Zibb

Industry leaders, moderated by EDN Senior Technical Editor Brian Dipert, share their thoughts on consumer electronics: past-event post-mortems, current developments and future trends. Follow the How We See CE Twitter feed at www.twitter.com/HowWeSeeCE.



   Advertisement

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Realizing the Potential of Wireless in the CE World

Apr 1 2009 10:46PM | Permalink |Comments (17) |


Despite the promises of existing wireless HDTV standards, no standard has yet to successfully enable the wireless HDTV ecosystem. This situation raises a number of questions, including:

  • What is the true value proposition for wireless solutions in the CE space, and
  • When will wireless HDTV become of real value to consumers?

The answer is that wireless solutions have enormous potential in the CE space, but in order to be successful, such solutions must reliably enable whole home connectivity and support uncompressed HD video content.

As we have all seen, video content (often HD) is coming to consumers through an increasing number of channels, including cable and satellite, broadcast, physical media, Internet, and mobile networks and devices. However, consumers today cannot easily display this content throughout their homes, and at times even in-room connectivity is a challenge. For example, content acquired on a PC or mobile device rarely makes it to the entertainment room TV, and content originally purchased for the entertainment room often stays there.

There are two major causes of this. The first is the obvious physical barrier: sources and displays are in different rooms, and moving content through walls is a non-trivial task. The second cause is format barriers: sources and sinks are often incompatible, with the causes of incompatibility ranging from physical connectors to video codecs to media players to content protection. These problems are not impossible to overcome, but solutions are often difficult, unreliable and expensive, especially for the average consumer.

Multi-room wireless technology effectively removes the physical barrier, and is essential for any successful wireless standard. To overcome the format barrier, the standard must deliver an uncompressed stream, with copy protection based on a ubiquitous and flexible solution. Compressed solutions do not provide consumers with answers for some of their common use cases. For example, what if the display doesn’t have a specific media player (e.g., flash) or video decoder (e.g., MPEG 2/4)? What about legacy CE devices with no compressed output? What about content that is not compressed to begin with (e.g., PC content or PlayStation 3 games)? Based on my experience creating and running HDMI, I strongly believe that HDMI’s success is due in large part to the fact that it is uncompressed. Recall that when HDMI first came out there were compressed solutions available with a CE market lead. 

Several wireless solutions, based both on 60 GHz and UWB, have been proposed for delivery of video. UWB cannot support the high rates of uncompressed 1080p, however, and its range in the home is limited. 60 GHz perhaps has greater potential than UWB for wireless video, but, like UWB, it is very limited in range and is essentially confined to line-of-sight cable replacement, providing a solution to a very limited set of problems.

The upcoming WHDI standard can solve both physical and format barrier issues by delivering wireless, uncompressed, whole home Wireless HDTV on the unlicensed 5GHz band. WHDI’s video modem technology enables reliable delivery of full 1080p beyond 100 feet through walls with less than one millisecond latency. WHDI also incorporates copy protection based on HDCP 2.0, making it capable of fully supporting HDCP 1.x devices and multi-vendor configurations. Additionally, with relatively low power consumption, WHDI can provide laptops and mobile devices with an easy connection to the entertainment room TV.

This is not to say that there is no place for compressed wireless solutions such as 802.11. I believe that 802.11 and WHDI are complementary solutions; 802.11 enables the whole-home delivery of compressed content and traditional “data” applications, while WHDI enables the whole-home delivery of uncompressed content (together with A/V control data). In fact, as I will discuss in future blog entries, there is a significant similarity in the physical implementations of 802.11n and WHDI that will enable a convergence path for integrated board-level and even chip-level solutions in the near future. These would bring to market a powerful wireless solution based on the WHDI standard that have the advantage of the cost efficiencies of the 802.11 ecosystem.

Leslie Chard
WHDI            

Leslie Chard is President of WHDI LLC and Secretary for the WHDI (“Wireless Home Digital Interface”) Consortium, whose members include Amimon, Hitachi, LG, Motorola, Samsung, Sharp and Sony. Mr. Chard previously helped found the HDMI standard and was President of HDMI Licensing, LLC.


Reader Comments



at 4/2/2009 2:26:49 PM, Chano said:
Hi Leslie, thanks for the overview of WHDI. One thing that concerns me is the use of the term "uncompressed" here. My understanding is that WHDI does indeed compress the video stream (ie, removes part of the redundancy from the image, even if its only the least-significant bits) during transmission. I understand that in this case source coding and channel coding are being done in a combined manner (as opposed to, say, compressing the video first and then sending it over a transmission channel with equal protection for all bits), but at the end of the day this is video compression (although probably much more optimized than doing source coding separate from channel coding). Don't you think that using the term "uncompressed" here could be a bit misleading?



at 4/2/2009 3:08:16 PM, fat and dubious said:
Traditionary speaking data compression algorithm, content protection schema, error correction coding are deployed together hand in hand. The current technology as I see can not encode uncompressed video for content protection at 1080p? Am I missing something here?



at 4/2/2009 3:49:40 PM, Wireless Guy said:
All premium video content coming into the home is already compressed. It is difficult to make a credible argument that it makes more sense to take an already compressed video stream, decompress it and then send the decompressed video. Why not just send the already compressed video?

A more difficult question is today 1080i content uncompressed is ~1.5 Gbps. Going to 1080p raises that to 3 Gbps.

There is already talk of even higher resolutions and frame rates as well as adding support for 3D. A uncompressed 3D Ultra HD video stream at 2160p resolution and 120fps yields a data rate of ~24 Gbps !! What wireless technology is going to provide 24 Gbps? Uncompressed video appears to be a dead end product roadmap.





at 4/2/2009 5:55:50 PM, 60 GHz skeptic said:
A 6 x 6 antenna array with 36 elements. That''s 36 Low Noise Amplifiers with basically 36 receiver chains. 36 transmit chains and 36 transmit antennas radiating over 5 watts of RF power!
(Do I hear tin foil for my gonads?)
We haven''t even talked about what would be required for the digital processing. A real-time base-band for a 36 element steerable antenna array and the base-band digital processing to support 36 Transmit and Receive chains. What would the power consumption be on something like this implemented in CMOS at 60 GHz?
Call me a 60 GHz skeptic.





at 4/3/2009 7:49:29 AM, Robert Dodson said:
The question here is "wireless HDMI" which is an uncompressed format to begin with (derived from a compressed format). There is already at least one product on the market that allows wireless HDMI at data rates up to 1080p (Check out products that were shown at the last CES or google "wireless HDMI"), and I don''t think any of them require lead shielding of private parts. There are practical solutions to wireless consumer video but right now they are expensive. Lower cost solutions are what are needed to bring wireless HDMI and other high data rate systems into the same price category as present day bluetooth solutions.



at 4/5/2009 10:36:50 AM, Leslie Chard said:
Is WHDI Compressed?

Coming from HDMI, this was one of my first questions for WHDI. WHDI does not apply a compression scheme - no compression code is applied to bits. The uncompressed 1080p input stream of 3Gbps is mapped onto the OFDM constellation in a way that the more significant video information is more protected and the less significant video information is less protected. There is no compression engine that reduces the bit rate of the information, and therefore WHDI is an uncompressed link. Granted, some of the less significant information may get lost in the channel because it is less protected, however the transmitter does not throw away this information (i.e. it does not compress).

For more information see a paper by Meir Feder, CTO of Amimon (who created much of the key WHDI technology). Meir is an expert in information theory:

www.amimon.com/PDF/tech_article%20final.pdf







at 4/5/2009 10:39:02 AM, Leslie Chard said:
WHDI Power Consumption

WHDI transmits at 5GHz at the same power levels as WiFi. Power consumption could be similar to wi-fi, and therefore it is suitable for portable applications. 60GHz systems, on the other hand do transmit at much higher power levels, and consume more power, and therefore less suited for battery operated, portable devices.




at 4/5/2009 10:47:19 AM, Leslie Chard said:
Why not just use Compressed Video?

Granted most of the video information is distributed to the home in compressed format, however the interface between the source and display must be uncompressed because:
a) proliferation of codecs: you can't expect TVs to implement all possible codecs (or media players)
b) Support for legacy - most devices do not output the compressed data, even if that is what they have inside. For example on a Blu-Ray player you will find only uncompressed outputs (e.g HDMI) even though the video is compressed on the disk.
c) Even though most information is compressed - not all is compressed. Examples: Gaming graphics (PS3, Xbox), computer graphics, electronic program guide and other graphic overlays generated by the video source locally (these overlays are growing increasingly more popular/sophisticated).




at 4/5/2009 10:58:06 AM, Leslie Chard said:
WIRELESS HDMI

Folks have used "wireless HDMI" as a shorthand for a number of solutions, but the only wireless, uncompressed, multi-room solutions that I am aware of are products based on Amimon's pre- standard versions of the technlogy in WHDI.







at 4/8/2009 10:14:30 PM, Chuck Maiester said:
WHDI is nothing but a farce - it uses a truncation scheme (a form of compression) along with a brand new unproven JSCC physical layer. It is anything but uncompressed HDMI transmission - it just guarantees MSBs not LSBs. What you need is real bandwidth. You just can''t get it with Amimon.

Sibeam and 60 GHz is a technology looking for a solution. With its limited range and severe line-of-sight issues, and not to mention the 8 watts of power, is NOT the way to go.

One needs to be wary about letting people shove crappy technologies down our throats.

And to the "Why not just use compressed HD?" question. Well! HDCP, and its strong proponents like content providers and DRM standards make it necessary - like it or not. So? Where do we stand? We need more bandwidth period.

Picongen Wireless Inc. www.picongen.com provides that bandwidth with its Multi-Streaming technology. No new physical layer, just plain old WiFi. No compression, hence no loss of quality. And same power, range and penetration as WiFi for a full-fledged multiroom solution. Beautiful!





at 4/8/2009 10:18:06 PM, Leonard Strause said:
Followed www.picongen.com above and found this interesting patents information. Also came across their blog: picongen.wordpress.com



at 4/14/2009 3:30:25 PM, Leslie Chard said:
A bit over the top Chuck.

I judge compression based on the transmission of information, and from an information theory perspective, this is not compressed. The JSCC is proven in currently shipping products, and with the current generation chip, there is no ability to tell which 1080p signal is HDMI vs. WHDI.

Any wireless solution, even 60Ghz and multi-streaming, must deal with interference in a manner that makes it tolerable for the user. This is the reason for our use of JSCC/prioritization of visual significance.




at 5/13/2009 5:17:51 AM, Chuck Maiester said:
With all due respect Leslie, you sound like the White House Press Secretary for a Joe Biden technology. Compression, however you judge it, and whatever spin we try to put on it - be it from an information theory perspective or from the random theory perspective, alteration of the original "uncompressed" format in any way (these days you are calling it "encoding" scheme) it affects the resolution (how much is a matter of subjective perception). If yours is a novel way of handling the transmission of an originally uncompressed signal by encoding/compressing/truncating whatever, then just say it. But do not say that it is uncompressed signal you are transmitting. Because that is incorrect. Also you make it sound as if all JSCC does is prioritization of "visual significance" - whatever that means - sounds as if you are trivializing a very powerful coding scheme. I call it as I see it. You are altering information all the way from 1.5 Gbps to fit into a 20 MHz channel. However novel this scheme may be, it compromises the original uncompressed HDMI signal, subjective visual perception notwithstanding. Thanks for the response though... Cheers.



at 5/20/2009 9:06:11 AM, Drew Childress said:
I look at WHDI as more like a lossy transport mechanism. They just load the least significant bits in the worst channels. The real question is what the impact on QoE is? That is subjective to the consumer and I haven't seen it yet to judge personally. I will say it is an interesting approach to a difficult problem.




at 5/21/2009 2:42:17 PM, Leslie Chard said:

I agree with Drew. Dont have to rush to embrass a sub-optimal solution with WHDI, no point really. I mean we waited like what 4 years? Especially now when full-resolution (really uncompressed) transport mechanisms seem to be right around the corner. Any idea if 802.11n is gonna incorporate multistreaming along with MiMO? If we combine Celeno and Quantenna with Picongen, seems like we can get up to 10 Gig/s speeds... ?




at 6/13/2009 10:51:31 AM, JaneRadriges said:
The article is usefull for me. I’ll be coming back to your blog.



at 6/16/2009 1:56:05 AM, GarykPatton said:
How soon will you update your blog? I'm interested in reading some more information on this issue.

Post a comment



Display Name

Change Image
Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above.
Note the letters are NOT case sensitive.


ADVERTISEMENT

©1997-2009 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other Reed Business sites