HDMI 1.3 - Is It Necessary?

iDarren · 08-13-2007, 12:38 AM

It may not be necessary but it's another reason why I'm happy to wait another year before entering the market.

Darren.

Semp1 · 08-13-2007, 12:56 AM

well that's silly you can get the new sony available on August 30 that has hdmi 1.3 and deep color if thats what you are waiting for.

iDarren · 08-13-2007, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semp1

well that's silly you can get the new sony available on August 30 that has hdmi 1.3 and deep color if thats what you are waiting for.

Yeah but I'm waiting for better players at a lower price and also giving the disk formats a bit longer to mature in pq, which they will as did DVD.

Darren.

mvaugeri · 09-12-2007, 09:37 PM

RE: xvYCC color space

BT.709 uses an 8-bit value to encode each of the three colors of the RGB color space - red, green and blue. A television receiver creates the luminance and chrominance signals needed to drive the RGB circuits using a set of equations defined by the YCbCr color space. YCbCr is often abbreviated YCC. Although an eight bit value is provided for encoding each color, the values 001 through 015 and 236 through 255 are reserved for undershoot and overshoot of analog television signals. This left only values 016 through 235 to encode each of the three colors. This allowed 220 possible values for each color, or 10,648,000 (220*220*220) colors. Since there is no undershoot or overshoot in a digital television signal, it is possible to use all eight bits for each color. According to Wikipedia (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XvYCC), the xvYCC color space permits using values 001 through 255 for each color, or 16,581,375 (255*255*255) colors. This means that the xvYCC color space can reproduce 1.557 (16,581,375/10,648,000) times more colors than the YCC color space. I think that the value 0 isn’t counted because if all three colors are zero you have the color white. But even if you count the value zero, you have 256 values for each color, or 16,777,216 (256*256*256) colors. This means that you would have 1.576 (16,777,216/10,648,000) times more colors than the YCC color space. So, I don’t know why people are saying that the xvYCC color space can produce 1.8 times more colors than the YCC color space. I’ve seen this number on various web sites (including this site and the previously referenced Wikipedia site).

Mike

oblioman · 09-13-2007, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvaugeri

RE: xvYCC color space

BT.709 uses an 8-bit value to encode each of the three colors of the RGB color space - red, green and blue. A television receiver creates the luminance and chrominance signals needed to drive the RGB circuits using a set of equations defined by the YCbCr color space. YCbCr is often abbreviated YCC. Although an eight bit value is provided for encoding each color, the values 001 through 015 and 236 through 255 are reserved for undershoot and overshoot of analog television signals. This left only values 016 through 235 to encode each of the three colors. This allowed 220 possible values for each color, or 10,648,000 (220*220*220) colors. Since there is no undershoot or overshoot in a digital television signal, it is possible to use all eight bits for each color. According to Wikipedia (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XvYCC), the xvYCC color space permits using values 001 through 255 for each color, or 16,581,375 (255*255*255) colors. This means that the xvYCC color space can reproduce 1.557 (16,581,375/10,648,000) times more colors than the YCC color space. I think that the value 0 isn’t counted because if all three colors are zero you have the color white. But even if you count the value zero, you have 256 values for each color, or 16,777,216 (256*256*256) colors. This means that you would have 1.576 (16,777,216/10,648,000) times more colors than the YCC color space. So, I don’t know why people are saying that the xvYCC color space can produce 1.8 times more colors than the YCC color space. I’ve seen this number on various web sites (including this site and the previously referenced Wikipedia site).

Mike

Wow,,this all puts a crook in me arse. Me spent a ton of cash sending me tards to college to learn the above,,,but to no avail. Where were you guys a few years ago? Thanks for the info Mike and Welcome to the HIGH DEF FORUM!!!

GoBirds · 09-13-2007, 07:45 AM

I love when I have some free time to read what's going on here on this board. I'll never have the money/time/knowledge to truely get the HT that I'd like to have, but it's nice to have some idea what's going on our there. Before I got my HDDVD, and also my Tos 42" I was concerned I was missing out by not waiting for 1.3, now I'm glad I didn't waste my time.
Thanks Lee!

jamsit · 01-12-2008, 02:25 PM

I'd like to offer Mr. Stewart my thanks on his extremely well written, informative & just the right depth of technical detail treatise on HDMI.... you saved me $50+tax for an HDMI v1.3 cable... not too shabby for just signing up to this forum.... now if someone would just respond to my 'SA4250 Problem' question, I'd be pleased as punch.... tx again

Lee Stewart · 01-12-2008, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamsit

I'd like to offer Mr. Stewart my thanks on his extremely well written, informative & just the right depth of technical detail treatise on HDMI.... you saved me $50+tax for an HDMI v1.3 cable... not too shabby for just signing up to this forum.... now if someone would just respond to my 'SA4250 Problem' question, I'd be pleased as punch.... tx again

Hi and welcome to HDF

Thank you for your words of encouragement! . . . only I didn't write the article in the OP

. . .I only posted it.

But I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night

Let me see if I can help you with the cable box - I have made a response post on your thread

**kamspy** · 01-12-2008, 03:05 PM

It's a little know fact, but the HDMI cable was a joint venture designed by Osama bin Laden, Hitler's ghost, and Satan. It masquerades as a "one cable for everything", but it is actually "one cable to rule them all".

You see guys, HDMI enable Hollywood to shove more crap we don't want/need down our throats. Look at the fancy new audio codecs. If you don't have an HDMI receiver, or a player with onboard decoding, analog outs and a receiver with analog ins, your screwed. AES/EBU or SPDIF, have more than enough bandwidth to pass these codecs, yet there is no desire from an engineering standpoint to still use them when the CE industry can make you buy HDMI crap.

Lesson you ask?

Avoid HDMI like the plague while you still can. Soon it will connect our toasters to our microwaves so Food Industry execs can see how we like our toast cooked and whether we make popcorn in the mic or on the stove

Jiffy Pop for me fellas, Jiffy Pop for me.................

cbcdesign · 01-12-2008, 03:33 PM

What I cannot understand is why they decided to lump audio and video on a single expensive connector in the first place. I understand that it is convenient for people who simply want to connect a HD player to an HD TV but its a very expensive convenience I think we could all do without.

It strikes me that the optical system was definately a step in the right direction too and should have been developed to handle the new Audio codecs on top of 5.1. I simply don't buy the claim that it isn't up to the job. Its optical (speed of light in theory) transmission and if they can send thousands of phone calls down a single fibre all at the same time across the Atlantic ocean then a single cable is perfectly capable of coping with 8 channels of Audio in a home cinema system. A single optical cable has none of the limitations of length in the avarage home and is inexpensive too. It was hailed as the future and yet it was dropped in favour of a copper wire in HD systems. Madness!

I don't really like HDMI at all to be honest and I certainly don't think 1.3 is going to be of much use in disk based video systems for at least 3-4 years.

Superman · 01-12-2008, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kamspy

It's a little know fact, but the HDMI cable was a joint venture designed by Osama bin Laden, Hitler's ghost, and Satan.

I thought that was Blu-Ray.

Cowboy X · 01-13-2008, 11:23 PM

This brings up another question. with HD DVD players handling the audio decoding/mixing, why would anyone need to get a receiver that does the highdef audio decoding??

Shouldn't I be able to save $$ and get a decent 7.1 HDMI receiver instead of the Onkyo Tx 605 that I have been thinking of?

Cowboy X · 01-13-2008, 11:24 PM

Oh and I must add that since the Matrox Parhelia graphics card, several PC graphics cards have been capable of 10bit colour.

**PFC5** · 01-14-2008, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kamspy

It's a little know fact, but the HDMI cable was a joint venture designed by Osama bin Laden, Hitler's ghost, and Satan. It masquerades as a "one cable for everything", but it is actually "one cable to rule them all".

You see guys, HDMI enable Hollywood to shove more crap we don't want/need down our throats. Look at the fancy new audio codecs. If you don't have an HDMI receiver, or a player with onboard decoding, analog outs and a receiver with analog ins, your screwed. AES/EBU or SPDIF, have more than enough bandwidth to pass these codecs, yet there is no desire from an engineering standpoint to still use them when the CE industry can make you buy HDMI crap.

Lesson you ask?

Avoid HDMI like the plague while you still can. Soon it will connect our toasters to our microwaves so Food Industry execs can see how we like our toast cooked and whether we make popcorn in the mic or on the stove

Jiffy Pop for me fellas, Jiffy Pop for me.................

Funny thing is that about 1 1/2 years ago I posted that follywood was going to make any unsecured connection (i.e. video component, analog audio, etc) unusable as fast as they can and one poster said it is was FUD back then. 6 months later it started to become evident that I was correct, and now I think everyone knows this is happening.

Optical could have worked for bitstreaming HD audio, but the chips on each end of the connection cannot handle the bandwidth as the spec is currently. Follywood must have decided that they would be better off making it a secured audio connection also which is why they didn't want the TOS/Link (optical) updated to handle it and chose HDMI, since they update it constantly anyway.

rcbridge · 01-23-2008, 07:03 AM

Thanks for the detailed recap of HDMI, it was very eye opening I happen to be in the market for a new receiver, I would like to have HDMI switching, I typically look for a last years model (at close out)
to get a better deal. So I will take the approach that the 1.3 is not really a must have!

08-13-2007, 12:56 AM	#17
Semp1 Just Go Neutral Join Date: May 2005 Location: Brooklyn. NY Age: 28 Posts: 691	well that's silly you can get the new sony available on August 30 that has hdmi 1.3 and deep color if thats what you are waiting for. __________________ Living Room: Sony KDL52XBR6 Sony STR-DG910 (Unknown Replacement coming soon) Center Channel: Polk CS10 Front Towers: Polk TSI300 Rear Speakers: Polk TSI100 Sub Woofer: Sony SA-W3000 Apple TV PS3 Slim XBOX 360 Wii Scientific Atlanta Explorer 8300HD Bed Room: Sony KDL40XBR2/3 Samsung BDP2500 Scientific Atlanta Explorer 8300HD PS3 (60gb) XBOX 360 Blu-ray=260

09-13-2007, 07:45 AM	#21
GoBirds How did I get here? Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Phialdelphia Posts: 146	I love when I have some free time to read what's going on here on this board. I'll never have the money/time/knowledge to truely get the HT that I'd like to have, but it's nice to have some idea what's going on our there. Before I got my HDDVD, and also my Tos 42" I was concerned I was missing out by not waiting for 1.3, now I'm glad I didn't waste my time. Thanks Lee! __________________ VIZIO P50HDTV10A Dish Vip622 HDDVR Toshiba HD-A20KU Olevia 242V Playstation 3 Wii : Toshiba 42HL167 1080P Dish 211

Similar Threads to HDMI 1.3 - Is It Necessary?
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hdmi 1.3	Jon B.	HD DVD Players	3	03-25-2007 07:33 PM
HDMI(current) vs HDMI 1.3 & Comcast	HDTVSam007	Cable Providers	0	02-04-2007 03:45 AM
Which is better HDMI 1.3 cables or a high-end Monstercable HDMI Ultra 1000?	3dfuzion	Cables & Connections	8	12-11-2006 02:28 PM
Crap - HDMI 1.3 Displays Will Come in Early 2007	crellion	The High Definition Lounge	1	08-14-2006 04:23 AM
HDMI switch, extender solutions available	sus	High Definition News & Informative Articles	0	11-02-2005 01:27 AM

08-13-2007, 12:38 AM	#16
iDarren Hi-Def Junkie Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Blu-ray HQ Awards: World's Sexiest Male 2006/2007/2008 Posts: 2,990	It may not be necessary but it's another reason why I'm happy to wait another year before entering the market. Darren.

09-12-2007, 09:37 PM	#19
mvaugeri The science guy Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Warren Massachusetts Posts: 1	RE: xvYCC color space BT.709 uses an 8-bit value to encode each of the three colors of the RGB color space - red, green and blue. A television receiver creates the luminance and chrominance signals needed to drive the RGB circuits using a set of equations defined by the YCbCr color space. YCbCr is often abbreviated YCC. Although an eight bit value is provided for encoding each color, the values 001 through 015 and 236 through 255 are reserved for undershoot and overshoot of analog television signals. This left only values 016 through 235 to encode each of the three colors. This allowed 220 possible values for each color, or 10,648,000 (220220220) colors. Since there is no undershoot or overshoot in a digital television signal, it is possible to use all eight bits for each color. According to Wikipedia (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XvYCC), the xvYCC color space permits using values 001 through 255 for each color, or 16,581,375 (255255255) colors. This means that the xvYCC color space can reproduce 1.557 (16,581,375/10,648,000) times more colors than the YCC color space. I think that the value 0 isn’t counted because if all three colors are zero you have the color white. But even if you count the value zero, you have 256 values for each color, or 16,777,216 (256256256) colors. This means that you would have 1.576 (16,777,216/10,648,000) times more colors than the YCC color space. So, I don’t know why people are saying that the xvYCC color space can produce 1.8 times more colors than the YCC color space. I’ve seen this number on various web sites (including this site and the previously referenced Wikipedia site). Mike

01-12-2008, 02:25 PM	#22
jamsit My plasma is High Def. Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 5	I'd like to offer Mr. Stewart my thanks on his extremely well written, informative & just the right depth of technical detail treatise on HDMI.... you saved me $50+tax for an HDMI v1.3 cable... not too shabby for just signing up to this forum.... now if someone would just respond to my 'SA4250 Problem' question, I'd be pleased as punch.... tx again

01-12-2008, 03:05 PM	#24
kamspy Esteban Moderatoro Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Cincinnati,OH Good Posts: 12 Posts: 13,051	It's a little know fact, but the HDMI cable was a joint venture designed by Osama bin Laden, Hitler's ghost, and Satan. It masquerades as a "one cable for everything", but it is actually "one cable to rule them all". You see guys, HDMI enable Hollywood to shove more crap we don't want/need down our throats. Look at the fancy new audio codecs. If you don't have an HDMI receiver, or a player with onboard decoding, analog outs and a receiver with analog ins, your screwed. AES/EBU or SPDIF, have more than enough bandwidth to pass these codecs, yet there is no desire from an engineering standpoint to still use them when the CE industry can make you buy HDMI crap. Lesson you ask? Avoid HDMI like the plague while you still can. Soon it will connect our toasters to our microwaves so Food Industry execs can see how we like our toast cooked and whether we make popcorn in the mic or on the stove Jiffy Pop for me fellas, Jiffy Pop for me.................

01-12-2008, 03:33 PM	#25
cbcdesign High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: North Somerset, UK Posts: 1,314	What I cannot understand is why they decided to lump audio and video on a single expensive connector in the first place. I understand that it is convenient for people who simply want to connect a HD player to an HD TV but its a very expensive convenience I think we could all do without. It strikes me that the optical system was definately a step in the right direction too and should have been developed to handle the new Audio codecs on top of 5.1. I simply don't buy the claim that it isn't up to the job. Its optical (speed of light in theory) transmission and if they can send thousands of phone calls down a single fibre all at the same time across the Atlantic ocean then a single cable is perfectly capable of coping with 8 channels of Audio in a home cinema system. A single optical cable has none of the limitations of length in the avarage home and is inexpensive too. It was hailed as the future and yet it was dropped in favour of a copper wire in HD systems. Madness! I don't really like HDMI at all to be honest and I certainly don't think 1.3 is going to be of much use in disk based video systems for at least 3-4 years.

01-13-2008, 11:23 PM	#27
Cowboy X High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 912	This brings up another question. with HD DVD players handling the audio decoding/mixing, why would anyone need to get a receiver that does the highdef audio decoding?? Shouldn't I be able to save $$ and get a decent 7.1 HDMI receiver instead of the Onkyo Tx 605 that I have been thinking of?

01-13-2008, 11:24 PM	#28
Cowboy X High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 912	Oh and I must add that since the Matrox Parhelia graphics card, several PC graphics cards have been capable of 10bit colour.

01-23-2008, 07:03 AM	#30
rcbridge What is HD? Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Limerick Pa Posts: 2	Thanks for the detailed recap of HDMI, it was very eye opening I happen to be in the market for a new receiver, I would like to have HDMI switching, I typically look for a last years model (at close out) to get a better deal. So I will take the approach that the 1.3 is not really a must have!