Just Add Power introduces HDMI over IP using standard Ethernet LAN - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 85 Old 05-22-2010, 05:21 AM
Newbie
 
kirkaugie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by nded View Post

Not at this time. But we do agree that this is a very desireable feature for the product roadmap. Of course, this feature would be restricted to non HDCP protected streams.

Ed

This post is pretty old so not sure I will get a response but here goes anyway and sorry for the bump but this is an interesting topic to me.

I do not understand why a PC cannot recieve HDCP protected streams? Media Center 7 HTPC's have the content protection necessary to recieve cableCARD tuners and protect HDCP so why wouldnt it be possible for an HTPC enabled device to recieve protected content?
kirkaugie is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 85 Old 05-22-2010, 05:38 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
nded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Largo, Florida
Posts: 1,558
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The reason we can't do what you want to do are legal, not technical. The powers that be are much more concerned about protecting their content and aren't really interested in what might be appealing to some users.

BTW, in about 2 weeks we'll be demonstrating the second generation (2G) HDMI over IP Gigabit solution at Infocomm in Las Vegas, and the following week at CEDIA in London. The 2G version of HDMI over IP features lossless video over a Gigabit LAN. You can learn more and see pictures of the 2G HDMI over IP devices at http://www.justaddpower.com

Ed Qualls - Just Add Power
nded is offline  
post #63 of 85 Old 05-22-2010, 06:12 AM
Newbie
 
kirkaugie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by nded View Post

The reason we can't do what you want to do are legal, not technical. The powers that be are much more concerned about protecting their content and aren't really interested in what might be appealing to some users.

I understand its not a technical limitation. I was questioning the legal limitation statement. Ceton, Media Center 7, etc. all can do HDCP on a PC. My question is why its not legal for your solution to do something similar.

The Centon CableCARD tuner hooks up to a PC and takes even HDCP protected content into the PC. It requires that the PC has an HDCP compliant graphics card, HDMI/DVI output to work.

If the PC in question has these things why would it not be able to have reciever software added to to that takes the IP packets in and converts them back to protected content which is then protected in the PC because it wont display it unless it has the necessary equipment? Why would this not be legal?
kirkaugie is offline  
post #64 of 85 Old 05-22-2010, 07:33 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
nded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Largo, Florida
Posts: 1,558
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The original context of the legality statements are in regards to a software only client that would let a PC on the LAN watch the encrypted HDMI over IP datastream. As far as I know, there are no applications with a 100% software based implementation of HDCP decryption. All of the HTPC's include a hardware component that is vital to the delivery of the HDCP protected content.

What you are now talking about gets into more of an issue of supply and demand. While we could probably build an expansion card or external adapter to accomodate watching the HDMI over IP datastream on the PC, it would likely be much more expensive than our standard HDMI over IP Receiver device ($299). How many users would be interested in purchasing such a device? While we are continuing to develop more devices in the HDMI over IP product family, we have to be careful to not waste R&D time on a product that won't become profitable. At this point, I'm not convinced enough users would buy such a device to make it worth our effort.

Ed Qualls - Just Add Power
nded is offline  
post #65 of 85 Old 05-26-2010, 08:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Suntan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 7,103
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by nded View Post

At this point, I'm not convinced enough users would buy such a device to make it worth our effort.

Agreed. I fail to envision a case where data streamed in from one of these HDCP approved IP streamer box thingys would be advantageous to easier/cheaper methods of getting the same data onto the PC.

-Suntan
Suntan is offline  
post #66 of 85 Old 10-04-2010, 10:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
majortom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 1,926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Z3VH View Post


It's either use separate VLANs, or you need to do a bunch of QoS settings to prioritize the HDMI bandwidth.

One could VLAN one's IP video but not require that it use multiple VLAN segments or that one use moving among segments to switch.


Quote:


VLANing it off is typically easier.

Setting up one VLAN is easy, creating many and trying to manage them through the (typically) miserable interface of the switch is much harder.

Quote:


I wouldn't want my HDMI stream fighting for priority and bandwidth every time a new DHCP user joins the network and the entire subnet gets spammed with broadcast traffic, or little joey wants to watch the latest Disney video online, and gets inundated with UDP packets.

I would be more concerned about the installer of this gear creating problems with my data network. I have yet to see an Ethernet switch with multiple layers of security so that an installer or control box can only affect a limited set of VLAN segments. I also dislike non-standard implementations of a protocol. Given what is happening, why even do IP at all? Why not just use an Ethernet based protocol? Since these devices are not really routable, that would keep them protocol compliant.

Either one is sharing this infrastructure between regular IP traffic or one is just using a dedicated Ethernet switch. Either way, using standards like multicast would make controlling this easier as it would all be done on the just add power boxes, rather than requiring different drivers for each Ethernet switch.

Quote:


The only scalability you will lack with VLANs is the ability to traverse a Layer 3 device such as a Router...

One also lacks the ability to easily change Ethernet switches, upgrade their firmware, requires that the person maintaining one's AV infrastructure is also maintaining one's data network infrastructure. All issues eliminated with a standard implementation.
majortom is offline  
post #67 of 85 Old 11-29-2010, 09:26 AM
Newbie
 
XYVYX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
so what's the current state of these HDMI over IP devices? Looking at the website, I see news of your 2G devices & I'm curious what IP/network changes have been made in the implementation. It sounds like the addresses are no-longer fixed, which is great IMO.

I stumbled into that old thread while searching for info on Audio Authority's 2800 Gigabit HD-IP products. They basically promise similar plug-n-play experience, lossless video quality & multiple receivers. I have no idea if they work the same, but I'm guessing it uses multi-casting... doesn't make any mention of VLAN requirements.
*I take that back, the Audio Authority box uses VLANs, so it's probably a rebadged version of your G1 devices... but it uses some dipswitches to set the VLAN IDs.
XYVYX is offline  
post #68 of 85 Old 11-29-2010, 12:55 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
nded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Largo, Florida
Posts: 1,558
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The Just Add Power 1G and 2G devices are in full production and shipping to customers/dealers globally. The Chinese company that makes the devices with the dip switches offered them to us originally and we declined (there are some major problems with that design and the quality standards of their factory). You can find the same dip switch based device under several brand names willing to offer the product (that factory will put anybody's name on a box). Instead, we focused on designing our 2G product from the ground up to build on the lessons we learned from the 1G installations around the world. We are planning new models and accessories for both lines, including a Surround Sound Manager module to support distributed multi-channel audio.

The 2G devices support custom IP addresss through the use of our utility program InstallerPro. There is a new firmware out for the 1G devices that also allows you to change the 1G IP addresses to anything you want. We still advise 1G installers to use the default IP scheme, as there is no technical benefit to using custom IP's with the 1G solution.

Ed Qualls - Just Add Power
nded is offline  
post #69 of 85 Old 12-31-2010, 12:36 AM
Member
 
smcpartlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 90
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by nded View Post
The original context of the legality statements are in regards to a software only client that would let a PC on the LAN watch the encrypted HDMI over IP datastream. As far as I know, there are no applications with a 100% software based implementation of HDCP decryption. All of the HTPC's include a hardware component that is vital to the delivery of the HDCP protected content.

What you are now talking about gets into more of an issue of supply and demand. While we could probably build an expansion card or external adapter to accomodate watching the HDMI over IP datastream on the PC, it would likely be much more expensive than our standard HDMI over IP Receiver device ($299). How many users would be interested in purchasing such a device? While we are continuing to develop more devices in the HDMI over IP product family, we have to be careful to not waste R&D time on a product that won't become profitable. At this point, I'm not convinced enough users would buy such a device to make it worth our effort.
Actually I think a HDCP compliant device that could stream from an HDMI source that required HDCP would be wonderfull.

The Ceton cablecard the previous user mentioned has lead us on this wild goose chase to service our needs. The fact is the Sling media company with thier slingbox, slingplayer and slingcatcher products work hell of a lot better then most tech that tries to work with Microsoft Windows Media player. So then the question comes down to just how can you get media from a WMC 7 PC out to the end users.

Don't be so quick to judge the desires to use the WAN. Personally it's just that it needs to be kept to something reasonable. say a 5-8meg window. What kind of quality can be atained in that range? OK DTS-MA might not be in the deck of cards.... But if you have an encoder (if it was software would that be the same as a transcoder?) and a decoder one should be able to compress and optimize that stream. The main issue I have had with the xbox360 as a media extender (besides it being a pice of crap xbox) is that no bandwith optmizing or stream compression was used. Losslesss is great and all but we are still talking about an xbox.

In reality we want to be able to have a WMC in one building and then stream content to another location. We can expect to have at least 5 to 10 megs per second of available upstream bandwidth. Some sites could have 20 megs. Hell we know people with Home FIOS internet connection with 20/20 links. Obviously we can't eat all 100% of the links.

If you can make a HDCP compliant device and then add compression there will be people interested. I know people that want to drop serious coin on HD cameras for security (the kind where you can read the time on a person's watch) and then stream that content accross the nation so someone can see it.

I know another person that wants to essentally hook up a very powerfull camera to a high powered rifile scope and monitor via a PC but their issue is Latency. If you press a button and the target is missed it's not going to make any money.


The fact is a HDCP device that could stream content from a HDMI source over IP would be desirable. But it would more so if it offered options to allow for WAN links.
smcpartlin is offline  
post #70 of 85 Old 07-31-2013, 03:34 AM
Newbie
 
aniekandominic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hello, please can one use a radio to get signal from one building to another
aniekandominic is offline  
post #71 of 85 Old 07-31-2013, 03:37 AM
Newbie
 
aniekandominic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hello, please can one use a radio to get signal from one building to another, what i really means is that if my transmitter is in a different building a bit far from another building, can i place a receiver at the other building and get signal via radio?
aniekandominic is offline  
post #72 of 85 Old 07-31-2013, 07:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Fernand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 1,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 61
'Hello, please can one use a radio to get signal from one building to another' - a bit more information on what you are trying to achieve would be helpful.

Joe

If I've helped 'Like' me on Facebook - www.facebook.com/Octavainc

Joe Fernand is online now  
post #73 of 85 Old 07-31-2013, 09:28 AM
 
alk3997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 87
And, of course, what does this have to do with a two and a half year old thread that was discussing sending HDMI packetized over IP????? (Inquiring minds what to know)
alk3997 is offline  
post #74 of 85 Old 07-31-2013, 07:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Colm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by aniekandominic View Post

Hello, please can one use a radio to get signal from one building to another
Well, Andy, one can certainly send IP over microwave, so technically, you can do HD over IP over radio...
Colm is offline  
post #75 of 85 Old 07-31-2013, 07:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Colm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by aniekandominic View Post

Hello, please can one use a radio to get signal from one building to another, what i really means is that if my transmitter is in a different building a bit far from another building, can i place a receiver at the other building and get signal via radio?
Yes, unless the transmitter or receiver happens to be in a Faraday cage. This thread is about HD over IP. What is it you want to send, and how far?

OT I once worked for a company that took over an old army facility. In one bay of one warehouse, there was absolutely no radio reception, no broadcast radio, no cell phone, no nothing. Used to freak people out. Turns out the army had used that bay to repair and test classified radio gear and had built a Faraday cage into it so that nothing go out, or in.
Colm is offline  
post #76 of 85 Old 07-31-2013, 08:15 PM
 
alk3997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 87
I wonder how much they spent certifying that area? Only things close to that we had were some areas that were setup to keep anybody from getting any information from the outside.

If you put both buildings into a single (very large) Faraday cage, it should still work, right? That would be a good construction contract (including the part below the foundation)!
alk3997 is offline  
post #77 of 85 Old 07-31-2013, 08:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Colm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by alk3997 View Post

I wonder how much they spent certifying that area?!
No idea. You know the military, they will spend whatever it takes. Best thing the company I worked for got from them was a building with $500,000 worth of antistatic floor tile in which they used to repair night vision gear. Put a circuit board assembly line in there.
Colm is offline  
post #78 of 85 Old 08-01-2013, 01:53 AM
Newbie
 
aniekandominic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
thank you so much for your reply i appreciate it
aniekandominic is offline  
post #79 of 85 Old 08-01-2013, 01:58 AM
Newbie
 
aniekandominic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thank you so much for your info.
aniekandominic is offline  
post #80 of 85 Old 08-04-2013, 10:01 AM
 
alk3997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 87
OK. What info?
alk3997 is offline  
post #81 of 85 Old 08-04-2013, 01:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,208
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 239
Confused confused.gif I am.
Otto Pylot is offline  
post #82 of 85 Old 08-15-2013, 02:11 PM
Newbie
 
Mike IT guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Has anybody tried this over a WAN? I have 3 or 4 sites that I would like to display the same presentation simultaneously too and would like to control it from 1 pc. Thoughts?
Mike IT guy is offline  
post #83 of 85 Old 08-15-2013, 06:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Colm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 88
Haven't tried it. I suspect that you would have problems. As I understand it, HD over IP normally uses a dedicated network.
Colm is offline  
post #84 of 85 Old 08-16-2013, 07:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jautor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 7,817
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike IT guy View Post

Has anybody tried this over a WAN? I have 3 or 4 sites that I would like to display the same presentation simultaneously too and would like to control it from 1 pc. Thoughts?

The bandwidth used by the Just-Add-Power HDMI stream (re-compressed) is going to be much too large for just about any WAN link. We're talking >30-80Mbs... (I don't remember the actual numbers, but its in that range). For presentation replication between sites, a virtual meeting product to replicate the computer display will be the answer.

Jeff

Rock Creek Theater -- CIH, Panamorph, Martin Logan, SVS PB2000, Carada Masquerade, Grafik Eye, Bar table, Green Glue, JVC RS50 
Theater build photos: http://photobucket.com/autor-ht

jautor is online now  
post #85 of 85 Old 08-17-2013, 11:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Colm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by jautor View Post

...30-80Mbs...
120 Mbps for 1080 with 2G gear, half that for 1G gear. You might be able to do that depending on what your business has for a WAN, although it would certainly be problematic with most consumer grade connections. My concerns are about how things like latency, lost packets, and out of order packets would affect the performance of the product.

I agree that one of the network meeting products would probably be a better choice.
Colm is offline  
Reply HDMI Q&A - The One Connector World

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off