Geek S**T Generation 2.0

[quote]RSGZ wrote:
I understand that it’s digital, so it doesn’t (shouldn’t) matter. However over long distances signal degrades varying amounts depending on the type of material used. Fibre optic, for example can be run for something like 1400’, whereas other materials won’t allow for such distances.

This was an interesting bit of research:

They also suggest the signal degrades in three links within this article:

While I’m certain that is won’t matter over a length of 3-5’, when you get into further lengths would this not become a problem? I’ve read some peoples experiences vary when using HDMI over long distances, and many drew the conclusion that it was also part down to the hardware used on both ends.

There is also the idea of “future proofing” for higher quality technologies with cables that allow for higher data rates.[/quote]

Regardless of the signal being analog or digital it is still subject to attenuation, whether it be impedance, inductance, resistance, or capacitance. HDMI cables are still subject to crosstalk, which is where the magnetic field in one wire interferes with the field of another wire. Twisted pair wires reduce/eliminate this, and there are Flat HDMI cables that reduce this even further (and reduce inductance). Flat HDMI cables can be easier to run, especially if you are going between rooms or don’t have the option/inclination to go thru the walls/attic/crawlspace, as they can be simply taped to the wall.

HDMI technology is/was designed to accommodate long copper cables at lengths up to 15 meters (50 feet) without the use of HDMI amplifiers or repeaters. And the HDMI format is continuously being updated, with the latest release being HDMI 1.3, which means sources can improve performance at higher speeds and when using longer cables. Couple this with the fact that most display manufacturers (TVs, Recivers, etc…) are adding cable EQ circuits into their systems. This is a way to counteract the filter effects of a longer cable and help the system to correctly read the digital data. I bring this up because cables that fail those tests on the Gizmodo article probably won’t fail the “real world” test of plugging a component in and displaying on your TV. There is a huge difference between essentially bench marking the cables and their real world application with in your home.

Future proofing will be tough at 50’ lengths to due exponential growth in data rates and degradation on longer runs. Plus updates to the HDMI format (ver. 1.4, 1.5, etc…) won’t be applicable to an already run cable. However I do believe that HDMI cable extenders and signal boosters will become more common place in the future. There is also HDMI Active Cables which use signal conditioning chip technology to enable the highest performance 10.2Gbps multimedia applications. However active cables are a bit on the pricey side.

P.S.
Did anyone else know Jessica Biel is going to play a stripper in a movie called “Powder Blue”, due out on DVD May 5th. Or am I the last guy ti show up to the party?

[quote]Bujo wrote:
P.S.
Did anyone else know Jessica Biel is going to play a stripper in a movie called “Powder Blue”, due out on DVD May 5th. Or am I the last guy ti show up to the party?
[/quote]

Yeah, it’s been kind of known for a while. It’s one of those things where it was announced a long time ago that she had signed on to play a stripper and we’ve been waiting and waiting for the movie to come out ever since. :slight_smile:

I don’t think that release date is correct though. Several websites have the theatrical release (limited) as April 24th with the DVD coming out June 9th.

[quote]Bujo wrote:
1.
Regardless of the signal being analog or digital it is still subject to attenuation, whether it be impedance, inductance, resistance, or capacitance. HDMI cables are still subject to crosstalk, which is where the magnetic field in one wire interferes with the field of another wire. Twisted pair wires reduce/eliminate this, and there are Flat HDMI cables that reduce this even further (and reduce inductance). Flat HDMI cables can be easier to run, especially if you are going between rooms or don’t have the option/inclination to go thru the walls/attic/crawlspace, as they can be simply taped to the wall.

HDMI technology is/was designed to accommodate long copper cables at lengths up to 15 meters (50 feet) without the use of HDMI amplifiers or repeaters. And the HDMI format is continuously being updated, with the latest release being HDMI 1.3, which means sources can improve performance at higher speeds and when using longer cables. Couple this with the fact that most display manufacturers (TVs, Recivers, etc…) are adding cable EQ circuits into their systems. This is a way to counteract the filter effects of a longer cable and help the system to correctly read the digital data. I bring this up because cables that fail those tests on the Gizmodo article probably won’t fail the “real world” test of plugging a component in and displaying on your TV. There is a huge difference between essentially bench marking the cables and their real world application with in your home.

Future proofing will be tough at 50’ lengths to due exponential growth in data rates and degradation on longer runs. Plus updates to the HDMI format (ver. 1.4, 1.5, etc…) won’t be applicable to an already run cable. However I do believe that HDMI cable extenders and signal boosters will become more common place in the future. There is also HDMI Active Cables which use signal conditioning chip technology to enable the highest performance 10.2Gbps multimedia applications. However active cables are a bit on the pricey side.

P.S.
Did anyone else know Jessica Biel is going to play a stripper in a movie called “Powder Blue”, due out on DVD May 5th. Or am I the last guy ti show up to the party?
[/quote]

Thanks - good post.

I am likely to go with one that is active, it costs about $15 more than the average HDMI cable I could find that is 50’. At least I’m assuming it is since the stated transfer rate on it is 10.2Gbps.

PS.
I never knew about this “Powder Blue” - but I will check it out too.

[quote]Bujo wrote:
P.S.
Did anyone else know Jessica Biel is going to play a stripper in a movie called “Powder Blue”, due out on DVD May 5th. Or am I the last guy ti show up to the party?
[/quote]

Yeah, it’s been kind of known for a while. It’s one of those things where it was announced a long time ago that she had signed on to play a stripper and we’ve been waiting and waiting for the movie to come out ever since. :slight_smile:

I don’t think that release date is correct though. Several websites have the theatrical release (limited) as April 24th with the DVD coming out June 9th.

Powder Blue trailer:

Rumor has it that it’s in her contract that you will get full view of her goods (no partial view or nipple coverage), but that Biel has veto power over any shots that she doesn’t want in the final cut of the film if she deems them too revealing or unflattering.

Makes you wonder what goodies will end up on the DVD or directors cut (if there is one).

[quote]AngryVader wrote:
Powder Blue trailer:

Rumor has it that it’s in her contract that you will get full view of her goods (no partial view or nipple coverage), but that Biel has veto power over any shots that she doesn’t want in the final cut of the film if she deems them too revealing or unflattering.

Makes you wonder what goodies will end up on the DVD or directors cut (if there is one).[/quote]

German Release, baby!

[quote]Bujo wrote:
AngryVader wrote:
Powder Blue trailer:

Rumor has it that it’s in her contract that you will get full view of her goods (no partial view or nipple coverage), but that Biel has veto power over any shots that she doesn’t want in the final cut of the film if she deems them too revealing or unflattering.

Makes you wonder what goodies will end up on the DVD or directors cut (if there is one).

German Release, baby![/quote]

Haha…I would expect there to be lots of clips available on the interwebz once the movie comes out. I know I’ll be keeping an eye out for them, since I don’t plan on seeing this one in the theater.

Dude, we all know you’re gonna be in the back row with the lotion.

[quote]Bujo wrote:
Dude, we all know you’re gonna be in the back row with the lotion.[/quote]

That’s the whole point of me downloading the clips. I’d prefer to do that in the comfort of my own home.


Rorschach(Jackie Earle Haley) is the new Freddy Krueger.

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Rorschach(Jackie Earle Haley) is the new Freddy Krueger.

[/quote]

Sigh

I guess it’s not a horrible fit… Freddy was never an overly large guy. There will never be a replacement for Robert Englund, though.

[quote]SSC wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Rorschach(Jackie Earle Haley) is the new Freddy Krueger.

Sigh

I guess it’s not a horrible fit… Freddy was never an overly large guy. There will never be a replacement for Robert Englund, though.[/quote]

It’s a better fit than Billy Bob Thornton. If you’ve seen Little Children, then you know Haley can do creepy well.

I still can’t get over that he was Kelly from The Bad News Bears.

Alright, finally watched The Hulk last night.

Great action and they made the hulk look awesome. Dialogue was a little disappointing, but I did think it was unquestionably better than the first Hulk flick.

On to Watchmen…

[quote]AngryVader wrote:
Powder Blue trailer:

Rumor has it that it’s in her contract that you will get full view of her goods (no partial view or nipple coverage), but that Biel has veto power over any shots that she doesn’t want in the final cut of the film if she deems them too revealing or unflattering.

Makes you wonder what goodies will end up on the DVD or directors cut (if there is one).[/quote]

I fucking love Ray Liotta.

Movie looks good. I hope she doesn’t wuss out and only show bewbs.

[quote]AngryVader wrote:
Bujo wrote:
Dude, we all know you’re gonna be in the back row with the lotion.

That’s the whole point of me downloading the clips. I’d prefer to do that in the comfort of my own home.[/quote]

But then you don’t get the movie theatre popcorn!

Looks like filming for Iron Man 2 began today.

Awesome.

The first movie is next on my list of blurays to buy - now that I have a bluray player. :slight_smile:

I hope they don’t ruin Ironman 2. I think it will be better than the first. Let’s hope.

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
I hope they don’t ruin Ironman 2. I think it will be better than the first. Let’s hope.[/quote]

Well, considering the extremely un-interesting villains they’re using.

Again.

I love Iron Man and RDJr., but at this rate we’ll probably have Unicorn and the Living Laser for Iron Man 3.

[quote]AngryVader wrote:
Looks like filming for Iron Man 2 began today.

Marvel News, Blog, Articles & Press Releases | Marvel [/quote]

First pics from the set:
http://spoilertv-movies.blogspot.com/2009/04/iron-man-2-first-set-pics-of-downey-jr.html