Wireless graphics card. PC to TV

[BobA]

New wireless graphics card may be the way to connect your CP all in one mame box to your big screen TV.  Toss in a wireless 360 controller and you have the total package.

Link

[SavannahLion]

I'd be curious about some things before I jump on that bandwagon.

Where's the bandwidth coming from? It's going to be pointless if this tech stomps all over some other existing tech eg bluetooth, wifi, whatever.

What's the range? It would be pointless if it only goes a ridiculously short distance.

What's the "reliability" or whatever they call it. Line of sight requirement would suck.

Lastly, what about the security? Bank on some moron typing in their social on their banking website or something.

[Blanka]

I need a power cable too. I'll make my mamebox with one HDBaseT cable that deals with everything, power, data and video 

[EvilNuff]

From the article:
“Gamers and PC users alike want to take the PC games and content from a small monitor to the superior image of an HDTV,...”

$#@$%  I *hate* it when people just outright make stuff up.  An HDTV has 1080 lines of vertical resolution.  I'm sorry the image on a 1980x1200 monitor is significantly superior to that on a 1080p tv.  HDTV has actually resulted in a big increase in lesser monitors that only support 1980x1080...grrr.  The reason your tv costs more is because its so much bigger.  Obviously for most applications we deal with here the resolution difference does not matter but it sure does with modern games!

[newmanfamilyvlogs]

From the article:
“Gamers and PC users alike want to take the PC games and content from a small monitor to the superior image of an HDTV,...”

$#@$%  I *hate* it when people just outright make stuff up.  An HDTV has 1080 lines of vertical resolution.  I'm sorry the image on a 1980x1200 monitor is significantly superior to that on a 1080p tv.  HDTV has actually resulted in a big increase in lesser monitors that only support 1980x1080...grrr.  The reason your tv costs more is because its so much bigger.  Obviously for most applications we deal with here the resolution difference does not matter but it sure does with modern games!

oblig:

[Malenko]

thats kind of short sighted though. I mean comparing HD to SD is a huge difference, but comparing HDTV to PC resolutions is just stupid. Odds are those who are "taking it from a small monitor to an HD TV" run their PC in 800x600

[DJ_Izumi]

Then agian, laptops outsell desktops these days so the technology has merrit.  I say that as I sit here in class on a netbook with 1024x600.

[Smeghead]

[ahofle]

I don't understand the point of this at all.  If you want to run PC games on your HDTV, wouldn't you just put the PC next to the TV and use a DVI-HDMI cable and bring a wireless keyboard/mouse to the couch?

[RayB]

I don't understand the point of this at all.  If you want to run PC games on your HDTV, wouldn't you just put the PC next to the TV and use a DVI-HDMI cable and bring a wireless keyboard/mouse to the couch?

You just answered your own question. It's like asking whats the point of WiFi when all you have to do is run an ethernet cable to your router.

[ahofle]

I don't understand the point of this at all.  If you want to run PC games on your HDTV, wouldn't you just put the PC next to the TV and use a DVI-HDMI cable and bring a wireless keyboard/mouse to the couch?

You just answered your own question. It's like asking whats the point of WiFi when all you have to do is run an ethernet cable to your router.

Because not everyone has an ethernet jack in every room?  Everyone however can run a cable between the PC and TV which are a couple feet apart.  This card enables you to put your PC under the coffee table instead of next to the TV?    About the only use I could see is playing videos from a PC in another room, but they seem to specifically say this is geared towards PC gamers.  Maybe I'm just missing something?

[bkenobi]

I disagree that this is useless.  Maybe I'm the only one...

The way most people want to use their flat panel TV's is to have them mounted on a wall like a picture frame.  If you do that, then you have to find a way to route the video cables to the display without having a giant cable bundle dangling to the floor.  The best current solution is to put a hole in the wall and run the cables from behind the monitor to wherever the A/V components reside (typically directly below on a component rack of some kind).  This tech could mean an end to the clutter!

Now, on a more practical side, this is not going to work well since there is already a limited amount of frequencies available to transmit such data.  The device has to stay in open bands that the FCC (in the US anyway) has made available for open use.  That means this device will compete with phones and routers among other things.  Unless they have some way to deal with that, this will NOT work well.  It seems ridiculous that the only way they can find the bandwidth is by taking up 5 frequency bands/channels.

Oh, and either way the TV still needs power.  Thus, you still have to cut the wall or have a wire dangling.

[ahofle]

I disagree that this is useless.  Maybe I'm the only one...

The way most people want to use their flat panel TV's is to have them mounted on a wall like a picture frame.  If you do that, then you have to find a way to route the video cables to the display without having a giant cable bundle dangling to the floor.  The best current solution is to put a hole in the wall and run the cables from behind the monitor to wherever the A/V components reside (typically directly below on a component rack of some kind).  This tech could mean an end to the clutter!

I think the more practical way to avoid a bunch of HDMI cables going to your TV would be a receiver with multiple HDMI inputs and one output.  At any rate, you've described the exact reason I don't mount my TV on the wall (trying to hide all the cabling).

[bkenobi]

I don't have a flat panel for this and several other reasons.  The only advantage I currently see to them over my GIGANTIC CRT is that it uses less energy, so it's cheaper to run.  I don't see a savings of a few dollars a month as a justification to spend thousands.  But, that's just me.   

[severdhed]

there are definite uses for this, but the are so limited, it probably isn't worth while.  for instance, i could build a control panel on a pedestal, put the pc inside the pedestal and wirelessly send the video to my ceiling mounted projector, and play mame on my 102" screen.  i'd still need to plug the pedestal into the power, but not having to run really long video cables across the floor to my receiver would be cool.  but then there is the sound issue.

well, the more i think about it, it still seems kinda dumb

[bkenobi]

This would be a lot cooler if it worked like the FM Modulators for listening to music in your car.  If there was a unit that converted the HD quality video in into a QAM signal (or whatever is appropriate), then the TV could simply go to that channel and you wouldn't need anything else.  The second box could go away!

[EvilNuff]

I don't think its useless I think its pretty cool actually...I only disagreed with the one comment.   Love the xkcd link btw.

I actually think that when we can finally get wireless video that is capable of transmitting pc display over a short range with low latency.  I can envision a situation where your pc is basically a portable touch monitor with the case in a server closet with no need for laptops at all.

[newmanfamilyvlogs]

+1 to the qam solution. I want a closet full of stupid powerful machines with loud fans and nice wireless receivers for input devices outputting to different qam stations on the cable in my house so I can run multiple video streams and tune anywhere in the house. Latency would probably suck though.

[bkenobi]

+1 to the qam solution. I want a closet full of stupid powerful machines with loud fans and nice wireless receivers for input devices outputting to different qam stations on the cable in my house so I can run multiple video streams and tune anywhere in the house. Latency would probably suck though.

That's exactly what I was thinking.  It would be awesome to have a few channels like that.  I'm not sure why latency would be a problem though.  I guess you mean with playing games?  If you watch a movie and it's got a 1 second delay, who cares?  If you are playing a game with 1 second delay, you die often!

[newmanfamilyvlogs]

Yes, latency would only be a problem with interaction in that solution.
http://www.computermodules.com/broadcast-systems/VGA-to-QAM-Encoder-Modulator.html
http://www.sjmediasystem.com/hde-qam.html

It's not that you can't do it.. but at $11k I think I'll just put up with some fan noise.

[bkenobi]

Just a bit out of my price range I'm afraid.  Plus, it only does 720p.

[Gray_Area]

This is just the first in a, perhaps, adventurous line of developments that will result in tachyon-based transmitters, wireless power supply included.