13 ms·
HDMI 2.0 officially announced
- vermontdevil 13y agoAnyone knows if it includes any specs about closed captions? It's a source of frustration at times with the previous spec.
- MichaelGG 13y agoI know "closed captions" are a special thing, but really, shouldn't the rendering device (TV decoder, GPU, software, whatever) be rendering the subtitles instead of the display device? I watch almost everything with subtitles, and can't imagine not being able to adjust subtitles (size/depth) and also enjoy the high-quality rendering my PC can perform.
- akandiah 13y agoAs someone who isn't familiar with audio technology: is there any practical use for 32 channels of audio?
- StavrosK 13y agoHaving 32 speakers around you, I would imagine. It was probably a case of "since we're standardizing, we might as well future-proof this".
- AndrewDucker 13y agoCinemas.
- ecopoesis 13y agoIt's for things like Dolby Atmos[1]. Instead of having to be stuck with a premixed 5 or 7 channel format designed for an ideal that your setup probably is not, you instead include unmixed sound and where it would ideally be coming from. The receiver then has knowledge of speaker and seating positions and dynamically mixes the output to match the room. [1] http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/technology/cinema/dolby-atmos-video.html http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/technology/cinema/do...
- kibibu 13y agoInteresting that a "virtual speaker set" won over higher-order Ambisonics (representing incoming audio as spherical harmonics). I wonder if it just boils down to easier engineering.
- sp332 13y agoAmbisonics requires a lot of actual speakers to have a large (say, couch-sized) "sweet spot" where the directional audio sounds any good.
- ioquatix 13y agoReally? I've heard some pretty amazing demos of ambisonics even with just two speakers - things which completely blow away anything I hear through mainstream productions with 5.1 and 7.1
- sp332 13y agoBut don't you have to hold your head in a smallish area for all the spherical harmonics to add up properly?
- kibibu 13y agoI find this curious, as you should in theory be able to map your 30 speakers to SH coeffs if you are using high-enough order SH (although 4th degree SH needs 25 coefficients so I guess there's not enough savings)
- Shish2k 13y agoCan we just have 3D sound now, with X, Y and Z coordinates to go along with the sound clips, and the speaker system routes the right sound an arbitrary number of speakers? That works amazingly well for FPS games...
- TylerE 13y agoA feature film could easily have a hundred different layers of audio at any given time, maybe more. The storage requirements would be INSANE.
- PeterisP 13y agoTo me, hundred high-quality audio channels with lossless compression sounds not "INSANE" but "still less than the video". Playback processing might be tricky, streaming might be tricky, but actual storage for any movie or home cinema setup should be trivial. You can easily put a hundred audio channels on a fraction of a bluray disc, not counting any future improvements in storage.
- coldtea 13y ago>To me, hundred high-quality audio channels with lossless compression sounds not "INSANE" but "still less than the video". Well, 100 audio channels 50% lossless compressed files would go about 60 GB for a 2-hour movie. So not really "less than the video". And that's for 16/44.1 lossless. For 24/96 adjust accordingly. (Of course not all 100 channels will have sound playing all the time -- except if we're talking for a musical or rock concert video. But it gives a taste of the max storage requirements).
- acuozzo 13y ago> Well, 100 audio channels 50% lossless compressed files would go about 60 GB for a 2-hour movie. So not really "less than the video". My losslessly-compressed (Lagarith FTW!) VHS captures are ~60GB for a 2-hour movie and that's at 720x486.
- neckro23 13y agoEven uncompressed and being extremely generous with the bit depth/rate: 32 ch * 24 bits * 96 kHz = 73 Mbps. That's a drop in the bucket on an 18Gbps connection. As mentioned, this is probably aimed at theaters. Also consider that you could send four separate 7.1 audio programs simultaneously over the same link, which would let any audio program switching happen at the receiving end instead. Actually, the Engadget article isn't very specific about "32 audio channels". Possibly they mean 32 separate audio programs instead? Audio is so cheap bandwidth-wise that it's practically free these days.
- zanny 13y agoDissapointing that this means we won't see 4k 120 hz screens any time soon, and that most consumer hardware in the next 5 years will have compatability issues with them. I love my pixel density and refresh rate!
- anonymfus 13y agoProbably next DisplayPort version will support them.
- jevinskie 13y ago> "dynamic auto lipsync" Isn't the audio and video already in sync?
- ixnu 13y agoThis is a really nice feature for whole-house setups. Different feeds can have slightly different syncs. This is especially true with a matrix operation that uses multiple screens feeds and a single audio feed.
- aardvark179 13y agoOn the source material, yes. But display devices may introduce some delay on the video due to scaling, de-interlacing, temporal noise reduction, and whatever other processing is done. The display device then needs to signal back to the amp how much delay it's introducing into the video so that the audio can be delayed by the same amount.
- josephlord 13y agoIf you connect your source through an surround processor it helps to be able to delay the audio to match the delay of the TV which may vary depending on TV settings (e.g. Game mode may be lower delay but with less picture processing). I assume this spec allows the TV to inform the surround processor continuously of the current picture delay.
- nitrogen 13y agoOnce upon a time I hacked something like that into TVTime (http://tvtime.sf.net http://tvtime.sf.net) that constantly updated a delay effect I'd modified on my SB Live 5.1's emu10k1 DSP.
- ixnu 13y agoThe failure to redesign the connection form factor is a major disappointment. Racking or repositioning a snug receiver with multiple HDMI inputs and outputs will almost guarantee that one will bend or break. This is especially true for low gauge runs over 50 feet.
- djrogers 13y agoThe obvious positive side of this is that existing cables will support the new spec without being replaced... Says so right there in the doc. I'd rather stick with the same form factor and cables than replace everything at some insane cost. Not to mention the awkwardness of supporting 2 types of inputs on a receiver/amp/switcher to maintain legacy compatibility.
- ixnu 13y agoAgreed that it's a positive that existing cables can be used, but a dongle could always be included and thereby have the best of both. Besides, many people already use port savers (actually run savers) because replacing a bent connector on a 75 foot run is an effective lesson.
- chadgeidel 13y agoI would guess that a "snug receiver with multiple HDMI inputs and outputs" would also be snug in the model produced after the connector upgrade. It sounds like the receiver engineers didn't leave enough room between their connectors - regardless of the size.
- ixnu 13y agoPerhaps we should scrap it all and go back (forward?) to coax. http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/whats-the-matter-with-hdmi.htm http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/whats-the-matter-with...
- clicks 13y agoI wish it had 8K support, given Japan is actually already planning on starting broadcast trials for 8K in roughly two years: http://www.futureleap.com/2013/03/japan-plans-8k-broadcasts-in-2016-2-years-ahead-of-schedule/ http://www.futureleap.com/2013/03/japan-plans-8k-broadcasts-...
- nailer 13y agoIt does feel a bit... short term. We all know 4K is next, we know that clearly there'll be something afterwards, it would be good if the next hardware we buy planned for that. Thunderbolt, BTW, has similar limits: http://superuser.com/questions/441395/what-is-the-maximum-resolution-that-a-thunderbolt-monitor-can-display http://superuser.com/questions/441395/what-is-the-maximum-re...
- devx 13y agoIf his math is correct then 8k, which is 4x the pixels of 4k, would need 4x that bandwidth, and even Intel's Thunderbolt 2.0 is "barely" at 20 gibabit/s, which means we can't go much further yet. It will be a while until we reach 80 gigabit/s.
- bigdubs 13y ago8k is also an OUTRAGEOUS amount of pixels to throw around. Unless you're eyeball to eyeball with a 40" display, your eye can't distinguish between 4k and 8k.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- tvon 13y agoI like how they tell you to watch the 8k demo video in 1080p "to get the full effect".
- fc2 13y agoI'm not sure I understand the need for 8k. If you want to watch your TV at an optimal viewing angle of 20%~40% then 4k is more than enough to achieve "retina display" at the required viewing distance.
- delsarto 13y agoHmm how will monster cables and the like sell their stuff when the standard makes clear that existing cables can already handle the greatly increased bandwidth? I look forward to the spin!
- Shish2k 13y agoAnyone know how this compares to displayport? I've always heard (perhaps wrongly) of DP being technically better and patent free, so I wonder why HDMI still gets so much more attention...
- zeckalpha 13y agoDP has had about this much speed for about 4 years. Beyond that I don't know.
- asdfs 13y agoI've found that the biggest problem with DisplayPort is that even if it is technically superior (unfortunately I'm not qualified to know whether it is or not), active DisplayPort/HDMI/DVI adapters are incredibly expensive. Since HDMI and DVI came first, this limits the use of DisplayPort; manufacturers are unwilling to create a device that requires a $100 adapter to work with what most people own.
- martingordon 13y agoI suspect not, but I can't find any details on whether this new spec provides for more power than the current standard so that low-power devices (Chromecast) don't need a separate power cord.
- kayoone 13y agoHonest question, does 4K and up really make sense for private use ? I am pretty sure from the distance that you usually watch 1080p content, you wont see a difference to 4K content at all. Of course for big presentations and conference setups i see the usecase, just not for the consumer mainstream. 4K would also set back game console performance by a huge margin, if they will ever adopt it. So i am not really convinced that the mainstream will go up to 4K, 8K etc, as it also means that all production costs increase and the benefit for the consumer is marginal.
- Yhippa 13y agoHave you seen it in person yet? To me there is most definitely a difference and I personally would enjoy 4K content.
- kayoone 13y agoTBH no. But in the livingroom, sitting a couple of meters away from my 42 inch 1080P tv, i can hardly see a difference between 720p and 1080p content. It would make sense for computer monitors though!
- papercrane 13y ago> Honest question, does 4K and up really make sense for private use ? For big monitors I think it does. Even if 4k doesn't make sense, the increased bandwidth is a win as the previous HDMI spec couldn't drive a 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 monitor at 60hz, and those resolutions definitely make sense to me for computer monitors.
- kayoone 13y agoYeah you are right, id definately adore it for computer monitors. Still, mainstream is stuck with 22 inch TN panel 1080p screens which are miserable, but consumer dont seem to really care. Theres only a handful of models that offer more than 1080p resolution in todays market.
- mbell 13y ago
- Yhippa 13y agoCool, now I can go repurchase all my cables. At least they're cheap, right?
- minikites 13y agoThe article is a paragraph, you seriously missed this / didn't read it? >The cables won't change either, as the group claims current high-speed Category 2 wires can handle the increased bandwidth.
- kunil 13y agoYou will need gold plated cables that have resonance crystal around them to reduce polarisation
- pkroll 13y agoYou'll also need to plug them in correctly, as they're one way: plug them in wrong and your video will play in reverse.
- rartichoke 13y agoI'm not too impressed honestly. 120 fps is the minimum for me when it comes to playing games. Then again I was used to 120hz monitors on CRTs in the early 2000s with 0 input lag. I would only ever consider 4k for normal desktop usage but there's no way I would pay anything for 60 fps and we all know 4k monitors will be stupidly expensive for at least 10 years.
- sillysaurus2 13y agoIt always seemed strange that monitors aim for 60fps. That seems like a recipe for input lag. They could aim for 90fps, because when they fail to meet that, at least they'll still achieve 60fps. Then again, the audience of hardcore gamers who would notice that sort of thing is probably small, so I guess it makes economic sense.
- TylerE 13y ago90hz aiming for 60hz is terrible. You're either getting 45 (not 60) or horrible microstuttering.
- rartichoke 13y agoThis is also why most LCD manufacturers use low quality TN panels. A majority of people just can't tell the difference, don't care enough or they don't care about things like viewing angles. LCD manufacturers in general are really crooked. They have been accused and found guilty of price fixing on multiple occasions. They also love to release monitors with high quality panels initially so they get good reviews and swap in garbage panels without letting consumers know and then sell it for the same price as the same model.
- kyrra 13y agoAny proof of panel swapping happening in later models? Not that I couldn't see it happening, I would just like to see an article documenting such an event.
- 13y ago
- fiorix 13y agotl;dr but hopefully they've added a power supply via hdmi as well otherwise things like chromecast will still need a usb for that :D
- Terretta 13y ago> tl;dr It's five sentences. HN, as a site for stories that gratify intellectual curiosity, may not be the right site for you.
- pbreit 13y agoAny word about power?
- rootbear 13y agoThis race for more pixels is misguided. The change I most want to see is deeper pixels, at least 10bpp, preferably more. I'm getting really tired of all the banding I see on what should be smooth gradient images. If a landscape aspect image is P pixels wide then to display a gray scale gradient, black to white, you need ceil(log2(P)) bits per pixel. So a "2K" display needs 11 bits, "4K" needs 12, etc. Then each column of pixels gets a distinct value and there is no banding. So sure, give me a 4K screen. I've seen them and they are sweet, but you MUST also increase the pixel depth at the same time, or there will be artifacts. And don't get me started on the horrid compression artifacts on basic cable. A crime against quality imagery.
- apendleton 13y agoThis assumes infinite color discrimination abilities, though. I'm fairly certain that after a certain point, even if there are bands, most people would be unable to perceive them.
- rootbear 13y agoGood point. But the current 8 bits per pixel is definitely too few.
- ChuckMcM 13y ago8 bits isn't "current", if you want "current" you get 10 bit panels. If you want "better than bargain basement" you get 10 bit panels. At least where I live one of the differences between the TVs that CostCo sells and the ones that others sell are 8 bit (CostCo) vs 10 bit (others) panels.
- rootbear 13y agoI understand about the panels, but what about the source material? Is color information on a blu-ray stored at 8 bits per channel or is it higher? If the source material is 8 bits per color channel, I still think you'll see banding on smooth gradients no matter how good the panel is. I should try some tests...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- akiselev 13y agoSo the engineers pushing forward the video connection standard should wait for a giant monopoly to change its terrible ways before they make any progress? Come on.
- Nux 13y agoFsck 4k. I want holodecks!
- pkroll 13y agoThe closest you'll get to those for a while, is VR like the Oculus Rift, and 4K screens (tiny, phone-size ones) would help that a LOT. :)