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

41–50 of 138 posts

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#41

Post by vidarh »

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) my 1920x1080 on my 17" laptop was suddenly noticeably grainy. My full HD 42" LED TV is no longer nearly as impressive as it seemed when I got it and compared it to my old TV.

My next phone will be a full HD 5"+ model, and I expect my next tablet to be in the 2500+xwhatever range or more for a 10", because anything else will look worse than my current phone. For a lot of content, sure, you won't notice much difference - I quite happily still watch my DVD's on my full HD TV.

In other words there are plenty of situations where we will notice the difference to 4K, even if we'd be perfectly happy with 1080p if we didn't have a higher DPI device to compare to.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#42

Post by rartichoke »

harpastum wrote: post #35
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 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" 1600x1200 120hz CRT for $80 for comparison. It also had no input delay, perfect colors and the screen itself was flat. The only downside is it weighed like 80 pounds.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#43

Post by stinos »

Qantourisc wrote: post #39
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.

Seriously ? Another 60hz standard ? Even if you consider 60HZ enough, consider at the least 3D screens ... that needs 120HZ !

goog point actually. Domains like vision research are again left in the cold. And then people sometimes wonder why oh why researchers like to stick to old standards and still use 20yr old fluor CRTs driven over VGA cables :P

Btw 3D using shuttered glasses on a nomral 120Hz LCD might look ok when playing games and whatnot but is in reality not: the amounts of crosstalk are beyond what can be used for scientific research unless you stick to a small area on the screen and tune everything specifically for that area.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#44

Post by minikites »

Yhippa wrote: post #28

Cool, now I can go repurchase all my cables. At least they're cheap, right?

The article is a paragraph, you seriously missed this / didn't read it?

>The cables won't change either, as the group claims current high-speed Category 2 wires can handle the increased bandwidth.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#45

Post by kayoone »

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…

Most current-gen console games target 30FPS. An exception being Rage made by id software. Carmack was very proud that it ran at 60fps, but nobody else seemed to care.

Its a different story for PC gaming and competetive gaming though.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#46

Post by ioquatix »

sp332 wrote: post #24
kibibu wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that a "virtual speaker set" won over higher-order Ambisonics (representing incoming audio as spherical harmonics). I wonder if it just boils down to easier engineering.

Ambisonics requires a lot of actual speakers to have a large (say, couch-sized) "sweet spot" where the directional audio sounds any good.

Really? I've heard some pretty amazing demos of ambisonics even with just two speakers - things which completely blow away anything I hear through mainstream productions with 5.1 and 7.1

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#47

Post by tvon »

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 like how they tell you to watch the 8k demo video in 1080p "to get the full effect".

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#48

Post by daniel_reetz »

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…

We can digitally capture images at much, much higher resolution than we can hope to display them. Even my giant 27", 2550x1440 monitor is only 3.7 megapixels.

Given the importance of photography in modern culture, it's more than a little weird to be so unbalanced.

As someone who builds prototype displays, I can tell you, we can always use more bandwidth and more resolution. Even if we just abuse it to play tricks. the interfaces we have today are horrible for high frame rate, 3D, and anything that needs to sync up.

Re: HDMI 2.0 officially announced

#50

Post by kyrra »

rartichoke wrote: post #40
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.

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.
Post reply on HN