HDMI connections

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

Ok regarding the 3D Blu-Ray player, would a standard HDMI cable work or do I need a high-speed cable / high-speed with Ethernet?

I ask because the website says "A 3D-capable HDMI cable"

You need High Speed for 1080p, 3D, and 4K. You need High Speed with Ethernet if you also need Ethernet.


Standard HDMI cables are only certified to handle 720p and 1080i.


Many manufacturers and retailers mistakenly market High Speed cables as being "v1.4" (and previously as "v1.3"), but the version is actually meant for the interface not the cable. A so-called v1.3 cable would be just as good for 3D as a so-called v1.4 cable, as both would likely actually just be High Speed cables (and the actual bandwidth for v1.4 is the same as for v1.3).

---------- Post added at 13:33 ---------- Previous post was at 13:24 ----------

See these links:

http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/buying_guide.aspx

http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/finding_right_cable.aspx

http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/faq.aspx

[qasdfdsaq]

All HDMI cables including those made to the original 1.0 spec support 1080p and above. Hell, all HDMI cables support 1080p at 60hz or dual-1080p/3D.

There are no HDMI cables whatsoever that are only able to "handle" 720p and 1080i, except faulty ones.

Ignore all the marketing buzz and propaganda purely designed to make you waste money...

[Qtx]

For the price difference it is worth paying the extra quid or two for a 1.4a/b or 2.0 HDMI cable as it gives you scope to upgrade your equipment in the future without upgrading your cables.

1.4a has ARC/Audio Return Channel which allows digital sound to be sent through the HDMI cable rather than a separate optical cable, which is handy if you add an AV receiver to your setup. 1.4a is also good enough to handle the new UltraHD/4k tv's that are just coming out, although only at up to 30 frames per second which is ok for films but not broadcast tv or 4k gaming consoles but they are some way off still. You would need HDMI 2 cables to support those.

Some of the older HDMI also don't support CEC which many products now support under various names. It's what allows your tv remote to also control your dvd/blueray player and other devices that support it. For LG it's called Simplink, Sony call it Bravia Link Control, Samsung call it AnyNet+ etc. I can use my tv remote to control my Onkyo and XBMC on the Pi and it was handy until I got the Harmony remote.

I recently got these 2.0 cables in a few lengths (seems i'm always adding more HDMI devices around the house!) and not only do they look good they also have a decent build quality. Future proof too.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

All HDMI cables including those made to the original 1.0 spec support 1080p and above. Hell, all HDMI cables support 1080p at 60hz or dual-1080p/3D.

There are no HDMI cables whatsoever that are only able to "handle" 720p and 1080i, except faulty ones.

Ignore all the marketing buzz and propaganda purely designed to make you waste money...

Standard cables may well be support 1080p etc., but they have not been tested and certified to do so.

But you don't need to waste money to buy High Speed cables - you can buy High Speed cables, with or without Ethernet, for just a few quid on Amazon. Buying High Speed cables does not require unnecessarily spending stupid amounts of money on Monster or Sandstrom cables.

Originally Posted by Qtx

For the price difference it is worth paying the extra quid or two for a 1.4a/b or 2.0 HDMI cable as it gives you scope to upgrade your equipment in the future without upgrading your cables.

1.4a has ARC/Audio Return Channel which allows digital sound to be sent through the HDMI cable rather than a separate optical cable, which is handy if you add an AV receiver to your setup. 1.4a is also good enough to handle the new UltraHD/4k tv's that are just coming out, although only at up to 30 frames per second which is ok for films but not broadcast tv or 4k gaming consoles but they are some way off still. You would need HDMI 2 cables to support those.

Some of the older HDMI also don't support CEC which many products now support under various names. It's what allows your tv remote to also control your dvd/blueray player and other devices that support it. For LG it's called Simplink, Sony call it Bravia Link Control, Samsung call it AnyNet+ etc. I can use my tv remote to control my Onkyo and XBMC on the Pi and it was handy until I got the Harmony remote.

I recently got these 2.0 cables in a few lengths (seems i'm always adding more HDMI devices around the house!) and not only do they look good they also have a decent build quality. Future proof too.

The version is the interface version, not the cable version.

Cables are Standard, with or without Ethernet, and High Speed, with or without Ethernet.

Any co-called "1.3" cable would quite happily work with 3D and 4K just as well as a so-called "1.4" cable as they would both actually just be High Speed cables.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by Matt D

The version is the interface version, not the cable version.

Cables are Standard, with or without Ethernet, and High Speed, with or without Ethernet.

Any co-called "1.3" cable would quite happily work with 3D and 4K just as well as a so-called "1.4" cable as they would both actually just be High Speed cables.

With some of my HDMI cables CEC would not work between some devices until I replaced them with newer ones, so assumed it was the same for ARC which was supported from V1.4. It makes sense for the interface to be the one that supports it like you say, but experience of the actual cables has shown that not all cables are the same. Pretty sure the ARC is a dedicated wire on the cable too, which only got introduced later in the spec.

As for the higher bandwidth of HDMI v2, is that all done at the interface too or do you need a certain quality of cable to ensure it works? It's entirely possible for a cheap cable to have problems with 1080p while not having problems with 1080i although I am not sure of the reason for this. 4k tv would need at least 4 times the bandwidth of a normal stream and I guess it would depend on the quality of materials used in the cable as to if it would struggle or not?

I'm not one for buying expensive HDMI cables as digital signal is the same from end to end so buying a £20+ cable is pointless. The really cheaply made ones can have problems with the signal but it's more likely to have a fault along the cable as it gets moved or have problems with the connection plug as it ages.

I assumed the ones sold as HDMI v1.4 or 2 have been tested or certified to work at that speed, compared to another one that is sold as v1.1. Going by what you have said there is nothing stopping someone who has been selling a HDMI 1.1 for donkeys years could change the description of it to be a HDMI 2 cable.

[Tezcatlipoca]

ARC is a feature introduced with interface v1.4.

You do not need an "HDMI cable with ARC", for example - you need the devices at each end to have ARC.

From HDMI.org itself:

http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/arc.aspx

All HDMI cables will support Audio Return Channel functionality when connected to Audio Return Channel-enabled devices. You can use your existing HDMI cables or choose a different cable type.

http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/finding_right_cable.aspx

As before, the official specification says that there are two main types of cable - Standard and High Speed - and each of those can be found with or without Ethernet.

Standard cables are certified for 720p and 1080i, High Speed cables are certified for 1080p, 3D, 4K, etc.

Yes, as qasdfdsaq pointed out that does not necessarily mean that only High Speed cables can "handle" 1080p, but as I said in my original post it is what each type is certified to "handle".

Some Standard cables may well be able to do 1080p etc., but they were not tested and certified to do so, while there will other Standard cables that could be of sufficiently poor quality that they really can only do 1080i and not 1080p (as with where you say some cheap cables may have problems with 1080p but not 1080i).

So, I would always go for High Speed, to make sure.


As for bandwidth...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_comparison

The max. bandwidth of interface v1.3 and v1.4 is the same (10.2Gbps), even though v1.4 adds additional 3D support, 4K@30, etc.

Interface v2.0, which adds 4K@50/60 etc., has a higher max. bandwidth of 18Gbps... yet *still* works with High Speed cables.

http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_2_0/

http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdm...i_2_0_faq.aspx

Can existing HDMI cables support the higher bandwidths of HDMI 2.0 Specification?

Yes, existing High Speed HDMI Cables (wire only) will support the new higher bandwidths (up to 18Gbps).

HDMI 2.0 specification defined a new, more efficient signaling method, for speeds above 1.4b limits (10.2Gbps), to allow higher bandwidths (up to 18Gbps) over existing High Speed HDMI Wire Cables.

...

Does HDMI 2.0 require new cables?

No, HDMI 2.0 features will work with existing HDMI cables. Higher bandwidth features, such as 4K@50/60 (2160p) video formats, will require existing High Speed HDMI cables (Category 2 cables).

[Qtx]

Some good info there

Had a further look at the CEC issue, which I know for a fact doesn't work on certain cables, and came across the image on this page: http://www.hdmi.org/installers/insidehdmicable.aspx

So my guess is some cheaper or older cables simply don't bother having the CEC part of the cable either save money or the HDMI spec back did not require it. If it was a spare pin on the connector until CEC came along, then I can see why they thought it was pointless to add that strand. It does show that HDMI cables can be different though.

[Hom3r]

I plugged on a Cable which I believe has Ethernet, and not only does it play 3D, but when I turn off the TV it also turns off the 3D Blu-Ray as well.

Now to buy a few 3D films

2 more tiltes to hit 830 DVD/Blu-Ray titles.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

I plugged on a Cable which I believe has Ethernet, and not only does it play 3D, but when I turn off the TV it also turns off the 3D Blu-Ray as well.

Glad to hear it. The CEC I was talking about is usually what turns off the other connected equipment

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Qtx

Some good info there

Cheers

Originally Posted by Qtx

Had a further look at the CEC issue, which I know for a fact doesn't work on certain cables, and came across the image on this page: http://www.hdmi.org/installers/insidehdmicable.aspx

So my guess is some cheaper or older cables simply don't bother having the CEC part of the cable either save money or the HDMI spec back did not require it. If it was a spare pin on the connector until CEC came along, then I can see why they thought it was pointless to add that strand. It does show that HDMI cables can be different though.

Interesting. It is strange that it wouldn't work with some cables.

Originally Posted by Hom3r

I plugged on a Cable which I believe has Ethernet, and not only does it play 3D, but when I turn off the TV it also turns off the 3D Blu-Ray as well.

Now to buy a few 3D films

2 more tiltes to hit 830 DVD/Blu-Ray titles.

You need Gravity on 3D BD if you don't already have it. The best use of 3D I've seen (and I generally hate 3D films).

Pacific Rim and Prometheus also look great in 3D, and DREDD actually uses it quite well.

I was tempted by Avatar on 3D BD, but you can only buy the theatrical cut in 3D, which IMO is not as good as the extended one.

I still tend to buy 2D BDs most of the time, as I feel that most 3D versions of films are pointless cash-ins (e.g. with the recent cinema release of X-Men: Days of Future Past the 3D is *utterly pointless*).

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by Matt D

Cheers



Interesting. It is strange that it wouldn't work with some cables.




You need Gravity on 3D BD if you don't already have it. The best use of 3D I've seen (and I generally hate 3D films).

Pacific Rim and Prometheus also look great in 3D, and DREDD actually uses it quite well.

I was tempted by Avatar on 3D BD, but you can only buy the theatrical cut in 3D, which IMO is not as good as the extended one.

I still tend to buy 2D BDs most of the time, as I feel that most 3D versions of films are pointless cash-ins (e.g. with the recent cinema release of X-Men: Days of Future Past the 3D is *utterly pointless*).

I have Gravity, Pacific Rim & Prometheus on Blu-Ray, but not 3D, but i will favour 3D films from now.

[Tezcatlipoca]

I wouldn't bother with 3D for everything - it really is a waste of time on many films, IMO.

But on some, it's stunning. If you don't mind "double dipping", I'd recommend re-buying Gravity on 3D BD, and perhaps also Pacific Rim.

I actually watched Pacific Rim on 3D BD this afternoon - bloody awesome!

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Matt D

Standard cables may well be support 1080p etc., but they have not been tested and certified to do so.

Er, yes they have. If they don't support 1080p then they are not a HDMI cable.

But you don't need to waste money to buy High Speed cables - you can buy High Speed cables, with or without Ethernet, for just a few quid on Amazon. Buying High Speed cables does not require unnecessarily spending stupid amounts of money on Monster or Sandstrom cables.

Paying a few quid more for something that does nothing more is the definition of wasting money.

---------- Post added at 02:22 ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Qtx

Some good info there

Except that it's wrong.

Had a further look at the CEC issue, which I know for a fact doesn't work on certain cables, and came across the image on this page: http://www.hdmi.org/installers/insidehdmicable.aspx

So my guess is some cheaper or older cables simply don't bother having the CEC part of the cable either save money or the HDMI spec back did not require it. If it was a spare pin on the connector until CEC came along, then I can see why they thought it was pointless to add that strand. It does show that HDMI cables can be different though.

CEC was introduced in HDMI 1.0 and mandatory in all cables, so there was never a time "before CEC came along". Though before it became popular it's quite possible cheap manufacturers copped out and skimped on the wiring. Same as 8 conductors are mandatory on a UTP ethernet cable but until gigabit became popular lots of cheap manufacturers made cables with just 4 conductors.

---------- Post added at 02:26 ---------- Previous post was at 02:22 ----------

I assumed the ones sold as HDMI v1.4 or 2 have been tested or certified to work at that speed, compared to another one that is sold as v1.1. Going by what you have said there is nothing stopping someone who has been selling a HDMI 1.1 for donkeys years could change the description of it to be a HDMI 2 cable.

Most marketing claims relating to HDMI are bogus anyhow.
See http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articl...dmi-cables.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_comparison

Cables are basically certified to a given bandwidth (75Mhz, 165Mhz, 340Mhz) much the same as the Ethernet cable categories. And just like the ethernet cable categories the certification is purely about raw bandwidth and doesn't care what protocol or data rate you put over the cable, and just like the Ethernet ratings the categories while widely misinterpreted to mean certain "modes" don't actually and aren't supposed to fit in with any mode.

[Tezcatlipoca]

What's wrong about it?

It comes straight from the HDMI website.

It's the official word on how cables are classified.

Standard cables are only tested and certified for the bandwidth necessary for 720p and 1080i. They are *still* HDMI cables, and yet they have not been certified for the higher bandwidth needed for the higher resolutions.

High Speed cables are tested and certified for the bandwidth necessary for 1080p and beyond.

The links you give in your post give the same information, with your second link (Wikipedia) using HDMI.org itself as a source.

[qasdfdsaq]

No. The HDMI website clearly says standard and high speed cables are bandwidth certified to 75 and 340Mhz and nothing certified for any resolutions or frame rates.

The bandwidth to which standard speed cables are tested and certified is completely sufficient for 1080p if you actually read the specifications. All HDMI cables that pass any certification (standard or otherwise) have sufficient bandwidth for virtually all 1080p content.

Because, funny enough, the 720p "certification" is for 720p60 and the 1080i "certification" for 1080i60. Both of which have exactly the same bandwidth requirements as 1080p30. Which virtually all 1080p content currently available comes under. There is no "bandwidth necessary for 1080p and beyond", 1080p30 does not require more bandwidth than 1080i60 or 720p60.

It seems that you, too, have fallen for the marketing shenanigans rather than facts, read more deeply in to their page and you see:

Q. What is the difference between a “Standard” HDMI cable and a “High-Speed” HDMI cable?

Recently, HDMI Licensing, LLC announced that cables would be tested as Standard or High-Speed cables.

• Standard (or “category 1”) HDMI cables have been tested to perform at speeds of 75Mhz or up to 2.25Gbps, which is the equivalent of a 720p/1080i signal.
• High Speed (or “category 2”) HDMI cables have been tested to perform at speeds of 340Mhz or up to 10.2Gbps, which is the highest bandwidth currently available over an HDMI cable and can successfully handle 1080p signals including those at increased color depths and/or increased refresh rates from the Source. High-Speed cables are also able to accommodate higher resolution displays, such as WQXGA cinema monitors (resolution of 2560 x 1600).

Now they say "the equivalent of a 720p/1080i signal" but deliberately neglect to mention that a 1080p30 signal is... exactly the same. The interesting part here is not what they say but what they don't say. Note very carefully that they don't say Standard cables can only handle 720p/1080i. Nor do they say the cables are certified for "720p/1080i". This omission is very telling.

Also note carefully that they never say a "high speed" cable is required or certified for 1080p but rather say it can handle 1080p "at increased color depths and/or increased refresh rates". Not that it is needed to handle a 1080p signal at all.

It is worded very carefully to give the impression that a high speed cable is required for 1080p by tactfully leaving out the fact that the vast majority of 1080p content has the exact same bandwidth requirements as the "equivalent to 720p/1080i" they are referring to, and fits perfectly fine in the standard cable certification requirements.