Wireless Computer Monitor - Monitor's video connection is wireless

I just did a quick search on Google and I found a website that offers wireless VGA and wireless HDMI transmission boxes. This should do what you are looking for.

Keith

I have tried the Wireless PC to TV/Stereo before and was thoroughly unimpressed with the range of the unit. I tried it for work but whether the old building or too many walls but I couldn't get a clear picture from it at only 20 feet away.

--
Jethro[AGHL] aka Phat_Jethro
Reply Email: jethro86 (at) gmail (dot) com

Does not exist. The bandwidth needed is far, far too high.

Arno

Hmm, you better tell these guys it won't work:

Marc

'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.

Phil Weldon

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

It still needs several GHz of RF spectrum. Which happens to not be available. There is no way to beat Shannon.

Arno

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.

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.

--
-- 
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

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.

--
-- 
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

'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,

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

'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

and think 'spread spectrum'.

Phil Weldon

| > 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 | >

| >>> 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) | |

'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

.

| > 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 | >

| >>> 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) | |

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.

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

?

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

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

...

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.

'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,

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

| >> 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. | | | | | -- | Posted via a free Usenet account from

|

?

IBM, 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

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