backtop


Print 41 comment(s) - last by AlexFeren.. on Sep 6 at 4:27 AM

Specification supports 4K video and 32 channel audio

The HDMI Forum is a nonprofit association that manages the HDMI specification. Today the HDMI 2.0 specification has been officially unveiled and is available for partners to download right now. HDMI 2.0 promises significantly increased bandwidth allowing new features.

HDMI 2.0 supports bandwidth of up to 18 Gbps. That gives the specification the bandwidth to support 4K 50/60 resolution video -- that is four times the clarity of standard 1080p/60 video. HDMI 2.0 also supports 32 audio channels along with dynamic auto lip-see and extensions to CEC.

HDMI 2.0 is backwards compatible with earlier versions of HDMI, and perhaps the best news is that HDMI 2.0 doesn't require new plugs or new cables. Existing high-speed category two cables are already capable of carrying the increased bandwidth provided by HDMI 2.0.

The HDMI 2.0 specification is available for adopters to download via the HDMI Adopter Extranet. A press conference will be held to discuss the new features of HDMI 2.0 at IFA 2013 in Berlin this Friday.

Source: HDMI.org



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Excellent!
By techxx on 9/4/2013 10:43:43 AM , Rating: 3
Getting 4K content is the last hurdle. With time...




RE: Excellent!
By Dribble on 9/4/2013 11:29:18 AM , Rating: 2
No it's not, 60hz is not enough, particularly for 3d (when it becomes 30hz).

4K at 120hz would be better - either for 120hz gaming or 60hz 3d.


RE: Excellent!
By Mitch101 on 9/4/2013 12:07:10 PM , Rating: 2
The original content is most likely 24fps so 48fps for 3D would be fine with 3:2 pulldown I think its 96fps where it gets super smooth.

There are cases like Football where I would like the 120hz or better for 3D but if the source is 60hz well its just trickery anyhow.


RE: Excellent!
By Dribble on 9/5/2013 4:45:30 AM , Rating: 2
The thing is when you get to silly high resolutions you get diminishing returns for all that effort. Other things have more impact - better colours, less blurring and higher refresh rate. 4K needs those things too or people might just prefer 1080p with everything else over a flawed 4K screen. By maxing refresh @ 60hz they have already limited what 4K screens can do.


RE: Excellent!
By ClownPuncher on 9/4/2013 1:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
3D? Is this 2010? It died, get over it.


RE: Excellent!
By hubb1e on 9/4/13, Rating: 0
RE: Excellent!
By Jeffk464 on 9/4/2013 2:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
Its entirely possible, supposedly you need an 80" and up size TV to see the difference. What percent of homes do you think fit into the category?


RE: Excellent!
By ClownPuncher on 9/4/2013 3:06:35 PM , Rating: 5
4k is mainly for projectors, but you will definitely see a difference in 4k vs. 1080p at 80". Why not check for yourself before pretending you know?


RE: Excellent!
By surt on 9/5/2013 12:17:04 AM , Rating: 2
Heck, if you've actually seen 4k on a 55" display the difference is obvious at as much as 8' and plenty of people set their couches closer than that.


RE: Excellent!
By sixteenornumber on 9/4/2013 3:48:02 PM , Rating: 2
my only interest in 4k if for a computer. in terms of computers, it will keep climbing


RE: Excellent!
By UnauthorisedAccess on 9/4/2013 10:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
Same here.

I'm only in the market for WQHD 27" LED LCD monitors (2560x1440) as there IS content on the PC front! Dev work, gaming, graphic work - if your PC can drive the pixels then you get WQHD goodness.

Off topic ish but I'm waiting for IPS 120hz WQHD 27" monitors to be cheaper, no bleeding and some soft of dead pixel warranty (maybe 2 years or so for me).

On topic, in Australia we don't have 1080P TV content (over free-to-air / freeview or even Foxtel) - so why on earth go to 4K. Maybe we'll have 1080P content in a few years. Maybe we'll have 4K content by 2025. I'm not buying a 4K TV while I wait.


RE: Excellent!
By surt on 9/5/2013 12:22:21 AM , Rating: 2
Oh man, is Australia living in the stone age? Who gets their content via OTA broadcast?


RE: Excellent!
By UnauthorisedAccess on 9/5/2013 1:10:00 AM , Rating: 2
imho we're about 5 years behind most developed nations, in regards to Internet connection, TV streaming services, OTA broadcasting.

It's a shame, though we're a massive country (6th largest), with a small population (22.32 million) so we can't simply (read: cheaply) catch up by laying cables.


RE: Excellent!
By AlexFeren on 9/6/2013 4:27:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh man, is Australia living in the stone age? Who gets their content via OTA broadcast?


Err... those who don't want to pay for TV content? Australia has about 20 digital channels and that's more than enough to cover American junk (CSI, NCIS, Law & Order, etc). See http://www.yourtv.com.au/guide.


RE: Excellent!
By ClownPuncher on 9/5/2013 11:32:29 AM , Rating: 2
TV content? Jesus. This is for movies and, eventually, games.

TV content... as if it is worth it to buy an expensive TV just to watch whatever passes for TV content these days...

I haven't sat down to watch TV in about a decade.


RE: Excellent!
By tastyratz on 9/4/2013 4:35:08 PM , Rating: 3
cant believe I accidentally upvoted this, wish I could change it.

if 4k doesn't benefit you at 80" then congrats you can even see the tv at all Mr Magoo.
What kind of nonsensical statement is this?
The human eye has enough resolution to spot greater than 1080p at under 50 inches if you have 20/20 vision... nevermind 80


RE: Excellent!
By UnauthorisedAccess on 9/4/2013 10:04:58 PM , Rating: 2
You have changed it by replying.

As soon as you comment all your votes on the article are scratched - unless I'm mistaken (someone confirm?).


RE: Excellent!
By EricMartello on 9/4/2013 5:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And next, 4K will die. It's just not a benefit in most consumer homes. Even with my 80" TV the benefit would only manifest when I'm standing directly in front of the TV.


No it won't. Going from 720P to 1080P was a relatively small jump and it was very noticeable. Going from 1080P to 4K is 100% resolution improvement, so with the approriate content you will see a substantial improvement.

What kind of improvements?

Dynamic range, in particular, because for a given gradation you will have more pixels per area to represent transitions from bright to dark as well as between various colors.

You will also see far more detail, sharpness and clarity. Great not only for movies and TV shows, but for gaming.

Worried about a lack of 4K content? Don't be...because many people now get their content from online streaming services, the adoption of 4K content doesn't require broadcasters to be "on board". Youtube already supports 4K video and it's likely that Amazon Prime and Netflix will too...and don't forget about the pirate bay. Most modern films and TV shows were originally shot in 4K; most theater projectors have been 4K for years so there is an abundance of content, with many production companies already equipped to shoot and process 4K video.

Lastly, the correlation of screen size to screen resolution has more to do with the viewing distance and your own visual acuity. The human eye is very capable of resolving more detail than 1920x1080 on a 50 inch screen - if you don't see a difference it's time for a new glasses/contacts prescription. You probably didn't think a smartphone needed a 720P screen since it's only 4"...until you saw how much better it is with a 720P screen that 480P or less.


RE: Excellent!
By stm1185 on 9/4/2013 11:33:26 AM , Rating: 3
That and a huge price drop.

I was looking at a 4k Samsung at Best Buy yesterday. They were showing 4k video of syrup and chocolate dripping over food. It gave me that same tingly brain feeling I got the first time I saw 1080p over a decade ago.

Then I found the price tag.


RE: Excellent!
By Sivar on 9/4/2013 11:47:25 AM , Rating: 1
RE: Excellent!
By Makaveli on 9/4/2013 12:22:51 PM , Rating: 2
the capacitor issue in your second link happends to me on a samsung tv I bought in 2009.

I called them and they sent a guy to replace it and it was covered even though i was out of warranty said it was a no issue. The guy on the phone was surprised I knew so much about it when I called. After the repair that tv is working great.

And it didn't stop me from replacing it with a Samsung PNE648000E this saturday and this is by far the best picture i've seen on any tv I own first time plasma buyer!!


RE: Excellent!
By Spoelie on 9/4/2013 6:10:20 PM , Rating: 2
why u no take panasonic???

Really, they've been the reference ever since pioneer dropped from the market and improved every single year. read up: http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/panasonic-tx-p50gt6...


RE: Excellent!
By EricMartello on 9/4/2013 5:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That and a huge price drop.

I was looking at a 4k Samsung at Best Buy yesterday. They were showing 4k video of syrup and chocolate dripping over food. It gave me that same tingly brain feeling I got the first time I saw 1080p over a decade ago.

Then I found the price tag.


Yeah, 4K is awesome. Even jaded tech nerds can safely be excited about it. The price is always high at first. Wait for a generation or two of 4K TVs to roll out and prices will fall.

My main concern is that none of the new 4K TVs will surpass my 4 year old Pioneer Kuro. Even with higher resolution and the potential for better color representation, many TVs that "seem better on paper" have not managed to dethrone the Kuro regardless of whether they are LCD or plasma.

I would totally pay a premium for a Pioneer Kuro 4K...but they sold a lot of their tech to Panasonic which hasn't done d1ck with it.


Stupid (?) question...
By boeush on 9/4/2013 4:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
HDMI 2.0 also supports 32 audio channels...
W? T? F???

Who, when, why, in the name of all that's holy and unholy combined, would ever need that many audio channels?




RE: Stupid (?) question...
By thorr2 on 9/4/2013 4:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
Check out Dolby Atmos. I saw Elysium that way and it is amazing!
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/technology...


RE: Stupid (?) question...
By boeush on 9/4/2013 5:09:16 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah... But theaters aren't going to use HDMI for their audio systems in the first place. HDMI is for home theaters and otherwise consumer use.

Are you seriously suggesting that consumers will invest in complex 32-speaker systems for their living rooms, and that the number of such eccentrics significantly exceeds the number of fingers on one hand?


RE: Stupid (?) question...
By Guspaz on 9/4/2013 5:25:35 PM , Rating: 3
The previous version of the spec supported 8 audio channels, which current 7.1 home theatre systems max out. They wanted to bump it up to leave room for future use, what would YOU suggest that they set the limit to?

They had to pick something, so they likely picked a number of channels that they thought would be enough to last them into the distant future. The fact is that the 24 new audio channels require about 1.4% of the extra bandwidth capacity added by HDMI 2.0... not exactly causing a problem there.


RE: Stupid (?) question...
By boeush on 9/4/2013 5:17:20 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and also... The Dolby system boasts 64 speakers because you need that many to cover the perimeter of a huge movie theater hall. When you need to pan sound across a 100'-long wall, then yeah a linear array of a dozen speakers would work better than 2.

For home use, however, all you need is to cover a living room. Even very large living rooms (or home theater rooms) have less than 1/100th of the volume of a typical movie theater hall.

Even Dolby, in its most luxury-overkill, mode wouldn't need 32 friggin' speakers to provide a perfect sound-field and accurate sound positioning down to a degree of arc over even a McMansion-style home's available space...


RE: Stupid (?) question...
By kwrzesien on 9/4/2013 5:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
If only I knew this was coming I would have made my McMansion media room bigger!


RE: Stupid (?) question...
By Devilboy1313 on 9/4/2013 9:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
Just buy your neighbor's McMansion, hollow it out and turn it into a giant media room.

You many need more than 64 speakers then, but you could split the house into 2 media rooms. A his and her set-up.


RE: Stupid (?) question...
By EricMartello on 9/4/2013 5:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
W? T? F???

Who, when, why, in the name of all that's holy and unholy combined, would ever need that many audio channels?


For home use, I would envision speaker arrays that are placed around your listening area, which would allow for precise sound stage reproduction regardless of whether you are in a large or small room.

In other words, using arrays of smaller speakers rather than 3 large ones would allow movies and games to sound "bigger" than the physical room actually is.

Let's say you have 2 channels for bass (LFE), one in front of you and another behind you.

That gives you 30 channels to work with for front, mid and surround. You could have a speaker array that places speakers every 12 degrees around your listening position, effectively giving you true 360 degree coverage.

A properly mastered soundtrack would sound incredible.


RE: Stupid (?) question...
By boeush on 9/4/2013 7:34:12 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, except:

1) How much more would it cost?

2) Who has the room or the aesthetic taste for all those speaker boxes all over the place?

3) How can all of that be wired and powered without turning one's home into Spiderman's layer (and how much would THAT cost)?

4) How much positional fidelity does the human ear really provide: can it discriminate positional sound to +/- 10 degrees? 5? 1? At what point do diminishing returns make for not just overkill, but nonsensical overkill? A related question might be, how does this ultimate limit of human auditory positional perception fidelity degrade when sound is not your entire focus of attention (e.g. when you're preoccupied with other visual/emotional/cognitive stimuli at the same time, and likely to a much greater extent)?

5) What's the perceptual gain from a 14-speaker system vs. a 7-speaker system? What's the gain from a 21-speaker system vs. a 14-speaker system? If 7.1 sound is already pretty much "good enough", and then further if 14.2 sound would be astonishingly-awesome by comparison, then what would be the point of 30.2 sound???

6) An intelligently built sound system can recreate a very complex sound field with very few speakers, simply by playing around with how the various speakers are timed relative to each other, and thus how their soundwaves interfere in space. Surround sound can be simulated with a stereo speaker system. What could be simulated with a 7-speaker system? (And is there even any need?)


RE: Stupid (?) question...
By EricMartello on 9/4/2013 11:43:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1) How much more would it cost?


Initial models will be expensive. If and when it catches on with consumers, you'll have price/quality tiers as you do with most electronics. Eventually you could probably get a decent speaker system for under $1,000.

quote:
2) Who has the room or the aesthetic taste for all those speaker boxes all over the place?


People who really like immersive home entertainment? Keep in mind that these speakers do not necessarily need to be huge. For small to medium size rooms, you could get by with "cube" speakers that are 4-5" cubes. Larger rooms would benefit from larger speakers.

They could also introduce "arrays" which are basically like "sound bars" except that you place the sound bars around your seating area rather than just in front.

quote:
4) How much positional fidelity does the human ear really provide: can it discriminate positional sound to +/- 10 degrees? 5? 1? At what point do diminishing returns make for not just overkill, but nonsensical overkill? A related question might be, how does this ultimate limit of human auditory positional perception fidelity degrade when sound is not your entire focus of attention (e.g. when you're preoccupied with other visual/emotional/cognitive stimuli at the same time, and likely to a much greater extent)?


Human senses tend to get underrated when we're talking about entertainment stuff. For instance, a lot of people claim that the eye cannot discern detail finer than 1080p on a 50 inch screen - not true, our eyes can see a lot more detail than 1080p offers. The same is true for our ears, although some people are less sensitive to certain sound frequency ranges than others...overall we have pretty good hearing.

The idea with 32 channels is to create the illusion of a bigger space by using many speakers with independently controlled channels. It would work similar to the way "two speaker surround" works, which is by isolating groups of frequencies and adding very brief delays between them to create a "wider" sound stage with a broader "sweet spot".

With 32 independent audio channels, you'd have a larger sweet spot for sound effects than you do with 5.1 or 7.1 systems. What does this mean for you? Basically, it would be possible to create the illusion of sound emanating from anywhere within your room, or even somewhere far beyond your room. I'm not talking like "maybe sorta kinda" that you get with 5.1, I'm talking like "oh snap my coffee table sounds like a truck but I can hear the guy talking as if he is right next to me and yelling into my ear" type of potential.

quote:
5) What's the perceptual gain from a 14-speaker system vs. a 7-speaker system? What's the gain from a 21-speaker system vs. a 14-speaker system? If 7.1 sound is already pretty much "good enough", and then further if 14.2 sound would be astonishingly-awesome by comparison, then what would be the point of 30.2 sound???


The more independently controlled speakers you have, the greater the potential for replicating positional effects with accuracy and believability. Not only for single effects, for multiple simultaneous effects.

A 14-channel speaker system would sound nice but I think they'd opt for a figure that goes into 360 evenly so that the speakers could be evenly placed around the listening area. It wouldn't be a "hard" requirement because the A/V receiver would likely have a calibration routine to ensure that the the appropriate delays are added based on actual speaker positions within the room.

quote:
6) An intelligently built sound system can recreate a very complex sound field with very few speakers, simply by playing around with how the various speakers are timed relative to each other, and thus how their soundwaves interfere in space. Surround sound can be simulated with a stereo speaker system. What could be simulated with a 7-speaker system? (And is there even any need?)


Two-speaker surround requires that your head is almost perfectly triangulated with the speakers to get the "surround" effect, and even then it's not as convincing as having dedicated speakers in various locations throughout the room. This effect is created by the sound processor according to whatever algorithm they use.

As I said above, imagine how awesome it would be to have that same "virtual surround" tech applied to a large array of speakers. Everyone in the room could sit comfortably and enjoy those 3D sound effects, as opposed to having to sit in the sweet spot. The more speakers you have, the greater your "audio resolution" meaning that you'd have more uniquely discernible sounds playing simultaneously and convincingly from various locations throughout your room.


Yah!
By Ammohunt on 9/4/2013 1:43:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
HDMI 2.0 is backwards compatible with earlier versions of HDMI, and perhaps the best news is that HDMI 2.0 doesn't require new plugs or new cables.


$2000+ of home entertainment equipment that i will have to re-buy if i want a 4k system and the best news is i can keep my $20 worth of cables!




RE: Yah!
By haukionkannel on 9/4/2013 3:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
:-)

Well home entertime equipment are not economically sensible devises in anyway. I have bery good BD player from the last year that cost allmost 1000$, but it will be good at least next 4-5 years, so I am not worried. It will take at least 4-5 years until 4K content and price of 4K devices is suitable to most people, so when you really can afford to get these equipments in big scale, you have to buy new equipment in any way. In this year it is still best to buy common 1080p devices, even in the next year, then it may sensible to think what to do. In two years 4K devices are "affordable" if you are serious with your home entertainment devises, but you still are paying for premium in there.
These will replase old devices via normal way. I hope to get 4K TV in next two years, new super Bd-player (or what ever the 4K content is available) maybe in the next 5 years and new AV-preamplifier during the same time... It gives me a good time to enjoy those devices that I have at this moment... The only thing to worry is that my TV will broke down before that... Maybe some dirty cheap 1080p TV set for the time between... Who knows.

The thing that I am worried about is that HDMI 2.0 is not good enough for the same technology that was used in the Hobbit movie in the movie theathers... so we may need HDMI 3.0 guite soon.


RE: Yah!
By PrinceGaz on 9/5/2013 11:56:04 AM , Rating: 2
If you only spent $20 on cables for $2000 of connected hardware, you should seriously consider getting better cables.

Some people suggest around 10% of your total spend should be on cables in order to get the best overall quality from your system, so spending a couple of hundred dollars on some new cables would probably be the best way for you to spend your money first.

All those 1s and 0s going along those HDMI cables will arrive much better at the other end if they've been sent along a premium cable which was supplied packaged in a nice expensive box, rather than through some cheap bog-standard cable which might not even have had any sort of branded packaging at all!


RE: Yah!
By Ammohunt on 9/5/2013 1:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
High end HDMI cable being better are a myth my friend. My cable lengths are less that 6 ft as long as they have basic shielding and no large RF generating sources like an electric motor generic cables work great. Worst case i snap on a ferrite core on one end.


It's not 4K, it's Ultra HD
By thorr2 on 9/4/2013 4:51:58 PM , Rating: 1
As the link in the article points out, it is Ultra HD. 4K is a different format used by cinemas with a different aspect ratio and more resolution than Ultra HD.

Ultra HD is more than enough, but it is not the same as 4K.




RE: It's not 4K, it's Ultra HD
By Guspaz on 9/4/2013 5:33:29 PM , Rating: 3
Wrong. 4K is a resolution, UltraHD is a format. UltraHD, among other things like colour spaces and framerates, specifies allowable resolution, specifically 4K and 8K. These are typically referred to as 4K UHD and 8K UHD.

Both 3840x2160 and 4096x2160 are considered to be 4K resolutions, as are a variety of other resolutions that are roughly 4K pixels wide.


Questionto the author
By blueeyesm on 9/4/2013 12:10:45 PM , Rating: 3
What is Auto lip-see?

I've found Auto lip-sync mentioned all over, and associated to HDMI 2.0, not auto lip-see.




eh?
By Wily on 9/5/2013 3:56:52 AM , Rating: 2
What the hell is "auto lip-see"?




"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki