In reply to 'J. Clarke' writing, in part: | 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. _____ Oops, sorry about dropping the quote! The post should have read: 'J. Clarke' wrote: | 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. _____ 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) | |
Wireless Computer Monitor - Monitor's video connection is wireless
Started by ●October 16, 2007
Reply by ●October 23, 20072007-10-23
Reply by ●October 23, 20072007-10-23
In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:> 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.Well, what I actually meant, is that the requirements stated are not enought o find a matching product, since no generic one is available. Should have said that earlier. Arno
Reply by ●October 23, 20072007-10-23
In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:> 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.Indeed. And an X-term typically works very well over 10Mbit ethernet. But these things do not work on pixel-level. I once had the doubtful pleasure of using a system that does work on picel level. This was mostly unusable.> 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.And thank you for that charming description. My point is that there is no generic, no degradation option available as the OP seems to have asked for. Arno
Reply by ●October 24, 20072007-10-24
Phil Weldon wrote:> In reply to 'J. Clarke' writing, in part: >> 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. > _____ > > Oops, sorry about dropping the quote! > > The post should have read: > > 'J. Clarke' wrote: >> 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. > _____ > > One guy of which has actually worked in the video, television, and > computer fields since 1965 and has been a member of SMPTE B^)If that person is you then it has to be in a nontechnical capacity, because nobody who's been a tech for 40 years is going to believe that all this super-whizbang technocrap will work as claimed until he's seen it himself.> > 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)-- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Reply by ●October 24, 20072007-10-24
In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:> Phil Weldon wrote: >> In reply to 'J. Clarke' writing, in part: >>> 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. >> _____ >> >> Oops, sorry about dropping the quote! >> >> The post should have read: >> >> 'J. Clarke' wrote: >>> 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. >> _____ >> >> One guy of which has actually worked in the video, television, and >> computer fields since 1965 and has been a member of SMPTE B^)> If that person is you then it has to be in a nontechnical capacity, > because nobody who's been a tech for 40 years is going to believe that > all this super-whizbang technocrap will work as claimed until he's > seen it himself.Hmm. I have ben in CS for not nearly as long, but I have seen a lot of "super-whizbang technocrap" working significantly worse than advertised or not at all. Seems the worse the product the more fantastic the promises made by marketing. Al-time favorite: Softram by Syncronis Current product favorite: ReadyBoost by MS And of course all the Snake-Oil security products out there. Arno
Reply by ●October 25, 20072007-10-25
Arno Wagner wrote:> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia J. Clarke > <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote: >> Phil Weldon wrote: >>> In reply to 'J. Clarke' writing, in part: >>>> 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. >>> _____ >>> >>> Oops, sorry about dropping the quote! >>> >>> The post should have read: >>> >>> 'J. Clarke' wrote: >>>> 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. >>> _____ >>> >>> One guy of which has actually worked in the video, television, and >>> computer fields since 1965 and has been a member of SMPTE B^) > >> If that person is you then it has to be in a nontechnical capacity, >> because nobody who's been a tech for 40 years is going to believe >> that all this super-whizbang technocrap will work as claimed until >> he's seen it himself. > > Hmm. I have ben in CS for not nearly as long, but I have seen > a lot of "super-whizbang technocrap" working significantly worse > than advertised or not at all. Seems the worse the product the > more fantastic the promises made by marketing. > > Al-time favorite: Softram by Syncronis > Current product favorite: ReadyBoost by MS > > And of course all the Snake-Oil security products out there.My favorite was the "Chang Modification". I think the inmates have taken over the asylum at Microsoft. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Reply by ●October 26, 20072007-10-26
'J. Clarke' wrote: | If that person is you then it has to be in a nontechnical capacity, | because nobody who's been a tech for 40 years is going to believe that | all this super-whizbang technocrap will work as claimed until he's | seen it himself. _____ Perhaps this thread might be more useful if we did not get frozen into positions (I am just as guilty as anyone else.) I have indeed been involved in these fields in technical capacities since 1965 (as well as in documentary production.) To make my point of view somewhat more clear, I will boil it down to four points. #1. The 60 GHz RF spectrum band (7 GHz wide) is available at this moment, at least in the USA capable of supplying a several GHz bandwidth signal with UNLICENSED transmitters. IEEE has had an interest group for millimeter wave wireless personal networks using this band for more than 5 years. #2. Chips are in production at this moment capable of supporting digital video transmission in the 60 GHz band and with a several GHz bandwidth. #3. Lossless compression is not a necessary requirement for many wireless monitor applications. #4. No reasonably priced consumer products are currently marketed for video transmission with a several GHz bandwidth; but these products will appear soon ( less than three years.) Finally, I believe in many things I have never SEEN work. Knowing HOW to accomplish the task is enough. The rest is engineering and marketing for consumer products. Phil Weldon "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message news:ffobos012fu@news2.newsguy.com... | Phil Weldon wrote: | > In reply to 'J. Clarke' writing, in part: | >> 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. | > _____ | > | > Oops, sorry about dropping the quote! | > | > The post should have read: | > | > 'J. Clarke' wrote: | >> 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. | > _____ | > | > One guy of which has actually worked in the video, television, and | > computer fields since 1965 and has been a member of SMPTE B^) | | If that person is you then it has to be in a nontechnical capacity, | because nobody who's been a tech for 40 years is going to believe that | all this super-whizbang technocrap will work as claimed until he's | seen it himself. | > | > 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) | | -- | -- | --John | to email, dial "usenet" and validate | (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) | |
Reply by ●October 27, 20072007-10-27
Phil Weldon wrote:> 'J. Clarke' wrote: >> If that person is you then it has to be in a nontechnical capacity, >> because nobody who's been a tech for 40 years is going to believe >> that all this super-whizbang technocrap will work as claimed until >> he's seen it himself. > _____ > > Perhaps this thread might be more useful if we did not get frozen > into > positions (I am just as guilty as anyone else.) I have indeed been > involved in these fields in technical capacities since 1965 (as well > as in documentary production.) To make my point of view somewhat > more clear, I will boil it down to four points. > > #1. The 60 GHz RF spectrum band (7 GHz wide) is available at this > moment, at least in the USA capable of supplying a several GHz > bandwidth signal with UNLICENSED transmitters. IEEE has had an > interest group for millimeter wave wireless personal networks using > this band for more than 5 years. > > #2. Chips are in production at this moment capable of supporting > digital video transmission in the 60 GHz band and with a several GHz > bandwidth. > > #3. Lossless compression is not a necessary requirement for many > wireless monitor applications. > > #4. No reasonably priced consumer products are currently marketed > for video transmission with a several GHz bandwidth; but these > products will appear soon ( less than three years.) > > Finally, I believe in many things I have never SEEN work. Knowing > HOW to accomplish the task is enough. The rest is engineering and > marketing for consumer products.Fine. Show me an independent test of a product such as you describe that can be bought ff the shelf right now. Not a paper in a journal, not a spec sheet for a chip, but a box that is on a shelf in a store with a price tag and an independent product review. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Reply by ●October 28, 20072007-10-28
In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:> Phil Weldon wrote: >> 'J. Clarke' wrote: >>> If that person is you then it has to be in a nontechnical capacity, >>> because nobody who's been a tech for 40 years is going to believe >>> that all this super-whizbang technocrap will work as claimed until >>> he's seen it himself. >> _____ >> >> Perhaps this thread might be more useful if we did not get frozen >> into >> positions (I am just as guilty as anyone else.) I have indeed been >> involved in these fields in technical capacities since 1965 (as well >> as in documentary production.) To make my point of view somewhat >> more clear, I will boil it down to four points. >> >> #1. The 60 GHz RF spectrum band (7 GHz wide) is available at this >> moment, at least in the USA capable of supplying a several GHz >> bandwidth signal with UNLICENSED transmitters. IEEE has had an >> interest group for millimeter wave wireless personal networks using >> this band for more than 5 years.Nice. So let me get this right: Personal networking...Ranges of 1-2 meters maximum? BTW, IEEE having a working group does not necessarily mean anytging, besides that they can get funding for it.>> #2. Chips are in production at this moment capable of supporting >> digital video transmission in the 60 GHz band and with a several GHz >> bandwidth.Care to reference a datasheet? You know there are also quantum chips in production, ultra-fast digital chips, that unfortunately need liquid air cooling, CPUs that cost more than a house, etc.. Being in production does not mean a lot.>> #3. Lossless compression is not a necessary requirement for many >> wireless monitor applications.Relevance?>> #4. No reasonably priced consumer products are currently marketed >> for video transmission with a several GHz bandwidth; but these >> products will appear soon ( less than three years.)>> Finally, I believe in many things I have never SEEN work. Knowing >> HOW to accomplish the task is enough. The rest is engineering and >> marketing for consumer products.> Fine. Show me an independent test of a product such as you describe > that can be bought ff the shelf right now. Not a paper in a journal, > not a spec sheet for a chip, but a box that is on a shelf in a store > with a price tag and an independent product review.I especially like the "less than three years". It seems to be a constant in these type of announcements. Most never make it to market. A large part never even makes it to a working prototype. Arno
