HDMI 2.0 officially announced • Hacker News Board

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#31

Post by harpastum » Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 1:48 PM UTC

kayoone wrote: post #25

Honest 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…

I think it's a mistake to assume the existing sizes and viewing distances will remain the same into the future. Yes 1080p is just fine when the thing you're viewing takes up 10 degrees of your vision. However, as screens get larger and/or closer, it's actually pretty easy to tell the difference between 1080p and 4k.

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.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#32

Post by kayoone » Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 1:48 PM UTC

Yhippa wrote: post #26

kayoone wrote: post #25

Honest 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.

TBH no. But in the livingroom, sitting a couple of meters away from my 42 inch 1080P tv, i can hardly see a difference between 720p and 1080p content. It would make sense for computer monitors though!

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#33

Post by sillysaurus2 » Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 1:50 PM UTC

rartichoke wrote: post #29

I'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.

It always seemed strange that monitors aim for 60fps. That seems like a recipe for input lag. They could aim for 90fps, because when they fail to meet that, at least they'll still achieve 60fps.

Then again, the audience of hardcore gamers who would notice that sort of thing is probably small, so I guess it makes economic sense.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#34

Post by kayoone » Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 1:53 PM UTC

harpastum wrote: post #31

kayoone wrote: post #25

Honest 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…

I think it's a mistake to assume the existing sizes and viewing distances will remain the same into the future. Yes 1080p is just fine when the thing you're viewing takes up 10 degrees of your vision. However, as screens get larger and/or closer, it's actually pretty easy to tell the difference between 1080p and 4k. I'm really looking forward to getting a 4k computer monitor in the near future, and a 4k tv that's >10…

Most certainly right, but i really think sizes of >50 inches wont be mainstream for a long time, if ever. That means huge devices will be low volume and high price. You can see this in the PC monitor space already, as theres basically nothing happening as most people seem to be happy with their 1080p 22-24inch screens. My two 24inch 1920x1200 Dell from 2006 are still better than most of the TN panel Full-HD crap you can buy today, which is pretty sad.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#35

Post by harpastum » Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 1:53 PM UTC

rartichoke wrote: post #29

I'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.

It came out a little while ago, so it only supports 30fps at 4k, but this 39 inch 4k monitor is decently reviewed, and only $700: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00DOPGO2G

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#36

Post by TylerE » Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 1:54 PM UTC

Shish2k wrote: post #16

akandiah wrote: post #2

As someone who isn't familiar with audio technology: is there any practical use for 32 channels of audio?

Can we just have 3D sound now, with X, Y and Z coordinates to go along with the sound clips, and the speaker system routes the right sound an arbitrary number of speakers? That works amazingly well for FPS games...

A feature film could easily have a hundred different layers of audio at any given time, maybe more. The storage requirements would be INSANE.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#37

Post by nitrogen » Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 1:54 PM UTC

josephlord wrote: post #14

jevinskie wrote: post #6

> "dynamic auto lipsync" Isn't the audio and video already in sync?

If you connect your source through an surround processor it helps to be able to delay the audio to match the delay of the TV which may vary depending on TV settings (e.g. Game mode may be lower delay but with less picture processing). I assume this spec allows the TV to inform the surround processor continuously of the current picture delay.

Once upon a time I hacked something like that into TVTime (http://tvtime.sf.net) that constantly updated a delay effect I'd modified on my SB Live 5.1's emu10k1 DSP.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#38

Post by TylerE » Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 1:54 PM UTC

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #33

rartichoke wrote: post #29

I'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.

It always seemed strange that monitors aim for 60fps. That seems like a recipe for input lag. They could aim for 90fps, because when they fail to meet that, at least they'll still achieve 60fps. Then again, the audience of hardcore gamers who would notice that sort of thing is probably small, so I guess it makes economic sense.

90hz aiming for 60hz is terrible. You're either getting 45 (not 60) or horrible microstuttering.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#39

Post by Qantourisc » Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 1:56 PM UTC

rartichoke wrote: post #29

I'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.

Seriously ? Another 60hz standard ? Even if you consider 60HZ enough, consider at the least 3D screens ... that needs 120HZ !

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#40

Post by rartichoke » Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 1:58 PM UTC

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #33

rartichoke wrote: post #29

I'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.

It always seemed strange that monitors aim for 60fps. That seems like a recipe for input lag. They could aim for 90fps, because when they fail to meet that, at least they'll still achieve 60fps. Then again, the audience of hardcore gamers who would notice that sort of thing is probably small, so I guess it makes economic sense.

This is also why most LCD manufacturers use low quality TN panels. A majority of people just can't tell the difference, don't care enough or they don't care about things like viewing angles.

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.