Wireless HDMI Prototype Announced

legoburner writes "Tzero Technologies and Analog Devices announced that they have created a wireless HDMI interface for HDTVs, next-gen DVD players, and set-top boxes. The backbone for the technology is ultrawideband, also used as a future replacement for wired USB. The Analog Device compresses data with the [lossy] JPEG2000 video codec, which is then packetized and encrypted, and transmitted via the Tzero MAC and PHY chip."

Comments

Installation?

[onion2k]

"If we break this down, it's going to be less than an HDMI cable," Karr said. "Those are about $100 plus installation."

People pay for someone to come and install a cable?

"It's that whole 'plugging it in' thing! It's got me completely stumped!" ;)

Let me get this straight...

[squoozer]

You rush out and spend god knows how much on the latest and greatest next gen DVD player, you throw away your perfectly good TV / projector / box that emits coloured light and buy a new one that supports HDMI (and HD). Finally, you then cough up more hard earned cash to buy a movie you probably already own on regular DVD for twice the price. You do all this in the hopes of getting a fantasic picture with amazing sound.

Why, oh why, would anyone with two brain cells to rub together then install a wireless connection that uses lossy compression?

Still, fair play for getting that many bits through the air. Personally, I won't be standing anywhere near the transmitter.

Re:What is the point?

[Doctor Memory]

you are more likely to start seeing a degraded signal

True, but only at the RF level. Since it's a digital signal (presumably with ECC, I haven't taken a look at the HDMI spec), you'll easily be able to either reconstruct the stream (using ECC) or ask that it be re-sent. And probably, if you're getting less than some threshold of signal strength, the devices probably won't sync up, so you'll look at the little blinking "SYNC" light and the manual will tell you to move the transmitter closer to the TV. Either way, the actual data will retain its integrity. I wouldn't be surprised if you occasionally get artifacts like satellite receivers do, though.

It's not how often it fails, it's *when*

[Ruprecht the Monkeyb]

FTA: "The standard calls for link reliability of at least 95 percent...." I think that's shooting kinda low, guys. My current setup has a link reliability of 99.99%. The only time it fails is when I go running across the room to eject the p0rn from the DVD player and trip over a cable. OTOH, if they can guarantee it will always fail during commercials, maybe they're on to something.

Power Wires?

[popeye44]

While I understand their desire to have a wireless standard, Are we not forgetting there is a whole home standard being devised around broadband over power lines? Could they not instead use something that would travel the power line digitally and make the connection? Perhaps BPL is a dead horse but I had not heard that it was so. The home standard was to allow devices to travel the wire path to make all sorts of connections. This would be a much better design IMHO.

who cares?

[shummer_mc]

I don't think the model is to transmit video data to the monitor. I think the idea is to include the groovy computer that wirelessly downloads HD TV content onto a hard drive that's IN the monitor. The DVD drive, as long as the format survives, will also be included in the 'console' which we call the TV. No video needs to be transmitted. Am I missing something?

Think of it as a giant laptop on the wall (hopefully the non-TV components will be interchangeable). IO should be the only thing that needs to be wireless... Now, if someone said that they could transmit power wirelessly (so I wouldn't need batteries), then I'd be excited-- as long as it didn't bake my reproductive organs.