i really dont understand why they only put 100Mb interfaces into the tx/rx pairs on a new product, with multicast video streaming as its function! talk about strangle a new born
1080P@60fps is about 3Gb, 1080p@24 obviously around half, but thats uncompressed pure data.
so even at a very very basic average level of 10:1 image compression, gigabit ethernet would be more than adequate, especially when using multicast streams and dedicated vlans per group.
vlan per source is a well considered solution to get maximum throughput from a switch, assuming the backplane has the capacity
even higher compression would be possible on some source images, which would make 100Mb sustainable in some circumstances
although, they have used jpeg2000 which encodes every single frame, rather than mpeg4 which encodes a reference frame then a series of motion change updates, to try and maintain a level of output quality
mpeg4 has a lower bandwidth requirement on most streams, but images with lots of changes (fast moving full screen action) will often suffer quality problems
jpeg has a better replay quality with full data for every frame but is more sensitive to bandwidth issues.
obviously the average home user would not have vlan and igmp capable managed Gigabit switches to make best use of the technology, but why throttle the product from day one?
they have obviously gambled on predicted higher compression ratios to support average home user hardware, which is a shame.
hadnt considered these options previously, but am going to search for some other vendors now they are breaking onto the market with 1080p