[surjones]

I was just wondering what ya'll thought about that. I think it would be cool.. generally speaking I would use for video home security. Plus I think it would be cool when I have kids, That I can hook up the iSight in the nursery and project it on an iMac near the bed. That would be pimp. Or like I said earlier do a multi-cam home servalence to my iMac near the bed. and be able to switch to my PowerMac in my office.

Cut the wire. Then you've got a wireless iSight.

Then, close your eyes and imagine that it works, and that's as real as it actually working, because everything is in our mind anyway.

blah.

No, actually that would be pretty cool. I agree with you. But I don't know anythin about whehter it's gonna happen or not.

[chucker]

Apple has a wireless iSight for $650 Mac mini + FireWire iSight.

I don't think they'll make the iSight wireless. It would draw a lot of power, require a steady high-bandwidth connection (802.11b probably wouldn't be good enough; g could work but would be rather unstable, etc.), and generally would only appeal to a small target audience.

[Windowsrookie]

maybe a bluetooth isight. But would bluetooth be fast enough? also, you would need some type of battery, that would increase the size.

[chucker]

Bluetooth would provide nowhere near the necessary bandwidth.

[atomicbartbeans]

802.11g would work fine for a 320x240 or maybe 640x480 video stream, as long as the camera had built-in MPEG-4 compression... although it would probably make web surfing on the same router somewhat laggy...

[Dave]

Get one of these and one of these and you're done.

[torifile]

Originally Posted by windowsrookie maybe a bluetooth isight. But would bluetooth be fast enough? also, you would need some type of battery, that would increase the size.

So chucker just got done saying that wifi wouldn't be fast enough and you suggest bluetooth which is barely fast enough to sync a palm? I'm going to assume you didn't realize that bluetooth is much slower than wifi.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by atomicbartbeans 802.11g would work fine for a 320x240 or maybe 640x480 video stream, as long as the camera had built-in MPEG-4 compression...

With built-in real-time H.264 compression, that might work, but it would still be incredibly unstable. Note that the current iSight sends data as an uncompressed DV stream.

So, with a compression chip, a wireless chip, a battery, etc., it would certainly not be smaller.

although it would probably make web surfing on the same router somewhat laggy...

Quite so.

[Windowsrookie]

Originally Posted by torifile So chucker just got done saying that wifi wouldn't be fast enough and you suggest bluetooth which is barely fast enough to sync a palm? I'm going to assume you didn't realize that bluetooth is much slower than wifi.

well, bluetooth 2.0 is fairly fast.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by windowsrookie well, bluetooth 2.0 is fairly fast.

No, it's not. At EDR, it offers 3 MBit/s, gross. That's maybe 2 MBit/s net at best, probably much less. A decent-quality video codec at the iSight resolution would take up between 500 kbit/s and 1 MBit/s, at the very, very least, and with all the necessary overhead, you're quickly gonna exhaust the connection. In short, it's not gonna work.

Now, 802.11b offers 11 MBit/s, but in practice, that easily goes down to 4 MBit/s or less, so you have the same problem. 802.11g? 54 MBit/s, theoretically, and when you're lucky, you can get about 20 MBit/s out of it. Much more feasible. I'm still not sold, though.

[NosferaDrew]

How about a MB-OFDM version of UWB combined with Bluetooth?
From a story found here and originally posted on Slashdot:

The Bluetooth SIG today announced its selection of the WiMedia Alliance multiband orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (MB-OFDM) version of ultra-wideband (UWB) for integration with current Bluetooth wireless technology, thus taking the next step in its plan to create a version of the globally popular Bluetooth wireless technology with a high speed/high data rate option. This new version of Bluetooth technology will meet the high-speed demands of synchronizing and transferring large amounts of data as well as enabling high quality video and audio applications for portable devices, multi-media projectors and television sets. At the same time, Bluetooth technology will continue catering to the needs of very low power applications such as mice, keyboards and mono headsets, enabling devices to select the most appropriate physical radio for the application requirements, thereby offering the best of both worlds. VoIP is also a target for this new high-speed Bluetooth. According to Bluetooth SIG their goal is to ensure the same battery life footprint used by the old standard by leveraging new technologies and implementing more efficiencies. They are also aiming for 100Mbits/s within a single room (10 meters) with speeds that scale as you move closer and further away.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by NosferaDrew How about a MB-OFDM version of UWB combined with Bluetooth? From a story found here and originally posted on Slashdot:

That's for 2008. Wireless USB will arrive before that.

[MCQ]

I'm thinking wireless USB might do the trick.

[ThunderPoit]

whatever happened to wireless firewire?
had to have been almost 5 years ago i heard everyone raving about it.

[Dave]

How about using the wireless systems that are already in place and are working now and available now?

[ThunderPoit]

because current wireless systems are no where near as fast as their wired counterparts

[ghoti]

Why does everything have to be wireless? Wireless iPod, wireless iSight, wireless this, wireless that. What's the point? It's useful for many things, but not everything is cooler and better just because it has no wires.

And what's the point, especially for surveillance cameras, if you then have to replace the battery once (or more times) a day or have to run a power cable to it, anyway? Wireless doesn't magically solve the power problem.

[chucker]

I want a wireless ghoti.

[Dorian Gray]

While a wireless security camera is dubiously useful (though power sockets are easy to find anywhere), I think wireless solutions in general are a good thing for consumer electronics. Cable management is a real problem these days. Look at your average desktop computer with scanner, printer and other peripherals. An unsightly mess. The typical geek's desk and floor haven't been cleaned for months because he can't be bothered moving a hundred cables.

Originally Posted by chucker Note that the current iSight sends data as an uncompressed DV stream.

Make up your mind. Is it uncompressed or DV? Uncompressed 640x480x25fps is approaching 200 Mbps, whereas DV is a "mere" 25 Mbps. That's a significant difference when considering the limitations of today's wireless options.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray While a wireless security camera is dubiously useful (though power sockets are easy to find anywhere), I think wireless solutions in general are a good thing for consumer electronics. Cable management is a real problem these days. Look at your average desktop computer with scanner, printer and other peripherals. An unsightly mess. The typical geek's desk and floor haven't been cleaned for months because he can't be bothered moving a hundred cables.

But the iSight is only one wire. Power, audio, video, all in one. It doesn't really add much to the mess. Doesn't require a power supply unit or anything.

Make up your mind. Is it uncompressed or DV? Uncompressed 640x480x25fps is approaching 200 Mbps, whereas DV is a "mere" 25 Mbps. That's a significant difference when considering the limitations of today's wireless options.

I'm not a video expert.