'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
| 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
| >
| > | >> Arno Wagner wrote:
| >>> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia J. Clarke
| >>>> Arno Wagner wrote:
| >>>>> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia Marc Ramsey
| >>>>>> Arno Wagner wrote:
| >>>>>>> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia karthikbalaguru
| >>>>>>>> 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)
|
|
.