HDMI Spec Upgraded To Support 'Deep Color' 142
writertype writes "If you own a digital television, there's a good chance it supports HDMI as an A/V interface. Well, for all you early adopters who bought an HDMI-less TV and regretted it later, the HDMI spec has been upgraded yet again, to version 1.3. Features include "deep color", or color depths beyond what the human eye can perceive, eight-channel audio support, among others. Interesting note: the PlayStation 3 supports deep color, according to the HDMI chief."
I only care about ONE deep color (Score:3, Funny)
You're confused (Score:5, Funny)
Wait a minute! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I only care about ONE deep color (Score:1)
Nice try, though.
Re:I only care about ONE deep color (Score:1)
Re:I only care about ONE deep color (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I only care about ONE deep color (Score:1)
'Inna Gadda Davida' was from Iron Butterfly.
Re:I only care about ONE deep color (Score:2)
Re:I only care about ONE deep color (Score:1)
That would display incorrectly; Ina Gadda Da Vida was done by Iron Butterfly, not Deep Purple.
Re:I only care about ONE deep color (Score:2)
Licenced colors (Score:5, Funny)
IBM was unreachable for comment.
Bad video games. Bad! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Bad video games. Bad! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bad video games. Bad! (Score:1)
Re:Bad video games. Bad! (Score:2)
"Open the iPod and play 'The Doors', HAL."
Re:Licenced colors (Score:3, Funny)
This would sharpen you up and make you
ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.
Re:Licenced colors (Score:3, Funny)
The Hooloovoo, super-intelligent shades of the color blue, will sue the ass out of the copyright holder on this one for sure.
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
i'd have to agree with that. allowing audio that is above or below human hearing has a purpose, as you can feel extr
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Well, the infrared will make you feel nice and toasty, and the ultraviolet will let you work on your tan without going outdoors. :-)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
"The color bit depth [of today's displays] is typically 24-bits RGB - that gets you 16 million colors, and the human eye can distinguish that," Chard said. "That leads to scaling and onscreen effects which you can pick up. Either 36-bit or 48-bit RGB is beyond the ability of the human eye to distinguish."
Right now your eye can see the color transitions. The point is to make it so you can't see the transitions.
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Essentially you want to have your colors go as deep as you need to to make differences imperceptible, which this (supposedly) does. After that going even deeper would be a waste.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Now if you have 4090 possible values of red, your eye may not be able to perceive the difference between #1024 and #1032 individually. But when you make that large gradient while you will not be able to see the individual bands.
You've gone from blocky to smooth. Anywhere you want a gradient, this is good. Fading to black, the sky, etc. And let's not forget that this can give us better HDR.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Take your monitor and make a gradient that is full screen from solid red to solid black. As things are now you get 256 bands of color because there are 256 possible values for red. The problem with this is that the transitions are VERY obvious.
Actually, they're not that obvious at all across a 1200 pixel-wide image on my screen. However, knowing that the eye is more sensitive to green shades than red or blue, I tried the same experiment with a gradient from (0,0,0) to (0,255,0) and the steps are clearly
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
I have a 2.0" monitor, you insensitive clod!
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Not quite. If you try it you won't see the transitions. But if you apply some kind of histogram-modifying filter to the result, then, yes, you'll see the banding because of truncation of the byte values. In other words, you had 256 values, you now have half that. Pro
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
The other reason... (Score:2)
Re:The other reason... (Score:2)
Watermarking is actually generally about altering the data stream in a way that is invasive enough that removing it would unacceptably degrade quality. Thus all watermarking will be perceptible, or else it is too easily defeated. I think the rule of th
No, the answer is an orange and two lemons. (Score:2)
Of course, reasonable limits aren't. Just because human perception says you don't need to put out gradations twice as precise as human vision to conceal them doesn't mean we won't use other devices to help us perceive more, much like you can use a CCD camera to turn infrared light visible, or that it needs to support more to conce
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
I don't know if HDMI is using RGB or not, but it's worth noting that RGB wastes bits in places the eye won't notice leaving fewer bits for places where it wil notice. See Greg Ward's page, High Dynamic Range Image Encodings [anyhere.com]
which discusses perceivable color differences in the context of HDR encodings.Re:Huh? (Score:2)
First, consider storing each channel in 8 bits. That gives 256 possible levels. Say our eyes can distinguish 400 levels. 8 bits isn't enough then, so you need 9 bits. But that gives 512 levels, beyond our level of perception. But you can't use 8 1/2 bits for each channel (at least without more complicated encoding).
Second, say it was easier for some tec
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Also,
Fifth, you want your cat to enjoy TV more.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Awww, see now i can convince the Significant Other to let me get the new TV
Thanks
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
It's one thing to have a higher quality image to downsample to, but... seriously. Isn't there SOMETHING the bandwidth could be used for besides information we can't use?
It gives extra information for subliminal messaging.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Dynamic range is the critical part, IMO. Existing display standards are crap in terms of reproducing the full range of colours we can see, because no matter how well you calibrate the monitor, the colour depth itself prevents them from being displayed. IIRC, green suffers the most, but all colours are affected to some degree.
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
The ITU 601 standard, which governs today's displays, allows only 60 to 80 percent of the available colors, even if the display can support more, Chard said. "The color bit depth [of today's displays] is typically 24-bits RGB - that gets you 16 million colors, and the human eye can distinguish that," Chard said. "That leads to scaling and onscreen effects which you can pick up. Either 36-bit or
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
MARGINALLY more convenient, perhaps.
Before the days of 24-bit color, we encoded RGB colorspace across byte boundaries and we liked it, by gum! 16 = 5+6+5, and you never heard anyone complaining!
It's really only performing color arithmetic in the ALU that would benefit from having byte-aligned color values -- one less shift instruction to execute per
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
They're planning for the point where every human on the planet owns an HDMI television and they have to start marketing to insects instead.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
---while watching "Flowers!" with a UV equipped television, remember to wear sunscreen and sit at least eight feet away from the screen or risk sunburn"
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
That's likely the point. As it is you can cover the whole range, but if you start adjusting the color balance or white balance on the display you're going to throw out some bits and be looking for some more. If you've ever fiddled with the curves in Photoshop in 8 and 16 bit modes and then looked at the histograms you'll know what I mean.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Sounds like a great idea! What about meta-data for, say, totally crippling copy-protection schemes?
Oh, wait...
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
If you want to make something that is actually giving you all of the colors the eye can see, you have to promote it as giving you more than that - so "beyond the human eye" fits the bill.
Also, bear in mind that: 1) these TVs will have some kind of stupid CineUltraVividNightVisionEnhancement chip in them to "enhance" the colors. Thes
Accelerated evolution (Score:2)
Haven't you seen the ads? Chicks really dig guys who can see deep color and are eager to bear their children.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Current 24-bit RGB is 8 bit per channel, 36-bit is 12 bit per channel, which should be enough for even the best eyes.
48-bit RGB as used in graphics applications is overkill for simple image viewing but primarily exists because image processing generally reduces color resolution in the long run (actually, PS uses just (2^15)+1) colors per c
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
I've never understood why we don't go for higher frame rates. Watching a fast scene turn into a blur is annoying. It can be mitigated with short aperture (so that each frame is captured quickly, i.e. not blurry -- I seem to remember Blackhawk Down was like this, and Band of Brothers), but really, if you're updating video standards, why not up the frame rate?
What a surpise! (Score:1)
You mean companies will create buzz right before Xmas in order to get consumers to buy a product they "must have" but don't need? Wow!
How can they tell it works? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:How can they tell it works? (Score:2)
So? (Score:1)
Re:So? (Score:2)
beyond what the human eye can see? (Score:2)
Re:beyond what the human eye can see? (Score:3, Funny)
We know who signed up for the beta (Score:2)
sorry , couldn't resist
c'mon parent can get at least one funny mod
Re:beyond what the human eye can see? (Score:2)
Re:beyond what the human eye can see? (Score:2)
Re:beyond what the human eye can see? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:beyond what the human eye can see? (Score:2)
Yeah. The 24-bit, 48 kHZ is DVD audio; I brought it up as an analogy. In some sense the bit depth is the same idea in each instance 24-bit in audio, now up to 48-bit per pixel in HDMI; both describe how much data is used to represent each point in time. With HDMI you have to add an additional factor of the number of pixels though, and that has no analog in audio.
(And in some sense the sample rate of audio is analogous to the frame rate of video, t
Grue and Bleen (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Grue and Bleen (Score:2, Funny)
Re:beyond what the human eye can see? (Score:3, Funny)
obviously infrared (Score:2)
We all know:
In Soviet Russia the TV watches YOU.
In a sentimental nod to the cold war we have to one up them thus:
In New USA the TV watches YOU in the DARK
All those dark living/bedrooms are boring to monitor don't ya know
Re:beyond what the human eye can see? (Score:2)
At last! (Score:1)
Re:At last! (Score:1)
Upgraded... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Upgraded... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hidden Agenda (Score:5, Funny)
If the media you are playing is not Approved Media (TM), it plays in shallow color, otherwise known as black and white.
I know some Vrusk who will be interested in this. (Score:3, Funny)
Will this be available on the Vrusk homeworld?
Yes (Score:2)
wow (Score:1)
Hey, can I heat my home with this? (Score:3, Funny)
It's the extra BandWidth! (Score:1)
Works for the tetrachromats! (Score:2, Interesting)
Daisy-Chain Or Make It Cheaper (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Daisy-Chain Or Make It Cheaper (Score:1)
RTFA (Score:2)
HDMI hardware support (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, shouldn't the industry concentrate on properly implementing to the existing spec's before they bother with new & improved features?? I currently have an HDTV Panasonic plasma panel, a Denon receiver and a SciAtl set-top-box all tied together with HDMI, and I cannot get a signal because HDMI does not properly authenticate for the very reason HDMI was created -- to legally broadcast copy protected signals.
I am personally sick of these half-assed industry rollouts where most of the spec is adhered to by vendors, but the rest is blatently ignored, just so they can be first to market with a shiney new badge on their product. There is so much inoperability between HighDef products and home-theatre in general, that you're really playing russian roulette by being the first on your block to try an untested combination of components.
To you vendors out there: GET IT RIGHT first. You know why folks aren't lining up outside their local electronics boutique to get the latest HD gear? They are pretty sure that the stuff isn't going to work and they won't be separated from their hard-earned dough by the latest marketing gimmick.
PS - in case anyone wants to know my "workaround" I actually had to downgrade to connecting my SciAtl box to the Denon via component RGB cables then run HDMI to my panel. I talked with a Denon tech and this was the only workaround due to the stupidity of the *ahhem* engineering *ahhhem* at SciAtl. Maybe the Cisco acquisition will fix that nonsense.
In other words... (Score:2)
I read similar complaints around the first HD-DVD player, which had trouble connecting via HDMI to a display.
Supposedly the HDMI v1.3 is the "stable" spec, we shall see... I too think it's rediculous that HDMI was integrated into things in such a buggy state as it is today.
Re:HDMI hardware support (Score:1)
Re:HDMI hardware support (Score:3, Informative)
Re:HDMI hardware support (Score:2)
Where DUH is one or more of the following:
BetaMax
iPod Nano
MiniDisc
DIVX
Capri Pants
Any new car model
The Pentium
Joint NASA/ESA orbiters
Vioxx
HDMI
Anything new.
The early adopter is pretty much a beta tester who pays for the privelage. Consequently, he is rarely the f
It's an upgrade to 10, 12, and 16 bit color depth. (Score:3, Interesting)
Right now, we're mostly at 8 bits of data per color channel. This upgrade supports 10, 12, and 16 bits of color per channel, or 24, 30, 36 and 48 bits per pixel.
This will be a big help in reducing banding on smooth gradients and artifacts during fades. Actually, you don't get more colors; you get more luminance range. It would probably work just as well to have 16 bits of luminance and two other color difference channels of 8 bits, but the HDMI people went uncompressed.
Now the compression people have to go to work and deal with the issues of when it's worthwhile to send that much data and when it isn't.
Oh Yeah... (Score:2)
Oh, yeah. That'll be useful.
Re:Oh Yeah... (Score:2)
Re:Oh Yeah... (Score:2)
The good part is that their stance doesn't appear to be tenable in the long term; the bad part is that for the short term they can afford to buy all the legislation they need to hang on as long as possible.
How about an upgrade to make HDMI work right? (Score:2, Insightful)
Very True (Score:2)
Re:I hate to restate the obvious but... (Score:2)
Re:But wouldn't it be dangerous... (Score:2)