevant in this discussion because none of these articles have mentioned the number of bits of info that are ultimately used to produce "excellent picture quality".

Martians? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236228)

Slashdot has been Invaded by Martians!


o o

/ \

| |

\ ______/

/ \

| [@][@] | __________________

| ^^ |_/ \

| VVVVVV <_ I LOVE YOU ALL. |

\_______/ \ HONEST... /

* | | \________________/

/ ___/ \____

|| / \

|| | | *** | |

|| | |* *| |

|| | | *** | |

\\ | | | |

\\ | |_____| |

\\ VVV _[_]_ VVV

\\ / \

\\__/| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

__/ | \__

/______|______\

LAMENESS FILTER

This Martian is Copyright © 2001 keesh. You may redistribute it under
the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 or later.

Yah... (2)

cmowire (254489) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236229)

There are SO many ways to rig an evaluation without resorting to such lame techniques as showing a completely rigged video. ;)

For example, if you know the exact paramaters of a data set, you can optimize your compressor for just that data set. Like, for example, allocating a lot of bits to pink in a pr0n pic.

You can get insane compression with fractal/wavelet algorythims if you sit down and figure them out by hand or brute force.

And then, there of course is a question of what's on the system running things.

I mean, seriously, you could store four mini-streams and composite them to form the "real" stream. If you think of it that way, Flash already gives you streaming full-screen video over a 28.8 modem.

Oh yeah, and I forgot about doing really high-quality resizing to make less pixels look like more.. ;)

could be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236232)

I have a friend who works for a defence contractor. About 8 years ago they made a pair of boxes that could convey 260 line video at 30 fps with full audio over a 28.8 modem. If the goverment could afford it then.. its probally afforadble now.

The Potential of VoD to replace TiVo (1)

tavon79 (163246) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236234)

Part of the skepticism about watching video over the internet is due to the fact that most people haven't had the experience the convenience of watching over the internet.

In South Korea, the national broadcasting networks all have Video on Demand. Every T.V. show is stored and available for anyone to watch over the internet. They require a login for higher bandwidth/quality footage, however, it's free non-the-less. As a Korean-American, I find it extremely informative/entertaining to watch vidieos and footage from Korea. I can watch any mini-series/sitcoms, news,...etc, I want to at any time, anywhere. Even the music industry makes all their music videos available online.

Just imagine being able to watch any show you want from beginning to end, whenever you want to... That's exactly what the TiVo's for except that you can't store everything due to storage issues. In Korea, the networks and websites are responsible for the storage... thus, true VoD.

I don't know if the technology is really valid, but respond to some people who claim that they don't watch VoD even when they have broadband; You don't watch VoD b/c there isn't anything good out there... (except in Korean)...

Soundbites (1)

NMSpaz (34277) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236236)

MWB's president was heard to say, "The big breakthrough came when we realized that it wasn't in the box, but rather in the band..."

This could work... (2)

spectecjr (31235) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236239)

Think about it for a minute. Video CD and Super VideoCDs compress MPEG at anywhere between 1.15 and 2.25 Mbit/s. With transport encoding, that's between 1.25 and 3.0 or so (give or take).

Now, bear in mind that they're not transmitting over the net - so there's no lag, no reassembly - they're just squirting a continuous packet stream.

28800 is about 26400 bits per second, with overhead - which is 0.03Mbit/s.

So that's a factor of 100 difference. With some clever algorithms (eg. Div-X), making use of the fact that NTSC is generally lossy (and thus letting you throw away a lot more of the signal than a videophile would like), you might get away with it. You could just about squeeze VideoCD quality down that pipe. Not bad.

Simon

Full Screen video? (-1, Troll)

WetKittyKat (518667) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236241)

Does anyone want to see a full screen video of me and my 16 year old sister pressing hello kitty vibrators against our nubile japanese pussy lips through our pink cotton panties? Its a good one, especially where you can see my panties get a wet spot cause the pressure and vibration gets me so hot.

Doubt it, but... (2)

BIGJIMSLATE (314762) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236247)

Well, even with all of the advancements in video compression, I still HIGHLY doubt that we're at the point were decent, broadcast-quality video can be streamed at ~2.5k/sec. Unless they have some "magic" means of compressing something that nobody will even come close to for at least a decade, I remain doubtful. "Broadcast-quality video can go anywhere from 26+MB/sec (uncompressed NTSC) to ~3.7MB/sec (DV/DVCam/etc) for a decent compression. But a decent comparison at approx. .000676 the size? I'll believe it when I see it. Besides, there's only talk so far, no REAL proof that outside people can test, review, and confirm or deny.

This all reminds me of a friend who thought he could compress his whole hard drive onto a floppy by just zipping his files up hundreds of times. You know how that goes...

But there's no doubting how cool something like this will be once the technology in compression advances to this point. Screw MPEG-4 or MP3, if someone could successfully do this, it would change how TV and the Internet are seperated (or combined in some cases) forever.

Re:Doubt it, but... (0)

Dest (207166) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236268)

Your friend is pretty stupid.

Seen it before... another con? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236251)

Reminds me of Pixelon, they made the same claims, and look what happend [thestandard.com] to those guys.

Almost as good as sticking tape on a 42" Plasma screen then making out to your investor it's some wonderful new technology for sowing lowcost LCD's together. They were found out and now they're fucked [yahoo.com] , how MIT tutors got involved in this company I do not know.

This would require... (2)

Satai (111172) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236259)

...substantial compression. Right now, I'm pleased watching (while I work) a 2inch x 2inch video of the Simpsons in the corner of my screen, which is allegedly at 350kbps, but that's still not Amazing Quality at Low Low Rates - unless I have my figures wrong (i.e. bits/bytes, which is entirely possible,) this would be an additional compression of, what, 12 times? That would be groundbreaking, but wouldn't we have seen some intermediate steps?

Hell, maybe not. Maybe it is genuine. But I'm with gwernol - let's see some independent testing.

...also, does anybody else remember that April Fool's joke about lossy data compression, where it actually just deleted the files? Sure, you get 100% compression - but it's lossy.

Their first broadcast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2236261)

A how-to documentary on cold fusion.

There are ways to do this... (2)

jd (1658) | more than 13 years ago | (#2236264)

However, they're not exactly on the cheap side. Any sane (but greedy) manufacturer would be advised to hide such costs, for as long as humanly possible, to rake in the investors, before fleeing across the border.


First, you'd need hardware fractal compression. It's the only compression system capable of the sorts of compression ratios required, for the type of information being delivered. However, it's PAINFULLY slow, which is why it's not in general use, and the only companies touching it are using ultra-powerful dedicated hardware.


Second, "full-screen" is a bit of a suspect term, when it comes to video. Television uses interleaved frames. In principle, this means that you only really need to send over half the information, and do simple interpolation for every other scan-line.


Third, that the modem couldn't be checked is itself a bit suspect. It really wouldn't take much to conceal a DSL circuit, especially if it was an internal modem. At which point, your 28.8k suddenly becomes 28.8m. A somewhat more plausable speed.


Lastly, although I doubt it was done this way, if you run -enough- 28.8k modems in parallel (say, a thousand of them) and stripe the data across them, you could easily reach high enough speeds, AND "legitamately" claim that you had video over a low-speed modem.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?