Real Time Video (no image Processing)

Volhv · October 19, 2012, 3:59am

It is possible at this time ? (Spider or Hydra)

I mean somthing like

Advanced Video Coding - Wikipedia

Gus_Issa · October 19, 2012, 6:19am

Not possible on anything less than 1000mhz.

Volhv · October 19, 2012, 7:11am

Old Skype versions work on 400 Mhz (it is)
For show videostream need 300…500 Mhz+ but for transit stream from cam to ethernet - this is no need.

Volhv · October 19, 2012, 7:13am

Brett · October 19, 2012, 7:21am

Sorry I think you’re missing the point.

Skype or similar is using a PC architecture that has much different architecture than a Spider or Hydra. There’s umpteen support chips in a PC, specialised comms, and lots of bandwidth (relatively speaking). In contrast you have a simple processor with general IO connections that you’re able to use for a multitude of purposes, but they aren’t suited to every task, and high throughput and video isn’t one.

Volhv · October 19, 2012, 7:21am

Also exists HW encoders

Hardware-based encoding and decoding
See also: List of cameras with onboard video stream encoding

Because H.264 encoding and decoding requires significant computing power in specific types of arithmetic operations, software implementations that run on general-purpose CPUs are typically less power efficient. However, the latest quad-core general-purpose x86 CPUs have sufficient computation power to perform real-time SD and HD encoding. Compression efficiency depends on video algorithmic implementations, not on whether hardware or software implementation is used. Therefore, the difference between hardware and software based implementation is more on power-efficiency, flexibility and cost. To improve the power efficiency and reduce hardware form-factor, special-purpose hardware may be employed, either for the complete encoding or decoding process, or for acceleration assistance within a CPU-controlled environment.

CPU based solutions are known to be much more flexible, particularly when encoding must be done concurrently in multiple formats, multiple bit rates and resolutions (multi-screen video), and possibly with additional features on container format support, advanced integrated advertising features, etc. CPU based software solution generally makes it much easier to load balance multiple concurrent encoding sessions within the same CPU.

The 2nd generation Intel Core i processors i3/i5/i7 (code named “Sandy Bridge”) introduced at the January 2011 CES (Consumer Electronics Show) offer an on-chip hardware full HD H.264 encoder.[27] The Intel marketing name for the on-chip H.264 encoder feature is “Intel® Quick Sync Video”.[28]

A hardware H.264 encoder can be an ASIC or an FPGA. An FPGA is a general programmable chip. To use an FPGA as a hardware encoder, an H.264 encoder design is required to customize the chip for the application. A full HD H.264 encoder could run on a single low cost FPGA chip by 2009 (High profile, level 4.1, 1080p, 30fps).

ASIC encoders with H.264 encoder functionality are available from many different semiconductor companies, but the core design used in the ASIC is typically licensed from one of a few companies such as Chips&Media, On2 (formerly Hantro, acquired by Google), Imagination. Some companies have both FPGA and ASIC product offerings.[29]

Texas Instruments manufactures a line of ARM + DSP cores that perform DSP H264 BP encoding 1080p at 30fps.[30] This permits flexibility with respect to codecs (which are implemented as highly optimized DSP code) while being more efficient than software on a generic CPU.

Brett · October 19, 2012, 7:23am

Great, go use one of those.

What is your intended use ? Seriously you aren’t going to achieve this in a general architecture.

Gus_Issa · October 19, 2012, 7:31am

Comparing 400mhz pc with a 400mhz embedded chip is a bad idea still, your device is not even 400mhz.

Encoding MPEG4 is very complex, even for a pc. There is a reason why some chips are specifically made for this.