Hi, I recently purchased a Dell 3008WFP monitor and one important reason for doing so was to watch blu-ray movies on it. To cut a long story short, to get the standard 2560x1600 desktop resolution a dual-link dvi cable is needed but that cable is not hdcp compliant and hence blu-ray will not play.
Using the hdmi cable with a dvi-hdmi adapter does enble blu-ray but cannot display 2560x1600, only 1920x1200.
Now I understand that hdmi v1.3 does support 2560x1600 desktop resolution but that requires having a monitor that supports hdmi v1.3.
Which the Dell 3008WFP does not seem to do.
Can someone please confirm (or deny) that hdmi v1.3 does allow for a desktop resolution of 2560x1600 on a 30" monitor?
Many thanks, catonic.

Since the maximum blu-ray resolution is 1920 x 1080, why do you want to go any higher than that?

Upon doing further research it seems clear that hdmi v1.3 does support 2560x1600 but that just means that the monitor must also support hdmi v1.3 and the graphics card must also be able to join the party. The latter is presumably not a problem as the Ati Radeon 4850 can output 2560x1600 from one of it's two dvi ports.
Whilst blu-ray only goes up to 1920x1200 that is not the problem. Using hdmi (non - v1.3) to allow blu-ray to work means that the desktop resolution for all normal computer activities is also limited to 1920x1200 instead of 2560x1600 which is the resolution any 30" monitor normally runs at.
So to watch blu-ray you have to settle for a lower desktop resolution, unless you use software such as Slysoft's AnyDVD HD which costs almost as much as the blu-ray player. ($A159 v $A150) but allows you to watch blu-ray over a dual-link dvi cable.
At least this is my current position, but if the Dell 3008WFP does support hdmi v1.3 then buying a hdmi v1.3 cable (which are currently available) will solve this problem (hopefully).

The version of the HDMI cable has no effect on the type of data it can transmit, just the maximum frequency for longer cable runs. For short cable runs, any version of HDMI will work for any resolution.

The version of the HDMI cable has no effect on the type of data it can transmit, just the maximum frequency for longer cable runs. For short cable runs, any version of HDMI will work for any resolution.

You are mistaken about this, you need HDMI 1.3 (340 MHz) to deliver a resolution of 2560x1600. You can read about this here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Definition_Multimedia_Interface

And you are also wrong about the Blu-ray being limited to 1920x1080p. Blu-ray is the disc, not the format, MPEG-4 AVC is capable of resolutions above 4096x2048p, although some players (or most) don't support profile levels above 4.1 (PS 3 for instance) and therefore can't play videos above 2048x1024 or 1920x1080p. But this is something i believe can be changed with a firmware update, at least if you have a PS3. Blu-ray is not limited to anything but to the specs the codecs it uses, MPEG-4 AVC for instance.

You can also check this here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC

You are mistaken about this, you need HDMI 1.3 (340 MHz) to deliver a resolution of 2560x1600. You can read about this here:


No, but that is only as implemented by the devices in question. The cable doesn't have to be 1.3 certified to perform high enough to handle these signals properly. The cable is a passive device, it doesn't care what you try to jam down it, it just matters to the *devices* whether it's of high quality enough to get the signal there. Obviously if it can't, then no picture. Cables don't have features that support one thing but not something else, they are passive. They don't DO anything on their own.

No, but that is only as implemented by the devices in question. The cable doesn't have to be 1.3 certified to perform high enough to handle these signals properly. The cable is a passive device, it doesn't care what you try to jam down it, it just matters to the *devices* whether it's of high quality enough to get the signal there. Obviously if it can't, then no picture. Cables don't have features that support one thing but not something else, they are passive. They don't DO anything on their own.

Although my last post was about the standard, the cable does play a role and saying that "cable doesn't matter" is clearly an overstatement. HDMI 1.3 recommends HDMI category 2 cables to guarantee proper work and these cables are usually more expensive than category 1, that can be used as well but are not certified and may not deliver the HDMI 1.3 features properly, like the higher resolution signals. But i also believe that most HDMI cables sold are category 2 anyway, so the cable quality may not matter if you consider that all the ones available are certified. I quote from the wikipedia link i posted above:

"HDMI 1.3 has defined two categories of cables: Category 1 certified cables which have been tested at 74.5 MHz (1080i/720p) and Category 2 (1080p, 12- and 16-bit depth required for Deep Color display) certified cables which have been tested at 340 MHz (1600p) to reduce the confusion about which cables support which video formats.[42] Category 1 and 2 cables can either meet the required parameter specifications for inter-pair skew, far-end crosstalk, attenuation, and differential impedance or they can meet the required non-equalized/equalized eye diagram requirements.[42] A cheaply made cable of about 5 meters (16 ft) can be manufactured to Category 1 specifications using 28 AWG conductors.[41] With better quality construction and materials (24 AWG conductors) an HDMI cable can reach lengths of up to 15 meters (49 ft).[41] The HDMI website has stated that many HDMI cables under 5 meters of length that were made before the HDMI 1.3 specification can work as a Category 2 cable but cautions that only Category 2 tested cables are guaranteed to work."

But i also believe that most HDMI cables sold are category 2 anyway, so the cable quality may not matter if you consider that all the ones available are certified.

Most mfgr's CLAIM that their cable is Cat/2.
However very few are actually capable of supporting the full 10G (3.64 per ch).
In truth they are much closer to 2.25 (per ch).
To find out the actual cable performance of a specific brand/model you can go to www.dplrating.org (note: not all mfgr's submit their cables for testing).
Or if you are feeling the desire to support AVS sponsers, buy Kurts (BJC) Beldon HDMI cable as it will do what it claims

Most mfgr's CLAIM that their cable is Cat/2.
However very few are actually capable of supporting the full 10G (3.64 per ch).
In truth they are much closer to 2.25 (per ch).
To find out the actual cable performance of a specific brand/model you can go to www.dplrating.org (note: not all mfgr's submit their cables for testing).
Or if you are feeling the desire to support AVS sponsers, buy Kurts (BJC) Beldon HDMI cable as it will do what it claims

Very good to know, thanks for the info!

Although my last post was about the standard, the cable does play a role and saying that "cable doesn't matter" is clearly an overstatement.

This is true. Nowhere in my post did I state that "cable doesn't matter," and it bothers me that you used quotations which implies I said that, or something that implied that. In fact, 3 of the 6 sentences in my brief post (half of my post) explicitly or implicitly state that cabling quality can(and does) matter to what you're trying to send down the cabling.

What I was refuting was your claim that you needed "1.3 HDMI cable" in order to support a particular resolution. This is not true, and there really isn't such thing as an "HDMI 1.3" cable anyway.

HDMI 1.3 recommends HDMI category 2 cables to guarantee proper work and these cables are usually more expensive than category 1, that can be used as well but are not certified and may not deliver the HDMI 1.3 features properly, like the higher resolution signals.

This is true, and nowhere did I state otherwise. I most certainly did not say that cables do not matter. What I said was that cables have no impact on what particular modes are or are not supported by the devices in question. They can have impact depending on how much bandwidth the cable can support, which becomes particularly crucial at distance.

What I was refuting was your claim that you needed "1.3 HDMI cable" in order to support a particular resolution. This is not true, and there really isn't such thing as an "HDMI 1.3" cable anyway..


Can you please find the word CABLE my post, the one you replied to? The only person who brought the discussion here to cable only was crutschow, and that is what he said:

"The version of the HDMI cable has no effect on the type of data it can transmit, just the maximum frequency for longer cable runs. For short cable runs, any version of HDMI will work for any resolution."

And what he said is wrong! The category and quality matter even if the cable is not very long, without further testing this is another overstatement. And in any case, the post before crutschow's reply was talking about HDMI standard, the version, and not the cable. So the same way crutschow implied out of nowhere the post before was talking about cable, YOU in the same way is doing the same with mine. My post doesn't even have the word CABLE or any synonym in it.

And your post, is a paradox, where in a way you say the quality matters and in the same sentece you say:

"The cable doesn't have to be 1.3 certified to perform high enough to handle these signals properly"

That is not what the official standard claim. It says only certified cables are GUARANTEED TO WORK. You can obviously get any cable and be luck, but that is not the OFFICIAL STANDARD RECOMMENDATION.

"Cables don't have features that support one thing but not something else, they are passive. They don't DO anything on their own."

The last one is completely unnecessary and an MORE THAN OBVIOUS claim!

"The cable is a passive device, it doesn't care what you try to jam down it, it just matters to the *devices* whether it's of high quality enough to get the signal there"

The first part of your sentence clearly clashes with the last part. If the quality matters, than IT DOESN'T MATTER THE PASSIVITY OF THE CABLE, what metter is if the CABLE WILL BE ABLE TO SUSTEIN WHAT YOU TRY TO JAM DOWN TO IT!!

So please, avoid bring confusion and play the game i didn't say / you said, i didn't / you did. Cable DOES MATTER, it DOES MATTER WAHT VERSION and IT DOES MATTER IF IT IS CERTIFIED OR NOT. But go ahead and buy any UNCERTIFIED cable and be happy, i rather not play cards with my money and my HT.

And the BLUE JEANS CABLE are certified, by the way.