AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › HDMI cables already fit for 2160p120 / 2 × 2160p60?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HDMI cables already fit for 2160p120 / 2 × 2160p60?

post #1 of 8
4/21/12 at 12:10pm
Thread Starter 
Just saw this. There it reads, "340 MHz (15.8 Gbps)" and, "It delivers uncompressed 2160p/120 Hz high definition video with up to 48-bit deep color, eight channels of 192/24 digital audio for ultimate 7.1 surround sound, and an integrated control channel all in one cable."

So, are there cables (maybe even the ones installed in our homes) already available that are capable of delivering a 4K film in high-frame rate 3D? Are the bigwigs from the HDMI Forum just waiting for what they deem enough content accessible to the home media market before officially giving their blessings for that frame rate to be used? (PC users would appreciate it today)

As opposed to many here, I don't mind so much replacing hardware (not that I particularly like it, though) as I do ripping out cable that I've painstakingly installed over long distances and in a rather complicated manner (stupid me thinking it to be fairly long-term future-proof).

Why the hell couldn't the industry at least have defined 2160p120 as a standard years ago? I wouldn't have been expecting to be buying a 4K Casino Royale BD back then, but it would've been nice to know that I could continue using my cables and, like, my AVR - I mean, why introduce a new HDMI chip every few friggin' years when one capable of handling 2160p120 could've easily been developed in the noughties?
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 8
4/21/12 at 1:36pm
There is so much wrong with the ad for that cable. For one thing, 340 MHz is 10.2 Gbps.

A short cable may be capable of exceeding 10.2 Gbps, but it is a moot point. The electronics at either end are currently at best limited to 300 MHz or so, less than the maximum.

I believe the HDMI Forum is considering boosting the maximum bit rate in the next specification to help usher in higher resolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Alucard View Post

...why introduce a new HDMI chip every few friggin' years when one capable of handling 2160p120 could've easily been developed in the noughties?

Because most people wouldn't have been able to afford it. Remember the first HDTVs? There were around $30,000.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 8
4/21/12 at 9:29pm
I've been told the cable CAN handle the bandwidth from multiple sources, just not the port processors on either end of the cable (not part of the cable).
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 8
4/24/12 at 6:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Alucard View Post

Just saw this. There it reads, "340 MHz (15.8 Gbps)" and, "It delivers uncompressed 2160p/120 Hz high definition video with up to 48-bit deep color, eight channels of 192/24 digital audio for ultimate 7.1 surround sound, and an integrated control channel all in one cable."

There are two things in that product description that are wrong. The first is that a 340 MHz HDMI cable has a bandwidth of 10.2 Gbps which is what all High Speed HDMI cables are tested at. The second is that the product description states that it is capable of "2160p/120 Hz high definition video with up to 48-bit deep color" which is the most absurd claim I have ever seen for an HDMI cable. For reference 2160p30 with 24-bit color requires a bandwidth of 297 MHz (8.9 Gbps) and currently the HDMI specification only allows for bandwidth of up to 340 MHz (10.2 Gbps). There are several other Cablesson HDMI cables that also have this absurd claim in their product descriptions which includes even a 30 foot HDMI cable. To say the least the product descriptions should be fixed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Alucard View Post

So, are there cables (maybe even the ones installed in our homes) already available that are capable of delivering a 4K film in high-frame rate 3D?

To deliver 2160p120 video with 48-bit color over HDMI (with the blanking intervals being the same percentage) would require about 7 times the maximum bandwidth that the HDMI specification currently allows (71.3 Gbps compared to 10.2 Gbps).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Alucard View Post

Are the bigwigs from the HDMI Forum just waiting for what they deem enough content accessible to the home media market before officially giving their blessings for that frame rate to be used? (PC users would appreciate it today)

The main issue is coming up with a way to cheaply send the HDMI signal at a much higher bandwidth. DisplayPort has it much easier when it comes to bandwidth since the signal method is more advanced and the required distance for passive cables is 3 meters. As for the future at the CES 2012 HDMI press conference (starting at 11:40 in the video) it was announced that the next HDMI specification would be capable of 2160p60.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 8
4/27/12 at 4:14am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colm View Post

Because most people wouldn't have been able to afford it. Remember the first HDTVs? There were around $30,000.

I was just talking about AVRs there (of which, even highest-end models a bit older than a year can't handle 3D images), and I wouldn't have expected them to do any 4K upscaling and such, just being able to forward native signals once they become available to be fed sometime down the line Â- just some kind of mild future-proofing for some expensive components instead of none at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

To deliver 2160p120 video with 48-bit color over HDMI (with the blanking intervals being the same percentage) would require about 7 times the maximum bandwidth that the HDMI specification currently allows (71.3 Gbps compared to 10.2 Gbps).

a) Is that number (71.3 Gbps) with or without losslessly compressed 7.1 audio?

b) And that will require new cables, right?

c) What are "blanking intervals"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

As for the future at the CES 2012 HDMI press conference (starting at 11:40 in the video) it was announced that the next HDMI specification would be capable of 2160p60.

a) Then, AGAIN, gear supporting that barely won't hit the market before becoming obsolete, as it wouldn't be able to handle higher-frame rate 4K 3D stuff (like The Hobbit or Avatar 2)! And, sorry, it isn't the best idea to try to constantly piss off the enthusiasts and not only have them replace hardware all the time, but re-buy entire film libraries over and over. Some constraints made that unavoidable in the past, but this time, there's no excuse. They should be thankful someone's still willing to actually pay for content, so it's not smart to make them look dumb vis-Ã*-vis the pirates.

b) Would 2160p60 require new cables?
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 8
4/27/12 at 11:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Alucard View Post

a) Is that number (71.3 Gbps) with or without losslessly compressed 7.1 audio?

The audio data is so small compared to the video data that HDMI puts it in the blanking intervals for the video data. Also 8 channels of 24-bit 192-kHz audio is only 36 Mbps.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Alucard View Post

b) And that will require new cables, right?

Probably, though 71.3 Gbps bandwidth is so far away from being possible with HDMI it is pure speculation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Alucard View Post

c) What are "blanking intervals"?

HDMI is based on an even older technology called DVI. DVI was only made to transmit video and to separate the video information it used blanking intervals. This article gives a figure of a HDMI frame and this article gives a figure for a 3D HDMI frame. For DVI the blanking intervals contained no useful data but with HDMI it was used to transmit additional information including audio. As such the bit rate for HDMI doesn't change when it transmits audio.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Alucard View Post

a) Then, AGAIN, gear supporting that barely won't hit the market before becoming obsolete, as it wouldn't be able to handle higher-frame rate 4K 3D stuff (like The Hobbit or Avatar 2)! And, sorry, it isn't the best idea to try to constantly piss off the enthusiasts and not only have them replace hardware all the time, but re-buy entire film libraries over and over. Some constraints made that unavoidable in the past, but this time, there's no excuse. They should be thankful someone's still willing to actually pay for content, so it's not smart to make them look dumb vis-Ã*-vis the pirates.

I am not sure why you are getting mad at the studios and here is a link to a page that lists the companies that belong to the HDMI Forum. Based on everything I have read those companies are simply developing HDMI with the idea of balancing the issues of bandwidth, cable length, and cost.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Alucard View Post

b) Would 2160p60 require new cables?

That depends on how they increase the bandwidth, the length of the HDMI cable, and the construction quality of the HDMI cable. There are some HDMI cable companies that gurantee their HDMI cables for a higher maximum bandwidth than what is currently possible with HDMI though I consider that somewhat speculative.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 8
4/28/12 at 8:49am
Thread Starter 
Thank you, Richard Paul, for those detailed and sourced answers!

(As for the HDMI Forum, well, I guess I'm mad at all of them - and I'm also mad at the BDA for the way they defined the Blu-ray Disc, by the way -, whether their decisions are based on a desire not to confound the consumer by going too fast, on not yet wanting to give out too high-quality home media, on a lack of foresight and a bold vision or whatever else. At the same time, I'm very grateful for what they've made possible to own and experience at home - it's just maddening to think they just would've needed to go another not that big step forward to avoid all of what is irking the hell out of me.)
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 8
7/22/12 at 1:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

The main issue is coming up with a way to cheaply send the HDMI signal at a much higher bandwidth. DisplayPort has it much easier when it comes to bandwidth since the signal method is more advanced and the required distance for passive cables is 3 meters. As for the future at the CES 2012 HDMI press conference (starting at 11:40 in the video) it was announced that the next HDMI specification would be capable of 2160p60.

Hey Richard, did you see this about DisplayPort. http://www.vesa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ICCE-Presentation-on-VESA-DisplayPort.pdf
Sometimes that site doesn't work, but just try it a few times. Anyway, DVI and VGA is going to be replaced by DisplayPort. Honestly, I wonder if it will replace HDMI. Apple is keeping quiet but the latest rumour is that the iPanel (Apple's new TV) that is being developed by Foxconn and Sharp has Thunderbolt as connector.
Thunderbolt was designed with Displayport technology, but just rather interesting. AMD also showed a new Firepro w600 video card http://www.amd.com/us/products/workstation/graphics/firepro-display-wall/w600/Pages/w600.aspx#1 I let you review the specs, but actually there is going to be another one called w8000. There is a whitepaper in the past from AMD that discusses about using a Pro card for an HTPC. Probably see more 4k Display port monitors at the end of the year.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Tech Talk

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › HDMI cables already fit for 2160p120 / 2 × 2160p60?