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

111–120 of 138 posts

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#111

Post by rartichoke »

coldtea wrote: post #102
rartichoke wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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+…

> 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. Well, statistically speaking, most of them do. They get a job, family, etc.

There's nothing stopping a competitive gamer from having a job or family. You also don't need to play 10 hours a day to remain competitive.

If you sleep 7 hours a day and work 40 hours a week there's still 9 hours a day to do whatever you want and free weekends assuming you work a typical 9-5 job which might be common but certainly isn't what everyone does.

How you choose to spend those remaining 9-10 hours a day is up to you. Some people would rather watch TV for 3 hours a night and sleep more so they lose almost half their free time because they enjoy sleeping in and watching some shows. Nothing wrong with that but not everyone spends their time doing that.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#112

Post by magicalist »

coldtea wrote: post #102
rartichoke wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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+…

> 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. Well, statistically speaking, most of them do. They get a job, family, etc.

> Well, statistically speaking

You do not have the statistics to back that statement up.

People usually have less time for games once they have kids, but they have less time for basically everything. Super Mario Bros came out 28 years ago; it's existed for essentially the entire life of anyone younger than mid-30s, into people in their 40s for it being around since their childhood. And that still doesn't even cover people that grew up with an Atari 2600 (36 years ago) or grew up in the culture of arcades (Pong was 41 years ago).

Even getting past the "competitive level" that the GP is going on about, the comparison to spending the afternoon "watching the game" is exactly right, and it's really not that big a deal for most people.

(the best statistics you'll find, by the way, put the median age of gamers at 30--meaning the every single person in the group you think soley cares about games is matched by a person older than that--though the methodology is so-so and it includes a wide variety of "gaming", including on the ever-present mobile device)

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#113

Post by hoka »

coldpie wrote: post #108
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…

I'm on the market for a decent monitor. Are there any brands that you /like/, or is it simply a matter of choosing the least terrible?

I have an HP LP2475W and a Dell U2412M; generally, among the IPS class, the consensus seems to be that HPs have more outputs and a better UI. Some of them are wide-gamut, however, which turns off a few purchasers. Research as to whether or not wide-gamut is important/detrimental to you.

I'd say go for 24s or a 30; if you have the 27 you'll just wish you had the 30 :-p but definitely go IPS, they are fantastic. I haven't read much about the Korean monitors as they were nonexistent when I researched the market 4-5 years ago.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#114

Post by SiVal »

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…

Honest question, does 4K and up really make sense for private use?

It's a good question, but my answer is definitely, Yes.

My ideal work station would be a room with a wall-sized 8K touch-screen monitor covering the wall in front of me. I would have an adjustable table with a comfy chair and treadmill looking over the table and across the room at the wall screen. Lower the table and sit in the chair. Raise the table and use it as a standing desk or step onto the treadmill. Step out from behind the table and pace around the room, examining the code and how it is running in the four browsers open in windows beside the code. Walk up to the screen and use the browsers via touch. Step back, look at the code, walk up to it and interchange two lines by dragging, then say, "Macro! Run!" and watch it go.

Walk back to the treadmill and turn up the speed for a victory lap as you watch your code finally doing what it is supposed to....

I want that 8K touchscreen on the wall.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#115

Post by asdfs »

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...

I've found that the biggest problem with DisplayPort is that even if it is technically superior (unfortunately I'm not qualified to know whether it is or not), active DisplayPort/HDMI/DVI adapters are incredibly expensive.

Since HDMI and DVI came first, this limits the use of DisplayPort; manufacturers are unwilling to create a device that requires a $100 adapter to work with what most people own.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#116

Post by throwaway2048 »

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.

what kind of signal are you feeding a 10 bit panel? RGB is only 8 bit so any claimed 10 bit display is only post processing at best.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#117

Post by sliverstorm »

SiVal wrote: post #114
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…

Honest question, does 4K and up really make sense for private use? It's a good question, but my answer is definitely, Yes. My ideal work station would be a room with a wall-sized 8K touch-screen monitor covering the wall in front of me. I would have an adjustable table with a comfy chair and treadmill looking over the table and across the room at the wall screen. Lower the table and sit in the chair. Raise the table…

Have you used multi-monitor setups before? Anything more than about two screens, and I personally find myself getting really annoyed because I have to turn my head instead of moving my eyes. I feel like a full-wall monitor would be even worse.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#118

Post by sliverstorm »

coldpie wrote: post #108
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…

I'm on the market for a decent monitor. Are there any brands that you /like/, or is it simply a matter of choosing the least terrible?

I've been pretty happy with my NEC monitors.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#119

Post by cclogg »

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…

It's probably going to be like the processor wars. It'll keep going up until they reach a peak and then it'll switch to multi-cores (or in this case, expanding the number of bits).

But you definitely have my vote right now!

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#120

Post by simcop2387 »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #116
ChuckMcM wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

what kind of signal are you feeding a 10 bit panel? RGB is only 8 bit so any claimed 10 bit display is only post processing at best.

For TV I have no idea, but for a computer, you can get 10 bit per channel output from most graphics cards these days. You still have the problem of the source material being 8bit per channel though.
Post reply on HN