Ok I've recently purchased an Epson 8100 HD projector and of course this prompted me to change out my composite video cable to an hdmi. (my old projector was complete poop, so I never sweated the cable)

I've got a couple issues. I have a HDMI switch, a computer I play bluray from, and a dvd player. The cable to the projector is uh.... 50' long. I fear this is where I might be getting my trouble, but I figured I'd look for alternate ideas. AFAIK all components are HDCP compliant. HTPC is running off mobo video... decent Gigabyte board.

1) Computer to switch to projector... I can't get any picture no matter what I try. This switch does work for my dvd player and sat dish. It is HDCP compliant.

2) When running direct from PC to projector I can get a picture. But when I try to play a bluray, it stops and says I can't use digital cables and must swtich to analog because of protected content. I've tried powerdvd 8 and 10. Same results.

Troubleshooting ideas? Purchase better switch? Signal booster? Better cable? Dedicated video card? (I plan on doing the video card anyhow actually) I can't really do a shorter cable.

Also... HDCP. What a pain. I typically run a LCD and my projector off the same split video. Is this going to be possible? I guess what I'm asking is... will HDCP prevent me from having two video screens attached? Period. Or is it smart enough to only prevent me from putting the protected movie on two screens at a time. This projector is insane... and it's killing me that I can't watch a blu-ray on it yet. Thanks for any ideas.

1) Computer to switch to projector... I can't get any picture no matter what I try. This switch does work for my dvd player and sat dish. It is HDCP compliant.

2) When running direct from PC to projector I can get a picture.

But when I try to play a bluray, it stops and says I can't use digital cables and must swtich to analog because of protected content. I've tried powerdvd 8 and 10. Same results.

HDCP isn't your biggest problem. If you can't get a picture from the computer of just your desktop, something else is going on.
-Try a different port on the switch first.
-Try a different cable from the computer to the switch.
Does your computer have an hdmi port or a dvi port?
-Try a different video card
-Try a different switch

HDCP is responsible for the error you're getting with power dvd, meaning your video card isn't hdcp compliant or something is interfering with the hdcp signal. Read your manuals and spec sheets.

The length of the cable is potentially problematic, depends some on cable quality. Can you provide a link to the cable you used?
You might want to take the projector down and test it with a short 5' cable if you can't chase down the cause by other means.

HDCP isn't your biggest problem. If you can't get a picture from the computer of just your desktop, something else is going on.
-Try a different port on the switch first.
-Try a different cable from the computer to the switch.
Does your computer have an hdmi port or a dvi port?
-Try a different video card
-Try a different switch

HDCP is responsible for the error you're getting with power dvd, meaning your video card isn't hdcp compliant or something is interfering with the hdcp signal. Read your manuals and spec sheets.

The length of the cable is potentially problematic, depends some on cable quality. Can you provide a link to the cable you used?
You might want to take the project down and test it with a short 5' cable if you can't chase down the cause by other means.

That's a great idea. I can easily move the PC. Thanks for the input.

Now that I'm home I can link the products:
Here's the cable in question. I know it's not the highest quality... but at 50' lengths, the affordable choices are slim... http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10240&cs_id=1024005&p_id=2110&seq=1&format=2

And the switch http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=101&cp_id=10110&cs_id=1011002&p_id=6259&seq=1&format=2

mobo... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128379&cm_re=GA-MA78GM-US2H-_-13-128-379-_-Product

That's a great idea. I can easily move the PC. Thanks for the input.

Now that I'm home I can link the products:
Here's the cable in question. I know it's not the highest quality... but at 50' lengths, the affordable choices are slim... http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10240&cs_id=1024005&p_id=2110&seq=1&format=2

And the switch http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=101&cp_id=10110&cs_id=1011002&p_id=6259&seq=1&format=2

mobo... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128379&cm_re=GA-MA78GM-US2H-_-13-128-379-_-ProductThat HDMI cable won't work with Blu-ray... at least, not at 1080p. It says it is a Standard Speed HDMI cable, which means it only supports 1080i, not 1080p60. So there's your first problem. But you don't need CL2 rated.

Anyway, what you need to do is attach the source devices one at a time directly to the projector using a basic 3 or 6 foot HDMI cable, and see if the projector works correctly. If it does, then go buy the long distance HDMI cable. In addition to the cable quality, in order to get distance out of HDMI, the HDMI receiver must have good signal equalization. If the six foot cable works OK but the 50 foot cable doesn't, it could be a flaw in the projector.

But, in your case, you're starting with an insufficient cable and your switch may also be a problem, so look into those things before worrying how good your projector is.

Well any cables that long are just sold as CL2 rated... since, at that length, it's assumed you're running through walls.

I moved my PC tonight up close to the projector using my 6' long cables. First to the projector directly, and then using the switch. Both worked flawlessly. So, I'm going to have to look around for a better 50' cable, or a signal amplifier.

Well any cables that long are just sold as CL2 rated... since, at that length, it's assumed you're running through walls.

I moved my PC tonight up close to the projector using my 6' long cables. First to the projector directly, and then using the switch. Both worked flawlessly. So, I'm going to have to look around for a better 50' cable, or a signal amplifier.Look for hdmi High Speed, not Standard Speed.

Larger wires (lower gauge number, 22 AWG is bigger than 24 AWG) might help a little bit too. You could easily end up needing something to boost the signal though.

That HDMI cable won't work with Blu-ray... at least, not at 1080p. It says it is a Standard Speed HDMI cable, which means it only supports 1080i, not 1080p60. So there's your first problem. But you don't need CL2 rated.

Anyway, what you need to do is attach the source devices one at a time directly to the projector using a basic 3 or 6 foot HDMI cable, and see if the projector works correctly. If it does, then go buy the long distance HDMI cable. In addition to the cable quality, in order to get distance out of HDMI, the HDMI receiver must have good signal equalization. If the six foot cable works OK but the 50 foot cable doesn't, it could be a flaw in the projector.

But, in your case, you're starting with an insufficient cable and your switch may also be a problem, so look into those things before worrying how good your projector is.

HDMI v1.0 supports 1920x1200 @ 60p, just like DVI. That's not the OP's issue.

HDMI v1.0 supports 1920x1200 @ 60p, just like DVI. That's not the OP's issue.
Six foot cable works, fifty foot cable does not. His problem is the cable or the equalizer in his projector.

Six foot cable works, fifty foot cable does not. His problem is the cable or the equalizer in his projector.

Cable length is not part of HDMI's specifications, so the cable version is irrelevant. Thus, cable quality would be the only determining factor of whether 1080p is supported. Thus, so long as the cable meets HDMI transmission specifications, it's supposed to be able to transmit 1080p. As an aside, when I looked at the link that OP provided, it says that 1080p is supported, so I don't know where you're getting 1080i from).

However, this is all moot, OP already stated that he can get the computer to display a picture through the projector, while connecting the computer directly to the projector via the 50' cable. The issue starts when he tries to play a Blu-Ray movie, which means that presumably something concerning HDCP is the issue.

I won't doubt that the cable may be an issue, but OP's issue it NOT that the HDMI cable is incapable of displaying 1080p @ 60hz as OP was already able to display a picture through the projector.

I won't doubt that the cable may be an issue, .Then stop with your ridiculous nit-picking. We both agree.

Then stop with your ridiculous nit-picking. We both agree.

It isn't ridiculous nit-picking. Telling the OP that their cable can only display 1080i is terribly inaccurate.

Regardless, the "high speed" cables are designed to handle more bandwidth without cross talk / interference and that would help the OP. Apparently I've had my head under a rock as this is the first time I've really encountered or noticed the "high speed" or category 2 (not cl-2) designation.

via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdmi
Cables
Although no maximum length for an HDMI cable is specified, signal attenuation—dependent on the cable's construction quality and conducting materials—limits usable lengths in practice.[57] HDMI 1.3 defines two cable categories: Category 1-certified cables, which have been tested at 74.5 MHz (which would include resolutions such as 720p60 and 1080i60), and Category 2-certified cables, which have been tested at 340 MHz (which would include resolutions such as 1080p60 and 2160p30).[54][58][59] Category 1 HDMI cables are to be marketed as "Standard" and Category 2 HDMI cables as "High Speed".[1] This labeling guideline for HDMI cables went into effect on October 17, 2008.[60][61] Category 1 and 2 cables can either meet the required parameter specifications for interpair skew, far-end crosstalk, attenuation, and differential impedance, or they can meet the required nonequalized/equalized eye diagram requirements.[58] A cable of about 5 meters (16 ft.) can be manufactured to Category 1 specifications easily and inexpensively by using 28 AWG (0.081 mm²) conductors.[57] With better quality construction and materials, including 24 AWG (0.205 mm²) conductors, an HDMI cable can reach lengths of up to 15 meters (49 ft.).[57] Many HDMI cables under 5 meters of length that were made before the HDMI 1.3 specification can work as Category 2 cables, but only Category 2-tested cables are guaranteed to work.[62]
50' > 5M

It isn't ridiculous nit-picking. Telling the OP that their cable can only display 1080i is terribly inaccurate.Even if you were right, it would not matter. The cable does not work, but a shorter one does, so obviously it's the cable. And I am sick and tired of your incessant nit-picking and your efforts to "make people wrong". And in this case, you are incorrect.

Take, for example, the question: What HDMI Cable Do I Need? (http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/hdmi_1_4_faq.aspx#35b)

There are two different HDMI cable speeds: "Standard Speed" and "High Speed." A Standard Speed cable is rated for a maximum bandwidth of 75 MHz -- 720p or 1080i. A High Speed cable can go up to 340 MHz, which is enough for 1080p60, or 4k x 2k 30, and 3D, and all that fancy stuff. This is independent of the HDMI version number.

If HDMI allowed only one cable type, then long cables for home theater would be very expensive, and there are many situations, such as DVD or cable TV, where a Standard Speed cable is fine.

DRIO: Bear in mind there are TWO factors that let you drive long HDMI cable length: First is the cable quality, second, is the quality of the equalization circuitry in the receiving device. You could have a transmitter (BD player, etc) and cable that work perfectly fine on one TV brand, but fail on another brand. If this happens, you can buy an active cable, which has a good-quality equalizer inside the cable. But these active, equalized HDMI cables are unnecessary if your HDMI receiver already equalizes the signal. Oh, one more thing: There are a lot of cheap 3rd party HDMI switch/repeaters that are poor quality.

50' > 5M

Yep, but OP purchased the 24 AWG 50' cable. Not the cheaper 28 AWG cable.

However, is everyone forgetting that OP has already been displaying images from his computer to the projector? 1080p compatibility does not appear to be the issue.

Yep, but OP purchased the 24 AWG 50' cable. Not the cheaper 28 AWG cable.

However, is everyone forgetting that OP has already been displaying images from his computer to the projector? 1080p compatibility does not appear to be the issue.

We don't even know if the OP was outputting 1080p or 720p from their computer. While 24 AWG is better than 28 AWG, the quote from wikipedia is far from a guarantee of performance, also that statement was in reference to the Category 1 spec.

From the OP's posts, we know (or can be pretty sure of) the following even though a couple weren't explicitly sated:
1. PC > 50' cable > projector, displays picture, chokes on hdcp content
2. PC > 5' cable > Projector, HDCP content works
3. PC > short cable > switch > 50' cable > projector, nothing works

From 1 & 2 it's pretty clear the cable is the problem.

Other factors contribute to the differences between the other devices and tv (how strongly they drive the signal, signal equalization hardware). 3 shows that additional signal loss or distortion that occurred when the switch and additional cable were added, resulting in an unenviable signal. 1 & 2 also show that hdcp content is more sensitive to jitter and crosstalk than non-encrypted content.

Yep, but OP purchased the 24 AWG 50' cable. Not the cheaper 28 AWG cable.The cable gauge is completely unimportant. The cable is rated for HDMI Standard Speed, not High Speed. So it is not guaranteed to work above 75 MHz. If the cable doesn't pass the test, that's that, and it doesn't matter what the gauge is.

I looked on Monoprice, and they don't sell a fifty foot High Speed HDMI cable.

If the Blu-ray playback software can run at 1080p24 instead of 1080p60, the fifty foot cable might work just fine.

Cable gauge does play a role because of a phenomenon called skin depth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_depth). But there are other cable design constraints that are more important.

Trying to run the software 1080p24 or 720p60 could make that current cable workable, if nothing else it may let you watch bd till a better cable arrives.

Cable gauge does play a role.I'm sorry, what I meant is that you should not use the gauge to determine whether the cable will work, you should use the speed rating.

You're right, running Blu-ray at 1080p24 uses less than half the bandwidth of 1080p60, which could solve the problem. I think the problem is not hdcp, it's just dropped bits. If hdcp weren't present, you'd probably have just bad video.

The cable gauge is completely unimportant. The cable is rated for HDMI Standard Speed, not High Speed. So it is not guaranteed to work above 75 MHz. If the cable doesn't pass the test, that's that, and it doesn't matter what the gauge is.

I looked on Monoprice, and they don't sell a fifty foot High Speed HDMI cable.

If the Blu-ray playback software can run at 1080p24 instead of 1080p60, the fifty foot cable might work just fine.

Except that the OP was already using their computer at the appropriate resolution. This isn't an issue of whether the cable can handle the video bandwidth that OP is using, considering he was already running the computer at whatever resolution he was using. If this were a video bandwidth issue of the cable, the OP probably wouldn't be able to get any video under any circumstance, or, at the very least, have lots of drop outs or artifacts.

This isn't an issue of whether the cable can handle the video bandwidth.Whatever. 50' cable doesn't work, 6' cable does work, I say the cable's the problem. You wanna argue, you can howl at the moon for all I care, I don't even know what point you're trying to make, but it doesn't matter because he obviously has a cable issue.

Whatever. 50' cable doesn't work, 6' cable does work, I say the cable's the problem. You wanna argue, you can howl at the moon for all I care, I don't even know what point you're trying to make, but it doesn't matter because he obviously has a cable issue.

Cable issue, yes, but the issue is not the video bandwidth of the cable. That is to say, it's not an issue differentiated by "standard" and "high speed" ratings, as the cable was able to display a video feed at the resolution OP wanted.

This is an issue of the cable not supporting HDCP correctly.

anyDVD will remove all HDCP restrictions

In order to increase the bandwidth a cable can successfully be tested at, improvements to the cable are made that will improve skew, jitter, crosstalk, attenuation, and differential impedance. Generally high speed digital cables are tested to meet a particular set of eye diagram characteristics. A designation like category 2 or "high speed" and the wire gauge mean much more about the quality than having a brand like monster. Most of the other things you may see on product packaging can arguable be put into the "snake oil" category, thus these two are the most useful specs (and not going any longer than needed) available to the consumer to find a better cable. It baffles me why you continue to insist they are useless to the the OP.

HDCP content is more sensitive to jitter, crosstalk, and synchronization issues. This is what the OP experienced. You can be sure that the non-hdcp content the op displayed is pretty close to the limit of what can be displayed without artifacts or signal loss.

:lol: We've been busy I see.

I just got a new cable tonight and tried it out. It's a Nippon Labs cable. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812816006
They actually don't give many specifics on the grade of cable... but it had great reviews and folks mentioned getting 1080p through it. With newegg I figured I could return it without too much hassle if it failed.

The verdict... no difference.
*computer to 50' cable to projector = picture yes, movie begins to play then is denied with HDCP error
*computer to 6' cable to switch to 50' cable to projector = nada, no signal received at projector

So the cable is obviously a problem, But remember, it does work for my dvd player and sat. To troubleshoot further I'm going to try a different PC down there tonight... just to see if there's any difference in video card output. Something there is just not making sense to me.

I also have a few new shorter 1.4 cables arriving to replace these excessively long super generic ones I've been using for components. Those will be a few days.

I'm guessing I'll need some kind of signal booster or amplifier for the 50' run. I was looking at the info for the switch and it doesn't really mention any amplification. I could focus on getting an amplified switch.... or an active amplifier.

anyDVD will remove all HDCP restrictions

Wait... what? Really? It will play without this HDCP garbage?

Wait... what? Really? It will play without this HDCP garbage?

There's also http://www.dvdfab.com/en/passkey.htm it's free for now (beta) but has more bugs.

There is no such thing as an hdmi(tm) 1.4 cable.

HDMI is patented and trademarked. To sell an actual hdmi cable, the manufacturer must be an hdmi licensee, he must have the cable tested (certified), and he must adhere to marketing guidelines, which specify that you can't refer to the cable with a version number. So if somebody sells a cable called hdmi 1.4, it is an unlicensed, untested cable.

There is no such thing as an hdmi(tm) 1.4 cable.

HDMI is patented and trademarked. To sell an actual hdmi cable, the manufacturer must be an hdmi licensee, he must have the cable tested (certified), and he must adhere to marketing guidelines, which specify that you can't refer to the cable with a version number. So if somebody sells a cable called hdmi 1.4, it is an unlicensed, untested cable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_1.4

HDMI 1.4 was released on May 28, 2009. HDMI 1.4a was released on March 4, 2010. It was released to support 3D.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_1.4

HDMI 1.4 was released on May 28, 2009. HDMI 1.4a was released on March 4, 2010. It was released to support 3D.What is your problem? You have been consistently wrong throughout this thread, and you just keep making more innacurate comments in spite of the facts. Why do you do this?

I know that there's an HDMI Specification 1.4, I've read it many times. That does not mean that there are HDMI 1.4 cables. There are not. The cable is the same as before, unless you want the Ethernet feature or a different connector. A licensed cable is a legal cable. A licensed cable must be a tested cable. So if somebody sells you a cable called an HDMI 1.4 cable, it is an unlicensed, untested cable. Legally, it is not an HDMI cable at all. There is no CTS a cable can pass that lets a manufacturer lable it as an HDMI 1.4 cable. It can be called Standard, High Speed, or either of the above "with Ethernet". This labelling was designed to protect the consumer from cables with confusing labelling, such as "3D.".

As I said before, wire gauge is irrelevant, it can be any gauge or material or construction that the manufacturer chooses to use in order to pass the CTS as an HDMI Standard or High Speed cable. If the cable designer concludes that 22 gauge is necessary for a certain cable length to pass the test, so be it.

But you're probably going to ignore this and say I'm wrong. I don't understand why you want to go through life functioning like that.

Oh, and HDMI 1.4a was not released to support 3D. HDMI 1.4 was released to support a whole bunch of features, and 3D was, at the time, one of the less significant (we were wrong about that -- it turned out to be the most important of all the features by far). HDMI 1.4a was released to support 3D for the cable TV and satellite providers. It's a very small revision, of just a few pages. It makes some of the optional 3D formats mandatory for televisions, so if you buy a 3D TV, it will support a 720p game mode, a 1080p film mode (basically for Blu-ray), and several half-resolution, frame-compatible modes for cable and satellite. It's a little more detailed than that, I could go into it, but I don't think you'll pay attention.

2) When running direct from PC to projector I can get a picture. But when I try to play a bluray, it stops and says I can't use digital cables and must swtich to analog because of protected content. I've tried powerdvd 8 and 10. Same results.

Sounds like your graphics adapter may not be HDCP compliant. What model motherboard?

Sounds like your graphics adapter may not be HDCP compliant. What model motherboard?Good guess, bro,'but he says it all works when he uses a six foot cable.

The difference between the computer and other devices can be explained by how strongly each device drives the signal (differential amplifier) or other factors that could degrade it. A different graphics card could actually make a difference, but the cable is still the weakest link.

OP, if you have another graphics card you can swap in, you might give it a try.

I've been meaning to haul my main PC downstairs... but it's a huge full tower beast on wheels, so I haven't gotten around to it. It's like moving a piano. (ok not really.. but I've been busy) I shall give it a try.

To answer Aluvus, my mobo is this one... Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-US2H http://www.gigabyte.us/Products/Motherboard/Products_Overview.aspx?ProductID=2997 Website says it's HDCP compliant.

The spare cards I have on hand... won't fit into my HTPC. I'll probably order one if this next round of testing doesn't shed some light.

"1.4" Cables I ordered.. http://www.meritline.com/3ft-hdmi-14-male-28awg-cable---p-44700.aspx

Thanks again guys. I do appreciate the troubleshooting.

What is your problem? You have been consistently wrong throughout this thread, and you just keep making more innacurate comments in spite of the facts. Why do you do this?

You're telling me that HDMI 1.4 and 1.4a being released on those dates is wrong and inaccurate? Moreover, just saying "you're wrong" doesn't mean I am. You keep stating garbage that neither helps the OP nor even adequately solves the issue, considering the points you're making don't sync with what is actually going on.

I know that there's an HDMI Specification 1.4, I've read it many times. That does not mean that there are HDMI 1.4 cables. There are not. The cable is the same as before, unless you want the Ethernet feature or a different connector. A licensed cable is a legal cable. A licensed cable must be a tested cable. So if somebody sells you a cable called an HDMI 1.4 cable, it is an unlicensed, untested cable. Legally, it is not an HDMI cable at all. There is no CTS a cable can pass that lets a manufacturer lable it as an HDMI 1.4 cable. It can be called Standard, High Speed, or either of the above "with Ethernet". This labelling was designed to protect the consumer from cables with confusing labelling, such as "3D.".

That being said, you should realize that when someone says HDMI 1.4/a cables, they mean that they pass the proper bandwidth requirements to meet 1.4 or 1.4a specifications. Marketing parlance states such things (whether they're technically inaccurate) simply to tell people: "Yes, these cables will work for HDMI spec 1.4/a." If you really feel like complaining about licensed HDMI cables, you can feel free to do so elsewhere, where people don't care about saving cash (because licensing jacks the price WAY up). Let us not forget that even if a product is unlicensed, it still must pass the functions that it advertises, lest the manufacturer face a false advertising suit. If you take such an issue with "HDMI 1.4 cable", then take it up with ALL of the manufacturers out there that state such, of which there are many.

More to the point of confusing nomenclature, "standard speed" v. "high speed", plus "with ethernet" or "automotive HDMI" is far more complicated a differentiation than just stating which specification a cable meets.

Even if you want to ignore said difference, you've still said plenty of inaccurate things yourself, the worst being that you stated that the cable cannot handle 1080p, despite the fact that OP was already using the cable at the proper resolution before watching a blu ray movie.

As I said before, wire gauge is irrelevant, it can be any gauge or material or construction that the manufacturer chooses to use in order to pass the CTS as an HDMI Standard or High Speed cable. If the cable designer concludes that 22 gauge is necessary for a certain cable length to pass the test, so be it.

But you're probably going to ignore this and say I'm wrong. I don't understand why you want to go through life functioning like that.

The only mentioning of cable gauge I wrote is that OP bought a cable with 24 gauge cable and that he did not purchase a 28 gauge cable. I'm not sure what your issue is with me saying that, unless you want to claim it's also wrong and/or inaccurate.

The big issue here is that you don't like me countering anything you're saying or pointing out the inaccuracies in your writing.

OP's issue is not the video bandwidth of the cable (the screen displayed fine without a Blu-Ray video. It's not that OP purchased an "unlicensed" cable (his other unlicensed cable worked fine). It's not that OP is using standard speed vs. high speed (OP already had a video feed as-is). It's entirely an HDCP issue. Namely, that HDCP is not functioning with a long cable. That is all the issue is. The solution is to get another cable. Anything else is superfluous.

The royalty on an HDMI cable is five cents. Monoproce cables are licensed... I've never heard anyone claim that Monoprice cables are over-priced.

Kakamu, you are arguing with me over what a cable should be called. You are free to whine about the nomenclature all you want, but it's asinine for you to try to insist that I'm wrong for using the correct language. What's more, a cable sold with the wrong description is unlicensed, which means it is untested, so there is no way to know if it will work.

You're telling me that HDMI 1.4 and 1.4a being released on those dates is wrong and inaccurate? Moreover, just saying "you're wrong" doesn't mean I am. You keep stating garbage that neither helps the OP nor even adequately solves the issue, considering the points you're making don't sync with what is actually going on.



That being said, you should realize that when someone says HDMI 1.4/a cables, they mean that they pass the proper bandwidth requirements to meet 1.4 or 1.4a specifications. Marketing parlance states such things (whether they're technically inaccurate) simply to tell people: "Yes, these cables will work for HDMI spec 1.4/a." If you really feel like complaining about licensed HDMI cables, you can feel free to do so elsewhere, where people don't care about saving cash (because licensing jacks the price WAY up). Let us not forget that even if a product is unlicensed, it still must pass the functions that it advertises, lest the manufacturer face a false advertising suit. If you take such an issue with "HDMI 1.4 cable", then take it up with ALL of the manufacturers out there that state such, of which there are many.

More to the point of confusing nomenclature, "standard speed" v. "high speed", plus "with ethernet" or "automotive HDMI" is far more complicated a differentiation than just stating which specification a cable meets.

Even if you want to ignore said difference, you've still said plenty of inaccurate things yourself, the worst being that you stated that the cable cannot handle 1080p, despite the fact that OP was already using the cable at the proper resolution before watching a blu ray movie.



The only mentioning of cable gauge I wrote is that OP bought a cable with 24 gauge cable and that he did not purchase a 28 gauge cable. I'm not sure what your issue is with me saying that, unless you want to claim it's also wrong and/or inaccurate.

The big issue here is that you don't like anyone countering anything you're saying or pointing out the inaccuracies in your writing.

OP's issue is not the video bandwidth of the cable (the screen displayed fine without a Blu-Ray video. It's not that OP purchased an "unlicensed" cable (his other unlicensed cable worked fine). It's not that OP is using standard speed vs. high speed (OP already had a video feed as-is). It's entirely an HDCP issue. Namely, that HDCP is not functioning with a long cable. That is all the issue is. The solution is to get another cable. Anything else is superfluous.
Rebound is right with regards to how licensed cables can be marketed:
2.1 HDMI Cable Products—No Use of Version Numbers

You shall not use HDMI version numbers in the labeling, packaging, or promotion of any cable
product. This includes releases of the HDMI specification (for example, HDMI 1.3, etc.), interim
version numbers (for example, HDMI 1.3a, etc.) and CTS (Compliance Test Specification) version
numbers (for example, 1.2, 1.3c, etc.).

Cable products are not allowed to make any reference to Version 1.4 of the HDMI Specification
in any circumstance. There is no grace period for compliance to this rule.
via: http://www.hdmi.org/download/guidelines/2009_11_18_RevisedTradeLogo_Guidelines_FINAL_a.pdf

I can sympathize with both sides of the licensing dilemma. But you can be confident that a licensed cable meets the specs or the mfg will lose it's license for selling one that doesn't and you can't have the same confidence about unlicensed cables. I don't think many of the manufactures (in other countries) that make really cheap cables are that worried about being sued for false advertising, or many consumers willing to front the money to test the cable as would be required to bing such a suit.

I think the reason that the "standard speed", "high speed", etc, nomenclature was created to reduce confusion about which version of cable would work with which version of device. For basic video (no audio return channel or ethernet) everything about the cables for version 1.3 and 1.4 is the same (including that for 1080p a high speed cable is required).

From my perspective, the difference between a standard cable and high speed cable isn't necessarily that it won't work at 1080p but that it isn't guaranteed to work (and if you re-read some of the past posts, I think rebound would agree with me).

There isn't some magical hdcp wire in the cable that's missing and causing the problem! The problem is that the cable deviates far enough from the specs (jitter, crosstalk, attenuation, etc. (which are frequency dependent)) that hdcp content breaks down. Some type of signal booster may help, but couldn't be guaranteed to work with a standard speed cable. The solution is a better cable, but it's a choice of whether to play cable roulette till you find a cheap one that works or to spend a little more and get a certified high speed cable that's guaranteed to work. Also, if you can't find a licensed "high speed" cable of a certain length anywhere online, there may be a reason... they can't make one yet that passes the tests.

I had written a lot, but I'm removing it all. The problem is that Rebound gets bent out of shape when I point out the inaccuracies or fallacies in his posts. It's not worth responding any further.

I think the reason that the "standard speed", "high speed", etc, nomenclature was created to reduce confusion about which version of cable would work with which version of device. For basic video (no audio return channel or ethernet) everything about the cables for version 1.3 and 1.4 is the same (including that for 1080p a high speed cable is required).
By splitting up HDMI cables into various "speed" categories, including "automotive" and "with ethernet", etc, and making 7 different revisions since 2002, they have effectively countered their desire to reduce confusion. Moreover, standard and high speed names were only developed with HDMI 1.3. Prior to that, HDMI 1.0 was supposed to support 1080p60 (1920x1200 60p being the max, just like DVI), which means that cables adhering to HDMI 1.3 "standard speed" would basically break from HDMI 1.0 spec if they couldn't fulfill the resolution and rate of an HDMI 1.0 cable (1080p60). If that's the case, HDMI shot themselves in the foot as far as confusion with cable specifications and speeds are concerned.

I was scratching my head about "high speed" rated cables being needed for 1080p too since hdmi was designed to be backwards compatible with single link DVI. I looked at some of the material on wikipedia a little closer and realized that HDMI 1.0-1.2 only support 24-bit color at 1920x1200 60hz, I think support for higher color depth and a desire to be future ready is the reason for this aspect of their current marketing.

Drio: If you try lowering the bit depth it may help, but if the projector supports more than 24-bit depth, you may not want to. Not many graphics card will give you 24-bit as a choice, most only offer 32 and 16.
EDIT: Your projector supports 30 bit color (10 per channel) which is standard for hdmi 1.3, so you probably don't want to lower this.

I agree with you that they probably could have done a better job when it comes naming and reducing confusion between all the revisions, but it is pretty challenging to develop a standard like this and to have it evolve (a little more foresight off the bat would have helped, but would have delayed adoption of hdmi) while maintaining backwards compatibility.

I missed this earlier when I skimmed wiki too, but it's relevant to the situation:
Long cables can cause instability of HDCP and blinking on the screen, due to the weakened DDC signal that HDCP requires.

HDCP DDC signals must be multiplexed with TMDS video signals to be compliant with HDCP requirements for HDMI extenders based on a single Category 5/Category 6 cable.[66][67] Several companies offer amplifiers, equalizers, and repeaters that can string several standard HDMI cables together. Active HDMI cables use electronics within the cable to boost the signal and allow for HDMI cables of up to 30 meters (98 ft.).[63] HDMI extenders that are based on dual Category 5/Category 6 cable can extend HDMI to 250 meters (820 ft.), while HDMI extenders based on optical fiber can extend HDMI to 300 meters (980 ft.).[64][65]

I was scratching my head about "high speed" rated cables being needed for 1080p too since hdmi was designed to be backwards compatible with single link DVI. :Let me explain that: It's basically because, a few years ago, HDMI cables were very expensive, and a long cable that supported the full 225 MHz speed cost more than twice as much as a long cable that supported 75 MHz -- hundreds of dollars back then. Remember that, just a few years ago, there were a lot of $5,000 TV's with 720p resolution. It didn't make sense to force people to buy over-engineered cables, so they were called Category 1 and Category 2 cables. I'll agree with Kakamu that this is stupid nomenclature, designed by geeks, but Cat 5 makes sense in the Ethernet world, and so it was used with hdmi. Cat 1 and 2 now have the consumer-friendlier names of "High Speed" and "Standard Speed."

The version of HDMI is irrelevant to the cable. In fact, the version of HDMI no longer defines any product. It is impossible to make an HDMI 1.4 product, because that would have no meaning. It wouldn't make sense to require that all TV's have to offer 3D, 4k x 2k, audio return channel, Ethernet channel, mobile connectors and automotive locking connectors in order to be called hdmi 1.4. Same with the cables.. Does a cable have to have the mobile, automotive, high speed and Ethernet features in order to be called an "HDMI 1.4 cable"? Of course not, because that would be impossible.

Instead, HDMI 1.4 is a collection of features, and to offer any of these features in a product (such as 3D), there are a group of requirements that the product has to meet and a group of tests it must pass. Then the product can be called (for example) "HDMI 1.4 3D". The rules prohibit calling it an HDMI 1.4a product... It's unnecessary, because barely any 3D TV's shipped before 1.4a was released, and those sets got firmware updates.

I hope that clears things up a little. The version number thing wasn't working out, and it wasn't fair to consumers or manufacturers. You don't need a new cable box every time a new version of HDMI is released; instead, HDMI is an enabler of features, such as 3D Blu-ray. In fact, (and this confuses everybody), if you have an HDMI 1.2 cable or satellite receiver, your service provider can easily update its software to support HDMI 1.4 3D.

I had written a lot, but I'm removing it all. The problem is that Rebound gets bent out of shape when I point out the inaccuracies or fallacies in his posts.
If you weren't consistently wrong, you wouldn't need to go back and edit your posts.

With HDMI 1.0, a link could be up to 165 MHz.
With HDMI 1.3, link speed increased to 340 MHz (although 225 is the maximum used in TV's today). With HDMI 1.3, the Cat 1 and Cat 2 designations were released, and a Cat 1 cable (Standard Speed) only had to support 75 MHz. As I keep repeating to you, that is the type of 50' cable that Drio used, and it's insufficient for Blu-ray. I think everybody here understands that, but you keep objecting and pointing out stupidities and trivialities.

To the OP, check out and google your issue on www.avsforum.com ...... more info then you will ever need. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=avsforum+50ft+hdmi&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=ChyUPQKFMTMaNCILeNfLYnZAKAAAAqgQFT9ARLfA&pbx=1&fp=53c60a90bb9fa0eb Look into BlueJeans cables, high quality less price. This isn't going to be monoprice cheap but for a long run your better off spending the money. V

Everyone that is bickering back and forth ..................RELAX:D.........as for as standards and specs go it's all the same. http://www.hdmi.org/ they even mention that 1.3 can handle 3D just fine. It's the ethernet and return audio that caused the change. Just like any other wire/cable long runs creat problems. No since cluttering up the OP's thread with an argument:shake:

If you weren't consistently wrong, you wouldn't need to go back and edit your posts.

Just proves my point. You get bent out of shape in response to anything I write.

As far as being wrong, I disagree.

Also, I edited that previous post because I felt that the contents didn't add anything to the conversation. If you want to gripe about that, you're only proving the point I made earlier.

With HDMI 1.0, a link could be up to 165 MHz.
With HDMI 1.3, link speed increased to 340 MHz (although 225 is the maximum used in TV's today). With HDMI 1.3, the Cat 1 and Cat 2 designations were released, and a Cat 1 cable (Standard Speed) only had to support 75 MHz. As I keep repeating to you, that is the type of 50' cable that Drio used, and it's insufficient for Blu-ray. I think everybody here understands that, but you keep objecting and pointing out stupidities and trivialities.

Pointing out that HDMI 1.3 "standard speed" cables breaks with HDMI 1.0's spec is neither a "stupidity" nor a "triviality". It's a fundamental issue with HDMI's specification that exacerbates the problems that the HDMI cable aimed to alleviate in the beginning.

Moreover, the fact that OP was able to utilize the cable at their preferred resolution just showed that it's not video bandwidth that's the issue. Note jkee's post that explains that long cables are problematic when used with HDCP because of an inherent flaw with the DDC signal over long lengths. This falls in line with my stance that it's obviously the cable that was at fault, but not simply because of a lack of a guarantee.

As far as being wrong, I disagree.That is because you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Moreover, the fact that OP was able to utilize the cable at their preferred resolution just showed that it's not video bandwidth that's the issue. Note jkee's post that explains that long cables are problematic when used with HDCP because of an inherent flaw with the DDC signal over long lengths. This falls in line with my stance that it's obviously the cable that was at fault, but not simply because of a lack of a guarantee.And this is in line with my stance that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The DDC line is used to let the transmitter read the capabilities of the display. That is how a Blu-ray player can tell whether a TV is 720p or 1080p, and so forth.

As you said, the PC could display an image on the TV. So of course the DDC line was working. Otherwise, no display would be possible at all. See, Kakomu, you really don't understand this stuff. There is definitely no flaw with DDC over long cable lengths.

JKee's quote had is irrelevant to the issue here (and I'm sure JKee will agree with this).
HDCP DDC signals must be multiplexed with TMDS video signals to be compliant with HDCP requirements for HDMI extenders based on a single Category 5/Category 6 cableThis says that the DDC line is multiplexed with another signal when an HDMI cable extender is used. That is a device which converts HDMI into CAT 5 or CAT 6 cable. But no such equipment is being used here. Drio does not have a device that converts HDMI into CAT 5 Ethernet, does he? No, he does not, so the DDC line is not mulitplexed with anything, so this "inherent flaw" you refer to does not exist.

Now, please stop with your ridiculous comments. You don't know what you're talking about.

And this is in line with my stance that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The DDC line is used to let the transmitter read the capabilities of the display. That is how a Blu-ray player can tell whether a TV is 720p or 1080p, and so forth.

As you said, the PC could display an image on the TV. So of course the DDC line was working. Otherwise, no display would be possible at all. See, Kakomu, you really don't understand this stuff. There is definitely no flaw with DDC over long cable lengths.

JKee's quote had is irrelevant to the issue here (and I'm sure JKee will agree with this).
This says that the DDC line is multiplexed with another signal when an HDMI cable extender is used. That is a device which converts HDMI into CAT 5 or CAT 6 cable. But no such equipment is being used here. Drio does not have a device that converts HDMI into CAT 5 Ethernet, does he? No, he does not, so the DDC line is not mulitplexed with anything, so this "inherent flaw" you refer to does not exist.

Now, please stop with your ridiculous comments. You don't know what you're talking about.

The quote by jkee stating that long cables can cause instability of HDCP by virtue of a weakened DDC line is fairly relevant to OP, considering it explains exactly what his issue is. jkee brought it up because it is, in fact, relevant to the case.

It's placed in the "extender" portion of the wikipedia article to illustrate the necessity for an extender vs. using a really long cable. The description above demonstrates why a long cable is prone to failure, due to the inherently weak (flawed) nature of the DDC signal in HDMI.

You really need to stop grinding your axe. For instance, in your haste to try to refute me, you write this concerning the long cable quote from wiki that jkee posted:

JKee's quote had is irrelevant to the issue here (and I'm sure JKee will agree with this).

But, when you read his actual post he disagrees:

I missed this earlier when I skimmed wiki too, but it's relevant to the situation:

So, no, he wouldn't agree with you. You really need to relax.

Kakamu,
You do not have any idea what you're talking about. You are obviously incapable of understanding fairly simple technical concepts.

JKee knows what he's talking about, and he doesn't have an over-inflated ego. Therefore, I'm quite certain that if he stumbles on this thread again, he'll admit that he was mistaken.

The three TMDS lines in an HDMI cable are twisted pairs that carry several Gbit/sec of data. The DDC line in the HDMI cable transmits a few hundred bytes of data at very low speed, one time, then it does nothing. The suggestion that the ultra-low speed DDC line isn't working properly while the ultra-high speed lines are fine is pretty silly... unless, of course, you multiplex the low-speed line onto the high speed line, but that does not occur in an ordinary HDMI cable.

Kakamu,
You do not have any idea what you're talking about. You are obviously incapable of understanding fairly simple technical concepts.

JKee knows what he's talking about, and he doesn't have an over-inflated ego. Therefore, I'm quite certain that if he stumbles on this thread again, he'll admit that he was mistaken.

The three TMDS lines in an HDMI cable are twisted pairs that carry several Gbit/sec of data. The DDC line in the HDMI cable transmits a few hundred bytes of data at very low speed, one time, then it does nothing. The suggestion that the ultra-low speed DDC line isn't working properly while the ultra-high speed lines are fine is pretty silly... unless, of course, you multiplex the low-speed line onto the high speed line, but that does not occur in an ordinary HDMI cable.

If you take exception with the suggestion that "Long cables can cause instability of HDCP and blinking on the screen, due to the weakened DDC signal that HDCP requires.", take that up with wikipedia, the source, and anyone else who quoted it and felt it was relevant.

I think I may have to recuse myself from this thread to avoid fanning the flames... Honestly guys, what do you hope to accomplish with this fighting :ermm:.

I'm not all that intimately acquainted with the HDMI spec, I just quoted wikipedia without researching that statement. If it's wrong (and it sounds like it is), fix it on wikipedia (with a viable reference) :P. My hunch would be that jitter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jitter) is actually the biggest problem for hdcp content and long cables, but i'm not declaring that to be a statement of fact (just a hunch). Ultimately, it's just a matter of the eye collapsing (http://www.hdmi.org/installers/eyediagram.aspx), the exact cause of which may not be trivial to determine.

The main things I was trying to get across throughout my last couple posts are:
-The increase in color depth in the hdmi 1.3 standard, explains the discrepancy and rationale for the current guideline that a high speed cable is needed for 1080p content.
-HDCP content seems to have an increased sensitivity to interference, I'm not sure exactly why but have a few ideas
-It's harder to make the eye collapse on a high speed cable... this would be helpful, attenuation is still an issue (high speed cables > 25' are hard to find if they even exist).

I thought these might help mediate some of the previous discussion. :hide:

Random side conversation: kakomu, how did that animal shelter software work out / what did you end up using?

The Wiki article is correct, it's just that it is referring to what happens with HDMI over CAT 5 ethernet cable, not over an HDMI cable. CAT 5 has fewer pins, so signals are combined (multiplexed) from more pins to fewer pins,, which can cause problems.

But Drio is not using CAT 5 Ethernet cable. It's really very simple; the behavior of Ethernet cable just has nothing to do with Drio's HDMI cable.

I've read this thread, some good points here but why not just connect the devices closer. Seems to be some limits in length wise. All these cheap HDMI cables posted all over for dirt cheap seems to work find well for me.

B-Ray output from AMD Quad-Core / ATI HD v10.6 to 46" HDTV in 1080p no issues
Under PowerDVD 10 or VLC latest version.
Non-B-Ray like internet streaming of 1080p to SageTV works no issues displaying that also.

OP what are you using for HD graphics?

The Wiki article is correct, it's just that it is referring to what happens with HDMI over CAT 5 ethernet cable, not over an HDMI cable. CAT 5 has fewer pins, so signals are combined (multiplexed) from more pins to fewer pins,, which can cause problems.

But Drio is not using CAT 5 Ethernet cable. It's really very simple; the behavior of Ethernet cable just has nothing to do with Drio's HDMI cable.

As much as I hate to get into this bitchfest, here's the entire section from Wiki:

Extender

An HDMI extender is a single device (or pair of devices) powered with an external power source or with the 5V DC from the HDMI source.[63][64][65] Long cables can cause instability of HDCP and blinking on the screen, due to the weakened DDC signal that HDCP requires. HDCP DDC signals must be multiplexed with TMDS video signals to be compliant with HDCP requirements for HDMI extenders based on a single Category 5/Category 6 cable.[66][67] Several companies offer amplifiers, equalizers, and repeaters that can string several standard HDMI cables together. Active HDMI cables use electronics within the cable to boost the signal and allow for HDMI cables of up to 30 meters (98 ft.).[63] HDMI extenders that are based on dual Category 5/Category 6 cable can extend HDMI to 250 meters (820 ft.), while HDMI extenders based on optical fiber can extend HDMI to 300 meters (980 ft.).[64][65]

That sentence has nothing to do with the manner of extending the cable. It's simply stating that a long cable can cause issues and that HDMI extenders (either ethernet based or fiber based) can alleviate those issues.

If you think that's wrong then I suggest you edit the Wiki article.

I've read this thread, some good points here but why not just connect the devices closer. Seems to be some limits in length wise. All these cheap HDMI cables posted all over for dirt cheap seems to work find well for me.

B-Ray output from AMD Quad-Core / ATI HD v10.6 to 46" HDTV in 1080p no issues
Under PowerDVD 10 or VLC latest version.
Non-B-Ray like internet streaming of 1080p to SageTV works no issues displaying that also.

OP what are you using for HD graphics?

Well... the projector and PC are both in ideal "stealth" locations. Can't really relocate either of them. My video is currently from my mobo (HD3200).

I got my short HDMI cables today. Tried using one from PC to switch, then 50' to projector. No picture. (it was a longshot anyhow)

I'm really wanted to put some blame on the switch here. With every scenario.... the PC has never gotten a picture past the switch. I plan to check into that and also pick out a new video card.

I actually don't mind the bitchfest. I'm learning. Besides... they're enjoying themselves. ;)

I'm actually holding on to both 50' hmdi cables at this point. Using one from my PC directly to projector... and the second one servicing the switch and other devices is my last chance if all else fails. (projector has two inputs)

Well... the projector and PC are both in ideal "stealth" locations. Can't really relocate either of them. My video is currently from my mobo (HD3200).

I got my short HDMI cables today. Tried using one from PC to switch, then 50' to projector. No picture. (it was a longshot anyhow)

I'm really wanted to put some blame on the switch here. With every scenario.... the PC has never gotten a picture past the switch. I plan to check into that and also pick out a new video card.

I actually don't mind the bitchfest. I'm learning. Besides... they're enjoying themselves. ;)

I'm actually holding on to both 50' hmdi cables at this point. Using one from my PC directly to projector... and the second one servicing the switch and other devices is my last chance if all else fails. (projector has two inputs)

Did you install the AMD/ATI Full Package 10.6 drivers? Are you on Windows 7? 32 or 64bit? When you connect your system to HDTV without using the LCD Projector do you get a image?

I have HD 3200 I can shadow you my settings to see if you can replicate to your setup?

If you think that's wrong then I suggest you edit the Wiki article.I will have it fixed.

I'm really wanted to put some blame on the switch here. With every scenario.... the PC has never gotten a picture past the switch. I plan to check into that and also pick out a new video card.

The switch does share a little of the blame, obviously from what you described. There is a slight signal loss in the switch. But other factors (the cable and level your computer drives the signal at), are far far more significant, to the point where it isn't really worth it to blame the switch. (This assumption is based on your description that every device but your computer does ok through the switch)

As I suggested earlier, did you try a different port on the switch?

You'll probably have to get an extender, but try another computer or video card first.

The switch does share a little of the blame, obviously from what you described. There is a slight signal loss in the switch. But other factors (the cable and level your computer drives the signal at), are far far more significant, to the point where it isn't really worth it to blame the switch.

You'll probably have to get an extender, but try another computer or video card first.We have encountered a lot of problems from inexpensive HDMI switches. We used to see a lot of these problems in AVR's as well. HDCP can break through a switch for a lot of reasons.

I looked at the reviews of that HDMI switch on Monoprice's website, and many users report problems with various sources, such as Comcast set top boxes and the PS/3.

The switch does share a little of the blame, obviously from what you described. There is a slight signal loss in the switch. But other factors (the cable and level your computer drives the signal at), are far far more significant, to the point where it isn't really worth it to blame the switch. (This assumption is based on your description that every device but your computer does ok through the switch)

As I suggested earlier, did you try a different port on the switch?

You'll probably have to get an extender, but try another computer or video card first.

oh yes, sorry, I have tried that. No joy.

Sorry this has been a slow moving diagnosis. I just haven't had the time. I'll try to get my other PC downstairs to test it out tonight. My main system is running Sapphire 5750's.

Did you install the AMD/ATI Full Package 10.6 drivers? Are you on Windows 7? 32 or 64bit? When you connect your system to HDTV without using the LCD Projector do you get a image?

I'll check the drivers tonight. But it's a Win7 64 system. Unlike the rest of my components, I don't output the computer to my 32" LCD TV. It's a wiring nightmare really. I have a fantastic Onkyo receiver, but it was sadly put out just before HDMI gained popularity.

So all my components run to my receiver at crappy low resolution for viewing on my crappy 32" LCD, and I also grab HDMI from them to send HD video to my projector.

Well... more frustrating news. I got the beast downstairs and still no go. That switch and 50' cable just won't work when used with a PC.

So... at this point... invest in? Better switch? Cable amplifier? Higher grade cable? :ranting:

Well... more frustrating news. I got the beast downstairs and still no go. That switch and 50' cable just won't work when used with a PC.

So... at this point... invest in? Better switch? Cable amplifier? Higher grade cable? :ranting:

I know it's not the most optimal solution, but have you considered getting a standalone BR player and putting it next to the projector? Granted, you'll have to run an audio cable from the BR player, but digital coax and fiber optic cables can be run a fair amount of distance.

I know it's not the most optimal solution, but have you considered getting a standalone BR player and putting it next to the projector? Granted, you'll have to run an audio cable from the BR player, but digital coax and fiber optic cables can be run a fair amount of distance.

No can do. I want the PC for much more than just BR movies. I stream movies from my upstairs PC... my music archive.. etc etc..

Besides, my install is a little... different. I'll have to post pics sometime. It just wouldn't work.

But hell... my dvd player works through the switch and 50' cable... my satellite work through the switch and cable... I bet if I got a standalone BR player it would probably work as well.

Hell... maybe I'll just run both 50' cables... and toggle the inputs on the projector.

PC-> 50' cable-> Projector (this works since I was able to disable the HDCP for now)
other components -> switch -> 50' cable -> Projector

Just annoying that I won't work as intended... all through the switch.

Does your other pc (the beast) display hdcp content when directly connected to the projector? Does it display anything when connected directly?

oh yes, sorry, I have tried that. No joy.

Sorry this has been a slow moving diagnosis. I just haven't had the time. I'll try to get my other PC downstairs to test it out tonight. My main system is running Sapphire 5750's.



I'll check the drivers tonight. But it's a Win7 64 system. Unlike the rest of my components, I don't output the computer to my 32" LCD TV. It's a wiring nightmare really. I have a fantastic Onkyo receiver, but it was sadly put out just before HDMI gained popularity.

So all my components run to my receiver at crappy low resolution for viewing on my crappy 32" LCD, and I also grab HDMI from them to send HD video to my projector.

See I run the audio to the Pioneer VSX-608D I have this for over 10 years now. Still going. I know wiring can be a nightmare but you want this puppy to work right?

Can you run component cables from your PC?

Can you run component cables from your PC?

If you aren't disabling hdcp, that would restrict you to 1080i or less for bd content wouldn't it?

If you aren't disabling hdcp, that would restrict you to 1080i or less for bd content wouldn't it?Yes, but 1080i60 is more or less the same as 1080p24 & 1080p30, which is the actual resolution of the blu-ray content. If the projector has a motion adaptive deinterlacer, it will be basically the same result.

Does your other pc (the beast) display hdcp content when directly connected to the projector? Does it display anything when connected directly?

Directly from PC -> 50' cable -> projector worked fine for basic video. Involving the switch killed it.

I never got to try HDCP content since it does not have a BR player. (yet)

See I run the audio to the Pioneer VSX-608D I have this for over 10 years now. Still going. I know wiring can be a nightmare but you want this puppy to work right?
Oh yes, I have all audio going through my Onkyo... just not all the video. I really want to upgrade the receiver, but it's only 4 years old and cost way too much to toss.

Can you run component cables from your PC?

Currently it doesn't have a hookup for component.

Drop,
Did you try to play a Blu-ray from the "good" PC to the projector using the 50 foot cable, without the switch?

Also, what switching do you need? Only 2:1 or 2:2? (2 in, 2 out)?

Drop,
Did you try to play a Blu-ray from the "good" PC to the projector using the 50 foot cable, without the switch?

Also, what switching do you need? Only 2:1 or 2:2? (2 in, 2 out)?

No.. I don't have a BR drive in my main PC yet.

Ideally... a 4:2 switch would be best. (to include my LCD in the HDMI experience) But I can get by with a 4:1 or even a 3:1