New Revelations about HDMI 1.4a in 3D

[PressBot]

While the HDMI 1.4a spec is supposed to support this, current 3D HDTVs and HDMI 1.4 connectors are limited to 1280X720P 60 FPS per eye performance in stereoscopic 3D gaming.  HDMI can go as high as 1080P at 24 FPS per eye, but this is intended for 3D Blu-Ray, and it's not a realistic option for gamers.  The HDMI 1.4a spec should be able to do much more, but the available port chips don't have the processing power to accomplish this.



That's about to change (special thanks to Fredz for spotting this release)!  Among other things, Silicon Image specializes in creating HDMI port chips, and they are getting set to release a version that can support 1080P in 3D at a full 60 frames per second per eye.



However, the next big question is this: do the HDMI ports have to be updated on the content devices (i.e. Blu-Ray, console, PC, etc.), the 3D displays, or both?  We caught up with Steve Venutti, President of HDMI LLC for the answer...
Read full article...

[cybereality]

Well this is good to know. I assume it will take some time for these chips to be implemented in devices, so we are still looking at late-2011, early-2012 for this to happen.

[BHawthorne]

Think of it as a water pipe. If any part of the pipeline can't handle 1080p 60hz per eye, then you're limited to what it is at the place most restricted.

So, everything would need the new 1080p 60hz per eye chips. My guess is it's just another mode and they push faster frequency through the existing cable design and have a chip in both the display and the output device.

For those that have been doing multi-display, port and cable bandwidth has been a big hold back on display innovation for awhile now. DP was meant to at least partially address bandwidth and multi-port requirements with forethought towards future expandability. Problem is, the display manufacturers favor HDMI while the video card manufacturers favor DP. That is a huge disparity and is leading to issues with innovation and conflict of interest between the two manufacturing types. THe main problem I see is they shouldn't be competing at all. Both the HDMI and DP port should be on the display.

[cybereality]

I would like to see the DP people take a more active role in this, especially concerning 3D at 1080P and also 120Hz at greater than 1080P resolution. You don't seem to hear much of anything. I think the HDMI guys just have better marketing.

[Likay]

I'm amazed that manufacturers made chips which did not meet the hdmi1.4 standards and get away with it just because they didn't think the bandwidth is needed. It's so close to a crime that it's ridiculous...

[cybereality]

I'm amazed that manufacturers made chips which did not meet the hdmi1.4 standards and get away with it just because they didn't think the bandwidth is needed. It's so close to a crime that it's ridiculous...

Its probably more profitable this way. Now they can market the 100% Full HD, no really Full this time no joke, 1080P 3D HDTVs for 2012. Then get everyone to buy new TVs, new cables, new receivers, a PS4, etc. Seems like a great business model actually.

[Fredz]

I'm amazed that manufacturers made chips which did not meet the hdmi1.4 standards and get away with it just because they didn't think the bandwidth is needed. It's so close to a crime that it's ridiculous...

1080p at 60Hz per eye is not mandatory in the HDMI 1.4a specs and the mandatory 3D modes are perfectly supported by the current 225MHz HDMI chips, so I really don't see the problem here.

Current-gen 3D consoles are even not powerful enough to provide decent image quality in 1080p S3D games, so I think there was really no incentive for manufacturers to produce faster chips. I think that these new investments in the production of 300MHz chips are probably only to anticipate the start of the eight generation of gaming consoles, I doubt the size of the market of S3D games on the PC platform using 3DTVs was the motivation.

[Likay]

I'm amazed that manufacturers made chips which did not meet the hdmi1.4 standards and get away with it just because they didn't think the bandwidth is needed. It's so close to a crime that it's ridiculous...

1080p at 60Hz per eye is not mandatory in the HDMI 1.4a specs and the mandatory 3D modes are perfectly supported by the current 225MHz HDMI chips, so I really don't see the problem here.

Current-gen 3D consoles are even not powerful enough to provide decent image quality in 1080p S3D games, so I think there was really no incentive for manufacturers to produce faster chips. I think that these new investments in the production of 300MHz chips are probably only to anticipate the start of the eight generation of gaming consoles, I doubt the size of the market of S3D games on the PC platform using 3DTVs was the motivation.

You're probably right about the decision to not make chips that doesn't meet the standards but in the world i'm living in it's not an acceptable behaviour. There is a standard and the chipsets should meet it just like everything else in the world. Standards are always set to meet eventual higher future needs and usually if a manufacturer tries to make deficient device he will be charged for it.
For me it's obvious why such behaviour is not accepted. Imagine what would happen if everybody would take decisions like this in regard of everything in the society (some tries but usually it leads straight way to the court).
Yes, I'm still amazed how the situation over all is allowed.

[cybereality]

Yes, I'm still amazed how the situation over all is allowed.

The reason its allowed is because only a small minority, of the already niche group of hardcore PC gamers, even understands the situation. This is a daily topic over on the Nvidia forums, as people buy supposedly "Full HD 3D TVs" and then complain how 1080P mode doesn't work. Personally, I think the whole thing is a scam. I mean, Dual-Link DVI could handle this and its been out for how long? 5 years, I don't recall, its been a while though. You are telling me these HDMI guys couldn't figure out how to produce chips to handle 300MHz, or whatever else is needed for 1080P60? How come this was no problem for DVI or DP? It could be ignorance or laziness, but most likely it was carefully thought out to screw consumers like us... errr.. I mean, to maximize profits.

[BHawthorne]

Yes, I'm still amazed how the situation over all is allowed.

The reason its allowed is because only a small minority, of the already niche group of hardcore PC gamers, even understands the situation. This is a daily topic over on the Nvidia forums, as people buy supposedly "Full HD 3D TVs" and then complain how 1080P mode doesn't work. Personally, I think the whole thing is a scam. I mean, Dual-Link DVI could handle this and its been out for how long? 5 years, I don't recall, its been a while though. You are telling me these HDMI guys couldn't figure out how to produce chips to handle 300MHz, or whatever else is needed for 1080P60? How come this was no problem for DVI or DP? It could be ignorance or laziness, but most likely it was carefully thought out to screw consumers like us... errr.. I mean, to maximize profits.

IMHO, the problem centers around that HDMI is essentially single-link DVI cabling with smaller form factor ports. My "high speed" DVI-HDMI 1.3 cabling I got recently only has the single link pins in the DVI connector side. I think what is occurring here is they're finding out how to brute force more bandwidth through a single-link bandwidth cable (unless the HDMI 1.4a cable is different than a HDMI 1.3 "high speed" cable). Seems arse backwards way to do things IMHO. Make a new cable and make it with enough future bandwidth to so we don't have to screw around with things.

[cybereality]

IMHO, the problem centers around that HDMI is essentially single-link DVI cabling with smaller form factor ports. My "high speed" DVI-HDMI 1.3 cabling I got recently only has the single link pins in the DVI connector side. I think what is occurring here is they're finding out how to brute force more bandwidth through a single-link bandwidth cable (unless the HDMI 1.4a cable is different than a HDMI 1.3 "high speed" cable). Seems arse backwards way to do things IMHO. Make a new cable and make it with enough future bandwidth to so we don't have to screw around with things.

This is not going to end either, unless the industry moves to something else like DP. I mean, I understand these new 300MHz chips will allow for 1080P60. But what about higher resolutions, like for 30" monitors? Seems like things like higher than 1080P resolutions are not even in the spec. Even without 3D, it would be nice to have a 2560x1600 120Hz display. I doesn't seem any of this is possible now, or even with these new 300MHz chips. So we'll just get a new standard next year, and the year after that, and after that.

[Fredz]

That's how standards are supposed to work though, someone first implements a feature as a proof of concept, then an independant organization standardizes it so that everyone is compliant in the future. It's impossible to create a standard before knowing the exact implications of a defined need.

I guess we'll see that in the following year with the implementation of 1080p 3D at 60Hz per eye on new displays. As BHawthorne said, the next step after upgrading the frequency of HDMI chips will probably be the dual-link problem with cables, but they'll possibly discover several others in the meantime.

Just in time for 2012 and the expected new generation of next-gen consoles...

[cybereality]

Just in time for 2012 and the expected new generation of next-gen consoles...

Well the WiiHD2 (or whatever) may be coming out next year. But I doubt Sony or MS will have something ready by that time. And Nintendo has already said they weren't going to do 3D for their next console, but I guess they could have been lying as not to ruin the big E3 surprise.

[Fredz]

That'd be foolish of them to not release a 3D console, even more considering the feable investment it needs to make it 3D compatible. Even Microsoft is expected to announce something at E3 for 3D support on the Xbox 360, although they denied 6 months ago to have any interest in 3D support.

And I would really not be surprised to see the first "real" next-gen consoles coming at Christmas 2012, despite what Microsoft and Sony have announced (usual bull..t, they're in competition after all). From 1994 till now each new generation has come every 6 years for Sony and every 4 years for Microsoft after the previous generation (PS1 : 1994, PS2 : 2000, PS3 : 2006, Xbox : 2001, Xbox 360 : 2005). If we did not experienced a massive economic crash in 2008 I think the next generation would have been ready for Christmas 2011 with the Xbox 720.

I'm ready to take the bet...

[cybereality]

Supposedly Sony and Microsoft made a "gentleman's agreement" that this current generation would last 10 years. Xbox360 came out in 2005, which would make the Xbox720 release in 2015. That seems a bit far off, my prediction would be holiday 2013 at the earliest.

[BHawthorne]

Supposedly Sony and Microsoft made a "gentleman's agreement" that this current generation would last 10 years. Xbox360 came out in 2005, which would make the Xbox720 release in 2015. That seems a bit far off, my prediction would be holiday 2013 at the earliest.

The key problem is consoles shouldn't be the determining factor for port and cable design. They're not forward thinking enough to accommodate things like 2kHD and 4kHD displays...basiclly the next logical step in the replacement of 1080p HD. multi-display gamers also do things primarily in threes, so you'd need for whatever is done to at least be able to push triple-screen 120hz 1080p as the standard. DP 1.2 is supposed to be able to do some very exotic things with MST Hubs and running up to four displays off of a single DP port. The MST Hubs have yet to surface in the consumer market though. It's obvious to me that DP 1.2 has the bandwidth, but HDMI 1.4a chips are holding HDMI spec back.

Just found this graph. Looks like HDMI 340hz is same bandwidth as Dual-Link DVI and that DP 1.2 has 2x the times of bandwidth of either HDMI or DVI.


My assumption that if you half the display count that would equal what it can do at 120hz? The graph shows 340hz HDMI should be able to do one 1080p 120hz display. DP 1.2 really looks like it's blowing away HDMI as far as future-proofing by 2x the bandwidth.

[Synexious]

Can games be run on 4K displays? Is anyone actually gaming in 4K? Those displays cost thousands and are beyond even the enthusiast level. I wonder if Surround or Eyefinity works with 4K displays. What would run that lol? 2560x1600 will probably be the max for many more years. Maybe a decade or more.

[BHawthorne]

Can games be run on 4K displays? Is anyone actually gaming in 4K? Those displays cost thousands and are beyond even the enthusiast level. I wonder if Surround or Eyefinity works with 4K displays. What would run that lol? 2560x1600 will probably be the max for many more years. Maybe a decade or more.

Gotta crawl before we walk. It's just the next logical progression in resolution in the future. The limiting factors are processing power and port bandwidth. Panel prices have really tanked in the last 5 years. It would not surprise me at all if in 5-10 years time 4kHD is commonplace. Your post is not thinking of the future but rather thinking of today. If things were designed with no overhead for the future, it would be instantly obsolete.

To answer your question, Surround and Eyefinity can make 4kHD projection right now for pretty cheap. It requires multi-projector though. If I was really wanting 4kHD at the moment I'd pick up 5 BenQ W1000 1080p projectors and do 5x1P portrait mode on them and prewarp and edge blend them together with Sol7. As is I already have a 5 projector setup. They're just a mix of 1280x800 and 1024x768 projectors though for my flight sim.

[cybereality]

I don't really care much for 4K, I think 1080P looks good enough for the time being. Especially if you are talking about ~24" desktop monitors. Once you get into 100"+ projection, maybe there's a difference there. But for an average sized monitor I don't think you could notice. However, what I would like to see if higher than 120Hz displays. If they could do 240Hz, that would be awesome as you could do 3D with 120Hz per eye. I doubt this is possible (especially with the tricks they have to do to even reach 120Hz) but it would be cool if they did.

[DmitryKo]

At least these Silicon Image parts allegedly feature a true 300 Mhz pixel rate that is required for 1080p50/p60 stereo, unlike an earlier "3 Gbit/s" receiver from Analog devices which claims to support 300 MHz pixel clock with only 3 Gbit/s of bandwidth.

I too question the stance of HDMI LLC. They continue to authorize 2.25 Gbit/s chips with 225 MHz pixel clock when theoretical maximum bandwidth for HDMI is about 18 Gbit/s (340 MHz pixel clock and 48 bit per pixel). There are very small steps in actual performance in each generation of products, and they clearly want their customers to upgrade often. If that is not a scam, what is?

For comparison, each and every DisplayPort 1.1/1.2 device is required to provide 8.64/17.28 Gbit/s of bandwidth over a 1.5m cable, supporting 1080p60 stereo and 2560x1600 @60 Hz stereo. It's that simple. Why can't this so simple be for HDMI LLC?

[tritosine5G]

I think apple will be using thunderbolt for appleTV
http://bit.ly/jCqQm2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Fredz]

I don't really care much for 4K, I think 1080P looks good enough for the time being. Especially if you are talking about ~24" desktop monitors. Once you get into 100"+ projection, maybe there's a difference there. But for an average sized monitor I don't think you could notice.

Since the recommended viewing angles by both the SMPTE and THX are constant (around 30°) whatever the size of the display, watching an image on a 40" TV or a 100" projection screen won't change anything. With the same viewing angle your eyes will have the same perception of details, whatever the size and distance of the screen.

And going for 4K means a new generation of everything : optical supports, physical media players, TVs, consoles, networks bandwith (Internet and television), etc. 4K has even not overtaken 2K in the cinema (98% marketshare). And Blu-Ray is also far from having surpassed DVD yet 5 years after its release in the US, with a market penetration of only 15% (57% for DVD, released in 1997).

[cybereality]

If I go to the IMAX theater right now, I'm pretty sure viewing angle is greater than 30 degrees.

[BHawthorne]

And going for 4K means a new generation of everything : optical supports, physical media players, TVs, consoles, networks bandwith (Internet and television), etc. 4K has even not overtaken 2K in the cinema (98% marketshare). And Blu-Ray is also far from having surpassed DVD yet 5 years after its release in the US, with a market penetration of only 15% (57% for DVD, released in 1997).

Manufacturers are highly motivated by that type of thing. Obsolete the old and force a whole new proprietary requirement upon the consumers to lock in sales. Sometimes it obviously backfires though. HD-DVD and Blu-ray immediately come to mind.

[Fredz]

If I go to the IMAX theater right now, I'm pretty sure viewing angle is greater than 30 degrees.

My bad, I should have specified that these recommended viewing angles were for Home Cinema.

[cybereality]

If I go to the IMAX theater right now, I'm pretty sure viewing angle is greater than 30 degrees.

My bad, I should have specified that these recommended viewing angles were for Home Cinema.

But I want IMAX in my house! Actually, I want triple screen IMAX! Wait, forget that. I want 6 screen IMAX CAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fredz]

I think I want your house.

[BHawthorne]

I would much prefer one seamless 360 degree circular screen with 5 or 6 projectors. If AMD ever gets their act together on multi-projection S3D 5x1 would be a viable 360 option, while on the NVIDIA side a current option that should (theoretically) work right now is 6 GT720 running on GTX580 Tri-SLI and three MView MV103 boxes all neatly pre-warped and edge blended with Immersaview Sol7.

Truth be told I'm doing a poor man's version of that build right now. Using my existing two GT720 and my three EX525ST and my dual 5870 E6 cards in 5x1L mode using AMD's 10.12a drivers. Too bad I don't have all GT720's and TriDef or Iz3D drivers worked out the multi-display sync issues.

[Fredz]

These things were technically possible more than 5 years ago, but with a game/software for which you can modify the source code, multiple PCs and a device driver that synchronizes the whole like SoftGenLock (for Linux) or WinSGL (for Windows). Too bad NVIDIA or AMD didn't implement that in their drivers for consumer GPUs, maybe it does exist for their professional GPUs though. I guess the people behind the CAVE or the Varrier (35 panels) did it the same way.

[cybereality]

Yeah, something like this for modern games would be sick!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqh_F4iN8pg[/youtube]

[BHawthorne]

Yep, the major limitation is that the game rendering must be able to output 360 degree. The Quake example has been recoded so the camera can. I also about two years ago worked with someone with the Orbiter OpenGL renderer and that was also outputting 360 degree. Just like S3D needs standards IMHO 180 and 360 degree rendering for games also needs standards. Noone as gone through the motion of drafting a spec yet though.

That wii remote made for a cool weapon. Add a omnidirectional treadmill to the thing and that would be really fun. The downside with their build is it's only 4 projectors and it's a really tight screen radius making for people blocking partial projection in the scene. Instead of mounting the projectors on the outside ring of the screen I put them in the center point of the radius so they don't project through the person in the center. My design seeks to make it so none of the projection is where people might obscure it in the middle of the room. If I had to guess how they setup theirs -- they used two Matrox DH2G and XP Horizontal Span Mode using NVIDIA hardware. That would make a span of either 4096x768 or 3200x600 for the projection. That was a possibility back in that era (2007).

[Chiefwinston]

Please refrain from showing quake video's. I'm a recovering quake aholic. The euphoria.............

[DmitryKo]

These 300 Mhz HDMI chips have supposedly been available since late 2011... where are end-user products?


http://www.siliconimage.com/products/ca ... d=37&fid=1

Product
SiI9587-3 HDMI® 1.4a Port Processor
SiI9589-3 HDMI® 1.4a Port Processor

Maximum Resolution
1080p @ 120Hz, 1080p 3D @ 60Hz, and 4K @ 30Hz

Bandwidth
300MHz

http://www.siliconimage.com/products/pr ... px?pid=216
http://www.siliconimage.com/products/pr ... px?pid=217

[Neil]

The following is an excerpt of a blog article.  Read Full Article

While the HDMI 1.4a spec is supposed to support this, current 3D HDTVs and HDMI 1.4 connectors are limited to 1280X720P 60 FPS per eye performance in stereoscopic 3D gaming.  HDMI can go as high as 1080P at 24 FPS per eye, but this is intended for 3D Blu-Ray, and it's not a realistic option for gamers.  The HDMI 1.4a spec should be able to do much more, but the available port chips don't have the processing power to accomplish this.

That's about to change (special thanks to Fredz for spotting this release)!  Among other things, Silicon Image specializes in creating HDMI port chips, and they are getting set to release a version that can support 1080P in 3D at a full 60 frames per second per eye.

However, the next big question is this: do the HDMI ports have to be updated on the content devices (i.e. Blu-Ray, console, PC, etc.), the 3D displays, or both?  We caught up with Steve Venutti, President of HDMI LLC for the answer…