Wireless HD Video Transfer Standard Final

4:10 PM - December 9, 2009 - By Kevin Parrish - Source : Tom's Guide US

The technology specification for wireless uncompressed HD transfer has officially been etched in stone... or something.

On Tuesday, the Wireless Home Digital Interface (WHDI) Consortium announced that the wireless technology specification for HD transfer has reached a "completed state." This means that the new standard allows consumers to throw around uncompressed HD data throughout the house by way of wireless connections. The specification had been in the works since the summer of 2008.

“WHDI is the only solution that meets consumers’ expectation and demand for a high-quality, multi-room HD wireless solution,” said Leslie Chard, president of WHDI LLC. Adding that: “WHDI further enables two of the strongest trends in the A/V universe: the proliferation of HD content sources (now including the PC and mobile devices) and the increasing number of inexpensive, high quality displays placed throughout the home.”

The new specification supports uncompressed data rates up to 3 Gbps in a 40 MHz channel in the 5 Ghz unlicensed band. The specs also provide a range beyond 100 feet (through walls), with a latency less than one millisecond. "WHDI relies on HDCP revision 2.0 to provide superior Hollywood-approved security and digital content protection," the Consortium revealed.

The technology behind the specification, according to Electronista, was founded by chip designer Amimon, and is one of (at least) four technologies that will bring wireless HD to the household. When products become available, consumers will be able to stream 1080p video at 60 Hz refresh rates and 12-bit color depth. Look for products to hit the market in Fall 2010.

Read More

Comments

Read the comments on the forums
ubernoobie 12/10/2009 2:06 AM
Hide
-0+

12 bit colour?

jisamaniac 12/10/2009 2:19 AM
Hide
-0+

All it is is color depth.

8-bit color (28 = 256 colors)
12-bit color (212 = 4096 colors)
16-bit color (216 = 65536 colors)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_depth

mman74 12/10/2009 2:32 AM
Hide
-1+

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.

wifiwolf 12/10/2009 4:03 AM
Hide
-0+

Don't ask...

_cubase_ 12/10/2009 4:28 AM
Hide
-4+

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.

ProDigit80 12/10/2009 4:50 AM
Hide
--1+

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.

wifiwolf 12/10/2009 5:06 AM
Hide
-0+

article says uncompressed

welshmousepk 12/10/2009 5:28 AM
Hide
-1+

@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 12/10/2009 5:54 AM
Hide
-5+

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 :)

back_by_demand 12/10/2009 10:23 AM
Hide
-1+

Wireless HD will make life a lot easier for me. I want my big ass TV mounted on the wall in the living room, but I dont want cable hanging down to a HD Sky box or a Bluray player or a PC or a PS3 or an Xbox 360, and before you say it trunking is ugly.

Also, with a cable I am forced to keep all my devices near the TV, I don't want my PC near the TV, I want to keep it in a differant room so the missus can watch her soaps whilst I play MW2.

Cables suck, this whole arguement flew around before when wifi first came out, now we can't imagine life without it.

djab 12/10/2009 5:57 PM
Hide
--1+

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 12/10/2009 6:34 PM
Hide
-2+

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....

master9716 12/10/2009 10:22 PM
Hide
-0+

The fact that they would say HDCP is Ultra S t u pid. What do they care what people stream .This just means its gona cost more.

Honis 12/10/2009 10:53 PM
Hide
-0+

icepick314 :
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....

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 12/11/2009 6:03 PM
Hide
-0+

Honis :
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+.


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 12/14/2009 10:32 AM
Hide
-0+

Jenoin :
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.




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.

Comments are closed on this page.
Ads
Ads