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)
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?
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)
Why don't you try explaining to us how 1920x1080 pixels of HDTV is different from 1920x1080 pixels of desktop?
-- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot 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
| >>>>>> 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: | >>>
| >>>>
| >>>> 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) | |
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)
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
| >>>>>> 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: | >>>
| >>>>
| >>>> 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) | |
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
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.
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
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.
-- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
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
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)
'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
| > 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 | >
| >>>>>>>> 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: | >>>>>
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>> 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) | |
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)
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.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.
Relevance?
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
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.