Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HDMI 2.0 officially announced

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 138 posts

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#71

Post by acuozzo »

coldtea wrote: post #66
PeterisP wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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".

My losslessly-compressed (Lagarith FTW!) VHS captures are ~60GB for a 2-hour movie and that's at 720x486.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#72

Post by rootbear »

This race for more pixels is misguided. The change I most want to see is deeper pixels, at least 10bpp, preferably more. I'm getting really tired of all the banding I see on what should be smooth gradient images. If a landscape aspect image is P pixels wide then to display a gray scale gradient, black to white, you need

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.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#73

Post by MichaelGG »

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…

Well I recently saw a MacBook Retina and was shocked at how amazing it. I dislike the OS, the case design, the keyboard -- everything about it. But wow, that screen. Painted on is a good description.

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.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#74

Post by MichaelGG »

vermontdevil wrote: post #20

Anyone knows if it includes any specs about closed captions? It's a source of frustration at times with the previous spec.

I know "closed captions" are a special thing, but really, shouldn't the rendering device (TV decoder, GPU, software, whatever) be rendering the subtitles instead of the display device? I watch almost everything with subtitles, and can't imagine not being able to adjust subtitles (size/depth) and also enjoy the high-quality rendering my PC can perform.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#75

Post by rartichoke »

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #64
coldtea wrote: post #61

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. 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.

Yep, input lag in an LCD monitor context is the amount of time it takes for a frame to be displayed on the screen.

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.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#76

Post by fc2 »

clicks wrote: post #9

I 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-...

I'm not sure I understand the need for 8k. If you want to watch your TV at an optimal viewing angle of 20%~40% then 4k is more than enough to achieve "retina display" at the required viewing distance.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#77

Post by zeckalpha »

Shish2k wrote: post #18

Anyone know how this compares to displayport? I've always heard (perhaps wrongly) of DP being technically better and patent free, so I wonder why HDMI still gets so much more attention...

DP has had about this much speed for about 4 years. Beyond that I don't know.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#78

Post by MichaelGG »

johnward wrote: post #51
StavrosK wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having 32 speakers around you, I would imagine. It was probably a case of "since we're standardizing, we might as well future-proof this".

accept that they future proofed sound but it doesn't look like they did that with video

I'm sure if it was trivial to offer a 100+ Gbps link and do 120Hz 8K video, they would have.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#79

Post by apendleton »

rootbear wrote: post #72

This race for more pixels is misguided. The change I most want to see is deeper pixels, at least 10bpp, preferably more. I'm getting really tired of all the banding I see on what should be smooth gradient images. If a landscape aspect image is P pixels wide then to display a gray scale gradient, black to white, you need ceil(log2(P)) bits per pixel. So a "2K" display needs 11 bits, "4K" needs 12, etc. Then each colum…

This assumes infinite color discrimination abilities, though. I'm fairly certain that after a certain point, even if there are bands, most people would be unable to perceive them.
Post reply on HN