HDMI 1.4 Introduces Features, More Confusion

Despite HDMI's gradual dominance as the digital interface of choice in the consumer electronics industry, the format has undergone many revisions in its short life. In mid-2009, grumblings of a new version, HDMI 1.4, were felt by consumers and manufacturers,many none too willing to overhaul their processes and installations to consider another (possibly mandatory) revision. The thrust is not whether the revision makes sense, the question is timing and relevance in an already-tough marketplace.

Designed to support 100mbps of data transfer between components, offer 3D support, and 4k resolution (think your 1080p set is futureproof?), HDMI 1.4 is ushering in excitement among tech heads and resentment from those thinking that their system is now facing near-obsolescence. Although the idea is smart to have one cable (try) to do everything, existing issues that installers have with cables falling out, insertion loss, and odd termination issues for custom runs run the risk of being expounded by making the cable do even more. As discussed in HDMI: More Than Meets the Eye Pattern, HDMI already is tasked with an enormous job, carrying huge amounts of high resolution audio and video. As it stands, long runs of this cabling are fraught with issues and require increasingly thick and unwieldy cables to prevent image and sound drops. Another issue (and it's not uncommon in the consumer electronics industry), is that this new "standard" is announced way in advance of any manufacturer thinking about introducing products that support it. This has a chilling effect on consumer spending, thinking that their new Blu-Ray player or 1080p TV will be immediately behind the curve after HDMI 1.4 rolls out. And yes, the features that are included with the new interface require HDMI 1.4-ready cabling to handle this, already raising fears of backwards compatibility between new and legacy components.

So, let's discuss what these proposed revisions entail.

4K Resolution:

The largest issue with HDMI revisions is the fact that the impetus for the change needs to be supported by reality. In other words, if (existing feature) Deep Color is not utilized by Blu-Ray manufacturers and studios, what is the point in further
confusing the marketplace by introducing it? This question is often asked by clients when shopping for new gear. Savvy consumers don't have problems spending money; they just want to do so wisely. HDMI 1.4, with it's purported 4K resolution capability, falls into the category of "all hat, no horse." Studios all have to overhaul their equipment and methods of broadcasting, camera, telecine, and the consumer must upgrade the display to take advantage. Operating at over four times the current broadcast standard, this would create enormous financial and engineering burdens on content providers, already struggling to send out an acceptable image at 1920x1080 (in those rare cases when that resolution is fully achieved). On the consumer end, this means 1080p TVs are now going to be perceived as second-class, and Blu-Ray, which just began getting traction two years ago, looks like a passing breeze in the annals of technology.

3-D:

Something the movie studios for commercial release have been toying with is the widespread issuance of 3-D movies. Part of this is to drive consumers back into theaters, suffering since home theater offers a (potentially) better experience. Now, electronics manufacturers are starting to see the possibilities on the home front, and HDMI 1.4 is designed from the outset to support it. This might again be an issue of the tail wagging the dog, as the HDMI Consortium is pushing hardware manufacturers to generate new equipment to support a new standard. This area is especially tricky for a few reasons. First, there is no standard for 3-D tech in home displays. Second, the way in which 3-D is being discussed means that existing HDMI cables should work. What this means is that there is no guarantee that holding off on a purchase to take advantage of this feature will have any benefit, and that, with consumers' eyes facing the future, new displays offering 3-D (effectively) might pass by unnoticed.

Audio Return Channel:

Most modern receivers decode everything already. There is minimal benefit for this as we understand it today. In effect, this allows the TV to be the switching hub over the traditional method of utilizing the receiver for that function, but the concept is limited due to the fact that lossless formats are not decoded by any television known today. This eliminates 50% of the reason to use HDMI for consolidated audio and video.

Ethernet:

An interesting option that get surprisingly negative feedback in the tech press, internet connectivity in components is already a reality. Networkable televisions and Blu-Ray players already exist, with the next iteration of this allowing a potential self-contained "mini-network" amongst electronic gear. This would allow components to share internet-based data, facilitating maximum effectiveness of component interoperability (remember when HDMI 1.1 televisions and 1.2 sources didn't like to talk to one another?), customization, and possibly remote control coding options. This feature, if implemented wisely, could be an interesting addition.

HDMI as an interface has seen revisions in a seven year period of 1.0, 1.1, 1.2/1.2a, 1.3/1.3a/1.3b/1.3b1/1.3c, and 1.4 - with products possibly shipping in late 2010. Although many of these revisions incorporated capabilities that impacted few (DVD-Audio, SACD, Deep Color, etc), that did not stop the industry from introducing them, nor did it stop consumers from being confused. Although it is laudable that the consumer electronics industry persists in innovating, attempting increased cross-pollination between PCs and CE gear, and offering new features, it needs to understand that consumers like a certain comfort level. Announcing cable revisions that halt equipment purchases - especially in this economy with smaller retailers struggling already - might not prove to be wise.