Article Comments Home / eeForums / Community Forums / Article Comments
The Article Comments section collects messages you posted on individual articles and helps seek answers to your questions and open up discussions. Join now and rebut or support remarks on articles. Or start your own comment thread directly from industry news, new product coverage, technical papers and application notes.
Raise UWB throughput for wireless HD video
Posted: Apr 2, 2008 0:35 AM

Here's a report on the promise and technical challenges facing UWB, and on the throughput and encryp...[ View complete article ]


Message: Raise UWB throughput for wireless HD video Post time: Apr 2, 2008 0:35 AM
 

Author: swim

Level: Interns

Points: 115

Here's a report on the promise and technical challenges facing UWB, and on the throughput and encryption considerations for HD video distribution.
Reply with quote  Reply  Watch  Recommend  Comment 
( 1 ) Reply:Raise UWB throughput for wireless HD video Post time: Apr 2, 2008 0:35 AM
 

Author: swim

Level: Interns

Points: 115

Can't help but notice a couple of things.

First the emissions plot talks about "average" power at the antenna port, but FCC measures "peak", and peak shown in the plot looks at least 5dB hot - which would tend to half the transmission range when adjusted. Checked the FCC website, and prompts the question "why no FCC certification at this time"? Perhaps we'll see a revisit of these figures once something FCC certified can be tested?

Second, if one compares Table 1 to the HDMI specifications, HDMI specs 1.0 through 1.2a call for maximum video bandwidths of 3.96Gbps and the latest 1.3 spec calls for a maximum video bandwidth of up to 8.16Gbps. Even Table 1, however, shows 1080p at 3Gbps. So, 1.6Gbps is certainly "workable" on the low end, but what is the solution for 1080p and higher resolutions - back to compression? What if the data rate needs to be adjusted downward due to non-line-of-site limitations or a need for a slightly longer range - does the link fall off a cliff or is the solution back to compression?
Nice story, will be interested in following, but for now a questionable emissions plot on something not yet FCC certified, and questionable value-proposition for a data rate that appears just at the hairy edge of what is minimally necessary without compression.
Reply with quote  Reply  Comment 

The engineering community needs are best served with a professional environment at eeForums. And we need your help in ensuring eeForums best serves your needs. Please report offensive or irrelevant messages/replies by clicking here. Thank you for your help and participation!
Article Comments | Community Forums
The views and opinions shared on eeForums and eeBlogs are those held by users of the web site and do not represent those of EE Times Asia. EE Times Asia is not liable or responsible for any defects, deficiencies, errors, omissions or inaccuracies in any information, data or other content (whether provided or offered therein or in or through eeForums and eeBlogs).
Score List

ViewEE Times Asia Forum's score list

Helps

Back