sybesis
sybesis t1_j38uq9c wrote
Reply to comment by MarkedZuckerPunch in LG’s latest Signature OLED TV receives all of its audio and video wirelessly by randburg
Ok, you clearly don't understand what bottleneck means. If the HDMI cables can handle up to 48Gbps... the cable clearly can't be the bottleneck when all other medium don't have those kind of bandwidth.
That's why we compress video because if we didn't. We'd need many more terabytes of storage or more than 48Gbps of bandwidth on network to be able to transmit them.
When you're able to compress, the bottleneck will still remain the slowest part of your system. In case of streaming, it's your internet connection. If you don't have the required internet speed to download the stream, you can't hope to be able to watch it even if you have 48Gbps capable cables.
Just to show how ridiculous the claim is. If we had a video that requires 2Gbps of bandwidth. That would require an internet connection of at least 2Gbps or more than 17GB of storage for a 60second footage.
In reality, the footage is compressed and can be compressed in a lossless format so quality doesn't degrade and doesn't induce necessarily any latency. One example is like having a frame and having 90% of the pixels identical to the previous frame. There's no point sending all of the pixels. You'd send the 10% of the pixels that changed and only update those. We're not even starting to compress the 10% we send but the frame size will be 90% smaller than the previous one and it won't be slower because if you spend time only updating 10% of a frame you spend less time than updating a whole frame.
> The tech is gonna be proprietary. So get ready for every device incorporating it directly to be vendor-locked.
It's possible, but I sincerely doubt it. Creating vendor-locked technology like that means nobody would want to integrate with their TVs... then it's just a matter of time until a consortium is created to replace their vendor-locked technology to replace it with an alternative that's used by everyone. That's why USB is used everywhere instead of firewire, that's why bluetooth is so common nowadays, how we had RCA cables then HDMI cable instead of vendor locked cables, just like wireless charging support a common protocol instead of reinventing the wheel. Having a vendor-locked system would be a terrible move nowadays. I'd imagine they'll build a consortium and use their basis to build a future standard backward compatible with what they currently made.
sybesis t1_j37zftj wrote
Reply to comment by MarkedZuckerPunch in LG’s latest Signature OLED TV receives all of its audio and video wirelessly by randburg
HDMI sticks mainly exists because TVs didn't usually have the processing power to decode/decompress video streams. Cannot have alternative OS installed to make your TV a Roku TV or a Chrome TV or whatever you want.
So what you do is plug an external device to use your TV as a display. It just happen that HDMI is a widely used standard. It's not a necessity. We don't have to use HDMI. It's just convenient.
Point being, is that if you can receive video on a 100Mbps connection. That's the minimum you need to send it somehow to the TV. That you send uncompressed video over HDMI is completely irrelevant because HDMI isn't the bottleneck. Internet connection is the bottleneck.
It's a bit like how Bluetooth is a drop in replacement for RS232. What LG is doing seems to be introducing a wireless standard to use as drop in replacement for HDMI.
The TV still provide HDMI port on a hub. But see it as a convenience... because nobody else uses this wireless protocol. Eventually we could see HDMI stick connected to a gaming console to emit the video directly over the air just like you can replace RS232 cables by pairs of RS232 <-> Bluetooth <-> Rs232.
> So it's not about getting rid of hdmi cables
It's all about removing cables. It's just it's still early to completely drop HDMI for obvious reasons.
sybesis t1_j373e6g wrote
Reply to comment by riffruff2 in LG’s latest Signature OLED TV receives all of its audio and video wirelessly by randburg
> It doesn't work like that. HDMI carries uncompressed video. Yes, it'd be great if it could do what you're talking about. But that's not possible with HDMI.
It works exactly like that. Because we're talking about not using HDMI. I'm not sure why you're talking about sending uncompressed over HDMI when I'm talking about sending compressed data over network. The speed requirement for uncompressed video over HDMI is irrelevant because we're talking about sending compressed/encoded video over network.
That's the whole point here. Nobody here is saying that HDMI speed is unnecessary for uncompressed video. We're saying sending uncompressed video isn't necessary since video format have lossless compression and can be sent over lower bandwidth network just fine.
sybesis t1_j3272dr wrote
Reply to comment by riffruff2 in LG’s latest Signature OLED TV receives all of its audio and video wirelessly by randburg
It doesn't matter. Roku receives a streams and decompress/decodes it to send through HDMI. With that TV what's likely going to happen is that you'll just stream the encoded video directly to the TV without having to decode it.
So even if you used an other system what would happen is the box would stream the video from internet without decoding/decompressing and be sent directly over network to your TV.
HDMI supporting significant faster speed is irrelevant as you basically don't need it for video streaming. The only case it could make sense is realtime video streaming for gaming. That could be an issue but in reality I doubt it's much of an issue. It's not like encoding/compressing video is terribly hard to do as games could output an encoded stream without having to resize frames or anything "expensive".
sybesis t1_j2zsyqs wrote
Reply to comment by Gwthrowaway80 in LG’s latest Signature OLED TV receives all of its audio and video wirelessly by randburg
People seems to be missing the point that if you need 100Mbps to stream video in 4k. If all you need is 100Mbps having an extra 48Gbps isn't going to make you buffer the video faster since your internet connection speed is way under that even in a LAN and there's no way you'd be able to encode the video in a way you'd need more than a fraction of the potential speed HDMI gives you.
sybesis t1_j2zs7oo wrote
Reply to comment by TheFriendlyArtificer in LG’s latest Signature OLED TV receives all of its audio and video wirelessly by randburg
Well damn, I'll have to replace my AP with HDMI cables then it will certainly make the internet faster! /s
sybesis t1_iya3tx9 wrote
Reply to comment by NotActuallyGus in Robots will roam a university to study “a socio-technical problem” — will wander a Texas campus so researchers can study human-robot relations. by marketrent
Then they'll find them in a fight club.
sybesis t1_iya3mnp wrote
Reply to comment by PineapplePandaKing in Robots will roam a university to study “a socio-technical problem” — will wander a Texas campus so researchers can study human-robot relations. by marketrent
The first to come out alive and tell the tale.
sybesis t1_j39givz wrote
Reply to comment by riffruff2 in LG’s latest Signature OLED TV receives all of its audio and video wirelessly by randburg
You're basing your argument on assumptions. Here's a review made by Linus Tech Tips made 1 year ago about a wireless HDMI drop in replacement. Note here that's a replacement for HDMI not simply ditching it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kojTyPdhp3s&ab_channel=LinusTechTips
> I can't connect my Roku, computer, Xbox, PlayStation, or whatever other device I have to this tv without quality loss.
Based on what evidence? Do you sincerely believe LG would release a device with a technology that makes video look shitty on their TVs?