HDMI possibly becoming obselete?

[Mark Collins]

http://www.retrevo.com/content/blog/2010/07/will-hdbaset-make-hdmi-obsolete?cmpid=Email

Probably not. This new standard doesn't really offer anything more than HDMI currently does.

Yes, this new standard can do uncompressed 1080p...yay. However, HDMI 1.4 can apparently do 4K by 2K, as well as carry a 3D signal.

So, my question is, do we really need another new standard, especially when the connection it's meant to replace is superior to it?

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

If it suddenly becomes adopted in all new displays and players then it will probably eventually take over, until then HDMI is pretty much the standard bearer for years to come.

 

[Brandon Fraley]

new standard can carry ethernet signal, plus it's cheaper to produce, and doesn't require fee to license the tech when manufacturing a device that uses it. Better.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Yes we need a new standard because HDMI is a pain in the ass.

Everybody built in CAT6 infrastructure. Buildings are wired for CAT6, houses are wired for CAT6--CAT6 can run hundreds of feet--HDMI? Nothing.

What it offers that HDMI doesn't is an entire industry built around CAT6 cabling.

 

[Brandon Fraley]

What it offers that HDMI doesn't is an entire industry built around CAT6 cabling.

More like a SOCIETY build around CAT6 cabling.

 

[Vico Martin]

the old copper... always there.

 

[Stuart English]

I/O and REDmote

I/O and REDmote

new standard can carry ethernet signal, plus it's cheaper to produce, and doesn't require fee to license the tech when manufacturing a device that uses it.

HDMI 1.4 can also carry Ethernet control signals, we don't know that it is less expensive to produce, nor do we know the licensing terms.

Also we don't know any details on availability of chip sets, or it's compatibility with the millions of existing HDMI enabled display devices.

So it seems a bit early to call it a replacement for HDMI just yet.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Yes we need a new standard because HDMI is a pain in the ass.

Everybody built in CAT6 infrastructure. Buildings are wired for CAT6, houses are wired for CAT6--CAT6 can run hundreds of feet--HDMI? Nothing.

What it offers that HDMI doesn't is an entire industry built around CAT6 cabling.

What are you gonna do, put the client in a room down the hall with a monitor so they can't comment while you edit?

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

At home my home theater rack is more than 20 feet from my TV behind a wall. Since I don't have HDMI wiring in my apartment I have an HDMI cable running under the couch and rug. With CAT6 I could just use the existing wiring.

On set of course long cable runs are common. With this you could run a 100 foot video tap.

3 years ago getting a video on the computer to play on a TV was a PITA. You either had to move the computer into the room with the TV or else setup some sort of streaming system through a PS3 or Xbox etc.

If you don't have a ROKU box or whatever you could just switch to your computer output in another room and start playing a streaming video etc.

If you don't have a computer in the TV room or a PS3 you could watch HULU from your desktop machine.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

I think that HDMI has been obsolete for a long time. But it's DisplayPort that should replace it, not this HDBaseT standard. DisplayPort can do higher resolution than HDMI, carry ethernet, and, since it's packet based, you can actually drive more than one display from a single port. And, unlike HDMI, it's royalty free.

HDMI used to have the advantage of being able to carry more sound formats, but with the newest DP spec this is no longer an issue.

HDBaseT looks interesting because it uses Cat6, but I would rather have the flexibility of being able to move twice the amount of data that DisplayPort gives.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I think that HDMI has been obsolete for a long time. But it's DisplayPort that should replace it, not this HDBaseT standard. DisplayPort can do higher resolution than HDMI, carry ethernet, and, since it's packet based, you can actually drive more than one display from a single port. And, unlike HDMI, it's royalty free.

HDMI used to have the advantage of being able to carry more sound formats, but with the newest DP spec this is no longer an issue.

HDBaseT looks interesting because it uses Cat6, but I would rather have the flexibility of being able to move twice the amount of data that DisplayPort gives.

HDMIs advantage has nothing to do with specs, it's the traction is has.
Cameras, displays, players all HDMI sure displayport is better but outside of the computer world you just aren't seeing it yet hell it's barely even outside of the apple world.