Xref: utzoo comp.ivideodisc:582 comp.multimedia:15
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!know!newmedia!jim
From: jim@newmedia.UUCP (Jim Beveridge)
Newsgroups: comp.ivideodisc,comp.multimedia
Subject: Re: DVI questions
Message-ID: <425@newmedia.UUCP>
Date: 15 Jan 91 15:09:30 GMT
References: <573@hydra.bucknell.edu> <1991Jan15.040230.26507@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Followup-To: comp.ivideodisc
Organization: New Media Graphics, Billerica, MA
Lines: 33

In article <1991Jan15.040230.26507@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>, tj@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Terry Jones) writes:
> From recent announcements I would assume that DVI is looking like dated
> technology even though the chips are just announced. I sort of feel
> that JPEG and MPEG hardware is going to be more widely accepted.

The first chip to do JPEG is from C-Cube, and they are currently only
shipping the still frame version of the chip.  The real time version
is still not available.  Even in compressed form, the bandwidth
required for a full JPEG screen far exceeds the abilities of an
IBM bus to transfer.  (I don't believe it to be a problem for the
Apple NuBus)  JPEG still requires LOTS of data moving around.
To keep track of it, you pretty much require the full resources
of the system to move it off the hard disk and pump it into the
chip fast enough.

Of course, there are ways around this problem with a private
bus and private hard drives, but that is $$$.

The MPEG standard is still under discussion and won't be ready
for at least a year.  Don't expect commercially available MPEG
boards for a couple of years.

DVI is shipping now, but is VERY expensive, particularly for
the production level video that requires that you send a tape
to Intel.  The "home-brew" comperssion that the DVI chips
now do is very grainy and not suitable for production.
The good news is that the production level does not require
almost the entire power of the CPU to keep the picture running.

		Jim

--
"If I wanted a .sig, I would have written one"