Does anyone know how this HDMI scam got started?
Copyright cartel executives needing to level up their epeens with DRM requirements.
Does anyone know how this HDMI scam got started?
Which page of which version of the spec?The HDMI spec is 50'.
HDMI carries uncompressed video. Compressed video uses about 0.1 bits per pixel, so that comparison isn't valid.And a singal coax still carries dozens of HD channels for long distances. My diy coat hanger antenae thru 100' of coax gives me the best HD picture/5.1 surround I can get (better than cable, netflix, youtube) other than bluray, and it picks up 10HD channels, so why was expensive HDMI needed? Does anyone know how this HDMI scam got started?
Which page of which version of the spec?
HDMI carries uncompressed video. Compressed video uses about 0.1 bits per pixel, so that comparison isn't valid.
That doesn't mean you're not allowed to make a longer one if by some miracle you manage to pull it off. An Ethernet cable isn't allowed to be longer than 100 m as then the maximum propagation time would be exceeded.Ive installed hundreds of TVs in large venues and never seen an HDMI cable over 50' and sometimes those didnt work properly.
Blu-ray has a maximum data rate of 54 Mbps (and most discs use only half of that). Broadcast TV and streaming rates are much lower. HDMI 2.0 supports up to 6 Gbps per channel for a total of 18 Gbps. Again comparing compressed and uncompressed video formats is meaningless. Also bear in mind that HDMI predates Cat-6 cable and 10GBASE-T Ethernet by several years. Granted, the early HDMI versions, based on the DVI spec from 1999, had a maximum combined bit rate of "only" ~5 Gbps. 1000BASE-T Ethernet was also standardised in 1999.OTA HD uses a lot less compression than cable tv. A coax can carry 69 channels of compressed ( 19b/s ) HD that looks almost as good as Bluray, but you say it cant carry 1 channel of uncompressed HD. Not buying it. And I was actually touting network cable, cat6, as the way to go. Cheap and you can have 300' runs.
That too, but the cable and connector are more expensive to make than Cat-6 and 8P8C.I think the price of HDMI cables has more to do with the fact that they are sold to AV enthusiasts rather than network engineers
From its introduction through to the present, HDMI has offered substantially higher data rates than contemporary networking standards. It is no surprise, then, that the cables are a little more expensive.
HDMI has become a morass of optional features and half-baked implementations, that's for sure. I can still see where it came from, and it made sense at the time. Now the interface is kept, with enhancements, in order to maintain compatibility. On the desktop, DisplayPort has pretty much replaced DVI/HDMI as monitor interface.I have one really high-speed unit @ home, my VR helmet, but that thing "only" needs 12 Gbit/sec to display things. It would be so nice to have a Cat 8 @ 25Gbit instead of that really bulky HDMI 2.0.
HDMI is still a !"#¤!"##¤%"#¤%"#%¤ when it comes to compatibility. There is still so much crappy units that don't seems to talk properly, I hate HDCP.
The TV makers as just a much to blame. I used to work for a satellite box company. Sometimes we'd get reports of trouble with certain TV models. The cause was usually the TV not following the spec properly, and we'd have to implement a workaround.Things that losing the handshake is not fun. I talking to you cable box/satellite box makers!
Have you forgotten about the SCART connector?Don't get me started on the connector it self.
That doesn't mean you're not allowed to make a longer one if by some miracle you manage to pull it off. An Ethernet cable isn't allowed to be longer than 100 m as then the maximum propagation time would be exceeded.
Blu-ray has a maximum data rate of 54 Mbps (and most discs use only half of that). Broadcast TV and streaming rates are much lower. HDMI 2.0 supports up to 6 Gbps per channel for a total of 18 Gbps. Again comparing compressed and uncompressed video formats is meaningless. Also bear in mind that HDMI predates Cat-6 cable and 10GBASE-T Ethernet by several years. Granted, the early HDMI versions, based on the DVI spec from 1999, had a maximum combined bit rate of "only" ~5 Gbps. 1000BASE-T Ethernet was also standardised in 1999.
From its introduction through to the present, HDMI has offered substantially higher data rates than contemporary networking standards. It is no surprise, then, that the cables are a little more expensive.
Is this some poor attempt at trolling, or are you really that dense?Why would it matter that HDMI can do 18 Gbps when bluray puts out 54Mbps.
I had... now I'm going to have nightmares for weeks. Amiga -> Scart with RGB support or DVD player with RGB and not YUV support.Have you forgotten about the SCART connector?
Don't forget the lacerated fingers and bits of plug remaining in the socket.I had... now I'm going to have nightmares for weeks. Amiga -> Scart with RGB support or DVD player with RGB and not YUV support.
The list goes on. Wiggle, wiggle big fat cable now you're loose again.
I don't think they were intended to be inserted or removed with the equipment powered.I am still and forever in contempt of RCA connectors; who thought it was a good idea to make signal before ground on insertion, then break ground before signal on withdrawal? I suspect a conspiracy among amplifier and speaker manufacturers to sell more of them...
I don't think they were intended to be inserted or removed with the equipment powered.
USB3 has the bandwidth for fairly high resolution uncompressed video. To complicate matters, the Type C connector also allows switching to alternate modes, including HDMI and DisplayPort, by repurposing the superspeed pairs.USB also can have compressed video and uncompressed video versions,