'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)
|
|
