Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Displays Television Wireless Networking Hardware

Wireless HDMI At 1080p, Lag-Free WHDI Tested 171

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the i-got-no-strings-to-hold-me-down dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wireless HDMI At 1080p, Lag-Free WHDI Tested

Comments Filter:
  • Price is crazy (Score:2, Informative)

    by y86 (111726)

    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 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DigiShaman (671371) on Thursday October 28, 2010 @11:07AM (#34051388) Homepage

    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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Simon80 (874052)
      WiFi and wireless do not mean the same thing..
    • 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
      • That's fine for movies, but what if you're playing a game? It can't exactly buffer everything up beforehand in that case. I'd take the immediate transmission system over the buffering system. Perhaps they'll bring out a hybrid system that can do both depending on the current application :)

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Kohath (38547)

      If it's WiFi,

      It isn't WiFi.

      Thank you very much.

      You are welcome.

    • by Joce640k (829181)

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

  • Security? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rotide (1015173) on Thursday October 28, 2010 @11:08AM (#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?
    • by EdZ (755139) on Thursday October 28, 2010 @11:11AM (#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? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Neon Spiral Injector (21234) on Thursday October 28, 2010 @11:24AM (#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: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Abstrackt (609015)

        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MikeBabcock (65886)

        That's not a valid answer.

        AES encryption is only good if the keys are randomly generated or guaranteed to be secret at the time of transmission. If using fixed keys, or a bad system for key generation, its just as viewable as unencrypted video flying through the airwaves.

    • by tepples (727027)

      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].

  • by jeffb (2.718) (1189693) on Thursday October 28, 2010 @11:09AM (#34051426)

    ...coming right up?

  • by FauxPasIII (75900) on Thursday October 28, 2010 @11:10AM (#34051442)

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

  • WiDi (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LordMyren (15499) on Thursday October 28, 2010 @11:22AM (#34051638) Homepage

    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.

  • 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?

    • 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.

      • by cynyr (703126)

        You clearly don't live in an apartment...

        I can see around 19 APs from here, in 5 years if this takes off, i'll have 20 APs, and 30 TVs... that leaves -30 channels free. There may be enough room if you keep transmitters far enough apart, but that only works out in the country.

        • by Firethorn (177587)

          You clearly don't live in an apartment...

          You should see the place I'm in now. 1 Bedroom, postage stamp living room and kitchenette.

          I can see 7 aps from where I'm at.

          There's a reason I only said 'fair bit of room' - the 20 non-overlapping channels in the 5 Ghz range is indeed a lot more than the 3 in the 2.4 range, but still can be exceeded with some work.

          Plus, 5 Ghz doesn't travel quite as far or penetrate walls as well, so that's a bonus in a crowded area. Actually get people to do some power management, even better.

          Finally, if you're living in

  • "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.

    • by jedidiah (1196)

      ...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

      • by tepples (727027)

        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?

        • by jedidiah (1196)

          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.

          • by tepples (727027)

            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?

            • 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.
              • by tepples (727027)

                The first is that most "Nettops" have terrible graphics cards. [...] games that aren't set up to use [gamepads] often need some pretty nasty hacks to get it to work right.

                True, the GeForce 9400 is roughly halfway between [tomshardware.com] the GeForce 3 in the Xbox and the Radeon X1900 in the 360. My solution for this would be to develop and sell PC games with a mode designed around HTPC use patterns and the ION chipset. However, other Slashdot users appear to think that the market of geeks with HTPCs isn't big enough to make adding an HTPC mode to a PC game viable. Otherwise, the major labels would have already done it in more than a few token cases [pineight.com].

                • While I don't think this is a bad idea I doubt that it will ever happen. It's hard enough to get PC games with acceptable controls on the PC these days. I don't think game developers will be willing to take the extra effort to offer some sort of controller mode. The same thing applies to graphics.
        • by d3ac0n (715594)

          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 comi

          • by d3ac0n (715594)

            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.

          • by tepples (727027)

            The difference is that people understand the concept of a "game console" since we've had those since the late 1970's.

            So once my team has made an HTPC game, how should I start a business to port it to a console?

      • by Splab (574204)

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

    • by h4rr4r (612664)

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

      • 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.

        • 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.

          Yes. Hulu doesn't send me a monthly bill.

          • by tepples (727027)

            Hulu doesn't send me a monthly bill.

            Your ISP does. If you have digital cable TV, there's usually no extra charge for most VOD selections. Only geeks and businesses have cable Internet without cable TV.

            • Only geeks and businesses have cable Internet without cable TV.

              That is true, but there are a lot of people with DSL where cable tv/internet is not available. There are also plenty of people who choose DSL over cable internet for whatever reason. Lots of people only get OTA DTV and still have broadband at home.

              • by tepples (727027)

                there are a lot of people with DSL where cable tv/internet is not available

                Non-geeks have a satellite dish whose converter box has a built-in DVR. Or are you talking about areas 1. in the USA (Hulu is region coded), 2. with no cable TV provider, and 3. with a big obstruction to the south that blocks satellite signals? In that case, you come closer to the population of geeks.

                • and 3. with a big obstruction to the south that blocks satellite signals? In that case, you come closer to the population of geeks.

                  There are a lot of people who don't want to pay to watch TV for whatever reason. I highly doubt it is because of some sort of physical obstruction. For proof, look at all the slashdot stories regarding the DTC transition in the US.

    • by timeOday (582209)
      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.
      • by cynyr (703126)

        ohh haven't..... For me, i'd like to be able to run flash from a webbroswer claiming to be IE on windows 7, so that places like hulu or A&E can't lock my TV out for being a TV and not a computer, granted my computer can receive TV signals so i'm not sure what the difference is.

        Basicly with more and more content showing up online, I need flash + something claiming to be windows 7 and IE. The later is easy with squid, but i still need flash.

  • by LordMyren (15499)

    millisecond? but i want it nnnoowww

  • 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 cou

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

      • by LWATCDR (28044)

        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.

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

        • by timeOday (582209)
          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.

        • 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.

          • by LWATCDR (28044)

            Ummm. If the device is already getting a compressed video stream you can just pass it along!

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by KingMotley (944240) *

          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.

        • Re-compressing compressed data is not the same as compressing source materials.

          If you don't understand macroblocking and other artifact issues, you should look it up now.

          More to the point, if its not the same signal as the wire gives me, I expect a disclaimer about possible quality losses.

          • by LWATCDR (28044)

            Wow I guess I assumed too much out of people. Most video is already compressed if the format fits the bandwidth provided then you can just pass through. I mean was that too much to assume?
            Yes I do understand the concept of trans-coding already compressed data using a lossy codec. I figured everybody did so I didn't bother to state the obvious.
            Pass through what you can. Thing is that this is using wifi so it must be encoding so these devices will have all the problems you describe. If you move the logic deep

  • 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 encod

  • Huh? (Score:3, Funny)

    by MrEricSir (398214) on Thursday October 28, 2010 @11:34AM (#34051846) Homepage

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

    • by ferrocene (203243)

      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"

  • by Syberz (1170343) on Thursday October 28, 2010 @11:38AM (#34051900) Homepage

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

  • ... 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 m

  • Not loseless (Score:3, Informative)

    by mike449 (238450) on Thursday October 28, 2010 @11:47AM (#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".

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

  • 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 usin

  • 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.

  • ...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.

    • Yes, I know. RTFA.

      • by Assmasher (456699)

        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.

  • 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.
  • So how long before snake oil vendors market overpriced airconditioning additives that tune the air to optimal permittivity/permeability?
  • ...it will pop your microwave popcorn simply by dangling the bag 6 inches from the antennae.

    Now that's power!

    -S

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

  • 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!

  • 802.11 is near worthless in my apartment complex since everyone and their dog has a wireless router these days and the spectrum is completely saturated. I am lucky to get 5mbps out of my wireless connection (I've tried everything from 5mhz and 10mhz channels, there is no hope, and this is verified with spectrum analyzers).
    They say that this will work with 1ms latency up to 30 feet away, but how far will the signal travel before it starts interfering with my TV, especially if all 8 neighbors in my building
  • Honestly, you will never get 1080p content from Cable, Dish or OTA. it's 720p source material and I dont care what setting you use on the box, you're watching compressed 720p material. ATSC OTA is the best you will get while Comcast/TimeWarner/Dish/DirectTV will feed you a highly compressed version. your only real source of 1080p is from BluRay discs and most of those are not created with source material that is 1080p or higher. Oh boy, the remastered Rocky Horror Picture Show on BLuRaY! I can now see

  • As an amateur filmmaker who can't afford professional prices, this is EXACTLY what I want to send video to the director's monitor.

The reason why worry kills more people than work is that more people worry than work.

Working...