Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wireless HDMI At 1080p, Lag-Free WHDI Tested

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the i-got-no-strings-to-hold-me-down dept.

Displays 171

MojoKid writes "Wireless HDMI technologies have finally come of age. Though there are two camps currently in the market (Intel's WiDi and WHDI), the bottom line is lag-free full HD 1080p wireless HDMI video/audio transmission is now a reality. No longer does an HTPC need to be shoehorned into the confines of the entertainment center. Also, that notebook you have perched on the coffee table just got a major display upgrade. This demo of the Asus WiCast and the briteView HDelight wireless HDMI transmitter kits, shows the technology in action and its impressive actually. Both of these WHDI-based kits utilize the same family of Amimon WHDI transmitter and receiver chipsets. The technology is capable of full 1080p HD video and Dolby Digital surround sound audio transmissions, over distances of up to 30 feet with less than a millisecond of latency."

cancel ×

171 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fucking awesome, man (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34051308)

Now I can be the first on my block to get stage IV cancer from the wireless HDMI signal!!!

Re:fucking awesome, man (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34051348)

Hereditary Diseased Melanoma Infection?

Price is crazy (2, Informative)

y86 (111726) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051328)

A Asus Oplay box or a roku box is still a better way to deliver content over wireless for this price.

At 30$ I'm a buyer.

Do not trust (3, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051388)

What the subject says. If it's WiFi, I have good reason to never trust a trouble-free uninterrupted level of operation that it claims. I want copper, and shielded. Thank you very much.

Re:Do not trust (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34051566)

No one is stealing your copper. Chill out. :b

Re:Do not trust (1)

pckl300 (1525891) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051860)

^ give him your mods

Re:Do not trust (2, Informative)

Simon80 (874052) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051804)

WiFi and wireless do not mean the same thing..

Re:Do not trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34051880)

Wireless Fidelity doesn't mean wireless?

Re:Do not trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34052022)

No, it's a subset of "wireless". Otherwise, a 1920s radio, ie a wireless telegraph, would also be WiFi according to you?

Re:Do not trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34052104)

If it uses radio waves and is broadcasted unshielded, it's fucking WiFi by any other name if in encoded/decoded in the digital domain.

Re:Do not trust (3, Funny)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052474)

I realize I'm arguing with AC, but you are uneducated AND opinionated. You should run for a seat in congress!

Re:Do not trust (1)

Demonantis (1340557) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051990)

I don't think that uninterrupted is as significant as you make it seem. HDMI being a digital signal benefits from the cliff effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_effect). Basically that means that as long as you can get all the packets you need before the picture is rendered on the screen you are safe. That is how it works when you are watching youtube on your laptop. The only difference is that rendering occurs on your lap with the computer so less packets are transmitted over wireless. The trick here is that the rendering occurs before transmission which just means you have more packets transmitted over wireless. The same effect is created with a gpu and wireless card in the television. Which is just a DLNA enabled television.

Re:Do not trust (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34052052)

I'm sick of these fucking papoohies all over my nutsack!

Re:Do not trust (2, Funny)

Kohath (38547) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052232)

If it's WiFi,

It isn't WiFi.

Thank you very much.

You are welcome.

Re:Do not trust (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052278)

Just don't microwave any popcorn while you're watching the movie...

Re:Do not trust (1)

yekim (182367) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052446)

WHDI operates at 5GHz, not 2.4GHz, so your television should be safe from the microwave.

Security? (3, Interesting)

rotide (1015173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051392)

Just curious, but what security is there besides 8 channels (Not that channels offer security)? What's stopping my neighbor from watching where I surf or what I watch?

Re:Security? (3, Funny)

EdZ (755139) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051472)

Going wired won't help you with that [wikipedia.org] . You must learn to interact with your computer purely through morse blinking of the capslock LED!

Re:Security? (4, Informative)

Neon Spiral Injector (21234) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051678)

Amimon's FAQ [amimon.com] answers this question.

Is WHDI secured? Could someone eavesdrop on my wireless high definition video?

WHDI uses strong encryption (AES 256 bit-based) to protect the high definition wireless link. This ensures that all video or audio content transmitted wirelessly over WHDI links is safe from intentional or accidental eavesdropping.

Re:Security? (2, Funny)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052306)

This ensures that all video or audio content transmitted wirelessly over WHDI links is safe from intentional or accidental eavesdropping.

Accidental eavesdropping is becoming a real concern these days. Just yesterday, some guy with a really loud stereo pulled up next to me at a red light and I accidentally eavesdropped on the music he was playing. it's a good thing the RIAA wasn't around to see that.

Re:Security? (2, Informative)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052378)

Three people in a neighbourhood all get 900 mhz baby monitors. Person A can hear person B's transmitter. Not by intent. That's accidental.

Re:Security? (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34053120)

Good point, I hadn't considered that possibility.

Re:Security? (1)

imaginieus (897756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052590)

The great irony of Slashdot: The guy who is too lazy to do any research himself gets +4 interesting(good karma), while the guy who actually goes out and finds the answer gets +4 funny(no karma).

I ask you, does Mr. Neon deserve ad-free page views any less that Mr. Rotide?

(Yes, I realize that Mr. Neon already has good karma, but the point still stands)

Re:Security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34051704)

HDCP encryption.

THIS is the reason those HDCP master keys are useful.

Now you'll be able to grab the HDMI data straight off Wifi and output it to your TV or PC.

HDCP (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051732)

what security is there besides 8 channels (Not that channels offer security)?

In addition to what sibling comments mention, at least one WHDI product line has HDCP security [engadget.com] .

Re:Security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34051894)

What's stopping me now? I've got a ____ cable that I run into my TV, but don't have cable service (I have internet though). Some of the higher up digital channels are feeds of what other people are watching on the "on demand" channels. I watched Dexter the first time that way, of course I was mildly surprised watching Dexter one day with the wife and who ever we were watching over switched to a porn. It's weird, you even watch the fast forwards and pauses, we used to jokingly yell TV requests out the window.

"Unauthorized retransmission" prosecutions... (2, Interesting)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051426)

...coming right up?

Awesome Sauce (1)

dasacc22 (1830082) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051430)

This reminds me of the sling box which I saw an ad for a few years back. I for one welcome the tyranny of convenience provided by our wireless overlords

I need your displays (2, Funny)

FauxPasIII (75900) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051442)

I want to get this for my cell phone, so I can pretend I'm Tony Stark. "I need your displays."

papoohies (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34051444)

I looked upon he who was Crashhelper’s dad and began to stab him repeatedly with a knife with “FUCKER CHEEKS PATTY SUPER ULTIMATUM” engraved upon it. It did not kill him, or even hurt him. He became extremely angry at my bootyasscheek johnson ultimatums. So much so that he shot his diamond-hard elastic cock into my ass at the speed of light, forced it to come out my mouth, and then made it loop back down into my ass while it was already in my ass and coming out my mouth. He repeated this process over 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 times. When he was finished with that, every molecule in his cock became over 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 bright yellow cum nukes which, when detonated, would clone my ass over 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 times (I could feel each ass, as well) and banish them all to a dimension full of every other kind of cum nuke in existence. Finally, he banished my bootyasscheek johnson ultimatums to the cum caves (caves made of the stickiest cum in existence) where cum constantly swished in and out of my ass at 999999999999999999999999999 times the speed of light, thereby violating it to the fullest extent!

My ass has never been the same since that day. I am but a shell of what I once was! You must watch out for Crashhelper’s dad! Do not buy Project Vega, either, as it is a machine that will scan within a huge radius of the user‘s computer for unviolated, delicioso asses and report them to Crashhelper‘s dad. It is disguised as a game! Do not be fooled.

I won’t be surprised if a clone tries to respond to this post spreading misinformation to try to get my cheeks to boil. Heed my warnings!

HTPC's not limited only by HDMI. (1)

cygtoad (619016) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051478)

"No longer does an HTPC need to be shoehorned into the confines of the entertainment center."

Yeah but then you have still have IR remotes an IR blasters still keeping the HTPC pretty sticky to the entertainment center. The new tech is slick yes, but expensive for now and there are other limiting factors. It is a nice step in the evolution though.

Re:HTPC's not limited only by HDMI. (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051586)

i use my iPod to control my HTPC wireless FTW.. wish my video was wireless, would be nice to go "silent" without sacrificing speed.. HTPC in another room, no need for a 'pretty' case.. I WANT

Re:HTPC's not limited only by HDMI. (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051750)

The only thing you need "speed" for in an HTPC is stuff like Flash that doesn't adequately exploit the video hardware.

Re:HTPC's not limited only by HDMI. (2, Interesting)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051954)

my HTPC is used for other purposes too.. more of a regular PC with HTPC capabilities.. i dunno what to call it... wait yes I do... its a PC.. its only HT when i turn the lights off

Re:HTPC's not limited only by HDMI. (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052994)

Your post is conspicously missing any reason to care about the speed of the CPU.

Re:HTPC's not limited only by HDMI. (1)

JorDan Clock (664877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34053310)

The video hardware of what? Flash 10.1 is GPU accelerated. It makes watch fullscreen Hulu and such possible on Atom CPUs.

Re:HTPC's not limited only by HDMI. (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052442)

A couple thoughts on this:

1) As sibling mentions, a lot of portables can now control the functions of various media software as a "remote control". Apple produces an iDevice app that is awesome for controlling iTunes. In the most extreme cases there are even VNC apps for every smart phone I'm aware of. You could literally control the whole HTPC from the OS up from with one of these devices rather than just use it as a "remote".

2) IR blaster cables are extremely small , flexible, and can be quite long. It's much easier to remote out the IR blaster if you don't have to run HDMI cable back to the TV as well.

3) If these devices become common I could easily see them being bundled with a WiFi remote control that essentially performs like a portable running a remote app, except special purpose to do only that. Write a daemon that listens for the remote "signal" (really a network connection) and pipes that to your media software just like a conventional IR receiver software would.

Realistically in my mind I see this as being more awesome for being able to easily pipe my laptop to the TV, but that's mostly because I've never really gotten into the whole HTPC thing. For people in the HTPC crowd, remote controlling seems like a pretty trivial problem to solve once you can cut the HDMI cable.

Rumor has it... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34051584)

...that Monster R&D is already working on high-fidelity atmosphere for the audiophile's living room.

Re:Rumor has it... (1)

ThatMegathronDude (1189203) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052922)

Hopefully its Oxygen free for optimum broadcasting performance!

WiDi (2, Interesting)

LordMyren (15499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051638)

keep in mind, WiDi requires an Intel Core processor and special software on the computer doing the realtime encoding. Can anyone confirm whether Wireless Display is compatible with the existing spec called Wireless HD? Wikipedia forwards WiDi to WirelessHD, but my understanding was Intel's spec was not inter-compatible.

802.11a/n (1)

Ark42 (522144) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051648)

How does it interact with 802.11a/n(5GHz)?

I'm guessing, as poorly as 2.4GHz cordless phones and bluetooth devices interact with 802.11b/g wireless?

5Ghz has a fair bit of room... (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052838)

There's 20 non-overlapping channels in the 5 ghz range in the USA, so even if it's using like 5 of them there's still more left than what's available on the 2.4ghz side.

Relevance of home theater PCs? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051654)

"No longer does an HTPC need to be shoehorned into the confines of the entertainment center."

But how relevant is this now that appliances such as Xbox 360, Apple TV, Roku DVP, and Logitech Revue powered by Google TV can perform many functions that used to need an HTPC? As CronoCloud has pointed out in comments like this [slashdot.org] , only geeks have HTPCs because the general public finds appliances more approachable.

Re:Relevance of home theater PCs? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051852)

...you will likely find that only "geeks" have anything beyond a DVD player. Even a BD player might be a bit much for "normal people".

Only the geeks are aware that there are other and possibly better options out there. "Normal" people don't concern themselves. They just take whatever they are being spoon-fed by the relevant megacorps. In truth, an AppleTV is no less "geeky" than a Revo running Linux.

As far as things like PVRs and Wii streaming goes, "normal people" need a map and a flashlight and some geek to hand them both. ...which reminds me. I need to let the local n00bs know about the Wii dropping the streaming disk for Netflix.

Re:Relevance of home theater PCs? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052344)

In truth, an AppleTV is no less "geeky" than a Revo running Linux.

If this is true, then why are people choosing appliances over PCs? Why are they choosing an Xbox 360 over an Acer Aspire Revo, whose ION chipset has a GeForce 9400M for gaming?

Re:Relevance of home theater PCs? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052826)

The Xbox 360 is a GAMES CONSOLE. The fact that it can do light media duty is pretty irrelevant. Only the terribly geeky even consider that as a selling point.

People buy an Xbox because they want to play games, not use it as an inferior HTPC.

A lot of these "video appliances" are being sold for other reasons completely unrelated to the fact that they can stream video from wherever.

Re:Relevance of home theater PCs? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34053022)

People buy an Xbox because they want to play games, not use it as an inferior HTPC.

Then why do people buy an Xbox 360 to play games instead of a gaming nettop to play games?

Re:Relevance of home theater PCs? (1)

StayFrosty (1521445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34053388)

2 reasons. The first is that most "Nettops" have terrible graphics cards. Even the aformentioned Ion setup with the GeForce 9400M is not a good gaming solution. If you want to play older stuff it may be OK, but Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 is going to run like crap. I'm fully aware that the GPU in a 360 is very dated at this point, but console games are designed to run on it. PC games can take advantage of better hardware and often won't run well on low-end cards.

Controllers are the second problem. Most PC games are set up to use a (superior IMHO) keyboard and mouse for controls. I know there are controllers for the PC and drivers for the xbox 360 controllers, but games that aren't set up to use them often need some pretty nasty hacks to get it to work right. With a 360 the games are designed with the controller in mind so this isn't a problem.

Re:Relevance of home theater PCs? (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 3 years ago | (#34053190)

Um... Maybe because an Xbox can play Xbobx GAMES?

I don't know if you are aware, but Revo IS an appliance. At least, it's as much an appliance as an Xbox is.

The difference is that people understand the concept of a "game console" since we've had those since the late 1970's. The idea of an HTPC or similar device is still foreign to non-geek people. They don't realize that when it comes to the basic technological makeup of these devices, Apple TV = Revo = Xbox = PS3 = Laptop. They still view them as coming from completely different worlds, and don't understand that they are all basically just computers.

Thus any kind of "HTCP" setup is viewed as "geeky" whereas game consoles and DVD players are not.

Re:Relevance of home theater PCs? (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 3 years ago | (#34053224)

Aaand I just realized I made an error above. I was thinking "Roku" when I was reading "Revo". My apologies. Obviously, a Revo is a PC, not an appliance.

Nevertheless, the rest of my post stands.

Re:Relevance of home theater PCs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34052670)

...you will likely find that only "geeks" have anything beyond a DVD player.

You will find that this is completely incorrect. Tons of people have TiVos and various other DVR devices. Oh and let's ignore the 360s and Wiis, etc owned by "normal" people.

Even a BD player might be a bit much for "normal people".

Sure if you discount the 38 million PS3s that have been sold. Or are you going to claim they are only owned by geeks? Oh and all one needs to do is to walk into a Best Buy to see that this statement is also false. There are numerous of "normal people" buying BD players every day.

As far as things like PVRs and Wii streaming goes, "normal people" need a map and a flashlight and some geek to hand them both.

Hahahaha. The amount of snobbery and elitism dripping from this post is hilariously pathetic. Is this the only way you feel good about your basement-dwelling existence? Maybe you need to go recompile your Loonix kernel will you microwave some more Totinos pizza rolls. I'm sure the other PC ricers on the gentoo forums will think you're 1337.

Re:Relevance of home theater PCs? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052976)

You are a moron. You're a dwarf trying to call a midget shorty. Except you are far too deluded to acknowledge it.

This isn't about being "elite", it's about being interested.

Now Tivo is the perfect example of my point. They are being put out of business by cable providers for precisely the sort of thing I was talking about. Most people won't "bother" and they will use whatever their cable provider provides. This is why Tivo found the need to sue them.

Game consoles are sold for GAMES.

Re:Relevance of home theater PCs? (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052686)

You might want to go out more - even my mom is looking into upgrading her VHS+DVD combo to BR.

Re:Relevance of home theater PCs? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052742)

None of those perform all or even most of the functions. Try using hulu on anything but a PC for a nice example.

Appliance substitutes for HTPC functions (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34053094)

None of those perform all or even most of the functions.

Appliance fans claim that each common HTPC function has a substitute on an appliance. For example:

Try using hulu on anything but a PC.

Is Hulu that different from cable TV on demand? If not, then cable TV on demand is a substitute for Hulu and (to a lesser extent) for a DVR application.

Re:Relevance of home theater PCs? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052780)

I agree HTPCs are gradually being edged out, but the general functionality of a computer still comes in handy over time as things change. Heck, I haven't even found a way to capture ATSC (broadcast digital TV) under linux such that my DLNA TV can actually decode it; only mplayer can play it. This should all be pretty easy, it just isn't.

ms (1)

LordMyren (15499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051658)

millisecond? but i want it nnnoowww

Widi hidey ho (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34051664)

realy rolls of the thung but We Atch De Eye Sounds cool to.
Im not sure witch to chose.

millisecond? Why (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051698)

Okay at 60 hhz do you really need a millisecond of latency?
Also for video "not gaming" that seems way over kill.
And how is this not just streaming? You use h.264 and wifi and you have "streaming HDMI" Okay add some cryto so only "approved" devices can show it.
  Yea this is really cool but frankly this could be hacked right now with a two systems with GPU and wifi.
Frankly most computers should handle this with a software update. Microsoft and Sony could add software to the PS/3 and the XBox so they could both an adapter and or use an adapter.
 

Re:millisecond? Why (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051886)

h.264 is lossy, I do not want a lossy connection between my device and my monitor.

Re:millisecond? Why (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052168)

Haa. Since every HD Video source you use is already lossy what is the difference?
BluRay, cable, satellite, streaming.... And the best of them already use H.264!
BTW odds are this device is also uses a lossy codec.

Re:millisecond? Why (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052714)

HDMI transports the decoded, uncompressed video stream not the compressed stream.

Re:millisecond? Why (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052878)

Computer displays (gaming in particular, as you implied yourself) are the tough case... latency and compression artifacts are not welcome there.

Video-only latency also desynchronizes the audio (e.g. playing though a surround system). I suppose nice stereo receivers should (or already do?) have programmable latency to account for latency in wireless speakers and displays, but it's one more thing to go wrong.

Re:millisecond? Why (1)

Mix+Master+Nixon (1018716) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052904)

Because you lose quality when you take a lossy encoding, decode it, and then re-encode it with a lossy codec. I don't WANT to lose quality, that's why I'm watching a Blu-ray in the first place. Christ.

Re:millisecond? Why (2, Insightful)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34053140)

Really? Because I could swear my computer, and my PS3 play games and they aren't compressed into h.264 before being put in the monitor/tv.

alternative (1)

whitehaint (1883260) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051708)

Or I could just save my money and buy a longer cable. The only thing I want hi def is my netflix, and a roku or similar can handle that for less, even with the purchase of 40 feet of megadominator super shield cable.

gratuitous waste and DLNA alternatives (1)

LordMyren (15499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051764)

i would've much rather someone developed a UPnP/DLNA realtime screen encoder, and then have used something like WiGig to wirelessly shuffle that completely bog standard DLNA stream to whatever series of displays it needs to go to. i'm sure there are advantages to one off'ing a wireless protocol, but i'd rather have had a standard for generic wireless communication, and a separate standard for system to system media sharing. all that really was needed to make that possible was, as i've said, realtime encoding of the screen into a DLNA compatible stream. that would've been much more flexible: any UPnP/DLNA device could consume the stream, assuming it has enough bandwidth to read all the bits. instead, you have to go out and buy dedicated transmitter and receivers just for this. truly a gratiutous waste of wideband, and media streaming.

Huh? (2, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051846)

HDMI, WiDi, WHDI, HTPC, WiCast... what the hell are you talking about? Are these even words, or did you just make all this up?

Re:Huh? (1)

ferrocene (203243) | more than 3 years ago | (#34053102)

Hi, welcome to technology. I see you're new here. Feel free to go over our pamphlets while you wait for one of our representatives.

"iSCSI and You"
"PCMCIA? In my laptop?"
"So you're going to be a FCPGA ZIF CPU"

More importantly... (3, Funny)

Syberz (1170343) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051900)

How easy will it be for me to access my hot neighbor's webcam feed, for um... research purposes?

Re:More importantly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34052682)

All your webcam are belong to us

Re:More importantly... (2, Funny)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34053174)

$8.99 / minute.

It's time to repeal the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34051928)

"over distances of up to 30 feet with less than a millisecond of latency."

Speed of Light was obviously a bad idea. It slows down electronics and communications to an unacceptable level. Ever call international? Like Bill Gates much touted 640K is enough for anyone I'm sure the speed of light seemed like more than enough at the time. I'm sure Congress can agree on repealing this outdated and pointless law!

http://www.fftheuntoldstory.com/

This is great ... (1)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 3 years ago | (#34051998)

... until one of your neighbours turns his or her microwave on .... or browses to Youtube on WiFi ... or get's a call on their cordless phone.

Then your wireless media center will just be a multi-thousand dollars pile of junk that you really, really want to trash with a sledgehammer and you will yearn back to the days when you connected your TV to your media player using a 50 cent SCART cable.

By the way, what about just using the powerline to pass the bytes around? My (outdated, 1/4 of the speed of current mainstream systems) ethernet-over-powerline home setup is perfectly good at connecting everything to everything else at my place and letting me watch video files from my PC on my TV without any interference from my neighbours (the signal won't cross over any transformers). What exactly is the attraction of using a physical transport medium that is highly prone to interference to connect multiple devices that are fixed and plugged to the wall for power anyway?

Re:This is great ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34053414)

SCART cable

Take your dangerous European ideas elsewhere.

Amnion chipset? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052016)

What?

How about a wired solution? (1)

Bolkar (939958) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052026)

Are there any wired solutions that support 1080p? I would like to use the 1080p TV at the next room as my second monitor, but I want to do it over cat6 with a switch in between. Couldn't find a solution for that, they have single cat6 ones available. I may change which PC is driving the screen later on, and therefore do not want to re cable every time.

What? (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052110)

http://www.hdtvsupply.com/hdmi-over-cat6.html [hdtvsupply.com]

direct connect if the jacks go to a patch panel- right? right?

skip the switch for that circuit alone.
there is no practical way to do it with a switch
you'd have to convert the HDMI to packet data
anything that would allow that- would crap- be really painful on the pocketbook..

Re:What? (1)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052668)

Yes there is [markertek.com] , HDMI over IP has been around a while.

There are lots of advantages, for instance, my auction site is a couple of square miles in size, getting directly cabled video to each location would be very expensive.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34052822)

I'm not sure if he thinks of a Ethernet switch, some kind of mechanical switch or a console or a monitor switch. One of the latter would work, just connect the output of the monitor switch to the HDMI -> CAT6 box, then connect any computer/media player whatever to the switch.

Not loseless (2, Informative)

mike449 (238450) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052064)

Note that the transmission is not loseless. [edn.com]
“It appears that WHDI is manipulating the color-space conversion by dropping some of the pixels’ LSBs and maybe even sending some pixels as monochrome interspersed with color pixels that change from frame to frame".

Re:Not loseless (1)

theonesandtwos (1349467) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052254)

Does that mean that it does not have the ability to stay tight?

what about interference? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052140)

what about interference? how well this work if you have a lot of people using this in the same area?

Shoehorned? (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052172)

No longer does an HTPC need to be shoehorned into the confines of the entertainment center.

Is this really a problem? Some Mini-ITX cases are mountable right on the back of TVs, and some TVs themselves are fairly powerful computers in themselves, even if the embedded software is still kinda lame and primitive right now. If you can get the compressed video to the TV area, then at that point, I think you've pretty much won. I'm not knocking the bandwidth improvements; I think that's great, but actually using it for uncompressed HDMI seems like a waste.

Two camps, again? (1)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052276)

Which morons decided to pull this crap again, mere months after the last debacle? I, for one will NOT buy into wireless video until one of these technologies is safely in the grave.

Anybody know if the transmitter comes with... (1)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052320)

...a power adapter in case you want to use it without a USB port? Looking into it so far it seems like it requires USB power instead of USB power being optional (probably to force usage with PCs - although my DVD carousel has USB w/power). This product seems to conflict with their, roughly twice as expense, HDMI 'source' version (which has worse performance as well.)

The receiver has a power adapter of course. Anyone from brite-View in here? Thanks.

Re:Anybody know if the transmitter comes with... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34053132)

Yes, it comes with 2x 5VDC power adapters, the 2-USB to mini USB cable is optional so you can use it with your notebook from your coffee table.

See the following picture for everything that comes in the box.

http://img.ncix.com/images/55710_2.jpg

Re:Anybody know if the transmitter comes with... (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34053218)

Yes, I know. RTFA.

Re:Anybody know if the transmitter comes with... (1)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34053380)

Doh, missed it in the specs, sorry (I did read the article but somehow missed "Power Supply Transmitter: DC 5V, 2A adapter or USB power" - when I check the product website it didn't mention that, just the supply for the receiver.

PCM multi-channel audio? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34052338)

One of the biggest benefits of HDMI connectivity in my book is PCM multichannel audio, I'm sure anyone with a HDMI compatible home theater system and a suitable source (read:PS3) will tell you that PCMMC blows dolby out the water, a lack of support for this would really be a step backwards as far as I'm concerned. The bandwidth requirements would be a drop in the ocean compared to the video too.

Bandwidth (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052346)

It runs in the 5GHz band. Putting that much information out in such a low band is going to use all the spectrum available. A few of these TV senders, plus more in your neighbours' houses, and none of them will work. Nor will the 5GHz (a/n) wireless networks.

videophiles (1)

justleavealonemmmkay (1207142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052350)

So how long before snake oil vendors market overpriced airconditioning additives that tune the air to optimal permittivity/permeability?

And as a bonus feature... (1)

cutecub (136606) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052410)

...it will pop your microwave popcorn simply by dangling the bag 6 inches from the antennae.

Now that's power!

-S

IR would be nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34052506)

It would have been nice if they integrated an IR receiver/transmitter into either of these kits.

What about USB? (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 3 years ago | (#34052802)

If they carried USB also, then you could use this to remote your PC.

summary is bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34052966)

You cannot transmit raw 1080p video via wireless using current consumer grade stuff. 1080p24 video itself takes about 150 megabytes per second. Which would mean gigabit wireless connection. And the delay is FAR longer than just millisecond of latency since even advanced RF chips have longer delay when they process stuff.

Oh, so close now!!! (1)

bgarcia (33222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34053222)

I want a big, wireless monitor, along with a bluetooth keyboard & mouse...
And an Android phone that can work with them!

Then I can get rid of my work laptop!

What does latency matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34053238)

You see it when you see it. As long as successive frames are in order and in time, does it really matter that the show started 60ms after hitting play? I mean there's a delay from when a show leaves network and outputs your screen, I hear no one complaining about what they don't know. Hell on cable there's an 8 second delay from when it leaves the station and outputs the screen.

Monster cables? (1)

jmizrahi (1409493) | more than 3 years ago | (#34053288)

So when can I expect to see $200 wireless HDMI monster cables? Only true audiophiles can see them -- to everyone else, they're invisible.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>