deals5 pack of 6' gold-plated hdmi cables (v1.3b, full…

55
vote-for1vote-against

Time to load up on some of these and gift/sell them away (:

vote-for2vote-against

Never buy from a company that deceives you in the freaking headline.

Find me an HDMI cable that ISN'T 1080p.

vote-for1vote-against

@maxstroud: VERY true.... 1.3b isn't 1.4, but I don't see myself with a 1.4-type capable TV anytime soon. I'm in for 1.

vote-for1vote-against

And besides, these cables are short enough to where they just might work with 1.4 anyways.

vote-for2vote-against

Does anyone know if you have to worry about HDMI cables being compatible with 120 Hertz televisions?

vote-for1vote-against

Wow, I remember when they first started HDMI and it cost me near $30 for ONE cable, now you can get five for less than $10!

vote-for0vote-against

Count me in! This price is better than the one on eBay. Probably better quality too!

vote-for1vote-against

So, to put in my $0.02 worth...
@ejjury: No worries, an HDMI 1.3 spec cable is quite capable of handling a 1080p signal far beyond the capabilities of a 120Hz TV. My television, for instance, is 240Hz, and I guarantee that even with the amount of data being transferred in that case, we're not close to exceeding it.

Also, @tenncasey: No. To be very simple and blunt, no 1.3 cables, short or long, will ever be able to do what HDMI 1.4 spec cables do... They are lacking an extra set of wires within the cable that are intertwined to support an ethernet channel. Although, quite frankly, your won't need 1.4 for a long time anyway as virtually no components or peripherals have any use for that yet. @wootcompare is definitely correct in saying that it doesn't matter... All 1.3 cables are still certified as 1.4 cables also, just not with the extra ethernet capabilities - for more info see:
http://bluejeanscable.com/articles/hdmi-spec-versions.htm?hdmiinfo

vote-for1vote-against

I'm not sure what the Ethernet channel capability will be used for in 1.4 cables, but 1.4 is certainly needed for 3D. And there are plenty of components available now (3D TV's and 3D Blu-Ray players). The PS3 will be coming out with 3D this summer too. The PS3 only has 1.3 connectors, but Sony insists they will be able to do full 1080p 3D with 1.3.

I just purchased a new TV (not 3D, technology is to new), so I just purchased these cables. Good deal!

vote-for1vote-against

@giggleberries: In most cases, the Ethernet channel will sit useless, honestly... How many of us actually use the BDLive features to chat with others about a movie we just watched? It could have some positive uses with Hi-Def streaming though, if your player supports streaming from Hulu, Netflix, etc...

As to 1.3 and 1.4 and their relative 3D capabilities, you are certainly correct in saying that the tech is too new, however, 1.3 spec cables are fully capable of supporting full 3D, according to HDMI.org... The only significant difference is in the Ethernet (and an audio return channel, but no one really mentions that). There are reports of 1.3 cables/components being limited to 1080i with 3D, but that is unfounded according to both Sony's claim of having the PS3 support the new spec, despite having only 1.3 connectors, and HDMI Licensing themselves...
See pages 34-35 of the following:
http://www.hdmi.org/download/press_kit/PressBriefing_HDMI1_4_English_100609.pdf

vote-for1vote-against

... but yes 1.3 cables will work with 1.4 components. Except for the Ethernet capability.

vote-for2vote-against

@arosiriak: Do you really think you have any component sending anything more than 60 Hz interlaced or 30 Hz progressive-scan to your "240 Hz" TV? :)

vote-for1vote-against

@thewacokid: Fair enough... :) Just the PS3 and a stand-alone Bluey. And no, they definitely don't need to be doing much more than that.

vote-for1vote-against

@arosiriak
I do have one query for anyone of expert knowledge who wishes to respond...

"240hz" seems to be an interesting misnomer. I've pulled up the specs of multiple advertised 240hz TVs, and not one of them is actually 240hz in the specs for any supported resolution. In reality, of the advertised 240hz TV's I looked at, all seemed to top out at 60hz at any given resolution, except for one at 120hz.

If anyone could point me in a direction to clarify this oddity of 240hz advertised system with no corresponding ability to support it.

vote-for1vote-against

@wootcompare:
Misnomer it definitely is! :) Glad to find someone who appreciates some truth in relation to the marketing hype. Honestly, almost none of the TVs advertised are truly 240Hz-capable - they're mostly 120, with an extra "boost" given by double-flashing the backlight on every actual screen refresh. This does alleviate some blur by allowing the eyes to see two separate images as the pixels change (because pixel response time is slower than that, so it allows you to see fading in the doubled image). However, many sets that advertise 120Hz are actually that, though most sources won't provide it; just 60Hz...

In most cases where source material is only 30, or even 60 Hz, a 60Hz set will do perfectly fine. The difference comes with Blu-ray and film sources that come in 24p. I may not remember much long division from grade school, but 24 doesn't go into 60 smoothly... hence what is called 3:2 pulldown - image interpolation that tries to make up for the odd image, and judder.

vote-for1vote-against

@wootcompare:
Sorry - long response, but you can't condense it much more than this...

Anyway, with 24p sources (because we haven't decided to hold film to a higher standard than 24 frames-per-second; the standard set in the mid 1900s) you couldn't get clean, judder-free picture on a TV capable only of 60Hz... And in fact, NTSC standards made it hard to edit the material.

Enter 120Hz. 120 divided by 24 is 5, so 120Hz enhanced TVs now only have to display each image 5 times per frame, rather than 2:3:2... That's the only real reason 120 ever came up - not because source material is higher, but because the lower frame rates demanded it to make it smooth. 240 simplifies it further, especially as newer films are being filmed at 48p (still released at 24 though), although most 240Hz are just the backlight scanning - so quasi-240...

vote-for1vote-against

@wootcompare:
That being said, there are a few major advantages nonetheless:

1)Actual reproduction of 24p film sources is native, not interpolated in a manner that requires extra judder (2:3:2:2:3:2)

2)Quality sets that are spec'd at 120 or 240 have more advanced technology for judder-reduction, that further smooths sources from various frame/refresh rates... you can look up arguments on that though, since some professionals hate it, as it gives things a "halo - 3D" effect that may look more realistic, and less like a film.

Here are a few links to check out:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10144265-1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation

And for the serious Hi-Def kids:
http://www.highdefjunkies.com/forum.php

vote-for1vote-against

@arosiriak: YOU ARE AWESOME!

What REALLY hurts... is that my degree, back in the late-80's, was as a broadcast engineer; but just never pursued it as a career [ended up as a network/telecom engineer.]

Did you ever read the rag "TV Technology"?... and whatever happened to "The Masked Engineer".

Needless to say - that all did make 100% perfect sense - I just hadn't pulled the numbers together in my head. It's been WAY too long ago.

vote-for2vote-against

@arosiriak: Thank You for Educating Me on HDTV and all that Tech Talk.. Always wanted to understand all that Hz it WAS so confusing.. Really Thank You for that... As said.. YOU ROCK!!!!