I suspect not, but I can't find any details on whether this new spec provides for more power than the current standard so that low-power devices (Chromecast) don't need a separate power cord.
HDMI 2.0 officially announced
21–30 of 138 posts
Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced
#22As someone who isn't familiar with audio technology: is there any practical use for 32 channels of audio?
It's for things like Dolby Atmos[1]. Instead of having to be stuck with a premixed 5 or 7 channel format designed for an ideal that your setup probably is not, you instead include unmixed sound and where it would ideally be coming from. The receiver then has knowledge of speaker and seating positions and dynamically mixes the output to match the room. [1] http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/technology/cinema/do..…
Interesting that a "virtual speaker set" won over higher-order Ambisonics (representing incoming audio as spherical harmonics). I wonder if it just boils down to easier engineering.
Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced
#23I wish it had 8K support, given Japan is actually already planning on starting broadcast trials for 8K in roughly two years: http://www.futureleap.com/2013/03/japan-plans-8k-broadcasts-...
It does feel a bit... short term. 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...
If his math is correct then 8k, which is 4x the pixels of 4k, would need 4x that bandwidth, and even Intel's Thunderbolt 2.0 is "barely" at 20 gibabit/s, which means we can't go much further yet. It will be a while until we reach 80 gigabit/s.
Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's for things like Dolby Atmos[1]. Instead of having to be stuck with a premixed 5 or 7 channel format designed for an ideal that your setup probably is not, you instead include unmixed sound and where it would ideally be coming from. The receiver then has knowledge of speaker and seating positions and dynamically mixes the output to match the room. [1] http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/technology/cinema/do..…
Interesting that a "virtual speaker set" won over higher-order Ambisonics (representing incoming audio as spherical harmonics). I wonder if it just boils down to easier engineering.
Ambisonics requires a lot of actual speakers to have a large (say, couch-sized) "sweet spot" where the directional audio sounds any good.
Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced
#25Honest question, does 4K and up really make sense for private use ? I am pretty sure from the distance that you usually watch 1080p content, you wont see a difference to 4K content at all.
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.
Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced
#26Honest question, does 4K and up really make sense for private use ? I am pretty sure from the distance that you usually watch 1080p content, you wont see a difference to 4K content at all. 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 convinc…
Have you seen it in person yet? To me there is most definitely a difference and I personally would enjoy 4K content.
Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced
#27Honest question, does 4K and up really make sense for private use ? I am pretty sure from the distance that you usually watch 1080p content, you wont see a difference to 4K content at all. 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 convinc…
> Honest question, does 4K and up really make sense for private use ?
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.
Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced
#28Cool, now I can go repurchase all my cables. At least they're cheap, right?
Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced
#29I'm not too impressed honestly.
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.
Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced
#30Honest question, does 4K and up really make sense for private use ? I am pretty sure from the distance that you usually watch 1080p content, you wont see a difference to 4K content at all. 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 convinc…
> Honest question, does 4K and up really make sense for private use ? 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.
Yeah you are right, id definately adore it for computer monitors. Still, mainstream is stuck with 22 inch TN panel 1080p screens which are miserable, but consumer dont seem to really care. Theres only a handful of models that offer more than 1080p resolution in todays market.