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 Spec Upgraded To Support 'Deep Color'

timothy posted more than 8 years ago | from the blush-in-high-fidelity dept.

142

writertype writes "If you own a digital television, there's a good chance it supports HDMI as an A/V interface. Well, for all you early adopters who bought an HDMI-less TV and regretted it later, the HDMI spec has been upgraded yet again, to version 1.3. Features include "deep color", or color depths beyond what the human eye can perceive, eight-channel audio support, among others. Interesting note: the PlayStation 3 supports deep color, according to the HDMI chief."

cancel ×

142 comments

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

I only care about ONE deep color (3, Funny)

reklusband (862215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519362)

Does it support Deep Purple? Inna gadda davida baby! 8 CHANNELS AND DEEP PURPLE!!!!

You're confused (4, Funny)

93,000 (150453) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519441)

You're confused. The song you're talking about is done by that religion guy, I. Ron Butterfly.

Wait a minute! (2, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519583)

This sounds like rock and/or roll!

Re:I only care about ONE deep color (1)

kinthalas (102827) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519454)

Iron Butterfly did In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida. Deep Purple did Smoke on the Water.

Nice try, though.

Re:I only care about ONE deep color (1)

reklusband (862215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519477)

Yeah, but I don't like religion, and I don't like smoking on water (the stuff gets soggy). Deep purple wrote INAGADDA DAVINCI in my world. We all came out to davinci, blah blah blah DEEP PURPLE, FIRE IN THE SKY...INAGADDA INAGADDA INAGADDA DAVINCI!!! I have no problem rewriting reality so that my post is accurate. Don't think I won't.

Re:I only care about ONE deep color (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15520606)

We can all see that you're thoroughly embarrassed by your snafu, but at least try not to make yourself look like any more of a jackass than you really must.

Re:I only care about ONE deep color (4, Funny)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520108)

And neither one of them have enough cowbell.

Re:I only care about ONE deep color (1)

Tau Neutrino (76206) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519465)

Not to be horribly picky, but Deep Purple's main claim to fame was 'Smoke on the Water.'

'Inna Gadda Davida' was from Iron Butterfly.

Re:I only care about ONE deep color (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519727)

I always prefered Woman from Tokyo.

Re:I only care about ONE deep color (1)

mbadolato (105588) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519470)

Does it support Deep Purple? Inna gadda davida baby!

That would display incorrectly; Ina Gadda Da Vida was done by Iron Butterfly, not Deep Purple.

Re:I only care about ONE deep color (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519760)

Does it support sand storms and DEEP HURTING [imdb.com] ?

Re:I only care about ONE deep color (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15520408)

You're so confused. Even if you were completely stoned all the time, anyone who lived through the 60's knows that 'Inna gadda davida' is from the first Iron Butterfly album, 'Heavy' in 1968 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Butterfly [wikipedia.org] , and Deep Purple was the band that had a hit in 1971 called 'Smoke on the Water' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_on_the_Water [wikipedia.org] .

Or maybe you had too much Purple Haze http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Haze [wikipedia.org] ...

Licenced colors (5, Funny)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519364)

Unfortunatly, due to unforseen copyright issues, all colors between Deep Green and Deep Violent will be subjected to a licencing fee.

IBM was unreachable for comment.

Bad video games. Bad! (4, Funny)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519442)

Geeze, there's a case for video games adversely affecting the mind... Even with the preview button I missed that typo. It's Violet. VIOLET!!

Re:Bad video games. Bad! (5, Funny)

B1 (86803) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519612)

In fact many parents don't even let their children play violet video games, for fear that the games might adversely affect their children's minds.

Re:Bad video games. Bad! (1)

EnderGT (916132) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519692)

Where's a moderator point when you need one... I'd mod this whole thread funny if I could...

Re:Bad video games. Bad! (1)

smbarbour (893880) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520472)

It could be worse. Frequently when I type, the words I write come out like speech recognition output. The words have no relation to what I'm trying to type, but when read aloud, it is similar to what I was trying to type.

"Open the iPod and play 'The Doors', HAL."

Re:Licenced colors (2, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519773)

... and Deep Violent

This would sharpen you up and make you
ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.

Re:Licenced colors (2, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520479)

Hmm... Hues of blue are inbetween those two in the spectrum.
The Hooloovoo, super-intelligent shades of the color blue, will sue the ass out of the copyright holder on this one for sure.

Huh? (4, Insightful)

sexyrexy (793497) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519367)

Sorry for stating the obvious, but doesn't color depths beyond what the human eye can perceive just seem really... pointless? I don't think the human eye is going to evolve to greater color sensitivity during HDMI's lifetime. It's one thing to have a higher quality image to downsample to, but... seriously. Isn't there SOMETHING the bandwidth could be used for besides information we can't use?

Re:Huh? (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519399)

Sorry for stating the obvious, but doesn't color depths beyond what the human eye can perceive just seem really... pointless? I don't think the human eye is going to evolve to greater color sensitivity during HDMI's lifetime. It's one thing to have a higher quality image to downsample to, but... seriously. Isn't there SOMETHING the bandwidth could be used for besides information we can't use?

i'd have to agree with that. allowing audio that is above or below human hearing has a purpose, as you can feel extremely deep tones, but colour is only visual, so there is no other sense to fall back on.

Re:Huh? (1)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519429)

I bet ya the companies wish they could shake the hand of the scientist who wrote the paper / proof showing that there are more colors than the human eye can see! Thus, they have another feature to push for their product ... there are so many colors in this TV that you can't even see them all!!!!!

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

statemachine (840641) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519405)

I figured someone would be confused by this. However, the article expains:
"The color bit depth [of today's displays] is typically 24-bits RGB - that gets you 16 million colors, and the human eye can distinguish that," Chard said. "That leads to scaling and onscreen effects which you can pick up. Either 36-bit or 48-bit RGB is beyond the ability of the human eye to distinguish."

Right now your eye can see the color transitions. The point is to make it so you can't see the transitions.

Re:Huh? (1)

daniel422 (905483) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519444)

It also has to do with ease and accuracy of scaling. Scaling 24 bit requires more bits than that to accomplish without errors. If you go to higher source bit amounts any degredation will still be beyond what is visible, hence no visible scaling artifacts in the color area.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519472)

hmm? how bout ...i dont know... BLOCKING THE BLOODY TRANSITIONS so we cant see them if we're not supposed to ?
does anyone over at HDMI have a brain ?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519496)

The only way you "BLOCK" the color "TRANSITIONS" would be to have the screen only display full screens of the same color. A lot of VCRs do this when idling, and it's pretty boring to watch.

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

pthisis (27352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519428)

With current color depths, you can distinguish the difference between adjacent colors (in some limited portions of the field). By taking it to a depth where differences are imperceptible, you make things look smoother.

Essentially you want to have your colors go as deep as you need to to make differences imperceptible, which this (supposedly) does. After that going even deeper would be a waste.

Re:Huh? (4, Informative)

MBCook (132727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519492)

The best example of this is a gradient. Take your monitor and make a gradient that is full screen from solid red to solid black. As things are now you get 256 bands of color because there are 256 possible values for red. The problem with this is that the transitions are VERY obvious.

Now if you have 4090 possible values of red, your eye may not be able to perceive the difference between #1024 and #1032 individually. But when you make that large gradient while you will not be able to see the individual bands.

You've gone from blocky to smooth. Anywhere you want a gradient, this is good. Fading to black, the sky, etc. And let's not forget that this can give us better HDR.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519731)

Also if you STORE values of difference smaller than are distinguishable, when it comes time to process those values (in a filtering algorithm for instance), you'll get a better result.

The other reason... (1)

hummassa (157160) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519754)

is that watermarking becomes easier... so pirate copies of films can be traced, maybe individually.

No, the answer is an orange and two lemons. (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520119)

Essentially you want to have your colors go as deep as you need to to make differences imperceptible, which this (supposedly) does. After that going even deeper would be a waste.
Of course, reasonable limits aren't. Just because human perception says you don't need to put out gradations twice as precise as human vision to conceal them doesn't mean we won't use other devices to help us perceive more, much like you can use a CCD camera to turn infrared light visible, or that it needs to support more to conceal the compression artifacts from us.

And as someone else mentioned, watermarking becomes easier. Which is to say, to borrow from Douglas Adams (Mostly Harmless/Quintessential Phase), they can use the color gradations you can't perceive as data channels.

Re:Huh? (1)

fossa (212602) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520398)

I don't know if HDMI is using RGB or not, but it's worth noting that RGB wastes bits in places the eye won't notice leaving fewer bits for places where it wil notice. See Greg Ward's page, High Dynamic Range Image Encodings [anyhere.com]

which discusses perceivable color differences in the context of HDR encodings.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519439)

The problem with the 8 or 10 bit color depth of current HDMI occurs when the eye s of the observer get dark adapted e.g. when watching a very dark sequence in a movie. If this happens, the full resolution of the eye needs to be covered by only a fraction of the resolution of the HDMI signal. Additionally, an increased resolution leaves some more bits after scaling or color/brightness/contrast changes that don't have to be rounded on the source.

Re:Huh? (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519478)

Maybe, or maybe not. There's a couple possibilities in here. The article isn't specific enough to say if either of these are true, so these are just guesses.

First, consider storing each channel in 8 bits. That gives 256 possible levels. Say our eyes can distinguish 400 levels. 8 bits isn't enough then, so you need 9 bits. But that gives 512 levels, beyond our level of perception. But you can't use 8 1/2 bits for each channel (at least without more complicated encoding).

Second, say it was easier for some technical reason to use 12 bits per channel instead of 9. It might be worth it to use those 12 bits if it would simplify the hardware.

Third, it might simplify some software stuff. Photoshop CS 2 has a feature called HDR for high dynamic range images. Basically if you take three to five photos from the same position but exposed differently it will combine them into a single image with 36 bits per channel. In this Adobe might have either used or created a defacto standard for deep colors.

Fourth, it might be not MUCH over, so if you get a really eyesight-gifted person they might actually be able to distingush colors.

Re:Huh? (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519512)

BTW, I don't mean to suggest that the 400 number is correct; it's WAY too low. I'm just using it for illustration.

Also,

Fifth, you want your cat to enjoy TV more.

Re:Huh? (1)

hurfy (735314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519685)

"Fifth, you want your cat to enjoy TV more."

Awww, see now i can convince the Significant Other to let me get the new TV :)

Thanks

Re:Huh? (1)

LordRPI (583454) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519497)

It's one thing to have a higher quality image to downsample to, but... seriously. Isn't there SOMETHING the bandwidth could be used for besides information we can't use?



It gives extra information for subliminal messaging.

Re:Huh? (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519568)

In addition to what's already been mentioned by everybody else, this can both be used to increase the granularity of the scale and increase the dynamic range. If you want to crank up to change contrast/brightness on your display, it's good if your display is not being fed a "cropped" signal as input for that transformation.

Re:Huh? (1)

blincoln (592401) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520199)

and increase the dynamic range.

Dynamic range is the critical part, IMO. Existing display standards are crap in terms of reproducing the full range of colours we can see, because no matter how well you calibrate the monitor, the colour depth itself prevents them from being displayed. IIRC, green suffers the most, but all colours are affected to some degree.

Re:Huh? (1)

IKillYou (444994) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519617)

So what do you suggest, using 30-bit RGB? This isn't really a bandwidth issue. It is an encoding issue. From TFA:

The ITU 601 standard, which governs today's displays, allows only 60 to 80 percent of the available colors, even if the display can support more, Chard said. "The color bit depth [of today's displays] is typically 24-bits RGB - that gets you 16 million colors, and the human eye can distinguish that," Chard said. "That leads to scaling and onscreen effects which you can pick up. Either 36-bit or 48-bit RGB is beyond the ability of the human eye to distinguish."

So in other words, it is necessary to move up to the higher bit depths in order to completely cover the range of colors that the eye can see, but there is necessarily some overkill involved if we don't want to commit to some funky encodings. It may be that something like 10 bits per channel would more closely match the eye's sensitivity, but it's rather more convenient to encode on byte-boundaries.

Well, the idea is. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519620)

The idea is, you have two choices.

You can go with color depths beyond what the human eye can perceive.

or you can go with color depths less than what the human eye can perceive.

You can't go directly to the limit of what the human eye can perceive and stop there, because color perception varies from individual to individual.

So, given that our choices are to either underachieve or overachive. Can you see why the latter might be preferable?

Re:Huh? (1)

Mindwarp (15738) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519629)

Sorry for stating the obvious, but doesn't color depths beyond what the human eye can perceive just seem really... pointless?

They're planning for the point where every human on the planet owns an HDMI television and they have to start marketing to insects instead.

Re:Huh? (2, Funny)

JDevers (83155) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519703)

I can see it now "On Monday, October 13th don't miss the premiere of "Flowers!" filmed in our proprietary ultraviolet format!

---while watching "Flowers!" with a UV equipped television, remember to wear sunscreen and sit at least eight feet away from the screen or risk sunburn"

Re:Huh? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519635)

It's one thing to have a higher quality image to downsample to, but... seriously.

That's likely the point. As it is you can cover the whole range, but if you start adjusting the color balance or white balance on the display you're going to throw out some bits and be looking for some more. If you've ever fiddled with the curves in Photoshop in 8 and 16 bit modes and then looked at the histograms you'll know what I mean.

Re:Huh? (1)

c0l0 (826165) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519642)

Isn't there SOMETHING the bandwidth could be used for besides information we can't use?

Sounds like a great idea! What about meta-data for, say, totally crippling copy-protection schemes?

Oh, wait...

Re:Huh? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519659)

Good job going for the obvious bait dangled in front of you by the article writer.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519733)

What about pets? Your dog wants deeper shades of black & white.

Re:Huh? (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519748)

You can't see the colors beyond human perception, but the growth of your penis that devices made to this new spec will cause is also beyond human perception, at least if you're wearing pants. What matters is that you can stick your hand in your pocket, and *you* know that it's there. That's all you need.

Re:Huh? (1)

penguinstorm (575341) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519832)

Just you wait mister. My bionic eyeballs are already growing in a petri dish at the back of a noodle house.

Re:Huh? (1)

amigabill (146897) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519900)

Where do you think they're going to hide the watermarks for copy protetion and/or tracking pirate rips to their source? The best place, considering the common user/casual pirate, is directly in front of them where they can't see it. The pros will find a way around it, they always do, but Jimbob ain't gonna be sharing his new DVD over the internet without someone tracking it back to him somehow.

Re:Huh? (1)

wingbat (88117) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519987)

You're shortsightedly ignoring the long term benefits... How are we ever supposed to evolve beyond our current levels of perception unless our primary visual input encourages deeper color depth as a positive survival trait?

Re:Huh? (1)

MythoBeast (54294) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520190)

This is the same as the frame rate of the human eye. We can see around 16 frames per second, and anything below or near this is perceived as flickering. By bumping it up to 24 or 30 (film and video, respectively) we can produce an image that has smooth motion to it. They're doing the same thing with color, now.

Re:Huh? (1)

Bruce Allen (978328) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520287)

Classic marketing speak - remember that Video CDs were supposed to be "beyond the quality of VHS" (but weren't). And a 192kbps-compressed MP3 was "CD-quality" (but wasn't).

If you want to make something that is actually giving you all of the colors the eye can see, you have to promote it as giving you more than that - so "beyond the human eye" fits the bill.

Also, bear in mind that: 1) these TVs will have some kind of stupid CineUltraVividNightVisionEnhancement chip in them to "enhance" the colors. These will actually totally screw up the colors, so in order to get something halfway decent, you need to feed the TV with a signal several orders of magnitude better than what the human eye can see.

2) TVs are currently really limited in terms of contrast ratio. Look at bright white on a TV or a computer monitor, then look at a light bulb (or *gasp* outside). Brighter, right? Wouldn't it be great if we could describe those colors and TVs could reproduce them?

Ah well, I just want a nicer canvas to work with. I am just a simple music video director.

Bruce Allen [boacinema.com]

Re:Huh? (1)

Lectrik (180902) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520417)

Sorry for stating the obvious, but doesn't color depths beyond what the human eye can perceive just seem really... pointless? I don't think the human eye is going to evolve to greater color sensitivity during HDMI's lifetime. It's one thing to have a higher quality image to downsample to, but... seriously. Isn't there SOMETHING the bandwidth could be used for besides information we can't use?

This just in, the HDMI spec will be upgraded again, and will now be using all that extra usless color space for encryption.
Also this version of HDMI will also not be compatable with any earlier version (at either end of the cable) to prevent the pirating of the signal

Accelerated evolution (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520543)

>I don't think the human eye is going to evolve to greater color sensitivity

Haven't you seen the ads? Chicks really dig guys who can see deep color and are eager to bear their children.

What a surpise! (1)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519376)

According to Chard, a few early adopters should announce products soon, Chard said, with "lots of products by the end of the year," in time for Christmas, he said.

You mean companies will create buzz right before Xmas in order to get consumers to buy a product they "must have" but don't need? Wow!

Sony PS3 Strategy Becoming Clear (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519402)

For everyone with a low end 1080p set you can play 1080p BluRay movies over component cables.

For everyone with a high end 1080p setup you can use the 1.3 HDMI connection for that extra bit of quality.

After spending some time with a friends 1080p set a couple weeks ago I am having a hard time watching my old 20" TV. It only took about a day of seeing a few true 1080p movies to be turned into a 1080p snob.

The 499 PS3 was what I was planning on picking up, but this extra bit of quality for 599 is tempting.

Re:Sony PS3 Strategy Becoming Clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519752)

This post definitely NOT brought to you by Sony[TM]. Nope, definitely not, not a trace of Sony[TM] marketing money involved in the least.
Yup, completely Sony[TM] free...

wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519411)

lets all have 3 cheers for HDMI 1.3. now maybe they can support gamma rays and X rays which we cant see either. full spectrum support! now for hdmi 1.4.

How can they tell it works? (2, Funny)

sehlat (180760) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519449)

"Color depths beyond what the human eye can perceive." Whoopie! Somebody get my retina upgrades at once!

Re:How can they tell it works? (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519711)

Does this mean that if I shove nails into my eyes I'll only ever need 8-bit colour? Great, higher framerates all around!

So? (1)

SeXy_Red (550409) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519460)

What is the advantage of having a standard that supports colors the human eye can not see?

Re:So? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519503)

What is the advantage of having a standard that supports colors the human eye can not see?
Maybe the HDMI group is positioning themselves to be the first to welcome our color-perception-advantaged alien overlords?

beyond what the human eye can see? (1)

bunions (970377) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519464)

so what are we talking about here? infrared? ultraviolet? microwaves?

Re:beyond what the human eye can see? (3, Funny)

one-eye-johnson (911152) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519491)

The HDMI spec now supports microwaves. If you're suspected by the MPAA of watching pirated films your TV just cooks you as you sit.

We know who signed up for the beta (1)

hurfy (735314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519866)

So the first eyeball they cook is just the warning eh?

sorry , couldn't resist :)

c'mon parent can get at least one funny mod

Re:beyond what the human eye can see? (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519549)

I'm rooting for gamma.

Re:beyond what the human eye can see? (1)

bunions (970377) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519561)

finally, a real reason to upgrade!

Re:beyond what the human eye can see? (3, Informative)

EvanED (569694) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519625)

It doesn't increase the range of values that can be represented probably, just the resolution. (I don't mean resolution in the 1080p sense, but the bit depth of each pixel. E.G. the 24-bit part of 24-bit, 48 kHz.) It decreases the difference in between successive levels of each color.

Grue and Bleen (4, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519645)

The new spec lets you see the difference between green and grue, and also between blue and bleen. Riddle of Induction solved! [wikipedia.org]

Re:Grue and Bleen (2, Funny)

masterzora (871343) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519820)

It still does it matter. It is still pitch black. You are still likely to be eaten by a grue.

Re:beyond what the human eye can see? (2, Funny)

ShyGuy91284 (701108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519922)

Blu-Rays of course. Isn't that obvious?

obviously infrared (1)

hurfy (735314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519924)


We all know:

In Soviet Russia the TV watches YOU.

In a sentimental nod to the cold war we have to one up them thus:

In New USA the TV watches YOU in the DARK ;p

All those dark living/bedrooms are boring to monitor don't ya know ;)

Re:beyond what the human eye can see? (1)

NerdENerd (660369) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520571)

No we are not talking about changing which part of the spectrum, just a greater range in the spectrum. Look at any smooth gradient on a current panel, if you can't see the color banding then you have below average color vision. 24 bit color gives us 256 shades of red green and blue to mix together, that makes 16.8 million colors, about 75% of the visible spectrum. 48 bit color gives us 262000 shades of red green and blue to mix together. That gives us enough color to get rid of the banding.

Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519516)

Here's hoping HDMI 1.4 will support the tasting of these invisible colors. Perhaps red would taste like cherry and purple could be cotton-candy? HDMI 1.5 could forcefully kick you in the gonads when inserting a non-DRM disc into the drive; 1.6 would saturate your eyes with pepper-spray.

This just in: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519534)

HDMI is still a trap.

Very True (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520147)

It is unfortunate in the extreme that all of the improving digital video standards are being done in a form that mandates the use of DHCP. Supporting HDMI is supporting the very same technology that will not let you play movies at a full resolution on your PC and VGA monitor if they ever decide to enable the ICT flag - and the more people that buy HDMI devices the sooner they are able to turn on that flag without fear of pushback and lost sales from consumers.

At last! (1)

ureshii_akuma (745410) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519539)

I can finally own a TV that shows Octarine! [wikipedia.org]

Re:At last! (1)

Elder Entropist (788485) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519799)

I'm a bit concerned they'll accidently reproduce a Hooloovoo, which would probably make all sorts of mischief in my living room...

Upgraded... (3, Funny)

HolyCrapSCOsux (700114) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519554)

So how do I flash the firmware on my TV and DVD player?

Re:Upgraded... (2, Interesting)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519782)

You're marked as funny, but my TV has upgradable firmware... ...not that I'm saying that's a good thing...

Hidden Agenda (4, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519558)


If the media you are playing is not Approved Media (TM), it plays in shallow color, otherwise known as black and white.

I know some Vrusk who will be interested in this. (2, Funny)

mmell (832646) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519569)

Their vision extends somewhat into the UV, IIRC.

Will this be available on the Vrusk homeworld?

Yes (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520137)

Unfortuntley the Vrusk are region 99 and as such will have to wait a long time for any new releases - the only movie to be released for some time to come in that region is the Vrusk translation of "The Color Purple".

wow (1)

ikejam (821818) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519609)

better get those UV filtered sunglasses out next time you're watching soccer..

"Upgrades" ... yeah right (1)

epp_b (944299) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519633)

Honestly, I don't beleive any news on so-called "upgrades" to high definition video technology these days. If it's been "upgraded", it's because the MPAA is continuing it's quest to block users from storing content in their brains. We'd have had this in 2001 if it weren't for the greedy pond scum running corporations like these.

Hey, can I heat my home with this? (2, Funny)

mmell (832646) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519713)

After all, if there's a fire on TV, a lot of the energy involved is in the IR spectrum - that's radiant heat.

It's the extra BandWidth! (1)

baldusi (139651) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519763)

If you read the areticle carefully, you'd find that the bandwidth has been pushed up to allow a 1920x1080x24bit (HDTV 1080) display to be update at 90hz. That would allow a 2048×1536 (think Apple 30" Cinema Display) to be run at 60hz with a Type A connector. That's an interesting development.

Works for the tetrachromats! (2, Interesting)

kbob88 (951258) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519789)

This will work nicely for the very few tetrachromats among us, (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a24199b1ef8.h tm [freerepublic.com] ). These are women who through genetic accident have an extra gene for color in the eye: "that woman's retinas would have four different types of photopigments: blue, red, green, and the slightly shifted green." They apparently have a much more finely tuned sense of color. Of course, there's probably only a few of them around, but hey, we're all about accessibility here!

Daisy-Chain Or Make It Cheaper (2, Insightful)

TerenceRSN (938882) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519811)

I have an HDMI enable HDTV and I use it. It's good I guess but the problem I have with HDMI is that it's limited to one stream of information per connection. Look at firewire, it allows you to daisy chain multimedia and other devices and it works pretty well. I'm sure HDMI has way more bandwidth but most people aren't looking to get 8 streams of digital audio and 1080p. I'd be much happier if I could daisy chain a cable high-def box with a DVD player or game console and send that to my TV. In my setup I run an HDMI cable from my cable box to my TV but since my TV (a panasonic) doesn't have any digitial audio output I still need to run a S/PDIF optical cable from my cable box to my audio receiver.

What a truly revolutionary digital interface would provide in my opinion is all the goodness of digital audio and video over one cord for several devices with a common protocol for controlling what's being used. This would simplify cable hook-ups plus make it easier to switch between sources (I know my parents have a horrible time switching from DVDs to TV to VCR, etc.).

Re:Daisy-Chain Or Make It Cheaper (1)

gravy.jones (969410) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520264)

If you upgraded to an HDMI receiver as "the brain" to your A/V system then you could do this. All of your A/V would plug into the receiver and your TV would be on the monitor output. I do this except just using component video. My HDTV gets 1080i and 5.1 Dolby digital and/or DTS from the digital cable box using component video and monster spdif cables. They connect to the receiver and my TV is on the monitor out. If you have a DVD player that will upconvert the signial to HDMI then you should be able to get 720p or 1080i resolution from your DVD's. I don't currently own one like this but plan on upgrading to a Sony HDMI receiver eventually. I still think my DVDs playing 420p with 5.1 dolby digital or DTS have amazing clarity. Be prepared to pay a small fortune in cabling costs. I am also viewing on a Sony 34" tube TV which has the best picture that I have ever seen.

HDMI hardware support (4, Insightful)

path_man (610677) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519932)

Really, shouldn't the industry concentrate on properly implementing to the existing spec's before they bother with new & improved features?? I currently have an HDTV Panasonic plasma panel, a Denon receiver and a SciAtl set-top-box all tied together with HDMI, and I cannot get a signal because HDMI does not properly authenticate for the very reason HDMI was created -- to legally broadcast copy protected signals.

I am personally sick of these half-assed industry rollouts where most of the spec is adhered to by vendors, but the rest is blatently ignored, just so they can be first to market with a shiney new badge on their product. There is so much inoperability between HighDef products and home-theatre in general, that you're really playing russian roulette by being the first on your block to try an untested combination of components.

To you vendors out there: GET IT RIGHT first. You know why folks aren't lining up outside their local electronics boutique to get the latest HD gear? They are pretty sure that the stuff isn't going to work and they won't be separated from their hard-earned dough by the latest marketing gimmick.

PS - in case anyone wants to know my "workaround" I actually had to downgrade to connecting my SciAtl box to the Denon via component RGB cables then run HDMI to my panel. I talked with a Denon tech and this was the only workaround due to the stupidity of the *ahhem* engineering *ahhhem* at SciAtl. Maybe the Cisco acquisition will fix that nonsense.

In other words... (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520120)

It makes far more sense to buy a $500 PS3 and use component cables to connect it than to use HDMI which may not even work!

I read similar complaints around the first HD-DVD player, which had trouble connecting via HDMI to a display.

Supposedly the HDMI v1.3 is the "stable" spec, we shall see... I too think it's rediculous that HDMI was integrated into things in such a buggy state as it is today.

Re:HDMI hardware support (1)

Rob_Bryerton (606093) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520294)

Not to sound like a jerk, but until you quit buying this 1st gen crap, they'll keep pushing it out the door. It's really simple...

I hate to restate the obvious but... (-1, Troll)

Khyber (864651) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520087)

If we cannot see these colors at the depths presented - WHAT'S THE FUCKING POINT?!?!?!?!?!!? Why try to show us what our eyes cannot perceive? I'd ask the question "Have these people lost their fucking minds?" The only problem is, most everyone (Joe sixpack, not the typical /. reader,) is fucked and brainwashed into believing that DRM/The War/everything is important and necessary to their absolute survival... We're sorely outnumbered by the ignorant masses, and unless we make a very concentrated and focused effort to educate these ignorant masses, we're going to be well-fucked, without lube... Our only REAL hope is to learn how to communicate with the less-knowledgeable people on a level they understand so they are able to make a knowledgable vote upon certain issues, otherwise we cannot even hope to win this war. I've seen the inactivity, ESPECIALLY here among the /. community. If we *REALLY* gave a fuck, then I'd be seeing more than 10 grand sigs on a fucking petition put out on the front page for MILLIONS to see. Shame on you people. I do my part, yet you bitch and don't do your part. Shame, Dishonor, and Hatred be upon you for being so insensitive and anti-biblically THOUGHTLESS. You do *NOT* follow the teachings of Jesus, you follow the teachings of personal gain and thought. You were *TOLD* to honor thine enemy as you would honor thine own father. Learn to turn the other cheek, to admit your 'wrongs' and defend them. Now you've all succumbed to a life of easy luxury without having the advantage of having a functional, independent BRAIN. Enjoy your self-summoned slavery.

Re:I hate to restate the obvious but... (1)

NerdENerd (660369) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520535)

Sorry for wanting technology that gets rid of those color bands my eyes can notice on current panels. Got and watch something from your BETA collection.

It's an upgrade to 10, 12, and 16 bit color depth. (2, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520133)

Right now, we're mostly at 8 bits of data per color channel. This upgrade supports 10, 12, and 16 bits of color per channel, or 24, 30, 36 and 48 bits per pixel.

This will be a big help in reducing banding on smooth gradients and artifacts during fades. Actually, you don't get more colors; you get more luminance range. It would probably work just as well to have 16 bits of luminance and two other color difference channels of 8 bits, but the HDMI people went uncompressed.

Now the compression people have to go to work and deal with the issues of when it's worthwhile to send that much data and when it isn't.

Oh Yeah... (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520230)

color depths beyond what the human eye can perceive

Oh, yeah. That'll be useful.

Re:Oh Yeah... (1)

MmmmAqua (613624) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520322)

If you're the MPAA, the ability to watermark content in non-visible wavelengths may be perceived as *very* useful.
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>