HDMI 2.2 Finalized with 96 GB/s Bandwidth, 16K Resolution Support (tomshardware.com) 46
The HDMI Forum has officially finalized HDMI 2.2, doubling bandwidth from 48 GB/s to 96 GB/s compared to the current HDMI 2.1 standard. The specification enables 16K resolution at 60 Hz and 12K at 120 Hz with chroma subsampling, while supporting uncompressed 4K at 240 Hz with 12-bit color depth and uncompressed 8K at 60 Hz.
The new standard requires "Ultra96" certified cables with clear HDMI Forum branding to achieve full bandwidth capabilities. HDMI 2.2's 96 GB/s throughput surpasses DisplayPort 2.1b UHBR20's 80 GB/s maximum. The specification maintains backwards compatibility with existing devices and cables, operating at the lowest common denominator when mixed with older hardware. HDMI 2.2 introduces a Latency Indication Protocol to improve audio-video synchronization in complex home theater setups.
The new standard requires "Ultra96" certified cables with clear HDMI Forum branding to achieve full bandwidth capabilities. HDMI 2.2's 96 GB/s throughput surpasses DisplayPort 2.1b UHBR20's 80 GB/s maximum. The specification maintains backwards compatibility with existing devices and cables, operating at the lowest common denominator when mixed with older hardware. HDMI 2.2 introduces a Latency Indication Protocol to improve audio-video synchronization in complex home theater setups.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But math has "a steep learning curve"! :ducks:
keep it coming... (Score:2)
gotta keep selling those "new" cables!
Re:keep it coming... (Score:4, Informative)
Sounds excessive (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact sounds like the standards comittee should have been disbanded about one version ago. This is not going to become useful before major technological changes make it obsolete.
Re:Sounds excessive (Score:5, Informative)
It will become useful yesterday. Monitors that exceed the bandwidth of HDMI 2.1 have been on the market for some time now. They currently either rely on DSC or DisplayPort (or both).
Current 4K240 monitors require around 129% of the available bandwidth that HDMI currently provides. When operating in 10bpp HDR, they require 161%.
Considering that lower resolution monitors on the market today go up to 540 Hz, the appetite for increased connection bandwidth is insatiable.
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed! And it may be useful on space-rockets as well! Because most people have these! Seriously, do you even realize how stupid you sound?
Re: (Score:3)
So your argument is that technological advancement is pointless because only high-end products can benefit today?
Re: (Score:2)
HDMI has been doing a shit job of kicking the can which is why we have so many sub-versions. They absolutely should make a big jump forwards for a change, because they have been creating way too many versions of HDMI and that is already leading to customer confusion.
Re: (Score:2)
There are $700 gaming monitors with those specs already. There will probably be $300 gaming monitors with those specs in a year or two.
Re: (Score:2)
why (Score:3)
Why do I need 16K resolution? Sitting one foot away from a 180inch screen?
Re:why (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know if they've added the relevant features to HDMI but for DisplayPort one of the reasons they upped the speed was so that you could drive multiple monitors from one cable.
Personally while I like that this is putting pressure on the DP group to not sit on their laurels (it'd be nice to drive 4 4K monitors from one cable...) I don't really care what the HDMI group says. The term is synonymous with royalties and unnecessarily expensive cables. DisplayPort, which is at least free and open, seems to both be the more innovative standard and the free-er one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:why (Score:5, Insightful)
Well the slashdot crowd has certainly aged out. At one time people would have been excited about incredible resolutions. Now it's just old people complaining.
Re: (Score:3)
I would imagine the time between the widespread standardization on 1080p and the widespread availability of cheap 4K monitors was, for most Slashdotters (who are Gen X and older), the time about which our eyes all turned to shit (45-50 years old.)
So you're probably not wrong. But that said, more monitors, larger monitors, and better colour, are all things we should appreciate even with crappy eyes.
Re: (Score:1)
You enjoy this because you're an electronics geek. I enjoy it too. But in all other respects, your posting shows that you are a cantankerous old coot, so you are in good company with the old people complaining.
Re: (Score:2)
At one time people would have been excited about incredible resolutions. Now it's just old people complaining.
My doctor doesn't want me getting too excited anymore. Where's my nurse? It's past time for morning meds, and I need my nap...
Re: (Score:2)
or maybe we don't fall for the false hype anymore. I'm writing this on a 55" 8K monitor where the OS fails to scale the menus so you have to squint to be able to read them. If we had proper support for 8K, 16K would be great.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you watch soccer? 4k resolution means a player's head is about 14 pixels high, not enough to make out much beyond a blob of color; their jersey is 60 pixels high, enough to make out the number but not much more. Doubling the vertical resolution (i.e. going to 8k) would likely be enough to let you make out similar detail to what you'd see in real life. (Frame rate is another issue: HDMI 2.0 allows 4k at 60hz which is too slow when panning in a soccer game; HDMI 2.1 allows 4k at 120hz which is probably eno
Re: (Score:2)
Do you watch soccer? 4k resolution means a player's head is about 14 pixels high, not enough to make out much beyond a blob of color; their jersey is 60 pixels high, enough to make out the number but not much more. Doubling the vertical resolution (i.e. going to 8k) would likely be enough to let you make out similar detail to what you'd see in real life.
(Frame rate is another issue: HDMI 2.0 allows 4k at 60hz which is too slow when panning in a soccer game; HDMI 2.1 allows 4k at 120hz which is probably enough). I think that 16k is probably the right bandwidth to get soccer looking good.
All good in theory, except that you likely need something like a 200" TV so actually tell the difference between 8k and 16k.
And no, you are not going to sit right in front of the TV. You'll be at least 1 meter away, more likely 2-3.
Do you watch the gorgeous film classics like Lawrence of Arabia? One of the (many) things that make it look great is that it was shot on 65mm, equivalent to about 12k resolution.
Let me guess, you are watching these classics at 1080p, or at best 4k. You couldn't care less if it was shot in 12k or 1000k at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
All good in theory, except that you likely need something like a 200" TV so actually tell the difference between 8k and 16k.
Like I said, I figured 8k would be enough resolution for soccer. As for 16k, I imagine that something with bandwidth for 16k would translate that bandwidth into twice the frequency for 8k, which would be ideal for soccer.
[Lawrence of Arabia] Let me guess, you are watching these classics at 1080p, or at best 4k.
I watched Lawrence of Arabia on a Cinerama screen. It was breathtaking. I expect that the higher resolutions described here will help more places (like movie theaters) display higher quality prints. I suspect they'll open up new avenues like fake windows or full-wall screens in residences.
Re: (Score:2)
4k 60 fps is more than enough for soccer. Most people don't event sit close enough to fully benefit from the 4k resolution anyways
Re: why (Score:2)
Re: why (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why ask why you need it?
Ever see a Jumbotron in 1080p? It's ridiculous.
I can totally see a wall-sized screen being useful for many businesses. Walk to one area, read what's there, move to another area to read something else. Analysts, factories, hospitals, military, theme parks, etc.
They already are doing this with walls of a dozen different screens, with that many video cards, cables, power supplies.
Or complex video splitters, muxers/demuxers, etc.
When they scale to 24K there will be customers too.
I'll
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing. 8 * 1920 = 15 * 1024.
Anyway.... screens are getting bigger. A month ago I worked with installing multiple 100" screens in conference rooms, programming display processors to show a mosaic of four video sources on the same screen. When the source signal is the same resolution as the screen's video input, the sources had to be scaled down.
It might take some time before the equipment exists, but it would still be nice to have the standard ready before then.
And... 14 years ago, I visited
Nearing the Edge of Practicality (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Multi-monitor is not a feature that HDMI has ever offered. That's always been a DisplayPort thing, and I don't see anything in this article about adding multi-monitor support. However, we do need more bandwidth for higher refresh rates. Many monitors on the market today exceed the 48 Gbps that HDMI 2.1 provides, and fall back on DSC or DisplayPort to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. In my case, I'm waiting for a 57-inch dual-4K widescreen with QD-OLED and if it supports HDMI 2.2 I certainly won't complain.
16K is impressive (Score:2)
Too bad the best content was filmed in 1080p 24fps (Panavision HD-900F, etc) or below. Or on film which has comparable resolution to 4K and below, although film scanning is typically done at 8K so that it can be edited more easily. (disclaimer: I'm not actually a big cinema tech guy, just looked up a few things. I'm layperson and a consumer of films)
I'd rather use that level of bandwidth with DisplayPort for Multi Stream Transport. Instead of one 16K@60 or 12K@120 I'd rather have a few 4K displays attached
Re: (Score:3)
> film which has comparable resolution to 4K and below
"It's complicated".
Many of the masterpiece films were filmed on 70mm which is about 4x the size of 35mm, plus better emulsion with a tighter grain.
So if we take your 4K number for a normal film and 4x it and double that for scanning we're waiting for 32K to master it digitally.
We're going to need faster storage!
Available in your home (Score:1)
it's Gbps, not GB/s (Score:1)
Can't believe nobody complained about the mixup between GB/s and Gbps (gigabit/s). It's 96 gigabit/s, not 96gigabytes/s.
It's not 96 GB/s (Score:2)
It's 96 Gbps (Gb/s), not 96 GB/s. 96 gigabits per second is 12 GB/s.
If it were up to me, I would start by introducing a simple lossless or near-lossless compression scheme inspired by QOI [qoiformat.org] before doubling the data rate yet again. (It would require variable framerates, but there's nothing technically difficult about that, I think? The only thing holding back VFR in the past was NVIDIA making this incredibly basic feature proprietary in order to charge licensing fees, but eventually they did relent.)
I'm
cheap (Score:2)