Wireless ! Front Projector

Taya

Extra
Joined
Apr 29, 1999
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I just read the article on projector central about the wireless options. I am now sold on that. regardless that we have the house wireless G, a wireless PF would be the easiest way for us for the upgrade and use.
I wonder however,

1. What is the current best wireless PF, are their any good in terms of color trasfer? what wireless they use?

2. How do I convert my either S-video or Compnent from the DVD to a wireless to feed into the Projector. Is there a trans/receiver type solution?.

I did a search here and could not find much information about that, seems to me this availability will be a a major boost in FP use, due to ease of set up...

What do you guys think?
 

James Tg

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
May 20, 2002
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I am building a new house, and would like to how to do it. It is difficult to place component cables in the wall for that long distance. If anybody knows any simple way to do it, please post. Thanks.
 

Andrew CM

Extra
Joined
Apr 7, 2000
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I thought the current wireless technology - even with G - is not suitable for hi def video media yet like DVD - composite video at best is poor.
 

Taya

Extra
Joined
Apr 29, 1999
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Andrew,
That may make sense for the reason if this indeed is not yet availabe. I wonder therefore, what is the minimum data transfer speed needed for a hi-res picture. We need to have display devices transmit onto the display device... This could be so cool! having a little transmit on x-box, DVD, computer and what else... No wires whatsoever. Anyone know?
 

Allan Jayne

Cinematographer
Joined
Nov 1, 1998
Messages
2,404
Reaction score
0
Points
0
By the time the video is ready for the projector, it is fully decompressed with each scan line fully formed. For an analog wireless link (component video) the bandwidth needed is about 74 MHz. (37 MHz for the Y, 18 MHz for each of the Pb and Pr. For digital I estimated 93 megabits per second (1080 pixels high x 1920 pixels wide x 30 frames per second x 12 bits per pixel, where each pixel has its own 8 bits of luminance and shares 8 Cr bits and 8 Cb bits with three other pixels in a 2x2 block, with some final processing done in the projector to apply the color to each pixel).

Video hints:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/video.htm
 

Parker Clack

Schizophrenic Man
Moderator
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
12,227
Reaction score
88
Points
9,110
Location
Kansas City, MO
Real Name
Parker
I have been thinking that a wireless way to send a signal to your front projector would be the way to go for several years now. I do know that the current crop of wireless set ups are for data projection, ie: still images from a lap top to a business projector for an Excel spreadsheet for example but I have heard they aren't suitable for full motion video.

Now my question has been though why not? I mean if you look back on where we were before cable everyone got their TV signal over the air. A transmitter sent out the carrier and we used built in tuners in our sets to "tune" in the over air signal. You had both VHF and UHF and all was well.

Now we have a signal that comes in our house and all we have to do is to amplify that signal enough to send it to a built in tuner in our front projection units (say for example in the Mhz bandwidth) that is local to our house and we decode that signal within the projection unit (ala the tuners in our old CRT sets) and we have done the same.

So what is holding this from happening back? Is it the decoding that has to take place at the projector? Is it the amount of power that would have to be used to send out a strong enough signal for the carrier frequency? Is it the issue with spurious radiation from this carrier frequency (ala the old CB radio days)?

Parker
 

DaveGTP

Cinematographer
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
2,096
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The network bandwidth on the wireless networking isn't nearly fast enough to transmit the digital signal.

But you make a good point, Parker. If the TV companies can transmit HD over airwaves, why not in the home?

I know that there's a couple of units that transmit standard composite OK. That's a good question.
 

Robert Fellows

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Apr 5, 2000
Messages
67
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I suppose that one could try to use several wireless transmitters, albeit on different frequencies, to send information from the source to the unit...but probably with disastrous sync and timing problems.
 

Shawn C

Screenwriter
Joined
May 15, 2001
Messages
1,429
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Yeah, synchronizing the video and audio would be a big problem.

You would have to send the video AND audio to the projector, and then feed the audio back to amplification via wires. So that kinda defeats the whole purpose. Or, some sort of "delay" would have to be calibrated into your audio gear where you could buffer up audio and delay it.
 

Parker Clack

Schizophrenic Man
Moderator
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
12,227
Reaction score
88
Points
9,110
Location
Kansas City, MO
Real Name
Parker
I know that in standard transmission of video the local TV stations send out a sync pulse for the video, etc. to be syncronized with what they are sending out and what you are viewing on your set.

What I invision if a set top box that has the transmitter, etc. built into it. The video is sent to your projector and the audio is directly fed into your preamp. A sync pulse on a carrier would be also sent to the projector. Now the projector could have a receiver built into its that handles the appropriate carrier, sync and video information or it could be a box that you have at the projector that gets plugged in and then its video outputs (ie: HDMI, DVI, composite, component, etc.) are then plugged into the projector.

Just thinking really. I am sure that they are already working on it put I was wondering what the limitations are and what could be holding up something like that from coming to market.
 

Dan Wesnor

Second Unit
Joined
Apr 28, 1999
Messages
389
Reaction score
0
Points
0
In most cases it'd be cheaper to just have somebody drop a cable for you. Most if the time you can get it done for $100, which is about what a wireless bridge costs. And you can get the guy to do your surrounds, cat-5, etc. at the same time for not much increase in cost.

With wireless, you usually only get about half the rated bit rate in each direction, and that goes to pot as soon as you flip on the microwave. I think that, for the reliability, running a wire is better.

It's nice to dream, though - just plop something down and it works with no installation.
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
343,694
Messages
4,687,138
Members
140,997
Latest member
Mathew00120