HDMI and What it Will Do for You

CrzyP writes "AnandTech has whipped up a short but informative article on the new HDMI digital audio/video connection standard that is said to be the successor of DVI. Take a look at what this new standard is all about and what we can expect from it in the future!"

Comments

What WILL it do for you?

[TopSpin]

From the article:

The first question that should pop into your head right now is why we would need HDMI on the PC when it physically does the job of DVI particularly considering how few people actually use DVI instead of analog connections! The answer is, again, copy protection.

Four years ago Cox wrote something in LKML that has stuck in my head since:

So you cant tap the data anywhere.

Think

encrypted music fed to an encrypted audio controller to speakers which
decrypt and add watermarks

encrypted video decrypted and macrovision + watermarked only in buffers
the CPU cant access

audio input that has legally mandated watermark checks and wont record
watermarked data.

That is the dream these people have. They'd also like the OS to scan for
"illicit" material and phone the law if you do, and to have a mandatory
remote shutdown of your box

(and if you read the MS media player license anyone who agrees to it signed
up to that)

Alan

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[Strange Ranger]

> They'd also like the OS to scan for "illicit" material and phone the law if you do, and to have a mandatory remote shutdown of your box

It's already in development.

Codenamed 'Microsoft Totalitarian 2007'.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[dpilot]

The question was "for" you, not "to" you.

Alan quite clearly answered the latter, not the former. Actually, the article makes it sound like DVI was poorly (loosely) defined, and HDMI nails it down much better, so things should be more compatible.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

HDMI
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
HDMI
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
HDMI is something that I despise
For it means destruction of fair use rights
For it means tears in thousands of users' eyes
When they try to record a show, but it's called a crime...

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good God, y'all!

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is NOT FUD!

This is exactly what they want to use HDMI for!

Why use this when you have DVI?

This is the only reason. Control your computer from time you sign up to download the file till you output on your big screen TV.

Total encryption. Total Control. Total Trust.

Dammit this is MY computer! I don't want to be forced by industrial Microsoft/Sony/DMCA/RIAA/Who-ever-the-hell-else into giving up the right to control the bits on my own fucking harddrive!

It better be a failure! The corporate media intrests have no right to have this much control even if they risk getting there shit pirated.

If it comes down to a choice between freedom of information and full fledged piracy I'll choose freedom ever time!

I don't like it when artists and businesses get ripped off, but this is bullshit.

It's crap like this we've know has been coming for 10 years now, and is why people went and created free software.

It's not freedom from cost, it's freedom from control!

Now are we going to be forced to create our own computers and hardware standards in the future?

Just Say No to Our Corporate Overlords.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[vandan]

Yes it's certainly coming.

Perhaps the real question is "What are the consumers going to do about it?"

Unfortunately with the media giants controlling the media ( interesting little coincidence ), I don't think there'll be much in the way of unbiased consumer education.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[The_K4]

Who's forcing you? Just don't buy a PC/GFX card/DVD play/ TV with this! It might limit your choses (or mean you can't buy something you would want). It might mean you can't watch a movie you want to see, but no one is going to hold a gun to your head and FORCE you to use this. There are people who chose not to use credit cards, and while it does limit them in many ways, they survive.....

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[nuxx]

Okay, so don't use their player and don't listen to their music. Problem solved.

Access to entertainment is a choice and a privilege, not a right nor a requrement.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worth pointing out that the FCC is forcing support of the broadcast flag, so it's entirely possible he will be forced at some point. From the article "FCC just mandated that all digital cable ready TVs sold after July 2005 must have DVI-HDCP or HDMI-HDCP capability.", so they are clearly being heavy handed here too.

So at some point he may have no choice but to buy enabled equipment if he wants equipment at all, and thus he'll be forced to support drm both by money and by being part of their % adoption numbers, even if he has no intention of using it.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[Grishnakh]

Yep. The "no one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy it line" is really weak.

Pretty soon, if you want a modern computer or TV, you'll be using this technology whether you like it or not. Sure, you can get along without a TV, but good luck finding a spouse who's also willing to completely give up TV because of your philosophy. But no computer? You're basically exiling yourself from modern society if you try to live without one. Are you going to go back to paying all your bills by check, dump email and write letters to people, etc.? What about a job? Unless you're planning to leave the tech industry altogether and go into construction or janitorial services, you can't even send someone a resume without a computer. Who'd hire a programmer or network admin who can't email a resume?

There's lots of things about society I don't like. I don't like how corrupt local governments are in regards to traffic laws, in that their police issue baseless tickets, and the cost of the ticket is the same as the court costs (which you have to pay even if you win), in order to generate revenue. Am I going to stop driving and just walk everywhere because of this? No; I wouldn't be able to hold a decent job that way.

Unless you're going to seriously cut all ties with society and move into the woods and live in a tent for the rest of your life, please drop this stupid argument.

Meanwhile, the rest of us have real lives to lead, within society. Of course, some of us will hopefully spend a little time trying to break these chains that bind us (i.e., reverse engineering).

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[The_K4]

He could choose not to buy a new TV. If he wants access to their content (and everything on TV is content created and owned by someone) the he had to buy the technology that they support and allow their content to play on. If he doesn't want to support that technology, then he has no rights to watch their content. I agree that all this DRM is overboard and I don't like it, but I don't like to see people saying they are "forced" or who act like it's their god given right to have access to all content out there.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are so wrong.

The potential of this weapon lies far beyond preventing copyright infringement. It also has the potential of preventing the copying and PLAYBACK of non watermarked music.

Guess who would want that...

The record industry, of course. It would allow them to technically make it illegal for a band to release their own music on CD without being signed, because they can selectively allow watermarking only on CDs released by signed bands.

This has the potential to entirely destroy a whole fucking generation of bands because they would be locked out of music publishing.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

You will be forced to subject yourself to this becuase it will simply be impossible to buy a computer, TV, radio, or whatever that does not include this technology.

It's already illegal to circumvent it, even if you own it.

If you think that it will stop with just digital media your fooling yourself. It's about control over all information, it's just being introduced in a semi-acceptable way.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn straight. People are just deluding themselves if they think it's just about piracy.

They have rampant piracy nowadays and they are making more money then ever.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[ScentCone]

Amen, brother! You left out, though, telling them they can go screw themselves and the stuff it takes thousands of people and millions of dollars to produce. Screw watching the Sopranos or Nova. Screw listening to Carmina Burana. Screw cable news!

Come on. No one, at all, would risk their money, their careers, or even a day's work, to produce "Arrested Development" or "Curb Your Enthusiasm" if they couldn't back up the huge investment with the expectation that the people they're selling it to will actually pay the bill. Cable and satellite companies duke out agreements with those producers based on a reasonable expectation that the product in question won't be bought by the parents of one kid on the block and then pop out of every TV on the block through that kid's hot rodded WiFi network with his buddies. Whee! Cool that they can do it. But it's no different than stealing cable access, and the people who own the content should be able to do whatever they want to protect their private interests. If enough people like you get mad enough, there will be indy content on indy hardware for indy people spending indy money on behalf of their many indy friends who are not spending money, and they can all be happy. But if I worked at HBO, and thought that every single bit of data that makes up an episode of "Deadwood" could go flying around the world ten minutes after I broadcast it, and I couldn't do a damn thing to prevent all of Korea from watching it for free... I'd be right behind my industry lobbyist's efforts to give me some leverage.

Of course, this is academic, because you're talking about content you'll be producing yourself, right?

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[bob beta]

Well, you can always keep the computer and TV that you already have.

There are bound to be enough people like yourself determined to not 'buy in' to the new technology. Unless they outright ban your legacy hardware, you should find yourself in the company of others who think like you and will continue at least a subculture.

The idea that people will go computerless because of this is ludicrous. I already have multiple computers, including machines that run 'unclean' Microsoft software and 'clean' OSS. Why wouldn't that continue?

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

...every single bit of data that makes up an episode of "Deadwood" could go flying around the world ten minutes after I broadcast it, and I couldn't do a damn thing to prevent all of Korea from watching it for free...

Easy, embedded commercials + product placement. That way you can't watch the show without seeing the commercials, and the bills get paid. Furthermore, those episodes flying around the world are being distributed on someone else's dime, not yours.

Computers and the internet could be a win-win situation for the MPAA and consumers, but they're so damn afraid of the future they are about to turn it into a lose-lose situation. It's a crying shame.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[Miguelito]

Why use this when you have DVI?

This is the only reason. Control your computer from time you sign up to download the file till you output on your big screen TV.

Wrong! HDMI carries audio as well, DVI does not. I have a Sharp LCD TV with an HDMI input, and a DVD player with HDMI.. and yes, having one simple connect for both video and audio is very nice.

Don't get me wrong.. I don't want to see them use it for more control over media in the future either, but to say that HDMI has nothing over DVI is ignorant.

I would've preferred they'd just stuck with firewire though.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[ScentCone]

OK, I'm game (sort of). But: supposed I want to buy the viewing of a movie that does not have any ads, etc. And further suppose that a publisher is willing to sell me that, and that we both agree to use some hardware that facilitates that. What's not to like? They can make sure that people like me pay, and I can avoid wasting what's left of my precious life on another single, goddamned ad of any sort, ever.

Look, "free" TV has been available for decades. The ads paid for it. But when you provide a format that allows you to get around that revenue stream, something else has to pay for it. When a distribution method meant for people that don't want ads, and are willing to pay for that experience, is turned into the launching point for a thousand multi-format bit-wise copies, something's got to give. If the technology supports playing whatever you want, but can be used to let content owners keep their content used the way the owners are willing to sell it, then... how is that not win-win?

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[Grishnakh]

There are bound to be enough people like yourself determined to not 'buy in' to the new technology. Unless they outright ban your legacy hardware, you should find yourself in the company of others who think like you and will continue at least a subculture.

That's fine if all you want to do is play old games or whatever, but if you want to work with anything current, it won't work. Pretty soon (though they've been saying this for a while), you won't be able to watch TV any more without new DRM-enabled equipment, because they're going to turn off the analog broadcasts.

I never said people would go computerless; I was trying to point out myself that it was ludicrous, as this is an extension of the idea of simply not buying any technology you don't like. But for those of us who want to conduct our normal computing activities (using the web, banking online, playing games, working with or playing video/audio, etc.) using open-source software which we control rather than some big corporation, attempts like this to control the way we use our own hardware will make this very difficult.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[acb]

Are you one of those Objectivists, by any chance?

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of course, this is academic, because you're talking about content you'll be producing yourself, right?"

So we're going to potentially sacrifice a whole generation of bands (see other posts on this subject) just because corporations will not produce anytthing without a guaranteed return? Yeah right...

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

I WISH this bullshit line of thinking would get carried out.

PLEASE, if you're a media company, stop producing garbage for just one year. All those high-paid producers, engineers, singers, whatever, just drop your instruments, your mixing desks, whatever, for one year. Please punish us for copying your wonderful stuff. PLEASE!!

I know you're trying to make think "oh no, no more $FAVORITE_CONTENT". But I actually *like* your idea. Imagine if we started from scratch. Imagine if we had a real free market in music and art. Wow! That would be awesome.

You know all those indy labels and bands that don't make anything on their art and probably never will? In that world, they would just shrug their shoulders and keep producing. And I bet there would be enough concerts, enough CDs sold, enough money flowing to support 1000 indies for every Britney that isn't sold. It would be pretty amazing. People would go to concerts instead of movies. People would turn to the hundreds of years of music that's ALREADY OUT. Instead of 30,000 CDs released each year, it might be 30. How much would you pay for the signed and numbered copy #1? Would you *really* not just go to the iTunes store and pay $.99 for a song you like?

Nobody is entitled to a job, if they want money they have to work hard and produce something people are willing to pay for. Nobody is entitled to watch high-budget products, and if they want it, they have to pay for it.

But, back to reality, this will never happen. I just read that Elvis has another #1 in England. That's that kind of world we live in. Money poring into a dead man's estate for a song written 50 years ago.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[ScentCone]

But see, I happen to like listening to both the guy down from the street from me, who plays guitar, and I like to see what a guy like Peter Jackson can do with a couple hundred million dollars and three movies based on one book. The indy guy down the street gets my $10 for a CD he burned himself, and Peter Jackson gets my $25 for the last DVD in the LOTR series. But if my nephew really really really wants that movie, and I burn him a copy in stead of buying it, I've expressly done something that wasn't part of my bargain with Jackson. The guy down the street, on the other hand, says, "make as many copies of this as you want, please!" How does Peter Jackson's ability to recoup his huge costs and fund his next really expensive project interfere with the guitar players creative impulses? The guitar player can release all the MP3s or WMVs or whatever he wants, with all of the copy protection switches turned off... and he gets exactly what he wants.

I supposed that you figure Shakespeare is just another dead guy getting too much attention, too, right?

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[ScentCone]

corporations will not produce anytthing without a guaranteed return

What are you talking about? Corporations (which, gosh, can be made up of one person!) produce and publish material all the time, with absolutely no expectation of success. It's gambling on fashion, taste, timing, and a thousand other variables, and if someone sticks, they stick. One of the reasons its important for publishers to make a buck on their good-selling talent is because of all of the other projects they start that don't catch on. This is true in music, film, books - almost every creative endeavor aimed at a wide market.

But when a publisher has something really work out - meaning it's popular with a lot of people - they'll suddenly face (given the way things are working out), massive desire for the work, and massive stealing of it because it's now so easy to do. Would you rather music, film, and other publishers just lost money on everything they do? How many bands could they back then? None.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right of course, that's why the TV (as we know it) will be dead in 20 years.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[tricorn]

Why do the content owners think they have a right to all the advantages of "publishing" (that is, making it public) without all of the disadvantages that go along with it? Copyright is a tradeoff, we give certain monopoly rights because we believe that overall it will make more things available to everyone than if we didn't (and by "more things", I include a "goodness" factor). The tradeoff is that you no longer control it in many ways, and eventually (where the value of "eventually" is increasing lately) not at all. Trying to warp everything so that they can retain more control is not only bad for the copyright tradeoff, it is also screwing up everything else.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[mrchaotica]

Indeed, HBO is absolutely welcome to FUCK OFF AND DIE, for the simple reason that MY FREEDOM is more important than THEIR BUSINESS MODEL!

Can I make that any clearer?

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[The_K4]

They think that because according to US law they DO have that right, and they are getting it more and more all the time. It's unfortunate, but true.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[mrchaotica]

What's not to like?

The fact that they're trying to force DRM down everyone's throat, whether they're stupid enough to agree to it or not.

Theoretically, agreeing to use certain hardware in exchange for seeing a movie is fine, but when the publishers that want to do that have control of the entire industry and have enough power to make it illegal to have non-DRM hardware, it's no longer the situation you describe.

If the technology supports playing whatever you want, but can be used to let content owners keep their content used the way the owners are willing to sell it...

Those are mutually exclusive. Either I control the hardware, or I don't (and I'll be damned if I let somebody else control my hardware)!

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[ScentCone]

But how does HBO preventing people from pirating the stuff they paid to create infringe your freedom? These things are not mutually exclusive!

What you want is freedom for you, but not for me. You sure made that plenty clear.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

getting there shit pirated

"their".

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[ScentCone]

Those are mutually exclusive. Either I control the hardware, or I don't

Then we'll wind up with multiple forms of hardware, even if it's on the same equipment. I don't really care. I'm willing (at the right price!) to enter into an agreement with the industry that supplies so much of my information and amusement, that says: I want big fancy high-def random-access streams of professionally produced, glamorous stuff, and I'm willing to own some hardware that makes you comfortable selling me that. I'm also happy to support those hardware makers and content makers that are happy pushing around un-encoded bits that will stream me something that someone not interested in protecting their investment wants me to see. That would include my own dog training videos, or the stuff that the indy musician down the street would love to have me propogate among my friends. These are not mutually exclusive pursuits, or even particularly overlapping interests. The guys at HBO or any other large content provider wouldn't give a damn about this one way or the other, or push for favorable regulatory or legal actions, if their stuff wasn't getting hugely ripped off and spread all over the planet to a large, non-paying audience that wants it, but not enough to pay the actors, directors, technicians, makeup artists, musicians, studio-IT-people, and so on that depend on a living through their work.

For all the passion I hear about wanting to "fight the man" about controlling private property, where is any of that same passion when it comes to the people who, through their happy-to-steal-it approach to things, are forcing the issue? It's awfully quiet on that front.

How'd you feel if you lived in an apartment building that strung up cable service to the building because they finally got a person interested in paying for the service, and then, as you pay for that service, 50 other apartments in the building just plugged into the box and ripped off the signal? If you're going to tell me that your solution would be to refuse to pay too, so that everyone can get it for free, then you'll deserve what happens when it all goes away. But if your answer is that maybe it does make sense when the service provider uses individually addressable converters so that the other 50 apartments simply can't steal the thing you're paying for, then you're actually on the right side of the issue, whether it feels that way or not.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[mrchaotica]

These things are not mutually exclusive!

I disagree. If the content oligopoly controls the hardware and licensing then they have the technical and legal ability to prevent distribution of stuff they don't like. If they have that ability, sooner or later they will abuse it. If all electronic communication is Treacherous (and if the *AA and Microsoft get their way, it will be), then the concept of Free Speech is relegated to shouting on street corners. And in today's world, that just doesn't cut it anymore.

And what freedom did you lose? You still have the freedom to license content from HBO, and they still have the freedom to license content to you. Whether they choose to do so and whether it's economically feasible are completely separate issues. Freedom deserves protection; business models don't. Surely you agree -- and if not, why?

By the way, what does robbing people in boats have to do with anything?

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[mrchaotica]

I'm also happy to support those hardware makers and content makers that are happy pushing around un-encoded bits that will stream me something that someone not interested in protecting their investment wants me to see.

Have you been paying attention to the FCC lately? Very soon the situation will be such that you CAN'T push around un-[encrypted] bits, because hardware with that capability will be ILLEGAL.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[ScentCone]

Robbing people in boats. Garsh! I'd never thought of that! Heh!

Actually, I really like the term "piracy" in this context. Historically, it refers to a practice (and the hence the practitioners) of stepping into the middle of a transaction between other people (say, the provision of a service, like shipping things between the continents) to which you were not invited and about which you did not negotiate, and taking advantage of that service's presence. In essence, the pirate doesn't want to build boats, come up with the money to pay people that do, go through the formalities and expense of arranging for that service to be used... no, the pirate just steps up and takes what that service is providing, frequently damaging it in the process. The pirate's actions also force the other people involved to get more and more draconian, and incur more and more expenses - some of them manifesting themselves as distastefully ubiquitous security measures (in the old days, armed escorts and the like) just to ensure that shipping services could still be relied upon.

Over time, the countries of the legitimate parties that were being ripped off by the pirates decided that, rather than armoring every vessel more and more, they'd be better off going to the places the pirates called home, and even overthrowing local governments that tolerated and profited from their existence. But before that happened, private parties took matters into their own hands, and at great expense. I think the parallels to modern content transaction piracy are actually pretty instructive, and things like private actions against pirates (used to be, you'd hire private navies, now lawyers), and eventually taking the battle to foreign countries (China? Korea?) are playing out all over again.

By the way, with regard to technical oligopolies running the world: check in with AT&T and see how they're doing these days. Lucent (formerly Bell Labs) is in the tank, having been legally divorced from their previously profitable marriage to a country-wide technology provider, and other innovators are running circles around what was once thought to be "Ma Bell." It may take the pendulum swinging farther one way than we'd like before it swings the other, but that equalibrium is out there. As long as we can avoid politically correct judges and legislatures from feeling the urge to bolster the Nanny State (the hollow appeal of which all starts in elementary school these days, and hits its zenith in grad school), then there's hope.

Re:What WILL it do for you?

[ScentCone]

because hardware with that capability will be ILLEGAL

You know, I keep hearing that, but haven't yet seen a convincing indicator that it's true, or even close to being so. Legislators and courts would have a long, long way to go on that front. It reminds me of the v-chip. So, the FCC says you have to have the capacity for it in a new TV. Yup, it's a regulatory violation to sell (well, make, really) a set for US consumption that doesn't have one. But in the rather huge debate that went on before that finally got settled, there was a vocal (and, extremely effective) movement to make sure that the capacity did not have to be engaged except as explicitly selected by the private parties involved, including the consumer.

What you're talking about is vastly more complex than the v-chip issue, and does run the risk of winding its way through multiple layers of regulatory and judicial review/alterations where ignorant people just go along because they can't handle the mental complexity... but ultimately you've got a regulation, not a law. It can be altered with the stroke of a pen, and if something is so badly wrought that it needs that, that's what elections are for. Beware, of course, the public-opinion forming power of vapid lefty Hollywood celebrities, who will back the sort of power you're talking about without really thinking it through (sort of like they back laws banning the "use of animals in any way" while wearing nice leather shoes). Nothing in this sort of technical area could possibly rise to the level of a constitutional amendment, and the last time something did (like, banning alcohol - remember that one, 90 years ago?), we even fixed that.

I know, you don't even want it to get close to that level of activity. I don't either. But I also want creative people to be able to control their work. There's middle ground, technically, legally, financially, and ethically. Wholesale content thieves are on the wrong side of all of those issues, and are making this worse for all of us.

Could be a great technology.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to see this technology implemented in next-generation video game consoles. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if XboxNext had something like this, a way to easily transfer videos (M$'s DRM of course) from your computer onto the big screen.

Re:Could be a great technology.

[TheGavster]

Um ... this is just an encrypted version of DVI, with the audio also encrypted and sent on the same cable. Sure all the next generation of devices will have it, but it won't be a good thing. HDMI was awesome when it was proposed a few years ago, but now its just a DRM pipe.

Re:Could be a great technology.

[Anonymous Coward]

And why not use VGA? DVI? Or FireWire 800?

Re:Could be a great technology.

[Grishnakh]

And why not use VGA? DVI? Or FireWire 800?

Because, unlike those interfaces, HDMI has DRM built in, to prevent me from copying anything the big media companies don't want me to. I'll feel much better when the big media companies can watch over my shoulder all the time and make sure I don't do anything they don't want me to.

(, in case you're impaired)

Re:Could be a great technology.

[Grishnakh]

Damn...
That last line should have been:

[/sarcasm], in case you're impaired.

"For Me"

[grub]

HDMI and What it Will Do for You

From what I read in the article, it will help the media companies to prevent fair use of the signal. Other than bundling audio, how will really benefit the consumer?

Re:"For Me"

[Alt_Cognito]

HDMI cables run for a much longer distance than DVI. DVI cables longer than 6 meters are REALLY expensive.

Re:"For Me"

[grub]

I think that'd be a concern for a small percentage of users. No, that minor perceived benefit is a trojan horse to get DRM in the house.

Re:"For Me"

[Darth McBride]

how will really benefit the consumer?

1) You go from $6 DVI cables to $99 HDMI cables
2) ???
3) Profit!

Re:"For Me"

[Feztaa]

HDMI and What it Will Do for You

It's not so much what it'll do for you, it's more about what it'll do to you.

Re:"For Me"

[Grishnakh]

From what I read in the article, it will help the media companies to prevent fair use of the signal. Other than bundling audio, how will really benefit the consumer?

It's simple: it'll help prevent fair use of the signal, just as you said. If you're a stockholder in a media company or some company associated with this new technology, this will help you profit! If you're not, then you're not important.

Re:"For Me"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Can you hammer a six-inch spike through a board with your penis?"

Re:"For Me"

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than bundling audio, how will really benefit the consumer?

You will pay more for it.
Oh, you said "benefit"? oops... ;)

Re:"For Me"

[StarsAreAlsoFire]

Mine was 20 dollars. Still a bit of a markup from 6 bucks....

MonsterCable et. al. is a joke, with prices to match. Sure, you can buy complete crap cables; but that has always been true. Never heard of anyone buying 'Monster!!! IDE Cables!!' Or 'MONSTER! Aftermarket SVGA HD15 Cables!!'

Ugh. Marketing makes me sick.

Re:"For Me"

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't ask what HDMI can do for you, ask what you can do for HDMI.

DRM

[af_robot]

HDMI enforces that only trusted (by RIAA) devices allowed to communicate - so no way perfect digital copies.
Morons.

Re:DRM

[superpulpsicle]

VCRs in the old days supposedly prevented standard RCA-to-RCA cable copying to another VCR. Plenty of people figured out ways to get around that. This cable will be no different. It's a matter of time before a crack comes along. RIAA is just an empire waiting to collapse.

Re:DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, but in this case you'll be commiting a federal crime!

It's illegal under the DMCA to circumvent encryption.

This includes software AND hardware technics.

Buy a hacked CABLE and go to jail.

This is bullshit and they've been planning this crap out for YEARS. Why do you think they got the DMCA passed?

ONE STEP AT A TIME. Do to much and people will freak out, but you do one part at a time and people will say stupid shit like "oh you just pull the information after it exits the computer" becuase they completely fail to see the full picture.

What you see as a minor inconvience I see a bunch of fucking rich assholes pulling strings to make sure that they keep their 300% profit and control.

Re:DRM

[Blue-Footed Boobie]

Which is also the samn damn thing that DVI-HDCP does now. So, all it really nets you is a smalle cable with bundled audio.

Re:DRM

[dark_requiem]

so no way perfect digital copies

No such thing as a completely secure system. There will be hordes of hardware hackers working on this long before the technology becomes commonplace. I for one won't buy a system with this technology until the security has been circumvented. Try and take away my fair use rights will ya

Re:DRM

[tepples]

No such thing as a completely secure system.

If all citizens are locked in prison with no access to electronic devices inside their cells, then a system can be secure, can't it?

There will be hordes of hardware hackers working on this long before the technology becomes commonplace.

Go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Congress's power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" and analogous provisions in foreign constitutions are what will be leveraged to turn democratic republics into police states unless you speak up.

I for one won't buy a system with this technology until the security has been circumvented.

So what will you buy once VGA monitors aren't sold anymore and all DVI/HDMI devices implement HDCP?

HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet?

[piett134]

I use a Win MCE 2005 box, and hooking up to a TV via HDMI would be sweet, but the only video cards I have seen right now have DVI connectors. Anybody have a luck with using a DVI/HDMI converter cable for their TV? Hows the quality, does it suffer any?

I misread the title...

[Anonymous Coward]

As "HDMI and What it Will Do to You".

Re:I misread the title...

[cooley]

No, you read it correctly.

In Soviet Russia, HDMI sells pirated DVDs at the train station.

Re:I misread the title...

[Anonymous Coward]

You did not misread.

oh noes

[WormholeFiend]

what we can expect from it in the future

Another must-buy limited edition collectible format for the Star Wars Hexalogy!

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[jZnat]

If I read it correctly, this is very new/recent, so I completely doubt any videocard manufacturers have had a chance to even read the protocol let alone install it in their cards.

Effects on my life

[jon1986]

This technology won't do a lot a thing to me. I will keep my DVI technology and cables for a long until the price of the HDMI components drop.

Hrmph.

[GoRK]

OOOooooooooo!

DVI with DRM!

Sign me up!

Re:Hrmph.

[tji]

DVI already has DRM in most TV's. It's called HDCP, and almost all HDTV STBs and TVs support it.

That's the same thing done in HDMI.

Re:Hrmph.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that their are (were) digital tv's with an unencrypted DVI?

Re:Hrmph.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the early monitors with DVI did not have the HDCP encryption. So, they won't work with STBs that require HDCP (I think the Voom STB requires HDCP). This includes quite a few early plasma TV's.

HDMI seemed awesome but has problems

[the-pdm]

Between HD Tivo having numerous problems with its HDMI port and my new Samsung HD941 DVD player displaying "HDMI Audio not supported" on a great many DVDs I'm not sure if this stuff is 'ready' yet. On both of these devices I still had to resort to using a TOSlink cable for audio instead of using the HDMI audio.

Re:HDMI seemed awesome but has problems

[badmammajamma]

Clearly you were trying to play a pirated DVD.

Re:HDMI seemed awesome but has problems

[the-pdm]

Pirated? Maybe thats how amazon offers such low prices on DVDs! Doh! Seriously though, they are all commercial DVDs.

Hooray

[stratjakt]

I'll save you the time of reading TFA:

It's line-compatible DVI with a pair of lines for digital audio, and a slimmer connector.

It can carry 5gbps over copper, more than enough for 1080p video and 8 192khz audio channels.

Re:Hooray

[mountiealpha]

And don't forget: it's DRM-protected. No more grabbing audio and visual signals from cables!

Re:Hooray

[LordOfYourPants]

You forgot one little detail:

"The first question that should pop into your head right now is why we would need HDMI on the PC when it physically does the job of DVI - particularly considering how few people actually use DVI instead of analog connections! The answer is, again, copy protection."

Re:Hooray

[stratjakt]

Yeah, that too.

But realistically, the rules only apply to digital copies. Not analog.

You can capture over your component outputs all day and all night.

The way I see it, if they're (the FCC) going to mandate HDCP and HDMI, they must also mandate component video and analog audio out.

Re:Hooray

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to break it to you, but in order to be HDCP compliant you cannot have analog outputs..

Re:Hooray

[toomanyquestions]

this is incorrect at best, mis-informed at worst.

it is NOT line compatible DVI even though it does support DVI coding format input.

and it is NOT 5 gbps - it is basically 4 TMDS links at (slightly) lower rate than single channel DVI.

no - it has major problem for 1080p videp at current state.

HDMI is too complicated.

[jd]

LaTeX generates DVI files just fine for me. What would I need all this multimedia stuff for?

Re:HDMI is too complicated.

[Megaweapon]

Donald Knuth must have gotten a job over at Macromedia.

Re:HDMI is too complicated.

[Anonymous Coward]

How does this get modded as offtopic instead of funny while all the usual soviet russia crap gets modded +5 funny?

Re:HDMI is too complicated.

[Idarubicin]

You've never heard such crystal-clear equations.

Where is this headed?

[fname]

That's the question. Will HDMI allow content creators to destroy the ability to eaily copy digital media, whether it's being used for piracy or fair-use? Or, is HDMI headed down the same path as Circuit City's DivX-- a clumsy & eventually transparent attempt by Hollywood to extract more money from customers while providing less service? We all know how that played out, with the savvy early-adopter types shunning it and telling their friends to skip it as well. Or does any of it matter, since the FCC has mandated that all digital TVs must be HDCP compliant anyways?

What does that mean anyways? Will consumer electronics companies still be allowed to include non-HDCP compliant inputs? I hope so, but I wouldn't put it pass our regulators to require the crippling of perfectly legal electronics (witness DAT & the broadcast flag). How can we stop this crap?

Re:Where is this headed?

[pe1chl]

I have a new LCD TV with HDMI input and HDCP support.
It also comes with schematics (on CD).

I studied the schematics and was astonished by what I found: the HDMI digital input is terminated at a special purpose chip that deserializes and deframes the data, decrypts the HDCP, and converts the R, G and B to ANALOG!

So on the output of this chip there is a normal RGB (plus sync) signal. This is fed to the switching matrix (where it is combined with all other inputs the TV supports) and then this analog RGB signal is again digitized and fed to the scaler that scales it up or down to drive the LCD panel.

This amazes me for two reasons:

1. I would have expected that the digital DVI or HDMI signal would go directly to the scaler without first being converted to analog and then back to digital. What point is there in using a digital input, this way?

2. It provides an accessible and decrypted version of the HDCP-protected stream. Assuming this special-purpose chip is commercially available, it will be trivial to build a HDCP-circumventing box, just like the anti-Macrovision boxes...

Re:Where is this headed?

[computersareevil]

How can we stop this crap?

For starters, Join the EFF!

Please!

Re:Where is this headed?

[MeanMF]

So on the output of this chip there is a normal RGB (plus sync) signal. This is fed to the switching matrix (where it is combined with all other inputs the TV supports) and then this analog RGB signal is again digitized and fed to the scaler that scales it up or down to drive the LCD panel.

HDCP is designed to protect the digital stream, not the analog signal. If the chip decrypted the digital stream and fed it to the scaler, it would be vulnerable. It looks like that by converting it to analog in the same chip, they're preventing the decrypted digital signal from being copied. Sure you can re-encode it, but you can do that with an analog output just as well.

Re:Where is this headed?

[TheGavster]

The advantage here is that the analog signal only has to traverse a couple of inches of copper trace at most before hitting your re-encode chip, rather than the couple of feet of cable to your recording device. I don't think that the loss over that short of an analog link would be something to care about.

Re:Where is this headed?

[Eccles]

I don't think that the loss over that short of an analog link would be something to care about.

It's not cable loss, it's the D/A and A/D converters themselves that are less than perfect, and thus introduce noise.

Re:Where is this headed?

[MeanMF]

But you still have to reencode it.. That's not what HDCP is designed to prevent.

Re:Where is this headed?

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole issue is pointless - the protection is incomplete.

HDCP is intended for use in the CPSA framework - which includes several measures to prevent analog copying. Externally accessible analog lines must be protected with macrovision and cgms, dont know if that applies to the traces through. However, one requirement is a watermark in the picture - this particular feature was never completed and incorporated into the specification through. If it ever is, it prevents analog-hole techniques: Any complient device which sees a watermark on a non-encrypted digital line will assume (usually correctly!) that the signal has at some point left the protected domain, and thus may be pirated, and thus cannot be played! You cant encrypt it again without a private key. The only way around would be to capture using a nonclient device (ie, rig up a high-freq ADC or just connect the traces to a cap-card), digitise it, and then unleash the full power of DSP to remove the watermark. Complicated, and very hard to automate at a reasonable quality level.

Of couse, this all assumes the watermark will ever be completed: It was also intended to be included on all DVDs, and you can see how many years its been since that technology was rush-released without it.

Re:Where is this headed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or I could, you know, pull the cover off my TV, reverse-engineer the decrypt mechanism, and re-implement it in software. Now I buy a commerically available HDCP-chip to read the line for me, decrypt the stream in software and do whatever I wanted with a "protected" digital video stream. Just like we did for DVDs.

Or if you really wanted to defeat the analog watermark detection you could, um, ground-out/pull-up the pin that says "This Content is Watermarked" on the input processor. Not to mention the fact that *no-one* has created a watermarking system that is user-transparent and non-trivial to defeat.

Re:Where is this headed?

[gblues]

You somewhat miss the point.

The OP describes the signal path as such:

[Device]->[HDCP]->[D/A conversion]->[A/D conversion]->[Display]

Now if I capture the signal between [D/A conversion] and [A/D conversion], I'm effectively capturing the exact same quality signal that I'd be seeing on my TV.

Bit perfect? Nah. Close enough? You betcha.

There's also the irony that a supposedly digital connection is in fact still going through multiple digital/analog conversions.

Nathan

Re:Where is this headed?

[MeanMF]

There are plenty of ways to get a good analog signal. HDCP does not protect the analog signal, nor was it designed to. HDCP is supposed to protect the original digital bitstream, PERIOD. Other technologies (Macrovision, watermarking, etc.) are supposed to protect analog signals. Putting the HDCP and D/A conversion in the same chip makes it difficult to separate the two processes and get at the digital signal before it is converted to analog. Once it's analog, you have to reencode it back into digital form. No matter how good a signal you're getting, this is not the same as a digital copy of the original and that's all that HDCP is supposed to prevent you from getting.

Sure thing, buddy!

[GoofyBoy]

"Take a look at what this new standard is all about and what we can expect from it in the future!"

Dear slashdot editors,
I think you didn't have to include this sentence from the submitter. This is not some highschool newspaper or corporate newsletter from HR. Don't take this as approval for any other sentences that makes reference to Linux in a non-Linux story or a question that just needs a "Yes/No" answer.

Why?

[coyote4til7]

And I've either got to deal with an adaptor or ditch that really nice LCD I just bought? Oh boy!

No thanks

[Fizzlewhiff]

I'll wait about 10 years when Brian Hook of Id fame writes about it.

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[DeathFlame]

Is it just me, or wouldn't this be pointless? What are you trying to gain by doing this? The quality won't be any better (since your going through DVI anyway)

Why would it be 'sweet'?

F'ing sucks...

[PortHaven]

They never really ever even supported the DVI connected....

*blargh*

My TV has "two" component inputs. I have sat-dish, Xbox, and want a seperate DVD player....I want best quality for all.

They need a condensor or something... :(

Re:F'ing sucks...

[AGTiny]

Use a component switch, like the Audio Authority 1154A.

Re:F'ing sucks...

[Rude Turnip]

I was in the same boat...two component inputs, but HD cable box, prog-scan DVD player and Playstation 2. I bought a component video switch box for $100 at Best Buy (as well as a component connector for the PS2). Now I have 9 component inputs (8 on the box and 1 free on the TV).

Btw, do yourself a favor, get the $10 component video adapter from Mad Catz which works with either Xbox or PS2. Sony's adaptor was $25 and I imagine Xbox's branded adaptor costs as much.

Re:F'ing sucks...

[stratjakt]

So get an external component switch.

Is digital delivery even important in most cases? Is there a difference that other people notice, because I don't.

We demo software on a box with 3 video cards, and 3 flat panel monitors. These are relatively high quality 19" panels. They all run at 1280x960.

Monitor A has a DVI output, B and C are both regular VGA outs. Looking at all three side by side, I can't see any difference whatsoever. I see no dot-crawl or artifacts on the analog monitors.

Same goes for the home theater setups. I've seen good DVD players hooked up via HDMI, and I've seen them hooked up via Component. It made no noticable difference to me.

So is all this DVI/HDMI thing about finally plugging the analog hole? I want my Component video, or if not that, at least RGBS. Something I can legally capture and timeshift, broadcast flag notwithstanding.

I could say the same thing about TOSlink vs analog. Maybe it's just me, and my eyes and ears are going?

Re:F'ing sucks...

[leerpm]

Same goes for the home theater setups. I've seen good DVD players hooked up via HDMI, and I've seen them hooked up via Component. It made no noticable difference to me.

I think most DVDs are only encoded in 480p at best. So component or HDMI are not going to make any difference if the input (the DVD) isn't superb to start with. Where this WILL make a difference is when you have the new HD-DVDs and/or Blu-Ray discs, with 1080p quality content.

Re:F'ing sucks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on. And there's no difference between a correctly mastered audio CD and a DVDA version. It's all techno overkill. We've reached the point where technology is ridiculously cheap and more than adequate for any home use for normal people. Even a last-generation SVHS VCR hooked to a decent flat 27 inch CRT gives a superb picture and clear enough sound for me. (Of course I copy from a DVD, but if "they" offered good SVHS original titles, that's what I'm getting at.)

In order to keep the capitalist consumer-driven society going, we have to create new needs and make new products. Never mind that the resources (material and human) could be better used elsewhere. We need a NEW VIDEO STANDARD DAMMIT! I don't care if I retire in a cardboard box, BUT LET'S GET THE HDMI CABELZZ!!!1111

Re:F'ing sucks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, Have to take issue with the cd vs dvda bit. Makes a huge difference. Case in point: Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells 2003. I first bought the cd version, listened to some of the DVD remixes on the bonus DVD disc that came with it, then went and plunked down the cash for the DVDA version. World of difference. Doubly so when you consider the main reason he re-released it on DVDA was to take advantage of the technology availible.

My point is: the CD was a cd-mastered version of the original DVDA files. The DVDA blows the CD away, even though they are the exact same music (just that one is a 5.1 mix and the other is 2.0).

On the other hand, I do see this as nothing but "pirate salve" with a bonus feature that everybody who buys this stuff like they buy cars (ie: new one every two years) will have something to upgrade to sooner.

Re:F'ing sucks...

[Kiryat Malachi]

TOslink vs. analog, it makes a difference in my environment, which has a surprisingly large amount of emag noise from the fluorescent light banks downstairs.

It's different than what you were pointing out, but it's still a valid point - digital data tends toward better noise immunity.

Re:F'ing sucks...

[MonMotha]

One problem that (especially cheaper, and often very noticable on really cheap) DVD players have is noise on the black. My DVD player is a rather high quality (back when it was new) Sony that does OK (not progressive scan though). The picture is excellent, but there's noticable noise on the black levels on my 46" DLP, even using a rather high quality component connection (I haven't busted out the RG-6/U yet since I can't find good RCA connectors, why we're not using BNC is beyond me though).

With a digital signal, you won't have this noise problem, which may be due to the DACs on the DVD player (probably is), not just interference over the cable run. Good digital to analog conversion is a tough problem, especially at the higher bandwidths required for video signals (even at baseband). With digital TVs (like DLP) becoming popular, it makes sense to just skip that step, and save yourself the noise (and, in theory, cost - good DACs are expensive).

Re:F'ing sucks...

[stuktongue]

(I haven't busted out the RG-6/U yet since I can't find good RCA connectors, why we're not using BNC is beyond me though).

I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly or not, but this might be of interest to you....

http://www.monstercable.com/productPage.asp?pin=13 62

Re:F'ing sucks...

[MonMotha]

I was going to make a nice set of component cables out of RG-6/U. RG-6/U is pretty much the best coax that's reasonable to use for component video applications (the impedence is still low, but 75ohm coax is reasonable to acquire, things like 300 or 600 ohm coax are not).

The problem is, most RCA connectors won't fit on a piece of RG-6/U. BNC connectors will fit just fine, but neither my TV, nor my DVD player have BNC connectors. BNC connectors have advantages over RCA connectors, from both technical and use perspectives. From the user's point of view, they're nice because they lock on securely. From the technical point of view, they're nice because they can be had in a constant 75ohm impedence. This isn't of particular concern in this application (since it won't be matched to the source or load anyway), but it will cut down on the number of total abrupt impedence changes, resulting in less reflection.

I don't want to put BNC connectors on my cable only to have to change it to RCA connectors for my equipment. Adapters do exist (and can be had at a reasonable price, though not from Monster, since everything they sell is overpriced), but it's pointless if you can choose the connector in the first place.

I think I found a set of RCA connectors that will fit on my cable, but I need to get a micrometer out and measure to be sure. It'll be a tight fit.

Re:F'ing sucks...

[egomaniac]

I think most DVDs are only encoded in 480p at best. So component or HDMI are not going to make any difference if the input (the DVD) isn't superb to start with.

The format encoded on DVD is 480i, period. We can derive a 480p signal from most DVDs for the sole reason that most of them are 24 fps film transfers, and there is a particular pattern of fields used to convert 24 progressive frames into 60 interlaced fields. Progressive scan DVD players or TVs detect this (with varying degrees of success) and undo it, ending up with the original 24 progressive frames.

Now, that said, component video or DVI/HDMI still gives a much clearer picture than s-video or composite. I have several high-end displays, including an Infocus 7205 projector with a 160" screen, and I can very easily tell the difference on any of them. S-video just isn't a particularly good standard (and composite is pure unadulterated crap).

I can tell absolutely no difference between component and DVI on my projector (and if I can't tell on a high-end projector with a 160" screen, that pretty much means there is no difference). I had a crappy component video cable hooked up for a while though during an equipment shuffle, and I could tell then. Of course my run is 30 feet long, so the need for good cables is not surprising.

Re:F'ing sucks...

[stuktongue]

Thanks for your reply--it looks like I guessed your problem correctly. Just so you know, I am an RF engineer (satellites), so I am somewhat familiar with coax cabling, termination issues, etc.

The optimum way to convey analog component video signals is via matched-length coax cable with a characteristic impedance of 75 ohms. Both the source and destination equipment connections will be suitably terminated to 75 ohms, since this is the video standard, so there are no concerns regarding impedance changes--only on the quality of your impedance matching.

The coax cable should be terminated with BNC connectors. Attempting to terminate coax cable with RCA connectors is unwise. Using an adapter to connect the BNC-terminated cable to RCA inputs and outputs is the way to go. The Monster Cable adapters I provided the link to are designed to mate 75 ohm connections. Further, they are high-quality machined parts with top-notch gold plating, ensuring snug fit, good connection quality, and resistance to corrosion.

I suggest you rethink your plan. Regardless, I wish you good luck.

Upfront Costs...

[DaHat]

HDMI is a great technology... except for the costs involved.

The company I work for has been asked by many interested customers when we will be having HDMI addons for a number of our popular video playing products... because of the costs involved, we have had to hold back on any kind of rollout of these things.

In order to do licensed development of HDMI components (on the sending or receiving end), it runs about 30k... for the licensing alone! After that of course you have the joys of per unit costs, which we don't care about so much.

Chances are, we wont be doing HDMI until more customers are demanding it, shame though, I'd love to get my hands dirty with it.

Re:Upfront Costs...

[grub]

So other than bundling 8 channels of audio over the copper, what really makes it great for your company? The DRM and licensing costs? Seriously, I'm not trolling you: What makes this such a great thing for consumers.

Re:Upfront Costs...

[kitty tape]

We don't need to be hearing about what you like to get your hands dirty with...

Re:Upfront Costs...

[DaHat]

The only reason we would add it as an option to our existing products is if our customers asked for it. Thankfully, there is a lot of communication between us and them, especially considering a number of our products were created because of customers coming to us and saying "We need something to do this". So to us... the only advantage is satisfying our customers and the benefits we reap from that.

The primary advantage to a consumer of HDMI is the simplicity. Want to plug your DVD player into your TV? Just run a single cable. Want to run your cable box into your TV? Just another single cable. A single HDMI cable is far easier to manage than a DVI (or component) cable(s) + some audio ones, even if it is only cutting the # of cables down by half, it's not a bad deal.

Another nifty feature of HDMI is the communication between devices that occurs. Yes, there is DRMness involved "What? You can output to a non secured video format? No video for you!" Want to watch a DVD on your TV? Rather than selecting the proper input on the TV and making sure everything is configured... simply turn on the DVD player. The communication system built into HDMI lets properly configured devices not only talk, but also control each other. Imagine plugging in a new device to your home entertainment center and having it auto configure itself to your configuration (something you could of course override later).

Re:Upfront Costs...

[lga]

Want to watch a DVD on your TV? Rather than selecting the proper input on the TV and making sure everything is configured... simply turn on the DVD player.

We have had this ability for years in Europe. It's called SCART. One cable, carries RGB video, stereo audio, and a switching cable that grabs attention from the TV and also sets the aspect ration.

What is HDMI?

[sanityspeech]

From the article:

So, more specifically, what is HDMI? HDMI - High Definition Multimedia Interface - is actually just a logical progression on top of DVI. The video segment of the HDMI signal is actually compatible pin for pin with DVI, but in a much different package. HDMI improves on DVI by transmitting digital audio on the same interface, adding support for HDCP and also better DDC options for manufacturers.

HDMI provides 5Gbps over copper interconnects up to 15 feet - that's enough headroom for a 1080p signal and 8 channel audio. For those who like to do the math, a 1080p raw video signal and eight 192kHz audio channels require less than 4GBps. So, there is a significant portion of unused overhead built into the HDMI specification.

Eh, no big deal IMO...

[doormat]

Its not really possible to capture video off of DVI at the moment (DVI is basically uncompressed video - 180MB/s), so I dont see HDMI as a big deal. It'll encrypt the audio, but that doesnt seem like a big deal (I'm going to have optical out going to surround sound receiver, not digital audio to my TV through HDMI).

Its not like people are capturing video off VGA/DVI now, at most it'll affect KVM switches, projectors, etc.

The biggest issue with HDMI is the fact that it may become an exclusive output system. IOW, no way to support VGA, DVI, etc. I dont see video card makers and companies like nVidia and ATI saying "you have to buy a new HDMI compliant monitor to run this new video card". Its in their interest to sell the most video cards, not raise barriers to entry to purchasing their products.

Re:Eh, no big deal IMO...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Its not really possible to capture video off of DVI at the moment

Of course it is possible. Quite easy using a fpga. This has been used in the past to redirect output from a video card.

Before PCI-express, it was not possible to read data computed in a GPU at high speed, so many people used DVI for that purpose.

And since PCI-Express is not that widespread, DVI is still used for that purpose.

Re:Eh, no big deal IMO...

[InvalidError]

Next step, hook up probes to your CRT's RGB electron gun gates and record from there.

If this becomes common practice, I wonder how long it will be until they find some sort of reason to outlaw CRTs or accelerate their discontinuation.

As long as the RIAA/MPAA's precious signals go through some sort of analog conversion, FPGA-DSP wizards can readily capture and convert streams, the two main challenges being not frying chips or themselves with the HV when capturing RGB signals off the CRT.

Re:Eh, no big deal IMO...

[rednox]

It's not only possible, it's easy, using off-the-shelf components.

First, convert the DVI signal to HD-SDI, which is the standard that all the professional HDTV editing gear uses.
Miranda DVI-Ramp

Next, capture the HD-SDI signal to your hard drive.
Blackmagic DeckLink HD

You will need a serious disk array to handle the bandwidth, but you will end up with a digital copy of the signal put out over DVI. That Miranda box does sub-sample the RGB (4:4:4) signal to YCbCr (4:2:2), but it is only a matter of time before someone makes a box that keeps it at 4:4:4.

Re:Eh, no big deal IMO...

[theLOUDroom]

Its not really possible to capture video off of DVI at the moment (DVI is basically uncompressed video - 180MB/s)

Then how the hell does it get displayed!

If the electronics exist to decode the signal, it CAN be captured, it's just a matter of difficulty.
It's quite possible to say, capture every Nth bit via a simple shift register, and dump that data simultaneously to 20 regular hard disks. Now you're only writing at 9MB/s.
At this point you can store an hour of full-bitrate video, process it however you want, or even play it back at full speed using another simple shift register.

Somebody really could make all this happen inside a single, sub-$1000 FPGA.

Re:Eh, no big deal IMO...

[toomanyquestions]

actually, you can pick up EM waves from a distance. that's why we have tempest and FIPS.

Re:Eh, no big deal IMO...

[stuktongue]

While your post is informative, and interesting, I would like to warn folks that it describes technology (and implicitly techniques) that are in the professional domain and, therefore, are quite costly and non-trivial to implement.

On a technical note, 4:2:2 color sampling (or its equivalent at HD, 22:11:11) is considered "broadcast quality." 4:4:4 RGB (or 4:4:4:4 RGBA or 22:22:22 HD RGB or 22:22:22:22 HD RGBA) is used for effects, animation, etc., and is not used for final delivery. So, thinking 4:4:4 data will be better for "casual" use is misleading.

Anyway, the bottom line here is that uncompressed video capture and manipulation, especially at HD but even at SD, is a costly undertaking. Although pro technology is accessible to consumers in an unprecedented way today, it is far from trivial to implement for casual home use.

Still, it is very interesting to learn how the pros do their stuff behind the scenes.

Re:Eh, no big deal IMO...

[InvalidError]

If you pick up EMI, you pick up the combined EMI from all three color channels across the same spectrum with no way of splitting them, not really useful if the exercise is to capture "secure" video signals to circumvent copy protection.

As far as Tempest is concerned, the proof-of-concept was only good up to little more than VGA resulution, not really suitable for high-definition contents. There was a story about Tempest here a year or two ago and one of the suggested work-arounds was to use higher resolutions and refresh rates - this covers a wider spectral range which makes it much harder to recover a consistent signal since propagation parameters can vary wildly across the spectrum. I would be far more concerned about my WAP while I am writing this off my laptop than I would be about someone tuning on to my desktop's 1600x1200x85Hz signals.

Make you go broke

[ad0gg]

I have HDMI cable from the dvd player to the my tv. Cable was close to $100. I don't know any brick and mortar store that sells than less than what I payed. Tried BestBuy, Circuit City, Good Guys. Even their DVI cables are $50+. I love how retaillers rip off their customers. Only place to get cheap cables is online.

And even with a HDMI cable I don't see any improvement over DVI even though my dvd player is upsampling to 1080i. Also having sound over it is pretty useless in a home theater enviroment, I still have to run a tosh cable from my dvd player into my reciever. I guess it could be useful if the AV reciever had HDMI inputs, but that would still require 2 cables.

Re:Make you go broke

[tji]

Premium digital cables are a rip-off. Just go to a discount electronics place, or even eBay to get cheap/decent cables.

In the analog world, a logical case could be made for high quality cables because any interference would be propogated through the system and hurt audio quality.

In digital cables, it's just ones and zeros.. As long as the digital data is there, it's not any better or worse regardless of the type of cable.

If your digital cable is not working well, it should be very obvious in the audio/video output.

Re:Make you go broke

[Zanthrox]

I did see a brick & mortar place in the Boston, MA area that had some knockoff HDMI cables for $25. (Generic bag, Molex connectors..) They also had HDMI to DVI cables for about the same price. They also had the $100 cables there. Didn't look like they'd sold too many.

Anyway, you shouldn't see any improvement over DVI -- they're both digital signals. I could see just having the 1 audio connection to the TV as well though. That could let you do things like use your TV's built in speakers as a center channel, etc..

Re:Make you go broke

[DJStealth]

You won't see any video improvement between HDMI and DVI as its the same protocol.

What I've been wondering for a while is if HDMI (or DVI) will give me any improvement over component video cables for HiDef 1080i TV.

Anyone know?

Re:Make you go broke

[MrNonchalant]

Then why the bloody hell didn't you get them online? Cables for Less has them in the low teens.

Re:Make you go broke

[BWindle]

Sounds like it isn't designed to give you better video than DVI...

"The video segment of the HDMI signal is actually compatible pin for pin with DVI, but in a much different package. HDMI improves on DVI by transmitting digital audio on the same interface, adding support for HDCP and also better DDC options for manufacturers."

Re:Make you go broke

[RoboRay]

"In digital cables, it's just ones and zeros.. As long as the digital data is there, it's not any better or worse regardless of the type of cable." That's a common misconception, but that's exactly what it is... a misconception. I need a 9m DVI cable to reach from my DVD player to my projector, and I assure you that you can't do that with a cheap cable. Using your "just as good" cheap cable, I get sparkling white dots all over the screen. Using a better built, higher quality and therefore more expensive cable gives me a perfectly pristine picture. A digital signal isn't an "all or nothing" situation. Individual bits can be dropped without loosing the entire signal, and it's blatantly obvious with a video signal.

Re:Make you go broke

[suyashs]

True... but thats not what Monster wants you to believe...

Re:Make you go broke

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. I wish I could convince my father about this. He suckers into this Monster stuff (for digital stuff that's like 2 feet) and I keep telling him "It's digital, it won't make it any higher quality." He just doesn't get it, "Well I'm willing to pay the extra for the assurance" or some such nonsense. I mean, you can get a cheap RCA 50 cent cable to transmit a PCM digital audio signal from a DVD player to a receiver, for example, and you'd get exactly the same quality as if it was a $50 Monster cable double-multi-universe-KAZAAAM shielded. Or those people that *have* to have optical where a coaxial digital cable could be used because they think optical means "higher quality audio".

Re:Make you go broke

[pete-classic]

tji said:

If your digital cable is not working well, it should be very obvious in the audio/video output.

You replied:

Individual bits can be dropped without loosing the entire signal, and it's blatantly obvious with a video signal.

I think you misunderstood tji. I think that he meant "As long as all the bits are getting through reliably, you don't get more fidelity from an expensive cable." Which is, of course, true.

-Peter

Re:Make you go broke

[DigitalCrackPipe]

I love how retaillers rip off their customers. Only place to get cheap cables is online

Cables have something like 1000% profit margin for retailers - it's one of their cash cows (after they lure you in with specials on the peripherals that no longer include cables).

I've bought cables online for a few years and only buy retail in a pinch. If you're the kind of person to understand cables are cheaper online, you probably did enough research on your HDTV to know you should have ordered the cables a few days before you wanted to buy the TV ;) Most folks probably don't really notice the price hit since they dropped so much on the equipment already.

Re:Make you go broke

[RoboRay]

Sure, but it's the quality of the cable that determines whether or not the bits are getting through reliably. Cable quality definately does matter.

Re:Make you go broke

[PoderOmega]

I bought a DVI to HDMI cable (for my Comcast Motorola Box to Panasonic LCD projection screen) for $30 plus shipping at http://www.ramelectronics.net/html/DVI-hdmi_cables .html. Works great but there isnt much of a difference from component that I noticed.

Re:Make you go broke

[Waffle Iron]

I have HDMI cable from the dvd player to the my tv. Cable was close to $100.

That's nothing. Right now, Best Buy's website is listing a 9-foot Samsung HDMI-HDMI cable for $169.00. For some wires! For that price you could buy *five* cheap microwave ovens.

I'm sure some people double the price of their new HDTV when they get talked into tacking on extended warranties, a TV stand and a few cables. P.T. Barnum is laughing somewhere.

Re:Make you go broke

[Moofie]

I threw the whole cable "quality" argument in the trash can when I saw the gold-plated connectors on a TOSLINK cable.

Yeah. Gold plated...optical connectors. Riiiight.

Yes, the cable needs to be not-noisy enough to get the signal from point A to point B, but it doesn't need to be pure silver hand-rolled between the thighs of Cuban virgins, wrapped in rich Corinthian leather.

The interconnect cable mfrs sell snake oil. Lots of people seem to like snake oil, so good for them.

Re:Make you go broke

[4of12]

From my understanding, HDMI was DVI plus digital audio (up to 7.1).

FWIW, I noticed some slight improvement for the 1080i using the DVI connector vs the component video connectors from my Hughes HD receiver (outputs RF/composite/S-video/component/DVI/HDMI) to my Sharp LCD HD display (accepts all those and odd firewire, pc data cards).

My DVD player is older and its highest output quality is component, but since it's only 480p I'm not sure I'm missing too much. I'm accustomed to viewing DVD's under S-video, so component was a step up.

And like another /. poster mentioned about HD's fabulous picture: it's so good that the dogs start watching it when the wildlife shows are on.

Re:Make you go broke

[AbRASiON]

Absoloutely, I'm using an RCA cable that I was given by a speaker manufacturer (for PC) on a 10$ set of speakers, it's about .7mm thick and works absoloutely flawlessly, value = no more than 50c.

Digital is fantastic......... but not when DRM comes into play.

Re:Make you go broke

[miltimj]

If you're running the cables long distances (e.g. front projection often needs this), or splitting the signal, etc, then you'll see a difference. Three foot runs directly behind your TV you most likely won't.

Re:Make you go broke

[AbRASiON]

Both HDMI and DVI theoretically should give you an improvement over component unfortunately, no matter what the component video bandwidth on the receiver / tv / player is.

It's simply digital vs analog - go google up an analog / dvi comparison on an LCD.
If you put the 2 side by side the digital one does definately win out.

Re:Make you go broke

[pete-classic]

You're pretty thick, aren't you? Nobody is saying that it doesn't matter at all. We're saying that you don't get any better results once you have met the bare minimum requirements for reliable communication.

Contrast this with analog communications, where quality continues to improve (whether you can perceive it or not is another question) until you achieve an ideal conductor (and perfect impedance matching, etc).

Contrast it, also, with what know-nothing, dickhead salesmen will try to tell you in order to pad their commissions.

-Peter

Re:Make you go broke

[RoboRay]

Well, I guess it's snake oil that keeps the white sparklies off my screen. So be it. Not that I'm saying they WON'T sell you worthless stuff like gold-plated optical connectors, as they certainly will. But that's true of any business. The ignorant will always be taken advantage of. But, that's not what we're talking about here. Rember that you do get what you pay for. A cheap cable gives me a crappy image. A more expensive cable gives me a pristine image. That's not a debating postion. It's simply a fact.

Re:Make you go broke

[RoboRay]

Oh, personal insults... The last resort of those unable to argue their position effectively. Nobody is saying it doesn't matter at all? That's exactly what the original post I replied to said. Perhaps you should review it.

Re:Make you go broke

[Moofie]

Your cable that cost you lots of money gives you pristine picture. That's not to say that a less expensive cable would not.

You're happy with your purchase. Cool. Commerce in action. I'm not willing to give Monster (or whoever) a nickel they don't earn.

Re:Make you go broke

[RoboRay]

Actually, a less expensive cable DID give me a bad picture, as I clearly stated above.

Re:Make you go broke

[Shinzaburo]

So you got a crappy cable. A single data point does not a statistically-significant sample size make.

Your assertion proves nothing except that you bought one inexpensive, crappy cable that didn't work, and one expensive cable that did work. That's all.

There are tons of inexpensive cables that produce results indistinguishable from that produced by your expensive cable.

Re:Make you go broke

[Moofie]

Thank you. That's my point exactly, well stated.

Re:Make you go broke

[Shinzaburo]

It's not a personal insult -- it's a fact. You seem to lack certain discussion and reading comprehension skills.

The original post says quite clearly that assuming all the digital data is being transmitted, there is no difference in signal quality between an inexpensive cable and an expensive one.

Re:Make you go broke

[DJStealth]

Is this slight difference worth the added cost of the cable? (Keep in mind, HDMI cables are more expensive than DVI - 2x to 4x the cost).

Re:Make you go broke

[DarkEdgeX]

Tread lightly, thar be facts here!

Re:Make you go broke

[4of12]

Hard call.

When I was doing my setup, a DVI cable was provided. IIRC, the HDMI cables, gold-plated SuperDuper were something like US$ 120 at my retail outlet. The improvement is noticeable but slight, so you could get by quite well living on the component video cables. If you saw the digital signal, you'd notice it and say it was slight. But if you were introduced to HD on the component video and hadn't been "spoiled" with the digital you'd probaby be quite happy and just pick up a cable when the prices come down in a year.

Some of the decision is proportional - I shelled out close to $7k on a 45in AQUOS so a $120 cable would have been less than the sales tax was on the display.

Re:Make you go broke

[DarkEdgeX]

That's a common misconception, but that's exactly what it is... a misconception.

Sounds like you got a defective cheap cable and now you're taking it out on all cheap cables because you bought one overpriced "elite" cable and everything worked fine.

As far as digital connections go, could someone who actually knows explain why it is digital connections don't have error correction? It's been a staple of network protocols (TCP) and modems (ye olde 28.8) for decades-- how is it digital audio/video connections are lacking this (or are they)?

If they do have error correction, how could a poor cable make any difference in the output then? I mean, yes a cable with cuts in it would have problems, but a flakey cable would retry and get through possibly before the data needed to be rendered.

Re:Make you go broke

[RoboRay]

OK, you show me a cheap DVI cable that can do a 9m or more run without video degradation and you might have something. I'm sure the rest of the guys at AVS Forum will love to find out about it, and wonder how they missed it.

Re:Make you go broke

[RoboRay]

No, it's not really defective. It's just junk. White sparkles are actually very common if you try to do long DVI runs on cheap cable.

Re:Make you go broke

[RoboRay]

You can keep typing insulting statements until your fingertips wear off, but that won't turn your opinions into facts. My response to the initial post was that cable quality can be the distinguishing factor on whether data is transmitted correctly. It's a fine point, so I can understand how you might have missed it. Now, please grow up and stop being rude. You're not annoying me, if that's your intent. You're not even being more than marginally entertaining.

Re:Make you go broke

[toomanyquestions]

unfortunately, not all cable are created equal. if you read the DVI or HDMI or the raw TMDS spec (if you can find one), then you notice there is no "cable spec". it is spec at the quality of eye pattern at the receiver end. so good cable gives you longer distance; bad cable gives you weird displays on screen and really bad cable gives you no screen.

Re:Make you go broke

[toomanyquestions]

unfortunately, the transmission is one way; the return path is I2C at very low rate (relatively)

thus there are no true error correction but only error detection.

the spec calls for 10 to -9th order of SER on a transmission link that meets the eye pattern requirement. that means even with the best cable, you may experience some bit error in every few seconds.

so unless the SER creep up to 10-e3 or 10-e4, you won't see too much difference.

DDWG did very extensive study on the error rate as well as the error symptons before move to 1.0 spec release.

Re:Make you go broke

[atrus]

All digital signals are subject to jitter and noise. DVI is very length limited, anything over a few meters basicly requires a really nice cable. Anything over 10m requires you to get a DVI-fiber adapter.

You can do infinite post processing on any sort of data to do error correction, but its not free. Complicated electronics which bump up the price, the need for bidirectional communications, and something which you really want to avoid in A/V: Latency. TCP is error correcting since it doesn't care about latency. Video is very timing sensitive and keeping everything in sync with the least delay is hard work. Doing things like trunking DVI over fiber adds latency as well (for modulation and demod step). As such, DVI and Toslink have little to no error detection or correction (especially toslink). Which is why jitter and timing errors are noticeable on cheap digital audio connections.

Re:Make you go broke

[egomaniac]

If you're running the cables long distances (e.g. front projection often needs this), or splitting the signal, etc, then you'll see a difference. Three foot runs directly behind your TV you most likely won't.

Not with a good component video cable. I have an Infocus 7205 projecting onto a 160" screen, with a 30' run between the receiver and projector. A high-end projector, a very large screen, and a long run pretty much make this the worst-case scenario.

I have two DVD players hooked up to this projector, one via component and one via DVI. There is no difference between the two. Absolutely none, at least not that human eyes can distinguish. And I'm married to a professional photographer, so we have very trained (and picky) eyes.

Re:Make you go broke

[mjpaci]

Where in the Boston area? I need to find said place to purchase my generic HDMI cables.

--Mike

Re:Make you go broke

[stuktongue]

Thanks for this post. I've read through quite a few on this topic and just wanted to add a little to yours.

For those who don't know, the "eye pattern" is what one sees on an oscilloscope or equivalent test equipment when measuring the output of a device or cable stimulated by a digital test pattern. The quality of the eye, in terms of the amount of openness both vertically and horizontally, reflects the quality of the signal in terms of amplitude noise (vertical openness) and jitter (horizontal openness). (More or less, anyway.)

As the eye closes up due to poor cabling, bit error rate (BER) increases, since the receiver has a tougher time discerning 1's from 0's due to the presence of noise and jitter. The eye closes up due to various factors, e.g., impedance mismatches/discontinuities that give rise to reflections, etc.

Poorer-quality cables can degrade signal quality to the point that BER increases beyond the error correction code's ability to ensure signal integrity. The results can range from picture degradation to link failure, depending on the severity of the problem.

Designing and manufacturing high-quality cables is not an inherently stratospherically expensive activity. However, without due attention to the details, inferior products can result. Higher-end products, in general, purport to have more attention paid to these details. The trick, in my mind, is to select products that reasonably balance design/manufacture quality and cost.

FWIW, and mind you, I am not a Monster Cable rep, I find Monster Cable products, in general, to provide a pretty good balance. Usually, a couple products up from the bottom provides decent quality vs. cost. Just my 2 cents worth.

Re:Make you go broke

[Zanthrox]

You-Do-It Electronics in Needham off rt 128. Excellent place for cables/components. They're what Radio Shack should be.

Re:Make you go broke

[Shinzaburo]

That was in fact not your response to the initial post -- you modified your response along the way. There's nothing wrong with "clarifying" one's point, of course. Just don't pretend that's what you said to begin with, because it isn't.

What you claimed to be a common misconception...

As long as the digital data is there, it's not any better or worse regardless of the type of cable.

...is simply an outright fact. If all the data is being transmitted, there's no signal quality difference between an inexpensive cable and an expensive cable. In your case, your first cable clearly didn't transmit all the the information properly, thereby violating the very clearly stated condition that all the digital data be present.

I think we all agree that your amended point is probably true: cable quality can influence whether data is transmitted correctly over longer distances. Thing is, your point isn't really relevant to the conversation at hand, since the original poster very clearly said his statement assumes all the data is being transmitted. Let's further illustrate by example:

Me: "Assuming you had better reading and grammar skills, your point would be valued more highly by the Slashdot community."

You: "But I can't seem to comprehend very well, and I wrote that my cheap cable 'looses' the signal. Ergo, you are wrong: my point will not be valued very highly."

Me: "Actually, I'm not wrong. Try reading the assertion a few more times until it sinks in."

I hope that clears things up. I'm sorry if you find the experience of public embarrassment to be "rude," but such an interpretation is really nobody else's responsibility but your own. You might have been be better served by responding to the original post thusly:

You are quite right, but in my experience, higher quality cables can help ensure that your assumption (i.e., that all data is transmitted correctly) remains true over longer-than-average cable lengths.

In stark contrast to your "misconception" flag-waving, the above response would have all but eliminated the aforementioned public humiliation.

Re:Make you go broke

[ebrandsberg]

I'll step one point further, you got a **defective** cheap cable. It was made 9m, right? It couldn't send a digitial signal 9m, right? So clarify that you had a cheap **defective** cable, vs. an expensive correct cable. The point is with digital, it works or it don't. You happened to get a cable that didn't work. It was cheap. Yay.

Let's step away from this situation and compare ethernet cables. Again, a digital ones and zero's format. Buying brand name cat5e for your 10Mb/s hub would be a waste of money, it's not going to go any faster then using a cat3, as long as it works. Yes, you CAN get marginal cables, but they are just that marginal and defective. If you pay a lot for them, you return them because they arn't performing as advertisied. S-Video cables on the other hand, can be poor and give "marginal" results if they arn't shielded, but the picure still shows up, although not as clear as a good cable. It's all bits, do the bits get there? yep? then it's all good. Do the bits get dropped? Then it's bad. Simple as that.

Now, to defend your point, you are saying there ARE no cheap 9m DVI cables. Ok, fine. Anybody selling a **CHEAP** 9m DVI cable is a snake oil salesman, because for it to send the bits across the wire that distance reliably, it has to have good connectors and be shielded. I'll go for that, but it's the same argument reversed. A digital cable has to perform AT LEAST to a basic spec, but once it does, it will work fine. Anybody selling enormously over-spec cables is the same as someone selling under-spec cables, only making more money off of it.

Re:Make you go broke

[tayhimself]

Hey dood great post, too bad I dont have any mod points.

Re:Make you go broke

[GoRK]

Some types of digital streams have error correction; some don't. CDDA for instance, has error correction, though some formats (HDCD) sacrifice some of it for enhanced fidelity (20bit vs 16bit) audio. Some formats are checksummed only (so you can detect a bit error but not correct it)

Generally, though it's the formats themselves that have the error correction and the interlinks are supposed to be good enough not to have bit errors.

On DVI you have a lot of parallel data channels (ie data moving over multiple pairs of cables), low voltage signalling, and a very high datarate too (up to 5gbps). The main problems you have to battle with cable quality in this circumstance are jitter and interference. The interference is the same thing as with analog cable, except that it's manifested differently in digital -- as bit errors. A simple analogy for jitter is bits arriving out of order or out of sync on differnt cable paths. Some pairs may be physically longer than others due to being twisted tighter or stretched out when a cable was wound onto a spool. The receiver is, for the sake of an example, expecting to read the status of 8 bits on 8 wires when a pulse comes over a 9th wire. If the physical wire carrying one of those bits is 1cm longer than another pair, the time difference of a few nanoseconds might mean that the incorrect bit is read from the wire. The longer the cable is, the more likely it is that either or both of these problems will increase enough to cause bitstream errors. The longer cable makes a bigger antenna to receive intereference and the longer length means that there is a higher likelyhood that data pairs have a larger length disparity due to varied rates of twisting, stretching, etc. and finally the increased resistance of the cable can drop the (already low) voltage down to where the ADC cannot reliably reassemble the digital stream.

Personally, I try to buy quality cables whenever possible without going insane about it. I'd rather get it right the first time than get a sub par cable somewhere and have to take the time to troubleshoot it. I have gotten stuff from Blue Jeans Cable before and found that they take a pretty no-nonsense approach to selling good cables that are designed for specific purposes. I plan to trust their 15m DVI cable when I get a projector, and that's probably the most insane/extreme cable they sell.

Re:Make you go broke

[Shinzaburo]

Thanks, Tay. No worries about the mod points. It's the thought that counts! :)

Re:Make you go broke

[greenreaper]

I notice you didn't actually give him the example he asked for. You stepped away from it instead. Nice try, though. :-)

Re:Make you go broke

[timbck2]

I've been looking for a cable that breaks out the digital audio from HDMI (in addition to DVI video). I've been able to find HDMI -> DVI cables, but none that also include audio. Has anyone seen such a thing?

Re:Make you go broke

[pete-classic]

I shouldn't have said you are thick, I should have said that your reading comprehension skills are pathetic.

Every single fucking post in this thread has made the same statement WITH the caveat that we are assuming the data get through.

tji said, "As long as the digital data is there".

I said, "As long as all the bits are getting through reliably".

Don't blame others for your inability to read.

YOU FUCKING MORON.

-Peter

Question

[afidel]

Will an HDMI/HDCP display accept un-encrypted content? That is can I use them as a display for normal PC content? I'd love to connect my HTPC to a big screen display and it would suck if I can't buy a display after this July that will work with my homebrew solution.

Re:Question

[Shkuey]

I currently run from the DVI out on my PC to the HDCP compliant HDMI input on my projector, and it works fine. (Except for the overscanning, but that is just my personal issue with Sony..) So I would say that yes, it will accept un-encrypted content. This article also seems to imply that a DVI connection will not carry an HDCP protected signal, which is not the case.

Re:Question

[mooglez]

Yes, displays will work with source material. the HDCP protection is enforced by the player, not the display device. i think a lot of people in these comments are confusing the HDMI connection type (DVI + Audio) with the HDCP copy-prevention scheme

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of 'enforced by the player'...

Software DVD players must authenticate with the vidcard to ensure Macrovision is active on video outputs. I assume software HDTV-DVD players must do the same to check for HDCP.

Thats the idea, at least - in order to maintain backwards compatability rather than "The player was unable to determine if your video card is able to play DVDs" messages, many players and video card drivers could be hacked to fix this. The players were tamperproofed - the drivers were not.

HDCP will probably be tougher - the licence likely requires any drivers are tamperproofed - but still, thats a lot of players and a lot of drivers. Odds are, one will be crackable. And it only takes one...

Don't want audio and video on same plug

[Zed2K]

For the simple fact that audio usually gets routed to a home theater receiver and video gets routed to the display device. So unless they are going to have HDMI on receivers or pre's then I'll run dvi to the tv and optical to the receiver.

Re:Don't want audio and video on same plug

[MrP-(at work)]

I agree. It has some nice features but audio on the same cable as video just isn't one of them.

With composite cables, I either have to buy a separate video cable from the audio cables, or get an extension for the video connector to connect it to my audio equipment which is never near my video equipment. At least it's possible with those cables, but it would seem a lot harder with HDMI.. Although I suppose if HDMI is the standard something will be done to fix these problems but still.

Re:Don't want audio and video on same plug

[Shkuey]

You can already find HDMI in/out, switching, and even ADC conversion from Composite/Component on high end receivers. Such as the denon AVR-5805, http://www.usa.denon.com/catalog/products.asp?l=1& c=2#PID771 Just a matter of time until it is on more affordable devices.

Re:Don't want audio and video on same plug

[oolon]

Yes they want to, that way they can protect audio as well as the video from you. Even better for them would be for you to get a media PC adding DRM to everything you pass through it.

James

Re:Don't want audio and video on same plug

[Grishnakh]

Yep, the future is going to be bright. Not only will your TV and stereo use DRM-protected HDMI cables, but you'll have a HTPC, running Windows MCE (which you'll pay a large license fee for), streaming content to your components, directly from the content owners. And you won't have to waste space on storing those pesky CDs and DVDs anymore, either: you just won't have any! Instead, you'll pay $5 or $10 for every song you listen to, or $50 or $100 for every movie you watch, each time you watch it. Of course, your HTPC will also have HDC technology (Human Detection Capability), so that you'll be charged for each person that's in the room.

Re:Don't want audio and video on same plug

[DarkEdgeX]

Pioneer was showing off a receiver at last year's CES with 2 HDMI inputs and 1 HDMI output. I suspect (and hope) it won't be long before we see HDMI switching in consumer receivers.

HDCP OTOH can take a flying leap. :P

Limited uses for most users?

[DeathFlame]

Useful for computers? No, since like the article says, audio and video input and outputs are usually seperate. How many people use speakers attached to there monitor?

Useful for Home Entertaintment? For quality setups, its even less useful since the video and audio are going to different outputs (speakers and a TV for example)

So what good is this connecter?

Re:Limited uses for most users?

[lessthanjakejohn]

Many pre-amps/receivers have video switches. The new EMO setup by http://www.av123.com/ has HDMI inputs.

Re:Limited uses for most users?

[Big_Al_B]

For quality setups, its even less useful since the video and audio are going to different outputs (speakers and a TV for example)

I'm not sure what kind of "quality" you're talking about.

A "quality" SAT/CAB/HD/DVD setup will send both HDMI, DVI/HDCP, or worst-case component, video and digital audio to a quality receiver or controller/amp stack.

A "quality" receiver/controller will switch the video signals it receives to a HDMI,DVI/HDCP or component output going to a HDTV monitor/projector. A receiver would then send the audio out to connected speakers, while a controller will send line-out audio on 2-to-7 channels to an amp that powers the speakers.

In any case, a setup that doesn't switch video and audio through a central controller isn't "quality".

Re:Limited uses for most users?

[DarkEdgeX]

So what good is this connecter?

I take it you don't have a high quality home theatre setup or the answer would be obvious to you: fewer wires and connections to worry about during configuration. No more RCA connections for left/right audio. No more component video connections for high definition video. No more seperate audio/video cables either. For high quality audio sources (think: DVD Audio or SACD) no more cable terror going from your DVD player to your Receiver (FYI: for DVDA/SACD you must run ONE RCA cable per channel, so for 5.1 sources that works out to 6 cables going from DVD player to Receiver/Amp).

Useful for Home Entertaintment? For quality setups, its even less useful since the video and audio are going to different outputs (speakers and a TV for example)

I don't know anyone who does this. Most people route audio and video through their receivers so they can easily switch sources (DVD player, satellite/cable, game system, etc). Routing the video directly to the TV is a bad idea unless the ONLY use for your TV is to watch movies.

I still can't believe it

[morcego]

I'm serious. Who come the people accept it ?
It stupidity to be a new way of life of something ?

I'm all for capitalism, but watermarking the sound my speaks produce ? Isn't that pushing things a bit too far ? Can't we sue the companies for it ? After all, the sound being produced it not the same sound we payed for.

And heck. It is MY computer. I can plug anything I want on it, not only "RIAA approved" devices. And I don't even live in USA, so why should I care if RIAA approved my devices or not ?

I'm still waiting for someone to show up and say: "Laugh! It was all a joke. Gotcha! April fools!"

Re:I still can't believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

And I don't even live in USA, so why should I care if RIAA approved my devices or not ?

As long as you suck on the teet of American media you will be its child and it your authoritative mother. Weaning yourself is the only real solution.

Re:I still can't believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as you suck on the teet of American media you will be its child and it your authoritative mother. Weaning yourself is the only real solution.

Because we all know that even though American media sucks ass, every other country's television is vastly superior and open minded about everything. Oh yeah. That's why all our 20 year old programs are still running over on the other side of the pond.

Yeah, I'd rather sit around and watch "Are You Being Served?" than "South Park" any day (of the week that doesn't end with a y). /sarcasm

Re:I still can't believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever seen Father Ted? Monty Python? Black Adder? Mexican Telenovellas?

Good stuff.

Re:I still can't believe it

[TheGavster]

I find it amusing when a technology who's only promise is marginally better audio quality goes and distorts the sound with a watermarking algorithm ... I mean, if you go to the trouble of 192KHz audio (do people actually record that, or just upsample 96KHz stuff?) you shouldn't mess with the signal, like ever.

Re:I still can't believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in the US and I have about the same amount of reason to give a flying fuck about what the RIAA has to with anything.

Which means that I have absolutely no reason to give a shit about the RIAA.

Re:I still can't believe it

[bersl2]

I'll reproduce for you what I left in the comments of that Anandtech report.

Uh, this "protection" crap is making me sick.

And so is this vision of the future where I have even less control over my machines and the data in my possession.

Media (Ed. note: plural of medium) matter more than ever in culture, and you are going to hand over control to entities whose sole responsibility is to make money, in effect, giving up control of your culture? You are going to let someone who doesn't care what you believe in manage how you make sense of the world?

Think. Please. Think about what is going on. You choose what you want, but consider what it is you are slated to lose and how important that is to you.

Sometimes I think they don't care. Sometimes I think that they just don't put two and two together. For whatever reason, they do not see this as a problem of much urgency.

Re:I still can't believe it

[bersl2]

Might I add, twelve hours before it went live on /.

Re:I still can't believe it

[dark_requiem]

I'm all for capitalism, but watermarking the sound my speaks produce ?

This isn't really the workings of capitalism. Under capitalism, schemes like this would fail, because they would be rejected by consumers, who hold a certain level of sovereignty in the marketplace, and any company basing its economic future on such foolishness would crumble accordingly. However, under the quasi-socialist state that is America, we have an unconstitutional governing body (the FCC) that can MANDATE the inclusion of DMR. Really the success of products and technologies such as this is fostered by government-created distortions in the market.

As to suing the companies, no, you can't, and shouldn't, be able to sue for that. So long as the company is up-front about the inclusion of such features, you had fair warning, and could choose to purchase a different system.

If you don't live in the US, then you might be OK. The FCC requirement to include HDCP technology in all products only applies, obviously, to products manufactured/distributed in the US. Foreign manufacturers can still develope and distribute technology effectively circumventing copy protections (depending on what country, of course. Some might actually cooperate with US law enforcement).

Re:I still can't believe it

[morcego]

As to suing the companies, no, you can't, and shouldn't, be able to sue for that. So long as the company is up-front about the inclusion of such features, you had fair warning, and could choose to purchase a different system.

Warning: This product makes use of ZYX watermarking tecnology.

or

Warning: This product uses a watermarking tecnology that will make it impossible for you to use any devices we didn't approve first, taking from you the right to choose what brand or model you want to have.

BIG difference, don't you think ?

Re:I still can't believe it

[dark_requiem]

The point is that if you are informed in advance that a product uses a particular technology, it is YOUR responsibility to ensure said technology is interoperable with what you own. Granted, in modern America you can sue and win for anything, so you probably COULD sue a manufacturer of HDCP-enable equipment, but that doesn't make it right. So if you don't want to have issues with this technology, don't buy it. If you do buy an HDCP-enabled product, you accept responsibility for your purchase. It is utterly ridiculous to sue someone because you can't use it to view media designed to operate in another system. And if you purchase such a system and the media to play it, knowing you cannot excercise fair use, you have essentially waved the right to excercise fair use of the media you purchase for use on said system.

Re:I still can't believe it

[tricorn]

"Now, with new and improved Watermarking Technology to enhance your entertainment experience". Warning labels don't always say "Warning": "Plays For Sure"; "Intel Inside" (note: HDCP is an Intel proprietary standard - gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that the FCC is requiring that all television set manufacturers pay a royalty to Intel, and the content producer cartels are going to require that all HD-DVD players pay a royalty to Intel. Which means, I'm going to be required to pay a royalty to Intel if I want to buy anything new in 5 years time or so. Plus a couple pennies for each title for the right to have it turn on the Copy Prevention bit to activate the HDCP in the equipment I no longer seem to own, even if I paid for it. All for a lame copy prevention scheme that is slightly more effective than transmitting a flag that says "don't copy me", but of course, that probably couldn't be patented so how could Intel make money off of it then?)

Content providers dream...

[Ingolfke]

is for your electronics to measure your enjoyment of the media and then charge you accordingly. Of course you'd still pay a per-use fee, and a general content licensure fee equivalent to the cost of the media today.

And booksellers will license the ideas in the book to you, with the understanding that any benefit you gain from the material in the book is subject to royalty payments.

Re:Content providers dream...

[ajmilne]

Okay, it's the obvious comment--but man, if they 'charge me accordingly' to my enjoyment of said media, they still owe *me* roughly two grand for 'Battlefield Earth' alone... and if I can sit through the agony of watching it frequently enough, I could probably bankrupt the system in short order... 'Course, I'm still not sure it's worth the pain.

It has to be said, so let's get it over with

[Paiway]

In Soviet Russia, DRM regulates YOU!

Re:It has to be said, so let's get it over with

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, DRM regulates YOU!

s/Soviet Russia/USA

Re:It has to be said, so let's get it over with

[MrP-(at work)]

"s/Soviet Russia/USA"

Sad but true. ::gives you +1 Insightful with his non existent mod points::

Re:It has to be said, so let's get it over with

[Digital_Quartz]

Actually, exactly the opposite. DRM has no power without the DMCA to back it up. Making bits not copyable is like trying to make water not wet, so you can really only have "effective" DRM in an environment where you're only legally allowed to decrypt things for specific uses.

It's pretty stupid when you think about it; "We'll give you encrypted content, and a key, but decrypting the content may or may not be illegal, depending on what you do with the content after you decrypt it". It's doubly pointless since copying it was illegal in the first place.

I'm glad I don't live in the USA.

Re:It has to be said, so let's get it over with

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad I don't live in the USA.

So are we.

It does a few things right

[blaster]

HDMI does a few things right. Adding audio is very useful for a lot of people (one cable is always easier than than 2 or 3). They also tweaked the signaling to run longer ranges, and added support for YUV (if you thing YUV support is not a big deal then do searches for the whole PC RGB/Studio RGB crush and push issues people have with DVI DVD players).

There are tradeoffs of course. In order to reduce the connector size they eliminated the analog link and the second digital link. I think the improved signaling allows them to run their digital interface a little faster than DVI, so the second link may not be a huge issue. The lack of an analog link means that you cannot make a cheap cable only VGA adapter like you can for DVI-I, which seems like a pretty big issue if somebody were actually going to try to push computer adoption of this, especially for laptops.

If it wasn't for HDCP it would be a pretty nice improvement over DVI for many users.

Louis

Re:It does a few things right

[TheGavster]

I'm really not seeing the one cable in any remotely high end set up. If you're using a home theater PC to supply your content, it has discrete audio and video cards. The video goes to the monitor (probably over DVI) and the audio goes to your receiver (TOSLink or something). You're splitting the cable at both ends, so why not just cable tie discrete cables together? Rather than a high-end digital pipe, this would be nice for low-end 640i video with analog stereo so that I only need one cable each for the DVD player, the satellite box, etc.

Re:It does a few things right

[blaster]

Picture this scenario. My parents just bought a flat panel EDTV because they are concerned about space. They want to hook it up to a DVD player. Currently they would use between 3 and 5 cables, a number of which are physically identical. With HDMI they use one.

The fact that HDMI allows HD signals and the fact that it is a single cable are two orthogonal facts. Just because it is on the highend now does not mean it will be there forever. There are plenty of people buying new ED/HD sets who are not audio/videophiles, who will use the built in speakers, and will be happy with the simplified interface. And it means fewer tech support calls to me from my mother who is upset with her new TV purchase ;-)

There is also something appealing about only needing one type of cable in highend setups. It means less types of things to buy. Checkout this receiver. Using only 5 (13 if you count the speakers and subwoofer) cables you can hook an OTA STB, an Upscaling DVD player, a Satellite receiver, and PVR, while still guaranteeing correct clockskew on the scaler (since the audio and video are bundled). I bet if they threw out all the analog ports and signal processors that are only used in the analog path they could shave a bunch of money off it too.

Louis

"For Me"-Chcken meet egg.

[Anonymous Coward]

"From what I read in the article, it will help the media companies to prevent fair use of the signal. Other than bundling audio, how will really benefit the consumer?"

So which came first? The piracy, or the "defenses against it"?*

*And is anyone surprised that it would escalate to begin with. e.g. ala Cold War? It must be nice living in a world were actions don't have consequences.

Legailty and workarounds

[CompSci101]

I read this article this morning and it really pissed me off (especially how rabidly positive the author was about the connector) -- now PC users will have to contend with all the DRM nonsense that the people who bought new HDTVs recently will soon be exposed to.

It brought to mind some questions though:

1. Is this LEGAL? The only broadcast flag implementation that the providers seem to want to want to endorse is HDCP, an Intel product. Now, the FCC can make all sorts of claims that they have not mandated an encryption/authentication standard, but if the only standard television and broadcasting manufacturers will support is HDCP, they've effectively given Intel a license to print money (just think of all the audio/video equipment manufacturers that must now become HDCP licensees or go out of business). If the FCC has gone so far as to mandate that copy protection must exist, they should mandate that interoperability must also exist.
2. Following on the legality question: is this creating a consumer electronics cartel that bars entry to the market and fair competition? A license for HDCP costs $15,000 and 1,000,000 keys costs an additional $5,000. This, of course, is a pittance to what consumer electronics manufacturers can come up with, but say you're an Open Source developer that wants to bring a software player to market (or Linux) that can play HDCP protected streams. You're SOL as this is clearly the same problem as DVD/CSS.
3. I'm sure this has been already asked, but would it be possible to establish a self-funded Open Source community that would become an HDCP licensee on the condition that it would only distribute the software it develops to members (like a small collective that would make the cost of a license small per developer). Naturally, the cost of a license would go down dramatically once more members signed on, but what's to stop Intel from revoking your license once you released the source to the product?

This is as big a problem as, if not bigger than, CSS.

C

Re:Legailty and workarounds

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Norway, making copies of any book or film or album or whatever "for private use" is legal. "Private use" is understood to include "close friends and family". Now, any norwegian lawyers reading this: Is it actually legal for media companies to try stopping me from making copies the law says I can make?

Re:Legailty and workarounds

[complete loony]

Ah, but if it were GPL, then all members would have to be able to get the source code. I'm sure the license would require that access to the source code be controlled and accounted for.

Re:Legailty and workarounds

[nsayer]

now PC users will have to contend with all the DRM nonsense that the people who bought new HDTVs recently will soon be exposed to

I don't believe that's the case. HDCP is not required for a signal source. I expect all signal-sink components to fully be able to support unencrypted content.

I suppose in theory, you could see HDDVD player programs that run on PCs work with the video card driver to output HDMI-HDCP, should the disk demand it. That could potentially cause headaches for Open Source OSes if the video chipset folks don't make that stuff default to being disabled and out of the way.

Re:Legailty and workarounds

[Anonymous Coward]

What other conserns will arise as well. Right now artists have the ability to make content distribute it anyway they can(cd/dvd/web) now basically the industry owns your entertainment centre. Will they be allowed a 'public' key that they can play their create content on their and your tv's? Or will they be given the oppertunity to purchace at insane prices?

As history has shown us when certain things are on a uprise like the greed we see today things tend to change. I would think in about 10 years **AA's will be no more. This is cemented that nowhere during thier spree of fingerpointing the governament was no where to be found trying to manage the matter, they just let it go with out even giving the public a sence of security.

I personally think that ideas like peercast and others will translate to video and coupled with high speed internet will give alternatives that people will use as an alternative once they collapse on themselves.

Funny how it always works in waves, people who loved acting / music would make no money and preform on the streets. Then it built up to where they were given stages and venues. Then they take advantage. Then they collapse.

Then we enjoy street musicians / artists again, personally I can't wait!

So uh, what's the point?

[spitefulcrow]

I don't even use DVI yet. My card supports it, but I'm using an old analog LCD and the rest of my family still has CRTs. So is this just a way to force restriction of fair use onto consumers by selling it as an all-in-one cable run simplifier, with the nice side effect of making everyone upgrade to devices with the new standard and putting more money in home theatre companies' pockets?

Re:So uh, what's the point?

[Tink2000]

Yep. Welcome to the home computing market, where the solution to every problem is regulate and/ or upgrade.

They can have my 19" AOC Jag when they pry it from my cold dead GeForce 4.

Re:So uh, what's the point?

[Zanthrox]

Well, unlike CRTs, LCDs are digital devices. (Fixed number of pixels, etc..)

Why convert your display signal from digital (the framebuffer of your video card) to analog just to convert it back to digital? DVI saves you a couple conversion steps.

Re:So uh, what's the point?

[spitefulcrow]

Yeah, I understand the benefits of DVI. But what's the point of HDMI if all it does is put audio in the same cable and add DRM?

Greed hinders greed?

[swb]

In order to do licensed development of HDMI components (on the sending or receiving end), it runs about 30k... for the licensing alone! After that of course you have the joys of per unit costs, which we don't care about so much.

Is Hollywood greed killing Hollywood greed?

Are they actually greedy enough to want to not only license their DRM technology to people who would actually implement it, thus stifling their ability to completely cripple fair use?

Or is this a subtle way that electronics companies accomplish this -- engage Hollywood in DRM technology, settle on standard, quietly charge big bucks to hardware developers knowing full well they won't adopt your does-nothing-other-technology-can't-but-DRM, continue using cheaper/easier/DRM-less technologies, continue selling tons of copy-enabled (at least somewhat) technology to eager consumers?

Or is this just one of those "barrier to entry" fees that keeps HDMI development kits out of the hands of small players and off eBay so that its secrets stay secret longer?

Re:Greed hinders greed?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd go for 'barrier of entry for small players'. Since the FCC mandated TV's to have HDMI by mid 2005 any AV device connecting to that TV will be forced to have HDMI as well. So as a hardware you'll pay for it anyway or go out of business.
Same thing happened for CSS. It costs a ton to license and it takes up die space, but forget about building a DVD player without it.

ok...

[Anonymous Coward]

It was funny the first time but you can't keep using the same joke!

Re:ok...

[stratjakt]

In Soviet Russia, same joke keeps using you!

And I, for one, welcome our same-joke using overlords, as they pour hot grits down Natalie Portmans pants.

???

Profit?

Re:ok...

[That's Unpossible!]

It was funny the first time but you can't keep using the same joke!

But this is how we meme things.

(I know, I know... "verbing weirds language.")

Re:ok...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Korea, only old people complain about people reusing jokes.

Re:ok...

[Anonymous Coward]

And meme doesn't mean what you think it does.

Technical note on 1080P over HDMI

[doormat]

While the HDMI interface has the bandwidth to carry 1080P signals (1080P is considered the best HD video standard), the chipsets used in TVs nowadays are not capable of handling the bitrate 1080P would use. This has been discussed on the AVS Forum, in one thread in particular, in the context of the new 1080P Samsung TVs unveiled at CES 2005.

Re:Technical note on 1080P over HDMI

[pe1chl]

Will there be any broadcasters that are prepared to spend the bitrate (and thus bandwith) required for 1080P?

Here in Europe the battle seems to go between 1080i and 720P.

Re:Technical note on 1080P over HDMI

[danimal67]

As far as I understand it, there isn't room for a 1080p signal on the 6mhz channel that a broadcaster gets. More likely, the only 1080p source you'd ever get would be from something in your living room like a computer, console, or maybe future HD-DVD player. I might be mistaken however.

Re:Technical note on 1080P over HDMI

[doormat]

Same here in America, but a lot of people who are interested are outputting their video from a HTPC, and 1920x1080 at 60 frames progressive over DVI (over an DVI to HDMI converter) or VGA. DVD player on the HTPC plus dscaler and a fast processor could make DVDs look simply amazing.

Re:Technical note on 1080P over HDMI

[pe1chl]

There will be no terrestrial HDTV here. It will be either cable or satellite. There is some more room on these media, but it is expensive.
Given that 1920x1080 is not going to be worthwile below 42" screen, and given that most broadcasters see TV programming only as a way to ensure that viewers don't zap away between the commercials, I doubt the money will be spent on it.

Re:Technical note on 1080P over HDMI

[pe1chl]

With a fixed quality of DVD, why is reading and upscaling it on a PC going to make it look better than sending it to the TV at the recording resolution and then upscaling it on the TV?

To get 1920x1080 at 60fps you will have to scan it from the film at that resolution. And the film does not provide the 60fps anyway...

Re:Technical note on 1080P over HDMI

[doormat]

Coz dscaler can upscale the video better than the TV can. The TV has circuitry that upscales video, and dscaler does the same thing. But I can have a 3GHz processor upscale the video, or I can have some video processor do it. And if you didnt spend $5000+ for the TV, its possible to have dscaler look better.

Re:Technical note on 1080P over HDMI

[Anonymous Coward]

1080p24 and 1080p30 are allowed within the ATSC specification but to the best of my knowledge, no one has transmitted in either format. My guess is your are referring 1080p60, which uses more bandwidth than is available within the ATSC specification.

Re:Technical note on 1080P over HDMI

[pe1chl]

Well, that is not what I spent but the recommended retail price is about that (mostly because the dollar has fallen so much relative to the euro, of course!).
Prices of these sets are falling, and I expect that next year you can buy a similar-quality set for maybe 2500 dollars (or just below 2000 euro).

I doubt that any program can do much better than what this TV's scaler does. I have done some first experiments feeding the TV at native resolution from a PC and of course it looks impressive when displaying a desktop. I did not try HDTV source material yet.
(being in 50Hz PAL land of course means the situation is better to start with)

Re:Technical note on 1080P over HDMI

[DarkEdgeX]

True, but isn't it a good thing that, for once, the connection being used won't be instantly out of date when we get it? I mean, we'll eventually get 1080P displays and HDMI will already be there to handle the load-- that's a plus for HDMI.

Re:Technical note on 1080P over HDMI

[toomanyquestions]

spec may says that but in reality, it's not.

DVI has 2 links (1 clock and 2 sets of 3 channels to carry R, G, B) where HDMI is 1 link (1 clock and 1 set of 3 channels to carry R, G, B, or YUV in varies format)

although the spec for HDMI is physical layer looks the same link DVI single link, however, since the payload has to reserve for audio stream, it is at a discounted video rate.

now top that with the encoding overhead (8B10B), etc. you are very close to just get 1080P working in most cases but not always.

the problem you see most the time when pushing 1080OP is on audio, not video. the audio either get out of sync on timing and you need to flush buffer and re-sync or the bits are corrupted that you lost a segment (silent).

this is why DVI connector supports dual links.

BTW, 1080p is not end of the story; there is a new digital cinema spec called 2Kp24 already been in work for 3 years.

Re:Technical note on 1080P over HDMI

[Jherek Carnelian]

Your are right that is unlikely we will see 1080p over the air. But not for technical reasons, more like inertia. 1080p is not supported by most commercial broadcast equipment, so 1080p programming will only benefit a relatively few stations. By the time 1080p support is common, tv stations may no longer exist in a recognizable form.

However, most currently broadcast 1080i material is just 1080p in disguise. Just about anything shot on film can be converted from 1080i to the original 1080p the same way the a progressive DVD player converts 480i to 480p - "reverse telecine." In fact, you can often convert a 1080i mpeg HDTV transport stream to a 1080p mpeg transport stream without having to do any re-encoding, just re-arrange the bits.

Re:Technical note on 1080P over HDMI

[farnz]

In digital cinema, people already use 4Kp24 for some work; the current progress is towards 8Kp24 in production.

DVDs still 480p

[Anonymous Coward]

Until HD-DVD is standard, there's no reason to go HDMI from your DVD player to your HDTV. Component cables will work fine. The data on the disc is still 480p, so just how much can HDMI improve on that? Wait for HD-DVD and then buy an HDMI DVD player for your HDTV.

Re:DVDs still 480p

[stratjakt]

You buy a media center PC and special edition DVDs that have a copy of the movie in high definition WMV9.

I know one of the Terminator 2 editions has this, at least.

Or you use it on your PC as the logical successor to DVI.

Re:DVDs still 480p

[RockClimbingFool]

Because component cables are analog video only and HDMI is digital video and audio combined. HDMI video is exaclty compatable with DVI. You can put an HDMI to DVI adapter on the HDMI cable coming from your dvd player and plug it into a DVI tv. You just lose the bundled digital audio that way.

So HDMI is nice because the cable is much thinner than DVI and combines digital audio and video into a single cable.

The DRM aspect of HDMI is not nice, but talk to the FCC about that one. They are making manufactures implement it, not the other way around.

Re:DVDs still 480p

[The Wicked Priest]

If you have an upconverting DVD player, it will only output over HDMI or DVI-HDCP, by order of the MPAA. Whether or not there's a real benefit in upconverting from a 480p source is another question, of course.

Re:DVDs still 480p

[toomanyquestions]

no true - if you put HDMI stream to a DVI receiver chip that does not understand the bit pattern, the the whole stream will be rejected and you get no screen.

and HDMI DRM encryption is different than DVI HDCP.

So it adds a dubious advance in return for...

[samdu]

...a massive drawback. Audio support over the connection in exchange for DRM? No thanks. My TOSlink cables work just fine for digital audio. I can see no compelling reason to switch to a connector that potentially takes rights away from me in exchange for one less cable per component in my home theatre rack. I'm sure the content creators are creaming themselves over it, though.

Re:So it adds a dubious advance in return for...

[greed]

And if you want to get your cable-count down, either buy some of those cables that have TOSlink or SPDIF bonded to the video cable, or use some tie-wraps to join the two.

I've been doing that for years so it's easier to pull a single component out of the rack.

Smaller package, that's all

[SunFan]

We'll all be using HDMI/DVI dongles if they roll this out. Perhaps this whole new standard is simply to make money off of the dongles?

Go to bestbuy

[Anonymous Coward]

and tell the clerk that you will give him extra cash if he buys the cable for you on his employee discount. Cables are the most insanely marked up thing they sell. A guy did this once for me and a $15 cable ended up being around $2. Not sure what the markup is on those DVIs, but I'm sure it's something considerable.

Re:Go to bestbuy

[imsabbel]

DVI cables are one of the most inflated ones. They need to be less good than normal vga, but because they are "special", the are insanly expensive.

last march, i bought a quality TFT in a large electronic discounter. Wasnt much more expensive then online. BUT there was no dvi cable inside, so i wanted to buy one.
2m. 50 euro.

Bought one online, 5m ,4.95euro. Works like charm.

THe cable market can do such things because there are enough idiots around that will think "more expensive is better", especially with audio/video (the more hardcore idiots even with power cables).

Re:Go to bestbuy

[Anonymous Coward]

THe cable market can do such things because there are enough idiots around that will think "more expensive is better", especially with audio/video (the more hardcore idiots even with power cables).

Oh I know. I laugh at these idiots who pay $50-$100 for these Monster Cables to transmit a digital signal that any cheap $5 cable could do and result in the exact same data and quality.

Re:Go to bestbuy

[Anonymous Coward]

If you'd asked me I would have bought the cable at $1 on the employee discount and sell it to you for $14. It's a win-win situation

Re:Go to bestbuy

[over_exposed]

*Almost* off-topic - but not quite.

It usually depends on the brand name and store. I used to work for Best Buy and we got everything 10% above store cost. Cabling and Car Audio were the two most marked-up products. Car speakers and decks were commonly marked up over 600%. I've seen cabling marked up as high as 2000% (yeah - three zeros)! Watch batteries that sell for $3.97 cost me around $0.26. I bought $1600 worth of car audio equipment (deck, four new speakers, all new cabling, amp, sub, box, etc.) for less than $400 - installed.

In other words...
Retail will rip you off! Retailers often make more money off of the USB cable you have to buy (because it's not included with your printer) than they make on the whole ocmputer/monitor/printer combo.

Never buy high-end A/V or computer cables retail. If you see a $100 DVI cable at Best Buy or Circuit City, you should be able to find it online for less than $40. It's still a rip-off, but it doesn't hurt to walk or sit down afterwards.

Re:Go to bestbuy

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you're talking about 10 years ago, your math is simply wrong.

I worked at an independent retailer in CO who had to compete with Best Buy, and the numbers aren't anything like that. Car Audio is generally at about a 65% markup, home audio at about 50%, and TV at like 25-30%. Monster Cable is absolutely the worst, at about 300% markup.

Everyone wants to make a profit - but your numbers are just unbelievable.

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, duh, for the same reason re-encoding a 64kbps MP3 to 320VBR makes it sound better. You know, uh, it'll be cool and it'll sound better. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some videos to re-encode.

Monty Python

[jd]

What have the HDMI ever done for us?

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[stevenharman]

A a matter of fact, I have used a DVI->HDMI converter cable to hook my Samsung HD841 DVD player (DVI output) up to my Mitsubishi DLP TV (HDMI input). I went for one of the higher-end Monster HDMI/DVI cables to ensure the best possible signal to the TV. I think it was about $180, but the guy at BestBuy gave it to me for the price of the lesser cable (~$120). I had talked to the guy a while before choosing the DVD player and told him that for what the TV had cost, I wasn't interested in skimping out on the components (nor cables) if it cost picture quality. I'm sure I could have done even better online, but I am all about instant gratification! I have been very happy w/the picture (the DVD player up-converts the signal to 480p, 720p, or 1080i).

From the research I've done, and what I've seen, its like most other (electronic) things... you'll generally get the best results if you stick w/high quality stuff from end-to-end. It would have been nice to have all of the audio in the same cable, rather than having to buy another fiber cable for the sound.
Good luck!

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[Johnboi Waltune]

I have tried expensive HDMI and cheap HDMI cables... there was no difference from what I have seen on my 37" plasma. I'd say you got ripped off.

call it: pointless

[poot_rootbeer]

I RTFA, and I still don't understand how this is useful to anyone.

For the DRM to work, the market will need to reach a point where the only input connector that TV's and speakers have will be HDMI ports. I expect this to happen around the year, hmm, let's say 3000. Here we are, a year away from the alleged switch to HDTV, and a huge percentage of the television sets sold still have good old-fashioned analog coaxial antenna jacks on the back of them. Good luck getting Every Electronics Manufacturer In The World to stop offering their customers the feature of analog connections. (We'll have direct-to-brain optical implants running on a descendant of Bluetooth before this happens.)

Audio connections won't go entirely digital until sometime around AD 4500. There's too many audiophiles with investments in $100/foot speaker cable to EVER accept an all-digital interconnect.

Another thing -- my video and audio signals don't output to the same device. The video goes to the TV, and the audio goes to the home theater system. Putting both signals on a single cable doesn't do me any good, I'll just have to break them out further down the chain.

Methinks this standard is just an attempt by Belkin and co. to make a lot of money selling aftermarket HDMI-to-DVI adapters.

Re:call it: pointless

[The Wicked Priest]

Oh, they're not going to stop offering analog. They don't have to, and don't plan to. All they have to do is to make the analog connections lower quality, by forcing them to run at a lower resolution -- "downrezzing". I think 480p (max) is what they have in mind. Of course, no sane manufacturer would voluntarily cripple their hardware this way; that's why you bring in a corrupt Congress and FCC to make it law. Then anyone who wants to see actual high definition will have to adopt HDMI. Everyone else will have to settle for fuzzy 480p, or maybe 480i (NTSC).

This is their plan. Don't let it happen.

Re:call it: pointless

[Night Goat]

Nice Primus reference in the post title. :)

Re:call it: pointless

[dougjm]

It's funny but since I moved into my new house (I live in Scotland) I can now only get 4 analogue channels - there's no cable in my village, I can't get a terestrial digital signal (called Freeview) and I'm not giving any of my money to Murdoch/BSkyB.
However, my analogue picture on my £150 21" Aiwa TV is remarcably better quality than the picture that my parents get from their cable box through their £600 Sony 32" Trinitron.
The difference is that the bandwidth thats used on the cable and satalite pictures here is shockingly low and analogue gives such a better picture.
Unfortunatly over here in the UK they are going to switch the analogue service off in about 3-4 years time, its almost a shame!

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[jmarcand]

I just got a 36" Sony HDTV set, and am using a cheap (~$20) DVI->HDMI converter cable found on ebay to connect my media pc. Works like a champ.

One mechanical problem with HDMI

[mcg1969]

One nice thing about DVI is that you can secure it to the device with its screws, just like a traditional computer cable. HDMI doesn't have that facility, and it's proving to cause some problems for home theater installers it seems, from what I heard from such folks at CES.

Re:One mechanical problem with HDMI

[bezza]

HDMI uses clips on the sides of the cable, just as secure and even easier than DVI.

Re:One mechanical problem with HDMI

[mcg1969]

They must not be as secure as you say, because these installers are having a bear of a time with them. DVI is solid.

Change the language

[fahrvergnugen]

I believe that the first step on the road to beating down the sort of restrictions inherent in HDCP and other DRM technologies is a semantic one.

These new restrictions are being marketed to consumers as "the next generation in protected media access," which makes it sound like the the DRM features are somehow benefitting the purchaser of these fair-use disabled devices.

These are not "copy protection" technologies. We don't need to be protected from our hardware.

These are "copy prevention" technologies.

Let's start calling them on their bullshit, and try to change the terminology. Next time you hear someone mention "copy protection," correct them. Let's take back the language to describe these harmful restrictions on our rights, and keep the marketing weasels from sugarcoating the poison pill they're trying so desperately to shove down our throats.

Re:Change the language

[alex_ware]

Thats such a good idea it needs its own website.
-You know score a point for each correction become member of the month.

DRM is illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM is illegal, IMO (IANAL), because it doesn't have a built-in time bomb for when the copyright expires. I should be able to take a DRM'd media from today and be able to find a player and use it as public domain in the future. Public domain is public domain, and should I be required to go to a malicious company like Disney for the now-public-domain work that I already have?

Hey guys, I just had a great idea!

[thegnu]

You know how we are always slashdotting sites? We can perform a reverse physical slashdot of any product with HDMI and just not buy it.

I'm not buying it, that's for sure. I've got too tight a wallet and my morals are too fat.

The worst thing about it is....

[JustNiz]

that it is based on DVI.

DVI is limited to 60 frames per second, which means you get your butt handed to you on a plate by most online PC gamers using older analog monitors.

I can't believe the inventors of DVI were so short-sighted to believe 60fps max was acceptable for all uses. Whats worse is that the 'new' HDMI interface has the same problem.

Re:The worst thing about it is....

[JustNiz]

actually the whole notion of fps seems so yesterday. I mean Why does digital stuff need to emulate a scanning electron beam at all?

Why can't it just use lists of deltas (pixels that have changed since the last frame)?

Re:The worst thing about it is....

[Anonymous Coward]

Informative my ass.

single link DVI supports a maximum bandwidth of 165 MHz (1920x1080 at 60 Hz, 1280x1024 at 85Hz)

dual link DVI supports 2x165 MHz (2048x1536 at 60 Hz, 1920x1080 at 85 Hz)


Your 60fps limit is imposed by the flat panel, or the card, but not the interface that connects the two.

Re:The worst thing about it is....

[ruiner13]

If your reaction time in games is improved by going from 60fps to 120fps I'm the fucking pope. Your eyes can barely discern the difference, let alone making your muscles twitch 1/120th of a second faster. There aren't enough amphetamines in the world to help you, sir (or ma'am).

Re:The worst thing about it is....

[man_ls]

Just because it's digital doesn't mean the digital pixels don't have a response time still...the FPS limits come from different causes (sweep of an electron beam vs voltage dwell times of a liquid crystal segment) but they have the end result of only a certain number of distinct pictures can be displayed per unit time.

Re:The worst thing about it is....

[JustNiz]

Dear Pope,

At higher framrates you're less likely to miss something fast-moving (e.g. a rocket heading straight at you), as its in more frames therefore you're more able to resolve its motion.

You're obviously not an FPS gamer (or at least a good one) otherwise you'd be very aware of this effect.

Re:The worst thing about it is....

[JustNiz]

Yes LCD lag/ghosting is another reason why most top twitch-gamers still use CRT displays.

Re:The worst thing about it is....

[ruiner13]

If your eyes could see more than 85fps then you would see every light in your house strobing to the 60Hz electric line oscillation, and I'm sure you'd be insane by now. Wait... i take that back, if you need an extra 1/120th of a second to make you able to play FPSs without dying, you already are.

Re:The worst thing about it is....

[JustNiz]

Now you know why I hate the strip lighting at work.

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[andreyw]

Why is a "Monster cable" better than something I duct-taped together for transmitting digital signals? Is the uber-secret alloy in the cable gently massaging the individual bits to produce never-before-seen/heard clarity in sound/video? Rofl!

Reminds me of a fool I know who spent a fortune on moster fibre-optic cables and then kept ensuring me how the difference was "obvious" when compared to random cheap cables. Heh.

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[cheinonen]

I'm sure there will be lots of people saying that for a pure digital cable, there's no reason to spend much money on it. The only problem is that DVI, at least for home theater use, has no error correction built in and if you use a cheap cable with poor shielding in an interference prone environment, you can get "sparkles" on the screen where a pixel gets set to the wrong color because of interference. Now, there's a good chance it won't happen for you, but since you can order good quality, shielded cables online (ramelectronics.net has good quality DVI to HDMI cables), for cheaper than Monster at the store, you should buy something decent.

One sentence in the article to focus on ...

[bcreane]

"The fact that HDMI protects video and audio signaling is enough for content providers to lean on PC manufacturers to adopt the standard over DVI."

Its funny how the whole tone of the article is Jee-Whiz, look at this cool new technology. And then the kicker is that there's a ghost in the machine ... the ghost of fair use.

HDMI is backwards-compatible with DVI

[mingrassia]

I recently bought a Sony projection TV and had the same problem. Reading up on things I doscovered that Type A HDMI is backwards-compatible with the single-link Digital Visual Interface (DVI). The cables for it are expensive (about $150 USD) but it works just fine for me. You still have to feed audio over a separate wire however.

Also, from the HDMI website, the faq says:
Is HDMI backward-compatible with DVI (Digital Visual Interface)?
Yes, HDMI is fully backward-compatible with DVI using the CEA-861 profile for DTVs. HDMI DTVs will display video received from existing DVI-equipped products, and DVI-equipped TVs will display video from HDMI sources.

However, to answer the question of the original story "HDMI and What it Will Do for You" I have to say absolutely nothing! This effort is really for the media companies to introduce DRM without the average consumer knowing.

Good idea to have audio and video on same wire?

[good2pets]

regardless of the DRM that will be cracked within a month of release, how could I connect audio and video with one wire? Who has a 8 channel surround sound system built into their television? Stereo/speakers are on a different device than the video...but I do like the idea of not having to have a super thick shielded wire that will not be only like 6 ft long...my monitor wire is stretched to the limit right now.

Two things:

[thegnu]

1.- I am totally on board with you about taking back language, and your distinction between copy protection and copy prevention is a good one. I'll use it copiously and with disregard of the feelings of others.

2.- Your sig. I think ESPECIALLY Jesus hates listening to Creed. Think about it. At least they're not singing about YOU. ;-)

Don't waste money on expensive cables

[hode]

Digital cables are the worst place to spend money in terms of performance gains. Think of how much more DVD player you could have bought for $120!

I bought a cheap DVI to HDMI cable on ebay. The picture looks just as good as DVI to DVI.

My LCD HD tv has both inputs. I use the DVI - DVI for the computer and the DVI - HDMI for the high def cable box.

Splittable?

[wildsurf]

One of my top requests for any of these cable types is that they be splittable, without having to buy a $300 powered splitter to accomplish the task. A receiver with multiple HD inputs switchable to multiple HD outputs would do the trick, but I don't know if any exist... (Anyone?)

I have an HD television for daytime use and an HD front-projector for nighttime use, and it is a pain to synchronize all the source connections, because most sources (and most receivers) only have one high-quality output.

For those who need to buy splitters anyway, here are some links I dug up:

Component Video Splitter
HDMI Splitter
DVI Splitter

It's already here....

[RockClimbingFool]

Almost all NEW consumer electronics have dumped DVI in favor of HDMI. Cable boxes, tv's, dvd players, etc. DVI is going away very quickly, except in the PC component market.

Re:It's already here....

[alex_ware]

really?
I haven't even seen any with DVI, all the stuff on sale near me is SCART.
I live in england and still have a VGA monitor. Am I really behind the times?
15" LCD is enough for me.

Re:It's already here....

[RockClimbingFool]

I am talking about new HDTV's and new, mid range and above dvd players. The pc market is definately DVI, probably because NVidia and ATi do not want to try and support pumping sound through thier already complicated cards. Also, HDMI does not support analog video. I think...

DVI from PC's is DVI-I, which has analog and well as digital pin outs. That is why you can just put a DVI to VGA adaptor on it. TV's and such are usually DVI-D, which only has pin outs for digtal.

So going from HDMI to DVI is ok as long as your DVI is digital. HDMI to VGA will not work. I think...

Re:It's already here....

[be-fan]

Yes. A lot of new HDTVs, for example, come with DVI inputs. A lot of the new pure-digital audio receivers come with HDMI inputs.

Re:It's already here....

[alex_ware]

Is the PC market truly DVI?
A LOT of PC's are enterprise machines so DVI is redundant for that a 17" VGA is perfectly fine for Word and email.

Re:It's already here....

[RockClimbingFool]

Yeah, but NVidia and ATi can support both analog and digital video through dvi. Single connecotr on all their boards. Makes their life much simpler.

I can't see them going to HDMI and time soon though. They lose the ability to support VGA easily.

Re:It's already here....

[alex_ware]

the funny part is I didn't mean it to be funny, i was being serious

Any digital connection..

[Shkuey]

.. can be protected in such a manner. If they could agree with a standard for your toslink or digital coax they'd have that encrypted too. Fortunately, I believe, they've been around too long at this point. I run all my audio and video through a receiver, and it would be nice to cut down on the number of wires. There is nothing inherently evil about the HDMI interface.

DVI?

[michaelmalak]

I thought that was a c. 1990 Intel technology.

Make sure you get a set w/ DVI... wait, now HDMI.

[ayeco]

I remember while shopping for an HDTV everyone said to make sure you get a set with DVI. Next thing I know my HDTV didn't have the next big thing - "make sure you have HDMI".... nice.

Had the same thought about connections...

[SuperKendall]

To me HDMI holds little interest because I always end up routing audio and video to seperate boxes.

It does make some sense if you are routing a DVD player output to a receiver that also acts as a video switch. But if you are going that high end you will probably not be sending anything but video to your display.

They've got all the bases covered though with DVI-HDCP which adds encryption to the DVI signal so you can't play it from a standard DVI unit unless it also supports HDCP. But this to me seems a little silly as if the ability to decode HDCP is so widespread, then people can build standalone devices whose whole purpose is just to decrypt the HDCP signal and transcode it to somehting more readable.

It all begs the question -

[Progman3K]

Once ALL-DRM systems in place everywhere, Big Brother (Hollywood or the recording industries) will know how many times you've played your songs/movies/whatever and they'll be able to calculate the royalty payments accurately.

For artists that receive royalties from playback of their works, the artists will stand to make quite a bit of money, collectively.

So my question is this - Once all that data can be tallied properly and the evidence trails are secure and available, how will the recording studios cheat artists out of their money?

The companies are NOT doing all of this for the artists, no matter what they claim.

That begs a further question; will the artists stand to make a better living by cutting out the industry and striking a bargain directly with the people, or even use creative commons licensing for their works?

After all, it's better to make art for free than in the service of a villain.

Yay! something else...

[andalay]

... I can't afford

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know... it's like people buying monster cable for their speakers, at 2$/foot... I'm sure the 10 or 12 gauge one I can buy at home depot will do the same job for less $

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[stevenharman]

I didn't say that Monster is better than Foo... however the Monster cables I linked to will tend be be better because the are shielded and so will help to ensure that every bit is sent/recieved correctly. So you could say that the shielding is helping to prevent the bits from being massaged (corrupted). Now I know that duct tape has a billion-and-one uses, but I don't know that shielding digital transmission cables is one of them... but I could be wrong!

This sucks because it's too short!

[Dr. Spork]

What I want for a next video cable standard is the ability to run maybe 30 meters (100'), with KVMs. People are spending stupid amounts of money trying to make a quiet PC, but what I want is to have a loud, ugly PC that lives in the basement.

Then, one long cable carries the video signal plus USB3, so I could have my monitor, mouse and keyboard somewhere else in the house. Also, there should be a standard so that video signals can be made to be easily "networkable" so that I can switch any display device in the house to show any video source being produced in the house (and maybe control that source in some appropriate way).

Re:This sucks because it's too short!

[Shkuey]

Ask and ye shall receive ... to keep it on topic this particular one even an HDMI port on it, http://www.auroramultimedia.com/web/?section=produ cts&product=wacinxstream

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[zigzagtx2778]

As long as it receives the 1's and 0's, what's to worry about the quality of cables. Analog signals, yes, can be maintained on higher quality cables, but digital... You got ripped off.

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[ponos]

Why is a "Monster cable" better than something I duct-taped together for transmitting digital signals? Is the uber-secret alloy in the cable gently massaging the individual bits to produce never-before-seen/heard clarity in sound/video? Rofl!

Do you think that a 1080p (~2MPixel) signal at 24bit and 60Hz is a trivial amount of bandwidth? A nice DVD player will typically feature a 108MHz DAC to provide sufficient data to the monitor. This is not the kind of data rate you can pass through just any cable. Sure, an HDMI compliant cable should give adequate results (which, by the way there is NO WAY you can build, it is rather complicated, not plain cat5 UTP) but it is quite possible that some applications would require a higher quality cable (e.g. you need 8m instead of 1m of cable for your ceiling-mounted HDMI DLP projector).

Do you think that "digital" signal is somehow magically different from an analog signal and is totally immune to all analog phenomena? Why don't you try passing 100MBps from my phone lines, then?

I'd never advise anyone to buy $200 cables (even if this might seem a small part of a $10000 setup). But be reasonable! A nice $30-50 cable is not a bad choice. As a matter of fact, quality of construction becomes increasingly important for digital circuits because the tolerance for analog noise/errors is getting smaller. I wouldn't be surprised if USB3 of firewire1600 had some rather special requirements. And your memory,CPU and motherboard has gold contacts, I suppose? (why?)

P.

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[stevenharman]

Before someone says it... yes, I realize that most any shielded cable will probably work just as well. But the one's I bought have worked for me, and I'm happy with them.

playstation2 connector?

[lysander]

The picture of the HDMI interface looks sort of like the port in the back of the playstation 2. Anyone know if they're the same or physically compatible?

Re:playstation2 connector?

[Shkuey]

Not at all.

That 20 second rule on replies is killing me.

Wal-Mart to the rescue

[SuperKendall]

Wal-Mart has a very cheap ($30) switchbox that handles component inputs (meant for game systems). If you think about it it's just switching over the connections from thre RCA jacks!

I also managed to buy a three-connector Toslink switchbox that takes three inputs, and has one connection for going to a receiver. That was not at Walmart and I can't remember where I bought it. It works rather well though, and even switches network conectinos (no idea yet if it works as a switch, or a switch/hub - that is, if network connections are disabled for any devices not on the currently switched-to connection).

So right now I have a bit of a frankenstien switching situation as I have seperate switchboxes for audio and video. But it was WAY cheaper than buying a receiver that could switch everything I wanted to switch, and is not too cumbersome to use. And I can leave my receiver on a single audi source for multiple devices so at least I don't have to switch that.

Luckily, the encyption has already been broken

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of our "rock stars" have already broken HDCP, the encyption used for HDMI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Bandwidth_Digita l_Content_Protection

As the Wiki page states, HDCP was still approved despite its known weaknesses. If people want to, breaking HDCP is easier than the effort that was needed to deal with CSS for DVDs.

You just need to be able to capture & buffer data at 4Gbps...

Re:Luckily, the encyption has already been broken

[Anonymous Coward]

>You just need to be able to capture & buffer data at 4Gbps...

You also need to live in a country without DMCA equivalent laws...

Re:Luckily, the encyption has already been broken

[toomanyquestions]

this was not surprised as the stream cipher was designed so that old process technology is able to manufacture it. anything man made can be broken. there is always someone smarter out there. 8-)

Re:Luckily, the encyption has already been broken

[wolrahnaes]

"You also need to live in a country without DMCA equivalent laws..."

Or not care. I live in the US. I still rip DVDs and decrypted the couple of songs I got from iTunes during the Pepsi deal.

What, now that I've admitted this in public, are the IP lawyers going to come after me in swarms? Oooh...I'm scared...

Once the information for breaking HDMI is released and I can afford the equipment, I will be recording the raw digital satellite signal for every show I want to watch.

Fuck the RIAA, fuck the MPAA, fuck the DMCA, fuck 'em all.

HDMI

[Anonymous Coward]

Hollywood's DaeMonic Intentions...

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[abandonment]

he's using media center pc - he's succumbed to the drm nazi's already and is obviously a lost cause.

the consumer public will boycott and simply ignore anything that forces DRM onto people like this, particularly if it offers very little to no benefits and costs more money.

Re:DRM - Generation 1 Digital Copies

[Nom du Keyboard]

no way perfect digital copies.

I'll accept perfect digital copies of a rip one generation removed from the original. I suspect most others will as well. For the guy with the penis-extending $10K audio system, he was probably planning to spend his next 10 KiloBucks on original sources anway.

For the rest of is, it will still sound better than AM.

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[andreyw]

Naturally there is some minimum spec for these cables. However, when monster claims "Advanced Design and Technology Give You Absolutely Brilliant Picture", I tend to call bull. The picture won't be any different using any other in-spec HDMI cable. If the cable used isn't in-spec, then I will hear/see digital artficats, or see/hear absolutely nothing.

And no, my memory doesn't have have gold contacts, because the motherboard connector doesn't have gold contacts. Need I remind you what happens when two dissimilar metals contact?

Re:Component vs HDMI

[Humba]

I have a Scientific Atlanta 8300HD cable box that supports component out and HDMI out and a plasma that supports both as well. I *wanted* to see a difference with HDMI on my 42" Panasonic plasma (1024x768, not true 1080) but did not notice anything either in stills or action shots.

The 8300HD is a 2 tuner HD DVR, so I was able to pause and re-run the same HD feed through my test repeatedly. I could not see a difference, even with difficult situations like deep shadows, fade-in/fade-outs or waves/water.

--H

Another cable type?!

[IMightB]

Heck I don't even have S-Video on my Stereo Receiver/Amplifier. My TV only supports one S-Video in so that's what my DVD uses, but everything else has to go through the old Composite style video connections. I bought my Receiver back in '94 It works great, made it through college, and is no where near broken. As long as components support multiple outs why would I buy a new one.

Then again, I don't have cable/Satellite, and belive that watching TV is the quickest way to become a sheeple.

I suspect that once HDMI becomes mainstream, that it will become the only output on a component.

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[Anonymous Coward]

There won't be a quality difference but it does make cable connection easier because it combines audio & video. It doesn't hurt that the connector is smaller particularly if need to run it to a front projector mounted on the ceiling. Also, receivers will use the HDMI interface not DVI to switch video signals.

Morons

[CrystalFalcon]

The only difference between DVI signal and HDMI signal is that the HDMI signal is encrypted.

So where is the added value for the buyer? They seriously want me to pay MORE for something which gives me LESS options?

Besides, HDMI is audio and video and encryption. (My dad occasionally touts the fact that HDMI carries audio and video both as an advantage.) However, seeing as audio and video goes to completely separate outputs (monitor/projector vs. stereo equipment), this design choice baffles me completely.

Morons. Let this abomination die a quick death and be done with it.

Or possibly, let's assume that someone like LG Electronics Gets It again and understands that the people with the ultimate money in the chain (consumers) don't want encrypted signals. Once you have the option of buying unencrypted, the point of having encryption at all is completely lost.

Re:Morons

[Shkuey]

"The only difference between DVI signal and HDMI signal is that the HDMI signal is encrypted."

This is simply not true. Not only can you use HDMI without encryption, but HDCP encryption can also be used over DVI.

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens? Is this like when matter and anti-matter meet?

Samsung 1080p TVs

[Anonymous Coward]

These upcoming Samsung TVs are 1080. They aren't really 1080i or 1080p.

For example, 1080p signal draws 60 frames per second. These 1-chip DLPs draw at least 180 frames per second. An LCD RPTV (similar to a DLP) doesn't draw data sequentially at all, each frame is rendered all at once (sort of) like a film, not in a order from one corner to another like 1080i, 1080p or regular TV.

They accept 1920x1080 input. They accept it in both progressive and interlaced format.

But to say a DLP is 1080p is just marketing, it doesn't have any real meaning.

Useless mandated technology.

[ruiner13]

Until they start building professional grade, 200 watt per channel 7.1 recievers directly in the TV set, I don't see how this will ever be the sole connector in use. This only makes you buy a second cable to run to whatever amplifier you are using. Pointless, and a waste of money. I'll stick to components and toslink, thanks.

Re:Useless mandated technology.

[Shkuey]

Does nobody on /. like to tie their video source switching to their audio source switching?

This baffles me. If you have more than one source (DBS, DVD Player, Cable box, video game system, whatever) then routing both audio and video through a receiver makes changing sources that much easier.

Re:Useless mandated technology.

[ruiner13]

When you are dealing with HD, you should always try to use a minimum of cables to avoid distortion. I could let my reciever switch, but I have yet to see one that does not add distortion let alone support 1080p frequencies and bandwidth.

Re:Useless mandated technology.

[RoboRay]

Use my receiver to switch video? Ugh. Why degrade the picture with those extra connections when I can use programmable remote macros to switch the video on the display at the same time as the audio on the receiver, all with a single button?

Re:Useless mandated technology.

[Shkuey]

Maybe I'm mistaken or just not normal, but my TV never has as many inputs as I have sources. My current setup requires a 24 foot cable run, and the projector has 1 HDMI and 1 DVI. Basically I cant afford not to use a switch of some type.

Not only that but switching a digital signal degrading the picture quality? I challenge anyone to watch something in my theater and tell me there are picture quality issues. Granted, I spend quite a bit more money on these things than the average joe, but then again HDMI is still only used in high end gear.

I like the idea of fewer wires between components, even though at present I use the analog audio channels whenever possible. I'm not trying to defend DRM or whatever else is setting people off in this discussion, just trying to point out that it is NOT being forced by the HDMI standard.

I've been dealing with HDCP compliant DVI connections for months now, this is nothing new with a digital interface.

Watch Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple, like them or hate them, is a good predictor of what technologies will be adopted. CD-ROM's in every machine, back when nothing was almost shipping on CD media. USB only for serial, DVD readers in every machine. DVI video out in all desktop class machines. (The Mac Mini has no VGA out. You need an adaptor.)

Apple is using DDL to run it's 30" monitors. It's likely this will be the standard to run all large monitors in the near feature.

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[wankledot]

So you can connect to a TV that has HDMI and get a full HD picture. vs. S-vid., etc.

Re:Component vs HDMI

[AbRASiON]

Try something more detailed like a menu in a game, or text or the textures on a car in a high detailed Xbox game etc - should be more crisp.

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just a complete goober, aren't you? Do you ever think for yourself, or do you just buy whatever the guy at Best Buy tells you to?

Re:Make sure you get a set w/ DVI... wait, now HDM

[rworne]

Great, isn't it?

I bought my Sony XBR around 5 years ago. The HD tuner for it was "coming soon". Here I am 5 years later and there still isn't a tuner for it.

Why? DRM is why. They went from component and DVI to iLink (encrypted) and HDMI. Leaving anyone who is an early adopter fully bent over.

Yes, I can get my satellite company to supply me with an HD box that has component outputs. There are disclaimers on the said devices stating that the HD signal can be downgraded to SD at any time. Hardly worth my forking over the $$$ to upgrade anything. I'll stick with progressive scan and DVDs and be happy. I'm years away from upgrading any of my sets.

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[Le'BottomEh]

I have my Win MCE 2005 hooked up to my Sony KDF-55WF655 with a DVI-HDMI from Monster through an ATI 9250 card.

When I first boot up the computer, it is always starts in 4:3 ratio 640x480. I have to tweak my ATI settings in order for it to show up in 1280 x 720 which is perfect for 720p. I can't get it display in 1080i. So, every time I boot up, I'll have to reconfigure to get my desktop to display in full 55". I think it's a catch-22 situation. TV needs to detect incoming signal to figure out if it's 480p, 720p or 1080i. Video card needs to detect TV to figure out what is the optimum resolution.

Also, the image seems to be chopped off on all sides. It looks like the desktop is a little too large for the TV. I can either have my Start button or the time on the right but not both. Tweaking the image with Powerstrip will only result in a blank screen coz the synch goes out of whack.

Finally, switching from 2D to 3D and then back to 2D causes the TV to go blank. I think it's a synch issue again. I can go from Desktop to Media Center but going back to Desktop will result in a blank TV screen and I cannot get the screen back up. I can't even switch back to Media Center and get my screen back. The only option is to reboot the machine.

I think I'm going to use a transcoder to link my box to the TV. I am leaning towards the PCI solution from Crescendo, available HERE. It uses a passthrough cable from VGA to the PCI Card and then converts it to Component. It only uses the PCI slot to draw power. The card handles the synching and everything. HTPCNews.com has a review on the PCI card HERE.

Re:Component vs HDMI

[DJStealth]

Thanks. I have the exact same HDTV PVR box (albeit with a 46" Sony Projection HDTV), I was considering dishing out $50+ for the HDMI cable, but wasn't sure if its worth it. I guess its not.

I was reading that there are 2 quality-levels of HDMI cable, all the specs say is that the more expensive one handles higher resolution video (but doesn't say a resolution). Any idea about this?

You have no clue.

[epsilonzero]

> There's too many audiophiles with investments in $100/foot speaker cable to EVER accept an all-digital

Jesus, you don't know what you are talking about, do you? I have $100/foot speaker cables, and they have nothing to do with HDMI.

HDMI is about connecting an audio and video source, such as your DVD or computer to a receiver, where the signal can be decoded and manipulated in the digital domain before being passed off to the amplifier.

HDMI minus the video is similar to using Firewire to connect audio components or using a priopietary digital interconnect like Denon Link.

Since the signal is more likely in the digital domain to start with (CD, DVD, SACD, HDTV digital audio), there is no point in converting the signal to analog just to convert it again to digital in the receiver, and doing so degrades the signal.

By their very nature speakers are analog devices and take as input an analog signal, ergo the analog speaker cables, altough there are digital speakers with built in decoders and amplifiers, but they are just duplicating equipment inside the speaker.

> Another thing -- my video and audio signals don't output to the same device. The video goes to the TV, and the audio goes to the home theater system.

That because you do not own a receiver that can do video switching. Get the top of the line Denon receiver with video switching and HDMI inputs and you can connect a DVD player, a HDTV Tivo, and a computer with only a handful of cable and full digital quality.

Re:You have no clue.

[AK Marc]

By their very nature speakers are analog devices and take as input an analog signal, ergo the analog speaker cables, altough there are digital speakers with built in decoders and amplifiers, but they are just duplicating equipment inside the speaker.

That was his point. The only way to "enforce" DRM is to remove the analog loophole. The only way to do that is to seal the speakers and require a digital input to them. Of course, the philes (which you sound like you are one) will argue that it will cost more for worse performance than the current system, and that was what he was illustrating with the $100/ft speaker wire crack.

Re:You have no clue.

[karnal]

That because you do not own a receiver that can do video switching. Get the top of the line Denon receiver with video switching and HDMI inputs and you can connect a DVD player, a HDTV Tivo, and a computer with only a handful of cable and full digital quality.

Great. Then I have to buy 2 overpriced cables (I know, they're all at that price, but that doesn't mean they're not overpriced for me) to connect my home theatre system.

Re:You have no clue.

[poot_rootbeer]

there are digital speakers with built in decoders and amplifiers, but they are just duplicating equipment inside the speaker.

This is exactly my point. The only way to close the analog hole is to keep the signal digital as long as possible -- that means putting the D-A converter and the amplifier directly next to each speaker, inside the speaker cabinets. The receiver unit would become a digital router, directing each audio channel's data stream to the appropriate SmartSpeaker.

Yes, the current system makes a lot more sense. I never said their plans were going to WORK.

Get the top of the line Denon receiver with video switching and HDMI inputs

But I DON'T WANT to get a top of the line receiver. 90% of us don't. And that is why the only way HDMI can hope to gain widespread consumer acceptance is by force of law.

Re:You have no clue.

[tricorn]

Unless you only have one video source, you probably want to do that anyway. Even if you have multiple video inputs on the display, you want the sound to follow the video. So either you connect the audio/video from each device to the amp, and send the video to the display (and do the switching in the amp), or send the audio/video to the display and send the audio to the amp.

My preference is for a straight monitor that does nothing but display a video signal. All the processing/switching is done in the receiver, including a TV tuner (which would do any closed captioning, for instance). No speaker in the "TV", it is JUST a monitor. Sending everything to the receiver first also means I can route stuff out to other devices besides the TV - e.g. copy from Replay to VCR.

But then HDCP comes along and screws all of that up. You can't copy from one thing to another (my understanding is that limited recording will probably be allowed, but only if played back on the same device, and no copying of that signal will be allowed at all). So the idea of a central hub becomes much less useful. Send everything to the TV, which sends audio to the receiver (if you want to) (but only using an HDCP-protected link, i.e. HDMI, which means you're totally wasting it as there's no need for the video signal - going the other way there's no need for the audio signal).

For content that is sent encrypted under HDCP, you are required to route the audio and video to only HDCP-compliant devices (if you want to stay with high-quality digital). For re-sending audio as digital signals using other formats, the HDCP standard requires that it be no better than CD quality. There are a variety of digital standards that are allowed in the license agreement. Of interest is that IEC-958/60958 (S/PDIF) is not allowed to be supported for DVD-Audio (it isn't clear if that includes IEC-61937) in equipment manufactured after July of this year. Analog quality is not restricted by the HDCP standard for "Presentation Devices", but I think that means the quality sent to the screen or speakers, as there are all sorts of requirements that the analog signals inside the device not be easily useable. I'm not sure if that means that an HDCP-compliant receiver can only send audio to HDCP-compliant speakers. There are also several odd requirements that audio may not be presented at more than 1.5 times speed unless it is pitch-corrected (differs for different source material, e.g. Super Audio CD, DVD-Audio, etc). I don't know if that's to try to prevent high-speed dubbing or what.

What I find particularly obnoxious is the requirement that all material sent on digital outputs effectively has to have the "never copy" flag set in the SCMS info, even if it is coming from something that says "copy always", although there are various exceptions. The whole document is fairly confusing with lots of special cases and apparently conflicting requirements.

They've locked it up pretty tight, with interlocking agreements on manufacturers of components, resellers of components, manufacturers of systems, and content producers. Transmitting components are relatively unrestricted, but receiver components are strictly controlled. Software has to be obfuscated and protected against attacks using ICE and debuggers and the like.

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[Anonymous Coward]

bah.. ya got suckered.. It sucks, but you'll know better for next time. Save yourself some cash for other things, like some DVDs, etc...

Go here next time...

Audio/Video on one cable

[uthanda]

A large number of comments seem to point out that right now their video and audio are directed to different end points. I think these comments are missing the point (at least in the AV sense). I think what will eventually happen is either the TV will have multiple HDMI inputs or all HDMI signals will be routed through an AV switching receiver and then a single cable run to the projector / TV. In either of these situations, it negates the split a/v problem.

However, until these receivers are in place, this is a semi-valid point.

It'll be a standard when...

[TheHornedOne]

This new connector will only be a standard when Apple includes it on their Powerbooks as the standard video output port AND when I take said laptop to give a seminar. The room in which I give the seminar will have a video projector from 1994 and will thus have VGA input only. I will whip out my laptop-VGA adapter and promptly be heckled by the audio-visual people because 'MACS can't connect to a projector'. Of course, from there on out the presentation will go flawlessly, but only at the aforementioned point will this new adapter be a 'standard'

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[bob beta]

What happens?

A marketing guy cries.

(there are consequences, in some circumstances. not as many as are hyped, of course)

I'm Done.

[HEXAN]

I'm finished. The media companies can keep their stupid content.

The music is complete crap, all sounds the same. All the movies are perfect little shitty clones of something else.
Every movie I see is a fucking remake of something else. Nothing original or creative. Even most of the books they are based on are terrible.

The media companies are all trying to sell "alternative", and "rebel" as lifestyles. THEY are the establishment creating little metal cripples dependant on the tripe they push.

I cancelled my directtv and told my kids no more TV or movies. Let them think, read and talk instead.

Don't fight it, just look away.

Read a book, talk to a friend. Ride a bike. Paint.

Do something else. It's more powerful than any tools they have.

HEXAN

P.s. I am also beginning to hoard paper books. The Gestpo is coming.

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[LilMikey]

Speaker cables are analog and some amount of interference always occurs. The quality of the shielding on those cables makes a difference just as much as the gauge of the wire so while the Monsters may not actually be any better or worse than the HD ones, there is a precedent for the BB weenie to tell you that it is. With DVI as long as the bits get where they're going there's no difference between a digital signal sent across a slightly noisy but still decipherable line and one sent over a perfectly clear line. They're rip-offs plain and simple.

Who uses HDMI audio?

[IcePop456]

I have HDMI and DVI for my home theater. My projector has both inputs so naturally one is cable box and the other is the computer. DVD is component - if I'm not using the computer. Therefore, HDMI audio makes absolutely no sense to me. These digital video signals never make it to my receiver and no one in their right mind would rely on their HDTV to play audio. If you can afford a few thousand dollars for a HDTV, you can buy a $199 Dolby digital/DTS receiver to better handle the audio.

I see the new Denon 58xx series receiver has HDMI and DVI switching, but does it actually grab the audio out of the HDMI port? I don't know, but doubt it.

HDMI audio, in addition to the DRM, seems like a stupid feature some BestBuy or Circuit city employee would sell as a must have "feature". Oooh..this cable is an ALL-in-One connection.

In the future, component will no longer carry HDTV content (or so I'm told). If they also mandate HDMI audio connections, I think people will revolt against the FCC. HDCP is ridiculous itself (compare 15 LCD monitors and 15 LCD TV - think there is that big hardware difference?) Doesn't anyone in the FCC actually use HDTV or a Tivo and see how restrictive the new technology is becoming?

Re:Who uses HDMI audio?

[Shkuey]

"I see the new Denon 58xx series receiver has HDMI and DVI switching, but does it actually grab the audio out of the HDMI port? I don't know, but doubt it."

The 5805, and it does. The only bad thing about that piece is that it is massive, and you may need a hand truck to move it around.

"Doesn't anyone in the FCC actually use HDTV or a Tivo and see how restrictive the new technology is becoming?"

Lets try and be fair, don't you think you're jumping the gun a little? I've heard the rumors about blocking or lowering the quality of content on analog connections, but has anyone actually done it? Has anyone announced actual plans to enforce this is any piece of equipment? Maybe I missed the announcement, if I did I apologize. It seems to me people are jumping the gun alittle. Not only that, but they're attacking the HDMI standard without cause. Attack HDCP if the encryption is what bothers you.

Re:Who uses HDMI audio?

[IcePop456]

I did attack HDCP when I commented on comparing 15in LCD monitors and LCD TVs.

I don't think I'm jumping the gun because look at all the things you cannot do already. I pay $160 a month for cable and there are only about 4 HDTV channels I can output on my firewire port from cable box to computer to record. I *pay* for HDTV and I pay for HBO. It is one thing to pay for content, but c'mon already. I should be able to do what I want with it as long as I am not making a *PROFIT* off of it. As usual, it boils down to fair use. Knowing companies want to squeeze every last dime out of their customers, I'd rather jump the gun now than regret it later.

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[LilMikey]

I can give you my modelines if you think it'll help :)

What does this mean for monitors?

[davew2040]

As I understand it, DVI can't handle high resolutions like 2048x1536, and can't really deal with 1600x1200 at a reasonable refresh frequency. Is this going to fix that? As far as I can tell, this shortcoming is the reason why CRT's are still using analog connectors.

Re:What does this mean for monitors?

[Shkuey]

High end PC monitors have adopted dual-link DVI connections. This can handle 2048x1536 with bandwidth to spare.

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[Le'BottomEh]

I guess modelines would help if I was running XFree86. Strangely, the system works fine after bootup (except for the 480p mode) until it switches from 2D to 3D, e.g. 3D screensaver, and then back to 2D (Desktop). For all I know, it could be the TV not being to synch properly. Being a person who lacks the knowledge, I don't have a whole lot of time to mess with it. I think I'm gonna stick with the Crescendo PCI card and component cables since it works well for many people on the HTPCNews forum. the card handles all synching. Also, I have several component connectors on the TV but only 1 HDMI. I might save that slot for something better in the future.

At last

[loadquo]

An application for PCI express and a scsi raid array.

Coinkedink

[ThJ]

Funny. I've actually thought about a system like this. A digital replacement for the SCART connector. Do you guys over in America have SCART connectors?

Re:Coinkedink

[wolrahnaes]

"Do you guys over in America have SCART connectors?

Nope, we have to plug in anywhere from 1 to 5 cables to get our analog signals from our devices to the TV.

It would be nice to have a single connector that can deliver both analog and digital audio and video.

I'm thinking a combo of component video and stereo audio for the analog side, and DVI + AC3 for the digital side.

Of course, then the game console manufacturers wouldn't be able to screw us over with $20 boxes to adapt their custom connectors to the standards.

Re:Coinkedink

[ThJ]

Okay. Our game consoles don't have SCART connectors, but there's usually a Phono-to-SCART-adapter included. Most old TV sets only take input via SCART if there's any input but the antenna one. Modern TVs usually have Phono and S-Video connectors on the front, and 1 to 3 SCART inputs on the rear. The SCART system has a couple of clever features: For instance, good TVs will auto-switch to the right SCART input when equipment is turned on, and back again when it's turned off. If you tell your DVD player you have a 16:9 TV, the TV will switch formats automatically. On a good, regular 4:3 set, this means that the set does automatic letterboxing. Of course, another nice thing about living in Europe is PAL's picture quality. ;)

Re:Coinkedink

[wolrahnaes]

I thought the consoles did have SCART...

I know I've seen SCART adapters for the Xbox.

I do wish I had the auto-switching, but you can't fight with me on picture quality. My modded Xbox upscales all my videos and DVDs to 1920x1080i over the component connection.

I wish it was possoble to make the games run at different resolutions than originally intended, since Halo 1 only runs at 640x480 4:3, and I'd like at least 720x480 16:9.

One ACTUAL benefit

[Jherek Carnelian]

People tend to think that HDMI is just DVI+AUDIO wrapped in copy-prevention. But there is at least one technical improvement over DVI for video - support of YCbCr (aka "component video").

DVI is RGB only while mpeg video (and I suspect, most other forms of compressed video) is natively YCbCr. The colorspace conversion from YCbCr to RGB can, and often is, lossy. How lossy depends on the quality of your equipment. Nowadays I think that all HDMI-equipped displays are natively RGB. But that may change and even today it is possible that the YCbCr converter in your display is better than the converter in your DVD player or HDTV tuner.

Technically DVI could support YCbCr, but the standard currently does not while HDMI must support it in addition to RGB so all (correctly implemented) HDMI devices support digital YCbCr today.

Re:F'ing sucks... - OT

[MonMotha]

Hum, I also do a fair amount of RF work, but not normally A/V work. I was given the impression that component video was spec'd for like a 300-600 ohm characteristic impedance. If it's actually supposed 75 ohm at each end, then clearly 75 ohm coax is the way to go.

I really hate throwing adapters on everything. There's always insertion loss with putting adapters in the line. Obviously RCA connectors don't have constant impedance, but I would have thought it would be better to terminate it (carefully) into the connector that would actually be used, rather than throw adapters on everything. There are RCA connectors that are designed for coax, rather than simple parallel wires (ala speaker wire); the problem is finding one that actually fits on the end of a piece of RG-6/U. That cable is rather large stuff (not nearly as big as what I'm used to working with though, which is mostly LMR-400 Ultraflex and similar).

I'm certainly not going to buy Monster branded stuff. It's good, sure, but guaranteed to be overpriced. I can get very high quality adapters from a local distributor. He also sells real 75 ohm Amphenol BNC connectors, as well as off-brand ones if you're not willing to pay the premium (I usually am, if only so that I can look up all the measurements on amphenol's website), not just 50 ohm ones.

Tamper-evident seal

[tepples]

Or I could, you know, pull the cover off my TV

Oops, you let air into the chassis, and the system will detect your tampering.

reverse-engineer the decrypt mechanism, and re-implement it in software.

Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Now I buy a commerically available HDCP-chip

Those won't be available except under highly restrictive contracts, and such contracts won't be offered to small firms.

Or if you really wanted to defeat the analog watermark detection you could, um, ground-out/pull-up the pin that says "This Content is Watermarked" on the input processor.

And break the tamper-evident seal.

DRM

[CastrTroy]

Everybody is complaining that they are going to release components that only support HDMI. That's not going to happen. Every device out there still supports Composite. And do you know why? Without it it won't be compatible with 95% of the TV's out there. Maybe they will come with HDMI, but it won't be mandatory for using the equipment. Quick way to crack that copy protection on composite. Use the Coax output from your VCR. No problems recording off that.

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[nolife]

I bought a 7ft gold plated Belkin cat 5 cable from BB for only $36 when I bought a new computer. The BB salesman said my old computer was only 2.0Ghz so I would not benefit from the better cable, now that I have a 3.0Mhz CPU, it would make a huge difference. Last week with my old computer and Comcast cable, I was only getting 3Mbps down, today with my new computer and cable, I am getting 4Mbps and my upload went from 256kbs to 384kbs!! BB salesmen rock! I am so happy, I am going back to buy the $40 gold plated USB cable for my $30 printer. ;)

ObFamilyGuyRef

[Guppy06]

FBI: Do you have the express permission of ABC and the National Football League to record and copy the preceding program?

Peter: Uh...just the NFL.

what it will do for you...

[idlake]

You will have to ... buy an all new PC, with all new video/audio card. ... buy an all new home stereo system. ... buy an all plasma TV. ... carry around yet another set of cables and adapters when traveling with your laptop.

You won't be able to digitally rip content from your DVI connector anymore, not that you were actually ever doing that.

Sorry, but this thing is pointless for the user; it's a big rip-off.

Get government out of the free market place.

[DigiShaman]

Which is EXACTLY why I want the government OUT of the free market place. We don't need government to patch the system when clearly they themselves are the cause.

Get the fucking government OUT of the free market. How many times must this be said?

Re:Get government out of the free market place.

[Grishnakh]

Which is EXACTLY why I want the government OUT of the free market place. We don't need government to patch the system when clearly they themselves are the cause.

Huh?

For one thing, there is no "free market place". A totally free market would be anarchy. Without government intervention, there would be no TV, radio, Wi-Fi, etc., because there would be no standards set and enforced. Every industrialized country has an equivalent to our FCC, for good reason.

Second, the broadcast flag and other DRM measures have little to do with the government. These are initiatives by private corporations, who want to maximize their profit. The only reason the FCC is agreeing to it is 1) because the content providers want it, and 2) the current FCC under Michael Powell is corrupt.

What effect do you think keeping the government out would have? At best, the corporations would immediately cut off analog TV, and require that everyone buy a new digital TV with lots of DRM built-in. At worst, everyone would push their own, different, digital TV broadcast standard and nothing would work.

Re:Get government out of the free market place.

[DigiShaman]

For one thing, there is no "free market place". A totally free market would be anarchy. Without government intervention, there would be no TV, radio, Wi-Fi, etc., because there would be no standards set and enforced. Every industrialized country has an equivalent to our FCC, for good reason.
I agree. Thus I concede to your point of view regarding standardization.
Second, the broadcast flag and other DRM measures have little to do with the government. These are initiatives by private corporations, who want to maximize their profit. The only reason the FCC is agreeing to it is 1) because the content providers want it, and 2) the current FCC under Michael Powell is corrupt.
I call bullshit on this one. It's the government that legally backs up and enforces the penalties for breaking the law regarding "digital theft". Your have your cartels such as the RIAA and MPAA to thank for this.
Had such laws and cartels not be in place, there would be self industry reform and paradigm shifts to reflect current public trends on how to effectively do business without the legal restrictions of government.
And if you want to get political about it, let's talk about the DMCA signed under Bill Clinton shall we? Or, how about democrat "Fritz" Hollings and his proposed Hollywood bill such as the TCPA (which reeks of fascism). So please, don't even go down that road unless you want to step in it big time.

Re:Get government out of the free market place.

[Anonymous Coward]

if pin to pin dvi is in the hdmi connector, couldnt you easily just cut out the copyright signal?

Does HDMI == HDCP?

[wamatt]

I think this is an important issue, and could not get an answer by RTFA.

So does HDMI need HDCP fully, or can we use the technically advanced HDMI without the HDCP component for sources that are not protected?

Re:DRM - Generation 1 Digital Copies

[tricorn]

I wish these guys would figure out whether they're worried about low-resolution copying (hand-held camera in a movie theater == penalty worse than for many violent crimes), or high-resolution copying ("digital == perfect"). Nobody who would buy a shaky-cam recording made in a theater, instead of going to the theater or buying the DVD when it comes out, is going to be stopped by a shaky-cam of a TV screen instead. Does anyone honestly think that someone who WOULD have bought the DVD eventually is going to not do so because of a camcorder version (except for the case where they realize the movie is garbage, so lose interest)? But then they turn around and say that it's OK to have low-res analog outputs, they're not worried about THAT, just the perfect digital copying because there's no generational loss. Except that there's no generational loss once you convert that low-res analog into digital.

Which means either this whole exercise is wasting everyone's time and money, making inconvenient or impossible all sorts of harmless activities ( = doesn't take money away from what the studios would have earned), or they have to go to the next step which is to control all forms of analog-to-digital equipment, digital-to-analog equipment, and finally all digital equipment. "Can I see your programming license, please? Is that a soldering iron? Up against the wall!"

Isn't it a nice bonus for the big content creators that, in the name of Protecting Intellectual Property they can eliminate all the wonderful tools that are finally available to allow just about anybody to create music and films? Or is that the true agenda all along?

Not possible without big bucks

[SigNick]

Certainly not with SCSI but maybe with SATA+PCIe?
Let's do some calculations!

The raw data rate is 4Gbps/8=500MB/s.
A single PCIe channel is 250MB/s so we need at least two, not counting any overhead.
Very, very few and expensive cards support more than 4 HDDs/card so it's cheaper to get three cards.

Fastest hard drives can barely sustain 50MB/s writes (remember to check the rate for the entire platter, not just the fastest part!) so we need at least 10 HDDs, not counting any overhead.

A 10x73GB SCSI array could hold only 24,3 minutes of programs, maybe a single episode with the commercials cut off in real-time?

A 10x500GB SATA array could hold 2 hours and 46 minutes of data, enough for most movies.
There is absolutely no redundancy so pray every night that no single drive fails or your movie is gone.

Would you buy three PCIe RAID controllers and ten 500GB drives, a new PSU & server case just to record A SINGLE MOVIE?

As for sharing with your friends it's just ~10TB/movie..

The only solution is to use realtime MPEG2/4 compressor, there ARE some (very impressive looking, I might add!) HDTV rips floating around, for instance Terminator 3 is about 8300MB compressed as MPEG2 in 1280x720.

But what happens when your capture card refuses to save the data due to flags/watermarks/the evil bit? Clearly just saving the raw stream is not feasible so better get that capture card now at least if you live in the US. Thank goddess we don't have a Federal Censorship Committee (yet).

I'm sorry for ranting a bit, the very idea that my own hardware doesn't follow my simple orders like "record" but obeys someone elses wishes is downright disgusting. Well, at least I can modify the hardware I bought so they don't obey the overlord's... ..wait, someone's at the door

No more (easy) analog copies either!

[SigNick]

From the Wikipedia article:

"HDCP bans analog outputs from compliant products, presumably in an attempt to reduce the size of the analog hole in HDCP devices."

So it's either HDMI or nothing.

Are HDTV resolution video cameras available? If they are affordable there's still a way to make an analog copy.

have fun

[Anonymous Coward]

getting raped in the ass by the BestBuy salesman and keep buying those Monster USB and optical cables! Make sure they're gold-plated and double-platinum-super-plus-good reinforced shielded! You are a corporate bitch!

Re:HDMI is cool, but do PC Vid cards have plug yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when did hardware maufacturers start reading the protocols before releasing the hardware...

Re:Component vs HDMI

[Humba]

First time I've heard that there are different quality levels. Got any good sources? I guess it could be similar to Cat 5 vs 5e vs 6.

I did my testing with a Sony brand cable, about 1m long. Cost about $50 at Fry's. (Which, I realize is a total rip off.) I originally purchased it as I needed to free up a component input on my Panasonic.

--H

Analog and digital signals on DVI

[Scarabaeus]

The article left out the aspect of analog signals, VGA as well as component video. The current connectors in the market and their features are:

- DVI-D: digital 24 bit RGB (either ITU656 with embedded sync or ITU601 with separate analog H- and V-Sync) on 4 wire pairs
- DVI-A: analog RGB with separate H- and V-Sync
- DVI-I: combination of both
- Sub-D 15 (VGA): analog RGB with separate H- and V-Sync
- HDMI: digital 24 bit RGB ITU656 signal with optional digital audio data embedded in the banking areas of the video signal, same electrical spec as DVI-D
- SCART (europe): Analog CVBS or RGB-with-composite-sync and analog stereo audio
- 3 RCA (or Cynch): analog RGB with sync-on-green or YUV component
- D4 (japan): analog YUV component on one mini connector

HDCP is an optional encryption protocol over DVI-D or HDMI connections. It encrypts the ITU656 data before mixing the 24 bit digital onto the 4 wire pairs and decypts them after the reverse on the receiver.

Overall, for a digital connection HDMI is the best, since it obsoletes the additional audio connection. It also features a mandatory set of resolutions and auto-sensing of plugging.

I'll say: if you need analog RGB from your PC to your monitor, use DVI-I, otherwise switch to HDMI.