or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 70

post #2071 of 3670
Here's a very interesting article from Hometheaterreview.com that discusses why we haven't seen true HD yet and the forthcoming 4K. http://hometheaterreview.com/high-definition-we-hardly-knew-ye/
post #2072 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDBetaGuy View Post

Here's a very interesting article from Hometheaterreview.com that discusses why we haven't seen true HD yet and the forthcoming 4K. http://hometheaterreview.com/high-definition-we-hardly-knew-ye/

The biggest problem is the media format. I have stated that compressing Bluray is not the answer. Read my posts about Holographic storage, but it will be about 3 years before you see it.
post #2073 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro67 View Post

The biggest problem is the media format. I have stated that compressing Bluray is not the answer. Read my posts about Holographic storage, but it will be about 3 years before you see it.

Terabyte optical discs are on the way. This article doesn't mention that Pioneer already tried this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121009102203.htm
post #2074 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazishere View Post

Terabyte optical discs are on the way. This article doesn't mention that Pioneer already tried this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121009102203.htm

Hitachi is way past 1 Terabyte now. Hitachi goal is 10 Terabyte disc in the future. This blog states the data access speeds. http://blogs.hds.com/technomusings/2011/08/a-true-holographic-system-would-be-disruptive.html Anyway, I posted on this several times in the past. Hitachi is backed by patents and journal article papers, but I haven't seen any from Pioneer or Sony.
post #2075 of 3670
Am I correct in guessing that a 4K2K 120p movie will probably require (only) about 500 MB 500 GB to 1 TB on disc? Is there any technology for 'pressing' that size content on disc at this time?
_
Edited by SoundChex - 10/10/12 at 10:27am
post #2076 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

Am I correct in guessing that a 4K2K 120p movie will probably require (only) about 500 MB to 1 TB on disc? Is there any technology for 'pressing' that size content on disc at this time?

If you mean 500 GB to 1 TB, the answer is no. But all 4k content so far is at 24p so that will fit on a 50GB BD with H.265 codec.
post #2077 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

Am I correct in guessing that a 4K2K 120p movie will probably require (only) about 500 MB to 1 TB on disc? Is there any technology for 'pressing' that size content on disc at this time?
It would be more, but not sure their goal for 4k. Holographic disk is one of the key technologies on the SHV roadmap and that is for 8k. Hitachi's method requires a new recording format, so it will allow faster data rate. The negative is that it wouldn't be backwards compatible with BD. Hitachi holographic according to the paper requires a blue laser. NHK stated 3 years, for the format to be ready for the market. Anyway, I have posted everything in the past. So you can read my old posts. The thread here is Pro Sony. (I am not Pro Sony)
post #2078 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro67 View Post

It would be more, but not sure their goal for 4k. Holographic disk is one of the key technologies on the SHV roadmap and that is for 8k. Hitachi's method requires a new recording format, so it will allow faster data rate. The negative is that it wouldn't be backwards compatible with BD. Hitachi holographic according to the paper requires a blue laser. NHK stated 3 years, for the format to be ready for the market. Anyway, I have posted everything in the past. So you can read my old posts. The thread here is Pro Sony. (I am not Pro Sony)

Sorry if I am being dense, but I can't tell whether your answer was "YES, there is an existing|anticipated technology capable of reproducing prerecorded movies on a 1 TB next generation optical disc" or "NO, there is not currently some existing|anticipated technology capable of reproducing prerecorded movies on a 1 TB next generation optical disc"...?!

To date, all the 8K4K disc material from NHK (and others) I recall reading seems to have been related to recordable media, and not prerecorded discs as would be required for retail movie sales.
_
post #2079 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

Sorry if I am being dense, but I can't tell whether your answer was "YES, there is an existing|anticipated technology capable of reproducing prerecorded movies on a 1 TB next generation optical disc" or "NO, there is not currently some existing|anticipated technology capable of reproducing prerecorded movies on a 1 TB next generation optical disc"...?!
To date, all the 8K4K disc material from NHK (and others) I recall reading seems to have been related to recordable media, and not prerecorded discs as would be required for retail movie sales.
_

Yes, the technology does exist. You need a recordable format, before you develop a ROM format. I try to explain it the best that I can. To make a ROM, then you still have a recording layer. So here is a paper that shows detailed on information on how to make Blu-ray BD-ROM. Nice photos in page 10.
http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Assets/Downloadablefile/BD-ROM_physical_format_specifications-18327.pdf (That specification doesn't show you everything)

I constantly see posts on BD-ROM being pressed, but has anyone in this thread ever worked with plastic injection molding or understand anything about manufacturing? Around 25 years ago, I worked in Tool & Die Apprenticeship. I know lot of details on how to build plastic injection molds, I can see the substrates being built with a mold, but not the recording layer. Anyway, here is a few articles from Panasonic.
(Pansonic leaves out the process for the Recording layer in the link below). (i found the patent on the BDROM manufacturing - a write-once optical disk to which information is written with a violet laser beam), an optical recording medium, and a sputtering target for forming the recording layer of an optical recording medium.

http://panasonic.net/blu-ray/technology/branch/process/

What is this important? In the IEEE paper, "Terabyte Holographic Recording with Monocular Architecture" The format is very similar in design to Bluray. Although, Hitachi developed a different recording method - "Angular-multiplexing holographic data storage system is well known for its abilities of “Fast transfer rates” and “High density recording”." Then Hitachi changed the recording layer. (In the past, you had layers to achieve more storage space. Layers can be inefficient, so you want to improve the process and reduce cost.).

Here is the paragraph from the paper regarding the recording layer. "The holographic recording media comprises a photopolymer recording layer of 1.5 mm thickness sandwiched between the first and second glass substrates of 0.1 mm and 1.0 mm thickness, respectively, with AR coating for 405 nm. Generally photopolymer system having high M/# (storage capacity) shows large recording-induced shrinkage of photopolymer layer, causing hologram angular change and low SNR of recorded data. We have designed a new photopolymer system achieving both high storage capacity and low recording-induced shrinkage simultaneously. The shrinkage of 0.1% was evaluated from the Bragg detuning [4] (deviation from the original recording position) measured by a typical plane wave tester."

Anyway, these papers are hard to understand, but they achieved 1TB holographic disk. The paper was published in 2012, but typically the papers are few years old.
Here is their briefing on the 500Gb disc in 2009. http://www.inphase-tech.com/downloads/pdf/technology/ODS2009_high_density_ver20090507.pdf
Well, the briefing says it is for consumer....Oh, Hitachi has patent on this technology as well. The recording method. The briefing has lot of the photos that are in the paper.
Edited by Nitro67 - 10/11/12 at 7:32pm
post #2080 of 3670
So what will say a 4 hour movie at 8K 3D 120fps 22.2 sound w/ H.265 compression at a rate that is indistringuishable (I know I got that wrong) from uncompressed at a distance of 2' run us for storage requirements?

It seems like if there's going to be a new super standard released, which from the sounds of it this 8K is (it ought to hold us for a long long time since our eyes aren't exactly evolving as fast as tech is), one could make the case for a new media standard as well. Assuming the answers to my above are in the realm of 120GB or less, why could they just release these new formats on read only flash memory and be done with it? Remember when if you had more than a floppy worth of info to transport you used a CD or DVD burn to do it? Who does that now? I have a 16GB USB 2.0 flash drive that can hold almost 4 DVD's worth of info, doesn't get scratched, and is stupid easy to use.

So make the new standard available on USB 3.0 memory stick, and call it a day. Any new device that wants to use the new standard must have a USB 3.0 port. USB 3.0 ought to be plenty fast enough for the above requirements right?

EDIT: Changed my 8GB to 120GB.

Chuck
post #2081 of 3670
CEATEC 2012: One-on-One With NHK’s Takayuki Yamashita

If NHK were to produce and deliver the 2014 or 2016 Olympic Games in Super Hi-Vision, what would you change from London?
Quote:
We would, of course, love to do the Games in 2016 [in Rio de Janeiro], so we will see. But, if we do the [2016 Olympics], I know we want to be able to show full-resolution images to the viewer. At London Games, our transmission system didn’t have full-resolution images. The images had low data from the output. But, with the next system, we will output full resolution. The next transmitting system will output full [8K] resolution.

In London, we used three cameras and sometimes two cameras [depending on the event]. I’m not sure if we would add more.

There will be a different capturing camera system that is of a higher quality. The camera has full resolution, but the transmitting system [needs] to compress it because bandwidth is limited to about 200 Mbps via an IP network. So we are developing a compression [scheme] using the next compression standard [HEVC]. I would like to use HEVC for satellite broadcasting and as a transmitting system for IP. In my personal opinion, HEVC is going to change everything.

Also in London, we used a [Panasonic] P2 card system. We used 16 cards for two hours of recording. In the next system, we may use SSD [solid-state drives], but we are not sure yet.

http://sportsvideo.org/main/blog/2012/10/04/ceatec-2012-one-on-one-with-nhks-takayuki-yamashita/
post #2082 of 3670
Transmission Technologies for Next-generation Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting

www.atsc.org/cms/pdf/pt2/ATSC_NGBT_manuscript_final.pdf
post #2083 of 3670
Chuck,

Your suggestion is fine so far as capacity, ease of use and performance are concerned. The sticking point, however, might be its expense. I suspect that a passive recording medium (similar in that regard to current DVD and BD technology) would be much less expensive than an active one (similar to current flash drive technology). Plastic is currently much less expensive than silicon, for example.
post #2084 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

Chuck,
Your suggestion is fine so far as capacity, ease of use and performance are concerned. The sticking point, however, might be its expense. I suspect that a passive recording medium (similar in that regard to current DVD and BD technology) would be much less expensive than an active one (similar to current flash drive technology). Plastic is currently much less expensive than silicon, for example.

Yeah, I figured that. My assumption would be that prices are constantly coming down on the silicon side of the house, and that getting Everyone to agree to that next standard would mean a pretty big economy of scale. I'm fine with Blu-ray when I want to rent a movie, just was saying, it'd be sorta nice, even if it cost a buck or two more when renting physical media, if that new physical media standard to be used for the next 20 years was more standardized and easy to use.

Imagine not needing a Blu-ray player? Viewing device just plugs into your USB 3.0 port. Want to take your movie along with you in the car on the trip? USB 3.0 port, no player needed, no worries about kids slimy fingers, etc. Same for on plane/boat, plug in movie into USB 3.0 port, done. To me, as long as costs could be kept down, it's more of a question about people losing the media than actually moving forwards into it.

One can dream I guess... smile.gif

Chuck
post #2085 of 3670
tldr; HOWEVER I have read some and I would like to post some thoughts, opinions and some facts:

1. Bandwidth and bit rates: In the future and even currently 4096x2304 (16:9), 4096x2160 (1.89~ Digital Cinema), and 3840x2160 (16:9) should be able to go over HDMI with little trouble provided your video card, hardware, display can take a 4K signal in....a 325Mhz HDMI output vs the 225mhz (I believe, correct me if Im wrong) would be needed. However the current HDMI spec supports 10.2gigabits per second or 1.25 Gigabytes PER SECOND..I highly doubt 4K will eat up the bandwidth of even ONE HDMI cable so long as we are still talking about compressed content, no one even has uncompressed 1080p as a delivery format now and I doubt it is even around the corner with the bit rates I see on a daily editing Apple ProRes 422 and up. Uncompressed PCM audio wouldn't even touch the bandwidth either even if you went up to 16 channels that 3G-SDI out supports (HD-SDI and 3G-SDI are professional outputs for pro HD, 2K and 4K content, 1.5gbps and 3gbps respectively). Quad HDMI has a bandwidth of like 40gbps plus...current hardware can't handle that type of bit rate across hardware casually nor does it need to. Also Display port has like 20gbps bandwidth, take a look at Thunderbolt too! 75-200mbps would be fine for Quad HD....Blu-ray H.264 bit rates are often WAY overkill for what they resolve...x264 has MANY more advanced encoding features than what everyone assumes distribution uses for H.264...its easier to pump out a plain ol' 30mbps H.264 stream a bunch of times than to bring it down to 10mbps with 6 reference frames, B frames, Psychovisual algorithms, advanced motion estimation, GOP length, etc. I Guarentee I can deliver a lower bit rate 1080p movie at the same visual quality as your average 30mbps stream on a BD50...of course I do like the high bit rates because depending on what I pay for I want closest to the original source, don't we all! Now the problem with Blu-ray currently is it obviously doesn't support 4K but additionally it doesn't support more than 4 reference frames, and a few other advanced compression settings in x264....this is why I use Compressor for Blu-ray out and Handbrake for when I rip Blu-rays onto my hard drive for storage on my Mac. Blu-ray also doesn't support the crazy multilayer Blu-ray discs they can make...up to 200GB's as we all have read! So when 4K is a real delivery format I expect it to be a new format and not just an amendment like 3D (though with enough work it could, for the best quality lets not do that). Current Blu-ray discs that you can buy can offer bit rates exceeding 72mbps on reading (aka watching a movie!). I could see in 10-15 years 4K on 100/128GB and 200GB discs using H.264 and H.265 HEVC....hehe Ill be laughing when we have H.265 and look at H.264 like we look at MPEG-2 now...Blu-ray.com will report "Universal chose to use the aging H.264 codec instead of the more capable H.265 codec so don't expect a 5/5 picture!) I digress.

EDIT: I believe more than 325Mhz would be not enough...according to Wiki it can do 2.5K but not 4K. 680Mhz could handle it. That said HDMI resolution is still oozing with Bandwidth for 4K as long as the devices can handle it and its specified I suppose. Need to study up on my DSP more!

2. Just because you CAN doesn't mean you should!: Right now I view 4K as a cool but useless resolution for delivery with exceptions for rare content that could possibly greatly benefit from it. I think 4K for computer displays just needs to be widespread, I don't edit 4K allot but if I did I would want a pixel for pixel representation of it before I sent it off! Also as a video editor and a power user of computers I often run lots of programs at the same time and fitting those on one screen is always a challenge, although the iMac's 2560x1440p display fits allot more is better for this application, I've been known to run FCP, After Effects, Handbrake, Compressor, Safari and VLC at the same time. I view 4K as a rock solid capture format mainly for wiggle room when editing and amazing downsampling to HD formats. RED one creates beautiful images that makes film out easy and HD mastering easy, hell I could probably shoot an entire feature with a 35 or 50mm prime lens and just do all my zooming shots in post with that resolution because all my zooms would still be 2K+! Partially kidding but all that resolution does give you allot of room, even though its a bayer sensor and resolves less lines that it could with an expensive true RGB sensor its still great. I really think 4K for now and the next 5 years is suited for capture and NOT delivery...I don't think most people even appreciate just HOW MUCH resolution that is, its not something you can view on a chart with a small HD frame within it and go "Wow HD is t3h suckzorz!!", I'm talking about actual resolved detail, at 4096 lines across do we really need to see the fricken pores in someones skin? Probably not...BUT when you downsample to 2K formats (and I include HD as 2K because its so damn close vertically though a film scan is usually 2048x1556) it looks even more beautiful! I could see RED Epics with zoom lenses being great for sports like football...if a shot needed to be pulled in tighter or confirmed or something you have all that resolution to pull it in and still deliver 2K, HD, SD, you get it and for things like football pulling in a tight shot delivered at 1080p60 would just be beautiful! I almost want to just say the next best jump would be 2.5K TV at say 2560x1440 or 2048x1556 stored anamorphic to 16:9 (NOT 4:3!) should have been next...I find 2.5K to be a very visually good resolution, "just enough" IMO but to each their own I guess...Allot of Digital Cinema cameras are only 2.5K and a significant amount 2K only! Additionally as said before most film scans are currently 2048x1556, allot of people don't feel the need to digital scan at 4k by 3k yet although I personally would just for editing.
Edited by nateo200 - 10/13/12 at 12:39am
post #2086 of 3670
Website wtih HD, 2k and 4k footage.

http://www.hdtimelapse.net/
post #2087 of 3670
my math shows
3840*2160*24*3=597mb/sec
where 24=fps
3=RGB bytes
because once you are out of the player, video is not encoded.
If you want better PQ, and I do, then change the fps to 60 or 120, go to 10bit colour and add in 3d, and you are well beyond 1.25gb/sec
post #2088 of 3670
A quibble: lower case b usually means bits, while capital B is used for Bytes. In this case you really mean B = Bytes/second. This factor of almost 10 is important when one is considering network and wire-plant bandwidth requirements.
post #2089 of 3670
That's what would be sent down the video cable to the viewing device though, right? The actual media for say a 60 minutes movie wouldn't have to hold 60 minutes * 60 seconds * 1.25 would it? If so, I think we're a looong way from consumer rentable media that can deliver 4500GB for a 60 minute movie. Wouldn't the information be compressed onto the media, and then the media device would read that compressed data, decompress it, do whatever it needs to do with it as far as processing, and then send it down the video cable at 1.25GB/s?

Chuck
post #2090 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

A quibble: lower case b usually means bits, while capital B is used for Bytes. In this case you really mean B = Bytes/second. This factor of almost 10 is important when one is considering network and wire-plant bandwidth requirements.
Well aware haha I specifically wrote out "bytes" and "bps" because in general its pretty easy to understand, besides I'm somewhat dyslexic ....if I was writing out a serious paper then yes I would double check....I usually don't bring this up until someone gets confused about MB/s vs mbps because as you said its very much different...divide by 8 when dealing with mbps to get MB/s...for example FireWire 800 does 800mbps so divide by 8 and you get 100MB/s and I tend to see 70-100MB/s during my daily work. I'm assuming you were referring to the user above as well as me as I usually make a handful of grammatical errors...it is my achilles heel unfortunately :/
Quote:
my math shows
3840*2160*24*3=597mb/sec
where 24=fps
3=RGB bytes
because once you are out of the player, video is not encoded.
If you want better PQ, and I do, then change the fps to 60 or 120, go to 10bit colour and add in 3d, and you are well beyond 1.25gb/sec
While Peter Jackson and James Cameron are playing with 48fps and thats cool 120fps 4K in 3D is a bit ridiculous....60fps and up and you don't see a difference with like 89% of peoples eyes...again 120fps is AWESOME for capture...I'd actually like to someday work on a 72, 96 or 120fps project but I would inevitably deliver at a lower rate, but it would still retain the sharpness of higher frame rate stuff which in turn equals better PQ....however I feel like we are going to be in the 24p bind for a while and while I like higher frame rate I really need to start seeing some GOOD story's on it like The Hobbit to be convinced...I don't want some indie film shot at 60fps because they can't afford to loose any traditional film look unless the story is amazing BUT if a feature film were shot at 48, 60, 72, 96, or even 120fps I might feel differently...theres a whole bunch of stuff to take into consideration when shooting high too.

EDIT: BTW according to my AJA calc on my iPhone 4K HD 3840x2160 at 23.98fps with 10bit RGB and 8CH 48khz 16bit PCM would be 800MB/s, what you calculated was 10bit YUV or some other difference. Either way it exceeds the bandwidth I believe.
Edited by nateo200 - 10/13/12 at 12:49am
post #2091 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sstephen 
my math shows
3840*2160*24*3=597mb/sec
where 24=fps
3=RGB bytes
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateo200 View Post

Well aware haha I specifically wrote out "bytes" and "bps" because in general its pretty easy to understand, besides I'm somewhat dyslexic ....if I was writing out a serious paper then yes I would double check....I usually don't bring this up until someone gets confused about MB/s vs mbps because as you said its very much different...divide by 8 when dealing with mbps to get MB/s...for example FireWire 800 does 800mbps so divide by 8 and you get 100MB/s and I tend to see 70-100MB/s during my daily work. I'm assuming you were referring to the user above as well as me as I usually make a handful of grammatical errors...it is my achilles heel unfortunately :/
While Peter Jackson and James Cameron are playing with 48fps and thats cool 120fps 4K in 3D is a bit ridiculous....60fps and up and you don't see a difference with like 89% of peoples eyes...again 120fps is AWESOME for capture...I'd actually like to someday work on a 72, 96 or 120fps project but I would inevitably deliver at a lower rate, but it would still retain the sharpness of higher frame rate stuff which in turn equals better PQ....however I feel like we are going to be in the 24p bind for a while and while I like higher frame rate I really need to start seeing some GOOD story's on it like The Hobbit to be convinced...I don't want some indie film shot at 60fps because they can't afford to loose any traditional film look unless the story is amazing BUT if a feature film were shot at 48, 60, 72, 96, or even 120fps I might feel differently...theres a whole bunch of stuff to take into consideration when shooting high too.
EDIT: BTW according to my AJA calc on my iPhone 4K HD 3840x2160 at 23.98fps with 10bit RGB and 8CH 48khz 16bit PCM would be 800MB/s, what you calculated was 10bit YUV or some other difference. Either way it exceeds the bandwidth I believe.

No what he posted was uncompressed 8 bit (per channel) RGB.
(3840*2160*24*3)=597,196,800

(3840*2160*24*3)/1000/1000=597.2 MB/sec (megabytes per sec), or 4778 Mb/s (megabits per sec)
Quote:
60fps and up and you don't see a difference with like 89% of peoples eyes
Do you have a link to a study with people viewing Quad HD TVs and 2160p video (or 7680x4320 ones) that show this (eg. switching between 60 and 120 fps and people seeing no difference - especially with video with fast motion and viewing and the distance to fully resolve 2160p and then 4320p video - or a side-by-side comparison)?
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 10/13/12 at 1:50pm
post #2092 of 3670
I meant bytes not bits. Sorry my fault for not using uppercase B.
120fps will probably not be part of the next standard, whatever that may be. That doesn't mean I don't want to see it. smile.gif It also doesn't mean I can't put a processor in my chain which does frame interpolation. I'm not saying I actually would. I've not had much interest in the frame interpolation tvs up until now, but if I saw it done really well, I'd use it for sports, and therefore the possibility exists that I have a 4k source and 120fps.
My post was in response to the bandwidth of hdmi, not the bitrate required on media. I expect the next standard to be sending uncompressed video from the player to the display device, and my calculations reflect that expectation.

Mostly Joe cleared it up smile.gif
post #2093 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sstephen View Post

I meant bytes not bits. Sorry my fault for not using uppercase B.
120fps will probably not be part of the next standard, whatever that may be. That doesn't mean I don't want to see it. smile.gif It also doesn't mean I can't put a processor in my chain which does frame interpolation. I'm not saying I actually would. I've not had much interest in the frame interpolation tvs up until now, but if I saw it done really well, I'd use it for sports, and therefore the possibility exists that I have a 4k source and 120fps.
My post was in response to the bandwidth of hdmi, not the bitrate required on media. I expect the next standard to be sending uncompressed video from the player to the display device, and my calculations reflect that expectation.
Mostly Joe cleared it up smile.gif


HEVC h.265 hasn't finalized, but there is two tier specification. Richard Paul posted the proposal in the past, so just look at his posts on it. I have talked to a few 4K installers and the current HDMI spec only supports 4k. These Audio Video installers are having issues with finding the right hdmi cable, and it has to be high speed. There is also issues with the distance. So, I suspect that HDMI might be changed in the future. Really need a cable that has optical fiber, so the installer is not limited. Copper has worked for 1080P, but not for UHDTV (4k and 8K). That is why that I see that Thunderbolt/displayport will become the standard in the future.
post #2094 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro67 View Post

I suspect that HDMI might be changed in the future.

At CES 2012, HDMI org said (link) that their "target release date of the next version of the HDMI specification is the second half of 2012". Trade press articles in early 2012 hinted that "major changes" to the HDMI specifications were under consideration.

Due sometime soon...??? cool.gif
_
post #2095 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

At CES 2012, HDMI org said (link) that their "target release date of the next version of the HDMI specification is the second half of 2012". Trade press articles in early 2012 hinted that "major changes" to the HDMI specifications were under consideration.
Due sometime soon...??? cool.gif
_

I already knew that 2.0 HDMI spec was coming in 2012, but each change requires the consumers to buy new equipment. 1.4b was last year as well. Consumers get tired of updating their equipment every few years, so HDMI needs to think out of the box and develop a specification that is upgradeable. Have you priced a 4k HDMI Matrix switch? KeyDigital is the only company that has a 4k HDMI Matrix switch, the cost is $4500 for a 4 X 4switch. If you have more devices, then expect to pay more. Consumers have more than one TV in their homes, and I was sticker shocked on the HDMI matrix switch. The distance for HDMI cable in reality is around 50 feet. My installed told me that he hasn't found a good reliable HDMI matrix switch for 1080P. Actually, one of his customers has already tried the KeyDigital switch. So how is HDMI forum going to handle multiple devices? Thunderbolt/Displayport allows you to daisy chain devices, and now you have a company that has developed a fiber optical thunderbolt cable. If you look at the new video cards from AMD Firepro and Nvidia K5000, you can use Thunderbolt now with 4k.
post #2096 of 3670
post #2097 of 3670
post #2098 of 3670
A bit random but I recently received a free Samsung 3D Blu-ray player at my doorstep today...guess I HAVE to buy a 3D TV now...muhahaha biggrin.gif Gotta make sure my damn HDMI cables are up to spec though, it came with one thank God..maybe samsung appreciates my last three A/V purchases from them! XD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro67 View Post

I already knew that 2.0 HDMI spec was coming in 2012, but each change requires the consumers to buy new equipment. 1.4b was last year as well. Consumers get tired of updating their equipment every few years, so HDMI needs to think out of the box and develop a specification that is upgradeable. Have you priced a 4k HDMI Matrix switch? KeyDigital is the only company that has a 4k HDMI Matrix switch, the cost is $4500 for a 4 X 4switch. If you have more devices, then expect to pay more. Consumers have more than one TV in their homes, and I was sticker shocked on the HDMI matrix switch. The distance for HDMI cable in reality is around 50 feet. My installed told me that he hasn't found a good reliable HDMI matrix switch for 1080P. Actually, one of his customers has already tried the KeyDigital switch. So how is HDMI forum going to handle multiple devices? Thunderbolt/Displayport allows you to daisy chain devices, and now you have a company that has developed a fiber optical thunderbolt cable. If you look at the new video cards from AMD Firepro and Nvidia K5000, you can use Thunderbolt now with 4k.
HDMI 2.0 really needs to be backwards compatible...I feel like we (and by we I mean less tech savvy) are just getting used to the idea of HDMI and "Woah it does video AND audio!! Amazing!"...we can't have the standard being completely different...would just mess up everything. If HDMI standards start changing and becoming not backwards compatible as fast as computer graphics cards or just computers in general completely change every 12-18months its going to be mayhem in the consumer tech world...God knows Ill never PC game unless I have money to blow because of this (not that Im a big gamer). The second I bought my computer it was out of date...we can't have that with HDMI..
Quote:
Originally Posted by sstephen View Post

I meant bytes not bits. Sorry my fault for not using uppercase B.
120fps will probably not be part of the next standard, whatever that may be. That doesn't mean I don't want to see it. smile.gif It also doesn't mean I can't put a processor in my chain which does frame interpolation. I'm not saying I actually would. I've not had much interest in the frame interpolation tvs up until now, but if I saw it done really well, I'd use it for sports, and therefore the possibility exists that I have a 4k source and 120fps.
My post was in response to the bandwidth of hdmi, not the bitrate required on media. I expect the next standard to be sending uncompressed video from the player to the display device, and my calculations reflect that expectation.
Mostly Joe cleared it up smile.gif
Hmm I thought video was uncompressed out of the HDMI cable regardless of the device/codec already? If it isn't its smart...I sort of like the idea of audio codecs like Dolby TrueHD being compressed then decoded by the AV Receiver and wish TVs could do that...would allow for an HDMI standard to last for a long time with lossless compression or lossy compression as bandwidth issues wouldn't increase so fast...problem would be TV's would be more expensive having to actually decode video...that is unless everyone had AV receivers and they decoded the video for the TV...I digress though

As for 120fps becoming a standard...its just too much...again its a good capture format for slow motion and maybe high frame rate freaks like James Cameron but delivery? No thanks...I think its safe to say that we should top out at 60-72fps in terms of delivery standards for consumers.
post #2099 of 3670
post #2100 of 3670
*shrug*

I wouldn't expect there to be any volume sales until prices come way down and there's plenty of 4K content available.

Just as the average viewer didn't know or care about upscaling 480i signals to higher resolutions until HD displays were cheap and ubiquitous.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts?