Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

talino

macrumors member
Original poster
Hi all,

I'm outputting 1080p video from my (aging) 2007 MacBook, which works pretty well except for some very detailed scenes. I'm using a mini-DVI to female HDMI converter, plus an HDMI cable. However, this last item is too short for me and I'm looking into buying a new one, around 7 or 10 meters. I don't know HDMI technology very well, and I'm surprised at the *huge* variety in prices (70 to 300 euros for a 10m cable). I was wondering if it was worth investing so much money in a cable — with no other cables running alongside it, and so without interference, is there a point in getting a cable almost as expensive as a BluRay player?

Thanks.
 
While I cannot give you a definite answer I can provide some info about my setup which includes a 10m HDMI between a WDTV Live and a HD cable TV receiver one one end (outputting at 720P, 1080p) and a HD projector on the other. I paid quite a lot for the cable at that time (a few 100s Euro from what I remember) and have never had any problems. It even works fine with a HDMI switch box which adds another meter between switch box and HDMI devices. Whether the same would have been true for a cheaper connection I don't know.
 
I was wondering if it was worth investing so much money in a cable — with no other cables running alongside it, and so without interference, is there a point in getting a cable almost as expensive as a BluRay player?

Thanks.

These links may be of interest. They helped me decide to buy a cheap cable for my needs.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/field-notes/the-truth-about-monster-cable-266616.php

http://gizmodo.com/268788/the-truth-about-monster-cable-part-1-verdict-cheap-cables-keep-upusually

http://gizmodo.com/282725/the-truth-about-monster-cable-+-grand-finale-part-iii
 
@DragonJade: Thanks a whole lot for the links which were a very interesting read indeed. I'll certainly try getting a cheap 30-feet cable first, like they suggest.

@Fuchal: I know that for "everyday use" cheap cables can handle the load, since my 6 feet entry-priced cable has been doing fine. I was specifically wondering about how they behave on longer distances (I'm a musician and the difference between balanced and unbalanced audio when using long cables is quite important).

The Gizmodo articles made me wonder about something else : they say that "real world" (i.e. as opposed to "future world") bandwidth requirements for 8-bit 1080p is around 1.6 Gbps. I am playing 1080p video from my NAS which is connected via a Gigabit switch, with no glitches (the ones I do have are caused by my MacBook's old CPU and crappy video chip). How is this possible, then? Is it because I'm playing it on a 24Hz projector (not likely, but it doesn't hurt to ask)?

Thanks again.
 
Current high-quality 1080p Blu-Rays have bitrate of ~50Mb/s (1 hour film = ~22.5GB). You wouldn't be able to fit more than 4 minutes of video with 1.6Gb/s bitrate in a 50GB Blu-Ray. If I did my maths correctly, a 2-hour film with 1.6Gb/s bitrate would need 1440GB i.e. 1.44TB. Maybe some day 😉
 
So when Gizmodo mentions 1.6Gbs, what are they talking about? Theoretical maximum bandwidth for HDMI?

In Part 1, they say:

The newest spec, 1.3a means just over 10Gbps of bandwidth. Standard 480p requires less than 1Gbps, the current 8-bit 1080p requires 4.46 Gbps.

In Part 2:

To simulate high-def video, it sends signal down one of three paths within an HDMI cable, so its signal at any given time is ONE-THIRD the bandwidth of that video format. The list of bandwidth tests we ran is as follows:

REAL WORLD
• 720p 8-bit 60Hz = 742 Mbps (x3)
• 1080p 8-bit 60Hz = 1.65 Gbps (x3)

Which comes down roughly to the same figure (1.65 x 3 ~= 4.46). This is much, much higher than the figure you're quoting (50 Mbps). What are they referring to?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.