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

81–90 of 138 posts

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#81

Post by zach »

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 am glad it does not have 8K support. That would be over-engineering.

"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.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#82

Post by [deleted] »

bigdubs wrote: post #65
devx wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#83

Post by [deleted] »

fc2 wrote: post #76
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.

[deleted]

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#84

Post by [deleted] »

zach wrote: post #81
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 am glad it does not have 8K support. That would be over-engineering. "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.

[deleted]

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#85

Post by rootbear »

apendleton wrote: post #79
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.

Good point. But the current 8 bits per pixel is definitely too few.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#86

Post by ixnu »

djrogers wrote: post #67
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.

Agreed that it's a positive that existing cables can be used, but a dongle could always be included and thereby have the best of both.

Besides, many people already use port savers (actually run savers) because replacing a bent connector on a 75 foot run is an effective lesson.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#89

Post by chadgeidel »

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.

I would guess that a "snug receiver with multiple HDMI inputs and outputs" would also be snug in the model produced after the connector upgrade.

It sounds like the receiver engineers didn't leave enough room between their connectors - regardless of the size.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#90

Post by xuki »

kunil wrote: post #58
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.

Well, your eyes can't see above 24fps so it does not matter 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 :()

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7157/asus-pq321q-ultrahd-4k-mo...
Post reply on HN