Phil Weldon wrote:> '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."... No. You can transmit any resolution as slowly as you want. The only problem is the wait for a revised picture (which may be only partly revised, and need only transmission of that revised portion). So such things as HDTV, which need to transmit motion, have to concentrate on means of identifying the changed picture portions, and their importance. A computer display doesn't need this, it just transmits the revised picture. The screen change can appear instantaneous by simply having an output buffer. As a result, their is no connection between bandwidth and resolution FOR COMPUTER DISPLAYS. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Wireless Computer Monitor - Monitor's video connection is wireless
Started by ●October 16, 2007
Reply by ●October 22, 20072007-10-22
Reply by ●October 22, 20072007-10-22
'CBFalconer' wrote: | No. You can transmit any resolution as slowly as you want. The | only problem is the wait for a revised picture (which may be only | partly revised, and need only transmission of that revised | portion). So such things as HDTV, which need to transmit motion, | have to concentrate on means of identifying the changed picture | portions, and their importance. A computer display doesn't need | this, it just transmits the revised picture. The screen change can | appear instantaneous by simply having an output buffer. | | As a result, their is no connection between bandwidth and | resolution FOR COMPUTER DISPLAYS. _____ Bandwidth is bandwidth. HDTV is an example of high bandwidth usage. Of course uncompressed WGA and higher monitor video requires a wider bandwidth. But you truncated the cite I gave, removing the information that the equipment bandwidth and the spectrum space ARE available. "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 "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:471D189F.1F14C976@yahoo.com... | Phil Weldon wrote: | > '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." | ... | | No. You can transmit any resolution as slowly as you want. The | only problem is the wait for a revised picture (which may be only | partly revised, and need only transmission of that revised | portion). So such things as HDTV, which need to transmit motion, | have to concentrate on means of identifying the changed picture | portions, and their importance. A computer display doesn't need | this, it just transmits the revised picture. The screen change can | appear instantaneous by simply having an output buffer. | | As a result, their is no connection between bandwidth and | resolution FOR COMPUTER DISPLAYS. | | -- | Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) | Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. | <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> | | | | -- | Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Reply by ●October 22, 20072007-10-22
In article <5o403aFkubd1U3@mid.individual.net>, me@privacy.net says...> 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. > > ArnoIBM, MediaTek Team on New Wireless Broadband The partners will develop and market mmWave technoloogy to replace Wi- fi. Dan Nystedt, IDG News Service Monday, October 22, 2007 07:00 AM PDT IBM Corp. and Taiwanese chip designer MediaTek Inc. on Monday announced a three-year pact to develop wireless chipsets for a new technology to transmit large volumes of information, such as full-length high definition (HD) movies, between DVD players, HD-TVs, hand-held devices or other gadgets around the home or office. The chipsets will use IBM Labs' mmWave (millimeter wave) radio technology as a faster wireless networking alternative to Wi-Fi. ... IBM has spent the past four years developing mmWave technology. Last year, the company demonstrated prototype chipsets the size of a U.S. dime able to wirelessly transmit _uncompressed_ HD video. --Gene
Reply by ●October 23, 20072007-10-23
"Phil Weldon" <not.disclosed@example.com> wrote in message news:13hpli0gibtvk4b@corp.supernews.com...> '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 . >If indeed it works as advertised, that can open up some really neat doors (like getting rid of all that mess behind my home theater/TV) among other things........:-). Ed Medlin
Reply by ●October 23, 20072007-10-23
Phil Weldon 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.All I see there is a picture of a box and some description. When I've seen it providing a good quality image then I'll believe that it is something other than yet another crappy wireless video gizmo. You seem to believe everything that you see in an advertisement. <snip> -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Reply by ●October 23, 20072007-10-23
Ed M. wrote:> "Phil Weldon" <not.disclosed@example.com> wrote in message > news:13hpli0gibtvk4b@corp.supernews.com... >> '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 . >> > If indeed it works as advertised, that can open up some really neat > doors (like getting rid of all that mess behind my home theater/TV) > among other things........:-).Actually you'll just have all that mess plugged into little boxes unless someone comes up with a standard for interfacing everything. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Reply by ●October 23, 20072007-10-23
Arno Wagner wrote:> 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.The desktop does not often change rapidly--it's actually more compressible than live video. Have you ever seen a computer desktop displayed on an HDTV?>> 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.Which may very well be acceptable for the intended use. What I see here is one guy saying it can't be done and another jumping at every whizbang pie in the sky pipe dream that he sees posted on the net. The question is not whether it can be done technologically, the question is what it costs and whether there is a commercial product available that does it satisfactorily. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Reply by ●October 23, 20072007-10-23
Arno Wagner wrote:> 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.Why don't you try explaining to us how 1920x1080 pixels of HDTV is different from 1920x1080 pixels of desktop?> > Arno-- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Reply by ●October 23, 20072007-10-23
'J. Clarke' wrote: One guy of which has actually worked in the video, television, and computer fields since 1965 and has been a member of SMPTE B^) Phil Weldon "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message news:fflue111maf@news2.newsguy.com... | Arno Wagner wrote: | > 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. | | The desktop does not often change rapidly--it's actually more | compressible than live video. Have you ever seen a computer desktop | displayed on an HDTV? | | >> 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. | | Which may very well be acceptable for the intended use. | | What I see here is one guy saying it can't be done and another jumping | at every whizbang pie in the sky pipe dream that he sees posted on the | net. | | The question is not whether it can be done technologically, the | question is what it costs and whether there is a commercial product | available that does it satisfactorily. | | -- | -- | --John | to email, dial "usenet" and validate | (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) | |
Reply by ●October 23, 20072007-10-23
Arno Wagner wrote:> 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.I believe that you will find that in the real world there are several technologies that operate over an 802.11 connection that provide performence considerably better than the "1025x765@5 Hz that you claim. Some of these are used to provide multiuser capability for Windows hosts. You seem to think that the choices are lossless transmission or totally unacceptable degradation. If you would quit arguing absolutes and insted demonstrate stick to actual results of real world devices you would both be more convincing and come across as less of an annoying pedantic prig. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
