Wireless HD Video Transfer Standard Final

Status
Not open for further replies.

mman74

Distinguished
Mar 22, 2006
210
0
18,830
Fine they settled on a standard. But when are they going to bring down the prices so that the average user can afford them. At the moment they are just too darn expensive.
 

_Cubase_

Distinguished
Jun 18, 2009
207
0
18,830
jisamaniac... Those figures are not correct for this application. HD Video uses a different system to represent colour depth/bits than your standard computer based bit-depth system.

Normal HD video signals, like that you find on BluRay etc., use 8-bit, so for each pixel the image contains 8-bits each for red, green and blue... giving 24 bits total. subsequently there are 256 8-bit binary numbers possible, so you end up with 256 shades each of R, G and B. Combine them together you achieve 16,777,216 possible colors, 256x256x256.

10-bit color gives you 1,024 shades of each R, G and B with over a billion possible colors. 12-bit gives you 4,096 shades, thus 68 billion colors., and so on.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I don't really care about wireless HD video!
It's not like that's a necessity to have billions of bytes floating around in your living room, although are they compressed bytes or RAW data?
seems to me they are sending raw imaginary, instead of compressed MPEG2/Mpeg4 data.
 

welshmousepk

Distinguished
Sep 12, 2009
274
0
18,960
@mman. they cant just 'bring down the prices'. thats not how it works.

now a standard has been agreed upon, we should see more of these devices being made meaning more competition. as they become more widespread and the market grows, prices will begin to drop. its the same with everything.

i like the idea, though it seems pretty useless outside of business's.
if its ever cheap enough, it would be pretty nice to have all myu HD devices hooked up to a single device, that can stream to multiple systems. you could easily switch from playing xbox in the living room, to playing it on the tv in the bathroom. i guess thats a few years away yet though...
 

cablechewer

Distinguished
Nov 12, 2008
46
0
18,580
Well my account is named after my cat. She has 'victimized' the wires leading to various pieces of equipment several times. I'm all for wireless standards :)
 

djab

Distinguished
Feb 18, 2009
72
0
18,580
Any study about the (possible) noxiousness of these HD waves? Or does the consortium forbid anybody to do/publish a "real" study about that?
 

icepick314

Distinguished
Jul 24, 2002
364
0
18,930
but then Monster can't charge $250 for 3ft of cable....

unless they sell can of HD Air for $350 each....allowing signals to travel at higher speed....
 

Honis

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2009
383
0
18,930
[citation][nom]icepick314[/nom]but then Monster can't charge $250 for 3ft of cable....unless they sell can of HD Air for $350 each....allowing signals to travel at higher speed....[/citation]Gold Plated Antennas

At 60Hz this wireless tech isn't 3D compatible (shutter technique). Considering 3D TVs are supposed to have their big debut in the next few years I thought they would have considered that or at least considered most high end screens are already 120Hz+.
 

Jenoin

Distinguished
Sep 29, 2009
14
0
18,560
[citation][nom]Honis[/nom]Gold Plated AntennasAt 60Hz this wireless tech isn't 3D compatible (shutter technique). Considering 3D TVs are supposed to have their big debut in the next few years I thought they would have considered that or at least considered most high end screens are already 120Hz+.[/citation]
Um no. 1080P/60 is the max available for content. The screens that offer 120Hz or 240HZ or more are referring to screen refresh rate and it has nothing to do with the content it just makes less blurring and screen tearing (hopefully). In actuality there is a recent trend to make screens able to receive 1080P/24 so that they can display movies in the original framerate. Games on computers can output frames faster than 60hz but you can't really tell the difference so how useful it would be is questionable.
 

enforcer22

Distinguished
Sep 10, 2006
330
0
18,930
[citation][nom]Jenoin[/nom]Um no. 1080P/60 is the max available for content. The screens that offer 120Hz or 240HZ or more are referring to screen refresh rate and it has nothing to do with the content it just makes less blurring and screen tearing (hopefully). In actuality there is a recent trend to make screens able to receive 1080P/24 so that they can display movies in the original framerate. Games on computers can output frames faster than 60hz but you can't really tell the difference so how useful it would be is questionable.[/citation]


well i feel sorry for you if you cannot tell the difference.. the difference is mindblowing especialy on a tv. i went from the 60hrz tv to a 120hrz one and btw a lcd doesnt refresh. the motion in the picture was amasingly realistic. im all for 120hrz or 240 hrz personaly.

the more frames the more you see. it works the same in game as it does in tv. just because at 60 you stop seeing the flickering effect.. or start to not see it as around 75 its gone doesnt mean you cannot see more. most tv's anyways coming out now are capable of 120 all the way up to like 400 something? im not sure how usefull 400+is personaly as i havent seena tv operating at that yet so i wont say but if its like 60 to 120 thats the next tv i get.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.