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

91–100 of 138 posts

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#91

Post by ChuckMcM »

rootbear wrote: post #85
apendleton wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

8 bits isn't "current", if you want "current" you get 10 bit panels. If you want "better than bargain basement" you get 10 bit panels.

At least where I live one of the differences between the TVs that CostCo sells and the ones that others sell are 8 bit (CostCo) vs 10 bit (others) panels.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#92

Post by nailer »

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.

> Seems totally reasonable to have a version in step with the emerging generation, rather than future experiments.

The current MBP retina display, if used on a 27 inch monitor, is more than 4K.

Conveniently, however, it's less than 8K - as is a 32 inch retina monitor.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#93

Post by ddeck »

kayoone wrote: post #34
harpastum wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> My two 24inch 1920x1200 Dell from 2006 are still better than most of the TN panel Full-HD crap you can buy today

Agreed, I use 3 of the new ones. 16x10 is a MUCH better aspect ratio in my opinion. I really don't understand manufacturers' obsession with 16x9 given that most of what people do on computers involves scrolling vertically, not horizontally.

Thankfully Dell are still selling them. And at $260 for 24" 16x10 IPS, I'm sure they're now much cheaper than in 2006.

EDIT: Indeed, looks like prices have falled about 70% [1], although I'm sure that was RRP

[1] http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/02/dell-2407wfp-goes-on-sale...

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#94

Post by mgraczyk »

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…

The banding you see is from image and video compression, not a lack of bpp. Human beings can almost never differentiate 6 bpp from 8 bpp grayscale, and with colors 7 bpp/c is almost always sufficient.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#95

Post by modeless »

mgraczyk wrote: post #94
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…

The banding you see is from image and video compression, not a lack of bpp. Human beings can almost never differentiate 6 bpp from 8 bpp grayscale, and with colors 7 bpp/c is almost always sufficient.

This is true, but transmitting video at 8 bits per channel is problematic because it's too close to the threshold of perception. Any video processing you do on an 8 bpc signal is likely to introduce visible artifacts, and of course today's TVs go crazy with ridiculous video processing even at their default settings before people start playing with the brightness and contrast controls. We need to be transmitting video at 12 bpc so that video processing done at the display doesn't destroy the signal.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#96

Post by Shorel »

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…

I don't get any banding when I connect my old 21" CRT via DVI to my current PC and set the display to 10bpp (32bits/ true color in MS terminology).

What we need is a replacement for LCD technology.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#97

Post by rootbear »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #91
rootbear wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

8 bits isn't "current", if you want "current" you get 10 bit panels. If you want "better than bargain basement" you get 10 bit panels. At least where I live one of the differences between the TVs that CostCo sells and the ones that others sell are 8 bit (CostCo) vs 10 bit (others) panels.

I understand about the panels, but what about the source material? Is color information on a blu-ray stored at 8 bits per channel or is it higher? If the source material is 8 bits per color channel, I still think you'll see banding on smooth gradients no matter how good the panel is. I should try some tests...

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#98

Post by mgraczyk »

modeless wrote: post #95
mgraczyk wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The banding you see is from image and video compression, not a lack of bpp. Human beings can almost never differentiate 6 bpp from 8 bpp grayscale, and with colors 7 bpp/c is almost always sufficient.

This is true, but transmitting video at 8 bits per channel is problematic because it's too close to the threshold of perception. Any video processing you do on an 8 bpc signal is likely to introduce visible artifacts, and of course today's TVs go crazy with ridiculous video processing even at their default settings before people start playing with the brightness and contrast controls. We need to be transmitting video…

I tend to agree, but I would prefer to discourage television manufacturers from doing any more "improving" than they are already doing. If you're sending a signal to a display with the signal so little compressed that 12 bpc would be an improvement for post processing, then you're probably sending the signal straight from a BlueRay player or desktop graphics card. In both of those cases, I'd rather my TV not do any post processing. (Brightness and contrast on TVs are analog operations and do change with changes in bit depth. Higher brightness = turn the lights up, not a pointwise linear map)

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#99

Post by coldtea »

acuozzo wrote: post #71
coldtea wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Sure, but why compare it with losslessly-compressed video?

That's just for editing -- all viewing formats feature lossy video.

Post reply on HN