Wireless HDMI broadcast: PC to TV

mrcheez

I'm moving my TV into my bedroom and was considering trailing a HDMI cable through the attic from my PC into the bedroom for gaming/videos etc.

(I control the PC from my bedroom using a logitech wireless keyboard)

Obviously this is a big job and involves nasty large holes in my ceiling so it occurred to me that I could just get a wireless HDMI device instead.

Recommend any?

The distance from the TV to the PC will be approx 5m, so not too far as it's the next room, and signal only has to go through a few plasterboard walls.

mrcheez

Forgot to mention, I'd want the lossless variety. i.e. as good as the direct active cable method.

riclad

http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-wireless-hdmi-video-transmitter/

mrcheez

Pricey but got me looking in the right direction, thanks!

riclad

i set up a signal video sender for a sky HD box .
plugs into scart ,from box,
i,m getting a Perfect signal 16ft away in bedroom,

Sender is plugged into tv through scart to rca cable ,
eg rca gives better picture .
sender cost 60 euro ,bought in 2012 .
in a shop in dublin.
sender only has scart in ,
eg does not uses hdmi .
sender and reciever have independent 12v power supplys .
on ,off , power switch .
4 channel switch , to allow you to avoid interference from other devices .

each channel is a different frequency .


Picture on bedroom hdtv is identical to picture in front room,
in terms of quality . no difference at all .

if the box you are using has rca or scart out ,
it may be easier to use a video sender .
hd channels look fine too .

uisng scart in picture quality was 95 per cent good,

now i,m using tv rca in picture looks perfect .
scart to rca cables cost me 10 euro ,
i had to use a scart female to male unit connected to a scart to rca unit .

sender just has 1 lead , eg scart cable .

my setup is 2 boxes ,video wireless
sender plugs into sky box,

reciever wireless in bedroom ,
each unit is 4x4 inch approx .

i dont think there,s much difference in hdmi vs rca cables ,
unless you are sending like 4k video ,
i have 7 hd channels on my sky hd box ,bbc,rte etc ,
just the fta hd channels .

mrcheez

riclad wrote: »

i set up a signal video sender for a sky HD box .
plugs into scart ,from box,
i,m getting a Perfect signal 16ft away in bedroom,

Sender is plugged into tv through scart to rca cable ,
eg rca gives better picture .
sender cost 60 euro ,bought in 2012 .
in a shop in dublin.
sender only has scart in ,
eg does not uses hdmi .
sender and reciever have independent 12v power supplys .
on ,off , power switch .
4 channel switch , to allow you to avoid interference from other devices .

each channel is a different frequency .


Picture on bedroom hdtv is identical to picture in front room,
in terms of quality . no difference at all .

if the box you are using has rca or scart out ,
it may be easier to use a video sender .
hd channels look fine too .

uisng scart in picture quality was 95 per cent good,

now i,m using tv rca in picture looks perfect .
scart to rca cables cost me 10 euro ,
i had to use a scart female to male unit connected to a scart to rca unit .

sender just has 1 lead , eg scart cable .

my setup is 2 boxes ,video wireless
sender plugs into sky box,

reciever wireless in bedroom ,
each unit is 4x4 inch approx .

i dont think there,s much difference in hdmi vs rca cables ,
unless you are sending like 4k video ,
i have 7 hd channels on my sky hd box ,bbc,rte etc ,
just the fta hd channels .

eesh, hard to read that (I'm guessing typed on an iPad or something?) but thanks!

dr.fuzzenstein

mrcheez wrote: »

eesh, hard to read that (I'm guessing typed on an iPad or something?) but thanks!

Don't bother, it mentions scart, i.e. analog and standard PAL resolution 720x576 as opposed to HDMI, full HD, 1920x1080.
RCA gives better picture? It's the same resolution, except it's composite, at least scart can be RGB, so no, it's worse.
A solution including scart and RCA would be brilliant. If it was 1995. On a HD screen bigger than 30 inc, it will look utterly terrible.
riclad actually paid money to turn his Sky HD into Sky SD, i.e. analog CRT telly resolution.

riclad

The tv in bedroom is 21 inch lcd ,i understand rca is not hd resolution .
All the sky channels i watch look the same as on my 32 inch hdtv
in terms of picture quality .
if you watch tv in 1080p hd there,s the choice of using a wireless hdmi sender .
95 per cent of the time i watch the standard channels on the sky reciever .

mrcheez

yeah I'm looking for 1080p, but thanks for the info anyway

mrcheez

All the research I've done on this mentions a lag using the wireless method so I'll stick with my 15m Neet cable (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cameras-Neet%C2%AE-Black-Line-High-Speed-Ethernet/dp/B001AJDERQ/) and now have the pleasure of routing it through my attic.. eek

ED E

mrcheez wrote: »

eesh, hard to read that (I'm guessing typed on an iPad or something?) but thanks!

No, he spouts nonsense like that 24/7, never says why. :rolleyes:

mrcheez wrote: »

yeah I'm looking for 1080p, but thanks for the info anyway

You can't send RAW frames over wireless link, its gotta be compressed and decompressed which creates lag.

If you want to do this properly so that its future proofed check out what linus tech tips did (optical USB3/Thunderbolt).

riclad

i under stand you need hd 180p video,
the advantage of the sender i use is i can watch tv, change channels ,browse the listings menu, ,from the bedroom,
i could also run a hdmi cable to the bedroom, and get hd signal 1080p from the cable,
And just use the sender unit as a wireless channel changer,

the sender uses scart from the sky box,
is independent from the hdmi out port.

so i get 1080p video in,
and remote control channel change ability .

i don,t think ill do this as i have only 5 hd channels,rte,bbc,1,2 , i can watch them on the main tv,
bedroom tv is used after 10pm

mrcheez

ED E wrote: »

If you want to do this properly so that its future proofed check out what linus tech tips did (optical USB3/Thunderbolt).

How does that method differ from cabling a HDMI cable?

riclad

http://www.corning.com/opcomm/OpticalCablesbyCorning/products/USB-3.Optical.aspx#.Vq3lBt-7xSk

i think he means usb 3 is compatible with many devices not just tvs,or monitors ,

my sony tv can play video files from usb drive formatted in ntfs ,or fat32 file format .
I ,d go with the hdmi if you wanna play files from a dvr or satellite,cable tv box or a pc
,laptop .
I use a media player drive 300gig with remote control ,it has hd out and svideo out .
on my tv.
cost me 100 euros on adverts.ie in 2011 .

In the future there,l l be 1000s, of devices using usb 3
hdmi is limited to tvs,monitors or consoles with hdmi in ,eg the
xbox one .

mrcheez

Basically the TV is just to be used as a monitor, so HDMI is all I need.

All the "smart" stuff can happen at the PC next door that can easily be future-proofed/upgraded.

riclad

Exactly hdmi is easy to use ,i presume your pc has hdmi out,
make sure and set resolution to match tv,
eh 1080p,
or 1024x768,
as the pc monitor res is likely to be way higher than the tv standard hd resolution .
some tablets have mini hdmi out if you wanna try it.
it worked on my tv fine .

mrcheez

mrcheez wrote: »

All the research I've done on this mentions a lag using the wireless method so I'll stick with my 15m Neet cable (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cameras-Neet%C2%AE-Black-Line-High-Speed-Ethernet/dp/B001AJDERQ/) and now have the pleasure of routing it through my attic.. eek

riclad wrote: »

Exactly hdmi is easy to use ,i presume your pc has hdmi out,
make sure and set resolution to match tv,
eh 1080p,
or 1024x768,
as the pc monitor res is likely to be way higher than the tv standard hd resolution .
some tablets have mini hdmi out if you wanna try it.
it worked on my tv fine .

yep as I mentioned earlier I'm currently using a 15m HDMI cable, but wanted to try wireless.

So I'll stick with my current cable and drill through the ceiling.