HDMI 1.4 and Through the Ages

[admin]

Key Digital had an interesting newsletter that got sent out this week. In it they had a table which went through the various iterations of HDMI, from version 1.0 through the newest 1.4. We thought it was a good chart, though we disagreed (slightly) with some of their assessments on the importance of each of the versions. As I hinted at in my article on The Twelve Biggest Industry Mistakes of the Digital Age I believe that HDMI is really more of a stop-gap interface whereas it could have been a new standard. Instead, we have a largely "stupid" new cable system that merely carries data. HDMI 1.4 does little to change this reality.

Discuss "HDMI 1.4 and Through the Ages" here. Read the article.

 

[davidtwotrees]

Good article, Clint. It was interesting to note that v1.0 hdmi did everything 99% of consumers need to do in their home systems. The progression of versions in hdmi is really a snapshot of the consumer electronics industry, imho. They are making everything WAY too complicated for the end user.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I'm not a grammar Nazi, but Clint - your spellcheck missed this one:

"It is not clear if HDMI will comp7ete with DVI or Display Port in this market"

 

[Biggiesized]

It will take 4 times the encoded bandwidth data rate to transmit 4Kx2K/24 compare to 1080p/24. That means to transmit one 4Kx2K it will take the space of four current HDTV channels or 24 current SDTV channels.

Where is your evidence for this? Sure, the frame size is four times as large, but who says the encoded stream must be four times as large? Ben Waggoner believes 4K/24p can be done at around 60 Mb/s with the latest codecs. Let's not forget to mention that future codec design will migrate towards wavelets, which can be way more efficient than DCT.

 

[dgreenstein55]

Encoding = Compression

"Where is your evidence for this? Sure, the frame size is four times as large, but who says the encoded stream must be four times as large? Ben Waggoner believes 4K/24p can be done at around 60 Mb/s with the latest codecs. Let's not forget to mention that future codec design will migrate towards wavelets, which can be way more efficient than DCT."


Biggie - The point of stating that 4K resolution will take 4 times the amount of data space is that using the current standards of encoding/compression MPEG4, it would take 4 times the bandwidth to display 4 times the picture! All we need is more compression schemes to further disrupt the video we currently look at, 1080p while fantastic is always compressed and for anyone who has ever seen a clip of completely uncompressed video, like myself, you will learn that uncompressed 1080p is far more breathtaking that a compressed 4K stream.

Ultimately HDMI will not have enough bandwidth to carry what will become available in the future of video. DVI has always been the better solution, for one it LOCKS and two it is Video only, and any experienced Home Integrator knows that a high end Disc player will always do a better job of audio decoding and sending it out via analog so it stands to reason that a medium to transfer data should always serve one purpose and in the case of video we need to quit cramming audio and control and so on down the pipe!

 

[Anagoge]

I think the description of the Audio Return Channel misses one big use case that has immediate benefit for me. Right now, I have to run two cables between my TV and receiver. One is the normal HDMI for input of DVD type signals. The other is the optical audio from the TV to the receiver so the receiver can play the audio for over-the-air (OTA/"antenna") HDTV signals. The Audio Return Channel would remove the need for this second optical cable and allow the TV's audio to travel to the receiver on the same cable that supplies the DVD input to the TV. I know many people ignore them, but OTA HD local stations are less compressed than the cable/satellite equivalents here.

 

[buzzy]

The industry viewed HDMI first and foremost (by far) as a vehicle to implement copy protection. That everything else (like ease of use, reliability, and capabilities, and long term migration path) was an afterthought, is a natural result of that mindset.

And this is the same kind of thinking that led to the music industry imploding. Rather than focus on customer needs, they kept trying to bend consumers over to meet their needs.

When they start thinking about consumer needs and experience first, they may be able to turn the tide in their favor. Otherwise, people have other things to do.

 

[KurtBJC]

Where is your evidence for this? Sure, the frame size is four times as large, but who says the encoded stream must be four times as large? Ben Waggoner believes 4K/24p can be done at around 60 Mb/s with the latest codecs. Let's not forget to mention that future codec design will migrate towards wavelets, which can be way more efficient than DCT.

HDMI isn't sent compressed. If you've got four times as many pixels to send, it takes four times as much bandwidth.

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable

 

[Biggiesized]

Okay, there seems to be a misunderstanding between us.

Are you stating it takes 4 times the bandwidth to deliver OVER HDMI? Or are you stating it takes 4 times the encoded bandwidth over a cable system?

I'm arguing the latter.

 

[Biggiesized]

Biggie - The point of stating that 4K resolution will take 4 times the amount of data space is that using the current standards of encoding/compression MPEG4, it would take 4 times the bandwidth to display 4 times the picture!

Do you have any 4K source material? Would you like to run a test between 2160p50 and 1080p50? We can set the test parameters as follows:

1080p50 content is allowed a peak bitrate of 40 Mb/s.
2160p50 content is allowed a peak bitrate of 80 Mb/s. (that's only DOUBLE the encoded bit rate)

Are you saying that this cannot be done or that it requires a bit rate of 160 Mb/s (since 2160p is four times the frame size)?

If you're game, download the Crowd Run source files from Xiph:

http://media.xiph.org/svt/2160p50_CgrLevels_Master_SVTdec05_/

 

[audiophile1882]

Yo!

I think you are confused, an audio channel and all of the new functions of v1.4 are largely a chipset upgrade! There is only going to be a very small change to the HDMI cable between 1.3 and 1.4. Two previously untwisted wires are now going to be twisted allowing for a transmission of an Ethernet signal (HEC) over a measurable distance. So, pretty much all of the 1.4 features, even the audio return channel, are going to be supported by v1.3 cat2 cables and there will be no firmware update for your previous version HDMI products. If you want to utilize HEC with your devices, you will need to buy a new one...

At least you can keep your same cable, that is unless you cant be bothered to run a cat5e or cat6 cable to your devices....

 

[audiophile1882]

Are you saying that this cannot be done or that it requires a bit rate of 160 Mb/s (since 2160p is four times the frame size)?
[/url]

The way they are going to be able to offer 4k x 2k without increasing the bandwidth is by cutting the refresh rate way down. Max 120hz at 1080p, but with 4k x 2k resolution you are looking at a max of 24hz! O well, not that huge of a deal, but it might make watching a really fast paced, rapid camera movement action flick better in 1080p then in 4k x 2k

 

[jared555]

In regards to the no titles/hardware bit of the article in relation to 4K.

Don't at least some/many movie theaters project at 2K/4K (although the interface is of course different) so are the titles actually that resolution or are they upscaling the film?

Wasn't nvidia promoting a technology using computer monitors at this resolution? (Even if they haven't reached manufacturing, it is better to have a 'cheap' cable available and no screens than a very expensive screen and no cables to hook it up with)

Edit:
And in response to audiophile1882 it would actually be pretty cool if they could find a way to dynamically adjust the resolution/frame rate being sent to the screen so that slower paced scenes where you want a lot of detail you can have the higher resolution and with high action scenes you could drop the resolution a bit so you don't have a blur effect.

The major issue I could see with this are 1) Transitioning between resolutions without either poor internal filters to get it to native resolution or 2) Jumping between 2k and 4k without sudden changes in the picture. The second option could be taken care of by an instant resolution change in the scene change or even between camera angles.

Edit2:
Sorry, I just realized this was a month old, I saw it on the front page and figured it was a newer post.

 

[fresno1232001]

Preposterous discussion!

All of this is utterly preposterous to be on a msg board for CONSUMERS or even professionals like custom installers. This should all be discussed by industry insiders AND, very importantly, government regulators. It is obvious that the industry cannot or will not police itself here- and revealing that is the real value of this discussion. The federal government, or some consortium of federal governments, like the US, Japanese, and European Union governments, should have study groups of real experts, such as people from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, hash all this out. Then legislation governing what enters the market place can be written and enacted and agreed to by treaties.

Have you consumers ever been deeply involved in designing your next antibiotic? Of course you have not been, and to have you involved in this discussion makes just as much sense. It is obvious that all the chaos in the market place is the result of stupidity and greed. Greed because if the standards keep changing, billions of dollars of consumer electronics can keep being made obsolete so more can be sold. The major governments need to step up and get this done right. Did they let 30 different broadcast standards for FM or TV enter the market place? No. But of course HDMI standards are not broadcast standards, so the governments can say they are not in their jusisdiction. Let the consumers hang.

What the manufacturers never realize is that when the standards keep changing, only rich people can afford to play the game. 90% of the population just spends its money on something else other than consumer electronics. That sounds extreme? No, that's how it is. Now that HD tvs have fallen to a fifth their price in 2005, more people are buying them, but most people still won't bite. How utterly sweet it is that when the manufacturers will not get their governments to police the standards mess, they lose countless billions in profits every year as a result. Knowing that is sweet revenge for the consumers.