HDMI 2.0 CEDIA Webinar - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 226 Old 03-23-2014, 06:59 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 1,136
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 857

Last week, I attended a webinar hosted by CEDIA (Custom Electronics Design and Installation Association) called "HDMI 2.0: A Look Into the Standard." The presenters were Steve Venuti, President of HDMI LLC; Jeff Park, Technical Specification Manager of HDMI, LLC; and Michael Heiss, CE industry consultant and jolly-good CEDIA Fellow as well as chair of the CEDIA Technology Council.

 

I didn't learn much that I don't already know, but it was a good reminder that the version number doesn't mean much other than a list of possible features that manufacturers might or might not implement. That's why HDMI Licensing wants companies to indicate what HDMI features they have included in their products rather than simply touting "HDMI 2.0." That number refers only to the specification that defines what features are supported, not what must be implemented.

 

HDMI 2.0 ups the maximum bandwidth from 10.2 gigabits per second to 18 Gbps, which can be carried on existing high-speed HDMI-certified cables. However, extenders, boosters, and any other electronics in the HDMI signal chain—including Redmere booster chips and HDBaseT—probably can't support that bitrate without a hardware upgrade.

 

The increase in bandwidth is made possible by a new, more efficient signaling method. Even better, the interface uses the previous signaling method for traffic below 10.2 Gbps, then kicks in the new signaling above that, which means it's completely backward compatible with HDMI 1.4 devices.

 

New features supported by HDMI 2.0 include the ability to transmit 4K video at 50 and 60 frames per second (with some limitations, which I'll get to in a moment) and up to 32 channels of audio with a sample rate up to 1536 kHz. Also, new commands have been added to CEC (Consumer Electronics Control, the ability to control multiple connected devices from one remote), and all commands must be implemented rather than being optional as in previous versions—a welcome requirement even if it flies in the face of HDMI's otherwise feature-optional paradigm. Other features include support for the Rec.2020 color space, dual viewing (two programs displayed on the same TV and isolated for each viewer with glasses, much like 3D), multi-stream audio, dynamic auto lip-sync, and the 21:9 aspect ratio.

HDMI 2.0 adds many new features to the HDMI spec. (Graphic from HDMI Licensing, LLC)

 

As I said earlier, HDMI 2.0 can handle 4K/UHD at 50 and 60 frames per second, but there are some limitations—in particular, in the bit depth and level of color subsampling it can convey. For those who are unfamiliar with color subsampling, it's a type of data compression in which some color pixels are discarded from a component-video signal and reconstructed by the display. It's specified as a series of three numbers—the most common schemes are 4:4:4, 4:2:2, and 4:2:0. Because color subsampling applies to component-video signals, the first number refers to the black-and-white pixels, while the second and third numbers refer to the color-difference pixels.

 

With 4:4:4, no color pixels are discarded, while 4:2:2 discards half the color pixels, and 4:2:0 discards 75% of the color pixels, which reduces storage and transmission-bandwidth requirements. However, the less color subsampling that is used, the better the image quality, especially in terms of clean transitions between colors. Amazingly, Blu-ray uses 4:2:0 and still manages to achieve great picture quality.

 

Using 4:2:0 color subsampling, HDMI 2.0 can convey 4K/UHD at 50/60 fps with up to 16 bits of resolution per color. This provides tremendous dynamic range—far more than the current HD system, which uses 8-bit resolution. If the color subsampling is 4:2:2, HDMI 2.0 can accommodate up to 12 bits of resolution for 4K/UHD at 50/60 fps. And at 4:4:4, HDMI 2.0 is limited to 8 bits for 4K/UHD at 50/60 fps. This presents a conundrum for video-content creators and consumers, who want the best possible specs all around.

 

As more data is transmitted, the bandwidth requirements increase. Notice how much bandwidth is required for 8K (4320/60p) at 4:4:4 with 12-bit resolution—far more than HDMI 2.0 can support! (Graphic from HDMI Licensing, LLC)

 

I suspect—hope, actually—that the UHD system will settle on 4:2:2 at 12-bit resolution, but that is far from certain at this point. A resolution greater than 8 bits is critical to support a higher dynamic range without visible banding, which is even more important than the increased number of pixels in my opinion. And less-aggressive color subsampling will yield sharper transitions between colors.

 

HDMI 2.0 also supports the Rec.2020 specification, which includes a much wider color gamut than the current Rec.709. This allows content and displays to accurately reproduce many more colors than today's Blu-rays and HDTVs.

 

Rec.2020 specifies a much larger color gamut than the current standard of Rec.709. (Graphic from HDMI Licensing, LLC)

 

Many people ask me about alternatives to HDMI—in particular, DisplayPort. As you can see in the following table, DisplayPort 1.2 does offer a somewhat higher overall bandwidth than HDMI 2.0, and much higher Ethernet bandwidth. It also transmits some power and USB communications. DisplayPort is common in the world of computers, but HDMI is so entrenched in the consumer-electronics industry that I doubt it will ever be replaced by DisplayPort. HDBaseT also carries power and USB along with HDMI signals, but its overall bandwidth is the same as HDMI 1.4 until its hardware is upgraded.

 

DisplayPort 1.2 offers a bit more overall bandwidth, but HDMI is too entrenched in the CE industry to be supplanted. (Graphic from HDMI Licensing, LLC)

 

The bottom line is that the term "HDMI 2.0" means next to nothing when trying to figure out the specific capabilities of a particular piece of gear. It's up to consumers to discover which features a manufacturer has included in its products, which can be added in a firmware update, and which will never be implemented. Hopefully, manufacturers will start explicitly listing the features they include in each product, making it easier for consumers to select the gear that's right for them.

 

Like AVS Forum on Facebook

Follow AVS Forum on Twitter

+1 AVS Forum on Google+


Scott Wilkinson
AVS Editor
Scott Wilkinson is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 226 Old 03-23-2014, 07:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,613
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 423 Post(s)
Liked: 749
some of that sounds better than expected, for once.

but I'm curious, when you're saying the features are optional, are you talking in regards to the displays and sources, not the cables right?

I mean, I'm a little confused with what is actually changing. sounds like for the shorter cable lengths, the cables don't actually need to be changed, but I'm sure they will be relabelled as '2,0' now that there is a standard for it. so for cables, they would be able to support ALL those features listed, correct?

and then, the displays, like has always been, would need to specify what features they support. just like current displays may have hdmi1.4 inputs, but not be 3d capable. and the same thing for sources, just because it has an hdmi 2,0 output, that only means it will pass 18gbps, but the features will still be independently listed. has this not always been the case? or are you saying a display/source may list hdmi2.0 but not support 18gbps? and they can claim that simply because an hdmi 2.0 cable can be plugged into it?

the other thing that interested me was the support for 21:9. After seeing the possibilities of a CIH system with a projector, I find it hard to find a downside to using a wider display and doing the same thing. well, the downside being how difficult is it to get content that's not broadcast in 4:3 around here, but hopefully that would 'have' to change

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #3 of 226 Old 03-23-2014, 07:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BrolicBeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Charles County, MD
Posts: 2,895
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 153 Post(s)
Liked: 295
An absolutely outstanding article Scott. I've been enlightened quite a bit.
BrolicBeast is offline  
post #4 of 226 Old 03-23-2014, 08:19 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 1,136
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

some of that sounds better than expected, for once.

but I'm curious, when you're saying the features are optional, are you talking in regards to the displays and sources, not the cables right?

I mean, I'm a little confused with what is actually changing. sounds like for the shorter cable lengths, the cables don't actually need to be changed, but I'm sure they will be relabelled as '2,0' now that there is a standard for it. so for cables, they would be able to support ALL those features listed, correct?

and then, the displays, like has always been, would need to specify what features they support. just like current displays may have hdmi1.4 inputs, but not be 3d capable. and the same thing for sources, just because it has an hdmi 2,0 output, that only means it will pass 18gbps, but the features will still be independently listed. has this not always been the case? or are you saying a display/source may list hdmi2.0 but not support 18gbps? and they can claim that simply because an hdmi 2.0 cable can be plugged into it?

the other thing that interested me was the support for 21:9. After seeing the possibilities of a CIH system with a projector, I find it hard to find a downside to using a wider display and doing the same thing. well, the downside being how difficult is it to get content that's not broadcast in 4:3 around here, but hopefully that would 'have' to change


The cables only convey data; they don't care what those data are. HDMI-certified high-speed cables can convey 18 Gbps, no matter what specific features are included in that datastream.

 

Some manufacturers claim that certain 2013 products have "HDMI 2.0" with a bandwidth of 10.2 Gbps, and that's technically true in that they could handle 2160p/60 at 4:2:0 with 8-bit resolution, which requires a bandwidth of 8.91 Gbps. That's technically HDMI 2.0, but those products can't handle higher specs, so calling it HDMI 2.0 is a bit misleading in my book. Upping the bandwidth to 18 Gbps requires new hardware, which wasn't even available last year.


Scott Wilkinson
AVS Editor
Scott Wilkinson is online now  
post #5 of 226 Old 03-23-2014, 08:19 PM
Member
 
dew42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Saskatoon, Canada
Posts: 182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Was there any talk of 3D? 1080p 3D with 48/60 fps or 2160p 3D with 24/30 fps? I think I'd prefer HFR over 4K for 3D.
LDizzle likes this.
dew42 is online now  
post #6 of 226 Old 03-23-2014, 08:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,540
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 511 Post(s)
Liked: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by dew42 View Post

Was there any talk of 3D? 1080p 3D with 48/60 fps or 2160p 3D with 24/30 fps? I think I'd prefer HFR over 4K for 3D.

I'd rather have 12 bit 4:2:2 and a wider color gamut and object audio than 3D.
leevit, Dhalmo and dmarqueset like this.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #7 of 226 Old 03-23-2014, 08:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
iatacs19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: DC Metro
Posts: 1,241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 25
I am liking the new CEC-Extension being a requirement. It's about damn time we can use any remote for any/all devices.
Dhalmo likes this.
iatacs19 is offline  
post #8 of 226 Old 03-23-2014, 11:20 PM
Member
 
dew42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Saskatoon, Canada
Posts: 182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I'd rather have 12 bit 4:2:2 and a wider color gamut and object audio than 3D.

I'd hope the bandwidth 3D adds would have no impact on 2D in the HDMI spec. I'd like 12 bit 4:2:2 for 2D and 3D. The compromise I suggested to give up 4K to get HFR would be for 3D only.

Looking at the numbers above; 1080/60p 4:4:4 16 bit uses 8.91 Gbps. Times two for 3D would be just under the 18 Gbps limit.
dew42 is online now  
post #9 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 01:06 AM
Senior Member
 
golem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 308
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Ah so when the Sony X950b only lists 3840x2160/60p (YCbCr 4:2:0 8bit), it means it probably wasnt built using the newer faster bandwidth hardware? Thats disappointing.
golem is offline  
post #10 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 03:04 AM
Member
 
Matthias Hutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 23
I hope more TVs offer DisplayPort 1.2/1.3 connectors, for some 4k/60p 16bit 4:4:4 goodness.
But the need for copy protection forced them to use HDMI
Dhalmo and Phrehdd like this.
Matthias Hutter is online now  
post #11 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 03:11 AM
Advanced Member
 
blah450's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 905
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 118
^^^^^^^This...and is anyone else ready to have more secure connection points at terminals rather than just the slip-in-style of HDMI?
JP32, porpie and Elliot Ell like this.
blah450 is offline  
post #12 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 04:00 AM
Senior Member
 
Phrehdd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Pity about DisplayPort. Perhaps Apple will enter into the foray with the option for DisplayPort given its new dealings with Comcast and also potential entrance into 'media displays' (TVs as it were). Apple is perhaps the only company that could bend the trend to move forward with HDMI 2.0. Then again, I don't want to be victim to Apple's Henry Ford mentality.
dapala likes this.
Phrehdd is offline  
post #13 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 04:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 2,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 190
I'm confused about the 3D comments. Why would 3D require more bandwidth than 2D? Don't 3D and 2D use the same number of pixels?
KidHorn is offline  
post #14 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 05:21 AM
Member
 
MikeyD360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 184
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 21
So anyone who wasted $20K on Sony's 4K projector, or LG's 84" UHD TV now has an expensive paperweight given HDMI2.0 standards didnt exist when these were released... hands up who saw that coming... biggrin.gif
leevit, hawkfan, bluewaves and 2 others like this.
MikeyD360 is offline  
post #15 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 06:20 AM
Member
 
keb33509's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 96
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post

I'm confused about the 3D comments. Why would 3D require more bandwidth than 2D? Don't 3D and 2D use the same number of pixels?

Twice as many, seeing as it processed two video streams at once.
keb33509 is offline  
post #16 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 06:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 2,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by keb33509 View Post

Twice as many, seeing as it processed two video streams at once.

So if you have a 4k TV, 2D renders 2160 lines but 3D renders 4320 lines. How is that possible?
KidHorn is offline  
post #17 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 07:34 AM
Member
 
keb33509's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 96
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Granted this is in an HDMI 2.0 discussion, you never specified 4K. 4K 3D if/when it becomes available would render two 2160p images at a time. 1080p 3D renders two full 1080p images at once. It still increases the required bandwidth regardless if the 3D is 1080 or 2160. There are two simultaneous video feeds being supplied with 3D Blu-Ray.

It doesn't increase the pixel count, it is only the amount of bandwidth it has to process at once.
keb33509 is offline  
post #18 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 07:37 AM
Member
 
dew42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Saskatoon, Canada
Posts: 182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
We need HEVC over HDMI.
dew42 is online now  
post #19 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 07:47 AM
Advanced Member
 
hidefpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 884
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 37
"The bottom line is that the term "HDMI 2.0" means next to nothing when trying to figure out the specific capabilities of a particular piece of gear. It's up to consumers to discover which features a manufacturer has included in its products, which can be added in a firmware update, and which will never be implemented. Hopefully, manufacturers will start explicitly listing the features they include in each product, making it easier for consumers to select the gear that's right for them."

Thanks again Scott, as always, a great report.

Now, let me just start by saying that I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with the HDMI Organization, letting the product manufactures provide the consumer with which parts of the HDMI 2.0 spec they will be offering in their product. I believe that ALL HDMI 2.0 products should adhere to the COMPLETE SPEC, with ALL FEATURES IMPLEMENTED, PERIOD!

This entire HDMI cabling 1.0 - 2.0 (mess as I call it), can be confusing to even some AVS enthusiast, let alone the common Joe consumer out there, imagine the confusion they will run into.
Another issue I have is that, the HDMI Org should NOT ALLOW manufactures to implement specs OVER FW up-grades..... you could be waiting months or even a year for a FW. (Pioneer BDP-51 - DTSMA FW anyone- almost 1 year wait for FW)
Personally the HDMI association is putting way too much faith in the manufactures. Either that, or they are trying to please them given the mess the HDMI Org has put this entire industry in.

To the HDMI ORGANIZATION - DO IT RIGHT OR DON"T DO IT AT ALL!!!

Paul
hidefpaul is offline  
post #20 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 07:51 AM
Advanced Member
 
bluewaves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Macungie,PA
Posts: 767
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyD360 View Post

So anyone who wasted $20K on Sony's 4K projector, or LG's 84" UHD TV now has an expensive paperweight given HDMI2.0 standards didnt exist when these were released... hands up who saw that coming... biggrin.gif

Never buy the first gen of any product
blake18 and hawkfan like this.
bluewaves is offline  
post #21 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 08:36 AM
Senior Member
 
BNestico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Elysburg, Pennsylvania
Posts: 351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 139
Seeing that I was still in high school when HD was becoming prevalent and was more worried about chasing tail than tv resolution, was there this much confusion/disagreement about SD vs HD as there currently is between HD and UHD?

Panasonic P60U54
Pioneer VSX-1122 K
Polk Audio RTi8's, CSi5, RTi6's, OWM3's
SVSound PC12 Plus, PC Ultra (12")
PS3, PS2
BNestico is offline  
post #22 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 08:52 AM
Member
 
leevit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyD360 View Post

So anyone who wasted $20K on Sony's 4K projector, or LG's 84" UHD TV now has an expensive paperweight given HDMI2.0 standards didnt exist when these were released... hands up who saw that coming... biggrin.gif
The very good reason to just wait it out, and not buy the 1st gen of new tech.!
blake18 and hawkfan like this.

piss off then
leevit is offline  
post #23 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 08:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
vaktmestern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 156 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Dont trust Sonys 2.0hdmi software upgrade tongue.gif
vaktmestern is online now  
post #24 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 09:14 AM
Member
 
docevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I'd like to know about the backwards compatibility aspect... The overwhelming majority of film is 24fps with no sign of change in the foreseeable future.

What would happen in the scenario where an HDMI 2.0 2160/30p 12bit 4:2:2 source is plugged into a UHD display that is HDMI 1.4b (which supports 2160/30p 12bit 4:2:2)?
ZAPMAN likes this.
docevil is offline  
post #25 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 10:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
BrolicBeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Charles County, MD
Posts: 2,895
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 153 Post(s)
Liked: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by BNestico View Post

Seeing that I was still in high school when HD was becoming prevalent and was more worried about chasing tail than tv resolution, was there this much confusion/disagreement about SD vs HD as there currently is between HD and UHD?

Not as much confusion at all. Everyone, no matter who you asked, agreed to the superiority of HD (which was much simpler back then. No features--just a better picture, and--of course-- the option to use Component cables ).
BrolicBeast is offline  
post #26 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 11:19 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 1,136
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by golem View Post

Ah so when the Sony X950b only lists 3840x2160/60p (YCbCr 4:2:0 8bit), it means it probably wasnt built using the newer faster bandwidth hardware? Thats disappointing.


That is correct.


Scott Wilkinson
AVS Editor
Scott Wilkinson is online now  
post #27 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 12:06 PM
Member
 
ssb201's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
While I am all for HDMI 2.0 finally coming out, and I, myself have waited for it to be released before upgrading my gear. There does seem to be a great deal of confusion:

1) For the most part HDMI 1.4b is more than sufficient 4K (2160p content). When it comes just to video, unless you want 3D @ 2160p or 4:4:4 color at greater than 8 bit there is no need to move to HDMI 2.0. Movies do not require higher frame rates than 24 or 30 frames per second. The only use for the higher frame rates offered by HDMI 2.0 is gaming and no consoles support the standard so that leaves PCs only. Eventually we will have 4K Blu-ray or some other standard 3D which will require the bandwidth, but not right now. I do wonder- is it possible to update firmware on HDMI 1.4 devices to support 1080 at 48p?

2) Just about every cable works for every version of the standard. I have never met an HDMI cable under 10 feet that would not work. The same should hold with 2.0. People who are confused by cabling are either dealing with long runs or are bamboozled by the marketing and labeling.
ssb201 is offline  
post #28 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 12:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JohnAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 6,497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssb201 View Post

1) For the most part HDMI 1.4b is more than sufficient 4K (2160p content). When it comes just to video, unless you want 3D @ 2160p or 4:4:4 color at greater than 8 bit there is no need to move to HDMI 2.0. Movies do not require higher frame rates than 24 or 30 frames per second. The only use for the higher frame rates offered by HDMI 2.0 is gaming and no consoles support the standard so that leaves PCs only. Eventually we will have 4K Blu-ray or some other standard 3D which will require the bandwidth, but not right now. I do wonder- is it possible to update firmware on HDMI 1.4 devices to support 1080 at 48p?
Along that line of discussion, my concern is with so called HDCP 2.2 associated with HDMI 2.0 and backwards compatibility with existing 4K ready equipment. We had two years of gear that can easily pass 4K@ 24/30 Hz, now because the HDMI.org is wanting to revise HDCP we might have a situation where future media might not be backwards compatible with current 4K ready gear because that group insists on a new HDCP flag only associated with HDMI 2.0 devices. Nice huh?

Oppo Beta Group
JohnAV is offline  
post #29 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 12:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AV_Integrated's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Northern, VA - Washington, DC
Posts: 2,963
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 161 Post(s)
Liked: 283
Nobody, at all, seems to address the audio aspect.

While the majority of people will just hook up to their TV 6 feet away, it is the more complex setups that have been completely screwed over by HDMI for years.

A/V receivers do NOT support digital audio output to zone 2. There are some limited exceptions to this, but the rule is that if you have 10 sources hooked up via HDMI, and you want those sources available to a second zone, such as outside, or in another room, you must hook up analog audio to get the stereo sound in those spaces. Despite this, A/V receivers have been dropping their analog audio inputs, components have been dropping their analog audio outputs, and consumers are left out in the cold.

The hope would be that as a STANDARD, HDMI 2.0 will feature full surround sound and a separate stereo audio mix which is fed across the same HDMI cable. Any multi-zone A/V receivers will be able to pull the stereo feed off any HDMI connection at any time, and still use surround sound for the local feed.

Better yet, receivers with a second HDMI output for zone 2, would be able to feed zone 1 with surround sound, and zone 2 with stereo embedded on HDMI.

They don't talk about it, then don't work hard with it.

As for HDMI CEC - it hasn't worked yet, and I have no belief that it will anytime soon.

Finally, ARC seems to always require CEC, which is worthless if CEC isn't actually working properly, like it isn't right now. HDMI CEC should be one of the coolest features of HDMI, and is a complete failure IMO. Soundbars should use it, A/V receivers should use it, and it should just be something those products can request at any point with, or without CEC for the rest of the functionality.

Ah well, nobody is willing to tell anyone what is really going on, so consumers will remain confused, and installers will make promises that can't be fulfilled. Business as usual.
blazar, barrelbelly, TMcG and 1 others like this.

AV Integrated - Theater, whole house audio, and technology installation in the Washington DC metro area.
AV_Integrated is offline  
post #30 of 226 Old 03-24-2014, 12:48 PM
Newbie
 
jabba359's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North Hollywood, CA U.S.A. Earth
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post

I'm confused about the 3D comments. Why would 3D require more bandwidth than 2D? Don't 3D and 2D use the same number of pixels?

Quote:
Originally Posted by keb33509 View Post

Twice as many, seeing as it processed two video streams at once.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post

So if you have a 4k TV, 2D renders 2160 lines but 3D renders 4320 lines. How is that possible?

First off, your math is wrong. Doubling your lines actually quadruples your image resolution due to the lines doubling in both width and height.

But that's not quite how it works anyway, as the "twice as many" statement comes from the quantity of frames per second transmitted by 3D, not from an increase in resolution.

2D -> 24 frames per second total. (3840x2160=8,294,400 pixels per frame x 24 frames every second=199,065,600 pixels every second)
3D -> 24 frames per second to the left eye + 24 frames per second to the right eye = 48 frames per second total, which is twice as many frames as 2D. (3840x2160=8,294,400 pixels per frame x 24 frames every second=199,065,600 pixels every second per eye. Multiply that by two eyes and it equals a total count of 398,131,200 pixels every second that it's transmitting! That's a lot of pixels!)

The same holds true for 30 frames per second video: 30 FPS in 2D, or 30 (left eye) plus 30 right eye in 3D.

I hope this was more helpful than confusing! smile.gif
danielb6752 and Dhalmo like this.
jabba359 is offline  
Reply HDMI Q&A - The One Connector World
Gear in this thread

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off