[HN Gopher] When HDMI 2.1 Isn't HDMI 2.1 - The Confusing World o... ___________________________________________________________________ When HDMI 2.1 Isn't HDMI 2.1 - The Confusing World of the Standard Author : cbg0 Score : 129 points Date : 2021-12-13 18:57 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (tftcentral.co.uk) (TXT) w3m dump (tftcentral.co.uk) | theandrewbailey wrote: | It sounds like the marketing people who kept renaming USB 3.x Gen | FU got hired to mess up HDMI. | PedroBatista wrote: | I'm a "tech guy" and I'll be in the market soon for a screen. | | Just the thought I'll have to learn about this while HDMI | disaster in order to not get burned gives me anxiety. | | Also, never quite liked HDMI when it came out, but from what I'm | reading they really outdone themselves during these years. | nvarsj wrote: | This article doesn't mention the most infuriating aspect of HDMI | - it's not an open standard! It's a closed, proprietary standard | that requires licensing fees and prevents any open source drivers | from existing. This is why the Linux AMD open source drivers | don't support HDMI 2.1 - so you can't display 120hz@4K on Linux | with AMD. | mey wrote: | Quick summary, HDMI 2.0 no longer "exists", and HDMI 2.1 only | features are now optional according to the certifying body. | Manufactures are supposed to indicate which features they | support. | | Whelp, I guess we should just stick to Display Port 1.4 | jayflux wrote: | I see they went to the USB school of standardisation | Roritharr wrote: | I really wonder what is up with that. These standards become | increasingly frustratingly complex even for people who deal | with them daily. | colechristensen wrote: | It's just design by committee and long-standing efforts for | backwards compatibility. Also the people writing the | standards are far too familiar with them and thus a bit | lost when it comes to making practical decisions. | | Whenever you make changes there will be compromises and | someone will have reason to be unhappy. | jjoonathan wrote: | Cable manufacturers probably realized that the secret to | profits lay in resisting commoditization, beat a path to | the table, and made it happen. | zokier wrote: | I don't think its particularly odd that the specifications | are supersets of old versions; indeed that feels pretty | common in the standards world. IETF specs are maybe the odd | ones out where you typically have to read like ten | different RFCs to get good picture of some standard. | mavhc wrote: | USB 2 Full Speed = USB 1 speed | | This has been going on for 20 years | errcorrectcode wrote: | LOL. Why don't you understand superduperspeed USB 3.4.6 | 2x2x6? It's so eeeasy. | | And, coming soon to an Amazon app near you: | | _(Pack of 3) USB4 Thunderbolt 4, 98 ft / 30m, 240W charging, | gold plated! $19.99! Free Shipping!_ | | It's not like anyone is checking products are what they say | they are. | spicybright wrote: | You can't legally call your food a hamburger if it's 90% | meat glue and 10% cow. | | Can we not do the same with cables? | | Whoever is responsible for setting standards must be | getting some good kickbacks from all this... | colejohnson66 wrote: | The people writing the standards are also the ones | implementing it. That's the kickback. That's why every | USB 3.whatever device suddenly became USB4 ones. | IshKebab wrote: | Seems kind of reasonable. DisplayPort is exactly the same - | just because your display supported DisplayPort 1.4 doesn't | mean it is required to support 10 bit colour, VRR, etc. | tjoff wrote: | Well that makes sense. Your 1080p display shouldn't be forced | to accept an 8k signal just because the interface supports | it. | thaumasiotes wrote: | I replaced my old Dell XPS laptop with a newer Dell laptop. | The old one had been happily driving an external monitor | through a thunderbolt cable (USB-C on the laptop side; | DisplayPort on the monitor side.) | | The new laptop still has a thunderbolt port proudly | advertised in the specs. But I'm not allowed to use it. It | won't send video data out that way. And when I called tech | support, the most they would offer me for my newly-purchased | laptop was "Don't use the thunderbolt port. Use the HDMI | port." | kup0 wrote: | Why does it feel like it is inevitable that | standardization/licensing organizations in tech will always | eventually turn into a user-hostile mess? | | USB, HDMI, what can we screw up next? | | Is it incompetence? Malice? I'd really like to see an in-depth | investigation of this phenomenon | rob_c wrote: | I'm leaving towards malice (through not caring so much for | users) caused by big tech using this arena as a battleground. | | I wish all cables were equal too, but c'est la vie | errcorrectcode wrote: | Greed, of course. | | If it becomes too big of a problem, each cable and device will | be required to have a challenge-response Obscure Brand Inc. | proprietary U9 chip burned with a valid secret key and serial | number at the factory that must return a valid response for the | link to be enabled. | ASalazarMX wrote: | HDMI was never a pro-user protocol, it was made to encumber a | digital display signal with DRM. | ChuckNorris89 wrote: | This. HDMI was cooked as a proprietary connector with DRM by | the big manufacturers in the DVD/Blu-Ray, TV, home- | entertainment business and the big movie studios to enforce | stronger content protections to protect their IP, at wich it | miserably failed, as I can still torrent every Hollywood | blockbuster and every Netflix series. | | IIRC, every manufacturer must pay a fee to the HDMI | consortium for every device with HDMI they sell. | | DisplayPort, by contrast is a more open standard only | requiring a flat fee for the standard documentation and | membership instead of a fee per unit sold IIRC. | babypuncher wrote: | DisplayPort and DVI both support HDCP. This wasn't the | purpose behind HDMI, though support for it was no doubt a | requirement for adoption. It was designed to be a single | cable for carrying video and audio between playback | devices, receivers, and displays. | | For this purpose, it succeeded and did a much better job at | it than alternatives. HDMI still makes far more sense for | use in a home theater environment than DisplayPort thanks | to features like ARC. | Talanes wrote: | HDMI is great for a home theatre set up where there's an | obvious central unit, but the ecosystem has gotten worse | if your speakers don't take in HDMI, at least at the very | cheap end of the spectrum I buy on. | | My current TV will only put out an inferior "headphone" | mix over the 3.5mm connection, and the SPDIF connection | is co-axial on the tv, but optical on the speaker. Having | to run a powered converter box just to get audio from my | tv to a speaker feels like such a step backwards. | spicybright wrote: | Is there a big difference because 3.5 and something | digital? | | I know 3.5 is worse on a technically, but I've never been | able to actually notice the difference. | tjohns wrote: | I think the better question is why SDI video connections | aren't available on any consumer devices. | | While HDMI is nice for consumers because it carries | audio/data, SDI cables are cheap (just a single coax | cable!) and easy to route (T-splitters are a thing!). | | SDI does not support HDCP, however. | MomoXenosaga wrote: | On that note are there TVs with displayport? | | I'm using my LG TV as monitor for a PC and forced to use | HDMI. | dwaite wrote: | IIRC, most panels interface via DisplayPort internally | these days. | beebeepka wrote: | Gigabyte has been selling a version of LG CX48 slightly | changed to be a monitor. It has HDMI and DP. | | Model name is AORUS FO48U. | toast0 wrote: | HDCP can run on DVI or DisplayPort too. HDMI is a smaller, | lower pin count connector than DVI, however. | mjevans wrote: | HDMI's initial version is electrically and pin-compatible | (passive adapter only) with DVI-D single link; assuming the | DVI port supports HDCP. | | The parent post is correct in that the mandatory HDCP was a | major feature (for the involved cabal of organizations). | teh_klev wrote: | > The parent post is correct in that the mandatory HDCP | was a major feature | | This is wrong. HDCP isn't mandatory to implement HDMI, | they are two separate technologies. I'm not defending | HDCP or DRM encumbered content but I wish folks would get | their facts straight. | [deleted] | teh_klev wrote: | Not quite true. The "DRM" mechanism you're most likely | referring to is HDCP which was designed separately by Intel | to provide copy protection over multiple device types | including DVI (the first implementation), DisplayPort and of | course HDMI. | | It's not the HDMI interface that enforces copy protection | it's the software, firmware and additional hardware on the | devices that do this. You can use HDMI perfectly fine without | the additional DRM crap. | noneeeed wrote: | I almost always err on the "never attribute to malice that | which can be adequately explained by incompetance". Howerver, | the "standards" bodies ability to repeatedly make a complete | pigs ear of every single interconnect system makes me assume | the opposite. | amelius wrote: | Don't forget MPEG. | jon-wood wrote: | Has anyone ever seen a device that actually uses Ethernet over | HDMI? The thought of being able to plug a single network cable | into the back of your display and then anything plugged into that | has a wired connection is lovely, but as far as I can tell | absolutely nothing actually supports it, despite the ever growing | set of internet connected devices sitting underneath people's | TVs. | daveevad wrote: | I went down this rabbit hole the other night and found a German | Blu-ray receiver T+A K8[0] from 2012 that supports the HDMI | Ethernet Channel. I have not found, however, the other piece of | equipment that I can only suspect _may be_ be some sort of HDMI | IP injector. | | [0](https://www.homecinemachoice.com/content/ta-k8-blu-ray- | recei...) | | > Ethernet switch: distribution of an Ethernet uplink | connection to BluRayplayer, streaming client, TV monitor and up | to 3 source devices (via HEC),up to 2 more external devices via | LAN cable (e.g. playing console | | from the manual | Uehreka wrote: | I tried to use this once in a theatre to connect a camera | watching the stage to a greenroom backstage. It worked | sometimes, but was super unreliable. Latency was often several | hundred milliseconds, and sometimes the image would just | straight up disappear. It may be that we had bad | HDMI<->Ethernet devices, but that's the thing: It's not a | "works or doesn't" kind of thing, it's a "varies with the | quality of all the devices in the chain" kind of thing. | tjohns wrote: | Ethernet Over HDMI is used by newer AV receivers to support | eARC (extended audio return channel). The older ARC spec would | work with any HDMI cable, but bandwidth limitations only | allowed compressed 5.1 surround sound. eARC uses the higher | bandwidth from Ethernet Over HDMI, allowing uncompressed 7.1 | surround and Dolby Atomos streams. | | (If you're not familiar with ARC/eARC, this lets the TV send | audio from its native inputs back to the AV receiver over an | HDMI cable. Without ARC, you need to plug _everything_ directly | into the AV receiver.) | josteink wrote: | eARC is neat in theory, but my experience with it has been | that's too unreliable and unstable to actually use in | practice. | | I even bought new cables to make sure there wouldn't be | issues, but eARC audio regularly falls out in ways other | sources (including regular ARC) doesn't. And when it fails | there's literally zero tools for diagnosing it either. | | Maybe around the time of eARC2 we'll have something working | as well as Bluetooth does today. (Yes, that's me being | snarky) | ApolIllo wrote: | That's unfortunate. I've been hoping to simplify my HT | setup and eARC was something I wanted to target in an | upgrade | simplyaccont wrote: | actually, if i understand correctly, earc doesn't use HEC. it | just re-purposes hec wiring for something useful | WorldMaker wrote: | My understanding is that Ethernet over HDMI is still used by | consumer devices, just no longer for the original dream of | switching wired internet given the modern ubiquity of WiFi. | More recent standards such as ARC [Audio Relay Channel; used | for a number of surround sound setups] and CEC [Consumer | Electronics Control; used for passing remote/controller data | between devices] both piggy back on the Ethernet pins, and I | believe they entirely interfere with using the Ethernet pins as | Ethernet (though maybe only in the available bandwidth/speed?). | wyager wrote: | 2021 HDMI is a disaster. I'm using a Sony flagship TV, a PC, and | a popular Sony 7.1 receiver. | | I had to update my graphics card to get 4k120 444 10bit and eARC. | | Only eARC is totally broken - audio often doesn't work at all | without restarting PC/TV/receiver a few times. And then once it | "works" it will randomly cut out for 5-10 seconds at a time. | | HDR on windows is also totally broken. It was a nightmare to get | something that correctly rendered full 10bit HDR video (I ended | up having to use MPC-HC with madvr and a ton of tweaking). You | also have to _turn off_ windows HDR support and use D3D exclusive | mode. After updating my TV to get DRR, the audio for this setup | stopped working. | | Linux also has zero HDR support. Didn't have luck getting 5.1 or | 7.1 working either. | | MacOS can at least handle HDR on Apple displays - not sure if it | works on normal displays. Haven't tried surround sound. | MayeulC wrote: | Not to be offensive, but -- first world problems: where did you | find a new graphics carts, for starters? | | Now, a bit more on a serious tone: this is all bleeding edge. | And combining multiple recent development together is a recipe | for corner cases and untested combinations. | | That said, did you try Variable Refresh Rate with that? Bur | reduction technologies (backlight strobing) are also | interesting, but thankfully they require little software | interaction (for now). | plus wrote: | Were you able to get 4k120Hz 444 working on Linux? What GPU do | you have? I can only do 4k60 444 or 4k120 420 on my LG C1 | connected to my Radeon RX 6900xt. | wyager wrote: | I don't remember, but I had to sidegrade from a 2070Ti to a | 3060Ti to get HDMI2.1 to get 4k120 444. | theshrike79 wrote: | Linus Tech Tips used a $expensive dedicated device to test a ton | of HDMI cables. Most of them were shit: | https://youtu.be/XFbJD6RE4EY | | And what was most interesting is that price and quality didn't | always correlate at all. | errcorrectcode wrote: | The fundamental problem is a lack of supply chain integrity. | Customers can buy a million cables or laptop batteries directly | from (country that shall not be named), but they have no idea if | they're getting fakes or not. | | The fix isn't "authorized" suppliers only, but requiring a | reputable someone in the supply chain to maintain evidence of | continually testing products advertising trademarked standards | for compliance. If it's too much work, then boohoo, sad day for | them, they don't get to be traded or sold in country X. | | In all honesty, flooding a market with cheap, substandard | products claiming standards they don't comply with is dumping. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) | anonymousiam wrote: | I remember when USB2 came out and similar mischief ensued. All | the hardware manufacturers got together and pushed the standards | body to re-brand USB 1.1 hardware as USB 2.0 (full-speed vs. | high-speed). It allowed hardware retailers to empty their | shelves, while consumers thought they were getting the latest | technology. | | https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2003/10/2927-2/ | sixothree wrote: | Same thing exists for USB3. Every time a new version is | released, all cables and products suddenly support that | revision. They just don't have any new features. | | Not to mention that I've _never_ had a cable identify what it | is capable of. Thus USB is a shitshow of crapiness. | michaelbuckbee wrote: | Is there some device that can/could do this. I did a cursory | look through Amazon and there's a lot of "signal testers", is | that sufficient? | driscoll42 wrote: | There was a guy from Google going around reviewing all the | cables testing them: | https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/11/google-engineer- | leav... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benson_Leung | https://usbccompliant.com/ | jmiserez wrote: | Apparently he uses [1] a "Advanced Cable Tester v2" from | Totalphase for his tests, starting at 15000$. Probably | depends on what you need to test. | | [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/UsbCHardware/comments/ny4y6z | /commen... | [deleted] | thescriptkiddie wrote: | I recently upgraded the NVME SSD in my machine. The | motherboard only has a single NVME compatable M.2 port, so I | bought a USB 3.1 enclosure [0] to put the old drive in while | I cloned it to the new drive. The enclosure has a USB type-C | connector so I also had to use a USB 3.1 A-to-C adapter [1] | to connect it to my motherboard's [2] USB 3.1 type-A port. | Anyway something somewhere went wrong and it took over 5 | hours to copy 750 GB instead of the expected 10 minutes. | Absolute shitshow. | | [0] https://www.newegg.com/rosewill- | rhub-20001-enclosure/p/N82E1... | | [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07L92KPBB | | [2] https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/Z97AUSB_31/ | anonymousiam wrote: | I recently had nearly the opposite experience. I was | upgrading a Linux server to a new motherboard with a NVMe | SSD from and old one with a SATA3 SSD attached. To see how | things would go, I imaged the old SATA3 SSD onto a | USB3/NVMe adapter | (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07Z8Y85GL) and tried | booting the new system from USB. It actually came up | working, so next I figured I would need to remove the NVMe | SSD from the USB3 adapter and install it in the motherboard | slot, boot the system from a different USB drive, and then | once again image the NVMe SSD from the old SATA3 drive. (I | had read that the USB3/NVMe adapter accessed the SSD in a | way that was incompatible with the motherboard.) So I | installed the NVMe SSD in the new motherboard and powered | it up just for giggles. To my great surprise, it booted | normally and everything was fine! (Oh, and my SSD access | speeds went from 500MB/s on the old system to 2GB/s on the | new one.) | MayeulC wrote: | Why wouldn't it work? Bulk storage is bulk storage. As | for booting from that... Linux has all the required | drivers in the kernel, at worst (booting from radically | different hardware) select a fallback initramfs with more | drivers. If you did a bit-by-bit copy of your drive, | partitions should have come out unmodified at the other | end, including GUIDs and the EFI label on the EFI | partition (if using EFI), or the bootloader in the MBR if | using that. | | Parent is talking about speed. There are different things | in M.2 ports (as this is the form factor): SATA and NVMe, | PCIe AHCI[1]. There was probably a slight incompatibility | and a fallback to some other mode there. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.2#Storage_interfaces | doubled112 wrote: | I've definitely had problems with external storage on | Linux machines | | > Why wouldn't it work? Bulk storage is bulk storage | | You would think so, but anything using UAS is a complete | mess and you can't be sure it'll work. I can only assume | devices implemented the convenient parts of the spec and | fail randomly. | | Happened often enough the kernel flag for the USB quirk | to disable UAS was stickied on the Raspberry Pi forums | when USB boot was new. | | https://forums.raspberrypi.com/viewtopic.php?t=245931 | zokier wrote: | From the review section of that enclosure: | | > Cons: - Included USB-C to USB-C cable is only capable of | USB 2.0 speeds (40 MB/s as measured with crystaldiskmark) | | yeah, that would explain it. | Frenchgeek wrote: | I still had an USB 1.0 motherboard laying around not too long | ago... | b3lvedere wrote: | When i had a very old Samsung tv, my Nvidia Geforce videocard | produced a nice image to the tv and Dolby AC3 sound to my even | older surround set via a nice hdmi to optical out converter in | between. | | Now i have a not-so-old Philips tv and suddenly i can't get dolby | ac3 sound anymore. Why? Because the GeForce communicates with the | tv and the tv responds it only has stereo. The surround set has | no hdmi input or output so it cannot communicate with GeForce. | | I have tried everything from hacking drivers to changing EDID | with some weird devices. Nothing works. Stereo only. Very | frustrating. | | I was recommended to replace my surround set or my tv. Both | pretty expensive solutions for some weird hdmi communication | bug/standard. | | So i bought a $20 usb sound device to get Dolby AC3 sound to my | suround set. All because i replaced my old tv which couldn't | communicate with the GeForce about its speaker setup. | astraloverflow wrote: | As the saying goes, a camel is a horse designed by a committee | MomoXenosaga wrote: | Is it really confusing? The people who need the specs of HDMI2.1 | (like gamers) will do their research. | floatingatoll wrote: | This is a stellar example of how catering to everyone results in | the destruction of a brand. "HDMI 2.1" will be with us for years | and it's essentially irrelevant now, and they aren't willing to | admit they were wrong, so their only hope is to release an HDMI | 2.2 that is just "all of the optional features of HDMI 2.1 are | now required", which will cause howls of outrage and confusion. | I'm guessing they are too captive to manufacturers to have the | courage to do that. Oh well. | IshKebab wrote: | It wasn't an oversight to make the features optional. They're | deliberately optional so device manufacturers aren't forced | into a ridiculous all or nothing situation. | rocqua wrote: | AND manufacturers not wanting to be stuck with old branding | on devices. | | the standard coukd have made some things optional. But they | made everything optional. | floatingatoll wrote: | I think they would have been better off forcing manufacturers | into that situation, and that the feature list has grown so | large that it's no longer a sensible specification for | purchasing decisions, which will erode consumer trust. | nomel wrote: | I see it as a problem with the abstractions being on the | wrong layer. | IshKebab wrote: | It's kind of going in that direction with HDMI and | DisplayPort over USB 3. But.. not exactly because they're | not actually encoding video data into USB packets. It's too | difficult to have abstractions like that when you're | dealing with such insanely high data rates. | Strom wrote: | As with any tech, you can't trust marketing if you plan on | pushing it to the limit. You need to either test it yourself, or | in some rare cases there are reviewers who have already tested | it. Most "reviews" for tech are extremely superficial though and | certainly won't be testing HDMI inner workings. | | For HDMI 2.1, there are a bunch of monitors being sold under that | banner that don't have the full 48 Gbps bandwidth. For example | the Gigabyte M28U is limited to half of that at 24 Gbps. [1] | Gigabyte certainly doesn't want you to know this. On their | specificaion page they just list it as HDMI 2.1. [2] | | Similar nonsense was going on during the transition from HDMI 1.4 | to 2.0. I really wanted HDMI 2.0 output on my laptop and held off | on a purchase until that was possible. I finally bought an ASUS | Zephyrus GX501 laptop. It has a Nvidia GTX 1080, which does | support HDMI 2.0 output. The marketing for this laptop also seems | to suggest that they're utillizing this potential, with claims | like _" You can also run a large ROG gaming monitor with NVIDIA | G-SYNC(tm) via DisplayPort(tm) over Type-C(tm) USB or use HDMI | 2.0 to connect 4K TVs at 60Hz."_ [3] The specification page | mentions the HDMI 2.0 port. [4] However in reality I found out | that this HDMI 2.0 port is limited to HDMI 1.4 bandwidth. It | supports HDMI 2.0 features like HDR, but not the bandwidth. 4K @ | 60Hz is possible only with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling and you're | limited to 8 bits, so no HDR. | | I'm not the only one who found this out either. There are plenty | of others on the ASUS forums. [5] Hard to say whether this was | intentional misleading by ASUS marketing, or whether engineering | messed up, or whether the feature ended up being cut due to time | constraints. In any case, they still haven't adjusted the old | marketing pages for this laptop that never shipped with HDMI 2.0 | bandwidth. | | Reviewers don't tend to check things like this either. For | example The Verge reviwed this laptop [6] and wrote: _" Asus has | a nice array of ports on the Zephyrus -- four traditional USB 3.0 | ports, a Thunderbolt 3 USB Type-C port, HDMI, and a headphone | jack."_ They're just regurgitating the marketing material. | There's no depth to it, the claims aren't verified. So people end | up buying the product and then get confused why it isn't working. | | -- | | [1] | https://www.rtings.com/monitor/discussions/q-D1CBeE2EiGMYgn/... | | [2] https://www.gigabyte.com/Monitor/M28U/sp#sp | | [3] https://rog.asus.com/laptops/rog-zephyrus/rog-zephyrus- | gx501... | | [4] https://rog.asus.com/laptops/rog-zephyrus/rog-zephyrus- | gx501... | | [5] | https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?96916-GX501-Zephyr... | | [6] https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/25/16201656/asus-rog- | zephyru... | 0cVlTeIATBs wrote: | I have had similar concerns with reviewers skipping USB | compatibility on laptops. After I left comments on relevant | reviews with a quick rundown of the problem they started | including it. | | I might get at it again because I'd want my next laptop to | drive my 4k 120Hz display over HDMI. | alin23 wrote: | When the new MacBook Pro came out this year, everyone was puzzled | as to why the newly included HDMI port was only 2.0. | | Well it turns out they lied. It's 2.1 after all! \s | | Jokes aside, it's actually only 2.0 because internally they | transmit a DisplayPort video signal and convert it to HDMI using | an MCDP2900 chip[0], which is the same chip usually seen inside | USB-C hubs. | | So the new MacBook basically got rid of the HDMI dongle by | integrating it inside the laptop. | | This also breaks DDC/CI on that port and now I get a ton of | support emails for Lunar (https://lunar.fyi) because people can't | control their monitor brightness/volume and think that the app is | broken. | | [0] https://www.kinet-ic.com/mcdp2900/ | eatYourFood wrote: | How can I control screen brightness from my m1 max? Willing to | pay for a solution. | alin23 wrote: | Lunar can do that: https://lunar.fyi | | It's free for manual brightness adjustments. | | Just make sure to use one of the Thunderbolt ports of the | MacBook. | | And if it still doesn't work, check if there's any monitor | setting that could block DDC by going through this FAQ: | https://lunar.fyi/faq#brightness-not-changing | MrSourz wrote: | Neat. I've been quite fond of Monitor Control: | https://github.com/MonitorControl/MonitorControl | ApolIllo wrote: | How does Lunar and Monitor Control get around the Tbolt | -> HDMI dongle baked into the logic board problem? | gsich wrote: | What problem? Is DDC not available? | pseudalopex wrote: | They said use one of the Thunderbolt ports. | alin23 wrote: | There is no way to get DDC working on that port. It's | probably locked in the chip firmware. | | All we can do is to provide software dimming using Gamma | table alteration, or tell people to use the Thunderbolt | ports instead. | smithza wrote: | LTT did some manual testing of HDMI cables [0] in hopes of | answering the last question of this article, "how do consumers | know if a cable supports v2.1 features?" | | Does anyone know of other tests or more comprehensive data sets? | | [0] https://linustechtips.com/topic/1387053-i-spent-a- | thousand-d... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-12-13 23:00 UTC)