Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics Communications Television Entertainment

HDMI 2.1 Is Here With 10K and Dynamic HDR Support (engadget.com) 176

Swapna Krishna reports via Engadget: Back in January, the HDMI Forum unveiled its new specifications for the HDMI connector, called HDMI 2.1. Now, that HDMI specification is available to all HDMI 2.0 adopters. It's backwards compatible with all previous HDMI specifications. The focus of HDMI 2.1 is on higher video bandwidth; it supports 48 GB per second with a new backwards-compatible ultra high speed HDMI cable. It also supports faster refresh rates for high video resolution -- 60 Hz for 8K and 120 Hz for 4K. The standard also supports Dynamic HDR and resolutions up to 10K for commercial and specialty use. This new version of the HDMI specification also introduces an enhanced refresh rate that gamers will appreciate. VRR, or Variable Refresh Rate, reduces, or in some cases eliminates, lag for smoother gameplay, while Quick Frame Transport (QFT) reduces latency. Quick Media Switching, or QMS, reduces the amount of blank-screen wait time while switching media. HDMI 2.1 also includes Auto Low Latency Mode (ALLM), which automatically sets the ideal latency for the smoothest viewing experience.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HDMI 2.1 Is Here With 10K and Dynamic HDR Support

Comments Filter:
  • Why celebrate? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DaMattster ( 977781 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @08:11AM (#55642913)
    Sure, I like innovation but most television providers still deliver their content at 720p. The Verizon FiOS install guy quietly admitted to Verizon only offering HD content at 720p. Why in the sam hill would I pony up the money for a 10K TV when content is nowhere near ready.
    • Celebrate because: (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BESTouff ( 531293 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @08:27AM (#55642991)
      Celebrate, celebrate my friend ! This will enable 10K consumer TVs which I can buy for 500€ and use as my main monitor for opening 10 terminals (or whatever) simultaneously.
    • Sure, I like innovation but most television providers still deliver their content at 720p. The Verizon FiOS install guy quietly admitted to Verizon only offering HD content at 720p. Why in the sam hill would I pony up the money for a 10K TV when content is nowhere near ready.

      Which is a pity for those who consume through that archaic model. There's all sorts of alternative methods of consuming media and many offer 4k content, for far cheaper than cable. That said, HDMI 2.1 has as much to do with cable TV and TV resolution as USB2 or 3 does.

      I assume that, if you're asking why you would pony for a 10k TV, you either don't fall into the commercial category, or you didn't RTFS? I'm assuming the latter because you completely glazed over all of the other benefits.

    • by Ed Avis ( 5917 )
      You can get Netflix and Amazon Video in 4k now, if you pay for it. It does chew up bandwidth though.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      8k test broadcasts have already started in Japan. They will be broadcasting the 2020 Tokyo Olympics in 8k, although it sounds like Verizon might down-sample to 720p for you.

      Strange that the free market wouldn't provide you with a higher quality stream... But there is always The Pirate Bay for 4k content.

    • Re:Why celebrate? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by msauve ( 701917 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @09:00AM (#55643145)
      There's 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray. You can get 4K via Netflix, Amazon and Youtube. I get a lot of cable channels (Charter) at 1080i, which is the native format for many channels. Most providers use 1080i. It's the distributors (e.g. Verizon FIOS, Comcast) who downscale that to 720p.

      Instead of asking why you would want a TV better than 720p, you should be asking why you're sticking with a distributor who reduces the quality of the content provided.
    • What is this television provider thing you're talking about and what does it have to do with the amount of 4K content available from Netflix, Youtube or this antiquated thing called Bluray.

      Was television some kind of a predecessor to all of these?

    • You wouldn’t, but that’s sorta like asking why we bother adding lanes to highways when they already have enough lanes to cover today’s needs. We add them because we need to be ready to handle tomorrow’s needs.

      These sorts of specs are the roads tomorrow’s content will be driving on, so if we ever want better content, we need to keep pushing out the means by which we’d enjoy it. And, frankly, while it sounds like Verizon is screwing you over (a shock, I’m sure), there

      • by green1 ( 322787 )

        You wouldn’t, but that’s sorta like asking why we bother adding lanes to highways when they already have enough lanes to cover today’s needs. We add them because we need to be ready to handle tomorrow’s needs.

        What strange place is this that you live in?

        Where I live the roads are slowly being upgraded to handle the traffic from 20 years ago, instead of the traffic from 50 years ago. Nobody is talking about upgrading them to accommodate CURRENT traffic, let alone FUTURE traffic! (and if you find a place that is capable of handling current traffic, you can guarantee that they will implement "traffic calming" measures and either reduce the number of lanes of traffic, reduce the speed of traffic, or implement additio

    • Cable and OTA are not the only sources of content. In fact, the trend is away from those as sources. When 4k was released, people made the same complaints... now there are UHD 4k Blu-Ray disks, streaming services, and even game consoles.

    • by Bengie ( 1121981 )
      My ISP offers 1080p for most "HD" channels. Not that TV matters much anymore. I get most of my video media from the Internet, which offers 4k in many situations.
    • Sure, I like innovation but most television providers still deliver their content at 720p.

      And even worse - far worse, IMHO - most so-called "720p displays" have resolutions of 1366Ã--768, thus eliminating pixel-for-pixel clarity unless you have a setting to disable "zoom" (yeah, I understand the industry's need for a vertical rez compatible with legacy standards...).

    • by vadim_t ( 324782 )

      It's going to be great for VR.

      The Oculus Rift CV1 is neat, but still suffers from low resolution. If a 4K headset was available, I would buy it right this minute. The problem is that it would have to be 4K at 90 FPS, which this development solves.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    ...will it run Linux?

  • by chill ( 34294 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @08:26AM (#55642987) Journal

    ...with a new backwards-compatible ultra high speed HDMI cable...

    That sounds like an ad for one of those $200 directional Monster cables. Or $10,000 AudioQuest Ethernet [hothardware.com] cables.

  • Does it required the connectors to be gold-plated for faster throughput?

    • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @08:46AM (#55643061)

      Does it required the connectors to be gold-plated for faster throughput?

      No, there's a new precious metal used these days to maximize the speed of marketing throughput.

      They call it "bitcoin".

    • Gold plating on cable connectors isn't all that expensive even with the current cost of gold (so don't pay a huge premium for it anyway). Having a non-corroding metal is still useful if you want it to last a long time - especially in a bit harsher of an environment.

      • Gold plating costs (Score:5, Informative)

        by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @10:19AM (#55643565)

        Gold plating on cable connectors isn't all that expensive even with the current cost of gold

        Disclosure. I am the general manager of a company that manufactures custom wire harnesses for my day job. I buy terminals and connectors daily.

        First a bit of pedantry. Connectors are assemblies typically consisting of a housing, some sort of contact and sometimes some locks or seals. Gold plating goes on the contact portion of the assembly, typically a terminal or insulation displacement contact. So saying "gold plated connector" is a bit of a non-sequitur although I understand what you mean.

        When you are talking about gold plating a contact the price difference between a gold plated version and a tin or bronze or copper version typically is close to an order of magnitude. If I use a contact that would cost $0.01 in a tin version, the gold plate version will typically cost $0.07-0.10 each. Basically move the decimal point. Now this might be a relatively small cost in the overall cost of the cable assembly but it definitely isn't cheap on a component cost basis.

        99.99% of the time that gold plated contacts are specified they are a complete waste of money that provides zero marginal utility to the customer. There are applications where gold is the proper material but these applications are uncommon. The vast majority of the time gold is used it is purely for marketing value to unaware consumers. It works fine but its an unnecessary extra cost most of the time.

        • by green1 ( 322787 )

          First a bit of pedantry. Connectors are assemblies typically consisting of a housing, some sort of contact and sometimes some locks or seals. Gold plating goes on the contact portion of the assembly, typically a terminal or insulation displacement contact. So saying "gold plated connector" is a bit of a non-sequitur although I understand what you mean.

          So you understood what he meant, I understood what he meant, everyone understood what he meant, he used common language terms that everyone uses, and yet you criticized him for it? This is what makes dealing with some specialists (like yourself) so much harder than it has any need to be. If a reasonable person can understand what the average person needs, then you should be able to just interpret it and not need the dick waving contest of trying to prove that you know more than he does.

          When you are talking about gold plating a contact the price difference between a gold plated version and a tin or bronze or copper version typically is close to an order of magnitude. If I use a contact that would cost $0.01 in a tin version, the gold plate version will typically cost $0.07-0.10 each. Basically move the decimal point. Now this might be a relatively small cost in the overall cost of the cable assembly but it definitely isn't cheap on a component cost basis.

          As the average person

          • So you understood what he meant, I understood what he meant, everyone understood what he meant, he used common language terms that everyone uses, and yet you criticized him for it?

            I didn't criticize him, I corrected his terminology and hopefully educated in the process. By your userID number you've been here long enough to know that if you say something technically inaccurate someone will correct you. It's happened to me too and I learn things when it happens. Just because lay people commonly say something incorrect does not in the world of engineering make it correct. Just because people commonly refer to concrete as cement does not mean that they are the same thing. Concrete i

        • by Bengie ( 1121981 )
          I've seen non-gold coax cables bind to the other receptacle and contacts tear off because they were not gold plated and were two different metals, like tin and copper. Gold works as a great in-between that keeps my items from binding.
          • by sjbe ( 173966 )

            I've seen non-gold coax cables bind to the other receptacle and contacts tear off because they were not gold plated and were two different metals, like tin and copper. Gold works as a great in-between that keeps my items from binding.

            Not arguing that there aren't applications for gold plating. There certainly are. Most common use is for corrosion resistance since gold is relatively non-reactive compared with other common metals used in conductors. Point is that such applications are the exception rather than the rule and that most gold plating on consumer applications are a waste of money, brains and time.

            • by Bengie ( 1121981 )
              These exceptions are any time you have two different types of metal that have long term contact and have electricity passing through them. If everyone settled on copper as the norm, we'd have no issues, but as it stands, there is a lot of tin and aluminum out there. To compensate, you plate your stuff in gold to make sure you won't have any future issues with other metals.

              This could be selection bias, but I've never had an issue unscrewing a gold plated coax cable, even from the cheapest brands, but I hav
  • gigaBITS (Score:3, Informative)

    by v1 ( 525388 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @09:02AM (#55643151) Homepage Journal

    48 GB per second

    RTFA please before you post about it. gigaBITS, with a small "b". There's an 8 (or 9) fold difference between "Gb" and "GB". If you can't remember what the abbreviation stands for, quit using it and just spell it out properly.

    (from TFA: "A bigger pipe (48 gigabits per second) allows more information for higher resolutions, ")

    Pisses me off to no end when broadband providers get it wrong in their ads. "can I get that in writing?" (long hold) "actually sir what we meant to say was..."

  • Shouldn't it be 16k?
    • Re:10k? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Misagon ( 1135 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @10:29AM (#55643621)

      10K is not 16:9 but an ultra-wide variant of Ultra HD. 10240 * 4320.

      There is no such thing as 16K, yet.
      And if someone tells you they have 16K then they probably have only four times Ultra HD ... which is 15K ! 4 * 3840 = 15 * 1024.

  • by bosef1 ( 208943 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @09:30AM (#55643285)

    Here are links to the actual HDMI Forum press release on the HDMI 2.1 specification, and high-level presentation discussing the new features in the 2.1 spec.

    Press release: https://www.hdmi.org/press/pre... [hdmi.org]

    High-level presentation: https://www.hdmi.org/download/... [hdmi.org]>

  • by nester ( 14407 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @10:27AM (#55643605)

    The frame rate the cable is capable of supporting has nothing to do with display refresh rate. Example: LCD's of recent years refresh at 120hz, using 24 and 30hz source frame rates.

    • by iCEBaLM ( 34905 )

      Barring horribly slow refresh rates that can cause eyestrain and headaches, there's really no point refreshing higher than the input frame rate, is there? So lets not be so pedantic when publications cite that a new cable spec can push enough bits to support the display of a certain resolution at a certain refresh rate.

  • 8K at 60 does not fit in 48Gb it is over 71Gb, of course 4K does not fit in 16Gb either for the old standard. You have to be giving up something.

  • To take advantage, once any 10k content becomes available, all I have to do is upgrade my TV, DVR/Tivo, home theater receiver, Blu-ray player, etc... Can't wait! So happy I skipped the 4k revolution. Maybe I'll just wait until HDMI is upgraded to support Quantum Entanglement or something.

    • To take advantage of 4k content, you will also have to upgrade your EYES, because human visual perception is incapable of perceiving more than 4000x4000 pixels!
      • by Robyrt ( 1305217 )

        To take advantage of 4k content, you will also have to upgrade your EYES, because human visual perception is incapable of perceiving more than 4000x4000 pixels!

        The human eye's resolution depends on how far away you expect the screen to be. A VR display, which takes up your entire visual field, could easily use 8K or 10K resolution for an appreciable increase in quality.

      • by Bengie ( 1121981 )
        Eyes don't see in pixels, the resolution is non-uniformly distribution, eyes keep moving. Don't confuse the compression they eyes do for the max resolution. The human visual system throws out a lot of data because it's too similar, making it seem like you can't see the differences. But if you get any decent contrast, our optics pick it right up.
    • To take advantage, once any 10k content becomes available, all I have to do is upgrade my ...

      Or just upgrade your graphics card and bask in the glory of a thousand Xterms at once.

  • That's nice, a new HDMI version. I'm sure it will be picked up by the industry just as well as HDMI 1.4.

    HDMI 1.4 added audio return channel, an Ethernet channel, 3D, and 4K. I've started looking for a new KVM switch to replace my VGA switch, something that I know will support at least 4K for future growth. All my computers have some kind of digital output so I don't much care if the KVM is HDMI, DisplayPort, or something else. So long as any kind of adapter I'd need is cheap enough then I don't care wha

    • Getting 10K on HDMI is useless if I can't even find 4K on HDMI. It looks like everyone has moved on to DisplayPort for 4K.

      I can get 4k over HDMI, but I always use DP because HDMI can only manage 30Hz, not 60Hz, and the mouse movement is very obviously not smooth to me at 30Hz. I've got a bigass NVidia card and a dell monitor.

      • I can get 4k over HDMI, but I always use DP because HDMI can only manage 30Hz, not 60Hz, and the mouse movement is very obviously not smooth to me at 30Hz.

        I have to wonder if it's the refresh rate or something else going on. 30Hz should be fast enough to keep mouse movement smooth. That must be HDMI 1.4 then, HDMI 2.0 would support 4K/60. That just shows I'm not the only one seeing a lack of support for HDMI 2.0.

        I don't think I'm asking too much of HDMI here. DisplayPort 1.2 and HDMI 1.4 both came out in 2009, and both support at least 4K/60. Why is it that HDMI 1.4, or later, on real and actual devices is so hard to find? Why has DisplayPort succeeded

        • by Bengie ( 1121981 )
          30hz is no where near enough for smooth mouse movement. Even at 60hz it looks like a strobe-effect, jumping many pixels at a time. If I move my cursor from one side of the screen to the other in 1/2 a second, it has to traverse 1920*2 pixels per second. When I move my mouse across the screen at a fairly normal pace for large movements, I see about 6 images of the cursor with about 1-2 inches between each image.

          Since it looks like the cursor is jumping when it moves more than one pixel at a time. Naively,
  • More bandwidth is always good, and dynamic HDR is probably a good thing, but once again I remind you that human visual acuity peaks at around 4000x4000... meaning paying for resolutions greater than that is pointless because no human being is capable of perceiving the difference when the entire picture is in their field of view! Higher resolution for photos makes sense because you can blow up a small part of the photo, and phone screens should be 8000x4000 so they can be used in VR goggles (4000x4000 pixels
  • HDMI 2.1 gives you a usable Audio Return Channel! ARC gains enough bandwidth to actually make a surround sound setup worthwhile, it gains reliability since it isn't dependent on 1kHz CEC signalling with dubious vendor support, it gains more reliability because the wires it runs over are guaranteed to be properly shielded (little known fact: If you want to use ARC on HDMI 2.0 and below, buy a HDMI-ethernet-cable), it gains usefulness because it contains a lip-sync signal so you don't have to fiddle with audi

  • One thing I wonder is if HDMI 2.1 will be an alternate mode of USB-C. They point out that new cables will have to be labeled as "48G" to support HDMI 2.1. USB-C seems to have a max bandwidth of 40 Gbps, and HDMI 2.1 is 48 Gbps. Can HDMI 2.1 work on USB-C?

    A side note on the HDMI cable naming conventions, they seemed to have fallen in the same trap as USB. The cables are "Standard", "High Speed", "Premium High Speed", and now "48G". Unless there is a chart to go with the cables describing the difference

Chemist who falls in acid will be tripping for weeks.

Working...