Just read this on PC World's Web Site:
New Technology Could Replace HDMI With Ethernet Cables - PCWorld
New Technology Could Replace HDMI With Ethernet Cables - PCWorld
New Technology Could Replace HDMI With Ethernet Cables
- Thread starter Bulldog
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 10
- Views 2K
One cable vs several , sounds good to me. But now we will all have to upgrade to new tvs ,a/v receivers ,blu rays.....
I don't think this is the first - and most likely won't be the last - candidate for one-cable-does-everything solution...
And ethernet as protocol will never invade end-to-end video transfer for the same reason it became immortal: packet-isation.
What is the saving grace for internet connections is the curse for video: resending lost packets. And that if you do TCP. When you switch to UDP they are simply discarded.
So, we have HDMI 1.4.
Now we switch the wiring to Cat5/6 and the jacks to RJ45.
And run the same signals plus 100W of power over greater length.
Requiring every CE manufacturer to redesign their product and robing them of some revenue (Denon $150 cable?)
A 100GB Blu-ray disk is more likely to make it...
Diogen.
And ethernet as protocol will never invade end-to-end video transfer for the same reason it became immortal: packet-isation.
What is the saving grace for internet connections is the curse for video: resending lost packets. And that if you do TCP. When you switch to UDP they are simply discarded.
So, we have HDMI 1.4.
Now we switch the wiring to Cat5/6 and the jacks to RJ45.
And run the same signals plus 100W of power over greater length.
Requiring every CE manufacturer to redesign their product and robing them of some revenue (Denon $150 cable?)
A 100GB Blu-ray disk is more likely to make it...
Diogen.
Ethernet is far too complicated for the task. I'd suspect that there would be more interest in some sort of long distance firewire-like technology.
Consider the cost of a Slingbox pair to that of the twisted pair wall plates.
Ethernet would probably work well. The only barrier I see at this point is cost. They are talking 10Gbit/sec. 10Gbe is very expensive at this time. It would be nice to have 10Gbe price driven down by mass scale.
If you have a decent switch you get full bandwidth, without collisions. Lost packets are rare, it is only if the receiving side cannot keep up. With a switch you have dedicated send/receive lines. This would be the case since there is only one transmitter and one receiver. You are not worried about 2 devices trying to send to the same device and competing for bandwidth.
It might be a while before we have affordable switches, but point to point should work well.
If you have a decent switch you get full bandwidth, without collisions. Lost packets are rare, it is only if the receiving side cannot keep up. With a switch you have dedicated send/receive lines. This would be the case since there is only one transmitter and one receiver. You are not worried about 2 devices trying to send to the same device and competing for bandwidth.
It might be a while before we have affordable switches, but point to point should work well.
With large enough cache on the TV/monitor end this might work. Let's say one minute of video+audio, i.e. about 1% of the total.
For hidef playback (total 25GB for one video and 1 audio track) that would be 250MB.
Otherwise I see it as a gamble.
Diogen.
For hidef playback (total 25GB for one video and 1 audio track) that would be 250MB.
Otherwise I see it as a gamble.
Diogen.
Still the cost of 10/100/1000 switches is coming down. I see this as the way to go. WIGIG shows promise from a wireless standpoint but the ranges are too short at present.
