HDMI 2.0 officially announced
engadget.com
engadget.com
ceil(log2(P))
bits per pixel. So a "2K" display needs 11 bits, "4K" needs 12, etc. Then each column of pixels gets a distinct value and there is no banding.
So sure, give me a 4K screen. I've seen them and they are sweet, but you MUST also increase the pixel depth at the same time, or there will be artifacts.
And don't get me started on the horrid compression artifacts on basic cable. A crime against quality imagery.
At least where I live one of the differences between the TVs that CostCo sells and the ones that others sell are 8 bit (CostCo) vs 10 bit (others) panels.
The math supports converting a YbCbCr 'pixel' into a 30 bit RGB pixel if your conversion constants allow for it. What is unclear is when quantization noise from the compression of the chroma signal shows up as bit instability in the resulting conversion cycle.
What we need is a replacement for LCD technology.
Dithering in the field of video is pretty common, though. But it has a pretty large problem there as well - since dithering is essentially noise, it requires a lot of bitrate to compress efficiently, and if you don't have bitrate to throw at your source, you're most likely going to kill it and just end up introducing banding. Blu-ray is pretty much the main avenue where you have enough bitrate to spare for proper dithering in 8-bit video. Anything less than that, though... well, let's just say that House of Cards on Netflix was suffering from banding a lot.
Banding is actually one of the biggest reasons why anime fansubs these days are generally encoded in 10-bit H.264. Anime tends to have a lot of large and smooth color surfaces and banding was pretty much the hardest thing to avoid with regular 8-bit video - 10-bit on the other hands makes it an almost total non-issue. And for non-10bit displays, it moves the necessary dithering to the playback end, which is obviously a much nicer alternative since you don't have to compress any of that in the video itself. And beyond the gradients, 10-bit H.264 actually gives you better compression quality in general, which just makes it even better.
Now, it obviously comes with the downside of not being supported by hardware decoders anywhere, so you basically will need a decent CPU to decode 10-bit video. For fansubs and the people who make them this isn't that much of an issue though, since the advanced subtitles they use are also generally poorly-supported by hardware players, and this has been the case for a long time.
Next-generation video formats may actually bring higher bit depths to hardware decoders as well, though - H.265/HEVC has a Main 10 Profile intended for consumer applications.
But you definitely have my vote right now!
Anyway, what you want is happening for 4k - Rec. 2020 mandates at least 10bit for 4k
Of course for big presentations and conference setups i see the usecase, just not for the consumer mainstream. 4K would also set back game console performance by a huge margin, if they will ever adopt it.
So i am not really convinced that the mainstream will go up to 4K, 8K etc, as it also means that all production costs increase and the benefit for the consumer is marginal.
For big monitors I think it does. Even if 4k doesn't make sense, the increased bandwidth is a win as the previous HDMI spec couldn't drive a 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 monitor at 60hz, and those resolutions definitely make sense to me for computer monitors.
That has been supported by HDMI since 1.3, since around 2006.
2560×1600p75 @ 24bit is about the highest standard resolution you can pump through HDMI 1.3.
I'm really looking forward to getting a 4k computer monitor in the near future, and a 4k tv that's >100 inches in the middle future.
Apparently it's expected the average for new shipments may exceed 40" this year (late 2012 it was around 37")
> I think it's a mistake to assume the existing sizes and viewing distances will remain the same into the future.
Exactly!
Agreed, I use 3 of the new ones. 16x10 is a MUCH better aspect ratio in my opinion. I really don't understand manufacturers' obsession with 16x9 given that most of what people do on computers involves scrolling vertically, not horizontally.
Thankfully Dell are still selling them. And at $260 for 24" 16x10 IPS, I'm sure they're now much cheaper than in 2006.
EDIT: Indeed, looks like prices have falled about 70% [1], although I'm sure that was RRP
[1] http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/02/dell-2407wfp-goes-on-sale...
But Amazon is selling 75" TV's in the UK, and 100"+ projectors. As screen sizes go up, people won't be too happy to see dpi drop again.
We are also becoming accustomed to higher DPI on our screens via tablets etc.. After I got my phone (1280x720 on a 4.7" screen) my 1920x1080 on my 17" laptop was suddenly noticeably grainy. My full HD 42" LED TV is no longer nearly as impressive as it seemed when I got it and compared it to my old TV.
My next phone will be a full HD 5"+ model, and I expect my next tablet to be in the 2500+xwhatever range or more for a 10", because anything else will look worse than my current phone. For a lot of content, sure, you won't notice much difference - I quite happily still watch my DVD's on my full HD TV.
In other words there are plenty of situations where we will notice the difference to 4K, even if we'd be perfectly happy with 1080p if we didn't have a higher DPI device to compare to.
Given the importance of photography in modern culture, it's more than a little weird to be so unbalanced.
As someone who builds prototype displays, I can tell you, we can always use more bandwidth and more resolution. Even if we just abuse it to play tricks. the interfaces we have today are horrible for high frame rate, 3D, and anything that needs to sync up.
On game performance, I thought pixels were a fairly parallel problem? That is, the Xbox vNext could simply overcome it by not using a low-end video card like the XB1? Just add shaders and whatnot.
It's a good question, but my answer is definitely, Yes.
My ideal work station would be a room with a wall-sized 8K touch-screen monitor covering the wall in front of me. I would have an adjustable table with a comfy chair and treadmill looking over the table and across the room at the wall screen. Lower the table and sit in the chair. Raise the table and use it as a standing desk or step onto the treadmill. Step out from behind the table and pace around the room, examining the code and how it is running in the four browsers open in windows beside the code. Walk up to the screen and use the browsers via touch. Step back, look at the code, walk up to it and interchange two lines by dragging, then say, "Macro! Run!" and watch it go.
Walk back to the treadmill and turn up the speed for a victory lap as you watch your code finally doing what it is supposed to....
I want that 8K touchscreen on the wall.
Take a look at reviews of the Seiki 4K unit from private users for a feel of how things are coming along: http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra/p...
120 fps is the minimum for me when it comes to playing games. Then again I was used to 120hz monitors on CRTs in the early 2000s with 0 input lag.
I would only ever consider 4k for normal desktop usage but there's no way I would pay anything for 60 fps and we all know 4k monitors will be stupidly expensive for at least 10 years.
Then again, the audience of hardcore gamers who would notice that sort of thing is probably small, so I guess it makes economic sense.
LCD manufacturers in general are really crooked. They have been accused and found guilty of price fixing on multiple occasions.
They also love to release monitors with high quality panels initially so they get good reviews and swap in garbage panels without letting consumers know and then sell it for the same price as the same model.
It went on for a few years after its initial release so it's still semi-current although now a days I doubt anyone would be buying that model.
I remember a 100ish page thread on hardforum documenting which panels lined up with what serial numbers. I actually played the roulette and bought one off a dude. I ended up getting an s-ips panel and I still use it as my second monitor. It's not 120hz but I don't game with it.
Here's the link to the thread: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1111100
I'm sure there were/are more cases but this was the most popular one because the s-ips version of this monitor was amazing for its time. It was my first LCD purchase.
More to the point, I'm a graphics programmer / researcher, so monitors with low Delta E are important for my work. The Dell U2711 combined with an i1Display Pro can be calibrated to exceptional color fidelity.
I'd say go for 24s or a 30; if you have the 27 you'll just wish you had the 30 :-p but definitely go IPS, they are fantastic. I haven't read much about the Korean monitors as they were nonexistent when I researched the market 4-5 years ago.
It's not like modern games have that much CPU time to prepare each 1/60 sec frame -- 16ms actually.
As for input lag, they can scan inpput at different frequencies and adapt the next frame accordingly, but it's not like the input is gonna show in any less than 1/60 for an graphically involved game.
A lot of panels have a varied amount of input lag. Some of them are in the single digits of milliseconds. On the other side of the spectrum you could see upwards of 100ms.
It's really bad when you get something like 30ms to 70ms of random delay. You can't predict this type of randomness and since it happens every frame it makes for a very poor gaming experience.
Think about a competitive game like quake 3 where you might be playing at a LAN where you have a 5ms ping but your monitor is giving you 30-50ms of random input lag. You would be at a -massive- disadvantage if your opponent had a monitor with 2-7ms of input lag.
There is a world of difference between 30ms and 60ms at a competitive level.
If I were to drop $700 on a new display I would rather buy 2x $350 2650x1440 monitors that can run at 120hz at that resolution. They've been on the market at that price for quite a while now.
Back in 2001 or 2002 I bought a 21" 1600x1200 120hz CRT for $80 for comparison. It also had no input delay, perfect colors and the screen itself was flat. The only downside is it weighed like 80 pounds.
Its a different story for PC gaming and competetive gaming though.
People after 4K displays in the current market aren't going for game machines...
May I ask, which monitor are you referring to? A $350 monitor that can do 2650x1440 and run at 120hz? I need a monitor like that for my graphics research.
Btw 3D using shuttered glasses on a nomral 120Hz LCD might look ok when playing games and whatnot but is in reality not: the amounts of crosstalk are beyond what can be used for scientific research unless you stick to a small area on the screen and tune everything specifically for that area.
</joke>
Honestly, I don't care after 60fps, even for games. Are 4k monitors (smaller screens) available? I only see huge 4k TVs, never heard of monitors. (It is not like I can afford one though :()
You like wasting CPU power for placebo-level difference?
In a few years (assuming 20-something) you won't care much for games anymore, and 99.999% of the kids are perfectly fine with 60 fps anyway.
Look at how many grown men/women play or watch televised sports. There is nothing different than some 40 year old person watching an NFL game and a 40 year old person watching a quakelive or heroes of newerth tournament.
I don't watch regular sports but I can see the appeal. I mean, look at a sport like basketball. It seems like a single player can almost carry a team by himself as long as the other players are somewhat competent. Watching someone who is so good that he makes "professionals" seem like amateurs is really entertaining.
Well, statistically speaking, most of them do. They get a job, family, etc.
If you sleep 7 hours a day and work 40 hours a week there's still 9 hours a day to do whatever you want and free weekends assuming you work a typical 9-5 job which might be common but certainly isn't what everyone does.
How you choose to spend those remaining 9-10 hours a day is up to you. Some people would rather watch TV for 3 hours a night and sleep more so they lose almost half their free time because they enjoy sleeping in and watching some shows. Nothing wrong with that but not everyone spends their time doing that.
You do not have the statistics to back that statement up.
People usually have less time for games once they have kids, but they have less time for basically everything. Super Mario Bros came out 28 years ago; it's existed for essentially the entire life of anyone younger than mid-30s, into people in their 40s for it being around since their childhood. And that still doesn't even cover people that grew up with an Atari 2600 (36 years ago) or grew up in the culture of arcades (Pong was 41 years ago).
Even getting past the "competitive level" that the GP is going on about, the comparison to spending the afternoon "watching the game" is exactly right, and it's really not that big a deal for most people.
(the best statistics you'll find, by the way, put the median age of gamers at 30--meaning the every single person in the group you think soley cares about games is matched by a person older than that--though the methodology is so-so and it includes a wide variety of "gaming", including on the ever-present mobile device)
1. (120)fps you refer is about the graphic card not the monitor. 2. (120)hz is refresh rate of an LCD is completely different than CRT. BTW, I never heard of 120hz high-res monitor. Mitsubishi or NEC maybe. could you give the brand and model? 3. monitor input lag will _always_be there with LCDs. there is no 120hz or higher LCD panels. they do real-time interpolation with 60hz panels. and that's not natural if you look closely. maybe just maybe OLED will improve response time or input lag as you refer.
A popular one is: http://www.overclock.net/t/1374065/korean-qnix-qx2710-evolut...
Most 120hz LCDs run at 1080p though, and you can typically buy them at Newegg or wherever you usually get computer parts. You should be able to find dozens of models by Googling for "120hz LCD monitors".
We all know 4K is next, we know that clearly there'll be something afterwards, it would be good if the next hardware we buy planned for that.
Thunderbolt, BTW, has similar limits: http://superuser.com/questions/441395/what-is-the-maximum-re...
"Yeah, this hardware will cost more, but it has to support a bandwidth level that won't be in use anywhere in the world in the next two years."
Seems totally reasonable to have a version in step with the emerging generation, rather than future experiments.
The current MBP retina display, if used on a 27 inch monitor, is more than 4K.
Conveniently, however, it's less than 8K - as is a 32 inch retina monitor.
Since HDMI and DVI came first, this limits the use of DisplayPort; manufacturers are unwilling to create a device that requires a $100 adapter to work with what most people own.
I'd rather stick with the same form factor and cables than replace everything at some insane cost. Not to mention the awkwardness of supporting 2 types of inputs on a receiver/amp/switcher to maintain legacy compatibility.
Besides, many people already use port savers (actually run savers) because replacing a bent connector on a 75 foot run is an effective lesson.
It sounds like the receiver engineers didn't leave enough room between their connectors - regardless of the size.
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/whats-the-matter-with...
[1] http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/technology/cinema/do...
Well, 100 audio channels 50% lossless compressed files would go about 60 GB for a 2-hour movie. So not really "less than the video".
And that's for 16/44.1 lossless. For 24/96 adjust accordingly.
(Of course not all 100 channels will have sound playing all the time -- except if we're talking for a musical or rock concert video. But it gives a taste of the max storage requirements).
My losslessly-compressed (Lagarith FTW!) VHS captures are ~60GB for a 2-hour movie and that's at 720x486.
That's just for editing -- all viewing formats feature lossy video.
As mentioned, this is probably aimed at theaters. Also consider that you could send four separate 7.1 audio programs simultaneously over the same link, which would let any audio program switching happen at the receiving end instead.
Actually, the Engadget article isn't very specific about "32 audio channels". Possibly they mean 32 separate audio programs instead? Audio is so cheap bandwidth-wise that it's practically free these days.
Isn't the audio and video already in sync?
Different feeds can have slightly different syncs. This is especially true with a matrix operation that uses multiple screens feeds and a single audio feed.
It's five sentences.
HN, as a site for stories that gratify intellectual curiosity, may not be the right site for you.
>The cables won't change either, as the group claims current high-speed Category 2 wires can handle the increased bandwidth.