Wireless Computer Monitor - Monitor's video connection is wireless

[karthikbalaguru]

Hi,

Does anyone know about a good Wireless computer monitor (Monitor's
video connection is wireless) ?

Thx in advans,
Karthik Balaguru

 

[husterk]

Hi,

Does anyone know about a good Wireless computer monitor (Monitor's
video connection is wireless) ?

Thx in advans,
Karthik Balaguru

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.

http://www.ramelectronics.net/html/PC-TV_video.html

Keith
http://www.doubleblackdesign.com

 

[Jethro]

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.

http://www.ramelectronics.net/html/PC-TV_video.html

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.

 

[Arno Wagner]

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.

Arno

 

[Marc Ramsey]

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

 

[GMAN]

In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia karthikbalaguru




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

Arno

Wrong!, the CEA is already working on a standard for Wireless HDMI for HDTV's
and the like.

 

[Phil Weldon]

'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

| 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.
|
| Arno

 

[Arno Wagner]

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

 

[Arno Wagner]

'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.

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

Arno

 

[Phil Weldon]

'Arno Wagner' wrote:
| It still needs several GHz of RF spectrum. Which happens to not be
| available. There is no way to beat Shannon.


Your assumptions turn out not to be true. See
http://www.analog.com/en/press/0,2890,3%5F%5F72455,00.html

the abstract at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/10651/33618/01598300.pdf?arnumber=1598300

and the Wireless Telegraphy (Ultra-Wideband Equipment) (Exemption)
Regulations 2007 (No. 2084) at [Ofcom (UK)]
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/uwb_exemption/statement/ .

Though compression does not 'beat Shannon', it IS the basis of getting HDTV
over the airwaves (and very soon to be the ONLY way to get TV over the
airwaves in most countries.)

Phil Weldon





| In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia Phil Weldon
| > '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.
|
| It still needs several GHz of RF spectrum. Which happens to not be
| available. There is no way to beat Shannon.
|
| Arno

 

[J. Clarke]

In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia Marc Ramsey



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.

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.

 

[J. Clarke]

_____
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.

 

[J. Clarke]

Your assumptions turn out not to be true. See
http://www.analog.com/en/press/0,2890,3%5F%5F72455,00.html

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?

When some devices using that chip are available for testing, and the
test have come back positive, showing that it does in fact address
Arno's concerns, _then_ you can tell him that he's sort of wrong.

the abstract at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/10651/33618/01598300.pdf?arnumber=1598300

A proposed system running on a proposed technology that may or may not
ever be brought to market and if brought to market may or may not work
satisfactorily.

and the Wireless Telegraphy (Ultra-Wideband Equipment) (Exemption)
Regulations 2007 (No. 2084) at [Ofcom (UK)]
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/uwb_exemption/statement/ .

Which is mostly used for some specialized radar applications. Whether
it can actually carry video signals with reasonable resolution over
reasonable distances remains to be seen.

Though compression does not 'beat Shannon', it IS the basis of
getting HDTV
over the airwaves (and very soon to be the ONLY way to get TV over
the
airwaves in most countries.)

HDTV is the only valid argument you've raised. However the
transmission quality is the result of putting significant processing
effort into the compression end to minimize artifacting--it's
difficult to do in realtime with acceptable results, which is one of
the reasons that most local stations are still producing their local
content in SD.

 

[Phil Weldon]

'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.

Phil Weldon

| Phil Weldon wrote:
| > 'Arno Wagner' wrote:
| >> It still needs several GHz of RF spectrum. Which happens to not be
| >> available. There is no way to beat Shannon.
| >
| >
| > Your assumptions turn out not to be true. See
| > http://www.analog.com/en/press/0,2890,3%5F%5F72455,00.html
|
| 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?
|
| When some devices using that chip are available for testing, and the
| test have come back positive, showing that it does in fact address
| Arno's concerns, _then_ you can tell him that he's sort of wrong.
|
| > the abstract at
| >
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/10651/33618/01598300.pdf?arnumber=1598300
|
| A proposed system running on a proposed technology that may or may not
| ever be brought to market and if brought to market may or may not work
| satisfactorily.
|
| > and the Wireless Telegraphy (Ultra-Wideband Equipment) (Exemption)
| > Regulations 2007 (No. 2084) at [Ofcom (UK)]
| > http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/uwb_exemption/statement/ .
|
| Which is mostly used for some specialized radar applications. Whether
| it can actually carry video signals with reasonable resolution over
| reasonable distances remains to be seen.
|
| > Though compression does not 'beat Shannon', it IS the basis of
| > getting HDTV
| > over the airwaves (and very soon to be the ONLY way to get TV over
| > the
| > airwaves in most countries.)
|
| HDTV is the only valid argument you've raised. However the
| transmission quality is the result of putting significant processing
| effort into the compression end to minimize artifacting--it's
| difficult to do in realtime with acceptable results, which is one of
| the reasons that most local stations are still producing their local
| content in SD.
|
| > | >> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia Phil Weldon
| >>> '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.
| >>
| >> It still needs several GHz of RF spectrum. Which happens to not be
| >> available. There is no way to beat Shannon.
| >>
| >> Arno
|
| --
| --
| --John
| to email, dial "usenet" and validate
| (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|
|

 

[Phil Weldon]

'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,
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



| In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia Phil Weldon
| > '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.
|
| Arno

 

[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
http://news.digitaltrends.com/news/story/7034/nec_develops_wireless_hdtv_tranceiver
and think 'spread spectrum'.

Phil Weldon

| 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.
|
| > Phil Weldon
| >
| > | >> 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.
| >>
| >> Arno
|
| --
| --
| --John
| to email, dial "usenet" and validate
| (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|
|

 

[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.
_____

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 .

| 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.
|
| > Phil Weldon
| >
| > | >> 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.
| >>
| >> Arno
|
| --
| --
| --John
| to email, dial "usenet" and validate
| (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|
|

 

[Arno Wagner]

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.

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.

Arno

 

[Arno Wagner]

'Arno Wagner' wrote:
| It still needs several GHz of RF spectrum. Which happens to not be
| available. There is no way to beat Shannon.

Your assumptions turn out not to be true. See
http://www.analog.com/en/press/0,2890,3%5F%5F72455,00.html

This does not have the bandwidth needed for a computer monitor.
Television, even HDTV, has much, much lower bandwidth requirements.

the abstract at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/10651/33618/01598300.pdf?arnumber=1598300

and the Wireless Telegraphy (Ultra-Wideband Equipment) (Exemption)
Regulations 2007 (No. 2084) at [Ofcom (UK)]
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/uwb_exemption/statement/ .

Though compression does not 'beat Shannon', it IS the basis of getting HDTV
over the airwaves (and very soon to be the ONLY way to get TV over the
airwaves in most countries.)

See above: HDTV does not cut it for computer monitors.

Arno

 

[Arno Wagner]

'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.

Arno