HDMI 1.3 and HDMI 1.4 use the same plug but the latter has two more wires connected. HDMI 1.4 also uses high speed certified cable. Besides the Ethernet and audio return lines, the only non-hardware differences are handshaking routines, 3-D support, extended color palette and 4kX2K resolution support all of which in the PS3 can be implemented by a software update.
The bandwidth (transfer speed) of 1.3 and 1.4 HDMI ports is the same. Hdmi 1.3 cable comes in standard and High speed. At lengths of less than 3 feet, the bandwidth should be the same.
- Standard (category 1) is the equivalent of a 720p/1080i signal.
- High Speed HDMI cables can handle 1080p signals at increased color depths, higher refresh rates and resolutions.
HDMI 1.4 requires 3-D resolution support: 1080P@24Hz and 720P@60Hz other modes and frame packing methods may be supported but are not required. The HDMI 1.4a addendum adds required support for 2 more 3-D framepacking modes (1/2 resolution) for set top boxes and also lists all older 3-D ready display techniques.
HDMI 1.4 and 1.4a when used together provide handshaking routines to support ALL existing 3-D ready displays. Updates to firmware for the 3-D ready TVs may be possible so that they automatically handshake with a 1.4 source to negotiate a common display format (if supported). (Some of the 3-D ready displays do not support framepacking and from statements by Sony employees, display agnostic was a feature stressed which means SONY will not support those.)
The PS3 appears to have an automatic-manual setting (picture leaked) for this 3-D HDMI 1.4 negotiation with Manual requiring the PS3 to be set to a 3-D output mode like DLP checkerboard for a non-upgraded firmware DLP 3-D ready HDMI 1.3 TV. (Sony may support DLP checkerboard, Panasonic and Samsung blu-ray players do.)
http://3dvision-blog.com/playstation-3-firmware-3-20-to-add-3d-video-output-support/ http://3dvision-blog.com/category/general-3d-news/
For a device to be rated as HDMI 1.4 requires it support a framepacked (two frames and meta data) 1080P and 720P signal. The TV takes the two frames and displays them at 120Hz (or faster) so with framepacking from the source you have two sequential frames in the time it takes for one 60Hz frame. The shutter glasses alternate turning (on-off) (off-on) at this rate (120Hz). This results in very little flicker and with good glasses almost no reduction in brightness or contrast. The framepacking method can vary. A device can support some of the HDMI 1.4 required standards but can not call itself compliant.
Framepacked= two 3D (both eyes views) frames are packed into the timing window of 1 2-D frame (24-60Hz). There are multiple methods to pack these two frames into this timing window (there are only 4 required methods for certification). Framepacking allows flexibility in method as well as allowing the display after unpacking these frames to display at any rate it chooses as plasma, LCD and DLP have different optimum refresh rates.
Framepacking allows the HDMI 1.4 3-D information to be display agnostic and the same source information as provided by the PS3 can be used with any display engine (LCD 240Hz, DLP120Hz, Plasma 640Hz, OLED 120Hz) and with any technique for displaying 3-D (Autostereoscopic, Field sequential Shutter, field sequential polorized, dual display polarized or with any new technology developed in the future).
The output from the 1.4 source device (PS3 for instance) is 60HZ or less not 120Hz. Without support for 3-D built in to the display, no HDMI 1.4 3-D mode, required or optional, will work. The fact that a TV has a refresh rate of 120Hz does not enable 3-D support. A half resolution side by side mode can be viewed in 3-D by crossing your eyes or with a cheap hand held mirror assembly. Youtube has been experimenting with this.
The HDMI 1.4 source device outputs a 60Hz or less video signal. When 3-D is active the framebuffer in the PS3 doubles in size and two frames are packed into, (timing) at double the transfer rate, the timing window that represents the 60-24 Hz frame rate associated with TV. The HDMI 1.4 TV recognizes this and pulls the two frames out of this "window" and displays the two frames alternately at 120Hz resulting in two 60 HZ (right and left) images for 3-D appearing to occur simultaneously because of persistence in the eye. The double 1080P resolution also supported by HDMI 1.4 is possible because the frame buffers in a HDMI 1.4 device have to be twice as large for 3-D so why not make these buffers available for double res if you are not doing 3-D.
1) The XBOX can not do 1080P 3-D at 60Hz due to the 1.2 HDMI ports transfer speed limits but the HDMI 1.2 port may be able to do 1080P 3-D at 24Hz.
2) The Xbox hardware GPU advantage over the PS3 RSX is lost when doing 1080P 2-D and 720P 3-D. The PS3 then becomes, by contrast, more efficent and easier to program and every bit counts when two frames must be generated in the same time. This was the reason the PS3 has a configurable frame buffer and some of the graphics processors in the Nvidia 7800 were removed in favor of the CELL SPEs.
How did the Xbox do the 3-D games Avatar and Gen Tao. Those were done half resolution 720P. Another interesting point is that the game Avatar rendered at 30Hz on both the Xbox and PS3 but packed (two frames at half resolution) into, depending on display device, 60 Hz frames. My DLP required 60HZ checkerboard (slightly more than half resolution) double frame (packed) and the DLP pulled the two frames out and displayed at 120 Hz.
Many were questioning the PS3 ability to do 3-D as the assumption was the PS3 was less powerful due to comparisons in frame rate between Avatar 3-D running on the Xbox and PS3. The difference here is SONY did not provide 3-D SDKs for Avatar but is now providing the SDK calls for 3-D and developers will now have proven code to write 3-D games. MS may do the same at some point.
The XBOX half resolution 3-D will be enough for the streaming 3-D being proposed for current set top boxes (HDMI 1.4a addendum). Some of the proposed standards for HDMI 1.4 will probably be supported by the XBOX. The PS3 can support all HDMI 1.4 display modes, some of which are NOT possible for the XBOX due to the HDMI 1.2 port.
The PS3 RSX uses the 256 meg of Gddr3 shared memory for video buffers. The Xbox uses 10 Meg of very fast video ram INSIDE the xbox GPU for a buffer. This makes it easier for the xbox to do things like AA but makes it less flexible. The design criteria of the Xbox was for a very efficient 720P game machine. The PS3 was designed to be more flexible and for this flexibility the PS3 takes a hit in efficiency at lower res. But it allows software configuration for things like new video modes including 3-D and double 1080P res.
Each of the 6 Cell SPE processors is faster/more efficient at video processing than each of the Power PC processors in the Xbox. You have to think of them as idiot savants, faster at repetative tasks. This makes the Cell faster where it counts and the choice of memory that is 2 times faster than the XBOX GDDR3 supports the faster speed necessary for 1080P and 3-D on the PS3. (As idiot savants the Cell SPEs require more supervision and more complex code; this is the reason many developers were not getting the most out of the PS3).
Click To Help Improve The PlayStation 3 Experience- Like (5)
Average User Rating
(0 ratings)
- A forum post that explains the above in a different way: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=18167937Originally Posted by DaViD BouletIf we're talking about a new "3D" HDTV or projector, you'll need HDMI 1.4 on the display device as HDMI 1.4 is set up to "talk" back and forth with the source component and say "send me 3D because I'm a 3D display". Older 1.3 displays, even those marked "3D ready", won't be able to talk to the source components about 3D bcs all of that protocol was agreed upon just recently and built in to the HDMI 1.4 from the start.
Now...
you *can* get away with 1.3 in certain cases... here is how the exceptions appear to work:
In the case of the PS3, because its internal processing will be able to handle 3D blu-ray with a firmware upgrade and because the PS3 was designed with upgrading in mind, they have found a way to add both full 3D decoding for the blu-ray and the "3D conversation" stuff into the HDMI port even though it's technically a 1.3 chipset (basically, as far as 3D stuff goes, the PS3 will sound and act like an actual HDMI 1.4 chipset as far as the 3D conversation and signal is concerned). This is because the 3D stuff on HDMI 1.4 doesn't really require a physical difference from 1.3... same bandwidth etc. as 1.3, just new meta-data protocols. So the PS3 is a rare exception in the "1.4 rule" because as far as 3D is concerned, it can be upgraded to *act* like an HDMI 1.4 device even though it's really a 1.3 chipset. Again, this is only possible because the PS3 was designed from the ground up with radical firmware updating in mind. It's doubtful that other processors will be so lucky, and 1.3 BD players other than the PS3 won't be lucky because they lack the internal circutry necessary to perform the 3D *decoding*, even if their 1.3 chipsets could be made to handle the output, so there's stuck in 2D mode because their MPEG decoding chips are hard-wired for 2D and not designed to be upgraded.
The other big unknown is what would happen if you routed a "1.4" 3D signal (including the 3D output of the PS3 here) through an HDMI 1.3 receiver on its way to the TV or display. Chances are that if your receiver is acting as a blind switch box, it would all work as the receiver wouldn't be manipulating the signal in any real way. But if the receiver is pulling out the audio stream for sound, as would usually be the case, it may not work with preserving the 3D bcs it has to un-pack and re-pack the bitstreams and might not know how to repack the 3D on its way back to your 3D TV.
So whether 1.3 receivers work with HDMI 1.4 3D signals will be a case-by-case issue that we won't know until we try.
That's the way it's looking so far based on what we've been told...Set top boxes for DSS and Comcast will be firmware updatable to 3D over HDMI 1.3 as well, but it won't be full 1080p stereo... it will be 1/2 HD resolution as the way those two devices will transmit 3D is by taking a normal 2D HD signal and literally cutting in half... one half for the Left and one for the Right eye. (Talking to Comcast; Motorola set top boxes are certified to run 3-D now with firmware update but others in selected Comcast regions are not.) Only set top boxes that output 1080P can be firmware updated to support DLP checkerboard and at this time I believe only Satellite receivers DSS can do that.
As far as "full" 1080p 3D stereo, only the PS3 has been verified to work with an update over HDMI 1.3.- Report Abuse
- Like (0)
- Originally Posted by Joseph ClarkThanks. That's pretty clear for HDMI 1.4. I doubt I'd perceive much if any flicker at 60hz, but at that rate judder would be introduced, right? (That is, each eye would see 3:2 pulldown.) The only way to eliminate judder in a max 120hz set would be to go down to a 48hz frame rate per eye, right? And that runs the risk of increased flicker? (Not to mention eliminating any trick play features like frame interpolation - although many people don't even want that.)Hey Joe,
"Judder" is completely different from "Flicker"... which you seem to already know. And yes, just like with any 60 fps display of a 24 fps native signal... you'd be introcuding 3-2 judder into the signal to show it at 60 Hz per eye... yet another reason to opt for 120 Hz per eye!
So Judder is a different issue than flicker, but it's relevent for discussion because only "smart" 3D displays would be able to motion-interpolate 3D video since they'd need to run a separate interpolation engine for each eye individually... and really you'd need 120 Hz minimum per eye so you could do even math (120 is an interval of 24 since it's 5 times 24... trying to interpolate 24 fps to 60 fps wouldn't given an even interval so it's not worth bothering).
A "smart" 3D device could either frame-interpolate to smooth out motion or keep the 24 fps native film-judder in tact for a "movie feel".The PS3 will be upgradable to "1.4" performance/specs as far as the 3D protocols are concerned, but because of chip-limiations with the 1.3 physical interface won't include some 1.4 features like ethernet and 2-way audio streaming. But as far as 3D is concerned, basically the PS3 will be a 1.4 device. This was confirmed at CES by Steve Venuti from HDMI. Details about even HDMI are still not 100% clear to all of us non-industry folks, but it sounds like this means that the PS3 will output 3D as 1080p48 (at least one option for it).Quote:How about the PS3? Since it's an HDMI 1.3 device, does that mean it can't send a signal such that a "smart" HDMI 1.4 display will recognize it's right eye/left eye sequences? Is that why I've read some posts that seem to indicate that the PS3, upgraded to 3D, won't be fully compliant with the new spec? Would that mean that a PS3's signal would be displayed at 60fps per eye, and thus be unable to eliminate 3:2 judder for film content?- Report Abuse
- Like (0)
- Originally Posted by keltraineSo GregK, you mentioned that the Mitsu RP DLPs use checkerboard 3D, which compromises/reduces the resolution overall. What about the Samsung DLPs; same story as Mitsu or not? Got any links on either (as I haven't been able to find any, unless they're buried somewhere in the middle of the owner's threads here-which wouldn't be surprising now that I think of it! :P)
Hehe, since I'm one of those nitpickers, would you mind elaborating on that? I had thought getting full 1920x1080p at 120Hz would *actually* be true 3D (hence thinking that if my Samsung DLP would support that over HDMI 1.3, I'd be set once I got one of those kits), so please fill me in or point me to somewhere that does elucidate this if you don't mind; thank you!
All of the rear projection DLP projectors use the checkerboard approach. Checkerboarding originated from TI's "wobulation" solution for getting 1080P from DLP chips that then couldn't deliver a full 1080p image instantaneously. http://medtron.org/Documents/TI_DLP_...Technology.pdf Although the checkerboard format was first designed with DLP in mind, it can and has been used in other types of displays, and also doesn't require a true 120hz input.
But now that affordable projectors like the HD66 are coming out which accept a true 120 input, it's possible to then display full resolution per eye. Getting full 1080P DLP while also displaying a higher frame rate is tougher to pull off, which is why we're only seeing 720p true 120hz projectors at this price range. ..On this note, the original Real-D projectors weren't quite up to 1080p resolution per eye, but later generation Real-D equipped projectors overcame this limitation. On the consumer front, Titan does offers a 1080P DLP projector at full 1920x1080 (per eye) that sadly is still quite expensive..... LCD manufactures may beat DLP when it comes to offering the first "affordable" 1080p front projector.
For those wanting optimum L/R cancellation (minimal "ghosting"), and are weighing the options of LCD vs DLP, it's worth noting DLP's almost instantaneous decay rate makes it the best canidate for 120hz 3-D.
What HDMI 1.4 overcomes is the reliance of an alternating frame system to deliver 1080p 3-D by offering simultaneous 1080p streams. *This* is what HDMI 1.3 can't do. How this affects the end user depends on their 3-D display. It hasn't really been discussed in this thread yet, but all alternating frame 3-D systems will have (to varying degrees) "phasing" issues. Notably with motion at a sympathetic rate of the alternating cycle which is used. This can be seen with certain pans or motion in theatrical polarized Real-D, as well as the Dolby / Infitec system, which both uses alternating frames @ 144hz in order to be able to use one projector. Only IMAX uses twin projectors, and therefore avoids these potential phasing issues. The faster the alternating frames, the less obtrusive this type of artifact becomes. However- With a 3-D display device (be it a 4K display device that can offer L/R stereo content at 2K via polarization, or dual projectors) that doesn't need alternating frames, these issues can then be easily bypassed with 1.4, as it has the bandwidth to offer both streams in a better form.
