Hi All:

I've been following HDMI 1.3 developments for awhile now, and posted the answer below to question in another forum on-site about what HDMI 1.3 has to offer. Sorry to cross-post, but I would appreciate your critique on my evaluation. Always ready to learn! Thanks.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


HDMI 1.3 allows for some interesting potential features. The standard does not require that all of the features be included in a product claiming HDMI 1.3 compatibility however, so buyers need to be careful.

HDMI 1.3 allows for:


Greater Bandwidth- It more than doubles the bandwidth that can be passed through the interface (from 4.95 Gigabits per second to 10.2 Gps) allowing more data to pass. It will support up to 1440p through a single connection. Since current consumer displays don't exceed 1080p, this feature won't increase the resolution of a 1080p display over earlier versions of HDMI.
Deep Color- Current formats support up to 8 bit color. "Deep color" will allow 10, 12, and 16 bit color depths. This feature allows compatible displays to show billions of colors rather than the current millions of colors. "Billions" of colors is more than the eye can see. Some people pooh-pooh this feature as useless (since it's more than you can see), but you want your display to show more colors than you can see. If you can see differences between colors you will see color banding in scenes with subtle color gradations- like skies. Deep color is claimed to eliminate color banding where it's used. Deep color also supposedly allows for greater contrast ratios. Whether the upcoming display technologies will allow for greater contrast is a good question. Sony's PS3 Blu-ray player/game console and Toshiba's HD-XA2 standalone HD-DVD player both support HDMI 1.3 with deep color. The caveat here is that there's currently no content that supports deep color. Games will likely be the first source to support deep color, but movies on disc seem to be another matter. Blu-ray and HD-DVD discs currently support only 8 bit color. Toshiba seems to be betting that HD-DVD discs with deep color will be available at some point, but that's far from a given. Sony controls content from production (Sony Pictures), to disc manufacture (for Blu-ray), to display, and they're pushing HDMI 1.3/deep color/broader color space so they might jump onboard with some compatible content, but it's a gamble whether they will or not. Downloadable movies might support deep color and broader color space at some point in the future, but that's still vaporware. Some people claim that a source or display that allows for deep color will allow for finer calibration (and accuracy) even for 8 bit content, but I have no idea if this is true.
Broader Color Space- HDMI 1.3 supports the xvYCC color space (as opposed to RGB/YCbCr) that allows for 1.8 times as many colors as earlier color models. The hype says that this feature will allow more accurate and vivid colors to be displayed on compatible systems. Sony has announced HD camcorders for consumers that support xvYCC (Sony calls it xv.color), but who knows who else will join them, what content will be available, and when it might happen? It might turn out to be great. It might not be used.
Auto A/V Lip Sync- Some displays don't process video signals as fast as the A/V receiver in the surround system processes the audio causing the picture to lag behind the sound- like a poorly dubbed movie. Some current receivers have manual modes so you can adjust the lag yourself, but HDMI 1.3 allows for compatible HDMI 1.3 receivers and displays to automatically sync the sound and picture. The "buzz" says this is likely to be a popular feature that consumers will look for and therefore manufacturers will want to supply, but I haven't seen any "auto lip sync" products announced yet, and some argue about how helpful the feature will be.
New Lossless Audio Formats- HDMI 1.3 will allow the new Dolby-TrueHD and DTS-HD lossless audio formats to pass over the connection. A cool feature, but maybe unnecessary. Best I can tell, Blu-ray and HD-DVD players that are available now (and likely to be available in the future) decode the lossless audio in the player and can send it to any compatible receiver as PCM over earlier HDMI versions- so the HDMI 1.3 connection is unnecessary. Apparently some say Blu-ray and HD-DVD discs are (or will be) authored so that the lossless audio has to be decoded in the player and can't be processed in the receiver, so HDMI 1.3 wouldn't help for those discs. It's possible that other future content (e.g. downloadable movies) will allow or require processing of the lossless audio in a receiver through HDMI 1.3, but who knows?
New Mini Connector- HDMI 1.3 allows for a smaller connector on portable devices like camcorders- kinda like you see with USB.


IMHO, HDMI 1.3 allows for some exciting potential features, but it's still up in the air whether manufacturers will incorporate the features made possible by HDMI 1.3 in their products, how much content will be available to take advantage of those features, and how much real difference the features will make. I think it would be nice if next generation products would embrace HDMI 1.3, but there are other maybe more important features to look for in the near future (24fps input support with a refresh rate some multiple of 24 to eliminate judder, better PC input support, etc., etc.) You can bet that products with HDMI versions earlier than 1.3 won't take advantage of HDMI 1.3's features (except for lossless audio as mentioned above), but it's not certain that even HDMI 1.3 products will use the features. Caveat emptor.

Just my 2¢,

kelpie

that helps me out. Thanks.

Thanks for taking the time to read up on HDMI 1.3. Here are some comments I have on your analysis:

Greater bandwidth: The 10Gbps bandwidth can be used by manufacturers in a variety of ways. Think of HDMI as a data pipe which we've just made bigger and faster, but it's up to manufacturers to choose how they want to use it. Here are 3 performance features that we've identified as possible uses of the greater bandwidth:
1) higher resolution, such as 1440p or WQXGA (i.e. 30" LCDs running 2560x1600). A few TV makers have announced or demonstrated displays with these resolutions.
2) deeper color depths (10, 12, or 16-bit per component), which requires a greater amount of pixel data to be sent during the same amount of line frame time.
3) higher refresh rates (72, 75, 90, or 120Hz). At CES, quite a few LCD TV makers announced and demonstrated TVs support a 120Hz refresh rate, which appeared quite effective at reducing the LCD motion blur. With the new high def optical discs, the content is encoded on the disc at 1080p/24fps, yet a TV's display may support anywhere from 60-120Hz. Today, the player usually performs conversion from 1080p/24 to 1080p/60, while the TV might perform another frame rate conversion (say 1080p/60 to 1080p/120) with its own video processor to match the TV's best refresh rate. Many video processing experts will tell you that if you want to do the best job performing frame rate conversion, you should do it all at the content level because the raw/original encoded video (ex. MPEG4 video) has information about motion vectors and other data that allow the processor to apply the best algorithms and thus get the best quality. Compare that to the 2 step process I described above where the TV does not have any of the important video information that would help it do a better job with the frame rate conversion. For this reason, we may see some HDMI source devices be capable of sending a video timing such as 1080p at 120Hz refresh rate, which requires twice the bandwidth of 1080p/60.

Deep color: At CES, we had a side by side demonstration of two identical LCD TVs being run with 8bit and 10bit color depth content generated from a PS3. The difference was obvious enough that all the visitors who saw the demo were able to see the differences without needed us to point out where to look and what to look for. I haven’t personally seen a 10 vs 12-bit side by side demo, but I have seem 10-bit content where I could still see some subtle banding, which leads me to think that the human eye can probably see the difference between 10 and 12-bit. In my discussions with video processing experts, they do claim that they can take 8-bit video content and apply a gamma extraction to smooth out the banding and deliver a pseudo 10-bit video experience. It appears a number of HD-DVD and BluRay player makers are betting that this will indeed yield a better experience, even though the content is natively encoded at 8-bit.

Broader Color Space: Given the limitations of today’s color space, and the greater color gamuts that the TV’s can now produce, I expect this technology will trickle into more and more products over time. If you do a web search on xvYCC, I believe you will find other TV makers that have announced products supporting this.

Lip Sync: Given that an HDTV will typically buffer the video anywhere from 2-4 frames, we’re talking anywhere from 33-67ms of video latency where you hear the audio first, then see the corresponding motion 33-83ms later. Our brains are wired to be relatively tolerant of audio that is somewhat behind the video (so the lips move, but the audio comes out with a bit of a delay), but we are relatively sensitive when the audio comes first, followed by video. Some people are more sensitive, some are less, so your perception will vary. If you listen to audio through the TV, this is generally not a problem because the TV has a built in audio buffer that delays the audio by the right amount to be in sync with its buffered video. But if you use an external device (i.e. AV receiver) to render your audio, now you have audio that is presented with almost delay, while the video comes out with somewhat more delay. The good news is that this feature is relatively simple & cheap to put into a TV, so we hope that it will become a standard feature in TVs quickly. Seeing more and more AV receivers and even some DVD players add an audio delay feature is a good sign that this feature is recognized as a useful benefit, and we hope that it becomes a more automatic and precise correction through HDMI.

Lossless audio formats: You are correct that most (perhaps all) of the HD-DVD and Blu-ray players available now perform the decoding of these new formats into PCM, and HDMI 1.3 is not required for transporting multi-channel PCM audio. We have heard some express that the decoding of these audio formats is usually done “better” by the electronics in an AV receiver, which would be an example of a case where HDMI 1.3’s ability to send the lossless formats in their encoded formats over the cable is needed.

Mini Connector: HDMI is distinct from USB in that USB can not support uncompressed HD video & audio due to its bandwidth restrictions. Using a lower bandwidth interface would require the content to be compressed by the source (which generally translates to higher cost & potentially quality degradation). In addition, the display would require a decoder to be able to decompress the content, which again implies cost & quality degradation. Also, there is greater possibility of incompatibility if the compression scheme used by the portable device is not supported by the TV. For these reasons, there are many benefits (lower cost, higher image quality, minimal risk of obsolescence or incomptiability) with using an uncompressed interface like HDMI. From a connectivity point of view, it’s quite common to find HDTVs with HDMI connectors (many now put one on the front or side panel specifically for portable devices), but it is not common to find an HDTV with USB connectors, much less the ability to accept a HD-video/audio stream over USB.

In summary, we created the HDMI 1.3 specification to enable these interesting features in new products, but it is up to the manufacturers to choose which features they implement and how, and of course, up to consumers to decide what features will affect their purchasing decisions.

Lossless audio formats: You are correct that most (perhaps all) of the HD-DVD and Blu-ray players available now perform the decoding of these new formats into PCM, and HDMI 1.3 is not required for transporting multi-channel PCM audio. We have heard some express that the decoding of these audio formats is usually done “better” by the electronics in an AV receiver, which would be an example of a case where HDMI 1.3’s ability to send the lossless formats in their encoded formats over the cable is needed.



How could an AV receiver uncompress a lossless format better? That is marketing spin. You are repeating an expression that would be equaviequivalent to someone saying that using program A to unzip a text file vs. using program B to unzip the same file results in a better text file somehow.

Of course, once the audio is uncompressed there is a great deal of difference in what your pre/pro or AV receiver can do to help you manage and play all those channels of sound on your speakers. Paying extra (buying HDMI 1.3 equipment) just so you can move the compressed audio streams around is a waste of money.

This page on dolby's website gives a great explanation about why you would rather send uncompressed pcm to your AV receiver. Take a look at page 3, which I'm quoting below
http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/trueHD/AVRs/trueHD_avrs_3.html

With six or eight channels of 24-bit/96 kHz audio to handle from these new HD formats, the post-processing DSP requirements for an A/V receiver more than double. Rather than devoting the considerable DSP resources to decoding the core audio signals within the A/V processor itself, it may be more fruitful to use the A/V processor’s DSP resources to perform high-resolution post-processing such as bass management, room or speaker equalization, Dolby Pro Logic® IIx decoding, or other types of digital signal processing.


This excellent thread has been going into great detail about the value, or lack thereof, in waiting for hdmi 1.3
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=786883

HDMI has just been a source of confusion and lots of marketing spin. Why not actually help consumers out by requiring manufacturers to spell out if their HDMI ports support multi channel audio, or bass management, or proper handling of the lfe channel? Because, that wouldn't sell new gear of course.

I don't think it's fair to characterize the benefits of HDMI 1.3 over previous versions as purely marketing hype. It's not inaccurate to say that 1.3 supports features that will allow for a better picture and audio quality to reach our eyes and ears. To claim that the use of the 1.3 pipeline alone will improve picture and audio without manufacturer and studio support would be inaccurate.

Obviously the full benefits of 1.3 will only be realized once 1) it is supported by the manufacturers of players, processors, recievers, and displays, and 2) it is supported by the studios mastering HD DVDs and BDs (source material). It's a safe bet that manufacturers will support it long before the studios will, as I'm not even sure that either HD optical format has the provisions to support higher frame rates and color depths at 1080p.

HDMI 1.3 does provide a larger pipeline to allow for higher picture and audio quality - the question is whether or not A/V manufacturers and studios are going to take advantage of that pipeline. I'd like to see it happen; as to whether it will in the near future is anyone's guess.

Thanks for taking the time to review and reply to my post HDMI_Org.


Greater bandwidth: The 10Gbps bandwidth can be used by manufacturers in a variety of ways. Think of HDMI as a data pipe which we've just made bigger and faster, but it's up to manufacturers to choose how they want to use it. Here are 3 performance features that we've identified as possible uses of the greater bandwidth:
1) higher resolution, such as 1440p or WQXGA (i.e. 30" LCDs running 2560x1600). A few TV makers have announced or demonstrated displays with these resolutions.
2) deeper color depths (10, 12, or 16-bit per component), which requires a greater amount of pixel data to be sent during the same amount of line frame time.
3) higher refresh rates (72, 75, 90, or 120Hz). At CES, quite a few LCD TV makers announced and demonstrated TVs support a 120Hz refresh rate, which appeared quite effective at reducing the LCD motion blur. With the new high def optical discs, the content is encoded on the disc at 1080p/24fps, yet a TV's display may support anywhere from 60-120Hz. Today, the player usually performs conversion from 1080p/24 to 1080p/60, while the TV might perform another frame rate conversion (say 1080p/60 to 1080p/120) with its own video processor to match the TV's best refresh rate. Many video processing experts will tell you that if you want to do the best job performing frame rate conversion, you should do it all at the content level because the raw/original encoded video (ex. MPEG4 video) has information about motion vectors and other data that allow the processor to apply the best algorithms and thus get the best quality. Compare that to the 2 step process I described above where the TV does not have any of the important video information that would help it do a better job with the frame rate conversion. For this reason, we may see some HDMI source devices be capable of sending a video timing such as 1080p at 120Hz refresh rate, which requires twice the bandwidth of 1080p/60.

Thanks for expanding on my point. Some questions if you please.

You seem to be implying that a single HDMI 1.3 connection can be used to connect to a 2560X1600 resolution display. The 2560X1600 displays that I had heard of use dual DVI connections. Are you aware of displays with resolutions greater than 1080p that will use a HDMI connection?

Also, of course HDMI's bandwidth can be used for more than the increased resolution that I mentioned. But some people are claiming that HDMI 1.3 lacks the bandwidth to support higher resolutions, AND deep color, AND xvYCC color space, AND higher refresh rates, etc. all through the same connection at the same time. Would it be possible to, say for the sake of argument, create a source device that could send a 1440p (or even 1080p) image with deep color using the xvYCC color space at 120 hz with lossless audio auto lip-synced to an A/V receiver/ display over a single HDMI 1.3 connection? Or would the source have to pick and choose which features to offer because of bandwidth limitations?


Deep color: At CES, we had a side by side demonstration of two identical LCD TVs being run with 8bit and 10bit color depth content generated from a PS3. The difference was obvious enough that all the visitors who saw the demo were able to see the differences without needed us to point out where to look and what to look for. I haven’t personally seen a 10 vs 12-bit side by side demo, but I have seem 10-bit content where I could still see some subtle banding, which leads me to think that the human eye can probably see the difference between 10 and 12-bit. In my discussions with video processing experts, they do claim that they can take 8-bit video content and apply a gamma extraction to smooth out the banding and deliver a pseudo 10-bit video experience. It appears a number of HD-DVD and BluRay player makers are betting that this will indeed yield a better experience, even though the content is natively encoded at 8-bit.

Some questions here too, please. I'm kinda surprised that you still saw some color banding at 10 bits. Are you aware of any 10+ bit content being discussed so far other than games? Have you seen a demonstration of 8 bit content being sent to a 10 bit display with and without "deep color" gamma extraction to see if a "pseudo 10 bit video experience" makes an appreciable difference? Since this seems to be what we'll have available for awhile with non-game content this comparison seems quite relevant.


Broader Color Space: Given the limitations of today’s color space, and the greater color gamuts that the TV’s can now produce, I expect this technology will trickle into more and more products over time. If you do a web search on xvYCC, I believe you will find other TV makers that have announced products supporting this.

I'm sure other manufacturers are working on displays that support the xvYCC color space, but are you aware of any upcoming content that supports the xvYCC color space other than consumer camcorders? What's in the pipeline for the future?


Lip Sync: Given that an HDTV will typically buffer the video anywhere from 2-4 frames, we’re talking anywhere from 33-67ms of video latency where you hear the audio first, then see the corresponding motion 33-83ms later. Our brains are wired to be relatively tolerant of audio that is somewhat behind the video (so the lips move, but the audio comes out with a bit of a delay), but we are relatively sensitive when the audio comes first, followed by video. Some people are more sensitive, some are less, so your perception will vary. If you listen to audio through the TV, this is generally not a problem because the TV has a built in audio buffer that delays the audio by the right amount to be in sync with its buffered video. But if you use an external device (i.e. AV receiver) to render your audio, now you have audio that is presented with almost delay, while the video comes out with somewhat more delay. The good news is that this feature is relatively simple & cheap to put into a TV, so we hope that it will become a standard feature in TVs quickly. Seeing more and more AV receivers and even some DVD players add an audio delay feature is a good sign that this feature is recognized as a useful benefit, and we hope that it becomes a more automatic and precise correction through HDMI.

We can all hope that auto lip-sync will be available, but I'm kinda confused as to why it doesn't seem to have happened yet if it's so simple and cheap. For example, Sherwood Newcastle's new $1500 R-972 A/V receiver and Sony's new $33,000 KDL-70XBR3 70" flat-panel LCD display both support some HDMI 1.3 features, but neither makes any mention of auto lip-sync in their product descriptions. Are you aware of any specific upcoming products that do support this feature?


Lossless audio formats: You are correct that most (perhaps all) of the HD-DVD and Blu-ray players available now perform the decoding of these new formats into PCM, and HDMI 1.3 is not required for transporting multi-channel PCM audio. We have heard some express that the decoding of these audio formats is usually done “better” by the electronics in an AV receiver, which would be an example of a case where HDMI 1.3’s ability to send the lossless formats in their encoded formats over the cable is needed.

Have you heard any "buzz" about future sources/content (meaning not Blu-ray or HD-DVD) that will take advantage of an A/V receiver's ability to decode the lossless audio formats?


Mini Connector: HDMI is distinct from USB in that USB can not support uncompressed HD video & audio due to its bandwidth restrictions. Using a lower bandwidth interface would require the content to be compressed by the source (which generally translates to higher cost & potentially quality degradation). In addition, the display would require a decoder to be able to decompress the content, which again implies cost & quality degradation. Also, there is greater possibility of incompatibility if the compression scheme used by the portable device is not supported by the TV. For these reasons, there are many benefits (lower cost, higher image quality, minimal risk of obsolescence or incomptiability) with using an uncompressed interface like HDMI. From a connectivity point of view, it’s quite common to find HDTVs with HDMI connectors (many now put one on the front or side panel specifically for portable devices), but it is not common to find an HDTV with USB connectors, much less the ability to accept a HD-video/audio stream over USB.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to mention USB as an alternative to HDMI 1.3 to connect to a display. I was just comparing USB's availability of a mini-connector for cameras etc. to HDMI 1.3's new mini-connector. Thanks for straightening that point out.


In summary, we created the HDMI 1.3 specification to enable these interesting features in new products, but it is up to the manufacturers to choose which features they implement and how, and of course, up to consumers to decide what features will affect their purchasing decisions.


This is a super point. It does seem to be wait-and-see as to whether HDMI 1.3's potential will be realized.

One last question. I've heard rumors that Silicon Image's current HDMI 1.3 chips don't support HMDI 1.3's full bandwidth potential and/or all of HMDI 1.3's features- so manufacturers can't yet make "Full HDMI 1.3" devices even if they wanted to. True or no?

For just one example, the Dolby article reference above says:


Dolby TrueHD and Dolby Digital Plus in A/V Receivers
Eventually (emphasis added), A/V receivers will have direct access to Dolby® Digital Plus or Dolby TrueHD bitstreams. We are working with the IEC and HDMI organizations to update data protocols to enable future versions of these high-bandwidth interfaces to carry these bitstreams.

"Working with HDMI organizations to update data protocols"!? Does the current version of HDMI 1.3 not support Dolby TrueHD and Dolby Digital Plus for A/V receivers? Is there any part of the so-far-announced feature set for HDMI 1.3 that isn't currently possible with the available standards/protocols and hardware?

Thanks again for your help,

kelpie

You seem to be implying that a single HDMI 1.3 connection can be used to connect to a 2560X1600 resolution display. The 2560X1600 displays that I had heard of use dual DVI connections. Are you aware of displays with resolutions greater than 1080p that will use a HDMI connection?

There are no HDMI products shipping yet that support over 1080p on HDMI, but I do expect this to change in the future. Given that HDMI can do what DVI dual link can do, but at a somewhat lower cost (because electronics are cheaper to support single link vs dual link), we expect to see manufacturers take advantage of this in the future. Initially, we’re seeing manufacturers use the deep color feature to take advantage of the higher bandwidths, but higher refresh rate & higher resolutions are the next logical trends.

Would it be possible to, say for the sake of argument, create a source device that could send a 1440p (or even 1080p) image with deep color using the xvYCC color space at 120 hz with lossless audio auto lip-synced to an A/V receiver/ display over a single HDMI 1.3 connection? Or would the source have to pick and choose which features to offer because of bandwidth limitations?

With the current maximum 340MHz of HDMI 1.3, this could support 1080p, xvYCC, 120Hz, 8-bit RGB, and the 8 channels of lossless surround sound audio. Note: xvYCC and the audio play no practical role into using the bandwidth. To push the next gen of performance, such as 1080p/12-bit RGB/120Hz, we would need to bump the speed up to 550MHz. While I can’t promise this would be something in the next HDMI spec, I can say that HDMI has the technical foundation to be increased well over the current 340MHz limit.

Are you aware of any 10+ bit content being discussed so far other than games? Have you seen a demonstration of 8 bit content being sent to a 10 bit display with and without "deep color" gamma extraction to see if a "pseudo 10 bit video experience" makes an appreciable difference? Since this seems to be what we'll have available for awhile with non-game content this comparison seems quite relevant.

As for other native deep color content, I would expect PC content (such as digital photography) to be the next one. Most digital cameras capture in 12bit or greater, and most graphics chips already have 12bit piping in their architecture. Eventually, I hope to see the HD-DVD and Blu-ray codec standards get upgraded to add the provision for defining the content in deep color as well. I have seen a demo of 8-bit content upscaled to 10-bit and displayed on a 10-bit LCD TV, and I can absolutely see the difference where banding was greatly reduced via the video processing. This made me a believer that video processing can still yield a good deep color experience even if the content is natively 8-bit.

I'm sure other manufacturers are working on displays that support the xvYCC color space, but are you aware of any upcoming content that supports the xvYCC color space other than consumer camcorders? What's in the pipeline for the future?

I haven’t followed the trends on the broadcast side to know whether this will be implemented or not. I believe the cost is quite minor for the HDMI chips, but is more a matter of whether the broadcasters will upgrade their camera’s to xvYCC, and whether the broadcast video standards (like MPEG2) can support it or not.

We can all hope that auto lip-sync will be available, but I'm kinda confused as to why it doesn't seem to have happened yet if it's so simple and cheap. For example, Sherwood Newcastle's new $1500 R-972 A/V receiver and Sony's new $33,000 KDL-70XBR3 70" flat-panel LCD display both support some HDMI 1.3 features, but neither makes any mention of auto lip-sync in their product descriptions. Are you aware of any specific upcoming products that do support this feature?

Unfortunately, I do not know of announced or launched products that support auto lip-sync correction at this time. I certainly hope to see it come into TVs very quickly this year at the least.

Have you heard any "buzz" about future sources/content (meaning not Blu-ray or HD-DVD) that will take advantage of an A/V receiver's ability to decode the lossless audio formats?

Can’t say that I am aware of any other content on the horizon besides HD-DVD and Blu-ray movies that will have the Dolby & DTS lossless formats. I suggest watching the Dolby & DTS websites to see what they might be announcing in the future.

One last question. I've heard rumors that Silicon Image's current HDMI 1.3 chips don't support HMDI 1.3's full bandwidth potential and/or all of HMDI 1.3's features- so manufacturers can't yet make "Full HDMI 1.3" devices even if they wanted to. True or no?

You’ll have to ask Silicon Image or refer to their website/documentation about the capabilities of their products. I’m not at liberties to comment on specific products.

For just one example, the Dolby article reference above says: "Working with HDMI organizations to update data protocols"!? Does the current version of HDMI 1.3 not support Dolby TrueHD and Dolby Digital Plus for A/V receivers? Is there any part of the so-far-announced feature set for HDMI 1.3 that isn't currently possible with the available standards/protocols and hardware?


This statement is not quite accurate regarding HDMI. HDMI 1.3 spec has all the required protocols included now to fully enable the design of a product that supports DolbyTrueHD. No updates are required.

Here are the specs for HDMI v1.3. These specs were approved in June 2006.

• Single-cable digital audio/video connection increased to 10.2 Gbps

• Increased color support, including 30-bit, 36-bit, and 48-bit color depths (RGB or YCbCr)

• Supports xvYCC color standards

• Supports automatic audio syncing capability

• Supports output of Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio streams (audio codec formats used on HD DVDs and Blu-ray Discs) for external decoding by AV receivers.

• Availability of a new mini connector for devices such as camcorders.

These specs provide sufficient bandwidth and bit rate to support the 1440p standard that is being played with in Japan and will probably hit here in the future. Remember, transmission of an HD 1440p signal is easily done with MPEG3 (just waiting in the wings) and most probable with MPEG4 - Part 10.

For a different take on this stuff, see this sticky thread from the Amps/Receivers/Processors forum here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=789994

There's no need to copy it all over here again.

Whether you call it hype or not, the simple fact is that many buyers are expecting more out of HDMI V1.3 than it can actually deliver -- in the real world -- over the next several years. There is nothing wrong with HDMI V1.3, per se. It's just that people see marketing terms like "Deep Color" and expect dramatic improvements which just aren't going to be there. Rather than touting things that lead to unrealistic expectations ("gee, maybe a miracle will occur and the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray formats will magically change somehow to allow movies that double the max data rate off disc, and the player you buy this year will magically know how to decode/handle that entirely new data format") why not just be up front about it and allow that Deep Color offers nothing to HD-DVD or Blu-Ray buyers, but is an enabling technology for future formats still several years away?

Rather than claiming that decreased banding or enhanced calibration will result from widening the HDMI transmission pipe, why not just be up front about it and allow that modern TVs *ALREADY* do more than 8-bit internal video processing, which is where it really matters? That THAT'S where the advantage lies?

The xvYCC color space is less of a problem, since most buyers have no clue what it is and wouldn't understand it if they did. But any claim that xvYCC support in HDMI V1.3 is going to mean ANYTHING to consumers of mass market, commercially produced content (i.e., movies you can buy on disc or TV shows you can tune into) for the balance of this decade is just plain wrong. Again, the limit is the content. You can't create a greater color gamut than is in the content to begin with.

Automatic Lip Sync correction is another example of something that buyers are reading way more into than is really there. Ask any DirecTV customer if he'd like to get rid, automatically, of some of the gross lip sync errors in his DirecTV viewing and of course he'll say yes. And how much effort is put into explaining to him that auto Lip Sync in HDMI V1.3 won't fix that? Or that the process of adjusting for the fixed, designed in, video processing delays in his TV is ALREADY trivial with a manual lip sync control in his AVR and a common, everyday calibration DVD?

How 'bout explaining to the poor HDMI V1.3 receiver buyer that HD-DVD titles authored for "advanced" content (i.e., virtually all such titles) or future Blu-Ray titles authored for "player profile 1.1" have to have their TrueHD or DTS-HD MA audio decoded *IN THE PLAYER* to play completely correctly, due to audio mixing that has to happen in the player and can't happen until after the packed audio formats are decoded?

HDMI V1.3 receivers with built-in decoders are just around the corner. And HD-DVD and Blu-Ray users who buy those receivers will eventually discover that their discs don't play the same "stuff" with their receiver doing the decoding as they can see at their friend's house if he has a player with the decoding built-in.

And the very idea of saying that decoding a lossless packed audio track into its component PCM streams in the player can POSSIBLY IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER be inferior to the same process in the HDMI V1.3 receiver is also just wrong. These formats are "lossless" because the PCM that comes out of decoding is bit for bit identical to the PCM that went into the encoder in the studio. The certification process by Dolby Labs and DTS is meant to insure this. The bits you end up with in the receiver are no different and no better.

And why on earth would the receiver treat incoming, pre-decoded PCM any worse than the PCM it might produce itself by internal decoding?

HDMI V1.3 is a useful next step in the HDMI standard. But there is significant misunderstanding in the buying community about what advantages it can really deliver and when it can deliver them. I don't think that is entirely the fault of the buyers.
--Bob

people see marketing terms like "Deep Color" and expect dramatic improvements which just aren't going to be there

It is possible to extract more than 8 bits per component resolution from the macroblocs in current codecs, and display that, even though no more than 8 bits were put in. That may not be the data that was put in there, but it might still lead to a picture with better perceived quality than a decoded that quantizes to 8 bits.

What's more important: when scaling (720 to 1080, or 1080 to 720), you will end up with intermediate color values, which certainly will have less banding if you use Deep Color. Even just 10 bits instead of 8 is a noticeable improvement.

Yes, you'll probably have to buy a new source (read: HD player), and scaler (read: receiver), but at least you can get some benefit even from the current content.

It is possible to extract more than 8 bits per component resolution from the macroblocs in current codecs, and display that, even though no more than 8 bits were put in. That may not be the data that was put in there, but it might still lead to a picture with better perceived quality than a decoded that quantizes to 8 bits.

What's more important: when scaling (720 to 1080, or 1080 to 720), you will end up with intermediate color values, which certainly will have less banding if you use Deep Color. Even just 10 bits instead of 8 is a noticeable improvement.

Yes, you'll probably have to buy a new source (read: HD player), and scaler (read: receiver), but at least you can get some benefit even from the current content.
This is advantage on the margins. Remember we are talking about what gets transmitted BETWEEN devices, not what gets done in the internal processing before that video gets sent out by any given device.

If the player does 10 (or 12) bit internal processing, and sends 8 bit results to a scaler which does 10 (or 12) bit internal processing, and sends 8 bit results to a display, which then does 10 (or 12) bit internal processing for things like gamma correction, you will, I suspect, get essentially all of the advantage you are anticipating. And of course better players, scalers and displays ALREADY do this.

But that aside, if you ask the average buyer what Deep Color in HDMI V1.3 means to him you are going to get a very different take than the reality. It's really no different than a few years back when buyers really thought that you could turn SDTV into HDTV just by scaling up the resolution.

It's worse in some senses this time, because buyers actually believe HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs will deliver, in fact, Deep Color content, and not enough people are telling them otherwise.
--Bob

There is nothing wrong with HDMI V1.3, per se.Well, actually, there is: all these wonderful features are OPTIONAL. Claiming 1.3 compliance per se does not mean much: pretty much any device on the market today with HDMI connector can claim such compliance. No 1.3 device has to provide support for DeepColor nor xvYCC nor hi-def audio, not even lip-sync.
I completely agree with your point about content, or lack thereof. But this is always the case with a new technology: content providers and mastering software developers have no way even to test their material until there is delivery mechanism, and there is no delivery mechanism until it's hyped up to deliver money. :)
Small note about audio mixing in a player: 1.3 has enough bandwidth to be able to provide multiple audio streams to be mixed in a receiver. Is it useful, or is there any advantage to that? I don't know. I don't even know if 1.3 has a provision for that. But it can be done.

ptsenter,
Although this is certainly a problem for consumers -- made more so by the fact that manufacturers can't agree what to CALL this stuff in their marketing materials, thus making it even harder to tell whether any given product implements any given feature -- I don't really balk at that. HDMI V1.3 is enabling technology, as it should be. The market will determine which features get pushed and which lag behind. Some features will take years to pan out.

What I balk at is letting people believe that something is there which really isn't.

Toshiba, for example, is putting out shelf placards for their XA2 player which tout HDMI V1.3 and note its "Deep Color" technology. This despite the fact that they know full well there is *NO DISC* that player can play, now or in the future, which actually contains Deep Color content. Their advertising is technically correct but deliberately misleading.

Unfortunately that's the state of the market right now. HDMI V1.3 is becoming a buzzword -- a check-off item -- with deliberately slippery meaning.

Caveat emptor.
--Bob

Small note about audio mixing in a player: 1.3 has enough bandwidth to be able to provide multiple audio streams to be mixed in a receiver. Is it useful, or is there any advantage to that? I don't know. I don't even know if 1.3 has a provision for that. But it can be done.1.3 has a provision up to 8 audio streams.

1.3 has a provision up to 8 audio streams.
What about the control information to instruct the mixer? Remember the user interface is in the player and instructions come from the disc itself.

I would point out that neither Dolby Labs nor DTS has even suggested in their materials that it might be possible for the mixing to take place downstream of the player. They have talked about bypassing the mixing -- essentially not doing it -- but not about moving it to the receiver.
-- Bob

HDMI V1.3 is enabling technology, as it should be.
Apparently, it's not enough. Case in point: HDMI Org is working on, first, a way to prevent manufacturers to come up with their own names for the same features, second, to make sure for consumers to understand what's actually implemented and what not.
What I balk at is letting people believe that something is there which really isn't.And this is HDMI's fault first, manufacturers - second.

HDMI V1.3 is becoming a buzzword -- a check-off item -- with deliberately slippery meaning.Ditto.

What about the control information to instruct the mixer? Remember the user interface is in the player and instructions come from the disc itself.

I would point out that neither Dolby Labs nor DTS has even suggested in their materials that it might be possible for the mixing to take place downstream of the player. They have talked about bypassing the mixing -- essentially not doing it -- but not about moving it to the receiver.
-- Bob
1.3 allows control information (even the most elaborate) to be passed also, even so it's, guess what, optional.
What Dolby Labs and DTS are doing is totally different. I don't know their reasoning, which probably has nothing to do with HDMI. It does not mean it can't be done.

1.3 allows control information (even the most elaborate) to be passed also, even so it's, guess what, optional.
What Dolby Labs and DTS are doing is totally different. I don't know their reasoning, which probably has nothing to do with HDMI. It does not mean it can't be done.
Well this is interesting in its own way, but of course the reality is that NOBODY is suggesting HDMI V1.3 receivers will actually implement the unique audio mixing and control requirements separately defined for the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray formats just to offload those functions from the players. Nor that players will be designed to ship out multiple audio tracks plus mixing control info.

So really we're back where we started: Despite HDMI V1.3, proper playback of current, "advanced" HD-DVD discs and future, "player profile 1.1" Blu-Ray discs will require audio decoding and mixing in the player. And the result of that is a set of PCM streams that works just fine over HDMI V1.1 or V1.2.
--Bob

Real uncompressed high definition video content is created in 10 and 12 bit digital signal processing environments. Some compressed HD video content is created in 8 bit.

Fake high definition, known as HDV, is a consumer video acquisition format being pushed by some manufacturers as legit HD. It is and highly compressed out of the camera as a mpeg2 stream with some color space data limitations. It often normally bandings, pixelations, and dropouts.

Higher levels of high definition acquisition and processing are right around the corner with new technology peeking out from under the covers. These new HD formats will take advantage of the increased data rates afforded by HDMI v1.3 and provide the engines to push the entire content creation chain forward to take advantage of the various increased capacities afforded by HDMI v1.3.

Granted, manufacturers can be counted on to hype and deceive us about their products. However, when one finally takes advantage of new features enabled by new technology with the availability of the new HD content, the others will fall in line merely to maintain the appearance of being on the cutting edge.

So, yes. The implementation of HDMI v1.3 will undergo some time and much hype and lies until one manufacturer takes full advantage of the new video and audio capabilities of v1.3 coupled with their 'proprietary' HD dvd delivery format. Once this occurs, the rest will jump in line and HDMI v1.3 will then be utilized to provide full functionality of its capacities.

scriptshooter,
Sure. HDMI has to lead the way with the V1.3 spec so that development like this can happen. There will also be plenty of improvement out there that is independent of the extensions introduced in V1.3 -- i.e., it is equally well supported by V1.1.

For example, one of the most important changes in the very near term is that superior video de-interlacing and scaling solutions are starting to migrate down into affordable products. These don't depend on HDMI V1.3, but you can bet that some manufacturers will tie the two together in marketing materials in an effort to get people to replace older HDMI products with newer V1.3 products sooner than they need to. I.e., implying that you need a new HDMI V1.3 standard DVD player to take advantage of what's actually improved de-interlacing and scaling in a new TV that also happens to be HDMI V1.3.

In the effort to promote HDMI, whether V1.3 or not, spokespeople should be careful not to oversell things that way.

It is also the case that non-mass market formats will precede new mass market formats. Many enthusiasts enjoyed HD quality movies on D-Theater tapes well before HD-DVD and Blu-Ray were launched. And perhaps new enthusiast formats will start to appear that take advantage of the HDMI V1.3 feature set.

But nobody should confuse buyers into thinking that this has anything to do with the REAL mass market formats -- i.e., HDTV (whether off air, cable, or satellite), HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, or standard DVD.

New mass market formats will, eventually, come out of course. The gestation period will likely be similar to that for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. I.e., years. The issue is not whether a technology or combination of technologies can support a new feature from capture to display. The issue is how to get enough industry backing behind some new set of technologies to launch a new, incompatible format. And for HDTV to change you also have to allow for the swap out of capital equipment in the networks and local stations.

But have no doubt that there are technology issues here as well. Current technology for digitizing film stock can't even reach 1920x1080 resolution yet. Deep Color capture has its own challenges. And of course not all movies can be computer generated. End-to-end, digital, live movie production will likely be the eventual solution, but it is still early days.

This is not reason for giving up. It's just reason for saying spokespeople should be cautious when touting immediate advantages from HDMI V1.3.

And HDMI will also be tarnished if manufacturers continue to take the minimalist approach to implementation. Manufacturers are already feeling the heat because far too many HDMI V1.1 and V1.2 implementations don't handle 1080p resolution for example (which is, of course, optional). And that doesn't even get into the whole interoperability and connection robustness issue.

[It is fundamental that the HDCP and EDID processing issues get resolved, and perhaps Simplay will finally do that. I'm skeptical.]

I suppose what bothers me more than anything is that buyers are being led to believe that they HAVE TO update all of their equipment to HDMI V1.3, when in fact HDMI V1.1 or V1.2 alone, or a mix of HDMI V1.3 with those, will actually yield the same results, for all practical purposes, even for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, over at least the next couple years.

My personal take on this is as follows:

* If you want to buy a product now, there is no reason to wait for HDMI V1.3. You can do all the fun and useful stuff over the next couple years with a well engineered HDMI V1.1 or V1.2 product, of which there are many. So if you see a product you like and it happens to be a good implementation of "only" HDMI V1.1, then go for it.

* Nor is there reason to pay a premium for HDMI V1.3. There is no immediate enhanced value which justifies premium pricing. It is all future potential that is at least a year or two out, and in many cases more.

* But there's also no reason *NOT* to get it! If the product you like happens to come with HDMI V1.3 then fine! And don't feel you have to change out all your other HDMI products at the same time. Just be sure that everything ELSE the product does justifies what you are being asked to pay for it.

That last point needs to be qualified in one particular. Using HDMI V1.3 to HDMI V1.3 connections at their highest data rate will require cables engineered for that. Folks who are doing in-wall cabling, particularly for longer runs, may run into problems when they finally put HDMI V1.3 products on both ends of the cable and crank it up. Although HDMI V1.3 cabling provisions are in place, it is hard for consumers to know which cable manufacturers are actually doing the right thing here because there is not yet enough HDMI V1.3 consumer gear out there -- and none at all that implements the highest bandwidth HDMI V1.3 connections yet -- for real user feedback.
--Bob

If the player does 10 (or 12) bit internal processing, and sends 8 bit results to a scaler which does 10 (or 12) bit internal processing, and sends 8 bit results to a display, which then does 10 (or 12) bit internal processing for things like gamma correction, you will, I suspect, get essentially all of the advantage you are anticipating.

That's not true. You'd be better off to send the 10 (or 12) bits through the entire chain, because they you don't suffer data collapse when quantizing to 8 bits. 8 bits is NOT enough to cover the entire visible dynamic range without banding.

I fully expect to see HD players (or even up-scaling SD players) that actually output useful data beyond the 8th bit. You can get that data by using more precision when decoding the macroblocks (which may or may not have been encoded from > 8 bit source data), or, perhaps more meaningfully, when the device does processing such as scaling, tweening, or other kinds of interpolation.

That's not true. You'd be better off to send the 10 (or 12) bits through the entire chain, because they you don't suffer data collapse when quantizing to 8 bits. 8 bits is NOT enough to cover the entire visible dynamic range without banding.

I fully expect to see HD players (or even up-scaling SD players) that actually output useful data beyond the 8th bit. You can get that data by using more precision when decoding the macroblocks (which may or may not have been encoded from > 8 bit source data), or, perhaps more meaningfully, when the device does processing such as scaling, tweening, or other kinds of interpolation.
Why do you think HDMI YCbCr 4:2:2 data format has not been more widely implemented then, since it already enables up to 12 bits each of Y, Cb, and Cr (at the expense of cutting the horizontal color resolution in half)? It's been enabled in HDMI for some time.

I would also suggest that what most people see as banding is actually a result of poor calibration -- particularly poor gamma correction -- or limitations within the display devices themselves, not the transmission of the image to them.
--Bob

re: 10bit output

There are DVD players that output 10bit YCbCr 4:2:2 for 480p and higher. I imagine the processing is done at 12 bits.

larry

re: 10bit output

There are DVD players that output 10bit YCbCr 4:2:2 for 480p and higher. I imagine the processing is done at 12 bits.

larry
Yes, for that limited set of displays / AVRs that will accept it and use it properly. It's never been that big a deal outside of the enthusiast community. Most likely because it didn't come with a nifty marketing name like "Deep Color".

In most cases, internal processing is also only 10 bits, I believe. Of course what comes out of the DVD decoder itself (after color upsampling) is only 8 bit YCbCr 4:2:2, derived from the mere 8 bit YCbCr 4:2:0 on the disc itself.

It's been available in HDMI for quite some time. Again, we are talking advantage on the margins -- not to be ignored, but not to be oversold either. This is not some great revelation of quality that deserves the spin being given to "Deep Color".
--Bob

1.3 allows control information (even the most elaborate) to be passed also, even so it's, guess what, optional.
What Dolby Labs and DTS are doing is totally different. I don't know their reasoning, which probably has nothing to do with HDMI. It does not mean it can't be done.
Just curious here, but are you talking about the CEC "control" data channel? I mean that's for really low bandwidth stuff emulating remote control codes right? I'm not at all certain that could be used to control an audio mixing process properly.

------------------------------------

Also, where did you find the info on up to 8 audio streams? I can see support for up to 8 audio CHANNELS in one bitstream, but not for multiple bitstreams that could be mixed.
--Bob

Great discussion- a couple points I'd like to make:

This is not reason for giving up. It's just reason for saying spokespeople should be cautious when touting immediate advantages from HDMI V1.3.

And HDMI will also be tarnished if manufacturers continue to take the minimalist approach to implementation. Manufacturers are already feeling the heat because far too many HDMI V1.1 and V1.2 implementations don't handle 1080p resolution for example (which is, of course, optional). And that doesn't even get into the whole interoperability and connection robustness issue.

Valid comment, and agreed. When HDMI Licensing does promotion of new capabilities in the spec, we make an effort to emphasize in our messaging that these capabilities are not mandatory, but options available for manufacturers to implement. In addition, some manufacturers will do a better job with the implementations vs others. Keep in mind that HDMI is an industry standard (like USB or Bluetooth), not a "privately" held brand (like THX or Faroudja), so the manner by which we control product implementations is quite different from private brands.

In response to the confusion, we are actively working to update the way that the HDMI name and associated trademarks are branded. I do agree that allowing a manufacturer to make a blanket claim that their product is "HDMI 1.3" and then offer no additional information about which specific 1.3 features are supported is not good for the consumer. We have lately have been closely working with major electronics retailers, who provide us with a very clear voice of the consumer.

I suppose what bothers me more than anything is that buyers are being led to believe that they HAVE TO update all of their equipment to HDMI V1.3, when in fact HDMI V1.1 or V1.2 alone, or a mix of HDMI V1.3 with those, will actually yield the same results, for all practical purposes, even for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, over at least the next couple years.


We try to stay as neutral and factual as possible in our messaging, and our FAQ's and presentations do emphasize that some functions (such as 1080p and Dolby TrueHD over PCM) do not require HDMI 1.3. We're sensitive to consumers who fear that HDMI's evolution will cause their equipment to become obsolete (again, feedback from retailers helps keep our messaging in check in this regard as well). But again, the way that press & manufacturers market their products, features, and the expectations their messages set with consumers is completely separate from our efforts & messaging.

When we describe Deep Color, we state the facts: it increases the precision of color values from millions to billions of possible values, which is of value considering that displays now have large contrast ratios that can show banding artifacts when they have fewer brightness values to choose from. For Dolby TrueHD: it is a lossless audio surround sound format that duplicates the audio quality in the original movie, whereas current formats utilize a lossly (but high quality) compression. We do not state how noticeable these differences are, nor do we push consumers to upgrading all their equipment to the latest version.

How noticeable is the improvement when a HD-DVD/Bluray player takes the 8-bit content from the disc and applies video processing to updither to 10 or 12-bit color depth? How noticeable is xv.Color vs today's color gamut standard? How noticeable is a lossless surround sound format vs. today's formats? Our answer is: go see for yourself. Our interface allows manufacturers to make products that give consumers the choice and decide for themselves.

Personally, I have seen/heard demo's of all of these technologies, and I have my own opinions that will determine what I buy. I would encourage all to do the diligence of seeing/hearing products that demonstrate these features for themselves before forming a final judgment on how significant or noticeable they are.

We have lately have been closely working with major electronics retailers, who provide us with a very clear voice of the consumer.


Really? Seems to me with that approach you're only going to get the retailers voice ....Why not just work directly with consumers?


But again, the way that press & manufacturers market their products, features, and the expectations their messages set with consumers is completely separate from our efforts & messaging.


?
Either this is a falsehood or willful ignorance on the part of HDMI's founders. "We only provide the cigarettes, we don't smoke them"

Can you name any other electronic standards that have been brought to market in such a fashion with optional features and a psuedo-spec?

If I go to a car dealer and buy a "Fuel Injected V6", then I expect 6 cylinders firing and no carburetor.

What HDMI is trying to do is market a connector as a consumer electronics device....a conceit I doubt many consumers appreciate. I don't think you can have it both ways.

Someone really needs to pull the emergency stop cord and get this all straightened out. When consumers catch on to the scam manufacturers (and big box retailers) will perpetuate (either intentionally or unintentionally), I'll bet there will be scores of class action lawsuits across the whole industry. (but Mr. Salesman said it would work, its HDMI 1.3!). This is basic false advertising, I'd think.




When we describe Deep Color, we state the facts: it increases the precision of color values from millions to billions of possible values, which is of value considering that displays now have large contrast ratios that can show banding artifacts when they have fewer brightness values to choose from. For Dolby TrueHD: it is a lossless audio surround sound format that duplicates the audio quality in the original movie, whereas current formats utilize a lossly (but high quality) compression. We do not state how noticeable these differences are, nor do we push consumers to upgrading all their equipment to the latest version.


I think HDMI's basic flaw, one that you've touched on several times, is that features are optional. If you're going to market this like a "hardware/software" platform, then this is insane IMHO. If you come out with HDMI1.4 and say it has ABDCF features then all products carrying HDMI1.4 branding should carry those ABCDF features, period. If they don't, then don't brand them, that simple. Cut and dried. Anything less and I predict you're going to have people screaming in the aisles at the big box....If MFG wants to offer enhanced functionality (Deep color) then fine...but make that the fine print, not the other way around.

At least HDMI_Org sounds like they're listening, thats a start.

Really? Seems to me with that approach you're only going to get the retailers voice ....Why not just work directly with consumers?
You might be surprised at how well the retailers know the consumer. When consumers buy something that does not work or does not meet their expectations, the retailers get hit with returns, which cut right into their profit and expenses. As a result, they do significant analysis of returns and other data that gives a good sense of how to sell product in a way that reduces profits and gets return business.

Working directly with consumers would be great, but there isn't an official end consumer based organization to work with. We chose to participate in this forum as a first step, though I would say the members here tend to be more sophisticated and higher end than typical consumers. We attend several trade shows and conferences each year to reach out to end consumers, and we set up our website to appeal to end consumers and we offer direct email to contact our staff. If you have other suggestions, we're all ears. But keep in mind that we're a standards organization, so we have to choose how we use our relatively lean expense budget and staff to get the highest bang for the buck. We can’t, for example, have a staffed kiosk at every retail store in the country.

Can you name any other electronic standards that have been brought to market in such a fashion with optional features and a psuedo-spec?
There are a few other standards I could compare to:
DVI: supporting any resolution over 640x480 is an option (supporting 720p, 1080i, 1080p, XGA, SXGA, UXGA, etc. are all options). In fact, it wasn't until about 3 years after DVI was created that UXGA support was common on DVI PCs. Supporting analog (DVI-I) is an option. Supporting dual link is an option. Supporting HDCP is an option. And there is no distinction in the logo or trademark to convey this to the consumer.
1394: supporting any compression format (DV, MPEG2, MPEG4, AVC) is an option. There’s no guarantee that your MPEG4 camcorder will work with a TV's 1394 connector if the TV does not support the camcorder’s particular compression codec.
Bluetooth: great number of profiles and modes are optional.

HDMI_Org

Sorry for delay, I just noticed your response.

I think you shifted my perspective a little. The one thing in common all those connection standards have is that they're all data (digital) versus analog. HDMI cable hookups need to be as transparent (in an ease of use context, not auditory) as using plain old component, composit, rca, etc cables....and I realize everyone's working to improve.

Looking back at my own experiences and what I've read in the forums, the set top box fiasco is probably the greatest driver of dissatisfaction with HDMI to date. SA and cable companies didn't do the industry any favors with their buggy, slow to market implementations. Given that they had been using DVI successfully for many years before switch, seems like they should have done better job.

I'll reiterate though, I believe HDMI as a standard should offer a set minimum of functionality to be called HDMI , whether in a cable or a device: 2.0/AC-3 5.1 Audio, 480P/480i/720P/1080i/1080P, HDCP. If it can't do these basics, it shouldn't ship, period.

All the other bells and whistles (Deep color, High end audio formats, 2 way communication) ...well, I can understand point you're getting at, mfg offering different options at different price points.

But an acceptable (and I think quite reasonable) baseline for certification would go a long way I think.

Being "data (digital) versus analog" doesn't mean all the data is there. Computers lead us to expect that data transmitted digitally means perfect transmission. It's true for computers only because of error checking. When one copies a file from one disk to another the computer has error checking routines that assure that what was sent is the same as what was received (e.g. a perfect copy.)

That's not what the current HDMI standard does. It's more like your digital cell phone - dropouts and all. HDMI has no error checking, so any data that is lost in transmission is just lost for good (that's what's happening when you get those white specks on the screen.) Unless the new HDMI 1.3 standard departs from streaming the data, the same loss should be expected.

In addition, the current HDMI is designed to run balanced instead of unbalanced, which limits cable length unless lots of lost bits is acceptable.

MTATech,

You bring up a good point; thats another layer to the subject. I doubt the caching mechanism required to achieve guaranteed lossless transmission is going to make its way into the standard anytime soon...but with flash memory prices dropping like a rock, who knows.

HDTV over Ethernet anyone?

MTATech,

You bring up a good point; thats another layer to the subject. I doubt the caching mechanism required to achieve guaranteed lossless transmission is going to make its way into the standard anytime soon...but with flash memory prices dropping like a rock, who knows.

HDTV over Ethernet anyone?HDTV over Ethernet would be a dream; cat 5e is cheap and easy to snake; 350 ft. cable runs; and of course, wireless connections.

But it's only a dream.

HDTV over Ethernet What are you guys talking about?
HDMI goes all the way up to 10.2Gbps of uncompressed data.
Ethernet: most common - 100Mbps. Gigabit - 1Gbps, but it's probably more expensive than HDMI already.
10Gigabit - well, 10Gbps, in its infancy and, definitely much more expensive than HDMI. Add to that Ethernet overhead and it still not enough to sustain HDMI requirements to bandwidth.
And Ethernet itself does not guaranty lossless transmission: UDP is legitimate protocol.
No foreseeable amount of cash will hold 2 hours of movie.
Some compression might ease a load, but lossless compression in real time is roughly 2 : 1 at best, but HDMI already looking beyond 10.2.
My guess HDMI will archive longer runs sooner than 10Gigabit make it into our living rooms.

Standard cat5e, at about $75/1,000 ft, can perform 1Gb. A 50 ft. HDMI cable is $100. And Ethernet itself does not guaranty lossless transmissionSure, if you cut the wire or have a tremendous amount of noise on the line, the signal will never get through. That's not what generally meant. There is usually some interuption of signal and the protocol handles that loss. Ethernet retransmits lost packets, that's why a buffer is needed. But one doesn't need a buffer to hold the whole movie. That rediculous. One needs just a buffer large enough to delay a short amount of time until the retransmitted packets are received.

The 10 Gigabit specifications are contained in the IEEE 802.3ae supplement to the 802.3 standard and run over fiber. Will such a thing come to pass for home video? Who knows, but the very discussion represents the frustration with HDMI.

Standard cat5e, at about $75/1,000 ft, can perform 1Gb. A 50 ft. HDMI cable is $100.
Cable is just a small part of a standard. Even computer networks have not switched to Gigabit yet.
Sure, if you cut the wire or have a tremendous amount of noise on the line, the signal will never get through. That's not what generally meant. There is usually some interuption of signal and the protocol handles that loss. Which protocol? UDP does not have a feedback, it's one-way street.
Ethernet retransmits lost packetsEthernet itself does not transmit nor retransmit anything.
that's why a buffer is needed. But one doesn't need a buffer to hold the whole movie. That rediculous. One needs just a buffer large enough to delay a short amount of time until the retransmitted packets are received.

The 10 Gigabit specifications are contained in the IEEE 802.3ae supplement to the 802.3 standard and run over fiber. Will such a thing come to pass for home video? Who knows, but the very discussion represents the frustration with HDMI.Buffer (cache) used when there is a source which delivers data much faster than target (sink) can consume. e.g., DVD burner as sink and hard drive as source. In case in question HDMI sink (TV) consumes data at (sustain)rate 10.2Gbps, whereas source delivers data at (maximum) rate 1Gbps: sink consumes in 1 sec what it takes for source at best 10 sec to deliver. You need >9 sec cache, or 90% of the movie. :eek:
Nobody can accuse me of being a fan of HDMI, and not only implementations but HDMI itself. But to suggest 1Gbps in any shape or form can handle HDMI requirements is no less ridiculous. :)

Being "data (digital) versus analog" doesn't mean all the data is there. Computers lead us to expect that data transmitted digitally means perfect transmission. It's true for computers only because of error checking. When one copies a file from one disk to another the computer has error checking routines that assure that what was sent is the same as what was received (e.g. a perfect copy.)

That's not what the current HDMI standard does. It's more like your digital cell phone - dropouts and all. HDMI has no error checking, so any data that is lost in transmission is just lost for good (that's what's happening when you get those white specks on the screen.) Unless the new HDMI 1.3 standard departs from streaming the data, the same loss should be expected.

In addition, the current HDMI is designed to run balanced instead of unbalanced, which limits cable length unless lots of lost bits is acceptable.

I posted a more detailed response here regarding HDMI's error correction and other methods used to maintain fairly high reliability of data transport:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10603513&&#post10603513

In short, we use a variety of tricks such as intelligent encoding algorithms, and usage of industry standard Error Correction Coding parity. So I would not agree that HDMI operates like a technology that simply drops data randomly during normal usage like a cell phone.

And I would respectfully disagree with your disagreement. The video portion of the HDMI transport is a one way transmission without an error correction scheme. Line codings like 8B/10B do not count. Fortunately, consumers cannot usually see these errors until the error rate gets really bad.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10745828&&#post10745828

What lays beyond HDMI 1.3 anyway? Is there another standard looming that does correct these shortcomings?

And I would respectfully disagree with your disagreement. The video portion of the HDMI transport is a one way transmission without an error correction scheme. Line codings like 8B/10B do not count. Fortunately, consumers cannot usually see these errors until the error rate gets really bad.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10745828&&#post10745828
You make some decent points, but what's to be done? HDMI works for 99.99% of people using it and maybe more if you disregard HDCP handshaking issues which is not HDMI's fault. It's consumer electronics, not electronic banking tech. :) And the problem with lost data is at long cable lengths. This can be avoided, but people don't want to pay the money for the solution(s).

larry

Usually there is a more elegant solution than throwing money at the problem. And just because this is not electronic banking data, or maybe a better analogy, medical devices, doesn't mean that the consumer should accept or expect mediocracy.

Last year I did a poll here on AVS, and the results showed that far less than 99.99% of people have no problems with HDMI:
http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=628980

HDMI over Ethernet is kind of like putting on your jogging suit to take a taxi across town. Both are a transport mediums for digital video (among other things). So perhaps what should really be discussed is digital video over Ethernet, which already exists in various forms.
The issue that has been pointed out is that 100Mb Ethernet doesn't have the bandwidth to do fully uncompressed HD video. If you throw away some of the inefficient parts of the data, or slightly compress (lossless), you can squeeze 1080i/720p over Gigabit Ethernet. 10Gigabit Ethernet is coming, but not ready for primetime yet. 1080p/60/24 bit color, uncompressed is around 3Gbit/sec of actual information. 1080p/24 frames/24 bit color which would be more useful for film, is only about 1.2Gbit/sec of information.

So for HDTV applications, 10.2Gb/sec is not required. These are big numbers that make the technology sound impressive, but in reality are only required to support desktop PC resolutions and 48 bit color depth.

What I read is a genuine disenchantment, from videophiles, about a standard that is designed to toss some data to the wind based upon the assurance from advocates that unless the loss gets really bad you can't notice it. Such a view cuts across the grain of perfectionists who are likely to visit this site. It also poses practicle problems such as limitation on cable length.

It's also true that HDMI train is backed by the powerful motion picture industry and this train isn't stopping because some video buffs think it's not good enough (http://bluejeanscable.com/store/dvi/index.htm) .

Unless someone else is going to design a better standard (e.g. invest), that also meets the concerns of copy protection, I'm afraid we're stuck here.

You make some decent points, but what's to be done? HDMI works for 99.99% of people using it and maybe more if you disregard HDCP handshaking issues which is not HDMI's fault. It's consumer electronics, not electronic banking tech. :) And the problem with lost data is at long cable lengths. This can be avoided, but people don't want to pay the money for the solution(s).

larry

I agree. The issues not related to HDCP can be and should be resolved by good implementation so HDMI is fine in itself and should be the default interface for years to come. From a technical perspective on transporting video, something like DisplayPort seems better, but once all the DRM efforts have been thrown in, we'll be left with the same issues that plague HDMI.

In other words, I'm not confident there will be anything better. Which is why the priority should be on finding ways to address the HDCP/DDC issues in the HDMI world (which needs to be done anyways if it is to be used for DisplayPort as well)

In some of the other posts (I believe in one of the insider's threads), it was correctly stated that HDMI 1.3 basically future proofed itself with the potential for higher bandwidths, etc., but it did not state any new minimum feature set to be called HDMI 1.3. I think this is the core of all the complaints about the new HDMI 1.3 standard from many posters in this forum because one may never know what you will be getting when a vendor states their equipment is HDMI 1.3 compliant. Most of the existing 1.2 (and possibly 1.1) equipment could be certified as HDMI 1.3 compliant if it were re-submitted today. In fact, I don't think Authorized Test Centers even offer HDMI 1.1 or 1.2 test services anymore. This is certainly where the HDMI Org could have done a better job in avoiding to confuse consumers.

For a different take on this stuff, see this sticky thread from the Amps/Receivers/Processors forum here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=789994

There's no need to copy it all over here again.

Whether you call it hype or not, the simple fact is that many buyers are expecting more out of HDMI V1.3 than it can actually deliver -- in the real world -- over the next several years. There is nothing wrong with HDMI V1.3, per se. It's just that people see marketing terms like "Deep Color" and expect dramatic improvements which just aren't going to be there. Rather than touting things that lead to unrealistic expectations ("gee, maybe a miracle will occur and the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray formats will magically change somehow to allow movies that double the max data rate off disc, and the player you buy this year will magically know how to decode/handle that entirely new data format") why not just be up front about it and allow that Deep Color offers nothing to HD-DVD or Blu-Ray buyers, but is an enabling technology for future formats still several years away?

Rather than claiming that decreased banding or enhanced calibration will result from widening the HDMI transmission pipe, why not just be up front about it and allow that modern TVs *ALREADY* do more than 8-bit internal video processing, which is where it really matters? That THAT'S where the advantage lies?

The xvYCC color space is less of a problem, since most buyers have no clue what it is and wouldn't understand it if they did. But any claim that xvYCC support in HDMI V1.3 is going to mean ANYTHING to consumers of mass market, commercially produced content (i.e., movies you can buy on disc or TV shows you can tune into) for the balance of this decade is just plain wrong. Again, the limit is the content. You can't create a greater color gamut than is in the content to begin with.

Automatic Lip Sync correction is another example of something that buyers are reading way more into than is really there. Ask any DirecTV customer if he'd like to get rid, automatically, of some of the gross lip sync errors in his DirecTV viewing and of course he'll say yes. And how much effort is put into explaining to him that auto Lip Sync in HDMI V1.3 won't fix that? Or that the process of adjusting for the fixed, designed in, video processing delays in his TV is ALREADY trivial with a manual lip sync control in his AVR and a common, everyday calibration DVD?

How 'bout explaining to the poor HDMI V1.3 receiver buyer that HD-DVD titles authored for "advanced" content (i.e., virtually all such titles) or future Blu-Ray titles authored for "player profile 1.1" have to have their TrueHD or DTS-HD MA audio decoded *IN THE PLAYER* to play completely correctly, due to audio mixing that has to happen in the player and can't happen until after the packed audio formats are decoded?

HDMI V1.3 receivers with built-in decoders are just around the corner. And HD-DVD and Blu-Ray users who buy those receivers will eventually discover that their discs don't play the same "stuff" with their receiver doing the decoding as they can see at their friend's house if he has a player with the decoding built-in.

And the very idea of saying that decoding a lossless packed audio track into its component PCM streams in the player can POSSIBLY IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER be inferior to the same process in the HDMI V1.3 receiver is also just wrong. These formats are "lossless" because the PCM that comes out of decoding is bit for bit identical to the PCM that went into the encoder in the studio. The certification process by Dolby Labs and DTS is meant to insure this. The bits you end up with in the receiver are no different and no better.

And why on earth would the receiver treat incoming, pre-decoded PCM any worse than the PCM it might produce itself by internal decoding?

HDMI V1.3 is a useful next step in the HDMI standard. But there is significant misunderstanding in the buying community about what advantages it can really deliver and when it can deliver them. I don't think that is entirely the fault of the buyers.
--Bob


Bob, you are my Hero! With your permisssion can I link to this post the next time I see some mistruths spread? Like say in the 2007 bSony SXRD thread, where they are all yammering about Deep Color like its the second coming of Jesus Christ or the Onkyo 605 thread?

That marketing of this type exists (& more to the point works, is one thing), that it is so prolific on some threads here , at the Audio Video Science forum is disturbing.

Deep color: At CES, we had a side by side demonstration of two identical LCD TVs being run with 8bit and 10bit color depth content generated from a PS3. The difference was obvious enough that all the visitors who saw the demo were able to see the differences without needed us to point out where to look and what to look for. I haven’t personally seen a 10 vs 12-bit side by side demo, but I have seem 10-bit content where I could still see some subtle banding, which leads me to think that the human eye can probably see the difference between 10 and 12-bit. In my discussions with video processing experts, they do claim that they can take 8-bit video content and apply a gamma extraction to smooth out the banding and deliver a pseudo 10-bit video experience. It appears a number of HD-DVD and BluRay player makers are betting that this will indeed yield a better experience, even though the content is natively encoded at 8-bit.If we are to assume that the HDMI 1.3 Spec is the defacto definition of “Deep Color”, then it seems what you are describing above is not “Deep Color” as defined by that spec. As I read it, only 4:4:4 source material is permitted as “Deep Color” and if a source OR display does support it, it needs to support 12 bits / component, (in addition to 10) to be worthy of “Deep Color” status. Also, if a display (sink) doesn’t support 12 bits / component, then a source shouldn’t output more than 8 per the spec. I didn’t think a PS3 could deliver 4:4:4 or that there was any 4:4:4 content encoded for it. Was the content a game or BD / DVD?

Color depths greater than 24 bits are defined to be “Deep Color” modes. All Deep Color modes are optional though if an HDMI Source or Sink supports any Deep Color mode, it shall support 36-bit mode.

YCBCR 4:2:2 is not permitted for any Deep Color mode.

For each supported Deep Color mode, RGB 4:4:4 shall be supported and optionally YCBCR 4:4:4 may be supported.

An HDMI Source shall not send any Deep Color mode to a Sink that does not indicate support for that mode.

Dave

In some of the other posts (I believe in one of the insider's threads), it was correctly stated that HDMI 1.3 basically future proofed itself with the potential for higher bandwidths, etc., but it did not state any new minimum feature set to be called HDMI 1.3. I think this is the core of all the complaints about the new HDMI 1.3 standard from many posters in this forum because one may never know what you will be getting when a vendor states their equipment is HDMI 1.3 compliant. Most of the existing 1.2 (and possibly 1.1) equipment could be certified as HDMI 1.3 compliant if it were re-submitted today. In fact, I don't think Authorized Test Centers even offer HDMI 1.1 or 1.2 test services anymore. This is certainly where the HDMI Org could have done a better job in avoiding to confuse consumers.

Agreed and well taken. We've been having a lot of conference calls with an HDMI Marketing Council to address this specifically, and hope to have something out shortly.

If we are to assume that the HDMI 1.3 Spec is the defacto definition of “Deep Color”, then it seems what you are describing above is not “Deep Color” as defined by that spec. As I read it, only 4:4:4 source material is permitted as “Deep Color” and if a source OR display does support it, it needs to support 12 bits / component, (in addition to 10) to be worthy of “Deep Color” status. Also, if a display (sink) doesn’t support 12 bits / component, then a source shouldn’t output more than 8 per the spec. I didn’t think a PS3 could deliver 4:4:4 or that there was any 4:4:4 content encoded for it. Was the content a game or BD / DVD?

Thanks for taking the diligence to read the HDMI spec- I realize that takes a good bit of work to do this. Yes, the demo from the PS3 at CES was generating actual 4:4:4 content. It was a software game demo. I believe that there are other Deep Color playback devices on the market that take 8-bit 4:2:2 YCC content off the disc, and use upscaling/video processing to turn the output video into 12-bit 4:4:4.

Your interpretation of the spec is correct. If the TV reports itself as not supporting Deep Color (i.e. an older 8-bit TV), then a Deep Color enabled source is required to be able to ratchet back to a non-Deep Color mode.

What's the difference between HDMI 1.3 And HDMI 1.3a?

What will be the nomenclature for the next iteration of HDMI?

What's the difference between HDMI 1.3 And HDMI 1.3a?
"1.3a 2006/11/10 Cable and Sink modifications for Type C (Table 4-20, 4.2.6)
Source termination recommendation (after Table 4-15)
Removed undershoot and max rise/fall time limits (4.2.4).
Modified slope of TP1 and TP2 eye diagrams (4.2.4, 4.2.5)
HDMI cable assembly AC-coupling support required (4.2.6)
CEC capacitance limits changed (4.2.10)
Valid range for RGB video quantization added (6.6)
Added audio sample rate exceptions for ARC (7.3, 7.3.1, 7.3.2)
Added Audio Rate Control Overview (7.11)"

Since 2005 (including) HDMI Org issues updates to the standard (about) every half a year.
There is 1.3b issued about a month or two ago.

Do the actual 1.3a and 1.3b cables make any difference with displays that use previous HDMI specifications? In other words if your display is HDMI 1.2--will using a HDMI1.3a or HDMI 1.3 b cable make any difference?

Cables only matter if (for whatever reason,) they fail at a certain bandwidth. Most HDMI cables should support all current used bandwidths.

It's possible some HDMI cables won't pass some of the higher bandwidths supported in HDMI 1.3.

I seem to recall HDMI was taking some steps to properly label cables. I admit to not being able to give any specifcs (and I could be wrong.)

Given the very high bandwidths HDMI 1.3 is capable of, the cost of manufacturing and certifying a cable capable of the max HDMI 1.3 bandwidth might be unreasonable. Most people are simply not going to need more bandwidth than is needed for 1080p with 5.1 (or perhaps 7.1 in the future) LPCM audio.