Exclusive Research: 2018 CE Pro Lighting Control Study. Download FREE report now!
Networking & Cables

HDMI Corner: 4K UHD Issues Are Beginning to Roll In

We are finally seeing true 4K 18Gbps content arriving, with in-field infrastructures not being able to support it.

HDMI Corner: 4K UHD Issues Are Beginning to Roll In
We shouldn't be surprised when reports start flowing in with 4K UHD issues.

Jeff Boccaccio · May 19, 2016

We shouldn't be surprised when reports start flowing in with 4K UHD issues. We all saw this coming.

HDMI Rev 2.0 was touted as the new 4K@60Hz “high-end” resolution. Well it was 4K@60Hz, but the color was reduced dramatically to keep the bandwidth under the 10.2Gbps introduced in Rev 1.3 almost 10 years ago. Of course, every company that made HDMI products boasted it could handle “4K@60” … only the big Rev 2.0 change to higher bandwidth was not to become real hardware until almost two years later.

Meanwhile, digital content protection (DCP) created a new content protection scheme to “better protect” the material being played on our improved systems. Only problem, the first run of displays that supported 4K@60 came with or without HDCP 2.2, which can affect 4K@60 reproduction.

So to recap, Rev 2.0 was announced in September 2013. By the end of that year product was being touted as 4K@60. Not until mid-2015 do we start seeing true 4K@60 High Bandwidth product including HDR (high dynamic range). Now we have consumers thinking they bought max 4K, when they may not have. And we are finally seeing true 4K 18Gbps content arriving, with in-field infrastructures not being able to support it. This is almost a carbon copy of what happened under Rev 1.3.

In Rev 1.3 the bandwidth jumped from 5Gbps to 10Gbps, while most integrators and manufacturers were still playing in a 5Gbps sandbox. It worked, for a bit. Now, we are already getting calls due to the latest jump and seeing some equipment with dodgy interoperability.

One display we’ve been working with was claimed to be 4K UHD (18Gbps). After DPL’s testing process and interoperability evaluation, something didn’t look right. The numbers didn’t make sense, so we took out one of our analyzers. Well, it was not 18Gbps; it was a little less than 9! After talking to the manufacturer we find out that in the bowels of the remote’s options menu there is a switch allowing the display to go to true 18Gbps 4K — except it was factory set to off! Integrators don’t need such surprises.

Next, let’s go back to DCP, which decided to add on a few goodies to HDCP 2.2. Take, for example, some additional timing constraints. One is used as a new function called Locality — locality of what, you might say. They introduced it to effectively “ping” the length of your transmission line so they can tell how long it is. If it’s too long, they shut you off. Even crazier, the ping is set for 20ms (.02 seconds). This may sound small, but in our world it’s like covering a thousand miles. Just one more potential hiccup.

This basic instruction of the HDCP handshake eventsneeded to deliver 4K gives an idea of the encryption complexity. (Image provided by DPL Labs.)

What else is there? Shown the figure above is a basic HDCP instruction of events that takes place to get your system to run with 4K. Although this is a simplistic sample, it does demonstrate the amount of complexity there is to the encryption process (much more sophisticated than this).

On this same bus that carries the HDCP and EDID data is a new addition instruction called Status and Control. Here lies the instruction for each sink (display) to follow depending on resolution and encryption. If you are playing true 4K@60 UHD content some additional data has to be shared with the sink. In this case it is scrambling and TMDS clock frequency.

Now, should the user flip between one type of resolution to another, not only does EDID have to do its thing but the TMDS clock frequency changes to a quarter of the data rate rather than the one-tenth it was in Rev 1.4. At the same time, the TMDS scrambling has to be changed. It is also recommended to lower the clock output to reduce emissions.

That’s a lot of variables. We’ll keep updating our testing, and leave the phone lines open.



  About the Author

Jeff Boccaccio is president of DPL Labs. Jeff can be reached at info@dpllabs.com. Have a suggestion or a topic you want to read more about? Email Jeff at jeff@dpllabs.com

Follow Jeff on social media:

Jeff also participates in these groups:
LinkedIn · Google+

View Jeff Boccaccio's complete profile.



  Article Topics


Networking & Cables · HDMI · Networking · News · 4K · HDMI · HDMI 2.0 · Ultra HD · All Topics
CE Pro Magazine

Read More Articles Like This… With A Free Subscription

CE Pro magazine is the resource you need to keep up-to-date on the latest products, techniques, designs and business practices. Subscribe today!

Subscribe Today!

Comments

Posted by John Nemesh on May 23, 2016

It should be noted that NO matrix switches, distribution amps (splitters), or HDMI switches (apart from those built into HDMI 2.0 compliant AVRs) are currently supporting HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 at the FULL spec, UHD resolution at 60hz with 4:4:4 color!  No HDMI over Cat5/6 extenders will support that either.  For right now, if you want to connect a FULL UHD source (like the Samsung UHD player), it must be connected to ONE display.

Posted by highfigh on May 20, 2016

And how were the videos loaded onto the servers? If they want to stop copying, they need to go to China, where the words ‘intellectual property’ are just noise someone makes when they want the legal protection everyone else gives them.

Posted by Julie Jacobson on May 20, 2016

Well, they thought that Kaleidescape’s $40,000 systems would take down Hollywood, so ...

Posted by highfigh on May 20, 2016

I think it’s well past time to look at why the AV industry has allowed itself to be commanded to use a specific cable type, for the some reason that Hollywood doesn’t want its precious movies copied. The irony is in the fact that most of the trailers I see are for movies that are the 3rd or 4th remake, with fancy new special effects. If they think copies are made through a video cable like this, they’re idiots.

No other cable has been designed to do anything but transfer signal over some range of distance, reliably. HDMI fails on 50% of the needs.

It’s time to stick a fork in this HDMI BS and move on.

Posted by highfigh on May 20, 2016

I think it’s well past time to look at why the AV industry has allowed itself to be commanded to use a specific cable type, for the some reason that Hollywood doesn’t want its precious movies copied. The irony is in the fact that most of the trailers I see are for movies that are the 3rd or 4th remake, with fancy new special effects. If they think copies are made through a video cable like this, they’re idiots.

No other cable has been designed to do anything but transfer signal over some range of distance, reliably. HDMI fails on 50% of the needs.

It’s time to stick a fork in this HDMI BS and move on.

Posted by Julie Jacobson on May 20, 2016

Well, they thought that Kaleidescape’s $40,000 systems would take down Hollywood, so ...

Posted by highfigh on May 20, 2016

And how were the videos loaded onto the servers? If they want to stop copying, they need to go to China, where the words ‘intellectual property’ are just noise someone makes when they want the legal protection everyone else gives them.

Posted by John Nemesh on May 23, 2016

It should be noted that NO matrix switches, distribution amps (splitters), or HDMI switches (apart from those built into HDMI 2.0 compliant AVRs) are currently supporting HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 at the FULL spec, UHD resolution at 60hz with 4:4:4 color!  No HDMI over Cat5/6 extenders will support that either.  For right now, if you want to connect a FULL UHD source (like the Samsung UHD player), it must be connected to ONE display.