HDTV Forum

As a user-maintained "encyclopedia", Wikipedia cannot be relied upon for factual information.

I would trust Rodolfo's recent sources and research over anything Wikipedia has to say.

- Shane

Thanks Shane for your vote of confidence.

Richard:

Wikipedia makes this statement:

“3D Over HDMI (HDMI 1.3 devices will only support this for 1080i)[107]”

107 is:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/ ... r_All/4002,

Reference 107 is a very casual blog that does not discuss in depth a) HDMI spec vs. implemented functionality, b) restricted/fully compliant HDMI chips chosen/ordered by the manufacturer for the particular application of the device (that may not need to be made future proof for 3D for example), c) manufacturer implementation into the device which itself could be restricted/spec compliant/more feature suited, d) design for firmware upgradability (which is also dependant if the chip can accept it), etc.

One should not generalize “cannot handle” without writing exactly in what area “cannot handle”, and the content must indicate what can be done for it to “handle” what it says it does not.

Interestingly enough Wikipedia makes a reference to articles that I wrote for this magazine (ref 17), not the first time they did that.

One has a choice to use such casual generalization as a trusted source against information that comes directly from the companies in official meetings (that have been recorded in voice and text to produce reliable content). Or one can research more, contact the companies, meet the manufacturers, to make sure who has the complete picture.

I have already expressed the full detail of how to properly evaluate the alternatives of HDMI upgradability for 3D and the difference between specs vs. everything else manufacturers put on equipment in the form of software and hardware while still stamping the 1.3 label in their user manual, a practice HDMI LLC discourages because manufacturers must rather specify functionality in the device chosen from (or added to) the spec. That includes 4K, audio return channel, etc.

Conversely, a 1.4 label does not automatically mean that the device and chip supports Ethernet functionality, or that “by specification” it loses the connection when switching inputs if having such Ethernet functionality (like some have incorrectly published).

I also said that 3D compatibility and “handling” is not only about bandwidth, 1080i60 uses 2.2 Gbps in HDMI, 1080p60 (or 2x1080i60 / 2x1080p24 in 3D) doubles that requirement, for which the 4.95 Gbps of HDMI 1.0-1.2 SPEC suffices, 2x1080p60 in 3D doubles that again (if that is ever used by the implementations of 3D today) for which HDMI 1.3-4 still suffices with 10.2 Gbps. But again speed is not the only factor to evaluate 3D compatibility.

I reiterate my request to put the title of this thread as it was for the reasons I expressed. Otherwise please delete the thread.

Rodolfo La Maestra

The title has been changed...

Rodolfo,

As you say the information circulating is not accurate and I am a victim of that along with my own mis-perception. I stand corrected on HDMI 1.3 supporting a 1080p 120hz frame rate.

I also spoke with the same HDMI team today and they and 3D truly face an uphill battle. First problem is how HDMI liscencing works and as you point out no manufacturer is required to provide any specific feature of any version. As Steve pointed out, a manufacturer could buy 1.4 chipsets yet only support a max of 1080i if they desire. Steve also pointed out that as of January 2012, HDMI licencing will no longer allow manufacturers to state HDMI versions in their marketing materials; they must state feature for feature what their HDMI design will support instead, making the version number an internal design concern only based solely on which features the manufacturer intends to support. Some A/V receivers may be able to receive a firmware upgrade for 3D sources but the HDMI crew was clear that most consumers should expect to replace their A/V receiver along with that new 3D TV and 3D source. 3D is looking very expensive! That said, there are alternatives for the audio and we will tackle those questions as they arise.

My biggest hangup was over the 2Kx4K support and the parallel argument I was making for 3D and bandwidth. I certainly don’t consider Wiki infallible yet I have seen that comparison chart numerous times. Per Jeff, 1.3 can support 2Kx4K resolution but it is not part of the 1.3 specs so any interested manufacturer must apply for a 1.4 licence instead. If I understood correctly that manufacturer could implement 1.4 specs for 2Kx4K with a 1.3 chipset.

From your previous article on 1.3
-Maximum bandwidth increased from 165 MHz (4.95Gbps) to 340 MHz (10.2Gbps)

Per Jeff the specification does not reflect actual production or product capability and instead this spec reflects possible future design. The vast majority of 1.3 chip sets are limited to 225mhz, and some recently are hitting 300Mhz.

This has certainly been educational.

Richard,

Below are two links from the same company (Insight Media) that confirm the information I provided since day one. They obviously contacted HDMI when I made them aware of their mistake about their claim of HDMI 1.3 bandwidth limitations for 3D, which also extends to an error on Chris WSR article printed in Oct 09, which you referred to challenge me, which I hope they also print an erratum.

In other words, I was right all the time and Wikipedia should read my articles carefully if they use them as reference (ref 17). I published that about 4 years ago, it should not take much for Wikipedia to read it or contact HDMI directly before spreading incorrect information, which many use as the last word.

The content in Wikipedia may be used only as ”one” source of information, but because is as weak as the knowledge of their casual writers, more research from reliable sources must be performed if the information is to be used for a publication like ours, matching the comments from Shane.

Here is the link from Insight Media that incorrectly issues the bandwidth limitation of 1.3 for 3D:

http://displaydaily.com/2010/02/08/hdmi ... to-public/

Their publication is very professional and they are the center point of information for the 3D@Home Consortium, an organization that is key for the success of 3D for consumers. I promised to Chris my help on my last meeting at CES with them, and I felt an obligation to contact the author privately to make him aware, which I did the day it was published. Chris article in WSR (the one you quoted) has the same error, I imagine because the data was sourced from their same knowledge base:

Below is the link to today’s article from Insight Media that issues an update to correct the error above:

http://displaydaily.com/2010/02/22/are- ... ty-status/


It now matches what I have been saying all along, I am glad they did that, this is the way to professionally deal with an error, and I hope WSR does the same, and knowing Gary Reber he would if he is informed of the error by Chris, because WSR is one of the few consumer publications that still survives to properly educate the consumer with trusted information, we are another one; unfortunately you used it to challenge me, but my knowledge on the subject was proven to be better, as you finally admitted:

Here is a quote of their correction:
----------------
Update: Our Feb. 6 Display Daily article on the HDMI 3D spec had stated that HDMI 1.3 did not provide the bandwidth needed to handle two 1080p pictures at 60fps. In fact, at 10.2 Gbps, 1.3 already had sufficient bandwidth to carry that much video, but did not provide the format and signaling needed to carry 3D pictures. Many 1.3 transceivers can be firmware upgraded with this signaling support, which is included in the 1.4 version, together with format support for 4k D-Cinema. Look for additional information in the 1.4a update slated for release in the near future.
-----------------

This ordeal was not helpful for our image, but I want our readers to be reassured that the information I publish in this magazine, my books, and other publications can be trusted.

Rodolfo La Maestra

Some A/V receivers, tv's and Blu Ray players claim they have 1.4a spec HDMI connections with some A/V receivers claiming 3D pass through capabilities. Besides the price difference, why not purchase 1.4a cables no matter what current equipment you have so you future proof yourself if you upgrade to the newer devices?

First of all, I am not sure why this 8-months old thread was revived when no new posts reopened it (other than yours Ronnie now, after it was revived yesterday).

Regarding your suggestion of future proof by buying the latest HDMI hi-speed cables, although it may give the feeling of killing the obsolescence monster, it may buy only one more short-cycle before the monster strikes back at you making your audio/video system obsolete once again for some new feature in the content or the electronics down the road.

The cable quality debate will go forever, is a subject that is a) somehow listened by some (and then generally buy better than rock-bottom HDMI cables), b) very important for others (as important as an equipment component, analog or digital, specially in long lenghts for in-wall, and count me in on that one), and c) produces reactions on many consumers of the kind of: “who-cares-is just-a-cable,-I-am-heading to Home-Depot-and-make-my-own”.

Considering than most consumers maybe on the (a) and (c) group, the investment they make in cable is generally minor relative to the cost of equipment components, therefore, obsolescence due to 3D protocols on some HDMI versions will produce more economic impact on the equipment than on the cables that connects them, which could be replaced with less economic hardship in that consumer group.

However, if the 10.2 Gbps speed handling of the HDMI 1.3/1.4 is not enough future proof for you, you may want to look at some of the super-high-speed Monster cables. They “claim” to handle even higher speeds:

http://www.monstercable.com/HDMI/lineli ... .asp?CAT=1

which I expect they will not be on a red tag sale at Home-Depot close the nails and screws.

This is the Monster disclaimer for some cables: ”If the components you own ever demand more bandwidth than your Monster cable can deliver, Monster will replace it with a new, higher bandwidth cable”.

How does it sound to you that an HDMI upgrade of a high-end pre-amp/processor is charged by Theta at around $12,000 when the processor itself cost me $15,000? Good luck in beating obsolescence in consumer electronics.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra