Phil Weldon wrote:> 'Arno' wrote: >> Does not exist. The bandwidth needed is far, far too high. > _____ > Does exist. > > The wireless monitor connections do not use 802.11 x standards > equipment. The bandwidth thus does not have the same limitation.Regardless of what technology they use, there are laws and regulations that assign bandwidth and there isn't a large spectrum hole anywhere that one can plug into without a transmitter license. In any case, some of the wireless monitor connections _do_ use 802.11.> Phil Weldon > > "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > news:5nte7cFjlrajU3@mid.individual.net... >> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia karthikbalaguru > <karthikbalaguru79@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >> >>> Does anyone know about a good Wireless computer monitor (Monitor's >>> video connection is wireless) ? >> >>> Thx in advans, >>> Karthik Balaguru >> >> Does not exist. The bandwidth needed is far, far too high. >> >> Arno-- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Wireless Computer Monitor - Monitor's video connection is wireless
Started by ●October 16, 2007
Reply by ●October 21, 20072007-10-21
Reply by ●October 21, 20072007-10-21
Phil Weldon wrote:> 'Arno Wagner' wrote: >> It still needs several GHz of RF spectrum. Which happens to not be >> available. There is no way to beat Shannon. > > > Your assumptions turn out not to be true. See > http://www.analog.com/en/press/0,2890,3%255F%255F72455,00.htmlHe didn't say that you couldn't do it, he said that you had to use lossy compression, which JPEG2000 is. What I see there is some outfit telling you how great their new chip is. Have you ever known an outfit to tell you how _lousy_ their new chip is? When some devices using that chip are available for testing, and the test have come back positive, showing that it does in fact address Arno's concerns, _then_ you can tell him that he's sort of wrong.> the abstract at > http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/10651/33618/01598300.pdf?arnumber=1598300A proposed system running on a proposed technology that may or may not ever be brought to market and if brought to market may or may not work satisfactorily.> and the Wireless Telegraphy (Ultra-Wideband Equipment) (Exemption) > Regulations 2007 (No. 2084) at [Ofcom (UK)] > http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/uwb_exemption/statement/ .Which is mostly used for some specialized radar applications. Whether it can actually carry video signals with reasonable resolution over reasonable distances remains to be seen.> Though compression does not 'beat Shannon', it IS the basis of > getting HDTV > over the airwaves (and very soon to be the ONLY way to get TV over > the > airwaves in most countries.)HDTV is the only valid argument you've raised. However the transmission quality is the result of putting significant processing effort into the compression end to minimize artifacting--it's difficult to do in realtime with acceptable results, which is one of the reasons that most local stations are still producing their local content in SD.> "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message > news:5nvps2Fjklm2U2@mid.individual.net... >> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia Phil Weldon > <not.disclosed@example.com> wrote: >>> 'Arno' wrote: >>>> Does not exist. The bandwidth needed is far, far too high. >>> _____ >>> Does exist. >> >>> The wireless monitor connections do not use 802.11 x standards >>> equipment. The bandwidth thus does not have the same limitation. >> >> It still needs several GHz of RF spectrum. Which happens to not be >> available. There is no way to beat Shannon. >> >> Arno-- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Reply by ●October 21, 20072007-10-21
'J. Clarke' wrote, in part: | He didn't say that you couldn't do it, he said that you had to use | lossy compression, which JPEG2000 is. What I see there is some outfit | telling you how great their new chip is. Have you ever known an | outfit to tell you how _lousy_ their new chip is? _____ How about this http://news.digitaltrends.com/news/story/7034/nec_develops_wireless_hdtv_tranceiver ? The bandwidth is not far, far too high. Phil Weldon "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message news:fffnpu02ind@news2.newsguy.com... | Phil Weldon wrote: | > 'Arno Wagner' wrote: | >> It still needs several GHz of RF spectrum. Which happens to not be | >> available. There is no way to beat Shannon. | > | > | > Your assumptions turn out not to be true. See | > http://www.analog.com/en/press/0,2890,3%255F%255F72455,00.html | | He didn't say that you couldn't do it, he said that you had to use | lossy compression, which JPEG2000 is. What I see there is some outfit | telling you how great their new chip is. Have you ever known an | outfit to tell you how _lousy_ their new chip is? | | When some devices using that chip are available for testing, and the | test have come back positive, showing that it does in fact address | Arno's concerns, _then_ you can tell him that he's sort of wrong. | | > the abstract at | > http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/10651/33618/01598300.pdf?arnumber=1598300 | | A proposed system running on a proposed technology that may or may not | ever be brought to market and if brought to market may or may not work | satisfactorily. | | > and the Wireless Telegraphy (Ultra-Wideband Equipment) (Exemption) | > Regulations 2007 (No. 2084) at [Ofcom (UK)] | > http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/uwb_exemption/statement/ . | | Which is mostly used for some specialized radar applications. Whether | it can actually carry video signals with reasonable resolution over | reasonable distances remains to be seen. | | > Though compression does not 'beat Shannon', it IS the basis of | > getting HDTV | > over the airwaves (and very soon to be the ONLY way to get TV over | > the | > airwaves in most countries.) | | HDTV is the only valid argument you've raised. However the | transmission quality is the result of putting significant processing | effort into the compression end to minimize artifacting--it's | difficult to do in realtime with acceptable results, which is one of | the reasons that most local stations are still producing their local | content in SD. | | > "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message | > news:5nvps2Fjklm2U2@mid.individual.net... | >> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia Phil Weldon | > <not.disclosed@example.com> wrote: | >>> 'Arno' wrote: | >>>> Does not exist. The bandwidth needed is far, far too high. | >>> _____ | >>> Does exist. | >> | >>> The wireless monitor connections do not use 802.11 x standards | >>> equipment. The bandwidth thus does not have the same limitation. | >> | >> It still needs several GHz of RF spectrum. Which happens to not be | >> available. There is no way to beat Shannon. | >> | >> Arno | | -- | -- | --John | to email, dial "usenet" and validate | (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) | |
Reply by ●October 22, 20072007-10-22
'Arno Wagner' wrote: | HDTV again. I will stop answering to you now until you have looked | up the difference between HDTV and the image by computer monitor. _____ No loss. HDTV is the example because there is little demand currently for the wireless computer monitor function. But your assumptions are still incorrect; " ... this will require roughly 2.3GHz Bandwidth (!) to transfer wirelessly. Currently, there is no large enough available space in the RF spectrum for this." Try reading the contents of the cite (rather than reading just the URL) I gave in the message to which you are replying, http://news.digitaltrends.com/news/story/7034/nec_develops_wireless_hdtv_tranceiver discussing a bandwidth of greater than 2.5 GHz in the now available RF spectrum ~ 40 GHz. Mobile phones were severely limited in the days when the HF band was used ... but things change. Phil Weldon "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:5o403aFkubd1U3@mid.individual.net... | In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia Phil Weldon <not.disclosed@example.com> wrote: | > 'J. Clarke' wrote, in part: | | > | He didn't say that you couldn't do it, he said that you had to use | > | lossy compression, which JPEG2000 is. What I see there is some outfit | > | telling you how great their new chip is. Have you ever known an | > | outfit to tell you how _lousy_ their new chip is? | > _____ | | > How about this | > http://news.digitaltrends.com/news/story/7034/nec_develops_wireless_hdtv_tranceiver ? | | > The bandwidth is not far, far too high. | | HDTV again. I will stop answering to you now until you have looked | up the difference between HDTV and the image by computer monitor. | | Arno
Reply by ●October 22, 20072007-10-22
'J. Clarke' wrote, in part: | Regardless of what technology they use, there are laws and regulations | that assign bandwidth and there isn't a large spectrum hole anywhere | that one can plug into without a transmitter license. _____ Read the contents of http://news.digitaltrends.com/news/story/7034/nec_develops_wireless_hdtv_tranceiver and think 'spread spectrum'. Phil Weldon "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message news:fffm1s02gmf@news2.newsguy.com... | Phil Weldon wrote: | > 'Arno' wrote: | >> Does not exist. The bandwidth needed is far, far too high. | > _____ | > Does exist. | > | > The wireless monitor connections do not use 802.11 x standards | > equipment. The bandwidth thus does not have the same limitation. | | Regardless of what technology they use, there are laws and regulations | that assign bandwidth and there isn't a large spectrum hole anywhere | that one can plug into without a transmitter license. | | In any case, some of the wireless monitor connections _do_ use 802.11. | | > Phil Weldon | > | > "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message | > news:5nte7cFjlrajU3@mid.individual.net... | >> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia karthikbalaguru | > <karthikbalaguru79@gmail.com> wrote: | >>> Hi, | >> | >>> Does anyone know about a good Wireless computer monitor (Monitor's | >>> video connection is wireless) ? | >> | >>> Thx in advans, | >>> Karthik Balaguru | >> | >> Does not exist. The bandwidth needed is far, far too high. | >> | >> Arno | | -- | -- | --John | to email, dial "usenet" and validate | (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) | |
Reply by ●October 22, 20072007-10-22
'J. Clarke' wrote, in part: | Regardless of what technology they use, there are laws and regulations | that assign bandwidth and there isn't a large spectrum hole anywhere | that one can plug into without a transmitter license. _____ That turns out not to be true. See "In the United States and several other countries, the 24 GHz and 60 GHz unlicensed bands are available for non-spread spectrum short-haul point-to-point applications. AIRLINX offers 24 GHz and 60 GHz band unlicensed radios, with future radio designs up to 100+ GHz in progress." at http://www.airlinx.com/products.cfm/product/1-0-0.htm . "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message news:fffm1s02gmf@news2.newsguy.com... | Phil Weldon wrote: | > 'Arno' wrote: | >> Does not exist. The bandwidth needed is far, far too high. | > _____ | > Does exist. | > | > The wireless monitor connections do not use 802.11 x standards | > equipment. The bandwidth thus does not have the same limitation. | | Regardless of what technology they use, there are laws and regulations | that assign bandwidth and there isn't a large spectrum hole anywhere | that one can plug into without a transmitter license. | | In any case, some of the wireless monitor connections _do_ use 802.11. | | > Phil Weldon | > | > "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message | > news:5nte7cFjlrajU3@mid.individual.net... | >> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia karthikbalaguru | > <karthikbalaguru79@gmail.com> wrote: | >>> Hi, | >> | >>> Does anyone know about a good Wireless computer monitor (Monitor's | >>> video connection is wireless) ? | >> | >>> Thx in advans, | >>> Karthik Balaguru | >> | >> Does not exist. The bandwidth needed is far, far too high. | >> | >> Arno | | -- | -- | --John | to email, dial "usenet" and validate | (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) | |
Reply by ●October 22, 20072007-10-22
In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:> Arno Wagner wrote: >> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia Marc Ramsey >> <marc@ranlogremove.com> wrote: >>> Arno Wagner wrote: >>>> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia karthikbalaguru >>>> <karthikbalaguru79@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>> >>>>> Does anyone know about a good Wireless computer monitor >>>>> (Monitor's >>>>> video connection is wireless) ? >>>> >>>>> Thx in advans, >>>>> Karthik Balaguru >>>> >>>> Does not exist. The bandwidth needed is far, far too high. >> >>> Hmm, you better tell these guys it won't work: >> >>> http://plextor.com/english/products/PX-PA15AW.htm >>> http://addlogix.com/peripheral_sharing/echoview.htm >> >>> Marc >> >> As to this and the other replays: If you are satisfied with slow >> changes and basically no possibility to display movies, or other >> faster animated contents then of course solutions exist. These >> things >> are rather limited. Their primary focus is for presentations that >> mostly consist of static and/or low-details lides. A seconday use if >> dor a remote console for system administration of systems that do >> not >> have reasonable log-in possibilities. I tested one of these and it >> feels jerky and slow. Not usable to work with for a longer duration. >> >> Example: 1280x1024@60Hz with 24 bit color requires 3*1280*1024*60 >> Bytes = 230MB/s to be transferred for losless video >> transfer. Compression can not solve that for all content. Also this >> will require roughly 2.3GHz Bandwidth (!) to transfer >> wirelessly. Currently, there is no large enough available space in >> the >> RF spectrum for this.> Arno, HDTV gives 30 frames/second at 1920x1080 over a 6 MHz channel > and if you've ever watched it you'll find that it's neither jerky nor > slow.Indeed. But it is not what you need for a computer monitor. The requirements for video-only are much lower than for video and high-quality text and graphics output.> Now, I'm not saying that a 300 buck wireless adapter will give those > results, because for the most part they won't, but bandwidth isn't the > real obstacle--802.11g has almost ten times the bandwidth of HDTV.Indeed. And A simple XGA output at 1280x1024@60Hz is some orders of magnitude more than 802.11g if you do not want degradation. Arno
Reply by ●October 22, 20072007-10-22
In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia Phil Weldon <not.disclosed@example.com> wrote:> 'Arno Wagner' wrote: > | It still needs several GHz of RF spectrum. Which happens to not be > | available. There is no way to beat Shannon.> Your assumptions turn out not to be true. See > http://www.analog.com/en/press/0,2890,3%255F%255F72455,00.htmlThis does not have the bandwidth needed for a computer monitor. Television, even HDTV, has much, much lower bandwidth requirements.> the abstract at > http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/10651/33618/01598300.pdf?arnumber=1598300> and the Wireless Telegraphy (Ultra-Wideband Equipment) (Exemption) > Regulations 2007 (No. 2084) at [Ofcom (UK)] > http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/uwb_exemption/statement/ .> Though compression does not 'beat Shannon', it IS the basis of getting HDTV > over the airwaves (and very soon to be the ONLY way to get TV over the > airwaves in most countries.)See above: HDTV does not cut it for computer monitors. Arno
Reply by ●October 22, 20072007-10-22
In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia Phil Weldon <not.disclosed@example.com> wrote:> 'J. Clarke' wrote, in part:> | He didn't say that you couldn't do it, he said that you had to use > | lossy compression, which JPEG2000 is. What I see there is some outfit > | telling you how great their new chip is. Have you ever known an > | outfit to tell you how _lousy_ their new chip is? > _____> How about this > http://news.digitaltrends.com/news/story/7034/nec_develops_wireless_hdtv_tranceiver ?> The bandwidth is not far, far too high.HDTV again. I will stop answering to you now until you have looked up the difference between HDTV and the image by computer monitor. Arno
Reply by ●October 22, 20072007-10-22
In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:> Phil Weldon wrote: >> 'Arno' wrote: >>> Does not exist. The bandwidth needed is far, far too high. >> _____ >> Does exist. >> >> The wireless monitor connections do not use 802.11 x standards >> equipment. The bandwidth thus does not have the same limitation.> Regardless of what technology they use, there are laws and regulations > that assign bandwidth and there isn't a large spectrum hole anywhere > that one can plug into without a transmitter license.> In any case, some of the wireless monitor connections _do_ use 802.11.And they can, at significant degradation. If, for example, you are contend with 1025x765 @ 5Hz with 8 bit color, then you need only something like 32Mbit/sec to transfer it lossless. But the resolution and color depth was current something like 10 years ago and the 5Hz refresh rate even annoys when working on a command line. For a slide-show, however, that has very large fonts anyways and only slow, localized movement, it is enough. But not if you want to work, play and watch movies with the display. What I am just saying is that a general-purpose, full cirrent PC graphics quality solution is not available now and is very unlikely to be available in the near future. There are a lot of specialized solutions with specific limitations. They all work by degrading signal quality significantly, but in different ways. Arno
