Pixel resolution

The other day I ran across this very useful resolution chart at Wikipedia:

While not all resolutions I come across are listed (where are QCIF, 176x144, and CIF, 352x288, for instance) and the PAL resolution seems incorrect (they quote 768x576) this is still quite a nice diagram.

Tested pixels

I just ordered a new camera for personal use. It'll be my first SLR. Most cameras I've held, either in the office or at home, I have pointed to this chart to test the camera:


You can get the original from Stephen Westin in pdf here. Simply printing it on any decent laser printer does a pretty good job. If you have an A3 printer, even better. It's interesting to see that most of today's camera phones don't even do a low-pass filter before subsampling on the viewfinder, causing bad aliasing. There's still lots of room for improvement!

User-generated pixels

Ever heard of a show called Fun TV with Kato-chan and Ken-chan? Me neither. It was quite successful in Japan in the mid 1980s though and featured some of the first user-generated content. Later, ABC's America's Funniest Home Videos would follow the same recipe of showing slapstick movies that people captured at home with their camcorders. Fast forward to 2005, the year that YouTube was born based on the same principle, but on the internet. In 2007, less than two years later, YouTube was sold for $1.6 billion dollars to Google. Nowadays, over 9 billion videos are watched online per month in the US alone, and YouTube has about 30% of that market. That's quite a lot of user-generated pixels, and for sure a number that will keep on growing for quite some time to come.

Wooden pixels

After my posts about sluggy pixels and shiny pixels, I think it's only fair to mention the wooden pixels developed in 1999 too. Frame rates are quite acceptable, but there's no color. They even made a wooden mirror out of them. Here's a video on YouTube.

Display pixels versus capture pixels

One of the artificial questions I've been pondering a bit is what we will see more of: pixels that capture light (cameras) or pixels that make up displays? For several years my prediction was that soon we'd see more cameras than displays in the world. The reasoning was that displays are relatively large and made to be seen by a human. Cameras are tiny though and have many uses. Cameras don't need humans to look at the images captured, they can simply be stored, or analyzed by an algorithm running on a piece of silicon. Since there's only a little over 6 billion of us to view the screens, soon we'd have more cameras than displays.

Some cell-phones include two cameras, one for video conferencing and one for taking snapshots. These only have one display, which confirmed that I was right. Soon we'll have more cameras than displays.

Still, the other day I saw a very small digital photo frame which cost only 15 euro and was meant to be worn on a key chain. It could hold 30 photos or so and contained a tiny battery. This caused me to think that the cross over point of having more cameras world-wide than displays is quite far away. We'll soon have displays on our credit cards, on the outside of our laptops and perhaps even on our clothes.

Do you think we will ever have more cameras than displays?

Pixel compression trends

I recently ran across this Google Trends utility that keeps track of the number of times that certain terms are used on the web. Click on the image to see the trends of MPEG-2, MPEG-4 and H.264, showing that H.264 clearly passed MPEG-4 in 2007.


Any trends in the world of pixels that you'd like to add? Please leave a link to them into the comment section.

Post-processing pixel companies going away?

Recently, two chip makers that focused on post-processing were acquired by bigger companies. Sigma Designs acquires Gennum's image processing business, and ST acquires Genesis Microchip. The acquiring companies provide single-chip video processing solutions which include such post-processing functionality, but until now their post-processing wasn't as good as what the smaller focused companies could deliver. The market demands ever increasing picture quality at ever reducing price points, which these acquiring companies are looking to achieve with their acquisitions.

One year ago: analog pixels switched off

It's been a year since they turned off all over-the-air analog broadcast of TV signals in the Netherlands. I haven't heard a complaint since. Only about 74,000 households picked up the analog signals before, so that was to be expected. The extra bandwidth that became available unfortunately are now used to transmit encoded signals, which you have to pay KPN a monthly fee for to view. In return for the free over the air bandwidth, KPN built and maintains the digital broadcasting masts and systems. Sounds like a pretty good trade for the KPN to me, and a lousy trade for the government and us tax payers. My guess is that it is this monthly fee that is severely reducing the market introduction of digital portable TV receivers for in the car, mobile phones, etc. Even in the home it'd be handy -- when was the last time you pulled a cable through your house?

Do any of you understand why we still have to pay for TV channels transmitted over the air while they contain more than 10 minutes of paid advertising per hour?

Discontinued pixels

In March of 1993 Jim Blinn, perhaps the ultimate pixel guru, wrote an article called "NTSC: Nice Technology, Super Color". It's a play on what people often say NTSC means: Never The Same Color. The last few sentences of the article read this: "Current plans call for the FCC to adopt a new high-definition television standard some time this year. The FCC will then strongly encourage all broadcasters to switch over to the new standard as soon as possible. By the year 2007, the FCC wants this conversion to HDTV to be complete. Broadcasters will no longer be allowed to use NTSC. Boo hoo.". Well, HD is happening, but NTSC is still alive and will be for quite some time to come.

What's your guess: when will Standard Definition truly die?

Open source pixels

The other day I noticed a menu option on the iPod Touch called "Legal". Normally, I avoid reading such legal notes, but this time I was curious to see what was mentioned here. Well, a lot was mentioned. It took me 76 "scroll-the-page-down" strokes to reach the bottom of the long list of legal speak. Most interesting fact; more than 3/4 of the notes were open source related! I saw the GPL come by several times for instance.

Anyone dare to estimate how much total effort it took to develop all the software shipped with the iPod Touch, including the effort put into the open source software? Are your SOCs and video subsystems ready to support open source software?

Acquired pixels

Recently, DivX acquired MainConcept for approximately $22M. MainConcept is a developer of mostly PC-based video codecs, which is the business that DivX is in also.

Which video company will be acquired next?

Shiny pixels at Qualcomm

CRT, LCD, TFT, OLED, EPD and DLP are just some of the many acronyms used for the techniques behind displays. There's an article in the November 2007 issue of Scientific American that presents a new acronym: IMOD. The IMOD displays are based on many small interferometric modulators, which bounce back light at different intensities. They don't need a backlight, which means power consumption is much lower, ever so important for portable applications. The viewing experience is also greatly enhanced I am sure. The electronic paper displays that I've seen don't use a back-light either and they're great. They read like paper. The e-ink pixels change intensities too slowly to show video though, while the IMOD technology is very fast. The whole technology reminds me of the, also MEMS-based, DLP from Texas Instruments. Within a few years, that technology quickly became prevalent in projectors, beating out LCD.

With better displays, video coding artefacts will only become more apparent. Is your video subsystem ready to capture and play the highest quality video?

Crummy pixels on my iPod Touch

I recently bought an iPod Touch. The WiFi integration is neat and worked straight out of the box. I now have a pocketable Internet browser, and it even connects directly to YouTube, using the new H.264 codec instead of YouTube's default and inferior Flash codec that the PC-based website uses.

After playing a few videos something interesting happened. The video codec shows very crude artefacts. See the picture below. I haven't found many other iPod users on the web complaining yet, but it's hard to believe I am the only one. Will Apple be able to fix this with a firmware upgrade? If the rumoured Samsung chip at the heart of this device uses a hard-wired video coding subsystem, they likely won't be able to fix the issue quickly in software. Instead, they will have to respin the chip and people will have to return their devices and get new ones months later. Chip inventory will have to be trashed. A reset fixed the issue for me, but it has shown up again.

Are you an SOC designer that still uses hard-wired video codecs? Can you risk designing an SOC that requires a silicon respin to resolve issues that could have been solved in software if a programmable approach had been chosen?

Scalable pixels

H.264 was standardized quite a while ago in 2003 and brought a "back to basics" compress-video-only approach compared to the feature-laden MPEG-4. So what are the ISO and ITU video standardization gurus working on these days? They're working on SVC, short for scalable video coding. The goal this time is not to achieve a higher coding gain, but instead to make the bitstream scalable.

In SVC, a same single bitstream can be decoded at different resolutions or frame rates. If you're watching the stream on your 1080p big screen TV at home you decode all the bits, and in case you want to play the same stream on your mobile phone, just decode those pixels that you need for the small screen. There are many applications for scalable video coding, but I've seen the concept many times before and people just don't use it. JPEG2000 is scalable. MPEG-4 had a few scalable profiles, even MPEG-2 had scalable extensions. None of them are widely used today. Why? Because there's overhead involved in making a bitstream scalable. A scalable bitstream is larger than a non-scalable one. Also, most system engineers find it simply more practical to just recompress the bitstream for each specific target device. Pixar and Dreamworks even completely re-render their 3D movies dependent on whether it's for the theater or for a DVD. Compressing the resulting video sequence another time doesn't seem that much of an extra burden.

Will things be different this time? Will SVC become a prevalent standard?

Sluggy pixels

My brother is an artist. One of his friends made this low-resolution and very-low-frame-rate imaging device. It's called the PingPongPixel and displays one image every 2.5 hours. That's about 0.0001 frame per second. Hardly practical, but still pretty nifty. Each pixel is represented by a ping-pong ball, which come in 6 shades of gray.

Anybody know of a display device with an even lower refresh rate?