Slashdot Mirror
HDMI 2.0 Officially Announced
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.
!So we won't see a markup in price on 2.0 cables then. If only.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
New features include new master key I presume.
The summary doesn't say...
Does HDMI 2.0 support new, improved, and even more delicious Digitally Restricted Media? Seems that it must.
I am selling platinum-tipped, lead-shielded, kevlar-reinforced Ultra Mega HDMI 2.0 cables for the low, low price of $200/ft.
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.
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/
"Version 2.0 of the HDMI Specification, which is backward compatible with earlier versions of the Specification[...]"
It is what it is.
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.
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).
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?
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...
now all my hdmi equipment will be slathered with flash garbage and junky java applets
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
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.
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.
"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.
No new cable needed? Hurray! It cost $1000 per meter.
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? Disappointing and annoying.
Zits too.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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.
...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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hopefully they dont change that so it stays broken.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
>>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..
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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
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.
Two solutions suggest themselves. /DVI connection is active.
Your O/S may be using a subpixel antialiasing scheme that's only active when the HDMI
Your monitor may be using different default display settings for the VGA and HDMI connections. In particular, Sharpness may be the culprit.
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.
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.
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!
> 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.
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.
This made me laugh out loud, then get soooo angry when I imagine someone saying it honestly. Good job.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
So when can we kill HDMI alltogether?
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Interesting! Thanks for the details.
Visit the
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.
The HDMI spec does not differentiate text signals.
That bears repeating.
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.....
I'm sure Monster will still sell a new 2.0 cable at a slightly higher cost when this starts getting popular.
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?
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
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.
Soon.
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.
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.
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.
happens with it off too. tried that too.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
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.
Does it happen with DVI? Is it a samsung monitor/TV?
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.
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.
I purposely bought a projector with all major video inputs (including HDMI, component and VGA).
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
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)
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.
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
So is freedom.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.