Jump to content



Photo

What cost are you willing to pay for such wireless video transitters?

wireless video video transmission CVW

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Jeffery Yang

Jeffery Yang

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Shenzhen, China

Posted 29 September 2014 - 09:44 PM

Compared with wireless video transmission in professional areas, customers usually have more choices in consumable electronics area. Different products are based on different solutions: WHDI, WIFI , WIHD etc.

WHDI is no latency while is the most costly.

WIHD is still having a long way to go for wide applications.

WIFI technology is with great promise as almost all smart devices are supporting this standard. It is currently moving to 5Ghz standards for applications.

Here is my question, if for WIFI solution, 1080/60Hz, >50M transmission for consumable applications which can replace the current most popular solution, what cost are you willing to pay?

 

https://plus.google....sts/B3eHrtcdnaK

 

 

Jeffery

 

 


  • 0

#2 Victor Lazaro

Victor Lazaro

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 1231 posts
  • Sunnyside Queens, NY

Posted 29 September 2014 - 10:44 PM

Zero. But I'm willing to pay thousands if you get a long distance reliable uncompressed zero delay system with SDI pass through in a box that is usable on set.
  • 1

#3 Jeffery Yang

Jeffery Yang

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Shenzhen, China

Posted 29 September 2014 - 11:35 PM

Zero. But I'm willing to pay thousands if you get a long distance reliable uncompressed zero delay system with SDI pass through in a box that is usable on set.

WOW, this is hurting. You might be seeking more professional one (CVW300). It can suit your needs. 


  • 0

#4 Victor Lazaro

Victor Lazaro

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 1231 posts
  • Sunnyside Queens, NY

Posted 29 September 2014 - 11:40 PM

I'm not trying to hurt anyone, I'm just saying that if a wireless device does not meet these requirements, I'm not willing to look into it for my next system. Wifi bands tend to get saturated by consumer devices so it is not an ideal solution four our needs. Wifi also usually implies a Codec involved usually H.264 which means two things. Delay and compression. I'm sure there is a market for these, but I'm not part of it.
  • 0

#5 Jeffery Yang

Jeffery Yang

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Shenzhen, China

Posted 29 September 2014 - 11:47 PM

I'm not trying to hurt anyone, I'm just saying that if a wireless device does not meet these requirements, I'm not willing to look into it for my next system. Wifi bands tend to get saturated by consumer devices so it is not an ideal solution four our needs. Wifi also usually implies a Codec involved usually H.264 which means two things. Delay and compression. I'm sure there is a market for these, but I'm not part of it.

This is new model for consumable electronics. Let me share with you professional model with SDI. For professional area, the requirement is surely different.


  • 0

#6 Eric Fletcher S.O.C.

Eric Fletcher S.O.C.

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2922 posts
  • LA, Ca

Posted 30 September 2014 - 12:42 AM

I've seen this movie before.....  Jeffery is trying to advertise without advertising.  

 

Jeffery, what chipsets are you using? Aminom, or crystal video?


  • 1

#7 Alan Rencher

Alan Rencher

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 1091 posts
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 September 2014 - 12:47 AM

It will be nice once high-quality encoder systems get below 10ms. That's going to be the future of wireless.
  • 0

#8 Jeffery Yang

Jeffery Yang

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Shenzhen, China

Posted 30 September 2014 - 12:58 AM

It will be nice once high-quality encoder systems get below 10ms. That's going to be the future of wireless.

Based on current development, it is still very difficult to get such latency. This requires a huge investment. Our target is to walk into 30ms. 


  • 0

#9 Alec Jarnagin SOC

Alec Jarnagin SOC

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 1800 posts
  • New York City, USA

Posted 30 September 2014 - 01:19 AM

Jeffery, we are a forum of Professional Steadicam operators that use professional gear.  Think you're barking up the wrong tree here.  This isn't meant to be snobby, but our livelihood depends, in part, on our tools and we work in a very demanding field.  If it does not work, neither do we.  Nuff said.

 

Oh, wait… there is more.  I moved this thread to the "Video Assist and Video Accessories" area cause that's where we discuss this stuff.  Next time, please just take a moment and think about where your thread should go before you post in "General Discussion."

 

Thank you. 

 

EDIT:  Just saw your other thread on video transmitters (also in General Discussion) and deleted it.  Redundant.  I, too, think you're advertising something, but I'll let this thread continue for the moment since we have responses from known members.  


  • 1

#10 Jeffery Yang

Jeffery Yang

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Shenzhen, China

Posted 30 September 2014 - 01:25 AM

Jeffery, we are a forum of Professional Steadicam operators that use professional gear.  Think you're barking up the wrong tree here.  This isn't meant to be snobby, but our livelihood depends, in part, on our tools and we work in a very demanding field.  If it does not work, neither do we.  Nuff said.

 

Oh, wait… there is more.  I moved this thread to the "Video Assist and Video Accessories" area cause that's where we discuss this stuff.  Next time, please just take a moment and think about where your thread should go before you post in "General Discussion."

 

Thank you. 

 

EDIT:  Just saw your other thread on video transmitters (also in General Discussion) and deleted it.  Redundant.  I, too, think you're advertising something, but I'll let this thread continue for the moment since we have responses from known members.  

Thanks for clarifying that. Please understand I am kind of new here. Your advice is taken. There is no denying for everyone to play by rules. Sorry if any inconvenience caused. 


  • 0

#11 Alan Rencher

Alan Rencher

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 1091 posts
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 September 2014 - 12:02 PM

Based on current development, it is still very difficult to get such latency. This requires a huge investment. Our target is to walk into 30ms. 


http://www.vitec.com...how/MGW-Sprint/
  • 0

#12 Jarrett P. Morgan

Jarrett P. Morgan

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 225 posts
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 30 September 2014 - 02:44 PM

That is impressive....

Lets have someone package that with a transmitter/receiver pair. 

 

For awhile I was playing around with a consumer HDMI transmitter that encoded to H2.64. It was only about 20ms delay. Pretty transparent actually. I think it is doable, the big thing is it either has to be cheaper or farther (or both) than current zero latency transmission systems to make it a viable product (in my mind). That is assuming proper design to be used on set.


  • 0

#13 Jeffery Yang

Jeffery Yang

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Shenzhen, China

Posted 30 September 2014 - 08:52 PM

Did anyone really tested it for latency in using? We know that some products marked very low latency. For H264, 40ms is a very tough technical threshold..  


  • 0

#14 Alan Rencher

Alan Rencher

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 1091 posts
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 September 2014 - 08:55 PM

I met with one of their sales reps. He had a device that tested latency. Their encoder tested at about 12 milliseconds (not quite at the 8 milliseconds that they advertise, but damn, 12 milliseconds is great!). We also tested an Arrow and a Tomahawk for comparison; they came in at 750 and 850 MICRO seconds, respectively.
  • 0

#15 Jeffery Yang

Jeffery Yang

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Shenzhen, China

Posted 30 September 2014 - 09:15 PM

I met with one of their sales reps. He had a device that tested latency. Their encoder tested at about 12 milliseconds (not quite at the 8 milliseconds that they advertise, but damn, 12 milliseconds is great!). We also tested an Arrow and a Tomahawk for comparison; they came in at 750 and 850 MICRO seconds, respectively.

Paralinx applies WHDI from Amimon, so it is less than 1ms latency. If they can work for 12ms, this is a great thing.


  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: wireless video, video transmission, CVW

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

PLC Electronics Solutions

Boland Communications

BOXX

Varizoom Follow Focus

Betz Tools for Stabilizers

PLC - Bartech

Omnishot Systems

Paralinx LLC

IDX

Wireless Video Systems

SkyDreams

rebotnix Technologies

Teradek

Ritter Battery

GPI Pro Systems

Engineered Cinema Solutions