alphanstein:

Acutally, even HDMI 1.2 doesn't have what it takes to do 1080p/60. For that you'll need the 246 Mb/s promised by the HDMI crowd for the 1.3 spec -- but that's at least 12 to probably something along the lines of 18 or 24 months away from practical application.

Of course, dual-link DVI can do that, but most consumer displays can't deal with that anyway...

I was referring to this post maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying?

Obie,

It was in repsonse to:

"It is very possible and several insiders have hinted that the present 1.1 HDMI interface will be handle the new hi-res audio formats as it will be decoded by the first generation of players themselves. HDMI already supports multiple channels of Hi-Res PCM data. This is similar to how the first DVD players decoded audio. The players will do it instead of your Pre/Pro."

I don't think we are contesting the fact that HDMI will inevitably become the standard of choice, but Ritz's comment about not needing HDMI relates to the fact that he (like me) is already using DVI at the display and can simply continue to use the existing audio connections. Since HDMI and DVI are compatible for video, we have this confusing mess of options, alternate configurations, and assorted craziness. Eventually those of us with DVI will have to migrate to HDMI, but the most compelling need will relate to the HD disc formats (the formats best capable of making use of the new audio formats) - and that opens up a whole separate can of worms, since many of us are wary of buying into either side of a format war too early.

Podboy, I'm curious about your comment about HDMI not supporting 1080p - especially since I came across the following entry in the HDMI FAQ over the weekend:
Is there something you've read that the FAQ isn't mentioning?

Gonk:

The present HDMI standards can support 1080/24p, but not the considerably greater bandwidth required for 1080/60p.

PB

Ah-ha, that makes sense. Of course, it also leads to the question of what sources will be outputting 1080/60p. Do HD-DVD or Blu-Ray support it?

Probably not and probably not. Simlar issue: you'd need some SERIOUS compression or have to really stretch the disc's capacity.

Doesn't really matter, since the 1080P infrastructure is only just being developed AND when you think about it, film is only 24p anyway, so upconverting it to 1080/60p makes no sense. This will only be a real factor when there are thing shot in video at 60p. Some of the new cameras being purchased by CBS for Television City in Hollywood are 60P, but that's just for the future -- none of the rest of the infrastructure there is 60p.

The bottom line is that there is really no compelling reason to "upgrade" to HDMI if you've currently got a working DVI setup. I'm certainly not going to upgrade every 12-18 months as the "HDMI Licensing" people decide they need to excrete another "dot 1" increment to their current standard. I applaud the Outlaw team for sticking to a known (non-moving) standard for the 990.

The 1080p thing is really a strawman for the forseable future since there is zero content to consume in that format today and I suspect there will be vanishingly little even in a couple of years. Heck, you can't even find a consumer level display that will do it yet (though some have been announced) that's actually for sale.

Ritz:

The 1080p displays are just starting to hit from Mitsu and others, though the DLP based products use a "wobulation" to achieve 1080p. To my way of thinking, that is fine, but not "real" 1080p. The D-ILA and SXRD projectors, as well as some of the larger size direct-view LCD panels from Sharp and others are "true" 1080p.

However, I do agree with you that program material will be sparse, and besides, there is no way to deliver it via OTA or any other current conventional method without everyone having to adopt a different (or new) compression scheme such as replacing MPEG-2 with JPEG 2000 or a stepped up MPEG-4 AVC.

Yep, over the air 1080p is out of the question using mpeg-2. That's like trying to squeeze Roseanne Barr into Kate Moss' thong. Both end up being a real eyesore. 8-) Too much data to squeeze into too little bandwidth over too short a period of time (for real time delivery). Mpeg-4 could definitely get the job done though it would require a lot more processing grunt on the receiving end.

Cheers,