4 ms·

> Supporting the 48Gbps bandwidth is the new Ultra High Speed HDMI Cable. The cable ensures high-bandwidth dependent features are delivered including uncompress

> Supporting the 48Gbps bandwidth is the new Ultra High Speed HDMI Cable. The cable ensures high-bandwidth dependent features are delivered including uncompressed 8K video with HDR. This is interesting, because I've seen several companies promoting "visually lossless" compression (which is apparently a euphemism for lossy compression that the vendor doesn't think you'll notice) to reduce bandwidth requirements for cabled 8K video transmission. Does this represent some kind of defeat for them, or were they targeting applications where Ultra High Speed HDMI wasn't going to be realistic in the first place (e.g. the various systems that transmit video over UTP cable)? Also, does anyone know how USB 3.1 SuperSpeed+ cables stack up? Obviously they're specified for 10Gbps for USB devices, but that's in the context of USB's requirements for the attached transceivers, so I'm not sure what it implies about the performance of the cable itself.

jjaredsimpson 9y ago
It also supports DSC[1]. Visually lossless is defined as indistinguishable difference between A/B of predetermined challenging images. You can check the images they used and run the test yourself if you so desire. [1]https://www.vesa.org/news/vesa-updates-display-stream-compression-standard-to-support-new-applications-and-richer-display-content/ https://www.vesa.org/news/vesa-updates-display-stream-compre...
- paulmd 9y ago
  Comparing static images is not really an appropriate test for a video compression algorithm, for obvious reasons. You can write lots of stuff that works on a single frame but looks like garbage on a video stream. Can you give a link to video source files that could be used to compare the two? The link I turned up looks like it needs specialized testing hardware... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFbpcBuQg9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFbpcBuQg9s
  - Scaevolus 9y ago
    It doesn't involve any inter-frame coding or prediction, so evaluating stills is fair. It compresses a single line at a time.[1] [1]: http://www.vesa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/VESA_DSC-ETP200.pdf http://www.vesa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/VESA_DSC-ETP2...
    - izym 9y ago
      It might introduce temporal artifacts, which would not be seen in stills.
anameaname 9y ago
At these kinds of speeds, why would we use it for just video? We could make server interconnects extremely fast.
- ams6110 9y ago
  Modern HPC interconnects are already faster than 48Gb/s
  - implr 9y ago
    Those are usually quite expensive. If HDMI requires 48Gb/s capable transceiver chips to be built into every TV, they will get really cheap very fast. It might not be a viable solution in the end, but it could work for some applications.
    - paulmd 9y ago
      40 gbps is only Infiniband QDR speeds, you can pick up an adapter for sub-$50 right now.
      - notyourwork 9y ago
        And plug it into what?
        paulmd 9y ago
        Your servers? If you mean switching, you don't need a switch for simply connecting two computers. Presumably that was the use-case supported by "HDMI-as-network-layer". If you watch around, you can get Mellanox Voltaire rack switches for $200 or less. QDR gear is "obsolete" and often surplused at very attractive prices. Everyone else has moved onto FDR or EDR speeds.
        ams6110 9y ago
        Your can get e.g. a qlogic qdr infiniband switch for a few hundred dollars

jjaredsimpson 9y ago

It also supports DSC[1]. Visually lossless is defined as indistinguishable difference between A/B of predetermined challenging images. You can check the images they used and run the test yourself if you so desire. [1]https://www.vesa.org/news/vesa-updates-display-stream-compression-standard-to-support-new-applications-and-richer-display-content/ https://www.vesa.org/news/vesa-updates-display-stream-compre...

paulmd 9y ago
Comparing static images is not really an appropriate test for a video compression algorithm, for obvious reasons. You can write lots of stuff that works on a single frame but looks like garbage on a video stream. Can you give a link to video source files that could be used to compare the two? The link I turned up looks like it needs specialized testing hardware... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFbpcBuQg9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFbpcBuQg9s
- Scaevolus 9y ago
  It doesn't involve any inter-frame coding or prediction, so evaluating stills is fair. It compresses a single line at a time.[1] [1]: http://www.vesa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/VESA_DSC-ETP200.pdf http://www.vesa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/VESA_DSC-ETP2...
  - izym 9y ago
    It might introduce temporal artifacts, which would not be seen in stills.

anameaname 9y ago

At these kinds of speeds, why would we use it for just video? We could make server interconnects extremely fast.

ams6110 9y ago
Modern HPC interconnects are already faster than 48Gb/s
- implr 9y ago
  Those are usually quite expensive. If HDMI requires 48Gb/s capable transceiver chips to be built into every TV, they will get really cheap very fast. It might not be a viable solution in the end, but it could work for some applications.
  - paulmd 9y ago
    40 gbps is only Infiniband QDR speeds, you can pick up an adapter for sub-$50 right now.
    - notyourwork 9y ago
      And plug it into what?
      - paulmd 9y ago
        Your servers? If you mean switching, you don't need a switch for simply connecting two computers. Presumably that was the use-case supported by "HDMI-as-network-layer". If you watch around, you can get Mellanox Voltaire rack switches for $200 or less. QDR gear is "obsolete" and often surplused at very attractive prices. Everyone else has moved onto FDR or EDR speeds.
      - ams6110 9y ago
        Your can get e.g. a qlogic qdr infiniband switch for a few hundred dollars