DailyTech - Wireless HDMI Standard Proposed

Submit News

Gadgets Wireless HDMI Standard Proposed
Chris Peredun - September 5, 2006 9:07 PM

E-mail

del.icio.us

18 comment(s) - last by namechamps.. on Sep 7 at 7:37 PM

Able to provide up to three HD streams from 10 meters away using UltraWideBand

Chip manufacturers TZero Technologies and Analog Devices have joined forces to create a wireless HDMI standard. Alleging that prior implementations of wireless HDMI haven't been up to acceptable levels, TZero has built their current prototype on the standards set forth by Panasonic, Philips, Samsung, Sharp and Sony in July 2003.

TZero manufactures chips for ultrawideband technology, the backbone transmission system that is forecasted to act as a wireless replacement for USB. The wireless HDMI system claims speeds of 500MBits/second and resistance to common sources of interference such as microwave ovens and cordless telephones. In addition, the standard is calling for a high level of reliability with "less than one in one hundred million" packets having an error or being lost.

"It needs to be good under all conditions," said Dan Karr, VP of TZero's marketing division. "Wi-Fi serves this market very well, but in a video environment you can see that would be very problematic."

While TZero is providing their TZ7000 chipset, Analog Devices is providing their JPEG2000 codec. Based on the popular JPEG image compression, JPEG2000 is able to operate in both lossy and lossless mode - only the latter will be used to avoid introducing undesirable artifacts into video. Encryption will also be used to secure the transmissions, but specifications on the algorithm have not been made available. The hardware will be fully HDCP compliant, so all existing HDMI devices should function without error.

In addition to the simple point-to-point "cable replacement" usage, TZero also hopes to create a "distribution model" for high-definition content, where a single transmitter can drive up to three individual receivers, each receiving a different content stream.

The current device, a large "black box" design, has a few stages of revamping ahead of it before it is ready for release, but TZero hopes to be able to reduce the receiver to the size where it can be integrated into televisions, projectors, or even portable media devices. A showing is expected at the Consumer Electronics Show of a top-tier HDTV with an embedded TZero receiver. Pricing has not been announced, but TZero claims it will be "comparable to other wireless technologies."

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

ARGH

By Fluppeteer on 9/6/2006 7:18:01 AM , Rating: 2

1) If you're going to mangle the HD image by compressing it, you may as well transmit the compressed source stream rather than inserting new artifacts.

2) Ever since the first "wi-fi TV", I've lived in dread that my neighbours will get one and wipe out the wireless bandwidth that I use for useful things.

3) If you want a wireless television, buy a projector. Completely lossless, known technology, and it doesn't interfere with other kit. If equipment's in the wrong place, use some mirrors.

Of all the things to keep connected to the bulk of the electronics, the screen is the most important. Wireless keyboards, fine. Wireless networks, if you must. Wireless drive connection would work better than wireless screen access, if you really want to be able to put discs in a player on the other side of the room from the screen.

Just because people think the technology sounds like a cool idea doesn't mean that they've thought it through. As far as I'm concerned, it's a pointless feature that's going to compromise the experience of anyone living within range of someone using it.

RE: ARGH

By RamarC on 9/6/2006 9:30:19 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
1) If you're going to mangle the HD image by compressing it, you may as well transmit the compressed source stream rather than inserting new artifacts.

uh, all hd image streams are already compressed by mpeg4, h.264, vc-1, or some other codec.

quote:
3) If you want a wireless television, buy a projector. Completely lossless, known technology, and it doesn't interfere with other kit. If equipment's in the wrong place, use some mirrors.

and duck your head even if you're walking behind the viewer. seriously, with a wireless tv, there are fewer cables and little to no installation cost!

you seem to be really against current tech trends. do you have a 1000 ft rj45 cable and your desktop on a dolly so you can use your pc in your garage? ;)

Parent

RE: ARGH

By Nomgle on 9/6/2006 9:51:15 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
1) If you're going to mangle the HD image by compressing it, you may as well transmit the compressed source stream rather than inserting new artifacts.

quote:
uh, all hd image streams are already compressed by mpeg4, h.264, vc-1, or some other codec.

Incorrect. They's stored in compressed form on the disc ! By the time they reach the HDMI output of the player, they have been decoded into uncompressed video (by the player).

quote:
3) If you want a wireless television, buy a projector. Completely lossless, known technology, and it doesn't interfere with other kit. If equipment's in the wrong place, use some mirrors.

quote:
and duck your head even if you're walking behind the viewer. seriously, with a wireless tv, there are fewer cables and little to no installation cost!

Did you ignore the post you were replying to ? The original point was that a projector doesn't feature the problems inherent with wireless HDMI (noteably lossy video compression and interference-causing spectrum-hogging). How do your wireless TV's "fewer cables" and "no installation cost" solve these issues ?

quote:
you seem to be really against current tech trends. do you have a 1000 ft rj45 cable and your desktop on a dolly so you can use your pc in your garage? ;)

Dude, you need to learn how "current tech trends" work, before singing their praises :)

Parent

RE: ARGH

By exdeath on 9/6/2006 10:26:05 AM , Rating: 2

Uhm, with regards to 1) that is what the poster was refering to, instead of decompressing mpeg4/h.264/vc-1 only to recompress it again and introducing new artifacts, just stream the original compressed content over the HDMI which would only consume about 20-30 mbits/sec.

Parent

RE: ARGH

By exdeath on 9/6/2006 10:39:01 AM , Rating: 2

If projectors are wireless, why did I spend a Sunday afternoon in 111 deg heat in my attic laying 50 feet of 75 ohm component, s-video, and HDMI cable down my wall and across my ceiling and have to cut a hole for a wall plate?

I've recently been looking for wireless video transmission and the best I could find was analog 1024x768 transmissions. Why would I want this? To go from the media center PC to the table in the middle of the room without a 20 foot VGA cable stretched across the media room floor (power in floor and can be hidden)

It would be nice to have a hide away 15" LCD on my table to control the media center. The HTPC case has a 7" LCD built in for stand alone MP3 navigation and playing, but it would be nice to surf for game content at a glance while playing said game on the projector and not having to switch back and forth between inputs or scale for split screen. Seems like a stupid reason, but I can’t remember the real reasons right now. Suffice to say I’ve found myself in situations where running dual monitor on the HTPC with both the projector and a small flat panel on the table would have been nice, but video cable from the HTPC location at the front wall to the middle of the room to the table would be a problem.

Parent

RE: ARGH

By exdeath on 9/6/2006 10:41:34 AM , Rating: 2

I just realized, they do have wireless business grade data projectors that stream content from a PC...

While nice for their purpose, these projectors are hardly HDV or HT grade and they are basically like networked (802.11) media extenders, I don't think they actually display a PC desktop or interface.

Parent

RE: ARGH

By Fluppeteer on 9/6/2006 3:08:37 PM , Rating: 2

(Oops, sorry everyone, turned my back to do some work...)

Exdeath: Sorry to hear you had quite such a DIY task to do! This is, I admit, a problem with a ceiling-hung projector. Solutions I'd prefer are:

1) Have the projector somewhere more accessible, but bounce the light path off a couple of mirrors to avoid having to walk through it. I admit that this relies on the projector having a long throw and, more importantly, keeping the mirrors dusted - but in theory it should work.

2) Make the optics in the projector able to handle extreme angles, and light the screen from very nearby (effectively a rear-projector in reverse) - which relies on the manufacturers of projectors getting it right.

3) Put the computer in the attic (or hang it from the ceiling) as well. :-)

I'll accept that there's a bit more of an argument for wireless display when it comes to projectors (more so for conferences, where several people would like to hook up their laptop to a projector consecutively), but I'm still not sure that the final video stream is the right thing to send wirelessly. Better to run a cloned desktop through some VNC/remote desktop/X11/MaxiVista variant, or stream the source data to something connected directly to the display.

Likewise, it doesn't sound like the wireless LCD connection is really what you want, compared with a cheap laptop or mini-ITX box running MaxiVista (or X11) over a wireless connection. It sounds like the LCD doesn't need too much bandwidth.

If you really need two physically separated displays to be able to run at high bandwidth from the same computer, and there's no way to get the light in the right place otherwise, there's an argument for some kind of wireless video stream. It didn't sounds to me as though this was the target market for the technology, though. Maybe I'm paranoid; it just sounds to me as though the possible damage to the locally available spectrum outweighs the benefit in most places this is likely to get used.

As for embracing the latest technology (sorry RamarC, couldn't let that lie)... no, I'm not keen to embrace, e.g., a video stream with compression artifacts shown on a modern 1366x768 (non-native resolution) plasma (flickering - all the one's I've seen do, I promise) display with sharp (aliased) pixel edges. I'm much happier with my (discontinued) 2048x1536 CRT monitor with nice gaussian antialiasing, or my (discontinued) 3840x2400 LCD. But I can't use either for HDTV because of the HDCP issue. Not that I'm really prepared to buy an HDCP screen until people start using decent encodings on next gen discs, they start recording in 1080p/60 (even if they're not broadcasting in it - although not recording in 1440x1080i would be nice), Microsoft stop confusing the issue over what 1080p means, I can buy a cheap 1080p/60 (input) television, my local HDTV broadcaster stops mangling transmissions into different formats and frame rates, the manufacturers start using decent sub-pixel scaling (or at least don't upscale 1080i by ignoring half the pixels), and they decide which of Blu-ray and HD-DVD they want to overcharge me for broken implementations of. I'll gladly pick up the next useful technology that the TV companies manage to implement without degrading the image, if they can get their act together for five minutes and make a usable TV that does justice to the input!

Of course, that's a lie. I'm too cynical for that, and at some point I'll buy the best I can get hold of at the time. I do think the manufacturers have plenty to be getting on with before this kind of feature, though - especially with DisplayPort or UDI (another format war) to sort out. And I really don't want my neighbour getting one.

Parent

Fry a chicken ...

By Awax on 9/6/2006 2:08:19 AM , Rating: 2

Great ! With your Wifi, cellphone, wireless printer and now wireless display, you'll soon be able to fry a chicken just by putting it in the middle of the living room.
Welcome to my new home : this is a microwave oven :)

RE: Fry a chicken ...

By Burning Bridges on 9/6/2006 7:46:56 AM , Rating: 2

I was just thinking along those same lines, pretty scary tbh :(

Parent

RE: Fry a chicken ...

By dice1111 on 9/6/2006 9:41:37 AM , Rating: 2

No worries, Wifi uses spread spectrum radio frequency, not mircowave. The only place you'll be cooken is in the kitchen, or if your lucky, the bedroom. ;)

Parent

RE: Fry a chicken ...

By dice1111 on 9/6/2006 9:42:37 AM , Rating: 2

*microwave

/curse no edit

Parent

Bandwidth

By lamestlamer on 9/6/2006 2:34:16 AM , Rating: 2

With only 500mbit/s, this standard is already choked for bandwidth. 1080p24 already uses 1.2gbit/s and computer displays go far beyond that. I hope that their lossless compression is good or else they will have problems.

RE: Bandwidth

By heffeque on 9/6/2006 9:44:21 AM , Rating: 2

But cabled HDMI doesn't transmit through JPEG2000 ;-)

Parent

By peternelson on 9/7/2006 5:41:56 PM , Rating: 2

This is a TERRIBLE idea, for all the reasons stated.

If you want your HDMI at your tv screen, then place the source box at the tv (or even inside it).

You can use low bandwidth keyboard, remote etc for wirelessness.

But there is POOR USE of spectrum.

Nicholas Negroponte (of MIT) suggested the "Negraponte switch" ie using spectrum for useful things.

ie traditionally much spectrum has been used for broadcast tv.

If you move that to cable you have the RF spectrum to do useful things that really need to be wireless.

Wireless pics to screen isn't one of them. As it's compressed that's even worse!

A better way would be to place the decoder in the screen, and transmit the compressed material in source format.

I'm concerned about the health issues. Already I cannot sit within 20cm of my wifi equipment for safety limits.

If you go with more spectrum and/or higher power, the radiation level will increase. This is just inefficient waste of spectrum for something that is not necessary. It is for lazy people who can't be bothered to run cable, and don't appreciate the difference between lossy and lossless images.

BAD IDEA DON'T BUY IT.

Many of the same criticisms I also apply to so-called wireless USB proposals.

RE: NO

By namechamps on 9/7/2006 7:37:22 PM , Rating: 2

Did anyone happen to notice the compression is lossless.

In other words no quality loss. Take the original, run one through HDMI cable, and the other through W-HDMI. Then compare all three. They will be bit for bit exactly the same.

Funn how everyone jumps on poor PQ when the article clearly indicates lossless. "Oh no I don't donwload files zipped with winzip because it may result in quality loss, I would prefer to waste bandwidth by downloading uncompressed files".

Parent

Wireless video

By ksherman on 9/5/2006 11:19:56 PM , Rating: 2

I think that Wireless displays (specifically for laptops) is going to be one of the greatest advancements in mobile technology... especially when they add a tablet digitizer behind the display :-)

UWB inter-interference?

By JeffDM on 9/6/2006 12:41:23 AM , Rating: 2

I don't know a whole lot about UWB, but given that there are a lot of standards starting to use the idea, and seemingly to use the same spectrum, will they interfere with each other? They seem to be distance-limited. If I have UWB Bluetooth, UWB USB and UWB video, will any of them degrade through heavy use of another in the same room?

Interesting Concept.

By krotchy on 9/6/2006 1:45:13 AM , Rating: 2

I wonder if this is an ultra-wide band implementation that was actually done properly. The bulk of the UWB devices created so far have been causing havok on systems that they claimed to have no interferance with. Sure UWB doesnt get interfered with much, it essentially is a pulse of noise accross the entire spectrum, so it wont respond to interfereance from single frequency like a microwave.

However NTIA's radio spectrum division, specifically those in charge of allocating the spectrum have yet to find a UWB product that doesnt cause immense interferance to some spectrum, due to not following the spec exactly. I wonder if these guys actually did it right, if so Ill be impressed.