5 ms·
It takes a LOT of bandwidth. Otherwise the quality degrades, and we don't accept 90% quality. There are options but you start to push towards licensed frequenc
by photoGrant 7y ago
It takes a LOT of bandwidth. Otherwise the quality degrades, and we don't accept 90% quality.
There are options but you start to push towards licensed frequencies and then your 6 feet of cable free cost $30k
- aloukissas 7y agoBut even for non-video use cases? Eg development, photo editing, where the fps isn't (probably) that important.
- aloukissas 7y agoNaive question: I can stream 4K to my tv over general-purpose 801.11ac (meant to be non-directional/line-of-sight). I'd imagine that a purpose built protocol/phy should be able to push even more bits in sub-1ft distance with direct LoS, no?
- morabitom 7y agoI think the issue with the tv streaming example is that you’d have no idea what the lag time is, the delay would be two whole seconds but as long as the video doesn’t skip you wouldn’t even know, versus moving a mouse around which would make the smallest amount of delay extremely noticeable.
- aloukissas 7y agoLatency is a thing for sure. But we're talking a few inches of distance that the signal needs to travel, so I don't think it's a significant issue. The latency when "casting desktop" to TV is pretty tolerable (to the point that I hadn't noticed it until I read your comment).
- easytiger 7y agoTry typing when casting for a visceral demonstration of the latency. Also you might not see it but that casting is generally very compressed video
- bjourne 7y agoThe video is encoding meaning that the number of bits transmitted is much smaller than if raw pixels were sent. Theoretically the same could work for streaming your desktop. But it would be very hard to do without causing noticeable lag.