HDMI 2.0 Spec. Released - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-29-2013, 05:40 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Florida and West Virginia, USA
Posts: 5,964
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 212
It appears that when 4:2:2 is used it is limited to 12-bit depth due to the way chroma info is encoded with that type of sub-sampling, i.e., where a 12-bit long field is used to carry the information. This is not just a HDMI 2.0 specific constraint. What this means is that if you were to do 4:2:2 with 8-bit or 10-bit depth it would still be encoded using 12-bits and would not save any bandwidth. Thus the listing in my HDMI 2.0 chart was correct in that 12-bits is the max. bit depth for 4:2:2 even with a full 18 Gbps capacity version of HDMI 2.0.

I should also point out that the HDMI 2.0 chart I posted in my blog HERE] is limited to only the supported 4K UHD (3840 x 2160) video signal formats while the HDMI 2.0 spec. refers to the CEA861 specification for all supported video formats including 4K.. HDMI 2.0 is also compatible with many of the VESA defined video formats that fits within the bandwidth limits.


.

Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-01-2013, 09:27 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
biliam1982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 866
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones View Post

It appears that when 4:2:2 is used it is limited to 12-bit depth due to the way chroma info is encoded with that type of sub-sampling, i.e., where a 12-bit long field is used to carry the information. This is not just a HDMI 2.0 specific constraint. What this means is that if you were to do 4:2:2 with 8-bit or 10-bit depth it would still be encoded using 12-bits and would not save any bandwidth. Thus the listing in my HDMI 2.0 chart was correct in that 12-bits is the max. bit depth for 4:2:2 even with a full 18 Gbps capacity version of HDMI 2.0.

I should also point out that the HDMI 2.0 chart I posted in my blog (HERE) is limited to only the supported 4K UHD (3840 x 2160) video signal formats while the HDMI 2.0 spec. refers to the CEA861 specification for all supported video formats including 4K.. HDMI 2.0 is also compatible with many of the VESA defined video formats that fits within the bandwidth limits.


.

So if I'm reading this correct, you're saying using 4:2:2 Chroma Sub-Sampling will always be encoded @ 12-bits so they should just create content in 12-bits?

Also, if above is the case, then using 4:2:2, HDMI 2.0 is limited to to 60hz in 2D or 30hz in 3D?
biliam1982 is offline  
Old 11-01-2013, 09:58 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Florida and West Virginia, USA
Posts: 5,964
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by biliam1982 View Post

So if I'm reading this correct, you're saying using 4:2:2 Chroma Sub-Sampling will always be encoded @ 12-bits so they should just create content in 12-bits?

Also, if above is the case, then using 4:2:2, HDMI 2.0 is limited to to 60hz in 2D or 30hz in 3D?

Correct - 4K 3D at 60Hz would be limited to 4:2:0 at 8-bits

Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is offline  
Old 11-28-2013, 07:00 AM
Member
 
aoshiken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posts: 115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones View Post

I should also point out that the HDMI 2.0 chart I posted in my blog (HERE) is limited to only the supported 4K UHD (3840 x 2160) video signal formats while the HDMI 2.0 spec. refers to the CEA861 specification for all supported video formats including 4K

Ron, for whatever reason the link to your chart seems to point to nonexistant page...

Perhaps the official 4K formats supported by HDMI 2.0 could help clarifying some things.

By the way, why there is no combination of 4K@24p with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling?
aoshiken is offline  
Old 11-28-2013, 08:13 AM
Senior Member
 
roxiedog13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North 48 °
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoshiken View Post

Ron, for whatever reason the link to your chart seems to point to nonexistant page...

Perhaps the official 4K formats supported by HDMI 2.0 could help clarifying some things.

By the way, why there is no combination of 4K@24p with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling?

What cable will be required to support the new 2.0 HDMI spec ? I have a 1.4 cable in place now but did manage to run a cat 5 and a cat6( I think) for future. If not then I guess I could just go the wireless option with the new 600ES .
Not planning to run any 4K material for a while anyway, then again I suppose the rest of the gear would not support it anyway . rolleyes.gif
roxiedog13 is offline  
Old 11-28-2013, 03:59 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Florida and West Virginia, USA
Posts: 5,964
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoshiken View Post

Ron, for whatever reason the link to your chart seems to point to nonexistant page...

Perhaps the official 4K formats supported by HDMI 2.0 could help clarifying some things.

By the way, why there is no combination of 4K@24p with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling?

Projector Reviews is in the processes of bringing up a major revision/upgrade the their web site and my blogs since early August have not be migrated over to the new site, but hopefully this will happen soon. In the meantime below is the table from that blog that shows the supported 4K variations for implementations that can support up to the full 18 Gbps bandwidth allowed by HDMI 2.0 (click on image below for a larger version):


Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is offline  
Old 11-28-2013, 04:33 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Florida and West Virginia, USA
Posts: 5,964
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by roxiedog13 View Post

What cable will be required to support the new 2.0 HDMI spec ? I have a 1.4 cable in place now but did manage to run a cat 5 and a cat6( I think) for future. If not then I guess I could just go the wireless option with the new 600ES .
Not planning to run any 4K material for a while anyway, then again I suppose the rest of the gear would not support it anyway . rolleyes.gif

It really depends on what cable length you require and what specific variations of 4K video you need to support. For cable lengths of perhaps 10 ft. or less, an existing quality" high speed" HDMI cable (e.g., your HDMI 1.4 compatible cables) should be OK for 4K video. For longer cable lengths the high speed HDMI cables should be OK for those 4K signals whose combination of bit depth and chroma subsampling type do not require more than 10.2 Mbps data rate, which is the maximum existing high speed cables are rated to handle. The new Sony projectors that accept 4K at up to 60 Hz are limited to this bandwidth so existing high speed cables should be compatible. However, the HDMI 2.0 spec. allows for 4K formats that require up to 18 Gbps and there will probably be some 4K displays/projectors next year that will have the next generation of HDMI hardware to support the more demanding 4K signal formats, not supported by the current 4K projectors. However, for future fully HDMI 2.0 capable projectors, and when connected to future fully HDMI 2.0 capable 4K video sources, then the existing passive high speed cables may only be good for lengths up to perhaps 10 ft. For longer lengths you will need new active HDMI cables specifically designed to support the full 18 Gbps bandwidth. I currently have one such prototype cable (15 ft.) and have heard that this new generation of active HDMI cables should start appearing at retail early in 2014.

Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is offline  
Old 12-04-2013, 03:27 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Florida and West Virginia, USA
Posts: 5,964
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 212
My earlier blog on HDMI 2.0 supported 4K UHD formats is now up (again) on the new Projector Reviews web site - HERE.

Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is offline  
Old 12-04-2013, 03:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,482
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 140
@Ron,

the resolution table looks mostly conclusive, except for two things:

(1) 18Gbps, 3840 x 2160, 24Hz or 30Hz, 12 bits, 4:2:2

It makes no sense that HDMI 2.0 could do 16bits at 4:4:4, but would then be limited at 12bits to only 4:2:2. At 2D 24Hz or 30Hz there is no bandwidth problem at all, so you can do any combination of 4:2:0, 4:2:2, 4:4:4, 8bit, 10bit, 12bit and 16bit that you like. So the line above should simply be removed from the table.

(2) 18Gbps, 3840 x 2160 3D, 50Hz or 60Hz, 8 bits, 4:2:0

There should be no problem with 3D 50Hz, but I'm not sure if 18Gbps is enough to do 3D with 60Hz. Maybe it just fits in (barely), or maybe it doesn't fit, anymore. Someone would have to do the math to know for sure.
madshi is offline  
Old 12-04-2013, 07:08 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Florida and West Virginia, USA
Posts: 5,964
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

@Ron,

the resolution table looks mostly conclusive, except for two things:

(1) 18Gbps, 3840 x 2160, 24Hz or 30Hz, 12 bits, 4:2:2

It makes no sense that HDMI 2.0 could do 16bits at 4:4:4, but would then be limited at 12bits to only 4:2:2. At 2D 24Hz or 30Hz there is no bandwidth problem at all, so you can do any combination of 4:2:0, 4:2:2, 4:4:4, 8bit, 10bit, 12bit and 16bit that you like. So the line above should simply be removed from the table.

(2) 18Gbps, 3840 x 2160 3D, 50Hz or 60Hz, 8 bits, 4:2:0

There should be no problem with 3D 50Hz, but I'm not sure if 18Gbps is enough to do 3D with 60Hz. Maybe it just fits in (barely), or maybe it doesn't fit, anymore. Someone would have to do the math to know for sure.

for (1) this was discussed earlier in this thread and I was told by my HDMI Org. contact that 4:2:2 is only defined to support 12 bit encoding and it was not directly a bandwidth constraint.

(2) I agree it will be very close to the 18 Gbps limit at 60Hz, but it appears that it may just be possible. When I went thru the math a couple of months ago, if I recall correctly I came up with about 17.9Gbps for the video plus all of the HDMI overhead, but not including the audio (which would not add enough to exceed the 18Gbps limit).

.

Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is offline  
Old 12-05-2013, 02:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,482
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones View Post

for (1) this was discussed earlier in this thread and I was told by my HDMI Org. contact that 4:2:2 is only defined to support 12 bit encoding and it was not directly a bandwidth constraint.

So 4:4:4 and 4:2:0 both support 16bit, but 4:2:2 does not? That sounds weird ot me. In any case, if HDMI generally doesn't allow 4:2:2 to be more than 12 bits, then that wouldn't be a 4K specific limitation, and I'd still remove that one line from the table, to avoid further confusion. I think it would make sense to only list the limitations specific to 4K (bandwidth). Just my 2 cents, of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones View Post

(2) I agree it will be very close to the 18 Gbps limit at 60Hz, but it appears that it may just be possible. When I went thru the math a couple of months ago, if I recall correctly I came up with about 17.9Gbps for the video plus all of the HDMI overhead, but not including the audio (which would not add enough to exceed the 18Gbps limit).

Maybe they intentionally chose 18 Gbps to be just enough for 4Kp60 3D. That would make sense, at least.

I've just had 2 more thoughts about your table:

(1) HDMI not only supports 8bit, 12bit and 16bit. It also supports 10bit. Now 30fps consumes 1.25x more bandwidth compared to 24fps. And 10bit/8bit also has a factor of 1.25x. So everywhere where 30fps can do 8bit, 24fps should be able to do 10bit. I think 24fps is a hell of a lot more important than 30fps. So it would make sense to list 24fps separately, if and whereever it can actually do 10bit instead of 8bit, compared to 30fps. So you might want to add "4Kp24 2D 10bit 4:4:4" and "4Kp24 3D 10bit 4:2:0" to the 10.2 Gbps table, and "4Kp24 2D 10bit 4:4:4" and "4Kp24 3D 10bit 4:2:0" to the 18 Gbps table.

(2) 4:4:4 consumes twice as much bandwidth as 4:2:0. So if HDMI 2.0 can do 8bit 4:4:4, it can also do 16bit 4:2:0, from a bandwidth point of view. That means in the 10.2 Gbps table it should also be possible to do 24/30Hz with 16bit 4:2:0.
madshi is offline  
Old 12-05-2013, 04:55 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 625 Post(s)
Liked: 587
Madshi. I think 30 fps is way more important to the general world than 24 fps. TV is at 30 and most of the population watches a hell of a lot more TV at 30 than DVDs and Blurays at 24. I certainly do. I realize that many here are the opposite but HTrites are a small minority compared to the TV population.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
Old 12-05-2013, 05:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,482
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Madshi. I think 30 fps is way more important to the general world than 24 fps. TV is at 30 and most of the population watches a hell of a lot more TV at 30 than DVDs and Blurays at 24. I certainly do. I realize that many here are the opposite but HTrites are a small minority compared to the TV population.

1080i60 (60 interlaced fields or 30 interlaced frames) is very important. But we're talking about 4K here. I'm pretty sure nobody is going to do 4K interlaced. IIRC, UHD and BT.2020 don't even support interlaced encoding, anymore. As such 30fps is pretty much useless. Native progressive 30fps content is extremely rare. We'll either get 24p for movies, or 50p/60p for sports. There's no real use for 2160p30 or 2160i60.

(And before there's any confusion: If you have a 1080i60 source, you can't upscale it to 2160i60 without deinterlacing it first. So even for 1080i60 sources 2160i60 makes no sense.)
madshi is offline  
Old 12-05-2013, 05:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Manni01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,577
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 265 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Sure, the wider population watches more TV, but this forum is called AV Science, not AV for Joe Blog, so I agree with Madshi that 24p is far more important for most of us here. It is to me, by far.
95% of the content shown on my HT is 24p (99% being bluray or other HD content at 24p and 1% the odd DVD). 5% is TV for the occasional Tennis or football (soccer as you call it smile.gif)match.
TV is watched downstairs, in the playroom, on a Panasonic plasma, and it's either the wife or the kids watching, except when I watch the news. I don't waste bulb hours on TV crap smile.gif
And Madshi is right, interlaced modes are not part of the UHDTV specs.

Not that adding 24p values to Ron's excellent table is an absolute requirement, but I agree it would make it more useful and more exhaustive.
Manni01 is online now  
Old 12-05-2013, 05:51 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Florida and West Virginia, USA
Posts: 5,964
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 212
With HDMI and the use of 4:2:0 vs. 4:2:2 vs. 4:4:4 it is not all that simple to calculate the bandwidth required. This is because you would need to look at the signal format to see how many bits are used to convey the information. For example, with 4:2:2 there is a 12-bit long field used that will always require 12 bits across the interface even if 8-bit and 10-bit color depth were allowed.

Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is offline  
Old 12-05-2013, 05:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 625 Post(s)
Liked: 587
Manni.

First, Madshi did not say important to forum members. What would be important to forum members would be a tax credit for example for any personal HT expenditure during a tax year of an $$$$X expenditure. Make X high enough, and it would be unimportant to most including the relatively few on AV Science. Make it say $5,000 and I could go in business with a laundry service for cleaning the underwear of AV Science forum members.

We talk very much in general here criticizing most everything and knowing way more and being way smarter than most of the general population and surely most if not all than our industry professionals. . Probably not true, but ego self preserving. Importance to all who view not to those who spend more time posting than viewing. We are not subject to political considerations; constraints or economics. The pricing of goods to us is completely fungible.

Regarding this site being science, it sometimes is but most of the time is not and it is drifting further and further away from science. Buying guides and popularity polls. Almost anything goes here now compared to the old days as long as it generates more hits and more hits mean more ad revenue. The world is populated with forums and forum ownerships including ownership of multiple subject matter unrelated forums. Economies of scale can be applied to owning multiple unrelated forums and ad revenue is based on hits and ads can be sold across all forums owned. Forums are now big business for the large part and have little to do with the love of the science of a sport or the sport itself. Of course, I am talking in general here and not with respect to any particular forum or forum ownership.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
Old 12-05-2013, 06:04 AM
Senior Member
 
roxiedog13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North 48 °
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manni01 View Post

Sure, the wider population watches more TV, but this forum is called AV Science, not AV for Joe Blog, so I agree with Madshi that 24p is far more important for most of us here. It is to me, by far.
95% of the content shown on my HT is 24p (99% being bluray or other HD content at 24p and 1% the odd DVD). 5% is TV for the occasional Tennis or football (soccer as you call it smile.gif)match.
TV is watched downstairs, in the playroom, on a Panasonic plasma, and it's either the wife or the kids watching, except when I watch the news. I don't waste bulb hours on TV crap smile.gif
And Madshi is right, interlaced modes are not part of the UHDTV specs.

Not that adding 24p values to Ron's excellent table is an absolute requirement, but I agree it would make it more useful and more exhaustive.

+ 1 I use my HT and family room TV in the exact same manner, the only exception being I do not watch football ( soccer ) I watch Hockey. wink.gifbiggrin.gif
Actually, I don't really watch too much sports at all, I prefer to play myself, then when I am knackered I watch some violence.....I mean hockey redface.gif
roxiedog13 is offline  
Old 12-05-2013, 06:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,482
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones View Post

With HDMI and the use of 4:2:0 vs. 4:2:2 vs. 4:4:4 it is not all that simple to calculate the bandwidth required. This is because you would need to look at the signal format to see how many bits are used to convey the information. For example, with 4:2:2 there is a 12-bit long field used that will always require 12 bits across the interface even if 8-bit and 10-bit color depth were allowed.

Ok, but we're not talking about just one format out of many. We're talking about a key format here (24fps 4:4:4). So if you don't know this for sure, it would be worth investigating, IMHO.

We don't know for sure yet which chroma format and bitdepth 4K Blu-Rays are going to be encoded in, but 4:4:4 10bit (or even 12bit) seems a likely choice. Which means that for best quality transport to the display we need the display to accept at least 4:4:4 10bit at 24fps. Can the 10.2 Gbps chips in the Sony VW500/600/1100 do that or not? That's really important to know...
madshi is offline  
Old 12-05-2013, 06:21 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 625 Post(s)
Liked: 587
No offense. But so what? What you do and think and what I do and think as well as the few others in this thread, is probably unimportant. It may be indicative but the sampling is insignificant and the relevance to the general population marginal at best.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
Old 12-05-2013, 06:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,482
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 140
So you think a potential VW500/600/1100 buyer is not going to care whether his brand new very expensive projector is going to support 4K Blu-Ray output in full quality or not? Are you serious? confused.gif
madshi is offline  
Old 12-05-2013, 06:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 625 Post(s)
Liked: 587
Sure. I either said or implied that. Are you trying to be especially specious or illogical? Come on, you are better than that. Of course it is important to me who owns a 1000ES and to those who spring for a 500/600 etc. I am disappointed in the spec and the rush by some manufacturers to come out now with product and product upgrade before the fastest chips are available.Your general proclamation as to the importance of 24 or 30 was what I responded too.. That said I do recognize your decent argument over I 30.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
Old 12-05-2013, 09:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Manni01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,577
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 265 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

Ok, but we're not talking about just one format out of many. We're talking about a key format here (24fps 4:4:4). So if you don't know this for sure, it would be worth investigating, IMHO.

We don't know for sure yet which chroma format and bitdepth 4K Blu-Rays are going to be encoded in, but 4:4:4 10bit (or even 12bit) seems a likely choice. Which means that for best quality transport to the display we need the display to accept at least 4:4:4 10bit at 24fps. Can the 10.2 Gbps chips in the Sony VW500/600/1100 do that or not? That's really important to know...

That, however, I do not agree with smile.gif. The chances of Bluray 4K going for any 444 format is simply zero in my opinion. Video is 422. Desktop and games are 444.

444 to 422 loses almost nothing for standard video content, so it's very unlikely they would lose valuable space, especially for download/streaming, with info that is not strictly needed.

We'll be lucky if we get 422 or even 420 10 bits. Quite a good chance to get 422 8 bits. Very little chances to get 422 12 bits, although I read somewhere that 422 has to be encoded in 12 bits so maybe it will be 422 12 bits or 420 12 bits. I fear most of the improvement will come from resolution and better compression with h265/HEVC, rather than super high bit depth and limited chroma downsampling.

I know, it's disappointing, but it's the same as being stuck with rec 709 or x.v.color.

If the Bluray 4K specs are released this year (and I hope they will), the present Sony models will be compatible, it's as simple as that, otherwise Sony will not agree to the standard and it won't happen.

There is absolutely no chance IMHO we'll get better than 422 12 bits in x.v.color with Bluray 4K if it happens this year, and even that is pushing it.

So whatever happens with Bluray 4K, the 500/600/1100/upgraded 1000 will be compatible. Or the standard won't be agreed until new models are available, which can support the new format.

The manufacturers are limiting the standards, it's not the other way around sadly.

This is why HDMI 2.0 is so conservative. It has to be realistic.

However, there is more of a question mark over the current models compatibility re UHDTV, which does require 10 or 12 bits at 50/60p, which they are not able to support with the limited 10.2Gbits/s implementation. But as the specs are in flux, who knows what they will settle with? They also require a rec2020 gamut and no consumer display can achieve that, so they'll have to give us more realistic specs at some point or there won't be any UHDTV broadcast until... 2020 smile.gif

By the way, I'd be super happy if I was wrong re bluray 4K, as 444 10 or 12 bits would be awesome smile.gif.
Manni01 is online now  
Old 12-05-2013, 09:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,482
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manni01 View Post

That, however, I do not agree with smile.gif. The chances of Bluray 4K going for any 444 format is simply zero in my opinion. Video is 422. Desktop and games are 444.

444 to 422 loses almost nothing for standard video content, so it's very unlikely they would lose valuable space, especially for download/streaming, with info that is not strictly needed.

We'll be lucky if we get 422 or even 420 10 bits. Quite a good chance to get 422 8 bits. Very little chances to get 422 12 bits, although I read somewhere that 422 has to be encoded in 12 bits so maybe it will be 422 12 bits or 420 12 bits. I fear most of the improvement will come from resolution and better compression with h265/HEVC, rather than super high bit depth and limited chroma downsampling.

I know, it's disappointing, but it's the same as being stuck with rec 709 or x.v.color.

If the Bluray 4K specs are released this year (and I hope they will), the present Sony models will be compatible, it's as simple as that, otherwise Sony will not agree to the standard and it won't happen.

There is absolutely no chance IMHO we'll get better than 422 12 bits in x.v.color with Bluray 4K if it happens this year, and even that is pushing it.

So whatever happens with Bluray 4K, the 500/600/1100/upgraded 1000 will be compatible. Or the standard won't be agreed until new models are available, which can support the new format.

The manufacturers are limiting the standards, it's not the other way around sadly.

This is why HDMI 2.0 is so conservative. It has to be realistic.

However, there is more of a question mark over the current models compatibility re UHDTV, which does require 10 or 12 bits at 50/60p, which they are not able to support with the limited 10.2Gbits/s implementation. But as the specs are in flux, who knows what they will settle with? They also require a rec2020 gamut and no consumer display can achieve that, so they'll have to give us more realistic specs at some point or there won't be any UHDTV broadcast until... 2020 smile.gif

By the way, I'd be super happy if I was wrong re bluray 4K, as 444 10 or 12 bits would be awesome smile.gif.

What do you mean with "video is 422"? Current digital video is 4:2:0, not 4:2:2. I doubt they will go from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2 for 4K Blu-Ray. I think they will either stick with 4:2:0 or make the jump to 4:4:4.

From what I'm hearing (from some sources I don't want to name), studios are quite aggressive and they want higher specs than CE companies this time around. The highest danger for 4K Blu-Ray currently seems to be that studios demand too high specs and CE companies might refuse to agree. But we're not talking about simple things like 4:4:4 or 10/12bit here. We're talking fancy stuff like high frame rates (120fps) and high dynamic range (super-white etc) encoding etc. I was quite surprised when a source told me that. IMHO if true, the studios are aiming too high. I don't think we will need more than 60fps. At least that's my opinion. In any case, my impression is that studios won't make do with an only very slightly improved spec. They want more, so they have a higher chance of actually making consumers interested in rebuying all the movies another time. And as such I'm pretty sure that it will be at a very bare minimum 10bit 4:2:0, and I think it's going to be more than that. My best guess is 10bit 4:4:4, or maybe even 12bit 4:4:4.

I'm 99% sure that we won't get 8bit. E.g. BT.2020 doesn't even support 8bit, anymore. I do agree with you, though, that chroma subsampling isn't so very much important for video content. 10bit should be a much bigger improvement than 4:4:4. Still, why not get both? Funny enough, Joe Kane seems to favor 4:4:4 over 10bit, if he had to choose. I think we both agree on disagreeing with him there.

Sony is just one company out of many. Yes, the PS4 might be important. But I highly doubt that all the other movie studios and CE companies will bow to Sony and agree to choose specs which don't exceed what the PS4 hardware could do. Also, Sony Pictures and Sony CE are totally separate divisions. Sony Pictures might not be happy with whatever restrictions the PS4 might impose. So there might be disagreement even inside of Sony. But I don't know any of that, just wild guesswork.

Anyway, here's hoping that 10.2 Gbps might be able to deliver 10bit 4:4:4 at 24fps. If that's the case, the PS4 should be able to pull that off, same with the Sony 4K projectors. So unless 4K Blu-Ray ends up as 12bit 4:4:4 (which I hope but kinda doubt), for 24fps both PS4 and Sony 4K projectors might be able to handle 4K Blu-Rays with 24fps fine. Not sure, though. It depends on whether 10bit 4:4:4 really consumes only 1.25x as much bandwidth over HDMI as 8bit 4:4:4.
madshi is offline  
Old 12-05-2013, 09:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,482
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Sure. I either said or implied that. Are you trying to be especially specious or illogical?

To be honest, I seriously don't really understand what you're saying today, or which point you're trying to make.
madshi is offline  
Old 12-05-2013, 10:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Manni01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,577
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 265 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Madshi, I honestly hope you're right, this would be great news but that's not the way I read what's happening on the hardware front.

I said video is 422 because that's what most people would shoot at, simply to save space and post-production time and cost. They'll shoot 4K in 422 10 or 12 bits, I don't know many who would be able or even want to shoot 4K at 12 bits 444, and then have to handle a post-production with files that heavy. The added processing time and cost at all stages would simply be staggering. Things might have evolved and I might be wrong, please provide links if you know for a fact that footage is produced in 4K at 444 12 bits.

If you don't have 444 in the original footage, there is no advantage in having 444 in the delivered content, I'm sure you'll agree with me on that smile.gif.

I said video is 422 for that reason, of course bluray is 420 but we're not talking about bluray, are we wink.gif

For me, studios being ambitious would be to get 422 in 12 bits. If we have that, we're really lucky. I fear much less than that, but I might be wrong.

Like you, I would take higher bit depth over better chroma subsampling anytime, so of course we agree on that (and both disagree with Joe Kane) tongue.gif.
Manni01 is online now  
Old 12-05-2013, 10:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,482
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 140
As far as I know, digital cameras usually shoot in RGB. After all, Bayer sensors are based on RGB and not YCbCr. And film scans are probably also RGB? I've no idea whether post production / editing / mastering is done in RGB or YCbCr, though. DCI seems to be 4:4:4. At least I can't see any indication that chroma subsampling would be used with DCI.

I do agree that if the original content is only 4:2:2 there's little sense in encoding it in 4:4:4. However, are you sure that all studio masters are only 4:2:2?
madshi is offline  
Old 12-05-2013, 11:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Manni01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,577
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 265 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Not sure at all, this is why I asked for a link.

Of course the capture is made in RGB 444, but the amount of space required to store 4K in 444 is simply huge, which is why at some point I assumed it would be converted internally to 422 by the time it gets to whichever memory it is stored on (SSD usually), unless you are shooting a very short amount of footage. Then in post-production, handling 4K files in 444 16 bits would be just overwhelming for even the most powerful workstation. But what do I know? Only guessing.

If material is shot and processed in RGB 444, then it would make sense to deliver it in 444 as well. I thought most 4K cameras and post-prod facilities wouldn't be able to manipulate such large files files for feature films but I might be entirely wrong.
Manni01 is online now  
Old 12-05-2013, 11:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
stevenjw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: DC Metro area USA
Posts: 2,184
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

Anyway, here's hoping that 10.2 Gbps might be able to deliver 10bit 4:4:4 at 24fps. If that's the case, the PS4 should be able to pull that off, same with the Sony 4K projectors. So unless 4K Blu-Ray ends up as 12bit 4:4:4 (which I hope but kinda doubt), for 24fps both PS4 and Sony 4K projectors might be able to handle 4K Blu-Rays with 24fps fine. Not sure, though. It depends on whether 10bit 4:4:4 really consumes only 1.25x as much bandwidth over HDMI as 8bit 4:4:4.

I agree with Mark in that I'm very disappointed in Sony's rush to use the 10.8 GB chip vs. waiting for 18 GB. It's not like they have any competition on the 4K projector market. What was their hurry? They could have upgraded the 1000 and released the new 1100/500/600 projectors when they had enough of the better HDMI chips. I'm hoping that they know something that we don't concerning the future of 4K BDs.

As it is, I sure hope you're right and these Sony projectors will be able to handle whatever ends up being the 4K BD standard. If not, Sony is going to piss off a lot of their 4K early adopters again. I doubt that they let that happen, but who knows....

...Steve
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." - V

 


My 3D-BD/BD/HD-DVD/DVD collection and HT gear

stevenjw is online now  
Old 12-05-2013, 12:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,482
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 140
@Manni01,

here's some info about how RED cameras store their recordings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDCODE

Looks like RGB from start to finish. I could imagine that hobby film makers might find 4:4:4 16bit intimidating, but I can't imagine that it's a problem for Hollywood studios, considering how many millions the shooting of most movies cost today. If I do the math, the storage of 1 hour of uncompressed RGB 4:4:4 footage in 48bit (16bit per channel) consumes just 4.2 TB. If you just want to store a 2.5 hour movie uncompressed, that'd cost you about 500 USD worth of harddisk space. Why would a studio *NOT* do that? They'd be stupid not to. But as I said, I don't really know in which format studio masters are *processed*. Processing is a different thing to storage...

@stevenjw,

from what I can see, the 10.2 Gbps chips can handle any framerate we need - but not in the highest quality. How much of a difference the quality loss makes depends on the native format of the source and the processing capabilities of the source device. E.g. let's say (just for the sake of discussion) that some 4K Blu-Ray music concert were encoded in 60fps 12bit 4:4:4. The source device would have to downconvert that to 60fps 8bit 4:2:0 in order to send it for a 10.2 Gbps HDMI input port. The conversion from 4:4:4 to 4:2:0 is not too much of a problem. It's a bit sad, but I think for normal movie content you probably wouldn't notice a big difference even side by side. The downconversion from 12bit (or 10bit) to 8bit is a bigger problem. Here it depends on whether the source device can apply dithering, or whether it simply rounds down to 8bit. If the source device can dither, the quality loss should be pretty small. But we don't know if the source device will be able to dither. We also don't know if 4K Blu-Ray will support 60fps encoding. There's still too much we don't know.

Of course Sony could have waited for 18 Gbps HDMI chips. But how long will it take until those are available? I don't know that. Maybe it would have meant delaying the new projectors by many months, and that would have screwed up the usual yearly release schedule. So maybe they only had the chance to either release 10.2 Gbps projectors now, or skip a whole generation? Don't know...
madshi is offline  
Old 12-05-2013, 12:59 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 625 Post(s)
Liked: 587
As I understands the innards of the HDMI voting group, companies were purchased by companies who wanted the extra votes to get what they wanted. 4K at 4:2:0 8 bit. But this is hearsay to use a legal term. I understand the Studeo position here and I agree with JK and some others inside Sony that to be successful 4K needs a lot lot more over Bluray to make it successful.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
 

Tags
Sony Vpl Vw1000es Projector
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off