To the inventors:
I made this "Works with" (instead of "with both") and it is available at http://i.imgur.com/8VDAlrK.png
Great idea, and good luck.
Wireless HDMI for Everyone
81–90 of 153 posts
Re: Wireless HDMI for Everyone
#82What baffles me is that every TV sold today already has a wireless DTV receiver built into it! You know, that one that you can hook rabbit ears to, and the one so few people actually use. Can someone please explain to me why no one builds transmitters for these?
Because you can't broadcast in frequencies that overlap with the actual TV signals, which is what that actually pick up?
Re: Wireless HDMI for Everyone
#83Why are there so many reinventions of VNC?
This. Shouldn't there be an app for my SmartTV to let it connect to a VNC/X11/RDP server?
Re: Wireless HDMI for Everyone
#84Back of the envelope calculation: (1920 * 1080 * 3 * 60) / 1024.0 / 1024.0 => 355.96 MB/s 300mbps wireless n: 300 / 8.0 => 37.5 MB/s Given that the whole point of HDMI is image quality, how are they going to shove 355MB/s through a 37.5MB/s link without lowering the quality hugely? It all seems rather pointless to have a large, high quality display and content, and force it through a small link.
This is compressing the video using either H.264 or WebM (it's a bit unclear; they include both x264 and WebM logos in their "open source software used"); it's similar to Apple's AirPlay mirroring or Google's Chromecast. Unlike those, however, it's not tied into a single company's ecosystem.
Re: Wireless HDMI for Everyone
#85Doesn't this already exist?
http://www.amazon.com/Nyrius-Transmitter-Streaming-Satellite...
Re: Wireless HDMI for Everyone
#86First, I know nothing about electronics or how this device it's made or why they did it like that, this is just a humble opinion.
Please, please stop making USB dongles which are big and occupy more than one port, if I put that device in my smartTV it will block the other one.
Re: Wireless HDMI for Everyone
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly, any compliant player for HD-Content will do the same. I'd be surprised if you're more successful with netflix, but I can't test since I'm not a netflix customer. There's enough people reporting problems with netflix and not HDCP compliant setups though. Open source players are fine, but there's still the problem of finding a streaming service that supports open-source players or even just HD content without DR…
I sympathise, but isn't that really the point: if you can't re-stream it how you want, is the existing streaming service really easy to use?
As I said in my previous post: I think DRM is crappy and stupid, but that's how things currently are. And since there are devices that support HDCP over the air (apple tv, HP Wireless Connect, DLNA) the "ease of use" factor is given. I doubt consumers will be all-pleased if they buy an Airtame and netflix doesn't work.
(BTW: I don't think that Streaming Services just implement DRM because they think it's fun and I don't expect right holders will be enlightened any time soon)
Re: Wireless HDMI for Everyone
#88What baffles me is that every TV sold today already has a wireless DTV receiver built into it! You know, that one that you can hook rabbit ears to, and the one so few people actually use. Can someone please explain to me why no one builds transmitters for these?
I don't think it is legal to transmit on those frequencies, thats what the stations pay big bucks for.
Radio stations pay big bucks to broadcast on the FM frequencies, and yet they make FM Transmitters for your car. Why wouldn't DTV be the same?
Re: Wireless HDMI for Everyone
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chromecast works with youtube videos and google chrome tabs only (and it lags using tab casting)
Google Music, Hulu Plus, Netflix, and Pandora as well. I'd be shocked if it didn't offer more services in the next few months. EDIT: And as of today, HBO Go.
True, what i meant was that it only works with video services, is not a screen sharing tool.
Re: Wireless HDMI for Everyone
#90Back of the envelope calculation: (1920 * 1080 * 3 * 60) / 1024.0 / 1024.0 => 355.96 MB/s 300mbps wireless n: 300 / 8.0 => 37.5 MB/s Given that the whole point of HDMI is image quality, how are they going to shove 355MB/s through a 37.5MB/s link without lowering the quality hugely? It all seems rather pointless to have a large, high quality display and content, and force it through a small link.
BlueRay in 1080p is encoded at most at 35Mbits/s. You only need a decoder on the other side and stream the video data to be decoded by the remote device.
There are a few protocols out there that manage to send high-performance video across remote devices without requiring lots of bandwith: RemoteFx is an extension of Window's RDP for instance; Citrix has stuff like HDX-3D Pro, etc.
You certainly do not need to send every pixel through.