WHDI really can send HD video across a house at 1080p resolution and without compression. But for the same money you could get a pair of Blu-ray players, so you've got to really care about streaming that content. The technology was demonstrated at the CES event in January - and see Reg Hardware's WTF is... wireless HDMI - but …
Is it just me?
"not the wireless solution you might hope for"
If you needed wireless to the point of not accommodating a mains cable, surely you'd just lug the source to the screen - in the described case, you could just move your playbook to your tv... in which case a £5 hdmi lead would do the job.
I know that there will be particular use cases for needing in completely wireless, but you need to compromise... I have a use case for a car that will drive for 2000 miles without using any fuel, but it ain't gonna happen!
Why no compression?
H264 would reduce the bandwidth requirement by a large factor, with no discernible loss of quality. This is just going to swamp 5GHz when it really doesn't need to.
I suspect it means "without *re*compression", as actually wirelessly transferring entirely uncompressed 1080p video is I think beyond the capabilities of any wireless technology outside of the lab today...
£200 buys a lot of...
Yes I know about all of your Victorian houses/terraces. Its not rocket science you know? Routing cables behind walls is something sparkys do day in day out.
Wireless "solutions" work until they become popular, then they don't work at all.
Fit some sockets - and if you're renting either sort it with the landlord or move. Provided you use a decent sparky most landlords will be quite happy for you to do it - try to get them to pay half/deduct from rent though as it IS an improvement.
There's a finite capacity to radiated signals in an area. The capacity with conducted signals (ie wired) is limited only by how many you can cram into the area.
So it stick's out at a 90 degree angle to the TV - So your fancy expensive thin LCD you've hung on the wall has to be some three inch from the wall to accommodate the wireless link - what was wrong with sticking the connection on at a right-angle?
I mean about the only reason I could think of needing such an expensive solution would be for wall mounted displays - but then I'd still rather channel a cable duct into the wall for that price.
2 x HDMI
Most reasonable quality HD TV's have a HDMI input on the side, as well as the back.
But if you're using a cable then you still need to plug it into the HDMI port. So if the socket is on the back then the telly still needs some clearance. An HDMI socket on the top/bottom/sides would be neater and you can find plenty of tellies with those.
I agree about sticking the cable in the wall though.
You can always get...
a 20-foot (er, 5m, sorry) HDMI cable for 20 quid... but that cable doesn't get happy when you trip over it.
Yes, I have the cable, and no, I didn't trip over it, but the HDMI plugs don't seem too sturdy to survive such a feat. Yes, 5m cable, I can comfortably seat on the living room, fiddling around with my laptop, and connect it to my TV across the coffee table and 2 lounge chairs, with no noticeable drop...
My father is not happy with tripping cables, so...
If it was just 20 quid...
Any reason you're keeping the appearance and actual size of the receiver a secret?
It's router size you say?
I have two routers, a Netgear DG834 and a Draytek 2820vn. The Draytek is more than twice the size of the Netgear. Which one is the size of the receiver?
- Apple stuns world with rare SEVEN-way split: What does that mean?
- Special report Reg probe bombshell: How we HACKED mobile voicemail without a PIN
- RIP net neutrality? FCC boss mulls 'two-speed internet'
- Sony Xperia Z2: 4K vid, great audio, waterproof ... Oh, and you can make a phone call
- Pic Tooled-up Ryobi girl takes nine-inch grinder to Asus beach babe