In addition, Hue Sync is kinda different. To me a proper ambilight goes around the edge of a display to cast light on a wall with a decent resolution (20ish or more LEDs), while Sync is more for a few bulbs and synchronizing the room lights. You can get kind of a similar effect with Sync and a couple bulbs behind the screen but it's just not as impressive.
If you want actual ambilight tech hue is definitely not directly analogous and not cheap either.
This talks to a Raspberry Pi using USB 2, and on their site [2], it talks about using the UTV007 [3] and STK1160 [4] chips, both of which are only 720x480px @ 30fps. As you really don't need high resolution for the LED lighting, what they must be doing is using an HDMI splitter and then converting to a lower quality signal, and then capturing/sampling that. Normally HDMI doesn't allow this but it's probably not too hard to find splitters that silently do this anyway.
In fact, here's a write-up [5] on using the "HD Fury Linker" [6] to basically upgrade the "Lightberry HD" to work with 4k. HD Fury makes some interesting products to manipulate the HDMI handshake an EDID [7] and an HDMI splitter that has HDCP decryption/encryption and "comes with USB upgradable firmware that allow you to unleash furious features" [8].
The last time I looked at this was about 10 years ago and I remember being put off by the compromises and complexity the HDMI signal path issues caused. Looks like that is no longer an issue (provided you are willing to pay for the gear).
[2] https://lightberry.eu/getting-started/#grabberAccordion
[3] https://www.linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/Easycap#USBTV007_Easy...
[4] https://www.linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/Stk1160_based_USB_2.0...
[5] http://www.chewie.co.uk/general/how-to-get-lightberry-hd-to-...
[6] https://hdfury.com/product/linker-4k60-444-600mhz-scaler/
That's kinda what I'm asking about here, if there is a something like a specialized chip that can be used to capture single frames from an HDMI stream to act as a buffer, because yeah obviously you don't need most of the data and you only really need to update at a few Hz.
The other option I've thought of is a chip to downsample the signal, as there are plenty of cheap FPGAs or even micros that can handle resolutions below 1080p. Again, I'm pretty sure such chips exist but I don't really know of them because this is just something I am interested in for fun.
A computer monitor is easier, though, because you can run a program in the background that does screen capture.