Still no 5V @1A output?
(Even 500mA would do)
Eleven years on from the commencement of work on the first version of the telly connectivity standard, the minds behind the High Definition Multimedia Interface – HDMI to you and me – have taken the wraps off release 2.0 a year later than originally anticipated. At one level, HDMI 2.0 is essentially about nothing more than …
(Even 500mA would do)
So because a standard designed for video interconnect wont charge your phone/tablet you say fail? You realise it's not for that right? It's for video interconnect?
If your phone charger couldn't connect your TV to your XBox in HD would you say that was a fail?
@HMB, you may not realise it, but these days many people connect phones and tablets to their TVs to display video, games, etc. It would be nice if that one connection provided power to keep the device going too. Maybe not a total fail, but given modern usage they should really have included power in the standard.
Yeah we all get that it's a video thing but seriously, no-one thought to beef up the current capability of that 5V signalling pin that's not-supposed-to-provide-power or whatever it is?
They make money from licensing HDMI compliance, right? Should be in their interest to spawn more gadgets.
Pretty sure this exists and is called MHL (USB -> HDMI).
I'm not sure if this is a proprietary extension to HDMI or part of the spec.
You know what, I think you make a good argument. I don't use my phone much for HDMI hookup though since I found Android not mirroring anymore very disappointing.
That said, when I slap Ubuntu on my Galaxy Nexus, I would appreciate the phone being charged as a matter of course when it's docked and connected via HDMI.
I initially considered the notion of charging a phone over HDMI rather silly, but you've changed my mind.
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say there. Are you saing that MHL gives you 5V and HDMI at the same time, so is the answer to the OP?
In my case, the MHL adaptor needs a 5V supply to operate. If that 5V came from the HDMI interface, it would be quite cool.
As for the post about "well it's a video interface...." Well it also seems to have audio. Oh, and Ethernet. Oh, and remote control. Oh and device authentication.... What's your point?
Of course they'll be reasonably priced then, not like the £40 stuff currently touted to general consumers
Don't tell anyone, but the secret is to buy them cheaply off reputable internet sites.
It's time's like this that it's very easy to loose sympathy with the shops loosing business to the internet.
600Mhz, right on top of Freeview C37. Let's hope all those cheap cat2 cables are all up to spec, not cheap knockoffs with barely functional shielding.
Though I doubt anyone using a 4K rig is going to be watching low bitrate, low res crap on Freeview to notice ;)
to have one loose spelling mistake is unfortunate, but unloosing a brace of them is unforgivable.
Is it any less forgivable than beginning a sentence with a lower case letter?
£40? Pah. You need a Monster ISR(R) 2000HD Hyper Speed HDMI cable. An absolute bargain at only £159.99. A £40 cable will give you washed out colours and poor contrast.
At least that's what the PFY in Currys | PC World told me.
I got the £4.49 Currys essentials cable
Seems to work absolutely fine. Yes I probably could have got something cheaper on-line, but I CBA to wait in for it to be delivered for a very small potential saving.
Thats gonna water a few eyes for the unfortunate consumer who will be sucked in by their marketing hype.
Monster cables are cheap, really. See http://www.russandrews.com/product.asp?lookup=1®ion=UK¤cy=GBP&pf_id=2436&customer_id=PAA0433090713219NQXICLHHHBGHWOXY for a real laugh.
I got my last 1.3 HDMI cable from Amazon for 32p! But all the audiophiles will insist that their £100+ cable is better, despite my protestations about digital handshaking. And no, the connector wasn't loose or a bad fit, that's another myth spread by suckers who bought their cable from Curry's at an enormous price.
Russandrews... it's just too easy a target.
I suppose if you tell people something often enough and illogical enough, they'll come to believe it...
I can understand that the signal is no better on a more expensive digital cable but I have purchased some very cheap cables and submitted them to a bit too much abuse that they failed a little too quickly. So I can understand choosing to pay *a bit* more than 32p for a more robust cable. But it's really the protection against physical damage that one would be looking to gain and certainly paying more than a tenner would be crazy.
More expensive TVs, more expensive cables, a chance for HiFi/TV nerds to look down on the rest of us who don't give a S*!t, which I'd bet is the vast majority of TV viewers. Ultimately this is about keeping the market moving and keeping a highly profitable non-commodity product segment going for a few more years.
Despite having HD and BluRay, I still watch normal channels and buy standard DVDs, mainly because HiRes does not add enough to my viewing experience. Apparently, also more of us are multi-tasking when watching TV, with one eye on The Register and one on the TV what use is any enhanced viewing mechanism?
I'll wait for true holographic 3D before I get excited.
BTW. The only £40 gold plated HDMI cable, I bought is the only one that's ever failed. (Need over Delivery time and cost)
This site is also good for a giggle.
Those two examples makes mine look positively cheapskate.
Tramp icon --->
@Fogcat (regarding his "giggle" link: http://www.highendcable.co.uk/Nordost%20ODIN%20Speaker%20Cable.htm)
You do realize that your link was to >>>analog<<< speaker cables which is an ENTIRELY different argument, right?
I got a £15 HDMI cable from Apple for my laptop bag for that reason, and also because the connectors are much smaller than other cables, and the cable a bit thinner, so it takes a little less room in my bag.
However, for desktop PC to monitor, you very rarely move the cables, so it doesn't really matter.
A lot of broadcasters are looking at 100/120Hz for 4K because fast pans and sports will look horribly jerky at 50/60Hz.
HDMI 2.0 is overdue and under-specified. Who'd have thought?
Wasn't there an article on this very website quoting someone in the know that his opinion is that 4K is far less important than higher frame rates?
I saw a 84" 4K display at Selfridges the other day in London. It looked nice but it was still LED backlit LCD technology. No sign of any OLED displays. You only benefit from 4K at larger screen sizes. For the average schmoe 1080 is enough. I'd rather have the new 60" Panasonic plasma thanks.
What we really need is OLED's or similar technology for higher contrast, deeper backs, fast response times, super thin, low power and much higher frame rates. We don't need more pixels right now (we are falling foul to the megapickles scam all over again).
Next trip. Harrods, to see if they have any OLED's being demoed.
My 27" TV that I use as a monitor could benefit from some extra pixels in the same way that retina displays from Apple another manufacturers benefit from it.
2800 x 1200 @ up to 96Hz 96 fps* progressive with 2.34:1 Aspect makes more sense than 4K x 2K @ 50fps or 60fps in the living room.
(* It's daft that current HD went to multiple incompatible frame rates, 24p, 25i50Hz, 30i60Hz, 50p, 60p etc instead of a fixed 48 fps, so we are doomed to need pointless 100fps/100Hz & 120fps/120Hz incompatible with each other and Cinema modes. Cinema using better than 4K x 2K but @ 48fps progressive already)
Should be the one true way forward.
Can this new HDMI standard daisy chain independent displays?
> Can this new HDMI standard daisy chain independent displays?
I don't want my PC or my home theater to be wired up like an Atari ST.
Power over HDMI is something useful though...
Those who can also distinguish question from exclamation?
Wake up call - monitors and TVs have been converging for ages, as have entertainment- oriented PCs and dedicated entertainment devices.
So why wouldn't you want them all using the same interface, especially that which is the most capable? Which is traditionally DP.
48 bits colour depth? 32 audio channels? And here's me deaf in one ear and colour blind (red/green if you must know).
HDMI 1.4 is perfectly adequate for my senses.
I read somewhere that the current HDMI specs do not support Closed Captions/Subtitles. Any chance the new version does?
Use case: Rent movie on Google Play. Play movie on tablet (No GP support on PS3). Enable subtiles. Connect tablet to TV via HDMI 1.4 cable. Subtitles shown on the tablet screen but not on the TV screen.
Or am I connecting/holding/doing it wrong?
Make the media player use software rending instead of hardware rendering.
I saw such a thing in Game a little while back, as a PS3 connector cable, and was puzzled.
Long term, I can almost see the point to it (AV receiver as router, maybe), but surely, currently, there is no use case for sending networking information from say, a games console or blue ray player, or even a PC, to a display? What is the display going to do with said network information.
Surely, all the grunt work is being done by the device, and the Display, is just, you know, Displaying, what ever it gets sent down the 'video' cable.
Or am I missing something incredibly simple and obvious?
I think the original reason was just to remove an extra cable. For me, I prefer the separate ethernet cable, but I suppose for the masses it simplifies things.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018