THROUGHOUT 2001, despite the recession in the electronics and semiconductor industry, the IEEE 1394 multimedia standard made significant progress.
It emerged as the definitive bus for audio and video connectivity, and gained a foothold in the auto market as the backbone for the networked vehicle. Many new CE and PC peripherals emerged with 1394-Fire Wire-i.LINK.
But a small, dedicated group of engineers still insists that digital video
interface (DVI) provides more benefits than the 1394-Fire Wire-i.LINK standard for digital TV. They continue to advocate DVI as the best answer for moving from analog to digital transmission of video and audio.
DVI has a long history, moving through several design changes before it achieved some design successes in monitors. It really wasn't conceived as a digital TV interface. It suffices as a point-to-point connector to deliver uncompressed video streams from a single source, such as a set-top box (STB) to a display. But to hook more than one digital consumer device to a TV, that TV requires an interface for each device. Each time a user changes the entertainment source, connected devices must be switched. And until recently, the audio section of the DVI specification has been proprietary.
As a result, DVI's not very useful in new PCs. In consumer electronics products, DVI is a reasonable first step in the long-term goal of a fully networked home; but to succeed in this exciting ultimate network, IEEE 1394 is the answer Still, DVI fans make a couple arguments for it. First, only DVI safeguards against copying digital content for profit that major studios want protected. They say the studios all love it, and of course they do: DVI's copy protection is really a "copy-never" scheme that deprives users of the basic right to make a personal copy of video and audio for their own, noncommercial use.
The standard that does protect illegal copying- without denying user right-is 1394. The Digital Transmission Copy Protection protocol (known as 5C) that was developed by the leading advocates of 1394 protects copyrighted video and audio over 1394. It enables three options: copy once, copy never and copy freely. Major studios led by Warner Brothers and Sony Pictures have endorsed it. Others are expected to follow this year.
Users should be their focus, and many of them are insisting on the ability to record digital video in their systems, for their own use --not for profit. The bottom-line question about the new generation of TVs is this: How many consumers will pay $4,000 or more for a next-generation digital TV that is not equipped to record in digital format? My guess: not many and not for long. That makes 1394 clearly a better choice for the consumer.
A second argument from DVI's supporters is that the cable industry supports DVI. But last year, there emerged a clear statement from the Society of Cable Television Executives (SCTE) that the 1394 standard has emerged as the preferred tool for interconnecting A/V signals on a common network, including the link between STBs and digital TV. So, 5C and 1394 appear to have the confidence of this group.
Beyond the copy protection issue, DVI backers also say that only uncompressed video provides optimal, nondistorted images. They also maintain that DVI has the ability to deliver uncompressed video and that the compressed video streamed by IEEE 1394 provides much lower output quality and also may obsolete expensive HDTVs due to format changes.
The 1394 Trade Association's view is that compressing digital signals does not distort output in any way that affects the user. Compare the limits of DVI with 1394's universal, network-creating connectivity. Because 1394's role is to enable many different devices to share high-definition video, audio, IP traffic and other information for display and recording devices, it is a better solution for the user.
