HDMI 2.0 Officially Announced

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

HDMI 2.0 Officially Announced

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday September 4, 2013 @12:55AM from the no-love-for-displayport dept.

jones_supa writes with news that HDMI 2.0 is out. From Engadget "The folks at HDMI Licensing are announcing HDMI 2.0 officially. Arriving just in time for the wide rollout of a new generation of Ultra HDTVs, it adds a few key capabilities to the standard. With a bandwidth capacity of up to 18Gbps, HDMI 2.0 has the ability to carry 3,840 x 2,160 resolution video at 60fps. It also has support for up to 32 audio channels, 'dynamic auto lipsync' and additional CEC extensions. The physical cables and connectors remain unchanged." Just like HDMI 1.4, the specification is only available to HDMI Forum members.

293 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 00:58 · Score: -1

That is how it works you know !!
1. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by oji-sama · 2013-09-04 01:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "Version 2.0 of the HDMI Specification, which is backward compatible with earlier versions of the Specification[...]"
  
  --
  It is what it is.
2. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  New TV/display
  New DVR
  New media
  New wife
  Maybe you can use the same cable, everything else must go to make room for the new stuff.
3. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by RabidReindeer · 2013-09-04 01:41 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  "Version 2.0 of the HDMI Specification, which is backward compatible with earlier versions of the Specification[...]"
  I bought a Blu-Ray player. I returned it because the copy-protection scheme wasn't backwards compatible with my digital TV.
  Screw it. I don't want Blu-Ray bad enough to replace a perfectly good TV. My legacy DVD player works with it just fine.
4. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by dywolf · 2013-09-04 01:54 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  HTPC + VGA/DVI compatible TV* + BD-ROM drive + AnyDVD driver
  *Because HDMI sucks at displaying text. Unless they finlly fixed that in HDMI2 (which I doubt)
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
5. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by The+Grim+Reefer · 2013-09-04 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  "Version 2.0 of the HDMI Specification, which is backward compatible with earlier versions of the Specification[...]"
  I bought a Blu-Ray player. I returned it because the copy-protection scheme wasn't backwards compatible with my digital TV.
  Screw it. I don't want Blu-Ray bad enough to replace a perfectly good TV. My legacy DVD player works with it just fine.
  You needed one of these.
6. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  No new cable needed? Hurray! It cost $1000 per meter.
7. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by oji-sama · 2013-09-04 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, but I bought my crappy TV after 2006 and it is nice that even if my PS3 were to break I don't need to worry about the new standard. Now Cable-ready (or whatever it is called) is evil. The connection between the digibox/set top box is indeed HDMI, but most of the high resolution programs cannot be shown, because the machine doesn't support some kind of registration.
  
  --
  It is what it is.
8. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  >>Because HDMI sucks at displaying text.
  More likely to be your TV's calibration, color space conversion and/or motion compensating kerjigger. You can get the same effect on a gaming monitor by messing with the 'overdrive' setting..
  I for one get perfectly decent 1:1 pixel mapping (and shadow-free text) using bog-standard HDMI from my old-ish ATI graphics card to my cheap-ish Panasonic HDTV..
9. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by Lumpy · 2013-09-04 02:59 · Score: 2
  
  http://www.hdfury.com/ Makes any DVD player 100% compatible with any TV. And it removes ALL of the useless encryption and DRM.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
10. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by compro01 · 2013-09-04 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  How does HDMI suck at text? Other than the DRM crap, HDMI moves the exact same RGB TDMS signal (though with the potential for YCbCr signals) that DVI uses.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
11. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 03:06 · Score: 0
  
  HDMI doesn't display text, it carries a digitally encoded signal. If your TV mangles the signal that's the TVs fault and not the cables fault.
12. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by dywolf · 2013-09-04 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  You obviously havent tried to do it.
  For whatever reason, text over an HDMI from a computer doesnt display text clearly. text in pictures (so its a graphic) is fine. but actual text, like say notepad, or message/titles boxes, or in a browser, is fuzzy. its not sharp, or clean, or even a solid color.
  this illustrates it nicely: http://www.neoscigen.com/Forums/DisplayComments.php?file=Hardware/HDMI_Port_vs._VGA_Port
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
13. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by dywolf · 2013-09-04 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  Nope. Known issue with HDMI. Has nothing to do with any of those things. Note that everything else is fine, including "text" that is a graphic (ie, in a jpg). It's only text from a font, such as in a web browser or notepad or word.
  it can even be demonstrated using Paint:
  -Make new image
  -Use the Text Tool
  -Text you enter is fuzzy in the entry box
  -Once its become part of the picture it's no longer fuzzy
  http://www.neoscigen.com/Forums/DisplayComments.php?file=Hardware/HDMI_Port_vs._VGA_Port
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
14. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by dywolf · 2013-09-04 03:39 · Score: 0
  
  Never said it was the cable. Where int eh hell did you get that from?
  Nor is the Tv, because if the TV was mangling anything it should be present uniformly in the entire signal. Not just in text.
  Its the HDMI encoder itself. And it's a known problem with displaying font text via HDMI (text thats been stored graphically is fine).
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
15. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by dywolf · 2013-09-04 03:45 · Score: 0
  
  addendum on myself:
  those images are rather zoomed in (And not mine), but when you actually see it, its very jarring. The text is wavering in color, the fonts lose all smoothness. No TV calibration or adjustment will correct it. it is 100% in the HDMI encoder and how it handles font text.
  google HTPC HDMI text. ist quite common. there's various workarounds, of varying quality, depending on your equipment, but most of them end up breaking the DRM chain. which means bluerays wont play from the HTPC...which is kinda counterproductive.
  thus using the DVI port + AnyDVD to ignore the DRM chain entirely becomes the easiest solution.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
16. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by compro01 · 2013-09-04 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  That's nothing to do with HDMI. That's Cleartype at work. It's supposed to make text more readable under normal circumstances by boosting the luminance at the cost of colour accuracy, despite looking weird up close.
  It's on by default in Windows Vista and later, but it can be disabled.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
17. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by Jeremy+Erwin · 2013-09-04 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Two solutions suggest themselves.
  Your O/S may be using a subpixel antialiasing scheme that's only active when the HDMI /DVI connection is active.
  Your monitor may be using different default display settings for the VGA and HDMI connections. In particular, Sharpness may be the culprit.
18. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  From the screenshots it looks like ClearType is disabled with VGA and enabled with HDMI. Did you try disabling ClearType when using HDMI?
19. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by idontusenumbers · 2013-09-04 04:13 · Score: 2
  
  This is clearly either a misconfiguration on your TV, your computer, or a design flaw in the TV, or your computer based on the simple fact that many people who use HDMI to connect their TV to their computer don't experience this problem.
20. Re: THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  I submit the near ubiquity of dvi in desktop applications as evidence that it isn't tmds digital video that is causing problems with text rendering in your setup.
21. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by dywolf · 2013-09-04 05:01 · Score: 0
  
  its Windows 7. what its doing under the hood there, I dont know.
  as for the other, again, sharpness would affect the entire image. i repeat, its only font text that is affected. Everything else, including graphic text, is fine.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
22. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by dywolf · 2013-09-04 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  there is no config on teh tv to change,and again, those configs affect the entire image.
  there is no config on the computer that affects it.
  if it was software (Windows 7) it should affect all Win7 users driving an HDMI. if it was the Tv calirbation it should affect the entire image. if it was a config option, someone somewhere would have foudn the solution and posted it.
  my best theory is, as i said, the specific encoder implementation being used on my computers hardware for the HDMI port.
  again, not new to this, and my other computer works fine with its HDMI (but its not my home theater one, so its not terribly relvent, other than that i used a different brand motherbaord in it)
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
23. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by wagnerrp · 2013-09-04 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. Nothing to do with HDMI. Anyone who "knows this is an issue" has no idea what they're talking about. You don't actually think your computer is sending text over HDMI to your TV and letting your TV render the fonts, do you?
24. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  So if it is a known issue with HDMI, why doesn't it come up with any one using a computer monitor on a DVI-D connection that is the same signaling minus an audio stream?
25. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by Jeremy+Erwin · 2013-09-04 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  well, hmm
  try adjusting the sharpness anyway. Best not to discard an easy, reversible fix out of hand. But if that doesn't work, mess about with Cleartype tuner. In particular, subpixel rendering can give smoother results on digital displays, but if your display orders the subpixel stripes in the wrong order it doesn't work.
26. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  Its the HDMI encoder itself.
  
  By the time the screen image gets encoded into an HDMI (or DVI) signal, the encoder is just working with an array of pixels and has no knowledge of any meaning behind them. The encoder would be reading from the same array of memory as a VGA encoder would, and there is no way for it to distinguish text from not text, etc. Any changes have to be in the code that renders the text, which is probably in the OS, and has nothing to do with the HDMI standard beyond your OS may default to different settings for different monitor outputs. Others have already pointed out what OS settings in particular are relevant to get images like you linked.
  And I've used both HDMI to output text to TV screens in multiple different setups before with no problems...
27. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by idontusenumbers · 2013-09-04 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  There are countless, often hidden, configs on the TV, in Windows, and in graphics card drivers. Even if there exists no config that can solve your issue, that does not mean there is a problem in the HDMI spec. It is VERY LIKELY there is a design flaw in any one (or all) of the following: Your TV, your computer, your graphics card, windows, or your drivers.
  The HDMI spec does not differentiate text signals. Text simply exacerbates a lower level filtering issue one of your components is experiencing. This is definitely not, as you originally stated, a problem with the HDMI spec.
  I suppose that the HDMI spec might have explicitly disallowed overscan, sharpening filters, resampling, motion compensation, or any of many other filters that could cause these sorts of artifacts. In this regard, yes, the HDMI spec is at fault.
28. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by KingMotley · 2013-09-04 06:07 · Score: 2
  
  It is not a problem with HDMI. Apparently the author doesn't like cleartype. Just disable it if you don't like it. The fonts will come in razor sharp, unlike the pictures of how it looks over VGA, which is just blurry.
29. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by KingMotley · 2013-09-04 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  It is apparent that you don't understand what you are talking about. It is not HDMI. It is either Cleartype that you don't like, or your TV is messing with the image.
30. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by hazydave · 2013-09-04 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  That's incorrect.
  I have two Westinghouse monitors, had them for about 7 years, 1920x1200, computer monitors, but designed for video. So these have CVBS, Y/C, YPrPb, VGA, and HDMi inputs -- no DVI, no DisplayPort (well, that hadn't been invented yet). And they're every bit as sharp with computer video as my newer, DisplayPort monitors (lower resolution, but just as sharp).
  If you have bad computer display on an HDMI monitor, it's because you bought a cheap monitor. Or because you're expecting a $100 TV to be built to the same standard as a $100 monitor -- it might not be. Or you have "contrast enhancement" turned on, which is screwing with your computer video. But it has nothing do with HDMI. And in fact, VGA is dramatically worse on these same monitors... crap analog video is never going to look as good when you examine closely. If you have a VGA/HDMI monitor that looks better with VGA input, you have a broken device. HDMi is dramatically better on any proper display.
  For natural video rather than computer video, you tend to loose the impact of individual pixels... when I'm typing this, I'm looking at a tiny number of pixels on a 2Mpixel screen (yeah, I'm actually typing this on the HDM monitor, the other two have work on them). When I look at television, my attention is generally on the whole screen. Plus, if you have a cheaper TV, you probably have a lower physical resolution that's scaled up or down to the one you're trying to display (eg, TVs take 1920x1080 or 1280x720 inputs, but their screens don't always match).
  If you need any more proof, look up the spec. HDMI was created as a superset of DVI -- it uses exactly the same protocol as DVI; you can take a DVI output and run it to HDMI with an adapter cable. HDM supports higher pixel rates, that's the main difference, originally. The two have diverged -- HDMI adding formats and specs, DVI pretty much just waiting for HDMI and DisplayPort to replace it.
  
  --
  -Dave Haynie
31. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by hazydave · 2013-09-04 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. HDMI is electrically identical to DVI. Not a "known problem with HDMI". Just the usual incorrect crap you read on the internet.
  
  --
  -Dave Haynie
32. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by dinfinity · 2013-09-04 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Ugh. Please get the hell off Slashdot.
  Second comment in your link: "You are looking at font anti-aliasing [aka Cleartype in Windows 7]. It is turned off on the VGA image. Presumably because, the OS thinks that it is connected to a CRT."
  There are so may things wrong with how you came to the conclusion that HDMI has anything to do with it, I can't even begin enumerating them.
33. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by Belial6 · 2013-09-04 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  The HDMI spec does not differentiate text signals.
  That bears repeating.
34. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by Darinbob · 2013-09-04 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  That's what is not listed in the summary of features: how much more locked down and consumer hostile is 2.0 versus 1.0?
35. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by cheater512 · 2013-09-04 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  My Linux HTPC gives very nice crisp text. Web browsing and the console look flawless.
  1st comment in your link nails it. You have ClearType on. You didn't specify you are using Windows but I'd bet on it.
  It is trying to do subpixel rendering and your TV has the pixels aligned differently to what it is expecting hence colour fringing.
  Just because others mention the same problem just means they are as clueless as you are.
36. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by dywolf · 2013-09-04 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  rofl. modded troll. thats hilarious.
  i must be the first person in the entirety of /. history to ever see this extremely common issue.
  https://www.google.com/search?q=htpc+fuzzy+text
  https://www.google.com/search?q=htpc+hdmi+text
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
37. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by dywolf · 2013-09-04 13:10 · Score: 0
  
  Because I TOTALLY NEVER TRIED THAT.
  Oh wait I did.
  I also troubleshoot for a living. It's not hard to localize the issue. It's in the HDMI encoding. Most likely in the chip used by my motherboard.
  You get the hell of /.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
38. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by dywolf · 2013-09-04 13:16 · Score: 0
  
  That's why theres thousands of google results without solutions for this exact thing?
  https://www.google.com/search?q=htpc+fuzzy+text
  https://www.google.com/search?q=htpc+hdmi+text
  Also never said it was the tv. in fact pretty sure i stated that in the course of troubleshooting, the tv was eliminated as the source of the problem.
  If its not the HDMI encoder how come... ...it happens on multiple tvs, including a friends who's works with HDMI ...doesnt happen with the other video outs ...doesnt happen with graphical text (and i know im not explaining that well, but if you read hte original post, it clearly illustrates where it happens with actual text, and not text in an image) ...doesnt go away with ClearType settings
  etc etc etc. whatever. this is stupid. i am apparently the first person in the history of /. to encounter this common issue
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
39. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by dywolf · 2013-09-04 13:17 · Score: 0
  
  Ya, its totally all in my mind.
  https://www.google.com/search?q=htpc+fuzzy+text
  https://www.google.com/search?q=htpc+hdmi+text
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
40. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by dywolf · 2013-09-04 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  tried the cleartype settings. they move it around, but it doesnt go away.
  tried disabling too.
  the only solution i havent tried yet after reading countless forums over the space about 3 weeks when i first built the htpc (year ago now) was getting into the TV's service menu. because no one seems to know how to do it for my model tv. thats when i said screw it, hooked up a DVI cable to the Tv's DVI port, and isntalled AnyDVD to get around the drm chain for bluerays.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
41. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by dywolf · 2013-09-04 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  happens with it off too. tried that too.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
42. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by dywolf · 2013-09-04 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  happens with cleartype disabled ...
  doesnt happen with anything except HDMI.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
43. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by dywolf · 2013-09-04 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  unfortunately i tried those. i spent nearly 3 weeks off and on before giving up on it.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
44. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by KingMotley · 2013-09-04 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  Does it happen with DVI? Is it a samsung monitor/TV?
45. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by dinfinity · 2013-09-04 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  I also troubleshoot for a living. It's not hard to localize the issue. It's in the HDMI encoding. Most likely in the chip used by my motherboard.
  Bahahahaha!
  Alright, you successfully trolled me: I walked straight into it.
  Well played, sir, well played.
46. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by wagnerrp · 2013-09-04 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  Your TV is the issue. Actually, that's not accurate. Nearly all TVs are the problem. TV's are not monitors. They overscan. You output 1920x1080, your TV crops about 5% off each edge, and then rescales it back to 1920x1080. Don't ask me why, it never made sense to me either. Your computer is doing sub-pixel rendering of text to make things look better on LCD displays. Sub-pixel rendering only works if you're using a pixel-accurate display, but your TV goes and fucks everything up with overscan, making text look like shit.
  Many TVs disable overscan when connected over DVI, assuming they're connected to a PC rather than a video component. If you use it, everything appears as you expect.
  With VGA, your display is not pixel-accurate, and thus sub-pixel rendering is not an option. Your computer does not attempt it. As with DVI, everything appears as you expect.
  So as mentioned, you have no idea what you're talking about. Amazingly, thousands of people found using Google search results are equally clueless.
47. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by MikeBabcock · 2013-09-04 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  I purposely bought a projector with all major video inputs (including HDMI, component and VGA).
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
48. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by MikeBabcock · 2013-09-04 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  Google for it, your TV has lots of config options. I've never had text problems on my projector with HDMI -- everything's gorgeous and stable at 1080p.
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
49. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by jones_supa · 2013-09-04 19:36 · Score: 1
  
  happens with cleartype disabled ...
  doesnt happen with anything except HDMI.
  Could be that the HDMI picture in your television is routed through a different way than other input signals, and there happens some image processing which ruins the image quality. The HDMI standard in general is able to deliver the picture as-is without any kind of distortion.
50. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by alexo · 2013-09-06 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.hdfury.com/ Makes any DVD player 100% compatible with any TV. And it removes ALL of the useless encryption and DRM.
  Kind of expensive
51. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by Lumpy · 2013-09-08 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  So is freedom.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
52. Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! by dinfinity · 2013-09-08 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  I just saw your new sig and realized that you weren't actually trolling. I puked a little.
  You are in good company, my friend: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/365266-33-hdmi-text-fuzzy-works-fine (1st hit on your sig-link)
  "I suggest you use [CTRL-Shift-Print Screen] to capture the screen image, instead of taking a picture like you did. Then post them..."
  "EDIT: Looking at your screenshots, my eyes cannot detect any fuzziness in HDMI connection. They look the same. Maybe I should use magnifying glass to see it."
  The stupid. It burns.
  Anyway, I realized I was way too harsh. There is no merit in being unkind to the mentally retarded.
Physical cables the same? by MrDoh! · 2013-09-04 00:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

!So we won't see a markup in price on 2.0 cables then. If only.

--
Waiting for an amusing sig.
1. Re:Physical cables the same? by MickyTheIdiot · 2013-09-04 01:04 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Start the presses! Time to print the "HDMI 2.0 Ready!" stickers!
  Just putting it on the package is good enough for a 50% price hike AT LEAST!
2. Re:Physical cables the same? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 02:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Something something "Ready" usually isn't. Not going to pay a premium to be a beta test. Let the sheep work out the bugs first.
  Start saving money now for the properly released product when the prices start dropping.
3. Re:Physical cables the same? by Joshua+Fan · 2013-09-04 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Nice to see that they seem to have planned ahead in the original physical specs.
4. Re:Physical cables the same? by hahn · 2013-09-04 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Monoprice is your friend.
  
  --
  "The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
5. Re:Physical cables the same? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  > 50% price hike AT LEAST
  do you know how I know you don't work for Monster?
6. Re:Physical cables the same? by lsatenstein · 2013-09-05 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  I buy my hdmi cables at the Dollar store At $2.00 for a three footer and $3.00 for a 6 footer, Who can go wrong with those standard prices. And these cables are used with 1080p tvs and monitors and I experience zero loss of signal or resolution. Its the same stuff you pay $40.00, except the jack comes plated with gold with the latter.
  
  --
  Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
That's a lot by jennatalia · 2013-09-04 00:59 · Score: 0

of porn...
1. Re:That's a lot by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 01:06 · Score: 0
  
  ..lots more frustration, too.
2. Re:That's a lot by NatasRevol · 2013-09-04 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Zits too.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
New feature by Therad · 2013-09-04 00:59 · Score: 1

New features include new master key I presume.
1. Re:New feature by wonkey_monkey · 2013-09-04 01:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  HDCP!=HDMI
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
2. Re:New feature by neokushan · 2013-09-04 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  It also wouldn't be backwards compatible, either, unless it c.
  
  --
  +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
No Mention by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 01:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

The summary doesn't say...
Does HDMI 2.0 support new, improved, and even more delicious Digitally Restricted Media? Seems that it must.
1. Re:No Mention by alen · 2013-09-04 01:20 · Score: 2
  
  my blu rays play just fine on my TV. what exactly am i missing?
2. Re:No Mention by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 01:35 · Score: 0
  
  Money, common sense and sanity.
3. Re:No Mention by gstoddart · 2013-09-04 01:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  my blu rays play just fine on my TV. what exactly am i missing?
  The opportunity to buy a whole new TV which runs at a higher resolution.
  Think of it as the companies who make a/v equipment trying to make sure you replace all of your stuff every 2 years to keep up with the latest market trends.
  But, I'm with you, I don't see myself needing to get even higher resolution any time soon.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
4. Re:No Mention by hebertrich · 2013-09-04 01:55 · Score: 2
  
  This is totally unacceptable , you just know that the 1.3 /1.4 is passe and you can't possibly be seen as someone that lives in the dark ages.
  Imagine the humiliation of having a friend come by and seeing you still use old 1.3/1.4 HDMI connections ! The idea is unbearable. !
  And of course you cannot live without the benefits of the new bandwidth limits . So yes .. throw away what works perfectly fine and get on the bandwagon.
  How long do you think you could get away with it anyways ? .. ( end clownish section )
  Novelty like HDMI/HDCP is causing integrators headaches , now that we about see the end of our misery and gear is on the market that actually works for us , they change it and all that we have is going to be in some ways incompatible and need firmware upgrades , new gear etc etc .. the usual crap.
  The rush to novelty is the best way to get the A/V industry , those who produce the media , professional broadcasters etc in shit.
  Once a technology is getting stable , here they go with something noone wants or needs just for the sake of keeping their investors happy.
  Not us .. the shareholders.
  I still got old tube display tv set and yes a working VCR hooked to it. I still use my old turntable and 1967 Pioneer tube receiver and you know what ? as long as it does the job ill keep em. I got new equipment too to replace defective older gear. But this total mad rush to novelty is that it gets old fast. The faster it goes the more ridiculous it gets. The price is simple : unprecedented pollution.and overflowing landfills. As long as the equipment works fine and does it's job i don't buy for the sake of novelty. It's senseless.
  So Bravo ! . You ain't missing a thing , and neither do i.
5. Re:No Mention by operagost · 2013-09-04 02:09 · Score: 2
  
  I appreciate your vintage gear, but really: there have been a few technological advances since 1967 that are worth upgrading to; not just "novel". Please don't argue that your CRT and VCR are just as good as a Blu-ray player and LCD.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
6. Re:No Mention by Gilmoure · 2013-09-04 02:21 · Score: 2
  
  I'm the age where declining eye site trumps more pixels. No upgrade for me!
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
7. Re:No Mention by lorenlal · 2013-09-04 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot to tell us to get off your lawn.
  I'm sure your parents thought color was a novelty too.
8. Re:No Mention by 3.5+stripes · 2013-09-04 02:34 · Score: 2
  
  Sight, unless this is a symptom of your Alzheimer's, then please accept my apologies.
  
  --
  
  He tried to kill me with a forklift!
9. Re:No Mention by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  >something noone wants or needs
  >newer standard allows resolutions higher than 1080p (the market's standardization about which nerds for half a decade have complained).
10. Re:No Mention by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2013-09-04 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  No the definition of insanity is to do the same thing and expect different results, like protesting DRM.
  
  --
  I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
11. Re:No Mention by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-09-04 02:45 · Score: 2
  
  Bah! It still doesn't beat my Super8 and a bed sheet.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
12. Re:No Mention by Billly+Gates · 2013-09-04 02:47 · Score: 2
  
  I appreciate your vintage gear, but really: there have been a few technological advances since 1967 that are worth upgrading to; not just "novel". Please don't argue that your CRT and VCR are just as good as a Blu-ray player and LCD.
  DVI had these things sorted out before HDM became popular when Vista came out 5 years ago. It infuriating many users who have spent thousands upgrading only to not be able to watch blurays?!
  Also many conference rooms and expensive projects at work have digital conections that work fine without HDMI and replacing these will be very expensive for no benefit other than forced obscelence.
  Since HDMI is still evolving it means a sunken investment to upgrade as HDMI 2.1 will replace obsoluting the same gear that works fine again.
  Color my cynical but I see all this hype with 3D TV and movies and cable companies looking at these silly things as a way to extort money from $50 a month to $199 for HD. WIth 4K HD here comes $499 a month, now add conference rooms and TV makers, ... oh I guess greenRay DVDs are needed so now Sony can make even MORE $$$ for these etc. Sadly idiots wil pay for these too and then wonder how they are just barely making it with their middle class salaries and how they could have bought a brand new car for the monthly bills they keep paying for such garbage with minor improvements of what they had.
  1080P for life for me!
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
13. Re:No Mention by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 02:59 · Score: 0
  
  HDMI carries audio, which in the A/V arena is a 'good thing'. DVI solved a narrow problem, HDMI solves a wider problem. Technology advances, get over it.
14. Re:No Mention by Jeremy+Erwin · 2013-09-04 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  mostly 4k video. And audio with more than 7.1 discrete channels.
15. Re:No Mention by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  God damn, I'm so tired of morons repeating this myth. Look it up, faggot:
  insanity
  insanit/
  noun
  noun: insanity
  1.
  the state of being seriously mentally ill; madness.
16. Re:No Mention by Safety+Cap · 2013-09-04 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Aren't you supposed to be back at 1025 F Street today?
  
  --
  Yeah, right.
17. Re:No Mention by Jeremy+Erwin · 2013-09-04 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Is there something about the geek's brain that demands such precision in language and dismisses flights of fancy as SYNTAX ERROR. RESUBMIT JOB OR ABORT?
  In this particular case, though, the aphorism appears to be the invention of Narcotics Anonymous, and was subsequently attributed to various figures who could be plausibly imagined to have said it. source
18. Re:No Mention by vux984 · 2013-09-04 05:04 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Color my cynical but I see all this hype with 3D TV and movies and cable companies looking at these silly things as a way to extort money from $50 a month to $199 for HD. WIth 4K HD here comes $499 a month, now add conference rooms and TV makers, ... oh I guess greenRay DVDs are needed so now Sony can make even MORE $$$ for these etc. Sadly idiots wil pay for these too and then wonder how they are just barely making it with their middle class salaries and how they could have bought a brand new car for the monthly bills they keep paying for such garbage with minor improvements of what they had.
  Just because they make it, doesn't mean wel'll buy it.
  3DTV is probably here to stay, but not a lot of people are upgrading TVs just to get 3D. And 3D media is fairly scarce and largely irrelevant. Even the TV salesmen will admit that 3D is a flop. Nobody with a 60" edge lit LCD from 3 years ago is even slightly interested in upgrading to 3D. The only people buying them are people upgrading from CRT, upgrading from a smaller TV, or who have a older LCDs/Plasmas/DLPs that are dying. And they are buying them because it doesn't cost any more than a TV without 3D.
  4K HD... I'm looking forward to that one with respect to computer displays etc, but I doubt a lot of people care for TV. I doubt it'll gain traction as a must have upgrade, and will instead become like 3DTV... where everyone buying a new TV will end up with it once its no more expensive than buying a TV without it. And half or more of them will never be used with any 4K content anyway for years to come.
  oh I guess greenRay DVDs are needed
  Blu ray launched just in time for the disc market to collapse as people switched to streaming. I doubt a greenRay tech will ever see the light of day as consumer disc media for movies. Most people are satisfied with streaming stuff at lower quality than DVD, nevermind bluray... the content market for 4HD just doesn't exist no matter how badly the gear industry wants one. Meanwhile the broadcasters don't have the bandwidth for it. The movie rental places have nearly disappeared. The movie stores are struggling and diversifying away from movies.
  We'll get 4HD gear sooner than later, and 4HD content eventually, I'm sure, but its going to take some amazing marketing to convince us we need it enough to upgrade.
19. Re:No Mention by wagnerrp · 2013-09-04 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  Not if they want to be backwards compatible with earlier versions.
20. Re:No Mention by somarilnos · 2013-09-04 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  It may literally [definition 1 of literally] mean that. But literally [definition 2 of literally], it means doing the same thing and expecting different results.
21. Re:No Mention by Kjella · 2013-09-04 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  I love the buzzword bingo, it enabled me to pick up a 60" 2D dumb-TV for cheap because it wasn't "in" anymore. As for 4K I'd want it, but it'd have to be a TV or projector size where I could see it and from my current couch distance I can't. Now if I could get one of those huge 80-90" panels or an affordable native 4K projector (no, e-shift is not native 4K) then yes, but a 55-65" set doesn't make any sense from my couch distance. I could of course put a chair real up close, but meh. As for discs BDXL is already big enough to fit 4K movies with HEVC using the same laser, so if they can roll it out as a backwards compatible solution that reads both it looks doable.
  I guess the main reason 4K has a better chance than 3D is that there's very little downside to 4K. Sony just released a 4K prosumer video camera for $4500, Blackmagic 4K production camera is $4000 base + accessories and if you want to go overkill on acquisition a Red Dragon 6K camera is $29k base and will probably come in under $50k complete and then you're ready to shoot Hollywood-class movies. I expect that already next year there'll be a "consumerish" $1500-2000 4K camera, if you don't already count the GoPro camera that has a very low framerate in 4K. Seiki managed to sell a 39" 4K set for $700 and 50" 4K for $1500 (under $1k on sale), it's coming.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
22. Re:No Mention by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  Blu-ray, why on earth would you pay for that DRM laden crap, you just invested in better DRM, at least $20 of the price of the drive/player go straight to patent holders, half of which are DRM patents.
  Just download the torrent already and quit supporting this stuff.
23. Re:No Mention by Jeremy+Erwin · 2013-09-04 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  In current federal law law, insanity is defined as
  at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts"
  yet oxforddictionaries.com
  gives only the following definition:
  
  noun
  the state of being seriously mentally ill; madness:
  he suffered from bouts of insanity
  [as complement]:
  he attempted to plead insanity
  extreme foolishness or irrationality:
  it might be pure insanity to take this loan
  the insanities of our time
  Arguably, the legal definition can be taken as a subset of the rather broad and general oxford definition, but if one is pleading insanity,"unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts" is the important bit, not just "seriously mentally ill". Of course, a good lawyer would use the legal definition as a starting point, and consult relevant caselaw to make sure that he is not constructing an defense on the basis of obsolete legal interpretations.
  It's best not to take a dictionary definition as the final authority on a complex topic.
24. Re:No Mention by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  BlueRay discs are labeled as such because of the color of light used. The lasers operate at a wavelength of 405 nm which is actually shorter than blue light, more of a violet, and just at the edge of Ultra Violet light. To make any sort of sense, the next generation would use even shorter wavelengths, making them UVRay DVDs.
25. Re:No Mention by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, but those old Super8 porn loops wear out eventually, and kleenex is probably more sanitary than a bed sheet.
26. Re:No Mention by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  The only problem with avoiding the buzzword compliant TVs, is many of them have better displays on top of all the other junk you don't use. I ended up paying the extra $40 for the smart TV model of the size I was looking at, because it had a much better color response and wider viewing angle than the previous, dumb TV model.
27. Re:No Mention by vux984 · 2013-09-04 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  Right. That's always been a problem with TVs... they jam the better displays with junk i don't need. Me, I just want a big ass screen that's really good at being a big ass screen. It doesn't need speakers - i have the TV muted. It certainly doesn't need apps - its not even on the network. Hell, it doesn't need 3 composite inputs and 4 hdmi ports and coax, and 2 RCA input groups...
  I have it connected to a receiver, and all my stuff goes into that. One HDMI cable connects to the TV.
  But they don't make that TV. So I buy one with a bunch of extra crap, speakers, and apps, and then never use any of it.
  Even so, I'm quite happy with my TV.
28. Re:No Mention by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  GreenRay? No. Green (495–570 nm) is longer wavelength than blue (450–495 nm). It would be VioletRay (380–450 nm) (or UltraVioletRay), except everything is downloads and streaming now, so it isn't needed.
Attention Cinephiles by horm · 2013-09-04 01:00 · Score: 5, Funny

I am selling platinum-tipped, lead-shielded, kevlar-reinforced Ultra Mega HDMI 2.0 cables for the low, low price of $200/ft.
1. Re:Attention Cinephiles by SGT+CAPSLOCK · 2013-09-04 01:14 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Do your cables use oxygen-free copper, though? I'm sick of oxygen messing my pixels up!
  Also, can I give you more money for some gold-colored connectors??? I don't mind throwing all of my money at you and your cables if you add useful features like these.
2. Re:Attention Cinephiles by JustOK · 2013-09-04 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  But they attract alligators. Not crocodiles, for some reason, but they do seem to attract alligators. My sister's head-dresser's cousin's dog-walker's boyfriend's chaffeur said he heard someone say this was true.
  
  --
  rewriting history since 2109
3. Re:Attention Cinephiles by pla · 2013-09-04 01:18 · Score: 2
  
  I am selling platinum-tipped, lead-shielded, kevlar-reinforced Ultra Mega HDMI 2.0 cables for the low, low price of $200/ft.
  
  Wow, really undercutting Monster by a good margin there! Can I order a palette now and beat the rush?
  
  Oh... Hey, waitasec... I see your game now, Mr. Scam Artist! You didn't mention "low oxygen"! Fraud! Charlatan! Senator! Cad!
4. Re:Attention Cinephiles by mrt_2394871 · 2013-09-04 01:27 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  [...] Can I order a palette now and beat the rush?
  You could, but we have so many more colours nowadays.
5. Re:Attention Cinephiles by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  Monster is that you?
6. Re:Attention Cinephiles by oodaloop · 2013-09-04 01:36 · Score: 2
  
  Fraud! Charlatan! Senator! Cad!
  Senator? Really? That's uncalled for.
  
  --
  Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
7. Re:Attention Cinephiles by gallondr00nk · 2013-09-04 01:40 · Score: 2
  
  I am selling platinum-tipped, lead-shielded, kevlar-reinforced Ultra Mega HDMI 2.0 cables for the low, low price of $200/ft.
  Fool! I am selling $1 store HDMI cables painted bright green with gold painted connectors for $200/ft.
  The green stabalises electrons so my cables have 25% more clarity. Electrons moving is what makes the picture fuzzy.
8. Re:Attention Cinephiles by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  I am pretty sure that all HDMI cables use oxygen-free coper and gold plated contacts, it is probably in the specification.
9. Re:Attention Cinephiles by NatasRevol · 2013-09-04 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Never understood how they didn't go down the "Now available in oxygen-free gold contacts!" route.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
10. Re:Attention Cinephiles by The+Grim+Reefer · 2013-09-04 02:27 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Do your cables use oxygen-free copper, though? I'm sick of oxygen messing my pixels up!.
  Fool. You don't want that cheap-ass copper. What you need is oxygen-free silver. The following is a quote from a silver speaker wire company. With results like these for a simple speaker wire, just think what silver will do for HDMI:
  
  When you replace your copper speaker cables (even more expensive copper cables) with our Teflon-insulated, 99.999% solid silver conductor speaker cables, you may think you have just installed expensive new electronics, because of the across-the-board sonic improvements you should experience-
  The highs sounding less harsh and more delicately musical. The bass, less "bloated" and more revealing of instrumental textures and specific notes. The all-important mid-range (where most of the music resides) should sound more natural and warm, with human voices sounding more like real people, and musical instruments more convincingly "live."
  A new, "liquid" and flowing quality should reveal more of the intrinsic beauty of the original musical event.
  The stereo sound stage becomes more specific, with instruments and voices each appearing from a smaller localized area in the stereo image. There is a more distinct "layering" of the sound, with the ability to retrieve the original recorded "depth of field" to a greater extent.
  With results like this applied to an HDMI cable, you will feel like you have been "sucked into" another world, rather than just viewing it on television. In fact, I bet you will be able to interact with the characters in the movie. You may even be able to stop that jedi from saving Jar-Jar. Or smack the shit out of Bill Paxton and tell him to grow a pair in Aliens. And of course there's the porn.
  Did I mention the need for teflon insulation?
11. Re:Attention Cinephiles by aaronb1138 · 2013-09-04 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  Is this the plan for saving Best Buy. If so, I'm not so sure it is going to work.
12. Re:Attention Cinephiles by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  Can we please stop with this tired old joke? It's never been funny.
  (For the record, Monster cables do have something to back up their claims: they have a better signal-to-noise ratio. And as any person who have studied digital communications can tell you, your SNR is what most limits the bandwidth of the transmission medium. However, you probably won't see an actual difference unless you're driving your HDMI output at 1080p @ 60 fps -- and few people do that.)
13. Re:Attention Cinephiles by DriveDog · 2013-09-04 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Teflon? No, you didn't... but when your house burns, you won't be poisoned by smoke from the Teflon-insulated cables, just from the components connected by it.
  Not having seen the maximum resolution supported by HDMI 2.0 anywhere outside of an IMAX theatre, I have to say that I only want that when my telescreen, er, TV is 10' wide.
  FCC never had any business approving the use of a "standard" whose specs were not freely available to everyone (and yes I know they did it multiple times in their existence). Of course, FDA has no business approving foods whose specs are not freely available to everyone, either.
14. Re:Attention Cinephiles by ddd0004 · 2013-09-04 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Can we please stop with this tired old joke? It's never been funny.
  Nope. The jokes stop when fools quit falling for high-end cables. You have the right to throw away money on platinum cables with insulation made from unicorn horn that have been bathed in the tears of angels to break them in and I have the right to laugh at you.
15. Re:Attention Cinephiles by SeattleGameboy · 2013-09-04 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize unless you see dropped signals (usually seen as sparklies on screen), SNR means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING when it comes to digital cable, right? You do know that for digital signals, it is either on or off, and no gradation between, right?
16. Re:Attention Cinephiles by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-09-04 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yah, the root word for Senator is senile.
17. Re:Attention Cinephiles by BitZtream · 2013-09-04 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  Spoken like a truly ignorant person. There most certainly is degradation before the picture is completely lost. Digitial artifacts are pretty well known and understood with the SNR is right on the threshold between good enough and not good enough so that even minor temp changes show up on screen.
  Analog dealt with this problem FAR better and in reality most modern digital electronics are so shitty that they will lose signal before you'd even notice the analog degradation.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
18. Re:Attention Cinephiles by idontusenumbers · 2013-09-04 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Here I thought these companies employed engineers where they really employ writers.
19. Re:Attention Cinephiles by SeattleGameboy · 2013-09-04 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Again, UNLESS YOU SEE SPARKLIES on your screen, SNR means NOTHING. Do I need to explain how digital signals work to you?
20. Re:Attention Cinephiles by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  I do, and that was quite much my point, when I mentioned the 'extreme' resolution.
  I know what digital corruption looks like, both partial corruption and full. 'Partial' usually not being very far away from 'full' -- when error correction bits start to fail, they usually do so catastrophically. Therefore, as my point was, SNR means a lot when you're driving the picture at the limits of your cable. I think we agree, but are having some communication issues.
  'Buy the cheapest cable you can. If it works, you're good to go.'
21. Re:Attention Cinephiles by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  I don't actually remember hearing of a single fool buying them. But I realise it might be a US thing. There doesn't seem to be much of a Hi-Fi TV culture here; most people here are happy with the TV's built-in speakers or buy a cheap blu-ray+amplifier+5.1 speakers set for 400-1000 EUR. (Personally, I'd rather spend that much money onto two or three good main speakers than on a six-speaker set; but that probably has more to do with my taste in films -- I have little need for rear channels.)
  (And this is spoken by a person who has Yamaha studio monitors as speakers, connected with a balanced TRS cable, with an ESI Juli@ feeding them sound... It's a lovely sound card at least.)
22. Re:Attention Cinephiles by Russ1642 · 2013-09-04 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  The same people that write the labels that go on scotch whiskey bottles. "It starts as a trickling stream, high in the mountains of Glen-Aoeluuarhaotehu...."
23. Re:Attention Cinephiles by slash.jit · 2013-09-04 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  I am selling HDMI 2.0 Wireless cables with Wifi 802.11ac, Bluetooth 4.0 and NFC built in for 50% offer. Call for price!
24. Re:Attention Cinephiles by slash.jit · 2013-09-04 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  Oh.. I thought green means "Eco-Friendly" !
25. Re:Attention Cinephiles by mirix · 2013-09-04 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  Eh? Teflon decomposes to nasty stuff like HF... not exactly benign.
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
26. Re:Attention Cinephiles by flabordec · 2013-09-05 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  I love how they say that you should experience improvements and your music should reveal more of the intrinsic beauty of the original event and the mid-range should sound more natural. I mean, it probably won't, but it should.
  
  --
  "I see undead people" Warcraft III - Necromancer
27. Re:Attention Cinephiles by RatchetDriver · 2013-09-06 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  Glen-Aoeluuarhaotehu - I understand it's quite pretty there...
  
  --
  Nothing to see here. Move along.
And how many new restrictions? by gstoddart · 2013-09-04 01:01 · Score: 2

Given that HDMI is all about DRM, how many new ways have they come up to limit what we're 'allowed' to do?
And as far as yet another HD 'standard', I can't say I'm in a big rush to get this. The media companies seem to think we'll replace all of our equipment every 2 years or so when they come out with the new hotness.
But replacing my TV, my Amp, my DVD player ... well, I'll get around to it eventually. Since my current stuff is only about 2 years old, I don't see caring about this new spec for some time.
Though, for a computer monitor, those resolutions sound pretty awesome.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
1. Re:And how many new restrictions? by h4rr4r · 2013-09-04 01:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No, HDMI is all about audio and video on the same cable. HDCP is the DRM you are talking about.
2. Re:And how many new restrictions? by aliquis · 2013-09-04 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  Though on a computer monitor ...
  DisplayPort already does it.
  Thunderbolt 2 (which seem to be two merged ports .. at least according to an Asus mobo release) also do 20 gbps.
3. Re:And how many new restrictions? by Billly+Gates · 2013-09-04 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  I switched to HDMI.
  I use it to reduce cables and clutter and to improve sound quality.
  Reason being is I have ugly shipping tape on the back of my desk and I HATE CABLES! My realtek sound chip is a POS that used to require reboots to get skype working. After an embarrasing interview where I had to reboot I switched to HDMI.
  I have a nice ATI 7850 GPU with a better sound ship on it not to mention a digital signal all the way to the monitor means better audio quality (speakers are in monitor). True I might not notice an audible difference but I hated my buggy sound on my mobo. Audio enthusiats might care with a real system though.
  Oh and I paid $10 at BigLots for it as another slashdotter recommended that. Do not go anywhere else where you will be ripped off.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
4. Re:And how many new restrictions? by gstoddart · 2013-09-04 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  But isn't HDCP a mandatory part of HDMI?
  In which case there's not a lot of difference between the one and the other as far as DRM is concerned.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
5. Re:And how many new restrictions? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  I use it to reduce cables and clutter and to improve sound quality.
  DisplayPort can pass digital audio, too.
  
  My realtek sound chip is a POS
  a nice ATI 7850
  A nice 7850 using a sound chip from Realtek.
  
  better audio quality (speakers are in monitor)
  Whoa, whoa, whoa, do you want to be strangulated with platinum-coated TOSLink cables? Thou Shalt Not Like Builtin Speakers.
6. Re:And how many new restrictions? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  But isn't HDCP a mandatory part of HDMI?
  Why would High Definition Child Pornography would be mandatory to HDMI?
7. Re:And how many new restrictions? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  You can send an HDMI signal without using actively using HDCP, if that's what you're asking. But any HDMI cable that's up to spec is usable with HDCP. But that's like saying composite video and DRM are one-and-the-same because Macrovision ruins them all equally.
  DVI supports HDCP, as long as the devices at each end are cool with it.
8. Re:And how many new restrictions? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  No, HDMI is all about audio and video on the same cable. HDCP is the DRM you are talking about.
  From Wikipedia:
  
  HDMI manufacturers pay an annual fee of US$10,000 plus a royalty rate of $0.15 per unit, reduced to $0.05 if the HDMI logo is used, and further reduced to $0.04 if HDCP is also implemented
  It's just 1c per unit, but HDMI is a vehicle for pushing HDCP.
9. Re:And how many new restrictions? by Billly+Gates · 2013-09-04 01:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No it is not manditory.
  However, operating systems like Windows 7 will degrade video quality if they detect a non HDMI cable for blue-Ray content in the RC releases so this way MPAA can make people think DRM HDMI is better.
  I use HDMI on my machine due to convenience of less cables and I hate the sound on my mobo. Not because I believe it is better video quality.
  But it is just a cable and nothing else. The DRM HDCP is dependent on OS support.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
10. Re:And how many new restrictions? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 01:46 · Score: 0
  
  But isn't HDCP a mandatory part of HDMI?
  In which case there's not a lot of difference between the one and the other as far as DRM is concerned.
  Kinda. Display devices must support it, but sources don't need to output it, IIRC.
11. Re:And how many new restrictions? by Billly+Gates · 2013-09-04 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Wake me up when non Apple monitors support it? I do not need to throw out a perfecting good monitor because HDMI works fine and is more of a standard. I wont pay $2,000 for a 4k monitor.
  Also what part of audio issues like rebooting to get sound back did you not read? The realtek chip in my GPU just works so for $10 the HDMI cable is a good investment.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
12. Re:And how many new restrictions? by markkezner · 2013-09-04 01:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  digital signal all the way to the monitor means better audio quality (speakers are in monitor).
  Seriously bro? Any miniature benefit that digital audio signals would have given you is completely blown away by using speakers that are integrated into your monitor. Integrated speakers are just universally bad, full stop. I'm not talking about an audiophile's definition of bad, either; I bet my grandma could hear the difference.
  I'd wager that given the same sound source, a stereo analog signal going into standard desktop computer speakers will sound better than your pure digital setup through your computer monitor.
  If this was a troll, well, you deserve a beer, cause you got me.
  
  --
  Dangerous, sexy, turing complete: Femme Bots
13. Re:And how many new restrictions? by aliquis · 2013-09-04 04:27 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Lots of monitors support DisplayPort. Maybe you mean Thunderbolt?
  DVI is a dead/dying format so don't worry about that one.
  Personally I agree with you as far as cables go.
  If nothing else because DisplayPort already did it and because I think it's ridicilous with lots of ports on everything (especially if the purpose in some cases may have been to make a new one to not have to pay license fees ..) I'd rather see this new standard never released and everyone using DisplayPort.
  But I guess there will be camps for both and lots of people who are already invested in either option.
  At least DVI is a dead end and will be removed. And well, VGA? Yeah .. :D
  Also can't they do shit for real? At least make it support 120 Hz from the beginning, possibly all the way to UHD 8K to.
  At least they kept the same cable as said, so not much worse than the progress over the analog cables and connectors I guess (better graphic card or monitor = better abilities but still same port, cable and connectors.)
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort
14. Re:And how many new restrictions? by aliquis · 2013-09-04 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  As if it made any sense to talk about quality of the sound chip as long as you were using digital interconnectors from it anyway.
  YEAH! THIS!!!! THIS IS A TRUE ONE!
  Now if it totally crapped out as his did then I get the problem. But it may be behind the screen. Or a driver one. Or whatever.
15. Re:And how many new restrictions? by Russ1642 · 2013-09-04 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Tell that to all the people who bought big HDMI compatible televisions before HDCP became the norm.
16. Re:And how many new restrictions? by davewoods · 2013-09-04 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  Hmmm... The words "Child Pornography" linking to a picture on a Russian site... No thanks.
17. Re:And how many new restrictions? by davewoods · 2013-09-04 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  The purpose of him switching to HDMI was so that his sound would be consistently working, not so he could have great quality audio. He was having to constantly reboot his system because his onboard sound card was jacked up.
  
  You must have just missed it.
  
  My realtek sound chip is a POS that used to require reboots to get skype working.
  And this:
  
  True I might not notice an audible difference but I hated my buggy sound on my mobo.
18. Re:And how many new restrictions? by The+Grim+Reefer · 2013-09-04 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Oh and I paid $10 at BigLots for it as another slashdotter recommended that. Do not go anywhere else where you will be ripped off.
  You got ripped off. Try Monoprice for HDMI cables.
19. Re:And how many new restrictions? by Bo'Bob'O · 2013-09-05 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Getting rid of other sorts of outputs such as analog, DVI or HD-SDI (which already had audio with video) certainly is all about DRM. We are forced to use HDMI, even where it is not the appropriate transport. It's a big, expensive problem for commercial and even some residential installations that now have to deal with short signal ranges and the extra points of failure that go with the two-way authentication protocols.
  HDMI is being pushed, forced, in these areas that have nothing to do with having audio and video on the same cable for no other reason then DRM.
20. Re:And how many new restrictions? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  That is because you are racist. Not all Russian are paedophiles.
The real question by Billly+Gates · 2013-09-04 01:01 · Score: 1

By switching to gold connectors how many more bits will magically teleport and ECC themselves over the standard bandwidth compared to 1.4 that the highly qualified GeekSquad HDMI experts at BestBuy keep telling me about for $120?

--
http://saveie6.com/
1. Re:The real question by h4rr4r · 2013-09-04 01:05 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  See this is the sort of thing you see from laymen all the time. Listen to the GeekSquad expert next time. The gold connectors round out the 0s and sharpen up the 1s. This is really simple, come on.
2. Re:The real question by MickyTheIdiot · 2013-09-04 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  Not only that, it will teleport the *FCC* into your house to make sure all your bittorrent transfers are actually legal!
3. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 01:07 · Score: 0
  
  Also do not forget the bits can get caught in a standard metal connector at the ends of the cables. With gold they do not hang around the cable floating around and pass through easier.
  You know they do not pay these guys $10/hr for nothing! The engineers should really take lessons from these folks.
4. Re:The real question by L4t3r4lu5 · 2013-09-04 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  I heard that high quality HDMI cables actually convert the 0s and 1s from fixed-width to variable width font, compressing the space taken up by 1s by up to 40%!
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
5. Re:The real question by delt0r · 2013-09-04 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  That is a little unfair. Gold connectors do in fact do provide benefits of low resistance connections without corrosion problems because of golds properties. It can also be applied in quite a thin layer so can also be fairly cheap too.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
6. Re:The real question by Billly+Gates · 2013-09-04 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  That is a little unfair. Gold connectors do in fact do provide benefits of low resistance connections without corrosion problems because of golds properties. It can also be applied in quite a thin layer so can also be fairly cheap too.
  Have you seen the price of gold recently? In the old days yes with analog signals there was a scientific loss of quality, but you could not tell with a human ear unless the cables were really corroded.
  With digital it works or does not. 1 or 0 as no shades exist in digital compared to audio where the signal degrades.
  I could buy 10 cables for the price of 1 gold so it makes no economic sense. Name me one gold HDMI seller for under $100 for a 4 foot cable?
  Professionals use professional cables for high end equipment which are not the HDMI stuff we see for consumers.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
7. Re:The real question by delt0r · 2013-09-04 02:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well when i was working on RF stuff, there was a lot of silver and gold of course. Skin effect and all and good connections were important to avoid reflections. Since a HDMI cable is working as a high frequency broad band cable. I can see cheap cables not working. Reflection on incorrectly or poorly terminated sockets could really stuff things up. Digital in a computer is far from 1 or 0 at these kind of bit rates. Signal eyes from these can be .. unpleasant. Error codes are used for a reason.
  
  Of course i don't buy the expensive cables either. But we are not talking about "warm sound from correctly polarized oxygen free isotopically pure" monster cables.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
8. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 02:23 · Score: 0
  
  In fact I don't think there are hdmi cables without gold contacts. In fact you want a pretty thin layer.
  Silver has the lowest electrical resistance, but really bad contact resistance (also electrical, but it is about the contact in connectors).
  Copper second lowest electrical resistance, and pretty ok contact resistance (very good for soldering, better than all the other metals).
  Aluminum third lowest electrical resistance, crap contact resistance, (but is light so the resistance per weight ratio is good, so used for example in planes).
  Nickel Alloy bad electrical resistance, second best contact resistance, and good mechanical qualities (which is why it is used in studios for audio patch cables).
  Gold bad electrical resistance, best contact resistance, bad mechanical qualities (used for semi-permanent connections like in home audio video installations and basically all computer connectors).
  Remember this, maybe one day it saves your live.
9. Re:The real question by delt0r · 2013-09-04 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  Oh i should add that the amount of gold used means the price of gold has little bearing on the price of the gold layer. Its the cost of applying that layer that cost the $$.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
10. Re:The real question by Lumpy · 2013-09-04 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong, Nickle does a better job, the hair thin Gold plating is marketing only.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
11. Re:The real question by delt0r · 2013-09-04 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  Better in what way. Nothing in engineering is as simple as "this is best".
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
12. Re:The real question by AdamHaun · 2013-09-04 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Have you seen the price of gold recently?
  We're talking microns of gold plating on the surface of another metal. If you're paying more than a few dollars extra for that, it's not the gold that's driving up the price.
  That being said, I agree that digital signals and error correction along with electrical and mechanical standards make cable quality almost irrelevant.
  
  --
  Visit the
13. Re:The real question by Culture20 · 2013-09-04 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  That's nothing. The Low Oxygen HQ HDMI 2.0 cables will shift the 0's and 1's into 3D, allowing for a "tube" of 0's (rotated 90 degrees on the X plane) through which the 1's can pass (after rotating them 90 degrees on the Z plane).
14. Re:The real question by BitZtream · 2013-09-04 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Nickel forms a layer of oxidation at its surface, making it a shitty connector. Gold does not, which is why its used on connectors.
  Silver is superior to both as a conductor, but oxidation is far worse.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
15. Re:The real question by hazydave · 2013-09-04 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, no.. gold does have a low resistance/high conductivity ... 5th best, after Graphene, Silver, Copper, and Annealed Copper. But pretty much every gold plated conductor is plated over nickel (for connectors) or copper (on PCB fingers). The point of the gold plating is only corrosion resistance.. particularly on circuit boards. Bare copper forms copper oxide -- an insulator. A very thin coating of gold solves that problems.
  We're also very good at plating gold in sub-micron thicknesses, so it's actually a cheaper solution than some of the alternatives, particularly on connections with very light contact force and a very short plug/unplug life cycle. Thin, soft gold plating is good for under 100 cycles, given typical plating thickness. That can be improved a bit using alloys, like gold-nickel or gold-cobalt, but it does get expensive.
  Professional cables use nickel or other corrosion resistant hard metals (these days, you do see a little "hard gold" in there too, but I think that's more marketing than anything).. because you're going to have thousands of plug/unplug cycles, and can't afford to have the plating wear off.
  Conduction really has nothing to do with it. Of course, there may be some audiophooles out there telling you different, but just think about it -- these guys never see the whole system. That audio cable is going to a connector somewhere. That may have gold contracts, but more likely some kind of hard nickel plating, since you're got going to see what's inside anyway. That's connected to the unit's PCB by copper wires, or directly on the PCB.. but either way, it's actually connected with solder. Older solder is tin/lead, newer solder is tin with maybe a tiny bit of copper.. either one much worse than nickel, copper, gold, silver, graphene, etc.
  
  --
  -Dave Haynie
Eh by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 01:03 · Score: 0

And yet displayport remains royalty free, and honestly, has a much nicer designed / fitting / stable connector.
Let me guess. They also changed the DRM. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 01:04 · Score: 0

Thats real reason why HDMI 2.0 was created. How soon will I have to buy a new TV and stereo because my new Blu ray player, or tablet only supports HDMI 2.0 to prevent piracy of content because the current HDMI spec has been cracked?
Congratulations for catching up to DisplayPort by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 01:21 · Score: 0

Only took HDMI four years, after all!
1. Re:Congratulations for catching up to DisplayPort by TechyImmigrant · 2013-09-04 01:59 · Score: 2
  
  And display port exists specifically so they don't have to pay the royalties for HDMI,
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
2. Re:Congratulations for catching up to DisplayPort by MachineShedFred · 2013-09-04 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  It also exists for having a VESA standard. You know, those guys that have been making video standards for like 30 years now? Oh, and it supports 4K video and multiplexed signals, allowing display chaining and breakout hubs; which HDMI 2.0 still doesn't.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
3. Re:Congratulations for catching up to DisplayPort by TechyImmigrant · 2013-09-04 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  So when can we kill HDMI alltogether?
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
4. Re:Congratulations for catching up to DisplayPort by hazydave · 2013-09-04 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  No.. not even close. Yeah, that's one of the side-effects, but DisplayPort is way more than that.
  It's a higher level protocol than HDMI, DVI, or other video display technologies. For one, it's based on small packets -- like Ethernet and PCI Express. So it can send different kinds of data over the same interface, and in a extensible way -- new generation DisplayPort devices can add functionality without messing up compatibility with older devices. And this is how is does audio and video without having separate signals for audio and video.
  And of course, DisplayPort supports DRM. And while is does support the flawed 40-bit and slightly better 56-bit HDCP, it also supports a protocol based on 128-bit AES. Hard core crypto, that last one. It also manages 17.28Gb/s mode, not much different than the 18Gb/s mode of HDMI 2.0.
  
  --
  -Dave Haynie
5. Re:Congratulations for catching up to DisplayPort by Areyoukiddingme · 2013-09-04 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Soon.
6. Re:Congratulations for catching up to DisplayPort by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 09:35 · Score: 0
  
  Your comparison is a bit off, as the DisplayPort number accounts for the 8b/10b encoding overhead, while the HDMI number doesn't. HDMI 2.0 only provides 14.4Gbit/s of usable bandwidth. For completeness, the raw data rate of DisplayPort 1.2 is 21.6Gbit/s.
  HDMI is inferior in every manner, from the connector on up.
Re:Let me guess. They also changed the DRM. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 01:25 · Score: 1

HMDI != HDCP.

(Posting as AC because this comment will need repeating a few thousand times in this thread, and I have no desire to karma-whore).
Too little too late? by River+of+Souls · 2013-09-04 01:28 · Score: 1

So, the whole reason for going with faux 4K (3820 x 2160 or just 2160p as it should be called) in the first place, was because existing HDMI couldn't quite hit 4096 to do the real thing. Now they come out with something that can do it, but they are sticking with 3840?
1. Re:Too little too late? by dfghjk · 2013-09-04 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  "So, the whole reason for going with faux 4K (3820 x 2160 or just 2160p as it should be called) in the first place, was because existing HDMI couldn't quite hit 4096 to do the real thing."
  No, that's not the "whole reason" or even part of the reason. The remaining question is uninteresting.
2. Re:Too little too late? by hattig · 2013-09-04 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  1920 multiplied by 2 is 3820.
  3820x2160 is merely Quad-1080p - which at least is sane.
  4096x2160 is 17:9 (ish) - I don't see the point in this resolution.
  I await the pointless 5040x2160 monitors (21:9, the "new shiny standard" for widescreen monitors).
3. Re:Too little too late? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  Give him a break, obviously adding 4 digit numbers is beyond him (1920+1920 = 3840,1080+1080 = 2160), hell he can't even COPY a 4 digit number correctly.
4. Re:Too little too late? by Billly+Gates · 2013-09-04 02:01 · Score: 2
  
  1920 multiplied by 2 is 3820.
  3820x2160 is merely Quad-1080p - which at least is sane.
  4096x2160 is 17:9 (ish) - I don't see the point in this resolution.
  I await the pointless 5040x2160 monitors (21:9, the "new shiny standard" for widescreen monitors).
  You think BestBuy was greedy?
  Just watch as Hollywood and TV producers try to shovel this crap on next! The 3D TVs, TVs with apps, and all sorts of ugly non sense to charge for premiums. Cox and Time Warner would love to charge $499 a month for TV with all sooo brilliant 5k!
  You know there will be suckers lining for this too as always.
  $199 a month per TV in addition to the $499 a month. At $700 a month you can fucking trade that in for a car! But consumers will of course pay for it with their 30% interest credit cards and then whine how they are soo broke and can't retire. Sigh ... ok going off topic here but just a dark observation I have made when it comes to consumables in the past 10 years I have seen.
  Now I am considered a money waster by these people for buying $250 video cards and decent computers every 4 years too.
  But when stuff like this comes out marketers always look for a way to exploit it. I am fine with regular HD and nothing else but perhaps I am a minority?
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
5. Re:Too little too late? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  I agree! What the hell is up with people and their weird aspect ratios. 16:10 all the way!
6. Re:Too little too late? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 02:12 · Score: 0
  
  1920 multiplied by 2 is 3820
  I suggest you use calculator from now on.
7. Re:Too little too late? by River+of+Souls · 2013-09-04 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  1920 multiplied by 2 is 3820.
  3820x2160 is merely Quad-1080p - which at least is sane.
  4096x2160 is 17:9 (ish) - I don't see the point in this resolution.
  I await the pointless 5040x2160 monitors (21:9, the "new shiny standard" for widescreen monitors).
  1920 (as being slightly short of 2048) is the old or maybe existing faux format, but at least they call it 1080p and not 2K. The point of 4096x2160 or if you will, 2048x1080 is that those are resolutions that movie studios actually shoot movies in, and they refer to them as 2K, 4K, 8K, etc. There are no perfect ways to convert from the movie format to the home format. Yes, you could say it is convenient to be able to double/quad our current 1920x1080, but actually that too is itself based on slightly less than the real thing. If we used the same resolutions at home, then no conversion and thus no picture and/or quality loss would happen from the conversion. I will wait for 8K and hope it is 8192x4320 and not 7680x4320, or I will just call it 4320p.
8. Re:Too little too late? by hattig · 2013-09-04 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, 3840 wide. I just blindly copied what the OP wrote because the point was to explain why it wasn't 4096x2160.
9. Re:Too little too late? by River+of+Souls · 2013-09-04 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  "So, the whole reason for going with faux 4K (3820 x 2160 or just 2160p as it should be called) in the first place, was because existing HDMI couldn't quite hit 4096 to do the real thing."
  No, that's not the "whole reason" or even part of the reason. The remaining question is uninteresting.
  You may not know who Joe Kane is, but this should help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZqhA3iIHm4 Perhaps not the whole reason, likely the main reason, but definitely part of the reason. I think the answer to the remaining question might be that they don't have a good reason...
10. Re:Too little too late? by hattig · 2013-09-04 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  The TV resolution specifications (720p, 1080i, 1080p, etc) were set in the 90s. It was after this that digital movie recording started with a slightly different "2K" resolution. They are different display mechanisms after all, the home TV and the cinema - even if the home TV is approaching cinema size (factoring in viewing distance).
  2048x1080 is a stupid resolution. 2048x1152 would be more sane as it's a 16:9 display. Maybe this is what Full HD should have been originally instead of 1080 lines. Too late now.
  "8K" in the home will be 7680x4320.
11. Re:Too little too late? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  Yip it should be called 2160p.
  4K is already reserved for the resolution of 4096x2160, which is the resolution of movie camera sensors and the resolution of theatre projectors.
12. Re:Too little too late? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  We started with 4:3, then moved on to 4^2:3^2 = 16:9. The next logical step clearly is 4^3:3^3 = 64:27. Which is wider than 21:9 anyway.
13. Re:Too little too late? by River+of+Souls · 2013-09-04 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  The TV resolution specifications (720p, 1080i, 1080p, etc) were set in the 90s. It was after this that digital movie recording started with a slightly different "2K" resolution. They are different display mechanisms after all, the home TV and the cinema - even if the home TV is approaching cinema size (factoring in viewing distance).
  2048x1080 is a stupid resolution. 2048x1152 would be more sane as it's a 16:9 display. Maybe this is what Full HD should have been originally instead of 1080 lines. Too late now.
  "8K" in the home will be 7680x4320.
  Resolutions such as 720p and 1080i were created due to transport / transmission limitations, and I would say they were more "arrived at" than set. My DLP projector is extremely similar to the one's at the cinema. Actually, 2048x1080 isn't a format, as you point out it's an aspect ratio. The movie studios use 2K, 4K, etc. to refer to the fixed number of the format, but the aspect ratio is variable as you can see with all the different ratios used by different movies. You can have 2K at 2048x2048 if you want. If they scanned old film or shot digital movies at 3840x2160, that would also fix it.
14. Re:Too little too late? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  I will wait for 8K and hope it is 8192x4320 and not 7680x4320, or I will just call it 4320p.
  I wonder how many people would be able to see the difference. My guess is: Zero.
15. Re:Too little too late? by River+of+Souls · 2013-09-04 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yip it should be called 2160p.
  4K is already reserved for the resolution of 4096x2160, which is the resolution of movie camera sensors and the resolution of theatre projectors.
  Absolutely. I especially love that every "4K*" TV is already tagged with an asterisk with a sticker at the bottom of the TV saying "*3840x2160"....
  even the lawyers knew this was a bad idea.
16. Re:Too little too late? by Jeremy+Erwin · 2013-09-04 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Movies aren't 16:9. (1:1,77...) The two most often used aspect ratios are 1:1.85 and 1:2,39.
17. Re:Too little too late? by AdamHaun · 2013-09-04 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  or just 2160p as it should be called
  Movies come in different aspect ratios. At 1.78:1 you get 1080p or 2160p. At the also popular 2.35:1 you get ~817p. 720p likewise becomes ~544p. Those aren't really helpful for comparison since 817p isn't lower resolution than 1080p. Only the horizontal resolution is constant, so it actually makes sense to use it. The use of vertical resolution comes from the days of analog TV when only horizontal resolution was continuous, not discrete.
  (I'm sure the marketing folks were salivating over it anyway.)
  Also, while I haven't watched your hour-long video (summary?), I'm not sure why anyone would target 4096 pixels wide, which would make upscaling existing HD very painful. Doubling the resolution is much simpler, and I very much doubt that 4K was ever a spec as opposed to a marketing term.
  
  --
  Visit the
18. Re:Too little too late? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 03:50 · Score: 0
  
  No. You want greedy? Try the TV companies like Westinghouse that require you download a password to view over-the-air broadcasts on the TV you just bought. It's free for a limited time...
19. Re:Too little too late? by River+of+Souls · 2013-09-04 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  or just 2160p as it should be called
  Movies come in different aspect ratios. At 1.78:1 you get 1080p or 2160p. At the also popular 2.35:1 you get ~817p. 720p likewise becomes ~544p. Those aren't really helpful for comparison since 817p isn't lower resolution than 1080p. Only the horizontal resolution is constant, so it actually makes sense to use it. The use of vertical resolution comes from the days of analog TV when only horizontal resolution was continuous, not discrete.
  (I'm sure the marketing folks were salivating over it anyway.)
  Also, while I haven't watched your hour-long video (summary?), I'm not sure why anyone would target 4096 pixels wide, which would make upscaling existing HD very painful. Doubling the resolution is much simpler, and I very much doubt that 4K was ever a spec as opposed to a marketing term.
  Indeed, upscaling existing 1920x1080 to 4096x(aspect ratio) would be painful. Just as downscaling the 2K and 4K that movies are shot in to 1920x1080 and 3840x2160 are, but could be much better if they weren't. That is one of the points brought up in the video.
  Other points in the video talk about how resolution isn't the only factor that makes the newer formats better, it is not even the most important one. The new formats also come with a wider color gamut, better compression algorithms, and so on. But one of the main points is the problem of getting movie formats cleanly scaled down to home formats. They had an opportunity here to stop doing that and they blew it.
20. Re:Too little too late? by hazydave · 2013-09-04 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Well, no.. the real reason for 3820x2160 is that it's quad HD.
  But HDMI 2.0 also fully supports the DCI (Digital Cinema Initiatives format), 4096x2160, at 60p and 48bpp.. that's the prevailing standard in cinema 4K, though there are others (DCI Cinemascope, DCI flat cropped, Academy and Full Aperture 4K, the latter at 4096 x 3112), which are not necessarily intended for display on consumer gear.
  
  --
  -Dave Haynie
21. Re:Too little too late? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 16:34 · Score: 0
  
  Just wait until HD manufacturers notice. 2 years later 1k will always have been 960.
Re:Let me guess. They also changed the DRM. by Urkki · 2013-09-04 01:30 · Score: 1

How soon will I have to buy a new TV and stereo because my new Blu ray player, or tablet only supports HDMI 2.0
I don't know how long you can wait at most, but I can say how long you can wait at least: until you buy a new cutting edge Blu Ray player or a tablet...
Damit by Osgeld · 2013-09-04 01:36 · Score: 1

now all my hdmi equipment will be slathered with flash garbage and junky java applets
What about LAG? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 01:37 · Score: 0

Just wondering because squeezing all that data at the same time leads to lip sync issues and gaming (audio and video) lag.
Closed Captioning by Teese · 2013-09-04 01:37 · Score: 2

Have they fixed the lack of closed captioning in HDMI? I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.

--
"I'm a Genius!"*

*Not an actual Genius
1. Re:Closed Captioning by quetwo · 2013-09-04 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  HDMI is meant for end-user equipment, not transport. Whatever is your "tuner" (CATV STB, Satellite STB, DVD, Bluray, etc) that you are using to generate your picture is the one will melt in the closed captioning. HDMI only supports MPEG audio and MPEG video steams, and does not support text/data streams.
2. Re:Closed Captioning by Lumpy · 2013-09-04 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  HDMI supports FULL closed captioning, It has supported it since it supported video.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
3. Re:Closed Captioning by Teese · 2013-09-04 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  HDMI supports FULL closed captioning, It has supported it since it supported video.
  HDMI supports NO closed captioning, and it hasn't supported it since ever.
  
  --
  "I'm a Genius!"*
  
  *Not an actual Genius
4. Re:Closed Captioning by Lumpy · 2013-09-04 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yes it does. I suggest you learn something about HDMI and digital video in general.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
5. Re:Closed Captioning by Teese · 2013-09-04 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yes it does. I suggest you learn something about HDMI and digital video in general.
  And yet, for years I'm unable to get closed captioning to work across an HDMI cable between various tv's, cable boxes, and DVD players.
  
  --
  "I'm a Genius!"*
  
  *Not an actual Genius
6. Re:Closed Captioning by cmburns69 · 2013-09-04 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/faq.aspx#117
  Officially HDMI supports closed captioning by deferring it to the set to box creating the HDMI signal. So HDMI supports it by not supporting it.
  
  --
  Online Starcraft RPG? At
  Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
7. Re:Closed Captioning by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  It looks like to use closed captioning over HDMI, you have to enable it *DEVICE SIDE*. Because the HDMI cable does not carry CC information as was stated. I'm guessing the device encodes it into the video before it is sent over the HDMI cable.
  My reference: http://captionmax.com/blog/2010/08/hdmi-and-the-missing-closed-captions/
8. Re:Closed Captioning by ArsonSmith · 2013-09-04 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying HDMI actively strips the closed captioning from the video feed? That is evil.
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
9. Re:Closed Captioning by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  And yet, for years I'm unable to get closed captioning to work across an HDMI cable between various tv's, cable boxes, and DVD players.
  And yet, for years I'm able to get closed captioning to work across a series of HDMI cable between my PS3 through my A/V receiver to my television.
10. Re:Closed Captioning by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  Are you saying HDMI actively strips the closed captioning from the video feed? That is evil.
  More or less, yes.
  Closed captioning data is sent as a sort of data side-channel using some otherwise unused areas of analog signals, and the TV reads this data and renders it into text. HDMI does not allow this side-channel data to be sent, and their "solution" is for every individual device (cable box, dvd player, etc) to render the data into text and then just send the whole thing as video to the display, which would just display what it gets.
  Technically the above system would work, but practically it doesn't because getting every device to support closed captioning was hard enough when it was just televisions, but it's pretty much impossible when you're dealing any device that can output HDMI. Hardly anyone does this, and analog connectors are being phased out, so for all intents and purposes Closed Captioning is dead on modern systems, replaced by nothing in most cases.
  So while the CC-stripping design was probably made on the basis of "this technology is technically inelegant and a little backwards, would greatly complicate the specs, and it's not my problem so I'm not going to support it", the end result is a bunch of deaf people just got screwed out of being able to see the captioning that people had just gotten around to finally including in their programming. So yeah, evil.
11. Re:Closed Captioning by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  No. HDMI supports raw video.... not MPEG (any flavor), not logical layers (eg, closed captioning, etc). It's a replacement for analog and digital video outputs. Yeah, it does support some compressed audio formats, but also uncompressed. Your GPU or Blu-ray player or whatever composes the video, then sends it out uncompressed to the monitor over HDMI.
  It's also primarily for consumer products, not really intended for PC use... and I say this having only recently added some monitors with "PC" inputs (two DisplayPort 2560x1440 IPS monitors augmenting my dual video-oriented 1920x1200 MVA monitors with every kind of video input). It worked out pretty interchangeably with PC stuff, since the original HDMI signalling was just a superset of DVI -- same signal pairs, higher bandwidth. So DVI out to HDMI in is just a cable.
12. Re:Closed Captioning by Teese · 2013-09-04 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying HDMI actively strips the closed captioning from the video feed? That is evil.
  more like, passively strips. I guess. Somehow over the air HD channels can send captioning through a digital only signal, but HDMI cannot/doesn't. I've never been able to understand the distinction.
  
  --
  "I'm a Genius!"*
  
  *Not an actual Genius
13. Re:Closed Captioning by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  And yet, for years I'm able to get closed captioning to work across a series of HDMI cable between my PS3 through my A/V receiver to my television.
  No closed captioning data is going over your HDMI cables because they don't support it. If your PS3 is putting text onto the image before sending it to your TV, that means your PS3 supports closed captioning*, not the cables. The end result may work for a specific device, but requires every device--every cable box, every dvd player, every dvr, every htpc, etc, support it. And unlike CC support in televisions, it's not mandated, so nobody supports it. Thus, the fact that HDMI can't transmit CC data is a PITA for many.
  * I don't have a PS3 myself, but every source I have found on this subject says that the PS3 doesn't support closed captioning either. It supports subtitles, which really aren't the same thing. At all.
14. Re:Closed Captioning by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  There is a huge technical difference between the way OTA sends audio\video and the way HDMI sends it. That doesn't mean that HDMI couldn't include some sort of text captioning; it just doesn't.
15. Re:Closed Captioning by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  Yes it does. I suggest you learn something about HDMI and digital video in general.
  Ah, so strident and so wrong. I love Slashdot.
16. Re:Closed Captioning by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  Right. The FCC has some regs on this for IP (Internet Protocol) video, but they basically say that the responsibility is either to render captions or pass them on. Of course, for all the anti-reg folks bellyaching about regs, these are basically never enforced and the public suffers. Not to mention that it's a dumb reg anyway, to allow rendering rather than passthrough. Rendering means alternative accessibility technologies and academic work (eg, studying the captioning quality) are actively thwarted.
  But, no, they haven't fixed a damn thing. HDMI continues to be an aggressively anti-user technology.
Ep6?F! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 01:41 · Score: -1

irc network. The Of businees and Contributed code and enjoy all the
Monster Cable by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 01:54 · Score: 0

The engineers at Monster must be working their asses off trying to shoe-horn all that bandwidth into one cable. They're doing god's work.
1. Re:Monster Cable by 3vi1 · 2013-09-04 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  This made me laugh out loud, then get soooo angry when I imagine someone saying it honestly. Good job.
32 audio channels? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 01:57 · Score: 0

Do any of those 32 channels give me singing without that damn Auto-Tune?
1. Re:32 audio channels? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 16:33 · Score: 0
  
  So you would like to listen singing which is out of tune? Are you sure you are not talking about vocoder or some other effect instead which is the thing that bugs you? Anyway, vocal autotuning is used in pretty much every produced track these days, and is not going away.
Cheaper cables! Yea! by BetaDays · 2013-09-04 02:03 · Score: 1

Now I just have to wait for these guys to come down in price. http://www.bestbuy.com/site/AudioQuest+-+Coffee+HDMI+Cable+16m/1307068564.p?id=mp1307068564&skuId=1307068564

I know at $2,700 US they are a steal and I was saving up so my tv picture would look really great but now I don't have to. They should cost 10$ in a few weeks!

--
Paul: Father... father, the sleeper has awakened! - Dune
Still limited to 60Hz? by sinij · 2013-09-04 02:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

Still limited to 60Hz? Disappointing and annoying.
1. Re:Still limited to 60Hz? by timeOday · 2013-09-04 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  If it can carry 3,840 x 2,160 resolution video at 60fps, then it can carry 1080p at 240 fps.
2. Re:Still limited to 60Hz? by landoltjp · 2013-09-04 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but I'd like it to 3,840 x 2,160 resolution video at 120 or 240fps.
  I imagine that technology adhering to this 2.0 standard will be obsolete by the time it hits the shelves. Maybe that's the plan. I'll hold out for 3,840 x 2,160 resolution video at 120/240fps, thank you.
3. Re:Still limited to 60Hz? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, it could carry 480 fps -- not that anyone could notice. (3,840 x 2,160 = Quad HD)
4. Re:Still limited to 60Hz? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  Still limited to 60Hz? Disappointing and annoying.
  Indeed. I once tested a 3D game I wrote on my mother's computer which has a CRT monitor, when I noticed it was running at 70 Hz. So I opened the display properties and noticed it could go all the way up to 100. So I set it to 100. It's so much smoother than 60. I wanted to "upgrade" her to an LCD monitor by trading an LCD I have for her CRT, but the house is infested with bed bugs and I didn't want to risk bringing any home with me.
  1920x1080 is already more than most people are going to see simply because they sit too far from their screen, and so an upgrade in resolution isn't going to do much for people, but an increase in frame rate would create a difference everyone can see. Of course, it would mean they'd have to start shooting movies in more than 24 FPS, which'll probably never happen, so I guess there's really no point.
5. Re:Still limited to 60Hz? by AdamHaun · 2013-09-04 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but I'd like it to 3,840 x 2,160 resolution video at 120 or 240fps.
  You realize that's 24 gigabits/second *minimum* just for 4K 120fps raw video, right? (With 4K's better color, it might be 32 Gbps, I'm not sure.) That is not a trivial challenge.
  
  --
  Visit the
6. Re:Still limited to 60Hz? by UnknownSoldier · 2013-09-04 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  You'll want want one of these ... nice and bright, and goes all the way up to 144 Hz.
  ASUS VG248QE Black 24" 144Hz 1ms (GTG) HDMI
  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236313
7. Re:Still limited to 60Hz? by UnknownSoldier · 2013-09-04 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  I know. :-( Wish they would upgrade 1080p to at least 120 Hz.
  Looks like we'll have to wait another 20 years before people figure out the importance of 100+ Hz.
  *sigh*
  --
  "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
8. Re:Still limited to 60Hz? by hazydave · 2013-09-04 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  4K doesn't support "better color"... or rather, better color is already in there. 48-bits/pixel color has been in HDMI since 1.3. The big change is that HDMI 1.4a can support a max of 4096x2160p24 at 24bpp, while HDM 2.0 supports 4096x2160p60 at 48bpp. But HDMI 1.3/1.4 has always supported 1920×1200p60 at 48bpp.
  
  --
  -Dave Haynie
9. Re:Still limited to 60Hz? by hazydave · 2013-09-04 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Hardly.. I couldn't go to 1920x1080; haven't had resolution that low in any of my multiple monitors since the mid 2000s. These days, it's 2640x1440 on two, 1920x1200 on the other... but I'm working, not gaming. No need for anything beyond 60p (the fastest video I generally shoot).
  
  --
  -Dave Haynie
10. Re:Still limited to 60Hz? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  >Yes, but I'd like it to 3,840 x 2,160 resolution video at 120 or 240fps.
  Where are you going to find video content at 240fps? Every movie filmed up til now has been 24fps...
11. Re:Still limited to 60Hz? by AdamHaun · 2013-09-04 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm... okay, so 2160p with 48-bit color at 60fps would be ~24 Gb/sec. Double that for 120fps and you're well into DDR2 and multi-lane PCIe territory.
  
  --
  Visit the
12. Re:Still limited to 60Hz? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  Can I please get the HDMI cable to connect by external hard drive, internal SSD RAID10 and network my 5 computers to NAS?
13. Re:Still limited to 60Hz? by AdamHaun · 2013-09-04 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Try InfiniBand, maybe? Those prices make Monster Cable look cheap, though...
  
  --
  Visit the
14. Re:Still limited to 60Hz? by Kjella · 2013-09-04 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  I know. :-( Wish they would upgrade 1080p to at least 120 Hz. Looks like we'll have to wait another 20 years before people figure out the importance of 100+ Hz.
  Having lived with 50Hz PAL TVs and 60Hz CRTs we need high refresh rates, but an LCD doesn't go to black between refreshes so it doesn't suffer from flicker at any signal rate. Movies for example usually solve this by displaying 24 fps content at 3x24 = 72Hz which is flicker free. So the question is do we need 60+ Hz signal? We perceive fluid motion as around 25-30 FPS so 60 FPS is perfect smoothness for movies and television. Why? Because it's a capture of reality's "infinity" frames per second into 1/60 second time slots.
  You can see flashes of light down to a few milliseconds (think a photo flash), but you can't say whether it was a 3 ms flash or a 20 ms flash or three 5 ms flashes with pauses. If I record it with a camera and play it back to you at 60Hz, it looks exactly the same. But in a game you can't see it unless it was rendered in a frame, only 60 FPS is like taking 60 snapshots with a 0.00001 second exposure time. If the flash of light wasn't in the frame it "doesn't exist". In order to capture all that a human would see, you need to render at much higher frame rates, perhaps something like 600 FPS. But you could motion blur ten frames into one for 60 Hz and it'd still look the same, you can't perceive 600 individual frames.
  Having 120 Hz cables and monitors is really the brute force version of this, instead of motion blurring you just throw up razor-sharp images on the screen and let the brain do the motion blurring instead of the computer. It doesn't actually improve picture quality or smoothness. The only thing it improves is latency, all other lag in the gaming system being equal a 120 Hz monitor will render and make you start perceiving the image up to 8.3 ms faster than a 60 Hz monitor (16.6 vs 8.3 ms/frame). In an FPS it might mean you pulling the trigger faster than your opponent, but it doesn't do anything for non-gamers or games where 0.01 seconds doesn't make a difference.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
15. Re:Still limited to 60Hz? by jones_supa · 2013-09-04 18:28 · Score: 1
  
  an LCD doesn't go to black between refreshes so it doesn't suffer from flicker at any signal rate
  This is slightly unrelated to your comment, but the brightness control of most LCDs is implemented using PWM (captured with a high speed camera) so when you deviate from max brightness, you get flicker. A while ago I posted a rant about the carrier wave being too low-frequency which might cause annoyance for some people. This does not depend on the input signal of course (but might be a multiple of it).
  Back to your point. I have never wished more than 60fps, but I just wish we had much more 60fps content. There are some sports torrents in The Pirate Bay at 60fps, but that's pretty much all I have found. Oh, and often guys broadcast games at 60fps at Twitch.tv, those are really nice to watch.
16. Re:Still limited to 60Hz? by UnknownSoldier · 2013-09-05 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah the 1080p is the tradeoff.
  Did you mean 2560? I agree 2560 x 1440 is an absolute god send compared to crappy 1080p once you've had 1900x1200.
  I don't know of any high resolutions (1440+) available at 100+ Hz. :-(
17. Re:Still limited to 60Hz? by UnknownSoldier · 2013-09-05 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  > but an LCD doesn't go to black between refreshes so it doesn't suffer from flicker at any signal rate
  That's not entirely true and misleading. I have an Asus VG248QE that supports nVidia LightBoost (even in 2D!) that inserts black frames between refreshes. Here is a video of the Asus VG278H that also supports LightBoost.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD5gjAs1A2s
  Also see:
  http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/lightboost/
  > We perceive fluid motion as around 25-30 FPS so 60 FPS is perfect smoothness for movies and television.
  You do realize that fighter pilots can detect motion up to 200+ FPS right? Yes, 200.
  http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
  I would _literally_ like to see hard evidence of movies shot at 60 Hz, 72 Hz, 96 Hz, 100 Hz, 120 Hz, and 144 Hz played back on
  a) CRT, and
  b) LCD with LightBoost
  to determine what the minimum refresh rate needs to be. I know from personal experience that on a CRT my eyes MUCH prefer 100 Hz to 60 Hz.
  > Having 120 Hz cables and monitors is really the brute force version of this, instead of motion blurring you just throw up razor-sharp images on the screen and let the brain do the motion blurring instead of the computer.
  Agreed that is a "better" solution then blurring the hell out of everything at a low refresh rate.
  > The only thing it improves is latency,
  Yes. The other benefit with a high refresh rate is for gaming you can turn V-Sync OFF. As a gamer / drummer latency drives me nuts because V-Sync "on" lags input likes crazy. We're talking about 1 or 2 milliseconds here and it is annoying as heck.
Please for the love of God get rid of the... by Assmasher · 2013-09-04 02:27 · Score: 1

...downstream device limits.
It's not a bad idea until some as*holes like Comcast limit the number to 2 instead of 8 or 16 like most other cable boxes.
This, of course, means Comcast thinks I'm stealing my own cable when it goes to my receiver (1 device) then my wireless HDMI transmitter (1 device) into my projector (1 device.) Bang, green "you're stealing this signal" screen.
Jerks...

--
Loading...
1. Re:Please for the love of God get rid of the... by Lumpy · 2013-09-04 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  HDFury solves this problem completely. no home should be without one.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Why and how would HDMI do CC? by Sycraft-fu · 2013-09-04 02:36 · Score: 2, Informative

HDMI is video and audio transport. Closed captioning works fine over it, since it comes from the video source. Be it your cable, DVD, Blu-ray, whatever, the CC information is processed on the relevant device, and then sent out as part of the video.
Asking HDMI to do closed captioning is like asking Ethernet to do packet filtering: You are looking at the wrong area.
1. Re:Why and how would HDMI do CC? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 02:53 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  In USA, the previous video transport technology (composite video) did handle closed captioning. Technically speaking, it was encoded into part of the non-picture area of the video signal (which is exactly how HDMI handles audio). Logically speaking, it makes as much sense as anything else; video goes and text goes with it.
  Practically speaking, it gave the end user a lot of control over how the captioning was presented; you could record captioned video and then play back at a later time with or without the captions active. You could use special accessibility hardware to show GIANT BIG LETTERS for grandma, instead of having the captions show on the TV.
  You can still do those things, but it's harder now because by the time the video stream has reached HDMI, the captions are either gone and unrecoverable or burned into the video stream and unremovable. Each input source has to handle captioning in its own way with its own methods, and some are friendlier than others....
  I guess I'm not sure what's the best solution overall, but the idea of captions in an uncompressed video stream ready for presentation certainly has some merit and we lasted with it for a few decades.
2. Re:Why and how would HDMI do CC? by gl4ss · 2013-09-04 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  texttv closed captioning was with anything anywhere... sure, most shows in for example Finland had subtitles burned in but the tv companies had the option for the text tv style route - and some shows used it for swedish text for example. I don't think vhs saved that part of the signal though.
  now in practice, the captioning for tv shows comes in with the digital signal and you can show it in as big letters as you(device provider) want and you can shovel in as many languages as you want and even multiple audiotracks.... putting it in the hdmi signal as something to travel along would be fairly pointless, since the hdmi stream is never meant to be saved by itself.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
3. Re:Why and how would HDMI do CC? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  HDMI is video and audio transport. Closed captioning works fine over it, since it comes from the video source. Be it your cable, DVD, Blu-ray, whatever, the CC information is processed on the relevant device, and then sent out as part of the video.
  Asking HDMI to do closed captioning is like asking Ethernet to do packet filtering: You are looking at the wrong area.
  This answer illustrates why someone who seems to know a lot about audio and video, but doesn't have a basic understanding of how closed captioning works, can provide answer that is well-argued, logically consistent, patronizing, and, most importantly, wrong.
  And it gets modded up as informative, too. Fucking check Wikipedia or Google it, people. CC over HDMI doesn't work.
And you think it is magic? by Sycraft-fu · 2013-09-04 02:40 · Score: 1

How, precisely, would you propose to build something backward compatible with the current spec that can push that kind of bandwidth, and be built for a reasonable cost?
The reason for these limits aren't arbitrary. It gets rather difficult and expensive to generate these real high bandwidth signals. Same reason why 10 gig ethernet costs so much more than gigE and needs better cabling to boot.
It isn't magic, as technology advances (particularly smaller lithography) it becomes possible to do higher clock rates at a lower cost and thus increase the bandwidth going over the cables. However it isn't something where we could just make it as fast as we wanted, easily and cheaply. If it were, well we'd have a lot higher interconnect speed.
So if you know some engineering voodoo that nobody else does that will allow for a 2-4x increase in bandwidth while still keeping cost low, well then off to the patent office with you You'll be able to make a mint. However if you are just whining that you can't have everything, without any actual understanding, then please stop.
1. Re:And you think it is magic? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  How, precisely, would you propose to build something backward compatible with the current spec that can push that kind of bandwidth, and be built for a reasonable cost?
  Or you could just cope with devices having a different plug for the cables that support quadruple the bandwidth...
  
  So if you know some engineering voodoo that nobody else does that will allow for a 2-4x increase in bandwidth while still keeping cost low, well then off to the patent office with you You'll be able to make a mint. However if you are just whining that you can't have everything, without any actual understanding, then please stop.
  It's called fiber-optics, and 100Gbps cables have already been out for a bit. The first result I found was about $65 for a 5-meter cable.
2. Re:And you think it is magic? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  I feel like I'm missing the core market rationale for the spec. Is it mainly to allow 1080p @ 240hz, with 4K enhancements more of a byproduct?
  I can't speak for landoltjp, but as a consumer it seems odd that they would take what I perceive as a step backward in this spec with respect to 4K. I want to buy a 4K monitor, but all of the recent market push has been toward higher refresh rates. I understand there are technological limitations in moving to 4K @ 120Hz, but I have no desire to purchase a new 4K monitor or TV for video purposes if the refresh quality will not be as good as the current generation 1080p @ 120hz. A static picture will look beautiful, as will your average office applications, but how are they going to convince consumers to upgrade to 4K appliances if side-by-side comparison shows the movies look better on the 1080p models? This all leads me to believe that consumer-level 4K isn't what they're trying to achieve with this spec.
3. Re:And you think it is magic? by Blaskowicz · 2013-09-04 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Do you really have some 1080p 120Hz content around? (not "3D"). As far as I know only video games on a PC will give you a 120Hz signal (at 1080p), and it's on a dual link DVI or displayport link (or a decade old CRT monitor on VGA, at 800x600 or 1024x768)
  A 120Hz TV will actually take a 24Hz, 30Hz or 60Hz signal in and either show the same image multiple times (with maybe some kind of "scanning backlight" effect) or interpolate between frames to produce fake additional smoothness.
  Real 120Hz on 4K (or 3.8K) is desirable sure but we'll need a follow-up iteration.
4. Re:And you think it is magic? by timeOday · 2013-09-04 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  I would love to see what just a 1080p TV signal actually looks like. As far as I know there is no way to get, say, a football game (which really would benefit from fine detail with fast motion) in 1080p. I watch on a DVR and boy, you can really see the compression artifacts and combing on a freeze-frame.
  On my set, "motionflow" (interpolating frames in post-processing) is useless because it looks glassy smooth for a few frames and then judders for a few.
What about the VESA standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 02:40 · Score: 0

Can anybody of the slashdot readers that works the graphics industry tell me: is there any reason not to go with the DisplayPort standard? It's open, free, and seems like a better protocol overall?
1. Re:What about the VESA standards? by MachineShedFred · 2013-09-04 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  The reason for HDMI 2.0: The HDMI Forum likes money. The HDMI Forum doesn't get money from VESA DisplayPort 1.2, which does all of this and more. Without royalty. And supports multiple video channels multiplexed. And 4K.
  HDMI - the RAMBus of Display Interconnects.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
2. Re:What about the VESA standards? by speedlaw · 2013-09-04 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Close. The whole purpose of HDMI is so that everyone is forced to comply with HDCP. I've now replaced two components which failed HDCP so I have an ax to grind. My Onkyo receiver pooped the HDMI board, so is useless now as a Video receiver. Works ok in the office for music, though.....but I agree, defective by design. You license HDMI. You are forced to use HDMI. If you don't play nice, they sue you. All under licensing. This enforces all the DRM nonsense that goes with it. This is why we don't yet have that cheap Chinese HDMI recorder deck yet.....
What You're Missing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 02:44 · Score: 3, Informative

my blu rays play just fine on my TV. what exactly am i missing?
You're missing the ability to access the HDMI channel, more specifically the HDCP channel, that your Blu-Ray disc is playing across. Many would use this access to record/copy the video stream, possibly for piracy which is what the DRM is designed to prevent. But, many others would like to be able to access the video stream to do things like:
* Add our own news crawler, or pop-up alerts from our home automation systems.
* We'd like to pop-up caller ID from our PBX while the video is playing.
* Allow the home automation system to mute the Blu-Ray's audio and make an announcement.
* We'd like the ability to switch video feeds on a particular HDMI interface in software, so we don't have to use convoluted mechanical HDMI switchers and computer controlled IR blasters to control the HDMI switch.
* Similar to above; switch our security cameras/gate video on the fly.
All of these things were possible with previously unDRMed interfaces. But, using those interfaces now cause the Blu-Ray player to artificially and significantly reduce the playback resolution. Instead of watching 1080p, the Blu-Ray restricts the video down to 720p or less.
That's not correct by Sycraft-fu · 2013-09-04 02:48 · Score: 2

Windows 7 does nothing at all with Blu-ray content. It doesn't understand how to play it. All it does in relation to any of this is provide a method for programs to inquire to drivers if everything is (supposedly) secure. A Blu-ray player can inquire as to the encryption status of the links and make sure things aren't being captured and so on. For that matter, so can other programs. It isn't Blu-ray specific, however only the media companies give a shit so that's all that really does it. Games don't mind at all if their output is being captured.
Doesn't matter the interface. DVI, HDMI, and DP can all encrypt the signal. There's nothing special, on a computer at least, about HDMI.
It is then up to the software how it acts on that. However, due to licensing requirements, the software has to disable the video out if everything isn't encrypted. If it doesn't they won't be able to get a license for the keys to decode the media.
Same deal on any platform. It isn't like Windows is special in this way. If your chosen platform doesn't support the necessary "protection" then there won't be any licensed Blu-ray playback software.
This is a media industry thing, not an OS thing. The OS provides the ability to have verified driver paths, but it does nothing at related to changing anything. That is up to the software, and that is dictated by licensing.
1. Re:That's not correct by h4rr4r · 2013-09-04 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  So your computer conspires against you at the behest of media cartels, you could just say that.
  I might not have a license to play the media, but at least I can play it the way I want.
2. Re:That's not correct by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 07:38 · Score: 0
  
  Games don't mind at all if their output is being captured.
  Not actually true. The PS3 (at least in early revisions, not sure about current models) enables HDCP on game content too. This caused problems for some early HDTVs, because it was one of the first devices to actually enforce the tight timings for HDCP handshakes, leading to flickering video.
  Also, some games publishers must be asking for the ability to block recording of game footage, because apparently they can opt to disable the Game DVR feature on the XBox One.
What about HDCP? by Lumpy · 2013-09-04 02:53 · Score: 1

Hopefully they dont change that so it stays broken.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Will my components work right together finally? by swb · 2013-09-04 02:55 · Score: 1

When I replaced my TV with an HDMI-capable model I moved all my components that supported HDMI to HDMI, and have HDMI links between my TV (Sharp), Tivo, Receiver (Pioneer) and BluRay player (Panasonic) and AppleTV.
If I leave on the HDMI communication option on my components, turning on the TV is supposed to turn on the receiver. In theory without a smart remote, I turn on my TV and I'm watching TV with audio through my stereo.
But it doesn't work like this. Invariably when the TV comes fully on, it switches the input on my receiver to a dormant device (usually the Apple TV but sometimes it's the BluRay player). Never the Tivo input, although my Series 3 HD Tivo has some kind of HDMI bug and doesn't work with the receiver.
I leave the HDMI communication on because turning off the TV turns off the receiver, but it's almost not worth it.
1. Re:Will my components work right together finally? by djrobxx · 2013-09-04 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  > Invariably when the TV comes fully on, it switches the input on my receiver to a dormant device (usually the Apple TV but sometimes it's the BluRay player).
  HDMI-CEC is one of those things that should be awesome, but AV receiver manufacturers are simply too out of touch or don't care enough about how consumers actually use their products. Plus, they usually re-badge it to some proprietary name such as Samsung's "Anynet+", so they have an easy out when that Samsung TV doesn't work quite right with that Pioneer AV receiver.
  I had the issue you described. Manufacturer's attitude is that ALL of your devices must support the CEC "ecosystem", otherwise you're supposed to turn it off. Good job guys. I really expect Comcast, Time Warner, DirecTV Tivo, Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft to work together to support something that will pretty much always be turned off by consumers since almost no one has a compliant collection of components.
2. Re:Will my components work right together finally? by WarJolt · 2013-09-04 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately the CEC specification was poorly written in HDMI 1.4. Besides some standard buttons most of the CEC commands were mostly defined by the manufacturer.
  Personally, I've had trouble with CEC with a Yamaha receiver coupled with a Samsung TV. Whenever the TV turned on it switched the receiver into Audio Return Channel mode, which was incorrect because it was on the HDMI/cable input. ARC should have been disabled until going into the smart tv mode. I ended up using a TOSLink cable, turning of CEC and switching the inputs manually on the receiver. Interoperability needs to be improved between manufacturers.
  The 1.4 specification doesn't define the CEC commands well enough. With advanced features like ARC, it's even more important to define proper behavior.
  Supposedly this is better in HDMI 2.0, but we will see how the actual implementation compares.
3. Re:Will my components work right together finally? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  There have been attempts to interpret commands between different manufacturers.
  http://www.google.com/patents/US20130173835
4. Re:Will my components work right together finally? by swb · 2013-09-04 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  > Supposedly this is better in HDMI 2.0, but we will see how the actual implementation compares.
  And probably largely moot. I doubt support for HDMI 2.0 will make it into any of my existing gear (even if it could, my understanding is that this is a protocol update not a hardware update but I assume that support for some features requires hardware..)
Be nice by Safety+Cap · 2013-09-04 03:03 · Score: 1

The poor sap is probably chomping at the bit to buy all of his media again when a new format comes out.
Oh, to be a "consumer" instead of a...person.

--
Yeah, right.
Copper, silver, pfffft! by DriveDog · 2013-09-04 03:07 · Score: 1

We're producing the finest interconnects which leave pure metals in the dust. They're made of high-temperature superconducting materials. Our package includes a rigid rack on which to mount your components (these interconnects are not flexible, so components must not move relative to each other), a dewar, and a discount on your first purchase of liquid nitrogen (necessary to keep the interconnects within their superconducting temperature). If you wish for the absolute best, we also offer oxygen-free AAAA liquid dinitrogen. Even Grade A liquid nitrogen contains .05% of inert gases (neon, argon, and helium). Our AAAA cryogenic liquid dinitrogen is produced by a patent-pending liquefaction process which begins with UHP (ultra high pure) dinitrogen gas. Following your purchase and installation of our HTS interconnects with liquefied UHP dinitrogen cryogenic cooling system, you'll be hearing audio voices that most can't even imagine!
Maybe for the PS5 and XBOX two by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 03:22 · Score: 0

3840x2160 ? the new generation of consoles are barely catching up with 1920x1080 after a decade
60 FPS? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 04:01 · Score: 0

i thought most movies and TV shows are shot at 24 or 30 frames per second? i'm confused. lol not sure why anyone would need 60 FPS.
never heard of watching television at 60 FPS before. then again, i don't pay too much to high definition TV.
1. Re:60 FPS? by UnknownSoldier · 2013-09-04 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  > TV shows are shot at 24 or 30 frames per second? i'm confused. lol
  Movies are shot at 24 fps. NTSC is at 29.97 Hz. The Hobbit was shot at 48 fps.
  > not sure why anyone would need 60 FPS.
  Because anything less then 100 Hz looks stuttery as hell. Caveat: I suspect the minimum is around 96 Hz.
  To use a poor analogy: 24 fps is like the flickering of fluorescent lights at 60 Hz. Most people won't get a head-ache but some do. The solution is to raise the minimum range so that no one gets headaches.
2. Re:60 FPS? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  Did you forget about 3D? To look good, you need 60fps, per eye. So that's 120Hz right there. A 60HZ TV in 3D means 30Hz per eye and at that rate you can easily see the flickering. If you want some futuristic technology where you can have two people seeing separate video on the same screen, like 2 player full screen, 3D video games, then you have 4 eyes, and need 240Hz. The possibilities with active shutter glasses are tremendous. Imagine playing two player video games with just one console, one game, one screen, but neither player can see each others screen. The new generation of consoles is just about powerful enough to do this, render two scenes simultaneously. Certainly, if 240Hz TVs become common, the next gen in another 6 years will be able to do it. Even better if they can figure out how to do it without the active shutter glasses.
3. Re:60 FPS? by PhrostyMcByte · 2013-09-04 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  Because anything less then 100 Hz looks stuttery as hell.
  This really isn't true. The cause of stutter is fast shutter speeds. A standard film is shot at 24fps with a 1/48 shutter -- literally throwing out half the temporal information and causing the image to "jump" between frames. They do this because it creates a sharper image. Some movies use an even faster shutter to create a super-sharp or gritty feel -- Children of Men for instance.
DOES IT HAVE MEANINGFUL ERROR-CHECKING? by Medievalist · 2013-09-04 04:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

HDMI is a pure digital signal, with error checking. But since there's no means of retransmitting a broken packet (and thus no valid reason for buffering) in actual practice it's less capable of error checking and bit regeneration than methods used by scribes in the ninth century. You can know you lost more bits than you can regenerate, but you can't do anything about it.
I think this is because HDMI is not really a method for clean digital signal transmission, but rather a way to stealthily carry HDCP into the consumer mainstream. The feature set is primarily aimed at preventing users from doing things (like making backups) rather than providing the maximum benefit to end users.
1. Re:DOES IT HAVE MEANINGFUL ERROR-CHECKING? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2013-09-04 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  The chances of a bad packet with HDMI are extremely slim(not to mention be nearly unnoticeable).
  Further more, any serious error checking will lag the display.
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
2. Re:DOES IT HAVE MEANINGFUL ERROR-CHECKING? by hazydave · 2013-09-04 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Not at all.. HDMI is a method for clean transmissions to a visual display. That's pretty much it. It's not for backing up data, it's for displaying visual data for your eyes in realtime. Same as DVI... in fact, literally so, since HDMI is a superset of DVI.
  In any kind of media processing for human consumption, realtime error correcting works fine.. but there's no time for re-transmit -- this isn't a network protocol, it's a one-way transmission. Because there would be no time for a correction, anyway.
  In practice, rounded up to the nearest 0.01%, HDM errors never happen. It's robust enough to be commonly used as a transmission medium between camcorder and professional video recorder... if errors were remotely an issue, this wouldn't be done anymore. And in fact, most short range, very tightly controlled interfaces haven't had error checking or correcting, even for computer hardware. This really first showed up on the PCI bus, and even at that, it's a single parity bit for a 32-bit address or data cycle. And yet, never a problem in the real world.
  Networking's an entirely different situation -- you assume that the transmission medium is unreliable, but also, that something can be done in the event of a failure.
  
  --
  -Dave Haynie
3. Re:DOES IT HAVE MEANINGFUL ERROR-CHECKING? by squiggleslash · 2013-09-04 06:20 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  No, HDMI has never included error checking because that would prevent people from being able to use an HDMI-based television system to watch Fox News.
  Hahahha I'm so funny.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
4. Re:DOES IT HAVE MEANINGFUL ERROR-CHECKING? by Medievalist · 2013-09-04 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  The chances of a bad packet with HDMI are extremely slim(not to mention be nearly unnoticeable).
  Not so; have you ever been in a "sports bar"? Tens of thousands of HDMI errors clearly visible on screen!
  I don't usually patronize such places, but even I see HDMI errors all the time - usually because of cheap cables and RFI/EMI.
  
  Further more, any serious error checking will lag the display.
  Buffer the signal. Trivial problem.
5. Re:DOES IT HAVE MEANINGFUL ERROR-CHECKING? by Medievalist · 2013-09-04 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  "in practice... HDMI errors never happen?"
  I don't know how to reply to that, since I've seen uncountable thousands of them. Are you serious?
6. Re:DOES IT HAVE MEANINGFUL ERROR-CHECKING? by jones_supa · 2013-09-04 18:38 · Score: 1
  
  Further more, any serious error checking will lag the display.
  Buffer the signal. Trivial problem.
  That will exactly lag the display. Which is not nice if you want good interactivity, such as when playing with a game console.
7. Re:DOES IT HAVE MEANINGFUL ERROR-CHECKING? by jones_supa · 2013-09-04 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  Heh, that was a nice one. :)
8. Re:DOES IT HAVE MEANINGFUL ERROR-CHECKING? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2013-09-05 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  HDMI errors or tiling errors from the source(Low signal quality from Satellite/cable/etc)?
  I've seen the latter a LOT.
  The former? Not so much.
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
I'd Buy It IF by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-09-04 04:11 · Score: 1

It came with a reliable screw or clip on connector for the ends.
The current situation with the slide in connectors doesn't work worth shee-it.
1. Re:I'd Buy It IF by MachineShedFred · 2013-09-04 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  One more place where DisplayPort is better. Physical locking in the connector, with push button release.
  Well, the full-size DisplayPort, at least.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Why? by kheldan · 2013-09-04 04:21 · Score: 2

Someone explain to me again why 1920x1080 resolution is so horribly inadequate that we need 3840x2160 (4 times the resolution)? Are we all expected to have Jumbotron-sized televisions in our living rooms now?

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
1. Re:Why? by guytoronto · 2013-09-04 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  2560x1440 or 2560x1600 monitors are fairly commonplace these days. What will happen in the next few years with TV and computer monitor resolutions?
  
  Just because you don't need or want a higher resolution standard doesn't mean others don't.
2. Re:Why? by Diss+Champ · 2013-09-04 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I want the resolution increase so that getting a monitor with that resolution becomes affordable. 1920x1080 is great for TV as TV, but I want more from a monitor, and if the higher resolution TVs catch on it won't be so hard to find a reasonable cost higher resolution monitor.
3. Re:Why? by MachineShedFred · 2013-09-04 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  For the same reason that 280+ DPI phones and tablets are better?
  One word: Antialiasing.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 08:19 · Score: 0
  
  Try watching football about 5-6 feet away from a 60" TV. The resolution is very noticeably lacking.
  But I guess 640k is always enough for you.
5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  For "10 feet" viewing, I'm not too interested. A 55" is about as large as I would go anyways and 1080p is fine for that.
  However my desktop currently uses 4 monitors and I would certainly like to replace them with a single 40" 4K monitor
6. Re:Why? by mu51c10rd · 2013-09-04 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Are we all expected to have Jumbotron-sized televisions in our living rooms now?
  Samsung/LG/Vizio/Sharp will give a resounding yes to that question...
7. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 13:06 · Score: 0
  
  its not so much needed for home televisions, however for desktop monitors your eyes can see a much higher resolution than 1080p, if you want to learn more google eye arc minute resolution, or if your lazy http://isthisretina.com/
Gold terminals are nothing but bling by sjbe · 2013-09-04 04:46 · Score: 1

Gold connectors do in fact do provide benefits of low resistance connections without corrosion problems because of golds properties.
Gold plating is utterly pointless in 99.99% of applications. There really are only two circumstances where gold has any advantage. One is that it provides a lubrication advantages for mating of terminal. The other is that in some cases it can provide modest corrosion resistance in particularly harsh environments. They do not provide a meaningful benefit in reducing resistance as the terminal they plate is made of tin, brass or bronze phosphor. In typical household or business office use gold terminals have no measurable advantage of any kind unless you consider them bling.

It can also be applied in quite a thin layer so can also be fairly cheap too.
I run a company that makes wire harnesses. Gold terminals are approximately ten times the cost of tin, brass or bronze-phosphor terminals. If you consider a 10X markup "cheap" you must live in some alternate universe from me. If you are buying gold terminals you are paying a huge mark up for no measurable benefit whatsoever.
Put bluntly if you buy gold plated terminals of any kind you are almost certainly wasting money.
Yes gold does drive up the price. A lot. by sjbe · 2013-09-04 04:54 · Score: 1

We're talking microns of gold plating on the surface of another metal. If you're paying more than a few dollars extra for that, it's not the gold that's driving up the price.
I run a company that makes wire harnesses. We crimp terminals all day long and I buy them in reels of 4000-8000 at a time including gold plated, tin, brass, bronze-phosphor and more.
Gold plated terminals are typically around 10X the cost of tin, brass or bronze-phosphor. A terminal that might cost $0.03 in tin will cost around $0.30 if gold plated. And that is before there are any profit or overhead markups which are usually on a percentage of cost. That's a 10X markup just on the materials. Gold plated terminals are also completely pointless in 99.99% of cases as they provide no electrical advantage you could measure. There are some highly specialized applications where gold plating is appropriate but they are quite rare.
Re:Yes gold does drive up the price. A lot. by AdamHaun · 2013-09-04 06:42 · Score: 1

Interesting! Thanks for the details.

--
Visit the
Cables and connectors remain unchanged? by okle69 · 2013-09-04 07:34 · Score: 1

I'm sure Monster will still sell a new 2.0 cable at a slightly higher cost when this starts getting popular.
Not upgrading again so soon. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 09:59 · Score: 0

Unless my TV firmware upgrades to support it, not getting a TV that support it for at least 10 years more than likely.
I JUST bought me a new 3D TV 2 months ago, didn't even buy it for the 3D and don't use it. I bought it cause it was time to upgrade the dying Cathode Ray and it did 240 frames per second so no worries about ghosting and LED TVs are light and don't act as space heaters unlike plasma.
Not upgrading again till this dies (and if it dies within 10 years, I am just buying something similar to it, not some new thousand dollar plus device as it is for family as I don't even watch the thing for the most part). They come out with a TRUE 3D TV or a Star Trek style holodeck or even the Nervgear from Sword Art Online, THEN I might feel a desire to upgrade, but not paying all that money again for something so minor.
21:9 5120x2160 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 13:11 · Score: 0

does anyone know what the bandwidth for a 21:9 5120x2160 monitor would be? would hdmi 2.0 be able to run this at 60hz?
Need separate voice and non-voice audio channels by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 05:18 · Score: 0

What we really need is a standard that requires separation of voice and non-voice audio channels, instead of just having large numbers of generic audio channels. Current multimedia content routinely has extremely loud non-voice audio, such as music and special effects (not to mention loud ads), mixed in with the voice portion of the audio stream. For those who are elderly or otherwise hearing impaired (including children that get illnesses that damage their hearing) and have to turn up the volume to be able to understand human voices, the loud non-voice audio causes pain, anger, and potentially further hearing damage. Separate channels would allow separate control of volume for these people (a group that potentially includes every human being, as we can expect to lose some our hearing with age, especially those living in industrial societies).
Video formats also need to be updated to provide for this.