Wireless Computer Monitor - Monitor's video connection is ..

In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia karthikbalaguru wrote:
> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Wireless Computer Monitor - Monitor's video connection is .. 

Arno Wagner wrote:
> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia karthikbalaguru wrote:
>> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Wireless Computer Monitor - Monitor's video connection is .. 

In article , Arno Wagner wrote:
>In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia karthikbalaguru
> wrote:
>> 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
Wrong!, the CEA is already working on a standard for Wireless HDMI for HDTV's
and the like.
 >> Stay informed about: Wireless Computer Monitor - Monitor's video connection is .. 

'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

"Arno Wagner" wrote in message

| In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia karthikbalaguru
wrote:
| > 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
 >> Stay informed about: Wireless Computer Monitor - Monitor's video connection is .. 

In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Arno Wagner wrote:
>> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia karthikbalaguru wrote:
>>> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Wireless Computer Monitor - Monitor's video connection is .. 

In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia 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.

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

Arno
 >> Stay informed about: Wireless Computer Monitor - Monitor's video connection is .. 

'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%255F%255F72455,00.html

the abstract at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/10651/33618/0159...0.pdf?a

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





"Arno Wagner" wrote in message

| In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia 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.
|
| It still needs several GHz of RF spectrum. Which happens to not be
| available. There is no way to beat Shannon.
|
| Arno
 >> Stay informed about: Wireless Computer Monitor - Monitor's video connection is .. 

Arno Wagner wrote:
> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia Marc Ramsey
> wrote:
>> Arno Wagner wrote:
>>> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia karthikbalaguru
>>> wrote:
>>>> 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.

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)
 >> Stay informed about: Wireless Computer Monitor - Monitor's video connection is .. 

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
>
> "Arno Wagner" wrote in message
>
>> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia karthikbalaguru
> wrote:
>>> 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)
 >> Stay informed about: Wireless Computer Monitor - Monitor's video connection is .. 

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%255F%255F72455,00.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=/iel5/10651/33618/0159...0.pdf?a

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.

> "Arno Wagner" wrote in message
>
>> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia 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.
>>
>> 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)
 >> Stay informed about: Wireless Computer Monitor - Monitor's video connection is .. 

'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_hd...trancei ?

The bandwidth is not far, far too high.

Phil Weldon

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

| 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%255F%255F72455,00.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=/iel5/10651/33618/0159...0.pdf?a
|
| 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.
|
| > "Arno Wagner" wrote in message
| >
| >> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia 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.
| >>
| >> 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)
|
|
 >> Stay informed about: Wireless Computer Monitor - Monitor's video connection is .. 

'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_hd...trancei
and think 'spread spectrum'.

Phil Weldon

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

| 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
| >
| > "Arno Wagner" wrote in message
| >
| >> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia karthikbalaguru
| > wrote:
| >>> 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)
|
|
 >> Stay informed about: Wireless Computer Monitor - Monitor's video connection is .. 

'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 .

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

| 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
| >
| > "Arno Wagner" wrote in message
| >
| >> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia karthikbalaguru
| > wrote:
| >>> 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)
|
|
 >> Stay informed about: Wireless Computer Monitor - Monitor's video connection is ..