HDMI 2.0 officially announced • Hacker News Board

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#61

Post by coldtea » Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 3:00 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.

>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.

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.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#62

Post by rartichoke » Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 3:03 PM UTC

kyrra wrote: post #50

rartichoke wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sw…

Any proof of panel swapping happening in later models? Not that I couldn't see it happening, I would just like to see an article documenting such an event.

I don't actively follow it anymore but I remember there being a huge fiasco over Dell's 2007fp series. A few hardware communities labeled buying one as playing "panel roulette" or "panel lotto".

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.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#63

Post by coldtea » Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 3:04 PM UTC

rartichoke wrote: post #42

harpastum wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

30 fps is even a bigger joke than 60. I think even the general public would get nauseous watching a game being played at a solid 30 fps, it's much different than watching a low fps movie. 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" 1600…

>30 fps is even a bigger joke than 60. I think even the general public would get nauseous watching a game being played at a solid 30 fps, it's much different than watching a low fps movie.

People after 4K displays in the current market aren't going for game machines...

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#64

Post by sillysaurus2 » Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 3:05 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #61

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. 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…

In this context, input lag refers to a monitor phenomenon. Some monitors have terrible input lag. The game can't compensate since it's due to the monitor.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#65

Post by bigdubs » Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 3:06 PM UTC

devx wrote: post #23

nailer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

8k is also an OUTRAGEOUS amount of pixels to throw around. Unless you're eyeball to eyeball with a 40" display, your eye can't distinguish between 4k and 8k.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#66

Post by coldtea » Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 3:10 PM UTC

PeterisP wrote: post #57

TylerE wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

To me, hundred high-quality audio channels with lossless compression sounds not "INSANE" but "still less than the video". Playback processing might be tricky, streaming might be tricky, but actual storage for any movie or home cinema setup should be trivial. You can easily put a hundred audio channels on a fraction of a bluray disc, not counting any future improvements in storage.

>To me, hundred high-quality audio channels with lossless compression sounds not "INSANE" but "still less than the video".

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).

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#67

Post by djrogers » Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 3:12 PM UTC

ixnu wrote: post #8

The failure to redesign the connection form factor is a major disappointment. Racking or repositioning a snug receiver with multiple HDMI inputs and outputs will almost guarantee that one will bend or break. This is especially true for low gauge runs over 50 feet.

The obvious positive side of this is that existing cables will support the new spec without being replaced... Says so right there in the doc.

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.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#68

Post by Yaggo » Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 3:14 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #53

kayoone wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

50"-60" has been "mainstream" for years, in the sense that they take up a substantial percentage of floor space in most TV stores. Apparently it's expected the average for new shipments may exceed 40" this year (late 2012 it was around 37")

Video projectors has also been "mainstream" for years and scream for 4K technology.

> I think it's a mistake to assume the existing sizes and viewing distances will remain the same into the future.

Exactly!

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#69

Post by baddox » Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 3:21 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #41

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…

You probably won't on a 42" screen used as a TV. Maybe not even on a 50" screen used as a TV. Used as a monitor from short range, is another matter entirely. 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…

Screen size isn't the only relevant factor. Given any size of screen, more resolution means that viewers can sit closer to the TV, thus filling more of their field of view with the screen.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#70

Post by rartichoke » Wed, Sep 04, 2013, 3:21 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #60

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.

> 120 fps is the minimum for me when it comes to playing games. 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.

People who enjoy games at a competitive level don't just out grow it once they hit late 20s or 30s. I'm 33 by the way. I'm extremely confident that anyone playing a fast paced game at a highly competitive level would notice the difference between 60 and 120 fps+hz -- even in a best case scenario where the frame rate wasn't varied. Frame rate variance is one of the most noticeable things, but even a rock solid 60 fps+hz is choppy.

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.