# Just Add Power introduces HDMI over IP using standard Ethernet LAN



## nded

This is not just another HDMI over twisted pair balun device. We are really talking about sending 1080p video with sound (audio output is 5.1, not full DD) over standard 802.3 Ethernet to a virtually unlimited number of displays. You can also use practically any IR remote controller to send control command back to the source device (pause, FF, change channels, etc...). If you take a few minutes to understand this solution you will see how it is totally different from the typical CATx point-to-point extenders. The following text is copied from the http://www.justaddpower.com/products...ConnectorH.htm product page:



> Quote:
> The _Point-To-Point_ or _Point-to-Many_ *Projector Connector HDMI over IP* allows you to simultaneously send out an HDMI 1.3 Signal (up to 1080p) to one or more HDMI video projectors or LCD Panels and return an IR Control Signal to the source using CAT5/6/7 cable over a standard Ethernet infrastructure. Can be used to distribute HD digital content to 100 or more remote displays by cascading Ethernet switches up to 3 levels, allowing the farthest display to be located up to 1,000’ away from the source device while sustaining excellent picture and sound quality. Each device is installed using 1 piece of UTP (Unshielded Twisted Pair) or STP (Shielded Twisted Pair) cable. AV signals are transmitted digitally over the CAT5/6/7 cable without any signal loss. Auto adjustment of the internal video compression rate ensures smooth video streaming under different network conditions. The integrated Scaler function allows different input and output resolutions up to 2048x2048 (different displays can be at different resolutions). The IR send/receive function can be used to remotely control the HDMI source device (i.e. play/pause/ff/change source, etc.) from any receiver location using IR Blaster adapters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Projector Connector™ HDMI/IP Transmitter (VBS-HDMI-308A)*
> 
> 
> 1 UTP/STP 100Mbps Ethernet Port
> 
> Embedded HTTP Server
> 
> Protocol: IP, UDP, TCP, ICMP, and IGMP
> 
> 1 HDMI In (19 pin Type A female)
> 
> 1 3.5mm IR Receiver Port (receives remote IR signal from any VBS-HDMI-108A receiver)
> 
> Size: 5” W x 4.5” D x 1” H; 1.1 pounds
> 
> 100-240V, 50/60 Hz, 5v DC Adapter - 1 Amp
> 
> HDCP Compliant
> 
> Plug-and-Play installation
> 
> Supports DVI with HDMI-to-DVI adapter
> 
> Video Bandwidth: 2.25Gbps (HDM1.3)
> 
> LAN Bandwidth: 50Mbps ~ 60Mbps for 1080p
> 
> Input TMDS Signal: 1.2 volts (peak-to-peak)
> 
> Input DDC Signal: 5 volts (peak-to-peak)
> 
> Resolutions - practically any input from 16 x 16 to 2M pixel image including the following:
> 
> 
> 640x480 @ 85fps
> 
> 800x600 @ 85fps
> 
> 1024x768 @ 75fps
> 
> 1280x1024 @ 30fps
> 
> 1600x1200 @ 30fps
> 
> 720x480 @ 60fps
> 
> 720x576 @ 50fps
> 
> 1280x720 @ 30fps
> 
> 1920x1080 @ 24fps
> 
> *Projector Connector™ HDMI/IP Receiver (VBS-HDMI-108A)*
> 
> 
> 1 UTP/STP 100Mbps Ethernet Port
> 
> 1 HDMI Out (19 pin Type A female)
> 
> 1 3.5mm IR Transmitter Port (sends IR back to VBS-HDMI-308A transmitter)
> 
> Size: 5” W x 4.5” D x 1” H; 1.1 pounds
> 
> 100-240V, 50/60 Hz, 5v DC Adapter - 1 Amp
> 
> HDCP Compliant
> 
> Plug-and-Play installation
> 
> Supports DVI with HDMI-to-DVI adapter
> 
> Scaler automatically adjusts for each display devices optimum resolution up to 2048x2048.
> 
> 
> Ideal for Digital Signage, with the PTP Projector Connector Type HDMI you are getting everything you need to make the multimedia connection between your computer or blu-ray player and any number of projectors or LCD monitors.



Introductory pricing starts at $549 for a starter kit (1 transmitter and 1 receiver), with additional receivers available for $250 each. Each device is assigned an embedded fixed IP address (uses 192.168.168.xxx range). New orders are being delivered in 10-14 days.


When we tested this with my Vudu running 1080p/24fps movies I found the actual bandwidth to be in the 30MB to 40MB range (the engineers do suggest a higher bandwidth allowance in the above specifications). It all depends on how well the source image works with the compression/decompression algorithms. We also tried using a Buffalo WAP to connect wirelessly, but it could not keep up with the continuous bandwidth requirements.


I look forward to answering any questions the AVSForum community has about this innovative implementation of HDMI distribution over Ethernet.


Ed Qualls - Just Add Power


----------



## crutschow

Sounds pretty good but I have concerns about the video compression it uses to send the signal.


Quote: "Auto adjustment of the internal video compression rate ensures smooth video streaming under different network conditions."


If it's not lossless then there can be some degradation of the HDMI signal.


You say it's stereo audio, not surround, but I don't see that in the description. Normally if the audio is digital, it's also surround sound.


----------



## nded

To do this over standard 100MB Ethernet LAN switches you have to go the compression/decompression route. If you were to implement this in a large venue (shopping mall, convention center) you'd most likely want to put the display IP traffic on its own set of LAN switches, so there would not be any competition for the network bandwidth. We built the adaptive bandwidth function to handle cases where there is competition for the Ethernet bandwidth. As for the audio, we figured that an implementation across a large number of screens would not be in a venue appropriate for full surround sound - the decision to fall back to 5.1 channel audio saved us a ton of data for the codec hardware to process (using an AC97 chipset for sound). While it is not a good fit for a serious home theater main viewing room, being able to distribute 1080p audio/video over the LAN to peripheral monitors is very desireable. We expect most of our placements to be in Digital Signage applications where they can use one media player to feed numerous displays (DS content is very codec friendly). You could use a standard 1X2 HDMI splitter at the source, allowing you to run your main Home Theater room with lossless full DD and then use Projector Connector HDMI over IP to feed other screens in the house.


When I was using this solution for playing 1080p/24fps movies on my 110" DLP screen I did see some very minor macro-blocking in the blacks, but that was a digitized movie coming out of a Vudu, which is already compressed for VOD distribution. Overall it looked very good, and the macro-blocking was not noticeable on small displays. It looked identical to the video monitor directly attached to the Vudu.


Ed Qualls


----------



## nded

Good news, I was mistaken about the sound only being stereo. The sound component of Projector Connector for HDMI over IP supports up to 5.1 digital sound. I have updated the OP with this detail.


From a relative comparison perspective, I would put the video quality capability comparable to Blu-Ray if not identical. However I must admit that most of my personal experience has been with HD from other sources (including Vudu's HDX movies). Vudu's HDX content (the best VOD standard on the market) has been reported to have an average bandwidth requirement of about 10MB, while their standard HD movies are streamed at about 4MB. The Just Add Power HDMI over IP Projector Connector has 50MB-60MB bandwidth, and can provide support for transmitting an image at up to 2048x2048 resolution.


If you'd rather email me instead of posting here (or sending a PM), I can be reached directly using ed AT justadddpower DOT com.


----------



## PooperScooper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *crutschow* /forum/post/16700712
> 
> 
> Sounds pretty good but I have concerns about the video compression it uses to send the signal.
> 
> 
> Quote: "Auto adjustment of the internal video compression rate ensures smooth video streaming under different network conditions."
> 
> 
> If it's not lossless then there can be some degradation of the HDMI signal.



That was a big red flag for me, too. And 1080p60 is not listed - limitations that will make future things unusable, 3D comes to mind.


So far nothing seems to have matched the previous announcement of tech that allows full bandwidth (IIRC). Can't remember the name, but it's here somewhere.







Hopefully we'll see products some day.


larry


----------



## nded

Yes, 1080p 60fps is supported. Keep in mind that 1080p/60 is really more of a television broadcast speed vs. the standard for movies, which is 24fps. But please, let's not turn this thread into another 60fps vs 24fps debate. Bottom line is that the HDMI over IP transmitter will pass that through without a problem. At the same time, the built in scaler will adjust the output to match the optimum resolution and frame rate of the target monitors.


Do you have an application for multiple screens?


----------



## PooperScooper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nded* /forum/post/16710977
> 
> 
> Yes, 1080p 60fps is supported. Keep in mind that 1080p/60 is really more of a television broadcast speed vs. the standard for movies, which is 24fps. But please, let's not turn this thread into another 60fps vs 24fps debate. Bottom line is that the HDMI over IP transmitter will pass that through without a problem. At the same time, the built in scaler will adjust the output to match the optimum resolution and frame rate of the target monitors.
> 
> 
> Do you have an application for multiple screens?



No. And I just noticed that I misread the first post. When I saw ethernet, the squiggling lines in the pic, and then saw compression mentioned, I thought "wireless" was invovled at some points. Getting old....my mistake.










So I'm guess you can run into bandwidth limits when sending multiple "streams" over the same line.


larry


----------



## nded




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PooperScooper* /forum/post/16718689
> 
> 
> No. And I just noticed that I misread the first post. When I saw ethernet, the squiggling lines in the pic, and then saw compression mentioned, I thought "wireless" was invovled at some points. Getting old....my mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm guess you can run into bandwidth limits when sending multiple "streams" over the same line.
> 
> 
> larry




Multiple stream support is on the roadmap, but is not available today. When we get there, you would likely want a Gigabyte rated LAN switch to manage the traffic and bandwidth. For now, the single stream leaves enough room for other 100BT LAN appplication bandwidth requirements.


We just finished some additional testing with a Blu-Ray player and a standard DVD player with HDMI output. Both devices looked and sounded great on multiple screens simultaneously. This was all being sent over a simple LinkSys RT31P2 Vonage home router and assorted CAT5 UTP cable lengths. We wanted to make sure the QOS settings or voice over IP was not affected by the traffic. It worked fine.


Ed Qualls

Just Add Power


----------



## RBradley

Can a computer client see the stream without the receiver?


----------



## nded




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBradley* /forum/post/16789575
> 
> 
> Can a computer client see the stream without the receiver?



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


----------



## Afliss

I think it would be much simpler to use a free VLC server and broadcast multipoint H.264 or MPEG2 streams. These are standard video compression formats being used everywhere. There is no need for proprietary solutions. There are dozens of decoders available that easily handle [email protected] 24fps and the video source can be any PC.


----------



## nded




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Afliss* /forum/post/16790047
> 
> 
> I think it would be much simpler to use a free VLC server and broadcast multipoint H.264 or MPEG2 streams. These are standard video compression formats being used everywhere. There is no need for proprietary solutions. There are dozens of decoders available that easily handle [email protected] 24fps and the video source can be any PC.



I think your VLC idea would make it more complicated, as you would need a VLC compatible client at every screen to process the stream. This solution is quite simple, you just plug the receiver into the monitor and it works. Another problem with the VLC approach you've suggested would be for users with a Blu-Ray player or a digital signage broadcast client. How would you get the HDMI output (not to mention HDCP issues) from those sources into a multipoint H.264 or MPEG2 stream? Besides, anybody can plug in an HDMI and ethernet cable (which is all it takes to install this solution), not so many people can setup a server for broadcast multipoint functionality.


Ed


----------



## nded

Based on some of the PM's I've received, I'd like to offer some further clarification on how it is possible to deliver full 1080p audio/video to multiple screens with "only" a 100BT Ethernet LAN. Take a look at this table - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...hnical_details comparing the high definition formats. The heaviest bandwidth consumer is Blu-Ray with a maximum bitrate for Audio+Video+Subtitles set at 48Mbits. All other 1080p sources (HD-DVD, Tivo's, Vudu's, Media Center PC's, Gaming Platforms, Digital Signage content devices, etc) come in below that bitrate. Most of the time even a Blu-Ray movie is not putting out content at this maximum bitrate.


The HDMI over IP devices in the OP use up to 50MB LAN bandwidth for sending 1080p to a single receiver, and up to 60MB LAN bandwidth for sending 1080p to multiple recievers (the same multicast bandwidth is consumed whether you are sending to 2 or 200 receivers). Most of the time much less bandwidth is needed (especially for Digital Signage content). The ASIC's on the TX/RX units only use JPEG compression to reduce the bandwidth when necessary due to other network traffic, but not if there is sufficient bandwidth to send the full audio/video data stream. While the HDMI specification has much more bandwidth, that overhead bandwidth is not needed to send perfect audio/video digitally over a 100MB LAN.


Ed


----------



## nded

In another thread we have been discussing a possible sports bar application that wants to be able to put their NFL Sunday Ticket (up to 10 games at the same time) across 30 screens, with the ability to show any game on any screen. This application sent us back to the drawing board, and along with the help of my local Cisco representative, we came up with a way to support multiple transmitters on a single LAN. Here is a conceptual drawing of the application:











Only 5 screen are shown in this schematic, but the 48 port LAN switch could actually support 37 screens, plus the 10 DirecTV sources, and the PC for system control).


This same technique can be used to build a "right-sized" Home Theater HDMI Matrix switch for whole house video distribution like this:











For our "proof of concept" test, we connected 3 VBS-HDMI-308A transmitters to the Cisco managed switch on ports 2, 4, and 6. We connected 3 VBS-HDMI-108A receivers to the Cisco managed switch on ports 1, 3, and 5. We played back 1080p movies on all three transmitters. The receivers were connected to 2 HDMI LCD panels, and one 110" LCD projector (using HDMI>DVI cable). The switching between active HDMI sources was instantaneous and totally glitch free. The 1080p content looked great on all of the screens, and to my eyes the video HD content quality was exactly the same as a direct connected display. All I can say is that you gotta see this to believe it.


For the sceptics out there who wonder if the switch could handle the bandwidth requirements for multiple transmitters, I took a screen capture of the Cisco GUI showing that the per port bandwidth utiliztion hovered around 20%, while the total switch bandwidth utilization was under 1% (those Cisco switches are great performers).


----------



## ahiser

would this system be able to pass along a TrueHD and DTS-HD MA track from a bluray?


----------



## nded




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ahiser* /forum/post/17154432
> 
> 
> would this system be able to pass along a TrueHD and DTS-HD MA track from a bluray?



The current implmentation of HDMI over IP does not support those audio formats. It does support PCM and the DD 5.1 audio tracks. If you are in Atlanta for CEDIA this week you can see the system in booth #5312.


----------



## ahr34

Do you have to use a PC to switch between sources?


I see that rs232 control is possible ("Crestron optional").


How would a Crestron system control this via r232?


And would you be able to program a Crestron system to switch between sources at each video location?


----------



## nded




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ahr34* /forum/post/17186319
> 
> 
> Do you have to use a PC to switch between sources?
> 
> 
> I see that rs232 control is possible ("Crestron optional").
> 
> 
> How would a Crestron system control this via r232?
> 
> 
> And would you be able to program a Crestron system to switch between sources at each video location?



We already have a Creston module to control the system through a Crestron QM-RMC interface. Several other Crestron programmers have jumped on board and we expect to have a plethora of Crestron modules available soon.


At CEDIA we got committments from programmers to write drivers for Control4, AMX, Savant, and Pakedge to name a few. Within 90 days we hope to have support for most of the popular Family Friendly interfaces.


For those of you that missed our tiny booth at CEDIA, you can visit our booth virutally by visiting the following links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux3vQBhVSCQ 

http://www.cepro.com/article/dealer_...game_changing/ 

http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/09/14...-over-ip-solut 

http://www.c4forums.com/viewtopic.php?id=4013&p=1 

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/14/j...-over-ip-solut


----------



## jgb

Hi,


This product looks really promising.


I'm a networking guy so I understand VLAN's and multicast etc. However I'm not clear on how the recievers pick up a different source. If it is just subscribing to a multicast stream, why do you need to send any configuration commands to the ethernet swtich. The receiver should be able to request multicast streams over the IP network. If the switch supports IGMP snooping it should work fine.


If it is VLAN based then are you actually moving ports connected to receivers in and out of VLAN's with sources in them to change channels?


Sounds like the later is what is happening and the multicast is just to allow multiple receivers to pick up one source with all devices in the same port based VLAN. Essentially the same as using broadcast addresses rather than multicast addresses.


Is this how it works?


Thanks...Josh


----------



## nded




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jgb* /forum/post/17193642
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> This product looks really promising.
> 
> 
> I'm a networking guy so I understand VLAN's and multicast etc. However I'm not clear on how the recievers pick up a different source. If it is just subscribing to a multicast stream, why do you need to send any configuration commands to the ethernet swtich. The receiver should be able to request multicast streams over the IP network. If the switch supports IGMP snooping it should work fine.
> 
> 
> If it is VLAN based then are you actually moving ports connected to receivers in and out of VLAN's with sources in them to change channels?
> 
> 
> Sounds like the later is what is happening and the multicast is just to allow multiple receivers to pick up one source with all devices in the same port based VLAN. Essentially the same as using broadcast addresses rather than multicast addresses.
> 
> 
> Is this how it works?
> 
> 
> Thanks...Josh



Hi Josh,


We've tried to make the HDMI over IP solution as simple as possible to manage, and as low cost as possible. Therefore, we have not put any "smarts" into the transmitters or receivers. Instead, we are relying upon the capabilites of the switch. All of the transmitters are on the same IP address, and all of the receivers only have one function - listen to that IP address.


The channel changing function is realized by switching the port that is attached to the receiver to the desired VLAN. Every source is put on a different VLAN. Because it is a multi-cast, we are able to deliver seamless instant switching between sources.


----------



## jgb

Makes sense. So the GUI software is issuing:


#config terminal

#interface Fa0/xx

#switchport access vlan y


commands through the com port?


Trying to see what it takes to do this on a non Cisco switch that supports VLAN's. Doesn't sound like it needs to support multicast (IGMP snooping) though. Is that right?


Thanks.


----------



## nded




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jgb* /forum/post/17193915
> 
> 
> Makes sense. So the GUI software is issuing:
> 
> 
> #config terminal
> 
> #interface Fa0/xx
> 
> #switchport access vlan y
> 
> 
> commands through the com port?
> 
> 
> Trying to see what it takes to do this on a non Cisco switch that supports VLAN's. Doesn't sound like it needs to support multicast (IGMP snooping) though. Is that right?
> 
> 
> Thanks.



That is exactly what the GUI's are doing. The buttons set the variables xx and y and then call a subroutine that sends those commands.


There has been much debate over the stated requirement for IGMP in our specifications sheet. The imbedded http server in the transmitters does use multicast, and we reccommend you choose a switch that supports IGMP. I have not found a managed switch during our testing that does not support IGMP, but you are welcome to give it a try.


----------



## jgb

Thanks for the response.


Could you use the Cat 5 blue or brown pair for a return path for IR. Split them out at the patch panel and the outlet.


----------



## nded




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jgb* /forum/post/17202099
> 
> 
> Thanks for the response.
> 
> 
> Could you use the Cat 5 blue or brown pair for a return path for IR. Split them out at the patch panel and the outlet.



That would be a violation of the standard - I have personally done this many times!


----------



## jgb

Have you guys looked at using one of these type IR to RS2332 boxes to make your own ethrnet switch driver? You could have an IR remote that would "change channels" when the box was connected to switch

http://www.crwww.com/CST-IR-232-specs.asp


----------



## nded




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jgb* /forum/post/17211433
> 
> 
> Have you guys looked at using one of these type IR to RS2332 boxes to make your own ethrnet switch driver? You could have an IR remote that would "change channels" when the box was connected to switch
> 
> http://www.crwww.com/CST-IR-232-specs.asp



That is an interesting looking device. I've seen some similar ones from other sources, but it looks like we should add that to the pile of devices to test and document with the HDMI over IP solution. Thanks for the tip!


----------



## blake.blackshear

Have you tried this over 802.11n?


----------



## nded




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blake.blackshear* /forum/post/17223066
> 
> 
> Have you tried this over 802.11n?



Yes, we have had success with HDMI over IP using 802.1n wireless devices in point-to-point bridge mode. I still don't care for how picky wireless can be about outside interference, but yes, it does work. The N devices we used would choke for a few seconds if too many people stood between the antennas. As long as we kept a clear line of sight, it worked great. On the bright side, our TX/RX devices are robust enough to recover from the N glitches when they happen.


----------



## Suntan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nded* /forum/post/16927604
> 
> 
> In another thread we have been discussing a possible sports bar application that wants to be able to put their NFL Sunday Ticket (up to 10 games at the same time) across 30 screens, with the ability to show any game on any screen...



Interesting You obviously put a bit of head scratching time into theoretically laying this out. What would the total cost to the bar owner be for this setup? (just part cost please, we don't need to muddy the water with service/install cost)


-Suntan


----------



## nded




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Suntan* /forum/post/17230198
> 
> 
> Interesting You obviously put a bit of head scratching time into theoretically laying this out. What would the total cost to the bar owner be for this setup? (just part cost please, we don't need to muddy the water with service/install cost)
> 
> 
> -Suntan



The budget for the 10x30 HDMI matrix using MSRP would be $12,985 as follows:


$2,495 Cisco 48 port managed LAN switch

$2,990 10 HDMI over IP Transmiiters @ $299 each

$7,500 30 HDMI over IP Receivers @ $250 each


----------



## nightowl2k2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nded* /forum/post/17193699
> 
> 
> Hi Josh,
> 
> 
> We've tried to make the HDMI over IP solution as simple as possible to manage, and as low cost as possible. Therefore, we have not put any "smarts" into the transmitters or receivers. Instead, we are relying upon the capabilites of the switch. All of the transmitters are on the same IP address, and all of the receivers only have one function - listen to that IP address.
> 
> 
> The channel changing function is realized by switching the port that is attached to the receiver to the desired VLAN. Every source is put on a different VLAN. Because it is a multi-cast, we are able to deliver seamless instant switching between sources.



I know you said that you wanted to make the receivers as simple as possible but it would be awesome to have a groups of multicast addresses that were able to be configured as "channels" and then with a remote at the receiver or even front panel buttons have the ability to change channels, multicast addresses, on the fly. This would eliminate the need for changing vlans on the switch!


----------



## Suntan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nightowl2k2* /forum/post/17257710
> 
> 
> I know you said that you wanted to make the receivers as simple as possible but it would be awesome to have a groups of multicast addresses that were able to be configured as "channels" and then with a remote at the receiver or even front panel buttons have the ability to change channels, multicast addresses, on the fly. This would eliminate the need for changing vlans on the switch!



But you can already do this for less with consumer level componentry.


I don't see how adding extra complexity is a benefit. It just blurs the distinction between this product and products that offer even more features for less money. Keep it single purpose, and sell it based on rock solid pro-level robustness. Otherwise it would just get drowned out by all the other network based media options.


-Suntan


----------



## nightowl2k2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Suntan* /forum/post/17263163
> 
> 
> But you can already do this for less with consumer level componentry.
> 
> 
> I don't see how adding extra complexity is a benefit. It just blurs the distinction between this product and products that offer even more features for less money. Keep it single purpose, and sell it based on rock solid pro-level robustness. Otherwise it would just get drowned out by all the other network based media options.
> 
> 
> -Suntan



All this would be a configuration change to the software on the device. The addition of a controller to change the configuration on a switch is much more complex Some simple logic to change a value, a few buttons, and maybe an IR receiver should not cost much. That is all that would be needed to add this functionality. Oh, and if there are products that offer more functionality for less money please share!



This would make the product much more user friendly and IMO more appealing. I was ready to jump all over this if it was not for the necessity to make configurations to a switch. That IMO is a deal killer. I do not want to have to connect into a switch and make a change if I want to change a source. For me to create an automation system, while possible, is also more cost and work. Also, a Crestron is out of the question as well.


Edit: When I said having multicast addresses available, I envisioned the addresses preconfigured and not able to be changed. This requires all of the transmitters and receivers on a single VLAN and would not require any configuration from the user other than selecting the channel. It could be something as simple as:


Channel 1 = 239.0.0.1

Channel 2 = 239.0.0.2

...

Channel 10 = 239.0.0.10


----------



## Suntan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nightowl2k2* /forum/post/17277214
> 
> 
> Oh, and if there are products that offer more functionality for less money please share!



Well, in the example of the bar owner that wants to be able to show 10 ball games on up to 30 screens costing $10,490 plus the switch. Theoretically, you could do something similar with a SageTV server running on a PC, with the HD feed from the 10 satellite/cable boxes being recorded by way of HDPVR 1212's and then get 30 Sage HD200 extenders for the TVs.


In this scenario, you would have independent control of what you watch on each TV by way of the remote controlling the HD200 box attached to the TV, as an added benefit, because the Sage Server is actually recording each cable/sat feed to the HDD before serving it out to the extenders, you can pause/rewind the game at any of the 30 TV screens. Heck, you could even have the ability to stop the game you are watching, switch over to the Vikings game and back it up enough to see the video of Farve making that amazing last second TD pass that the guys at the booth across the pub are cheering about, then switch back to your game and pick it back up where you left off.


Overall system maintenance/channel recording setup would be accessed through any of the 30 extenders at any of the TVs in the Pub.


10 x HDPVR 1212's would run about $2050


30 x HD200 extenders and a Sage server license: $5445


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16815116030 

http://store.sagetv.com/mm5/merchant...tegory_Code=HD 



-Suntan


----------



## nded

The family friendly interfaces for HDMI over IP are starting to come forward. Here is a demonstration of a Control4 system using HDMI over IP to switch between 2 DTV DVR's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_uTX3t4VLg 


We also have Crestron and Pakedge drivers done, and the AMX driver is supposed to be finished this week. We are working with other automation solutions and will gladly share the drivers with interested parties.


----------



## rperre

I know this thread is half a month old, but this hdmi over ip is really interesting. I'm wondering if the price could come down in the near future?


I'm working on a system called linuxmce ( www.linuxmce.org ) it's an opensource project for complete home automation, it does it all from security to phone system to media delivery, this last portion is where your system could deliver especially if the ir control is possbile over your boxes.


Another idea for your company is to make boxes that can handle more than 1 input at the same time, kinda like 2 or 4 boxes in compacted to one, that way you only have to connect 1 box at your media stack and 1 box at the tv/projector.


Question i have is: wouldn't a gigabit network be better for this system to allow full stream at all times?


Keep up the great work,


Richard


----------



## nded

Hi Richard,


I noticed you also sent an email to Just Add Power. We'll send you the RS232 commands used to control the system. Let us know if you need anything else for your www.linuxmce.org project.


We currently send a RETURN IR signal from the Receiver back to the HDMI source. Several systems integrators have told us we got this backwards. We also want to make sure that you understand that this is not a full spectrum IR channel. We also understand the importance of trying to reverse this channel, or even better, provide bi-directional RS232 support at both ends. The Return IR Control function in this product is best suited for a Point-To-Point application, and is of limited value in a Point-To-Many environment. For installations in a Many-To-Many environment it is necessary to use a third party home automation solution to provide distributed remote control functionality. Some of the more creative installers have observed that these "A" series HDMI over IP devices only use 2 pair (orange/green) of the CAT5 cable, leaving the blue and brown pairs free for implementing a remote control solution.


Support for 1000BT is one of the most common suggestions we have received.


----------



## normychas

I am curious why you guys seem to be pushing the non Custom CE crowds. This is without a doubt a cool solution but I have seen you post in a couple of the threads regarding doing HDMI over cat 6 on the cheap an I'm curious whether this is an option you see people purchasing direct as opposed to through a high end custom ce installer. I would love to have this in my home but i am trying to figure out the cost benefit breakdown. As i do out the math I am beginning to see that perhaps the sports bar is the more logical scenario as outlined before. As i add up the cost for 3 rooms in my house to each to have its own xbox 360 as a media center extender I see the following.


3 starter kits at 550 a piece =$1650 (this kind of setup really punishes you for having more than on device since you have to spend 350 for every transmitter)


regarding the switch required to run this whole house system the just add power site says that a cheap switch can be had but the cheapest switch i could find that had both 802.1Q and IGMP was this
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FNCRPS for $300 which to me is not cheap.


putting even the true starter cost at around $850 for one room with one device.


Cool as it may be i think this is not a solution that should be compared to HDMI over cat 5 balun solutions that flawed as they are start at 60 bucks for one room one device. I hope to see the cost come down on this item but sadly i really think that as it stands right now this is set up to be a sports bar solution only.


I wish i could even justify hooking an avr receiver into this system but with a high end receivers supporting at most 5 receivers i don't think most people can fit all of their avr devices into one ir controlled avr receiver. Even if an hdmi switch was used you still run into an issue of of everybody in the house being forced to watch what has been selected on the hdmi switch. Just my thoughts but let me know if anybody saw a more cost effective way to make this solution work.


----------



## nded

To date the most economical Managed Ethernet switch that has been demonstrated to work well with HDMI over IP is the Dell 3524.


----------



## oakman1000

Hi everyone,


I have a client who wants a whole home systems and the just add power system sounds interesting. My only question is, what about whole home sound? Obviously sound could be run from a PC to all the TV's, but what out sound in bathrooms and other rooms without screens. Could these rooms be set up as zones on this system? And how could it be controlled from these rooms? In these cases they would have to be run through a zone amp...right?


----------



## nded

Today we posted the specifications for the HDMI over IP Rackmount Transmitter. Here is a picture of the new device:











This 1RU device has 3 HDMI inputs and 3 Ethernet outputs. It is compatible with the original HDMI over IP Receivers and can be mixed/matched with the original HDMI over IP Transmitters.


----------



## RoscoUS

This is exactly what I've been looking for! Can't wait to see some real world reviews about quality and longevity before I make the jump as I'm one of those early adopters that have been burned a few times in the past.


----------



## RBradley

The project I spec'd these for has been working flawlessly for about 6 months. This was a single transmitter to 5 receiver (via a switch) system. I have heard nothing but great reviews.


----------



## TajHill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nded* /forum/post/17709675
> 
> 
> Today we posted the specifications for the HDMI over IP Rackmount Transmitter. Here is a picture of the new device:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This 1RU device has 3 HDMI inputs and 3 Ethernet outputs. It is compatible with the original HDMI over IP Receivers and can be mixed/matched with the original HDMI over IP Transmitters.



Could you explain the difference between this device vs. using 3 of the individual transmitters?


----------



## nded




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TajHill* /forum/post/17785274
> 
> 
> Could you explain the difference between this device vs. using 3 of the individual transmitters?



From an HDMI over IP functional perspective they are identical. The Rackmount Transmitter is for professional installations where they want the benefits of a rackmount form factor such as:


- Secure installation (great for airplanes, yachts, commercial installations, and even homes where you don't want them to accidentally knock over or unplug the transmitter)

- Single electrical outlet with a commercial grade universal switching power supply (works with all global voltages and uses an IEC320-C13 power cord) vs. needing 3 outlets and a regional AC adapter (aka wall wart)

- Better appearance - you can use this with the rack oriented cable management features that are available from several sources


Yes, it is more expensive to implement the Rackmount Transmitter vs multiple stand alone transmitters. The same is true for practically any device that is offered in both form factors (for example, try comparing prices for rackmount vs. stand alone Blu-Ray players). It comes down to the priorites of the customer and installer.


----------



## jpmvan

Looks like an interesting solution - I dropped a note on the web site but noone has replied.


1. I too have concerns about the video compression. My understanding was that HDMI could hit much higher bitrates.

Our network isn't the bottleneck as we're upgrading to 10G. If compression introduces artifacts, I'd rather see a 1 Gbps port on the unit and lossless transmission.


2. The next, probably biggest concern is the fixed 192.168.x.x IP addresses. Maybe this was needed to ship the product out the door, but I'd rather see separate, unique, user settable IP addresses and multicast group addresses on the transmitter, and multicast group address/UDP ports and IGMP on the receivers. That way I don't need to hack things with separate VLANs, and it's more scalable.


3. Needs SNMP for monitoring and web/telnet for setting above options, firmware etc.


Not too worried about sound, as this is all video, no sound!


----------



## nded




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jpmvan* /forum/post/17919469
> 
> 
> Looks like an interesting solution - I dropped a note on the web site but noone has replied.



I sent you a PM on this - I'm guessing our reply somehow got dropped in your SPAM box.










> Quote:
> 1. I too have concerns about the video compression. My understanding was that HDMI could hit much higher bitrates.
> 
> Our network isn't the bottleneck as we're upgrading to 10G. If compression introduces artifacts, I'd rather see a 1 Gbps port on the unit and lossless transmission.
> 
> 
> 2. The next, probably biggest concern is the fixed 192.168.x.x IP addresses. Maybe this was needed to ship the product out the door, but I'd rather see separate, unique, user settable IP addresses and multicast group addresses on the transmitter, and multicast group address/UDP ports and IGMP on the receivers. That way I don't need to hack things with separate VLANs, and it's more scalable.
> 
> 
> 3. Needs SNMP for monitoring and web/telnet for setting above options, firmware etc.



Thank you for the suggestions, it's always helpful to get input from somebody not "inside" the development team


> Quote:
> Not too worried about sound, as this is all video, no sound!



The HDMI over IP solution does also distribute video.


----------



## 3Z3VH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jpmvan* /forum/post/17919469
> 
> 
> Looks like an interesting solution - I dropped a note on the web site but noone has replied.
> 
> 
> 1. I too have concerns about the video compression. My understanding was that HDMI could hit much higher bitrates.
> 
> Our network isn't the bottleneck as we're upgrading to 10G. If compression introduces artifacts, I'd rather see a 1 Gbps port on the unit and lossless transmission.
> 
> 
> 2. The next, probably biggest concern is the fixed 192.168.x.x IP addresses. Maybe this was needed to ship the product out the door, but I'd rather see separate, unique, user settable IP addresses and multicast group addresses on the transmitter, and multicast group address/UDP ports and IGMP on the receivers. That way I don't need to hack things with separate VLANs, and it's more scalable.
> 
> 
> 3. Needs SNMP for monitoring and web/telnet for setting above options, firmware etc.
> 
> 
> Not too worried about sound, as this is all video, no sound!



It's either use separate VLANs, or you need to do a bunch of QoS settings to prioritize the HDMI bandwidth. VLANing it off is typically easier. 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. The only scalability you will lack with VLANs is the ability to traverse a Layer 3 device such as a Router... and unless you are spending big bucks for some major bandwidth, I doubt you want to send HDMI over your WAN link anyway.


----------



## jpmvan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *3Z3VH* /forum/post/17924400
> 
> 
> It's either use separate VLANs, or you need to do a bunch of QoS settings to prioritize the HDMI bandwidth. VLANing it off is typically easier. 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. The only scalability you will lack with VLANs is the ability to traverse a Layer 3 device such as a Router... and unless you are spending big bucks for some major bandwidth, I doubt you want to send HDMI over your WAN link anyway.



We use a combination of VLANs for separating traffic and Layer 3 unicast and multicast routing (PIM)

We need Layer 3, and IP multicast is exactly what is needed to do this over LAN/WAN. For Joe's basement, maybe VLANs are good enough, but for even midsize commercial I would use IP multicast because it scales better.


My current use is just one to one replacement of DVI. Still, I would rather do this in one VLAN but with separate group addresses.


But I could see this easily used for large scale video distribution - mall/airport etc, as long as the devices use multicast and can be managed with SNMP/web. Just setup all your transmitters on unique multicast addresses and stream to the network. Program each receiver to joint the multicast group it is supposed to display. Changing streams/channels is just changing the multicast group address on the receiver - no messing with the network. An IP enabled TV is the ideal thing for this, but those are just starting to take off.


Could you do this with vlans? Sort of, but it wouldn't scale well, especially if the transmitters use broadcast MAC addresses instead of IP multicast.


----------



## 3Z3VH

What sort of WAN/MAN links would have the bandwidth to do HDMI video ? I seriously don't see this being used over a WAN/MAN.


If you are talking about inside a large building, such as an airport, why is there a need to route between the different Comm Closets ? You can keep everything on the same VLAN, even in those situations. The only reason to route on a LAN would be to connect multiple subnets, and since all of these HDMI devices would be on a single subnet, there is no need to route. In fact, since it is running traffic that you never need visibility of on your servers or workstations, you don't even need to route between these devices and your network. It is a totally segregated VLAN. In large buildings such as an airport or office building, everything is designed with Layer3 switching until you get to your WAN link anyway, so there is nothing preventing a design that allows you to push the HDMI VLAN to every corner of the building. I am just having a very difficult time trying to figure any solution that would require this HDMI network to traverse a WAN/MAN link, and who would pay for such a beast, since they would need a HUGE pipe leaving their building.


Even in the case of a campus sized layout, it is easier to run HDMI over fiber between buildings, then HDMI over IP systems inside each building, since in a campus network, you have the ability to run your own fiber lines from building to building.


----------



## oldhacker

Not surprisingly, a source for the Dell 3524 manged switch is: Dell at $265.


The stupid forum program won't let me post a link to it.


Best rgds,

oldhacker


----------



## JasGot

So has anyone bought one of these?


I can't seem to reach anyone at their web site.


----------



## nded




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JasGot* /forum/post/18152173
> 
> 
> So has anyone bought one of these?



Yes, thousands have been bought.


> Quote:
> I can't seem to reach anyone at their web site.



I'm sorry you are having a difficult time reaching us.


Did you try calling the Just Add Power 800-615-0206 number?


Did you try sending an email to [email protected] ? There is a contact link on the website that does this.


Did you try sending an email to [email protected] ? There is a contact link on the website that does this.


Did you try sending me a Private Message here on AVSForum?


----------



## JasGot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nded* /forum/post/18152218
> 
> 
> Yes, thousands have been bought.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you are having a difficult time reaching us.
> 
> 
> Did you try calling the Just Add Power 800-615-0206 number?
> 
> 
> Did you try sending an email to [email protected] ? There is a contact link on the website that does this.
> 
> 
> Did you try sending an email to [email protected] ? There is a contact link on the website that does this.
> 
> 
> Did you try sending me a Private Message here on AVSForum?



I sent a message to you. ed AT justaddpower dot com


----------



## nded

Found the email from yesterday afternoon - it was flagged as SPAM (sorry). For other reseller candidates who might be lurking, the closest HDMI over IP distributor to his location was www.tecnec.com in New York. If you're on the West coast, www.blackwiredesigns.com stocks HDMI over IP for reseller purchasing.


----------



## HDMIHead

Hello Nded,

I am quite confused looking at the HDMI over IP unit it has a chipset sayings its HDMI 1.2 and Max resolution is UXVA.












Note Chipset on the bottom saying EP932E


Specs from the Chipset Manufacture state its HDMI 1.2 and Max resolution is UXVA.


Looking forward to work with you.


----------



## nded

HDMIHEAD,


You persist in asking Just Add Power and it's business partners around the globe to help you with the problems you are having with a disappointing product produced by a company trying to copy our solution. The answer here in the USA is the same as you have received in the threads over on AVFORUMS in the UK. We will not explain to you the custom firmware and chipsets we have licensed from our business partners. It is not our job to help you understand the failing products you purchased in an effort to to undermine our business. I do hope you will accept our invitation to come visit us at the CEDIA UK tradeshow in June. I'll be there all week, and I'd welcome the opportunity to address you face to face. I know Chris and Jamie from HDCable in the UK have extended the same invitation to you.


Best wishes,


----------



## HDMIHead

Hello nded,

Please note i am not trying to undermine your product, this is the information we have received and merely clarifying it. One simple document from a reputable hdmi certification lab can clarify that. I myself was confused when our labs received the units in our hand and after studying that unit we were mislead by the manufacture. I am not saying that might be the case with you but it would be nice for us to see some kind of evidence that would satisfy the confusion this unit has created. Clarify will only add more clients to your list. I hope you understand.


----------



## HDMIHead

Hello Nded,

This confuses me as your reseller confirmed that the unit in the picture was a unit they sold, so this means its not a copy as you complained. This gets more confusing second by second. It would be nice to see some kind of documentation stating the unit is 1.3??


----------



## HDMIHead




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nded* /forum/post/18212564
> 
> 
> HDMIHEAD,
> 
> 
> You persist in asking Just Add Power and it's business partners around the globe to help you with the problems you are having with a disappointing product produced by a company trying to copy our solution. The answer here in the USA is the same as you have received in the threads over on AVFORUMS in the UK. We will not explain to you the custom firmware and chipsets we have licensed from our business partners. It is not our job to help you understand the failing products you purchased in an effort to to undermine our business. I do hope you will accept our invitation to come visit us at the CEDIA UK tradeshow in June. I'll be there all week, and I'd welcome the opportunity to address you face to face. I know Chris and Jamie from HDCable in the UK have extended the same invitation to you.
> 
> 
> Best wishes,



Hello Ned,

Firstly i would like contest your statement the first part is not true, we have not copied but simply purchased the units from a firm who claim to be the producers. A simple search on alibaba.com with the term hdmi over ip will result in quite a few fruitful results. Secondly it saddens me that you have taken upon yourself a liability without understanding the outcomes. In your statement you do state that it is our solution meaning that full responsibility lies with you. International law does also specify that the importer bears all responsibility of the items, your product clearly negates and challenges the work that the HDMI and DCP have put in the last decade. Simple port forwarding on a router can route the HDMI Content virtually all over the world. Our findings extremely disappointed us in the technology as it uses VGA quality to be broadcasted and then delivered on a HD Output duping the screen in thinking the content to be 1080p. Being honest with our clients we withdrew the unit and we will not sell a hdmi 1.2 as a 1.3. According to your partner in UK the unit has been changed and upgraded, i hope that is true and honest clients have not been duped. Please note our prices were pigeon feed to what you charge, this is to show we took an ethical stand rather than a commercial to withdraw the units. I hope you can prove me wrong.


----------



## kirkaugie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nded* /forum/post/16789894
> 
> 
> 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?


----------



## nded

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


----------



## kirkaugie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nded* /forum/post/18671906
> 
> 
> 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?


----------



## nded

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.


----------



## Suntan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nded* /forum/post/18672227
> 
> 
> 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


----------



## majortom




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *3Z3VH* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> 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.


----------



## XYVYX

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.


----------



## nded

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.


----------



## smcpartlin

Quote:

Originally Posted by *nded* 
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.


----------



## aniekandominic

Hello, please can one use a radio to get signal from one building to another


----------



## aniekandominic

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?


----------



## Joe Fernand

_'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


----------



## alk3997

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)


----------



## Colm




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aniekandominic*  /t/1157457/just-add-power-introduces-hdmi-over-ip-using-standard-ethernet-lan/60#post_23580721
> 
> 
> 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




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aniekandominic*  /t/1157457/just-add-power-introduces-hdmi-over-ip-using-standard-ethernet-lan/60#post_23580725
> 
> 
> 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.


----------



## alk3997

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)!


----------



## Colm




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alk3997*  /t/1157457/just-add-power-introduces-hdmi-over-ip-using-standard-ethernet-lan/60#post_23583994
> 
> 
> 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.


----------



## aniekandominic

thank you so much for your reply i appreciate it


----------



## aniekandominic

Thank you so much for your info.


----------



## alk3997

OK. What info?


----------



## Otto Pylot

Confused







I am.


----------



## Mike IT guy

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?


----------



## Colm

Haven't tried it. I suspect that you would have problems. As I understand it, HD over IP normally uses a dedicated network.


----------



## jautor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike IT guy*  /t/1157457/just-add-power-introduces-hdmi-over-ip-using-standard-ethernet-lan/60#post_23633257
> 
> 
> 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


----------



## Colm




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jautor*  /t/1157457/just-add-power-introduces-hdmi-over-ip-using-standard-ethernet-lan/60#post_23635320
> 
> 
> ...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.


----------

