Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HDMI 2.0 Officially Announced

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the no-love-for-displayport dept.

Displays 293

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.

cancel ×

293 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755375)

That is how it works you know !!

Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! (4, Informative)

oji-sama (1151023) | about a year ago | (#44755483)

"Version 2.0 of the HDMI Specification, which is backward compatible with earlier versions of the Specification[...]"

Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755517)

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.

Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755953)

No new cable needed? Hurray! It cost $1000 per meter.

Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! (-1, Flamebait)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year ago | (#44755735)

"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.

Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! (1, Interesting)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year ago | (#44755879)

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)

Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year ago | (#44755937)

"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. [hdfury.com]

Re:THROW AWAY YOUR OLD AND BUY THE NEW !! (1)

oji-sama (1151023) | about a year ago | (#44756171)

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.

Physical cables the same? (4, Insightful)

MrDoh! (71235) | about a year ago | (#44755379)

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

Re:Physical cables the same? (4, Funny)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year ago | (#44755447)

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!

Re:Physical cables the same? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44756069)

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.

Re:Physical cables the same? (1)

Joshua Fan (1733100) | about a year ago | (#44756261)

Nice to see that they seem to have planned ahead in the original physical specs.

That's a lot (1)

jennatalia (2684459) | about a year ago | (#44755391)

of porn...

Re:That's a lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755467)

..lots more frustration, too.

Re:That's a lot (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#44756089)

Zits too.

New feature (1)

Therad (2493316) | about a year ago | (#44755397)

New features include new master key I presume.

Re:New feature (3, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44755503)

HDCP!=HDMI

Re:New feature (1)

neokushan (932374) | about a year ago | (#44755591)

It also wouldn't be backwards compatible, either, unless it c.

No Mention (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755401)

The summary doesn't say...

Does HDMI 2.0 support new, improved, and even more delicious Digitally Restricted Media? Seems that it must.

Re:No Mention (2)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#44755563)

my blu rays play just fine on my TV. what exactly am i missing?

Re:No Mention (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755663)

Money, common sense and sanity.

Re:No Mention (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year ago | (#44756325)

No the definition of insanity is to do the same thing and expect different results, like protesting DRM.

Re:No Mention (3, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44755665)

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.

Re:No Mention (2)

Gilmoure (18428) | about a year ago | (#44756165)

I'm the age where declining eye site trumps more pixels. No upgrade for me!

Re:No Mention (2)

3.5 stripes (578410) | about a year ago | (#44756287)

Sight, unless this is a symptom of your Alzheimer's, then please accept my apologies.

Re:No Mention (2)

hebertrich (472331) | about a year ago | (#44755885)

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.

 

Re:No Mention (2)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#44756033)

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.

Re:No Mention (1)

lorenlal (164133) | about a year ago | (#44756271)

You forgot to tell us to get off your lawn.

I'm sure your parents thought color was a novelty too.

Re:No Mention (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44756315)

>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).

Attention Cinephiles (5, Funny)

horm (2802801) | about a year ago | (#44755407)

I am selling platinum-tipped, lead-shielded, kevlar-reinforced Ultra Mega HDMI 2.0 cables for the low, low price of $200/ft.

Re:Attention Cinephiles (5, Funny)

SGT CAPSLOCK (2895395) | about a year ago | (#44755529)

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.

Re:Attention Cinephiles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44756001)

I am pretty sure that all HDMI cables use oxygen-free coper and gold plated contacts, it is probably in the specification.

Re:Attention Cinephiles (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#44756111)

Never understood how they didn't go down the "Now available in oxygen-free gold contacts!" route.

Re:Attention Cinephiles (5, Funny)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year ago | (#44756217)

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?

Re:Attention Cinephiles (1)

JustOK (667959) | about a year ago | (#44755545)

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.

Re:Attention Cinephiles (2)

pla (258480) | about a year ago | (#44755549)

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!

Re:Attention Cinephiles (3, Funny)

mrt_2394871 (1174545) | about a year ago | (#44755611)

[...] Can I order a palette now and beat the rush?

You could, but we have so many more colours nowadays.

Re:Attention Cinephiles (2)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year ago | (#44755675)

Fraud! Charlatan! Senator! Cad!

Senator? Really? That's uncalled for.

Re:Attention Cinephiles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755637)

Monster is that you?

Re:Attention Cinephiles (2)

gallondr00nk (868673) | about a year ago | (#44755731)

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.

Re:Attention Cinephiles (1)

aaronb1138 (2035478) | about a year ago | (#44756295)

Is this the plan for saving Best Buy. If so, I'm not so sure it is going to work.

Re:Attention Cinephiles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44756335)

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.)

And how many new restrictions? (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44755415)

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.

Re:And how many new restrictions? (4, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44755435)

No, HDMI is all about audio and video on the same cable. HDCP is the DRM you are talking about.

Re:And how many new restrictions? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44755605)

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.

Re:And how many new restrictions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755725)

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.

Re:And how many new restrictions? (4, Informative)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#44755787)

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.

Re:And how many new restrictions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755801)

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.

Re:And how many new restrictions? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755757)

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.

Re:And how many new restrictions? (1)

aliquis (678370) | about a year ago | (#44755445)

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.

Re:And how many new restrictions? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#44755537)

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.

Re:And how many new restrictions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755661)

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.

Re:And how many new restrictions? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#44755893)

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.

Re:And how many new restrictions? (4, Informative)

markkezner (1209776) | about a year ago | (#44755925)

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.

The real question (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#44755423)

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?

Re:The real question (4, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44755449)

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.

Re:The real question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755479)

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.

Re:The real question (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year ago | (#44755679)

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%!

Re:The real question (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year ago | (#44755475)

Not only that, it will teleport the *FCC* into your house to make sure all your bittorrent transfers are actually legal!

Re:The real question (1)

delt0r (999393) | about a year ago | (#44755927)

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.

Re:The real question (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#44756011)

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.

Re:The real question (3, Insightful)

delt0r (999393) | about a year ago | (#44756151)

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.

Re:The real question (1)

delt0r (999393) | about a year ago | (#44756249)

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 $$.

Re:The real question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44756173)

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.
 

Eh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755431)

And yet displayport remains royalty free, and honestly, has a much nicer designed / fitting / stable connector.

Let me guess. They also changed the DRM. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755443)

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?

Re:Let me guess. They also changed the DRM. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755597)

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).

Re:Let me guess. They also changed the DRM. (1)

Urkki (668283) | about a year ago | (#44755643)

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...

Congratulations for catching up to DisplayPort (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755577)

Only took HDMI four years, after all!

Re:Congratulations for catching up to DisplayPort (2)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a year ago | (#44755935)

And display port exists specifically so they don't have to pay the royalties for HDMI,

Too little too late? (1)

River of Souls (1400813) | about a year ago | (#44755621)

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?

Re:Too little too late? (1)

dfghjk (711126) | about a year ago | (#44755793)

"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.

Re:Too little too late? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755969)

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.

Re:Too little too late? (1)

River of Souls (1400813) | about a year ago | (#44756125)

"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 [youtube.com] 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...

Re:Too little too late? (1)

hattig (47930) | about a year ago | (#44755855)

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).

Re:Too little too late? (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#44755971)

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?

Re:Too little too late? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755979)

I agree! What the hell is up with people and their weird aspect ratios. 16:10 all the way!

Re:Too little too late? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44756057)

1920 multiplied by 2 is 3820

I suggest you use calculator from now on.

Re:Too little too late? (1)

hattig (47930) | about a year ago | (#44756115)

Sorry, 3840 wide. I just blindly copied what the OP wrote because the point was to explain why it wasn't 4096x2160.

Re:Too little too late? (1)

River of Souls (1400813) | about a year ago | (#44756063)

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.

Re:Too little too late? (1)

hattig (47930) | about a year ago | (#44756175)

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.

Re:Too little too late? (1)

River of Souls (1400813) | about a year ago | (#44756351)

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.

Re:Too little too late? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44756309)

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.

Re:Too little too late? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44756251)

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.

Damit (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year ago | (#44755693)

now all my hdmi equipment will be slathered with flash garbage and junky java applets

What about LAG? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755697)

Just wondering because squeezing all that data at the same time leads to lip sync issues and gaming (audio and video) lag.

Closed Captioning (2)

Teese (89081) | about a year ago | (#44755707)

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

Re:Closed Captioning (1)

quetwo (1203948) | about a year ago | (#44756091)

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.

Why and how would HDMI do CC? (2, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a year ago | (#44756293)

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.

Ep6?F! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755753)

irc network. The Of businees and Contributed code and enjoy all the

Monster Cable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755877)

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.

32 audio channels? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44755915)

Do any of those 32 channels give me singing without that damn Auto-Tune?

Cheaper cables! Yea! (1)

BetaDays (2355424) | about a year ago | (#44755981)

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 [bestbuy.com]

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!

Still limited to 60Hz? (3, Insightful)

sinij (911942) | about a year ago | (#44755997)

Still limited to 60Hz? Disappointing and annoying.

Re:Still limited to 60Hz? (1)

timeOday (582209) | about a year ago | (#44756215)

If it can carry 3,840 x 2,160 resolution video at 60fps, then it can carry 1080p at 240 fps.

Re:Still limited to 60Hz? (1)

landoltjp (676315) | about a year ago | (#44756255)

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.

And you think it is magic? (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a year ago | (#44756341)

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.

Please for the love of God get rid of the... (1)

Assmasher (456699) | about a year ago | (#44756211)

...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...

What about the VESA standards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44756345)

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?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>