How important is HDMI 1.4?

[Craig234]

I'm looking at the Pioneer 9040 and like it, but it seems not to have a bit of the latest bells and whistles, in particular HDMI 1.4.

That suggests considering the newer Pioneers, the 21 or 23.

Sorry if I get the info wrong, and correct it.

Is HDMI 1.4 required or important for the coming 3D TV technology?

Will I regret missing out on it or other 'new things' with the 9040 over the others?

3D sounds interesting enough to be a possible purchase, and I expect I likely want it available.

The 9040 otherwise seems to have some of the most pleased owners.

This could have gone in the 'basic' forum, but I asked a more general question there already, and it seems HDMI 1.4 is of general interest.

 

[Seth=L]

HDMI 1.4 is required if you want to experience 3D TV technology at full 1080p resolution. It is my understanding that you can still experience 3D TV up to 1080i with the HDMI 1.3 specification.

IMO, I'd get the 9040. There are other useful features that HDMI 1.4 includes. One of them is return audio signal, an HDMI 1.4 television can send audio back to the receiver over the HDMI cable. HDMI is beginning to behave more like firewire.

 

[Craig234]

HDMI 1.4 is required if you want to experience 3D TV technology at full 1080p resolution. It is my understanding that you can still experience 3D TV up to 1080i with the HDMI 1.3 specification.

IMO, I'd get the 9040. There are other useful features that HDMI 1.4 includes. One of them is return audio signal, an HDMI 1.4 television can send audio back to the receiver over the HDMI cable. HDMI is beginning to behave more like firewire.

Thanks but can you clear up your response: it seems to say HDMI 1.4 is worth getting, but also that the Pioneer is a good pick despite not having it.

 

[Warpdrv]

Gotta love all the marketing fluff they need to push to sell newer equipment...

3D

Enjoy your glasses... I suppose if you already wear glasses - well no big deal, if not - why would you want to... And again if you do wear glasses, what now - you have to get prescription 3D glasses... Oh Boy....

When will it ever end...

 

[Rash]

I hate 3D. I pays $$$$ to get really clear image on the screen, and then.. i go to the theater and they make me wear glass and all the images are weird and slightly double... plus, the producers point some sticks and branches in your face to make you laugh...HAHAHAHA...

call me boring or old school, but 3D in Avatar was exactly the same as 3D in Hollween 15 years ago...

 

[ParadigmDawg]

I just hope that 3D drives down the price of a good old conventional 70+ inch plasma so I can get one.

 

[Coolzrock]

Damn I haven't experience HDMI sound, and i won't comment it. My greatest experience is surround, lol. And plus i have stereo at my home. And currently i only the right channel plugged on, and I'm cool with it.

My point it is, wait a bit... Let prices get lower, let technologies step forward!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I just hope that 3D drives down the price of a good old conventional 70+ inch plasma so I can get one.

I agree.

That is the ONLY reason I can think of to LIKE 3D: driving down the costs of the other TVs.

As far as wearing some glasses for 3D effects, you can put me down as a 3D-Hater.

 

[JerryLove]

I hate 3D. I pays $$$$ to get really clear image on the screen, and then.. i go to the theater and they make me wear glass and all the images are weird and slightly double...

Then why did you go to the theater and buy tickets for a 3D movie? They still show them in 2D you know? I'm having trouble understanding what your home screen has to do with your theater experience. I'm sorry to hear you had trouble with doubling. I cannot think of any explanation that would allow that (unless you didn't wear the glasses), and I didn't experience anything similar.

plus, the producers point some sticks and branches in your face to make you laugh...HAHAHAHA...

call me boring or old school, but 3D in Avatar was exactly the same as 3D in Hollween 15 years ago...

I'm confused too. I don't believe there's a single object in Avatar whtat uses stereoscopic techniques to appear in front of the screen at all (technically it would not be the producers anyway: but I'll not pick at nits). What part of the movie did you experience branches projecting for comic relief?

Or is the hyperbole deliberate?

 

[pzaur]

Damn I haven't experience HDMI sound, and i won't comment it. My greatest experience is surround, lol. And plus i have stereo at my home. And currently i only the right channel plugged on, and I'm cool with it.

My point it is, wait a bit... Let prices get lower, let technologies step forward!

Uh? HDMI sound? No such thing. If you have surround, you already have the same thing HDMI can provide. HDMI is just a conduit for the signal to travel.

-pat

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I just hope that 3D drives down the price of a good old conventional 70+ inch plasma so I can get one.

Hey, I think it's working.

Amazon has the 82" Mitsubishi DLP for only $2,900 delivered!

Man, that's is nice.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Then why did you go to the theater and buy tickets for a 3D movie? They still show them in 2D you know? I'm having trouble understanding what your home screen has to do with your theater experience. I'm sorry to hear you had trouble with doubling. I cannot think of any explanation that would allow that (unless you didn't wear the glasses), and I didn't experience anything similar.

I'm confused too. I don't believe there's a single object in Avatar whtat uses stereoscopic techniques to appear in front of the screen at all (technically it would not be the producers anyway: but I'll not pick at nits). What part of the movie did you experience branches projecting for comic relief?

Or is the hyperbole deliberate?

There were some scenes like during the bombing of the Big Tree where the fire debris was "in-your-face".

I don't recall any tree branches, though.

Avatar was my FIRST experience with a movie in 3D and also my first experience with IMAX. It will probably be my LAST.

My daughter insisted on watching "Alice In Wonderland" and I refused to watch that in 3D, so we saw that in 2D.

We'll be watching "Clash Of The Titans" in 2D.

 

[Rash]

OK, i knew i wouldn't make freinds by bashing 3D, but IMO there is no significant advancement in AVATAR except for advanced animation for decor. And there are some branches, bullets and sticks in your face if you watch correctly, filmed in a way specifically for 3D. I just went to the theater (twice in the last 2 years) to be disapointed from the lack of evolution of 3D in the last 15 years. I don't think anybody wanted to see AVATAR in 2D ... just after seeing it, i prefer quality image and sound over glasse and weird depth perception...

But hey. all tastes are out there....

 

[jostenmeat]

HDMI 1.4 is required if you want to experience 3D TV technology at full 1080p resolution. It is my understanding that you can still experience 3D TV up to 1080i with the HDMI 1.3 specification.

I don't think that is how the bandwidth limitations are defined, technically, because you have to include frame rate. After all, 2x 1080/24p streams are still less bandwidth than a single 1080/60p stream (or 2x 1080/30). The issue that I wonder about is how high the fps need to be to avoid flicker. With the 2D sets we have, it's typically said that at 72hz+, we are fine. Even those with 48hz sets (like Pana 800u for instance) think the subtle flicker is just more of the authentic cinematic experience of film viewing. I dunno how much higher it needs to be when we are talking 3D.

Avatar was my FIRST experience with a movie in 3D and also my first experience with IMAX. It will probably be my LAST.

I'm pretty sure Avatar was remastered for IMAX, but NOT filmed in IMAX. You have to watch an IMAX movie in the IMAX theater to give that tech an honest test. If you are ONLY talking about 2D, then sorry, your wording was less than clear to me. OTOH, I just talked to a friend last weekend who saw 3D at both IMAX and regular, and he thought the latter was much better.

In all honesty, I think you would like an IMAX film, because no one else here seems to be excited about 4k rez as much as you are.