HDMI 2.0 officially announced

http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/04/hdmi-2-0-official-4k-60fps-32-channel-audio/

by nreece • 13 years ago

135 132 13 years ago

akandiah• 13 years ago

As someone who isn't familiar with audio technology: is there any practical use for 32 channels of audio?

StavrosK• 13 years ago

Having 32 speakers around you, I would imagine. It was probably a case of "since we're standardizing, we might as well future-proof this".

crayola• 13 years ago

Or eccentric-proof, in this case.

johnward• 13 years ago

accept that they future proofed sound but it doesn't look like they did that with video

AndrewDucker• 13 years ago

Cinemas.

ecopoesis• 13 years ago

It'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/do...

kibibu2• 13 years ago

Interesting 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.

Shish2k2• 13 years ago

Can 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...

TylerE3• 13 years ago

A feature film could easily have a hundred different layers of audio at any given time, maybe more. The storage requirements would be INSANE.

neckro23• 13 years ago

Even 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• 13 years ago

Dissapointing 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• 13 years ago

Probably next DisplayPort version will support them.

jevinskie• 13 years ago

"dynamic auto lipsync"

Isn't the audio and video already in sync?

ixnu4• 13 years ago

This 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• 13 years ago

On 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• 13 years ago

If 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.

nitrogen3• 13 years ago

Once upon a time I hacked something like that into TVTime (http://tvtime.sf.net) that constantly updated a delay effect I'd modified on my SB Live 5.1's emu10k1 DSP.

ixnu4• 13 years ago

The 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• 13 years ago

The 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.

ixnu4• 13 years ago

Agreed 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• 13 years ago

I 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.

ixnu4• 13 years ago

Perhaps we should scrap it all and go back (forward?) to coax.

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/whats-the-matter-with...

clicks• 13 years ago

I 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-...

nailer2• 13 years ago

It 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-re...

devx• 13 years ago

If 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.

tvon• 13 years ago

I like how they tell you to watch the 8k demo video in 1080p "to get the full effect".

fc2• 13 years ago

I'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.

zach• 13 years ago

I am glad it does not have 8K support. That would be over-engineering.

"Yeah, this hardware will cost more, but it has to support a bandwidth level that won't be in use anywhere in the world in the next two years."

Seems totally reasonable to have a version in step with the emerging generation, rather than future experiments.

nailer2• 13 years ago

Seems totally reasonable to have a version in step with the emerging generation, rather than future experiments.

The current MBP retina display, if used on a 27 inch monitor, is more than 4K.

Conveniently, however, it's less than 8K - as is a 32 inch retina monitor.

delsarto• 13 years ago

Hmm 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!

Shish2k2• 13 years ago

Anyone 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• 13 years ago

DP has had about this much speed for about 4 years. Beyond that I don't know.

asdfs• 13 years ago

I'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.

vermontdevil• 13 years ago

Anyone knows if it includes any specs about closed captions? It's a source of frustration at times with the previous spec.

MichaelGG3• 13 years ago

I 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.

martingordon• 13 years ago

I 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.

kayoone5• 13 years ago

Honest 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.

Yhippa2• 13 years ago

Have you seen it in person yet? To me there is most definitely a difference and I personally would enjoy 4K content.

kayoone5• 13 years ago

TBH 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!

papercrane2• 13 years 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.

kayoone5• 13 years ago

Yeah 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.

mbell2• 13 years ago

as the previous HDMI spec couldn't drive a 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 monitor at 60hz

That has been supported by HDMI since 1.3, since around 2006.

2560×1600p75 @ 24bit is about the highest standard resolution you can pump through HDMI 1.3.

harpastum2• 13 years ago

I think it's a mistake to assume the existing sizes and viewing distances will remain the same into the future. Yes 1080p is just fine when the thing you're viewing takes up 10 degrees of your vision. However, as screens get larger and/or closer, it's actually pretty easy to tell the difference between 1080p and 4k.

I'm really looking forward to getting a 4k computer monitor in the near future, and a 4k tv that's >100 inches in the middle future.

kayoone5• 13 years ago

Most certainly right, but i really think sizes of >50 inches wont be mainstream for a long time, if ever. That means huge devices will be low volume and high price. You can see this in the PC monitor space already, as theres basically nothing happening as most people seem to be happy with their 1080p 22-24inch screens. My two 24inch 1920x1200 Dell from 2006 are still better than most of the TN panel Full-HD crap you can buy today, which is pretty sad.

vidarh2• 13 years ago

You probably won't on a 42" screen used as a TV. Maybe not even on a 50" screen used as a TV. Used as a monitor from short range, is another matter entirely.

But Amazon is selling 75" TV's in the UK, and 100"+ projectors. As screen sizes go up, people won't be too happy to see dpi drop again.

We are also becoming accustomed to higher DPI on our screens via tablets etc.. After I got my phone (1280x720 on a 4.7" screen) my 1920x1080 on my 17" laptop was suddenly noticeably grainy. My full HD 42" LED TV is no longer nearly as impressive as it seemed when I got it and compared it to my old TV.

My next phone will be a full HD 5"+ model, and I expect my next tablet to be in the 2500+xwhatever range or more for a 10", because anything else will look worse than my current phone. For a lot of content, sure, you won't notice much difference - I quite happily still watch my DVD's on my full HD TV.

In other words there are plenty of situations where we will notice the difference to 4K, even if we'd be perfectly happy with 1080p if we didn't have a higher DPI device to compare to.

baddox• 13 years ago

Screen size isn't the only relevant factor. Given any size of screen, more resolution means that viewers can sit closer to the TV, thus filling more of their field of view with the screen.

daniel_reetz• 13 years ago

We can digitally capture images at much, much higher resolution than we can hope to display them. Even my giant 27", 2550x1440 monitor is only 3.7 megapixels.

Given the importance of photography in modern culture, it's more than a little weird to be so unbalanced.

As someone who builds prototype displays, I can tell you, we can always use more bandwidth and more resolution. Even if we just abuse it to play tricks. the interfaces we have today are horrible for high frame rate, 3D, and anything that needs to sync up.

MichaelGG3• 13 years ago

Well I recently saw a MacBook Retina and was shocked at how amazing it. I dislike the OS, the case design, the keyboard -- everything about it. But wow, that screen. Painted on is a good description.

On game performance, I thought pixels were a fairly parallel problem? That is, the Xbox vNext could simply overcome it by not using a low-end video card like the XB1? Just add shaders and whatnot.

SiVal2• 13 years ago

Honest question, does 4K and up really make sense for private use?

It's a good question, but my answer is definitely, Yes.

My ideal work station would be a room with a wall-sized 8K touch-screen monitor covering the wall in front of me. I would have an adjustable table with a comfy chair and treadmill looking over the table and across the room at the wall screen. Lower the table and sit in the chair. Raise the table and use it as a standing desk or step onto the treadmill. Step out from behind the table and pace around the room, examining the code and how it is running in the four browsers open in windows beside the code. Walk up to the screen and use the browsers via touch. Step back, look at the code, walk up to it and interchange two lines by dragging, then say, "Macro! Run!" and watch it go.

Walk back to the treadmill and turn up the speed for a victory lap as you watch your code finally doing what it is supposed to....

I want that 8K touchscreen on the wall.

sliverstorm2• 13 years ago

Have you used multi-monitor setups before? Anything more than about two screens, and I personally find myself getting really annoyed because I have to turn my head instead of moving my eyes. I feel like a full-wall monitor would be even worse.

Yhippa2• 13 years ago

Cool, now I can go repurchase all my cables. At least they're cheap, right?

minikites• 13 years ago

The 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.

kunil2• 13 years ago

You will need gold plated cables that have resonance crystal around them to reduce polarisation

pkroll2• 13 years ago

You'll also need to plug them in correctly, as they're one way: plug them in wrong and your video will play in reverse.

rartichoke8• 13 years ago

I'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.

sillysaurus26• 13 years ago

It 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.

TylerE3• 13 years ago

90hz aiming for 60hz is terrible. You're either getting 45 (not 60) or horrible microstuttering.

rartichoke8• 13 years ago

This 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.

coldtea6• 13 years ago

It 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.

It's not like modern games have that much CPU time to prepare each 1/60 sec frame -- 16ms actually.

As for input lag, they can scan inpput at different frequencies and adapt the next frame accordingly, but it's not like the input is gonna show in any less than 1/60 for an graphically involved game.

harpastum2• 13 years ago

It came out a little while ago, so it only supports 30fps at 4k, but this 39 inch 4k monitor is decently reviewed, and only $700: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00DOPGO2G

rartichoke8• 13 years ago

30 fps is even a bigger joke than 60. I think even the general public would get nauseous watching a game being played at a solid 30 fps, it's much different than watching a low fps movie.

If I were to drop $700 on a new display I would rather buy 2x $350 2650x1440 monitors that can run at 120hz at that resolution. They've been on the market at that price for quite a while now.

Back in 2001 or 2002 I bought a 21" 1600x1200 120hz CRT for $80 for comparison. It also had no input delay, perfect colors and the screen itself was flat. The only downside is it weighed like 80 pounds.

Qantourisc• 13 years ago

Seriously ? Another 60hz standard ? Even if you consider 60HZ enough, consider at the least 3D screens ... that needs 120HZ !

stinos• 13 years ago

goog point actually. Domains like vision research are again left in the cold. And then people sometimes wonder why oh why researchers like to stick to old standards and still use 20yr old fluor CRTs driven over VGA cables :P

Btw 3D using shuttered glasses on a nomral 120Hz LCD might look ok when playing games and whatnot but is in reality not: the amounts of crosstalk are beyond what can be used for scientific research unless you stick to a small area on the screen and tune everything specifically for that area.

kunil2• 13 years ago

Well, your eyes can't see above 24fps so it does not matter

</joke>

Honestly, I don't care after 60fps, even for games. Are 4k monitors (smaller screens) available? I only see huge 4k TVs, never heard of monitors. (It is not like I can afford one though :()

xuki• 13 years ago

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7157/asus-pq321q-ultrahd-4k-mo...

coldtea6• 13 years ago

120 fps is the minimum for me when it comes to playing games.

You like wasting CPU power for placebo-level difference?

In a few years (assuming 20-something) you won't care much for games anymore, and 99.999% of the kids are perfectly fine with 60 fps anyway.

rartichoke8• 13 years ago

People who enjoy games at a competitive level don't just out grow it once they hit late 20s or 30s. I'm 33 by the way. I'm extremely confident that anyone playing a fast paced game at a highly competitive level would notice the difference between 60 and 120 fps+hz -- even in a best case scenario where the frame rate wasn't varied. Frame rate variance is one of the most noticeable things, but even a rock solid 60 fps+hz is choppy.

Look at how many grown men/women play or watch televised sports. There is nothing different than some 40 year old person watching an NFL game and a 40 year old person watching a quakelive or heroes of newerth tournament.

I don't watch regular sports but I can see the appeal. I mean, look at a sport like basketball. It seems like a single player can almost carry a team by himself as long as the other players are somewhat competent. Watching someone who is so good that he makes "professionals" seem like amateurs is really entertaining.

jetd• 13 years ago

I think topics are mixed up in this thread and more strangely nobody is mentioning it!

1. (120)fps you refer is about the graphic card not the monitor. 2. (120)hz is refresh rate of an LCD is completely different than CRT. BTW, I never heard of 120hz high-res monitor. Mitsubishi or NEC maybe. could you give the brand and model? 3. monitor input lag will _always_be there with LCDs. there is no 120hz or higher LCD panels. they do real-time interpolation with 60hz panels. and that's not natural if you look closely. maybe just maybe OLED will improve response time or input lag as you refer.

rartichoke8• 13 years ago

There are tons of 120hz LCDs. Some of the korean models that you can pickup for $350 can be manually set to run at 120hz but you have to be lucky. They run at 2560x1440.

Most 120hz LCDs run at 1080p though, and you can typically buy them at Newegg or wherever you usually get computer parts. You should be able to find dozens of models by Googling for "120hz LCD monitors".

fiorix• 13 years ago

tl;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• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

Any word about power?

rootbear3• 13 years ago

This 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• 13 years ago

This 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.

rootbear3• 13 years ago

Good point. But the current 8 bits per pixel is definitely too few.

mgraczyk2• 13 years ago

The banding you see is from image and video compression, not a lack of bpp. Human beings can almost never differentiate 6 bpp from 8 bpp grayscale, and with colors 7 bpp/c is almost always sufficient.

modeless• 13 years ago

This is true, but transmitting video at 8 bits per channel is problematic because it's too close to the threshold of perception. Any video processing you do on an 8 bpc signal is likely to introduce visible artifacts, and of course today's TVs go crazy with ridiculous video processing even at their default settings before people start playing with the brightness and contrast controls. We need to be transmitting video at 12 bpc so that video processing done at the display doesn't destroy the signal.

Shorel• 13 years ago

I don't get any banding when I connect my old 21" CRT via DVI to my current PC and set the display to 10bpp (32bits/ true color in MS terminology).

What we need is a replacement for LCD technology.

stan_rogers• 13 years ago

32-bit is 8 bits per colour channel (24-bit) plus an 8-bit alpha (transparency) channel, not 10-and-a-bit bits per channel. The alpha isn't (normally) sent to the display device, it's used to render overlapping elements at the display generation level (video card). Good LCDs can easily render the full colour depth with headroom to spare. Higher-end graphics monitors are often 12-bit (the extra range is used for calibration/display accuracy, not necessarily for greater depth).

zokier• 13 years ago

If we are talking about things in dire need of improvement, how about dynamic range? Something like the BrightSide (now Dolby) display tech: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/03/brightside_hdr_e... (thats from 2005(!))

nitrogen3• 13 years ago

Reading a few pages in, if you're not seeing it on the market, it's because the technology is patented (and it's the obvious approach of using an array of LED backlights with DSP correction for the optical scattering of the backlight filter).

ris• 13 years ago

So use the extra resolution to dither.

Daiz• 13 years ago

Dithering can help a lot when it comes to displaying large smooth gradients in lower bit depths. Obviously it has its downsides, though - for one, you need to actually implement it where smooth gradients are used, and at when it comes to video games this basically never happens and you end up with notable banding instead.

Dithering in the field of video is pretty common, though. But it has a pretty large problem there as well - since dithering is essentially noise, it requires a lot of bitrate to compress efficiently, and if you don't have bitrate to throw at your source, you're most likely going to kill it and just end up introducing banding. Blu-ray is pretty much the main avenue where you have enough bitrate to spare for proper dithering in 8-bit video. Anything less than that, though... well, let's just say that House of Cards on Netflix was suffering from banding a lot.

Banding is actually one of the biggest reasons why anime fansubs these days are generally encoded in 10-bit H.264. Anime tends to have a lot of large and smooth color surfaces and banding was pretty much the hardest thing to avoid with regular 8-bit video - 10-bit on the other hands makes it an almost total non-issue. And for non-10bit displays, it moves the necessary dithering to the playback end, which is obviously a much nicer alternative since you don't have to compress any of that in the video itself. And beyond the gradients, 10-bit H.264 actually gives you better compression quality in general, which just makes it even better.

Now, it obviously comes with the downside of not being supported by hardware decoders anywhere, so you basically will need a decent CPU to decode 10-bit video. For fansubs and the people who make them this isn't that much of an issue though, since the advanced subtitles they use are also generally poorly-supported by hardware players, and this has been the case for a long time.

Next-generation video formats may actually bring higher bit depths to hardware decoders as well, though - H.265/HEVC has a Main 10 Profile intended for consumer applications.

Annnnnnon• 13 years ago

wasting time on HN instead of finishing Chuu2 Sasuga Daiz.

cclogg• 13 years ago

It's probably going to be like the processor wars. It'll keep going up until they reach a peak and then it'll switch to multi-cores (or in this case, expanding the number of bits).

But you definitely have my vote right now!

sillysaurus26• 13 years ago

As soon as there's the slightest amount of noise, it's impossible to discern between 8bpp vs 10bpp. And real-life applications will almost always have noise.

brigade2• 13 years ago

This has been in the HDMI spec for 7 years already and most high-end TVs support 10-12 bit input. And lower end TVs it doesn't matter anyway. Also TVs often use at least 10 bits between internal processing steps.

Anyway, what you want is happening for 4k - Rec. 2020 mandates at least 10bit for 4k

Nux• 13 years ago

Fsck 4k. I want holodecks!

pkroll2• 13 years ago

The 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. :)

HDMI 2.0 officially announced

Related Stories