Samsung LCD UN46B7000 3D - HDMI 1.3 question

HDMI 1.4 won't be readily available until late this year due lack of supply. This is more of a frame issue than anything and I'm not sure when those 60 frames of 3D will arrive. Till then Blu-ray will be at 48 right/left frames for a 24 frame final and your display will handle the page processing instead creating 120 frames from the original without loss. HDMI 1.3 goes out to 60 frames 1080p and can clearly handle that.

BTW, same goes for broadcast HD due to bandwidth limitations. That cuts the information to each eye in half and viola, you have about the same amount of info.

Thanks for the help, do you think this set will handle to the new espn 3d channel and other 3d channels ok!

yep

Wkward83,

Your question is valid, unfortunately, the information that is circulating is not accurate, and when it is incomplete, it creates more confusion. However, the completed story of HDMI for 3D is very complicated, mainly because it does not depend on the spec alone.

By the way, the TV you mentioned does not specify that is 3D capable on Samsung’s website.

http://www.samsung.com/us/consumer/tv-v ... l&tab=spec

That is a requirement to view 3D regardless if it has HDMI 1.3, and regardless if DirecTV can upgrade their 1.3 boxes to transport ESPN 3D over existing bandwidth.

So the answer to your specific question is actually: your TV can not handle either, but not because 1.3.

However, even if your TV were to be a 3D capable with HDMI 1.3, there are still many conditions surrounding the “could or could not” handle 3D from certain sources.

3D over HDMI is not only about bandwidth, it is also about having the correct 3D protocol/language for the TV to understand the player/set-top-box regarding the 3D format/structure used in the handshake. Not to mention how much complex it gets when you add an A/V receiver in between and the receiver manipulates the HDMI signal.

Please consult the following article series where I cover the subject of HDMI for 3D from many angles:

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/20 ... part_1.php

The manufacturer of a 3DTV could have designed the hardware (and chosen specific HDMI chips) to be software upgradeable to receive the protocol updates applicable to other 3D formats/structures, such as “over/under” of ESPN and DirecTV, which would be included in the 1.4a spec of HDMI coming soon. However, manufacturers can software-upgrade what they want even on 1.3 if they made their equipment capable to do so.

The bandwidth of even the HDMI 1.0 “SPEC” (4.95 Gbps) is sufficient for 2x1080p24 (3D film) or 2x1080i60 (3D video) coming from a 3D Blu-ray player. However, if the video signal is deinterlaced by the player as 2x1080p60 (3D video) the bandwidth required would double up and at least HDMI 1.3 “SPEC” (10.2 Gbps) would be required. Notice I highlighted “SPEC”.

Again, bandwidth is only part of the requirements for 3D. 3D protocols/language for interoperability is another part, and manufacturer design for HDMI and equipment is the other one, they could have implemented the 1.3 version with just the capabilities the TV needed at that time to keep the price down. A few cents of savings on a limited HDMI chip for example could be reason enough for the hardware to be incapable to be upgraded to other functionality, 3D and otherwise.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

Sorry the model number for the tv that I was meaning to ask about is the UN46C7000, not the b model, thanks.

That set is 3D capable.

Here is the PR from Samsung that confirms your question, without even mentioning the HDMI version:
------------------
New in 2010, this year’s premium models in the LED TV lineup, the 7000, 8000 and 9000, all include Samsung’s proprietary built-in 3D processor and emitter that is optimized for, and enables compatibility with multiple 3D standards including half and full HD resolution formats as well as the Blu-ray Disc Association approved “Blu-ray 3D” standard. In addition, Samsung’s 3D system delivers a picture using a full color spectrum for an unbelievable, immersive viewing experience.
---------------------

As I mentioned on my previous post, HDMI versions and software implementations by manufacturers run two parallel paths.

The set maybe released with 1.3 (the 8000 claims 1.4 though), and have already, or be upgradable to, the 3D protocols for full (3D Blu-ray) and half (cable and satellite, DirecTV with ESPN, etc), like with many other 3D products. The bandwidth of 1.3 is the same as 1.4.

2010 will bring many products that will have 1.3 and 1.4. A manufacturer can implement features on a 1.2 product that are more complete than another product that claims 1.3, HDMI LLC does not mandate full implementation of all the features of each spec, nor deters a manufacturer to implement features from a higher spec on the installed chip, which may have an earlier HDMI version. One example is the Ethernet feature of 1.4 that many products claiming 1.4 may not implement.

A manufacturer does not even have to request authorization from HDMI LLC to do that.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

Corrected the model number for this post...

Full left/right eye 1080p at a frame rate of 60 when summed is actually 120 frames of 1080p information which HDMI 1.3 can’t handle but HDMI 1.4 can. In the October 2009 issue of Widescreen Review is an article titled “Is 3D Ready For The Home?”, and Chris Chinnock specifically addressed this topic of HDMI bandwidth for 3D at 60 frames.

As noted in the specs, HDMI 1.4 can handle a 2Kx4K image (which 1.3 cannot) paralleling 1080p 60 frame 3D bandwidth requirements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_1.4

I have very reason to suspect that if you purchase a 3D ready TV and 3D ready Blu-player you will get 3D images if connected directly to the display (current Mitsubishi 3D DLP will require an adapter now but 2010-2011 season models released about August 2010 might not).

I can’t speak for the rest, concerning the inclusion of 3D standards and the possible requirement of firmware upgrades for past and current HDMI versions. Rodolfo has received information that the future could be quite messy and frustrating implementing 3D technology in existing systems due to compatibility issues such as HDMI pass through on the HDMI equipped A/V receivers we all bought over the last 2-3 years. If that pans out to be true, the 3D revolution will be about as effective as a one legged man in a butt kicking contest.

Richard,

By correcting the model # on the title of the thread it would make my first response automatically incorrect (my statement that this TV is “not” 3D capable), and your response of “yes” automatically correct. The title of the original question must be kept to maintain consistency with the responses and the integrity of the content.

Regarding HDMI, I was careful to differentiate between specs, chip implementations, and manufacturer designs. When you meant 1.3 cannot “handle” 3D the statement implies that the spec is not capable and that a 1.3 chip/equipment implementation cannot be upgraded to the requirements of 3D, which as I said before: they can if they were designed that way.

I also said that HDMI 1.3 and 1.4 “specs” have the same bandwidth capacity (10.2 Gbps) and a chip/device designed without restricting those specs would be sufficient to carry 3D on half frame and full frame, for which even the bandwidth of the 1.0-1.2 spec would suffice.

If a manufacturer produced a device that has a 1.3 HDMI chip not restricted in bandwidth, and was designed to be firmware upgradable it is possible to have that device handle 3D, and other software related functionality, including higher resolution.

The article you provided was written by Chris Chinnock, president of Insight Media. We were both at CES’s 3D@HomeConsortium meeting with manufacturers, and we also crossed emails last week about his company claiming that 1.3 “SPEC” does not have enough bandwidth for 3D, when it actually does.

From my meetings and interviews with HDMI president Steve Venutti and Jeff Park they both confirmed that the 1.3 spec would even be sufficient for the 2x1080p60 of 3D if that was needed, but it is unlikely that any device would need to output or input that resolution today because the content is either 1080i60 or 1080p24 2D or 3D, and there is no reason for a 3D blu-ray player to upconvert a 2x1080i60 to a 2x1080p60 and demand doubling the transport capacity to accomodate for the higher resolution. But if it was needed the “spec” had the bandwidth to do it.

Chris article also mentions that “1.4 offers bit rate support of up to 100 Mbps”, I am not sure what he meant but, again, the bit rate is supported up to 10.2 Gbps, and the spec was also designed to go even higher than that.

I asked HDMI and Chris to address the matter directly, but I told Chris that the 1.3 spec has sufficient bandwidth for 3D, and that the issue was mainly the 3D protocols/language on the chip/devices, if they were designed to be firmware upgradable, as Cablelabs and cable companies are doing for the cable industry to accommodate 3D frame compatible over their legacy set-top-boxes.

Rodolfo La Maestra

As noted in the specs, HDMI 1.4 can handle a 2Kx4K image (which 1.3 cannot) paralleling 1080p 60 frame 3D bandwidth requirements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_1.4

Is Wiki wrong? I look forward to your explanation.

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