4 ms·
HDMI 1.3 delivers 10.2Gbps according to the Wiki, and some simple math says 48-bit 1920x1080@60p is ~6Gbps. So, that should explain why it can't be wireless.
by derobert 17y ago
HDMI 1.3 delivers 10.2Gbps according to the Wiki, and some simple math says 48-bit 1920x1080@60p is ~6Gbps.
So, that should explain why it can't be wireless.
It can be done over fiber—something the article's author apparently didn't bother to research as a Googling for "HDMI fiber" finds equipment. "HDMI cat5" tells me it can be done over CAT5 ("ethernet") cable as well.
- abstractbill 17y agoHDMI 1.3 delivers 10.2Gbps according to the Wiki, and some simple math says 48-bit 1920x1080@60p is ~6Gbps. So, that should explain why it can't be wireless. I don't think this math alone shows video can't be wireless (all TV content used to be wireless, and many more channels were broadcast that way than I have close neighbors). I would guess there's not enough unused spectrum to make it work right now though.
- derobert 17y agoWireless TV uses a much lower bandwidth, and picture quality, than HDMI offers. ATSC (current US over the air HDTV standard), for example, delivers around 18mbps, three orders of magnitude less than HDMI. SDTV did not use bits, it was analogue (and had even less quality than ATSC).
- jurjenh 17y agoJust need to shift the decoder to the screen - Audio was like that once as well. Just because the raw bandwidth isn't sufficient doesn't mean it can't be done. A few months back I read something about streaming H264 but haven't got the time to dig up the link. That should likely be able to get the bandwidth down to something reasonable.