AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,570 Posts
Thanks Bob! You're Silicon Image's greatest investor ever!!!:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
532 Posts
I like the concept, but not the encryption that again assumes consumers are guilty until proven guiltier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,251 Posts
HDMI for Dummies, just what I need to understand it. :) Looks like an effort to show everyone DVI is not a one trick poney. Still, the question again is why not Firewire? It's a more mature and versatile interface that is already installed in many av components.


Interesting that Mitsubishi remains steadfast against any incarnation of the DVI interface. Given Mits. experience and success in manufacturing and marketing HD equipment, the safest bet may be that Mits knows what they're doing. The fact that Mits. is not on board with DVI is a big strike against any chance the interface may have to succeed in the market.


JR
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,005 Posts
It appears from slide number 6 of the linked file that HDMI will be backward compatible with DVI/HDCP implementions. It appears that what they call DVI/HDTV on slide 6 is DVI/HDCP and this figure shows interconnectivity between a DVI/HDTV STB and HDMI capable monitor/projector as well as from a HDMI STB connected to a DVI/HDTV monitor/projector. If this is correct then Dish Network and Directv STBs with DVI/HDCP outputs will be compatible with future HDMI equipped HDTV monitors/projectors. Thus the previously announced summer and fall 2002 roll out of DVI/HDCP enabled STBs and monitors (from Sony, Thomson, etc.) will not likely be delayed by the introduction of HDMI. Note that I like this answer, but this appears to be the reality of the situation and was probability why Dish, Directv, Sony, etc. were so willing to sign up for a new digital interface standard (i.e., since it wouldn't result in any need to delay their plans for soon to be released DVI/HDCP products).


Ron Jones
www.dtvmax.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
You got the picture, Ron. Any unit that includes DVI/HDCP connections will be compatible with HDMI. However, HDMI wil offer some upgraded audio and othe features that will not be available to users of DVI/HDCP. La plus c'est change....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,174 Posts
It is some sort of great myth that standardized FireWire connectors are already installed in many A/V components. Digital camcorders, yes, otherwise, not so much.


It is also simply not going to happen that displays are going to have smarts and intelligence to decode HD, etc. That would merely make displays more expensive and make it harder for cable and satellite guys (the paranoid multitudes) to build something they are comfortable selling.


I like FireWire a lot, but really, DVI is the display connector. Now, as for recording....


Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,220 Posts
Thanks for the link. Now I understand HDMI. It is DVI/HDCP with audio. It has all of the bad features of DVI HDCP such as the ability to time limit the decription of the program data as reported previously.


I don't have any problem with limiting the ability to copy such as the 1394/DTCP copy freely, copy once, or copy never. But this gives the studios control over your family room.


Rick R
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,174 Posts
I thought the time limiting was to allow HD Pay Per View that you couldn't convert to permanent ownership simply by not deleting from the HD.


With HD prices headed for $1/GB this winter, that threat seems real.


I agree with you that the whole thing is too obtrusive, by the way, but I'm not sure the motivation is entirely unreasonable. If we are willing to pass on HD PPV, there will be some kind of HD-DVD that you can own for the life of the disk. I doubt we'll see the original Divx make a comeback in the disc world. At least I hope not.


Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
Rick R,

I don't know where you got the idea that DVI/HDCP has some sort of time limit feature. Maybe you're confusing with DTCP (has a time limit on PVR recording of 'copy never' material) or PHILA (has a somewhat more generous and flexible time limit for recordings of 'copy never' material made on PVRs that are built into the cable STB). As Mark says, both were probably designed with PPV in mind.


HDMI is just the digital equivalent of a bunch of cables. More specifically: A bunch of cables that work fine unless you plug them into a recorder.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Bob, as you know, everyone's fear here is that once they have the control to say who and where and when can decode the material, they will have enough control to force us into a PPV situation on most material, and we will have bought and paid for it in our frenzy to get HD. Simply saying "but they won't do that" doesn't really cut it, either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
Dylan,

Logic cuts it for me. If PPV is attractive to people, they'll buy it. If there is sufficient demand for other types of delivery - as there obviously is and will continue to be, those other niches will be filled. It's the law of the free enterprise jungle. Consumers ultimately have force over the studios, not the other way around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
931 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Cambridge Bob
Dylan,

Logic cuts it for me. If PPV is attractive to people, they'll buy it. If there is sufficient demand for other types of delivery - as there obviously is and will continue to be, those other niches will be filled. It's the law of the free enterprise jungle. Consumers ultimately have force over the studios, not the other way around.


Bob's right!!! The Studio's will TRY to make EVERYTHING (OK most everything) PPV.....if it works then I guess we will get what we as a people deserve.....BUT IT WON"T....and then they will have to relent.....



Todd
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Just the same, I'm stocking up on books. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,289 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by JohnFR
Still, the question again is why not Firewire?
Three letters: OSD.


With DVI, the MPEG is decoded in the set-top device, which can then put any kind of on-screen display (OSD) graphics over it that the box's designers desired (for instance, the program description when you first tune channels, or the EPG, or the menu of recorded shows, or...). That composited image is then sent out the DVI port.


On 1394, the MPEG stream is sent from the box to the display, when then does the decoding. There's no opportunity to insert OSD graphics unless you decode the signal on the set-top and then re-encode the composited image. This is an exceedingly sucky idea from a quality standpoint (both the double-MPEG of the image, and the MPEG compression of the OSD won't be great either).


There's a standard called HAVi which embeds a basic graphics engine in the display. The set-top sends commands to the display and tells it to render the UI elements needed. That way the compositing is done inside the display without touching the MPEG stream.


As somebody who's worked on a couple of set-top boxes, I can tell you that you couldn't pay me enough to work on such a system. (Well, okay, $1M/month would be okay... :p) The compatibility issues alone would give me nightmares. Plus the inability to do innovative UI treatments would remove the ability of companies to differentiate their systems with the look of the menus and graphics.


So, I contend that a high-bandwidth uncompressed (or losslessly-compressed) digital connection to the display is indeed what is needed. People have complained that DVI has insufficient cable length capabilities for some projector installations, and that is indeed a serious issue that needs addressing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,174 Posts
I suspect, Mike, that the cabling issues will be solved by the development of inline repeaters of some kind. Fundamentally, the signal is not really so fragile, it seems, as to be incapable of being sent a decent ways. Thus far, there has been no need to develop long-length DVI cables, of course.


There is already a solution that allows you to go 50 feet away using 2 cables of 25-feet with a hub device in between. Yes, the solution is outrageously priced at $600 + cables. There is also a solution that modulates the signal onto fiber optic and allows for 330 feet cable lengths. It's a ludicrous 3k today (plus fiber).


But the point is that the problems are technically solvable. The original Ethernet-to-fiber converters were thousands of dollars and now can be bought for around $100. I'm not saying DVI solutions will get *that* cheap, but they will come down in price. When you are talking about $5000-$150,000 projectors, a reasonable investment in a cabling solution is certainly fair game.


You point out one of the many reasons why DVI was chosen as the display interface over Firewire (there is also the requirement that all displays have decoding intelligence if they used Firewire). As we know, HDMI is just a superset of DVI/HDCP and is nothing to "wait for" or "worry about." It's no more worrisome than DVI/HDCP in general. And I've come to the conclusion is not DVI/HDCP that is worrisome -- other than the legacy-equipment issue which is very, very real -- but the lack of an output that's going to allow us to record/timeshift. I am not talking about stealing, just recording/timeshifting/maybe having a semi-permanent archivable copy (but I'm not sure how many people really need/want that).


Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
513 Posts
What is the current normal cable length for HDMI, or is this still being spec'ed. Is the working group HDMI spec available anywhere, or is it for working group members only at this point?
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top