[DJ_Izumi]

Maybe they mean 21:9 at 4K? If the vertical resolution of 2160, resulting in a horizontal resolution of 5120, where you'd might exceed the bandwidth of 1.4a even to do 30hz. But the 2560×1080p 21:9 screens already on the market work fine with HDMI 1.4a when connected to an HTPC, there's even some users on the forum who use these and their biggest complaint is that the skins mostly aren't 21:9 friendly.

This sounds more like marketing gumbo to me.

[noggin]

Please refer to this chart. Note most SD/HD/UHD movies are 23.976fps and will play with HDMI 1.4
I believe 4K TV would be 50Hz in Europe.

Yes - movies are likely to be 23.976/24.000p (though the new Blu-ray UHD spec will allow for HFR HD and UHD releases - so oddball things like the Hobbit may finally be able to be seen at HFR.)

Broadcast TV, at least initially, is likely to be 2160/50p or 2160/59.94p following the usual 50Hz vs 59.94Hz territorial divides.

HOWEVER - 2160/50p and 59.94p have a very real purpose if you run current builds of Kodi, as it won't change output resolution on a file-by-file basis, unlike frame rate.

If you have an HDMI 1.4a 4K player, then you can configure this for 3840x2160 resolution output, but this will not go higher than 30p. So that's fine for watching a 2160/23.976p movie, but if you then switch to a 1080/50i Live TV broadcast, you will get this at 2160/25p as the 2160p output can't go above 30p, to the 50p that would be desirable. Kodi, currently, won't intelligently realise this is a problem and switch to 1920x1080/50p output as you'd hope, so you manually have to alter your display resolution down to 1920x1080 in Video Settings to get Live / Recorded 50Hz or 59.94Hz TV output at a suitably high frame rate.

This also means that you are often doubly scaling 720p, 576i, 480i etc. non-1080 content as you are scaling from source resolution to 1080p in Kodi, and then from 1080p to 2160p in your TV. Double scaling isn't great...

[noggin]

Maybe they mean 21:9 at 4K? If the vertical resolution of 2160, resulting in a horizontal resolution of 5120, where you'd might exceed the bandwidth of 1.4a even to do 30hz. But the 2560×1080p 21:9 screens already on the market work fine with HDMI 1.4a when connected to an HTPC, there's even some users on the forum who use these and their biggest complaint is that the skins mostly aren't 21:9 friendly.

This sounds more like marketing gumbo to me.

Whilst HDMI can carry oddball resolutions (effectively as DVI), I don't think they are technically part of the HDMI 1.4 and below standards, certainly in respect of CEA modes.

It looks as if 64:27 aspect ratio (aka not-quite 21:9) CEA modes - which are mode numbers higher than >64 were added with HDMI 2.0 in CEA/EIA-861F.

Prior to this CEA/EIA-861E (which was part of the HDMI 1.4 spec) applied, which is CEA modes of 64 and less, which only define 4:3 and 16:9 display modes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_D...ata_format

[noggin]

Maybe they mean 21:9 at 4K? If the vertical resolution of 2160, resulting in a horizontal resolution of 5120, where you'd might exceed the bandwidth of 1.4a even to do 30hz. But the 2560×1080p 21:9 screens already on the market work fine with HDMI 1.4a when connected to an HTPC, there's even some users on the forum who use these and their biggest complaint is that the skins mostly aren't 21:9 friendly.

This sounds more like marketing gumbo to me.

No - they mean 720p, 1080p and 2160p at 64:27 using either 1:1, 4:3 or 64:63 aspect ratio pixels for 1080p and below, or 4:3 aspect ratio pixels of 2160p. There is no 2160p 21:9 mode defined in CEA with square pixels at the moment - presumably to avoid increased pixel clocks required for >5000 pixels horizontally that would be required for 1:1 square pixel 21:9 (aka 64:27)

I think the issue is that current screens running at 2560x1080p are running non-standardised display modes which are not defined in the HDMI spec? They may work with HDMI 1.4a connections. They may be for sale. However they aren't 'in spec'.

[oWarchild]

I think @noggin is right, 2560×1080p 21:9 was only added to the spec in 2013 (HDMI 2.0): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21:9_aspect_ratio#HDMI

[wesk05]

Whilst HDMI can carry oddball resolutions (effectively as DVI), I don't think they are technically part of the HDMI 1.4 and below standards, certainly in respect of CEA modes.

It looks as if 64:27 aspect ratio (aka not-quite 21:9) CEA modes - which are mode numbers higher than >64 were added with HDMI 2.0 in CEA/EIA-861F.

Prior to this CEA/EIA-861E (which was part of the HDMI 1.4 spec) applied, which is CEA modes of 64 and less, which only define 4:3 and 16:9 display modes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_D...ata_format

Exactly! This also applies to high frame rates in UHD Blu-ray. CEA-EIA-861F doesn't have a 48Hz (Hobbit) mode. Will have to wait for an updated version.

[noggin]

It's interesting though. Technically HDMI 1.4a doesn't support CEA modes 93, 94, 95 and 98 - which are the four UHD/4K modes that my HDMI 1.4a Chromebox will output...

[DJ_Izumi]

I get it. Most HTPCs and such could just do this being all 'Screw the rules!' but it better applies to boxes that more specifically follow the rules like dedicated BD players, game consoles, and STBs.

[oWarchild]

Perhaps vendors include HDMI 2.0 features on HDMI 1.4 interfaces but don't call it HDMI 2.0 unless they support all HDMI 2.0 features?

[wesk05]

It's interesting though. Technically HDMI 1.4a doesn't support CEA modes 93, 94, 95 and 98 - which are the four UHD/4K modes that my HDMI 1.4a Chromebox will output...

That is interesting... I was going to ask whether it works with 4K TVs, but then I read your post from last year that said it worked with a Sony 4K TV.

[noggin]

Perhaps vendors include HDMI 2.0 features on HDMI 1.4 interfaces but don't call it HDMI 2.0 unless they support all HDMI 2.0 features?

Yes and No.

Few vendors are doing 2160/50p 4:2:0 - which is an HDMI 2.0 mode which is backwards compatible with HDMI 1.4 bandwith, as 2160/24-30p 4:2:2 (and I think 4:4:4 are) nVidia are a notable exception with their HDMI 1.4 Kepler and Maxwell cards having 2160/50-60p support via 4:2:0 over HDMI 1.4.

[DJ_Izumi]

Perhaps vendors include HDMI 2.0 features on HDMI 1.4 interfaces but don't call it HDMI 2.0 unless they support all HDMI 2.0 features?

Generally speaking, such specs define what something MUST have to met the specs to be certified and get it's cute little logo stamp, not what it must NOT have. A lot of hardware easily exceeds standards. This is why I can pump 72hz @ 2560x1440 monitor despite the monitor being limited to 60hz on paper (Makes working on 24fps film content when doing VFX look a lot smoother while not having to drop to an ugly frame rate where even your mouse movement feel weird)

[noggin]

Perhaps vendors include HDMI 2.0 features on HDMI 1.4 interfaces but don't call it HDMI 2.0 unless they support all HDMI 2.0 features?

Generally speaking, such specs define what something MUST have to met the specs to be certified and get it's cute little logo stamp, not what it must NOT have. A lot of hardware easily exceeds standards. This is why I can pump 72hz @ 2560x1440 monitor despite the monitor being limited to 60hz on paper (Makes working on 24fps film content when doing VFX look a lot smoother while not having to drop to an ugly frame rate where even your mouse movement feel weird)

Hmm - ish.

Lots of HDMI modes included in HDMI 1.4 and below aren't supported by all HDMI 1.4 displays and sources. For instance the 3D modes. You don't have to support 3D (which is part of the HDMI 1.4 specs) on a display or a source to meet HDMI 1.4.

[markus3000]

I was hoping someone can shed some light on confusion I have had regarding video decoding with software (CPU based) vs GPU based (DXVA?) decoding. I am in the midst of purchasing a larger 4K TV and have an existing full-size desktop Intel i7 HTPC that I was intending upgrading with a GTX 960 (due to the H.265 de/encoding). Now I understand that this will give me easy H.265 playback thru the GTX 960 and software based solutions are still being developed as they are CPU intense by my question is whether I should bother upgrading to the GTX 960 other than for the reason of H.265...will GPU decoding with the GTX 960 produce a better overall picture for me on even on a say a H264 1080p remux MKV vs a software based CPU decoding with a stronger CPU?

My end result is wanting to get the best possible video decoding solution

[DJ_Izumi]

Without post processing, all decoding, software or GPU based, should all output the same image.