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 114

post #3391 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

The bottom line is that you'll see plenty of games previously run at lower resolutions run just fine with spectacular results at 4K.  There will be no waiting for or lack of "4K games" as was suggested.
I wouldn't say spectacular results - they won't be as good as a game made with the intention of being displayed at 4K from the beginning. And that will really need higher polygon counts, more memory and higher processing speed.
post #3392 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

But meshes aren't resolution independent. If you have an object (such as a character) made out of a set number of polygons, on a higher resolution display it will still have that limited number of polygons and on a higher resolution display the fact it is made up of a set number of polygons will probably be more obvious, Also, the games for a console will try to do as much as possible at a given frame rate/resolution before it takes too long to draw the frame. So the game will limit the amount of polygons/objects (as well as, like you said, textures) on screen at a given time or other things done to the capabilities of the console. So it isn't just the texture resolution that is the limitation, but other capabilities - how many polygons/objects can be drawn and other limitations of the console in terms of memory/processing speed.
Sorry, this is totally wrong. Even if all you do is increase the resolution, the improvements to how a game looks can be dramatic. There are a lot of subtle details which are totally lost when running games at a lower resolution.

A good example of this would be running 3D console games inside emulators on PCs.
The difference between running something like a PlayStation 2 game at its native resolution, and rendering it on a PC is ridiculous. I wish I could find some good comparison images of Final Fantasy XII, because it's crazy how much detail is completely lost at its native resolution.

PS2 native resolution on the left, 1080p on the right: http://i.imgur.com/1trfHhy.jpg

Even if you just go from running today's console games at 720p with no anti-aliasing, to rendering them at 1080p (or greater) on a PC, the results can be significant. The same thing will apply to rendering games natively at 4K.

You can even go back to the early days of 3D and run things like PlayStation 1 games at 1080p, or early 3D PC games like Quake at high resolutions, and they look so much better.
Edited by Chronoptimist - 8/29/13 at 9:27pm
post #3393 of 3670
Though it also makes the lines of the polygons stand out a lot more. The right image needs more polygons (eg. the jacket) a lot more than the left one.
In the left image, the low pixel resolution masks the low polygon resolution. On the right, the higher pixel resolution shows up the insufficient number of polygons.
post #3394 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Though it also makes the lines of the polygons stand out a lot more. The right image needs more polygons (eg. the jacket) a lot more than the left one.
In the left image, the low pixel resolution masks the low polygon resolution. On the right, the higher pixel resolution shows up the insufficient number of polygons.

 

But the bottom line is how it looks.  I think you're really putting far too much emphasis on the wrong side of this equation.

post #3395 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by rightintel View Post

Both consoles eventually wind up selling newer models w/ the newest/latest input. It would allow GAMES to play at 4K res, because it can handle the 50-60fps
The consoles barely have enough power to render games above 30fps at 1080p. There will be no 4K60 games on either system.

That's the CURRENT version. If the new ones come out w/ a 2.0 input(presumably due to the prevalence of 4K) in 5yrs or so, we might be looking at different hardware. BTW, you might be interested to know that Forza Motosport, COD:Ghosts, & Battlefield 4 are being released(confirmed) 1080p at 60fps on the Xbox one FWIW...
post #3396 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

This new Panasonic VIERA® 65" Class WT600 Series Ultra HD TV claims to have been fitted with HDMI 2.0.

So is this the long rumored project Jupiter that Panasonic has been working on?
post #3397 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Though it also makes the lines of the polygons stand out a lot more. The right image needs more polygons (eg. the jacket) a lot more than the left one.
In the left image, the low pixel resolution masks the low polygon resolution. On the right, the higher pixel resolution shows up the insufficient number of polygons.
Higher resolutions may be able to take advantage of more detailed models, but they do not require more detailed models. No-one is going to say that the image on the left looks better than the one on the right - and the improvements from rendering at a higher resolution are far more noticeable when things start moving due to aliasing, texture filtering etc. Those images are from a game that was designed for SD resolutions, rather than a current generation title.

Here's what a 2007 game looks like running on a 21:9 monitor (2560x1080) http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5455/9538678430_eb4312616a_o.jpg (source)
Do you really think it's suddenly going to look bad when rendered at 4K?

More recent games are putting even more detail into their character models and making use of tesselation to smooth out character models.
Here's an example of that from a 2012 game: http://abload.de/img/1kkkvi.png (source)

And we'll see yet another increase in model quality when the next generation of consoles arrives and we move away from the lowest common denominator being 2005 hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rightintel View Post

That's the CURRENT version. If the new ones come out w/ a 2.0 input(presumably due to the prevalence of 4K) in 5yrs or so, we might be looking at different hardware. BTW, you might be interested to know that Forza Motosport, COD:Ghosts, & Battlefield 4 are being released(confirmed) 1080p at 60fps on the Xbox one FWIW...
They will not be upgrading the hardware - the point of games consoles is to have a fixed platform for development.
60fps will not be common. 4K with good image quality and framerates is only just possible on the highest-end PCs today, which have hardware that's many times faster than the new consoles. It's not going to happen.
post #3398 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Here's what a 2007 game looks like running on a 21:9 monitor (2560x1080) http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5455/9538678430_eb4312616a_o.jpg (source)
Do you really think it's suddenly going to look bad when rendered at 4K?
I don't think it will make the characters or vehicles look more realistic. Again the polygon count needs to be increased. It will show up especially the tyres.
Quote:
Higher resolutions may be able to take advantage of more detailed models, but they do not require more detailed models.
If at resolution A) you can't see the polygons but at higher resolution B) you can, at resolution B) you need the higher polygon count.

eg. A film made at resolution A) may have realistic looking CGI but render it again at higher resolution B) with the same number of polygons and if you can now easily see that everything's made with a low number of polygons, whereas before you couldn't, it's now a less realistic film. What was a sufficient number of polygons for resolution A isn't a sufficient number for higher resolution B, if you don't want the viewer to be able to notice the polygons (more visible polygons=less realism).
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 8/29/13 at 10:28pm
post #3399 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbobo19 View Post

So is this the long rumored project Jupiter that Panasonic has been working on?

Don't know if the WT600 is their project Jupiter or not, but I was sure it was going to be taken down, so I got a few screen shots.
post #3400 of 3670
Chuck Pagano; "ESPN Plans To Be The 4K Leader."

Follow ESPN 4K Twitter; https://twitter.com/ESPN4K
Quote:
The cable sports giant is building a brand new, massive sports production center that Chief Technology Officer Chuck Pagano says will be future proof — able to handle upcoming 4K and 8K production. And he’s also keeping an eye on what’s going on in the broadcast TV world, especially the development of ATSC 3.0 and the pending FCC spectrum auction.
post #3401 of 3670
post #3402 of 3670

The HDMI 2.0 standard will be announced at IFA in Berlin Friday September 6, in the 12:00 o'clock Press conference: HDMI Licensing, LLC. Next Steps in HD Connectivity.

.
Edited by coolscan - 8/31/13 at 11:54am
post #3403 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

The HDMI 2.0 standard will be announced at IFA in Berlin Friday September 6, in the 12:00 o'clock Press conference: HDMI Licensing, LLC. Next Steps in HD Connectivity.

.

FINALLY. There must have been a lot of turf protection ($) fighting going on to delay this a year past the first expected release date. Maybe we'll be able to buy something next Spring that actually has HDMI 2.0
post #3404 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

The HDMI 2.0 standard will be announced at IFA in Berlin Friday September 6, in the 12:00 o'clock Press conference: HDMI Licensing, LLC. Next Steps in HD Connectivity.
.
That does seem more likely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsinger View Post

FINALLY. There must have been a lot of turf protection ($) fighting going on to delay this a year past the first expected release date.
A few insiders on various forums have stated that the delay was due to a disagreement between companies that wanted to switch from HDMI signaling to DisplayPort signaling (PC companies) and companies that wanted to stick with HDMI signaling (CE companies). Changing to DisplayPort signaling would have been more expensive (since HDMI 2.0 chips would have had to support two completely different signal types) but would have made it fully compatible with DisplayPort. The CE companies won and HDMI 2.0 will continue to use HDMI signaling. The two things I would like to know about HDMI 2.0 is whether it will support the Rec. 2020 color space and what combinations of bit depth and chroma subsampling it will support when transmitting 4K at 60 fps.
post #3405 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

That does seem more likely.
A few insiders on various forums have stated that the delay was due to a disagreement between companies that wanted to switch from HDMI signaling to DisplayPort signaling (PC companies) and companies that wanted to stick with HDMI signaling (CE companies). Changing to DisplayPort signaling would have been more expensive (since HDMI 2.0 chips would have had to support two completely different signal types) but would have made it fully compatible with DisplayPort. The CE companies won and HDMI 2.0 will continue to use HDMI signaling. The two things I would like to know about HDMI 2.0 is whether it will support the Rec. 2020 color space and what combinations of bit depth and chroma subsampling it will support when transmitting 4K at 60 fps.



Yep the devil is in the details

Getting this 2.0 specs right is critical to mass adoption of 4k
post #3406 of 3670
Though it still looks like HDMI 2.0 is going to be insufficient for broadcast/other UHDTV at >60 fps frown.gif. The UHDTV specs currently go up to 120 fps and they're testing up to 240 fps and HDMI 2.0 which hasn't even been releaased yet only seems to be able to do up to 60 fps UHDTV frown.gif.

Are they going to use 2 HDMI 2.0 connections if they want 120 fps 3840x2160 UDHTV? Or more for higher? And then there's the 7680X4320 UHDTV standard which will need 4x more. Or will we need to wait for a higher than 2.0 version of HDMI or different connection standard instead? Which one would support 3840x2160@120Hz? 240Hz?
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 8/31/13 at 3:52pm
post #3407 of 3670
As with all things, first things first.
post #3408 of 3670
HDMI should be banned from the face of the earth. frown.gif

Why have any restriction on a cable connector at all?

With the number of HDMI products that are manufactured, it is no extra cost to make a standard that is more or less unlimited.

In addition, we the consumers will still be sitting there fiddling with the shittiest connector in the history of electronics. mad.gif
post #3409 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

HDMI should be banned from the face of the earth. frown.gif

Why have any restriction on a cable connector at all?

With the number of HDMI products that are manufactured, it is no extra cost to make a standard that is more or less unlimited.

In addition, we the consumers will still be sitting there fiddling with the shittiest connector in the history of electronics. mad.gif

 

HDMI is no mere connector.  It's a (signal) line discipline, which has issues specific to it that are related directly to bandwidth.

post #3410 of 3670
It also helps force people into upgrading hardware every few years. Oh, you wanted 4K at 60fps? You'll have to upgrade everything in the signal path. If you're lucky, your HDMI cables are at least high enough quality that they will support the additional bandwidth.
post #3411 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Though it still looks like HDMI 2.0 is going to be insufficient for broadcast/other UHDTV at >60 fps frown.gif. The UHDTV specs currently go up to 120 fps and they're testing up to 240 fps and HDMI 2.0 which hasn't even been releaased yet only seems to be able to do up to 60 fps UHDTV frown.gif. Are they going to use 2 HDMI 2.0 connections if they want 120 fps 3840x2160 UDHTV? Or more for higher? And then there's the 7680X4320 UHDTV standard which will need 4x more. Or will we need to wait for a higher than 2.0 version of HDMI or different connection standard instead? Which one would support 3840x2160@120Hz? 240Hz?

Have mercy for the poor guys who are sweating on this: they need to have HDMI 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0 .... to make living until retirement biggrin.gif.
post #3412 of 3670
No chance to see any version of The Hobbit in 3D with 4K for each eye at 48fps in the home then. rolleyes.gif
I mean, Just IF, someone should be so good as to make a display capable to display this and PJ wants to release such a version down the line.
48fps. x 2 = 96fps. and will need a new HDMI standard.

And; "please gentlemen, don't stress us with trying to release and display any 4K ~ 4:2:2 chroma subsampling material". wink.gif

This is just an example of how the HDMI standard restricts the incentives and possibilities for someone to be going a little further and experimenting than what is generally the norm of the average content.
HDMI 2.0 barely fulfils what has been needed for some time, but give no space for companies to push passed the average in both displays and content.

My guess is that this is on purpose so the large CEMs are not surprised with some disruptive "rebel" companies that push the competition into "realms" they they are not willing to go yet, because that will disrupt their long term plans on when and how fast new technology shall be released to the public.

Control is the tag word here.
I wish I was privy to the discussions and knew which companies was most militant on restricting and which companies was more cool about a wider standard.

It is also very strange how long they took to develop/discuss this.
It can't have been Technology, because that is the easy part.
So it must have been Political and a long "Tug-Of-War" between opponents.

Sad to see that the bad guys won again.
Rumours have been posted many places that the larger CEM bought and bullied the smaller companies to vote in their interest.

One company that we know are always in forefront in of Control, Limitations, Restrictions and bullying other companies is Sony, and they are also the only company that have interest in both CE products and Content creation and a ruling position in optical media.

So I happily blame most of this on Sony. tongue.gif
post #3413 of 3670
According Consumer Electronics Daily Apple was responsible for delay .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seavy 
HDMI 2.0 Due Mid-Year, Volume Chips in 2014, Silicon Image Says


The long-awaited HDMI 2.0 spec with support for 4K video at 60 Hz likely will be available by mid-year, with the first 2.0-compliant chips expected to reach volume production in 2014, Silicon Image Chief Financial Officer Noland Granberry said at the Wedbush investor conference in New York.

The new HDMI spec had been expected to be released by CES, but with Apple, a long-time DisplayPort supporter, joining the HDMI Forum, the complexion of the negotiations changed, industry officials have said. Much of the discussions on HDMI 2.0 have centered on speed and power consumption requirements for 4K video, Granberry said. Silicon Image is a major supplier of HDMI chips.

"There have been a number of issues" involved in setting the HDMI 2.0 standard, Granberry said. "There are a number ... Log in to view full article.
http://consumerelectronicsdaily.com/Content/HDMI-2-due-midyear-volume-chips-in-2014.aspx
post #3414 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Though it still looks like HDMI 2.0 is going to be insufficient for broadcast/other UHDTV at >60 fps frown.gif. The UHDTV specs currently go up to 120 fps and they're testing up to 240 fps and HDMI 2.0 which hasn't even been releaased yet only seems to be able to do up to 60 fps UHDTV frown.gif.
While the NHK has talked about using higher frame rate video at the moment no professional video content is being made at more than 60 fps and the cost of quadrupling the bandwidth of HDMI 1.4 would have been very high. Based on the rumored specs HDMI 2.0 will be close to the bandwidth of DisplayPort 1.2 which is the fastest video connection currently available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

No chance to see any version of The Hobbit in 3D with 4K for each eye at 48fps in the home then. rolleyes.gif
The digital intermediate for The Hobbit was 2K.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

It is also very strange how long they took to develop/discuss this.
It can't have been Technology, because that is the easy part.
So it must have been Political and a long "Tug-Of-War" between opponents.

Sad to see that the bad guys won again.
While DisplayPort doesn't require a license to use it is patented by several major PC companies and Apple requires a license for using the mini-DisplayPort connector. So while some insiders were disappointed that HDMI 2.0 won't use DisplayPort signaling I don't think either side were the "bad guys" since the disagreement was mainly about which patents would be part of HDMI 2.0.
post #3415 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

While the NHK has talked about using higher frame rate video at the moment no professional video content is being made at more than 60 fps and the cost of quadrupling the bandwidth of HDMI 1.4 would have been very high. Based on the rumored specs HDMI 2.0 will be close to the bandwidth of DisplayPort 1.2 which is the fastest video connection currently available.
When I mentioned the UHDTV tests up to 240 fps I was talking about the EBU http://informitv.com/news/2013/08/12/higherframerates/
We could use whatever connections they used?

And if NHK has already approved 120 fps UHDTV it doesn't seem very good if the connection for UHDTV only goes to 60 fps, and that's only for the lower resolution version of UHDTV.

And Douglas Trumbull has a 10 minute film (now in post production) at 120 fps 3D 4K:
http://www.hfrmovies.com/2013/07/10/douglass-trumbulls-ufotog-will-light-up-screens-in-120-fps-4k-3d/
Quote:
This experimental short will serve as a test-run for two high frame rate features that will be produced with similar specifications.

And NHK are going for 120fps and at 7680x4320 for their TV way beyond HDMI 2.0 capabilities.


The thing is this decision by HDMI to only support UHDTV at 60 fps (2D) might mean that is all we get for a long time with UHDTV instead of what would be best.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 9/1/13 at 5:27pm
post #3416 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

When I mentioned the UHDTV tests up to 240 fps I was talking about the EBU http://informitv.com/news/2013/08/12/higherframerates/
We could use whatever connections they used?
Most likely they used multiple video connections in the same way that the NHK was able to show 8K UHDTV using 16 HDMI connections.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

And Douglas Trumbull has a 10 minute film at 120 fps 3D 4K:
http://www.hfrmovies.com/2013/07/10/douglass-trumbulls-ufotog-will-light-up-screens-in-120-fps-4k-3d/
I was thinking in terms of a feature length movie or a TV series.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

And NHK are going for 120fps and at 7680x4320 for their TV way beyond HDMI 2.0 capabilities.
We don't know when the NHK will do it, what content they will record with it, and if any of that content would be popular outside of Japan. The idea of 120 fps video sounds great but whether it will take off outside of Japan is a question mark and if does happen it may not happen for a long time. For example ATSC 3.0 is currently being designed with the idea that it will transmit 4K at 60 fps. Just my opinion but I think that 4K at 60 fps sounds good for HDMI 2.0 and the only thing I am worried about is what other limits it might have.
post #3417 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

I was thinking in terms of a feature length movie or a TV series.
Quote:
This experimental short will serve as a test-run for two high frame rate features that will be produced with similar specifications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul 
We don't know when the NHK will do it, what content they will record with it
I'm sure it will be used for normal TV programming - whatever they shoot at 60i/p now they'll probably use 120 fps in future (sports etc.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul 
The idea of 120 fps video sounds great but whether it will take off outside of Japan is a question mark and if does happen it may not happen for a long time.
The EBU are saying higher frame rates are even more important to viewers than higher resolution. They may pick a multiple of 50 fps instead but a single HDMI 2.0 lead won't even allow 100Hz UHDTV. from the link:
Quote:
Note that it is the intention for the ATSC 3.0 system is to support delivery to fixed devices of content with video resolutions up to Ultra High Definition 3840×2160 at 60 fps, or such higher frame rates and/or resolutions as may be determined to be desirable and practical
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul 
Just my opinion but I think that 4K at 60 fps sounds good for HDMI 2.0 and the only thing I am worried about is what other limits it might have
I think it's better than 24/30Hz but still not good enough. We already have 50/60Hz and now with bigger TVs / higher spatial resolution / higher FOV we need the higher fps.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 9/1/13 at 7:41pm
post #3418 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

I think it's better than 24/30Hz but still not good enough. We already have 50/60Hz and now with bigger TVs / higher spatial resolution / higher FOV we need the higher fps.

 

Absolutely.  If there were content to match, I'd take 1080p @ 240fps over 2160p @ 60fps any day of the week.


Edited by tgm1024 - 9/2/13 at 9:26am
post #3419 of 3670
post #3420 of 3670
Quote:
For example ATSC 3.0 is currently being designed with the idea that it will transmit 4K at 60 fps

I hope they mean 60.000 instead of 59.94. Of course to make it easy to go from UHDTV to HDTV they probably mean 59.94.
One of the great things I like about Rec 2020 is the unification of a single global non fractional high frame rate standard of 120.000 fps. Hopefully the EBU won't push for adding 100 fps or 150 fps to the spec. Otherwise we may have to wait until 600 fps before global unification.
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?