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 27

post #781 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio/videoman View Post

We're going to get a higher resolution hard copy format at some point in the future. The hardware technology has already been developed. Many 4K masters already exist for higher budget and/or classic films. 4K tv's and projectors are already being demo'ed publicly. From the reports I read, it looks stunning.

In other words, the panel tech as well as the software tech are already in place for a launch of 4K. It's obviously going to happen. The number of titles will be limited, and quite expensive as will be the tv's at first, and then after maybe 5 years of early adopters as the quirks are worked out, mass adoption will follow.

That's exactly the point: exceedingly long times be4 one can count on a bigger market and profits. Now remember this industry is in a very bad shape and
prospects of improvement are bleak. This makes the 4K far from certain contrary to the voices confident that it will fall inevitably on us like a new Messaiah.

Quote:
Originally Posted by audio/videoman View Post

I remember all the doomsday predictions for the launch of broadcast hdtv. No one is discussing that now.
I don't know what "traditional" paths you are talking about. There are no obstacles to blu ray adoption, either. When I go to rental or retail stores, blu ray inventory is approx. half of all movie inventory. DVD's are clearly on their way out, and BR's are taking over shelf space. This is with catalog dvd's available sometimes for pennies online.

Blu-ray adoption is much slower than expected.

Traditional formats promoted by their high PQ are undermined by the youtube/net kind of stuff.

There is definitely a niche for high-end PQ products, big size, 4K, 8K and so on. Similar to the niche for high-end audio where people are willing to throw big money into whatever claims about PQ and there is niche industry around it. The display area is however peculiar since panels are not available for niche producers. Thus prospects for the 4K are bleak.
post #782 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Blu-ray adoption is much slower than expected.

Traditional formats promoted by their high PQ are undermined by the youtube/net kind of stuff.

There is definitely a niche for high-end PQ products, big size, 4K, 8K and so on. Similar to the niche for high-end audio where people are willing to throw big money into whatever claims about PQ and there is niche industry around it. The display area is however peculiar since panels are not available for niche producers. Thus prospects for the 4K are bleak.

Niche is a relative term, and niche != bleak future. Blu Ray may still be a niche, but it's a larger niche than 5.1 audio (as far as consumer acceptance), and it's still growing, albeit slowly. 3D is still a very small niche but lots of people have 3D-capable displays (and 5.1-capable receivers). 4K may very well be a niche technology, and many technologies live long, healthy lives in their niches. And like 3D it may be a niche in the fact that few use it but everyone may have it someday whether they want it or not.
post #783 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

I am accepting the PQ improvement concept. I am only wondering if the 4K is inevitable for it (very likely not) so why not make it with the 2K. At this point it looks that showing 4K with the Cognitive PQ engine and 2K without it is a marketing tool to hook people on the 4K.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

This confirms what I am saying all the time here: From the TV scenario distance of 3-4PH it is impossible to see any pixel structure.

Quite opposite to rogo, this confirms what I am saying. It is not the 4K but the subjective PQ improvement technique which made the Sharp demo look outstanding. Apply the same technique to 2K and it will be equally outstanding,.

You seriously make me want to slam my palm into my face irkuck.

The linked item confirms exactly what I've been saying. I don't care how they are doing it. First of all, it remains highly unlikely they can achieve the results on a 2k display. We've explained why many times and here we are again with you yammering about pixel structure. Second of all, they are going to offer it on 4K, whether or not they can offer it on 2K. As I said, I doubt they can offer as good a version on 2K because they will have fewer pixels to work with but I don't care. A subjective picture quality improvement this good is worth getting no matter how you get it.
post #784 of 3670
Quick recap of this thread in case people had missed it:

4K proponent: I saw the 4K TV and it looks great and better than 2K.

4K opponent: In theory you should not be able to tell the difference between 4K and 2K at normal TV viewing distances.

4K proponent: But I did see a difference and it looked great. I'd like for that technology to come out.

4K opponent: In theory there's no difference.

4K proponent: And yet I saw a difference.

4K opponent: But in theory you shouldn't see a difference.

4K proponent: And yet I did.

4K opponent: But you shouldn't.

4K proponent: And yet I did.

4K opponent: But you shouldn't.


Rinse and repeat about 500 times and that's this thread so far. I'll bring another update after about 10 more pages for those who aren't able to keep up.
post #785 of 3670
Quick recap of this thread in case people had missed it:

4K proponent: I saw the 4K TV and it looks great and better than 2K.

4K opponent: In theory you should not be able to tell the difference between 4K and 2K at normal TV viewing distances.

4K proponent: But I did see a difference and it looked great. I'd like for that technology to come out.

4K opponent: In theory there's no difference.

4K proponent: And yet I saw a difference.

4K opponent: But in theory you shouldn't see a difference.

4K proponent: Andy yet I did.

4K opponent: But you shouldn't.

4K proponent: And yet I did.

4K opponent: But you shouldn't.


Rinse and repeat about 500 times and that's this thread so far. I'll bring another update after about 10 more pages for those who aren't able to keep up.
post #786 of 3670
[quote=pcdo;21621874]Quick recap of this thread in case people had missed it:

4K proponent: I saw the 4K TV and it looks great and better than 2K.

4K opponent: In theory you should not be able to tell the difference between 4K and 2K at normal TV viewing distances.

4K proponent: But I did see a difference and it looked great. I'd like for that technology to come out.

4K opponent: In theory there's no difference.

4K proponent: And yet I saw a difference.

4K opponent: But in theory you shouldn't see a difference.

4K proponent: Andy yet I did.

4K opponent: But you shouldn't.

4K proponent: And yet I did.

4K opponent: But you shouldn't.


FWIW A friend of mine claimed to have seen two Sharp 80 inch sets showing the same demo. (one was a 1080p set next to a 4k set) Both using the same source. (he claimed that the rep said it was a 1080i source) Said that there was a difference especially in that you could sit closer to the screen and have a clear picture. I know for a fact that in a movie theater he sits quite close to the screen. Said her really liked the 4k set...
post #787 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcdo View Post

Quick recap of this thread in case people had missed it:

4K proponent: I saw the 4K TV and it looks great and better than 2K.

4K opponent: In theory you should not be able to tell the difference between 4K and 2K at normal TV viewing distances.

4K proponent: But I did see a difference and it looked great. I'd like for that technology to come out.

4K opponent: In theory there's no difference.

4K proponent: And yet I saw a difference.

4K opponent: But in theory you shouldn't see a difference.

4K proponent: And yet I did.

4K opponent: But you shouldn't.

4K proponent: And yet I did.

4K opponent: But you shouldn't.


Rinse and repeat about 500 times and that's this thread so far. I'll bring another update after about 10 more pages for those who aren't able to keep up.

Your post is brilliant.
post #788 of 3670
Can current HDMI cables accept 4K resolution? Im not completely clear on this.
post #789 of 3670
There are 4K projectors, 4K TV's and 4K masters. All are present at consumer demo's. The tech is already in place. It's only a matter of time.
post #790 of 3670
Unlike OLED, even the taiwanese can ship 4k panels to you next month if you send a PO today, with LC of course The constraint on 4k now is 1) proliferation of huge size TV 2) infrastructure supporting the format.

It's a question of when. It's about as niche as 3D capable TV. In both cases it is not a hardware issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

Can current HDMI cables accept 4K resolution? Im not completely clear on this.

Nope but it's unlikely to be an issue as long as HDMI.org takes time to spec it. The bigger issue is broadcast or even home internet bandwidth
post #791 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

Can current HDMI cables accept 4K resolution? Im not completely clear on this.

HDMI 1.4 can accept full 4K at only 24 fps and 3840x2160 at 24/25/30 fps.
So they'd be useless at those resolutions for Super Hi-Vision, or anything with high motion (eg. Hobbit).

Though I think there was a recent HDMI update (edit: October 2011 HDMI 1.4b was released according to wiki) that they didn't publicise the specs of. - that I read somewhere increased the bandwidth of - but it's strange they didn't release the updated specs.

According to some HDMI site, the next HDMI version is scheduled for the 2nd half of 2012.
post #792 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

This confirms what I am saying all the time here: From the TV scenario distance of 3-4PH it is impossible to see any pixel structure.

You are missing the whole point of higher resolution. You are not going to sit and watch pixels "dancing on the screen".

Higher resolution is able to reproduce better quality both overall and in details.

The better reproduction in detail doesn't only mean Small pixel size Details, it means quality of everything from sharpness in edges to better reproductions of gradients.
One pixel color value will now get four different color values.

It is about how pixels combined build the quality of the reproduction of image parts.
The best way to do that is to have so many small pixels that you would need a magnifier to see the pixels.

The distance to the screen which is constantly refereed to in 4K discussions (not only by you) are not as important as it is claimed.

You can sit closer than a 2K display. One reason is that the image quality is better so you don't see the inherited artefacts that is in almost all 2K sources.

But you will also see the improved quality when sitting further away than you normally would do on a 2K display, because the quality of the image is better.

2K resolution is a mess of badly resolved details, blocks and artefacts. The resolution has to increase to avoid all the artefacts that are almost impossible to avoid due to too low resolution.

Just like SD, 1080p has always been too low resolution for good image capture.

For me even 4K is a generation I would happily skip.
In stills photography we have passed 8MP 4K a long time ago.
post #793 of 3670
No "hypothisis" all fact.

Personally, I don't care what you think you know rogo. You read the internet and think you have knowledge, when all you've done is re-spew what you've read.

I have talked with a few of the people that changed the course of HDTV from some horrid analog system conceived in japan to the beautiful digital standard we have because of one american company.

Reading doesn't replace talking to the people that developed it and had a plan for another format that would last beyond 50 years.

BTW, did Apple ever worry about the fact that the MP3 player they made wouldn't hold a Cassette or CD? They seemed to do OK selling a player that couldn't play the popular formats of they day. It's silly to say people won't buy things because they can't play something of the past or the future, people do it all the time. Try and load a MAC program on a PC sometime.

I'm done arguing with a keyboard jockey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Size of the display absolutely matters. In the 1990s, the typical TV was a 25" TV. No one sat even remotely close. When looking at this in the 1990s and seeing people buying 36" TVs, they could still see no one sitting remotely close. Obviously, that has changed in the 2010s.

We don't actually. If the Sharp TV can improve existing content, viewers win. We don't give a hoot whether they "cheated" to do it. If it looks better, it looks better. I don't understand why you can't accept that. I'll accept that if it doesn't when it ships, it's not worth buying. Maybe it's because you didn't see that it was such a clear visual leap you don't appreciate it. I don't know. But your claim that we need to know the source is irrelevant. We need only to know if the shipping product provides anywhere near those results. If it does and it only comes in 4K with red ribbons and glitter attached, then we need 4k, red ribbons and glitter.



None in the posts you quote. You can criticize what I actually say if you'd like; what I won't tolerate is you deciding I said something else and then criticizing me for that.


This mythic "they" you speak of, who are they exactly? And how did they propose to have TVs that didn't support the resolution handle the extra resolution? Answer: They had no answer. There was always going to be one channel per broadcaster (even on cable) that could only hold so much data. Until the middle of the 2000s -- a decade after the HDTV standards were settled -- that data was limited to a stream of 1080i or 720p. There was never going to be any way to shoehorn a 4k stream anywhere -- not cable, not satellite, not OTA -- and the first 50 million HDTVs weren't going to have the circuits to downsample the stream so it couldn't well be the only stream either.

I know it's inconvenient to whatever thesis you're espousing, but those were the facts. There simply was never any serious consideration of supra-HD standards because there was no possible way to implement them.


The technology had numerous constraints:

1) Bandwidth did not allow it. You could not have multiple streams and really you can't afford them now on most multichannel systems nor OTA.
2) The codec that would hypothetically allow for higher resolution formats did not exist.
3) The ability to make a TV that supported higher-than-1080 vertical line resolution did not exist.

You can keep saying it was some nefarious political plot -- which by the way in no way agrees with irkuck's assertion it was solely based on the limits of human perception -- but the reality is they dismissed these ideas because they were not possible.

It's the same way we don't sit around discussing an end to importing oil overnight and replacing 100% of it with algae-based biofuels. Yes, that's hypothetically possible someday, but it's not currently possible at all. So we don't waste time talking about it. Similarly, the HDTV standards did not waste time talking about things that were unachievable even though there existed some small number of people from the IT world who had pie in the sky ideas that were completely unfeasible.

When you actually can comprehend what I wrote, instead of rewriting it to suit your thesis, I'll respond again. I am done responding to your misinterpretations of it.
post #794 of 3670
So bluray is bad now? I know 4K will bring more detail but i don't think 1080p should be compared to DVD. There are well produced BD's out there that still wow me (tree of life for example). I get wanting higher resolution, but i think sometimes wanting something can make people blind to what they already have. In other words, we have gotten use to HD and now want something more. We've gotten spoiled. I know i have. Sometimes i watch a bluray and think "I wonder if this format was enough jump from DVD?" (This depends on the transfer also) but then i catch a couple SD programs and just laugh like what was i thinking? Thank got for HD! ...........We will get use to 4K too. And round we go again.

I also don't get this idea of 4K makes you sit closer. Ok, but who wants to sit up close to their TV's? I sit 8' away from mine. The closes i go is 6'. Any closer is pointless. The argument (and marketing) that we can now sit close to our displays is a dumb one IMO.

EDIT-

"2K resolution is a mess of badly resolved details, blocks and artefacts. The resolution has to increase to avoid all the artefacts that are almost impossible to avoid due to too low resolution."

Not all BD's have this problem. Calling 2K a "mess" and "badly resolving detail" is a little much i think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

You are missing the whole point of higher resolution. You are not going to sit and watch pixels "dancing on the screen".

Higher resolution is able to reproduce better quality both overall and in details.

The better reproduction in detail doesn't only mean Small pixel size Details, it means quality of everything from sharpness in edges to better reproductions of gradients.
One pixel color value will now get four different color values.

It is about how pixels combined build the quality of the reproduction of image parts.
The best way to do that is to have so many small pixels that you would need a magnifier to see the pixels.

The distance to the screen which is constantly refereed to in 4K discussions (not only by you) are not as important as it is claimed.

You can sit closer than a 2K display. One reason is that the image quality is better so you don't see the inherited artefacts that is in almost all 2K sources.

But you will also see the improved quality when sitting further away than you normally would do on a 2K display, because the quality of the image is better.

2K resolution is a mess of badly resolved details, blocks and artefacts. The resolution has to increase to avoid all the artefacts that are almost impossible to avoid due to too low resolution.

Just like SD, 1080p has always been too low resolution for good image capture.

For me even 4K is a generation I would happily skip.
In stills photography we have passed 8MP 4K a long time ago.
post #795 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcdo View Post

4K opponent: In theory there's no difference.

4K proponent: And yet I saw a difference.

That's a good summary, but I think it's been a worthwhile discussion. I sit 7 feet from a 90 inch screen so I don't doubt that 4k, upscaled or native, will be good for me in that setting. Whether it would be worth it outside my theater room in a given size from a given distance is a good question though. Also I think it's perfectly valid to raise questions about the Sharp 4k demo as there are two variables at work: the 4k panel itself and the upscaling method. It's good marketing but not good science. The trustedrevews.com review raised some good questions, such as perhaps the upscaling doesn't work as well with motion or scenes with less contrast. It was also curious that they found textures on the 2k display to be not "much higher than standard definition." If it looks better it looks better, but this is a very specific scenario. Will it look that much better given a quality Blu-ray source? That seems to be an open question we can only answer with theory.
post #796 of 3670
Quote:


It was also curious that they found textures on the 2k display to be not "much higher than standard definition".

And this is why i doubt these "comparisons." Everyone in this thread knows bluray is more capable than that. We've all seen reference quality blurays with tons of detail and texture. That goes for movies and live video.

I think even rogo can admit that he's seen a better 2K image than what he saw at the sharp demo.
post #797 of 3670
Is there a way to have an argument about BetaMAX, HD DVD and the QAM broadcasting standards on this thread?

- Rich
post #798 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by ordo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by pcdo View Post

Quick recap of this thread in case people had missed it:
4K proponent: I saw the 4K TV and it looks great and better than 2K.
4K opponent: In theory you should not be able to tell the difference between 4K and 2K at normal TV viewing distances.
4K proponent: But I did see a difference and it looked great. I'd like for that technology to come out.
4K opponent: In theory there's no difference.
4K proponent: And yet I saw a difference.
4K opponent: But in theory you shouldn't see a difference.
4K proponent: Andy yet I did.
4K opponent: But you shouldn't.
4K proponent: And yet I did.
4K opponent: But you shouldn't.

FWIW A friend of mine claimed to have seen two Sharp 80 inch sets showing the same demo. (one was a 1080p set next to a 4k set) Both using the same source. (he claimed that the rep said it was a 1080i source) Said that there was a difference especially in that you could sit closer to the screen and have a clear picture. I know for a fact that in a movie theater he sits quite close to the screen. Said her really liked the 4k set...

This is NOT NOT NOT what the (brainy) opponents say .

There is NO NO NO DENIAL that people saw improvements in the Sharp demo.

The problem is HOW the demo was prepared (or maybe the better word should be: manipulated/fixed/rigged).

Here is the list of issues with the demo:

1. The 4K was processed by super-sophisticated 'cognitive' engine for the subjective PQ improvement while 2K was just the original video. In particular the engine produced enhanced 3D-like effect, comparing to it the 2K must have been looking just dull, well, 2D. It is clear that a fair comparison would be only if the 2K would be pushed through the same or similar 'cognitive' processing. Some claim that this might be impossible and the 4K is better for the processing. This is doubtful if the the content was 1080i in both cases. It would be just fine to decimate the processed 4K back to the 2K and feed it to the 2K display.

2. It is claimed the content was 1080i (prudence tells this should be verified) but what was the origin of the content and what were its parameters e.g. bitrate/compression?

3. What were the displays used and their settings? Precisely same display tech,
and optimized settings for both?

4. What was the viewing scenario, the viewing distance in particular?

Unless these issues are clarified it is almost certain that the proponents of 4K which have seen "with their own eyes" are poor victims of clever PR/marketing strategy. Believe in what you want but you will be ridiculed by the 4K-atheists .

BTW, for those who watch at the distance of 2.5PH and less: there is no question the 4K will be beneficial for you (if the video is pristine). Point it that this is not a standard TV viewing scenario and not a sound proposal for mass consumers.
post #799 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

BTW, for those who watch at the distance of 2.5PH and less: there is no question the 4K will be beneficial for you (if the video is pristine). Point it that this is not a standard TV viewing scenario and not a sound proposal for mass consumers.

For SHV (7680x4320), NHK want 0.75x picture height.
post #800 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

I think even rogo can admit that he's seen a better 2K image than what he saw at the sharp demo.

Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B View Post

Personally, I don't care what you think you know rogo. You read the internet and think you have knowledge, when all you've done is re-spew what you've read.

You've figured me out. I have no actual thinking ability, I just press buttons and use copy-paste from Google.

(Mods: That's a personal attack from David. Period.)

Quote:


Reading doesn't replace talking to the people that developed it and had a plan for another format that would last beyond 50 years.

Obviously, whatever format you're referring to got no consideration whatsoever because our HDTV format was obsolete within a decade. It was stuck on MPEG-2, which is basically only still used because that's what's broadcast.
Quote:


BTW, did Apple ever worry about the fact that the MP3 player they made wouldn't hold a Cassette or CD? They seemed to do OK selling a player that couldn't play the popular formats of they day. It's silly to say people won't buy things because they can't play something of the past or the future, people do it all the time. Try and load a MAC program on a PC sometime.

Your example would be interesting if it was in any way at all relevant to this thread or my point or, really, anything.

The correct analogy is this: Does the iPod support Spotify? Does it support some sound codec that has yet to be invented? Does it support, hell, iTunes Match? No. No. And, also, no.

Try loading an Intel-compatible Mac program on a PowerPC Mac. Try watching DirecTV on your 6-year-old MPEG-2-only DirecTV/Tivo. Hell, try playing a CD on your cassette player.

Virtually no product is ever built to support something that is impossible with the technology of the day (there is probably a counterexample, which is why I said "virtually"). You can keep relating whatever story you vaguely feel like alluding to, but the actual facts remain that no flexible standard was ever considered for HDTV and certainly none was adopted. And, in fact, we are already hamstrung by the decisions that were made back then.

Much of the reason for this is that building some device for some thing that doesn't exist requires the kind of flexibility that adds tremendous costs and provides minimal benefits -- especially because the ultimate thing that gets built might not run on the hardware anyway. This is why upgradeable computer designs failed. This is why software-defined radio still is mostly theoretical instead of something in your iPhone/Android phone despite existing as an idea for decades.
Quote:


I'm done arguing with a keyboard jockey.

Listen, I loathe you because you perpetually resort to insults when you have no arguments to make (Mods: That's a fact, not a personal attack). But I avoid writing things like, "Your IQ is too infinitesimal to participate in an argument with me David" because that would be a personal attack (Mods: That was an example, not an actual statement). So stop now or else I'll have the censors deal with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

You are missing the whole point of higher resolution. You are not going to sit and watch pixels "dancing on the screen".

Yeah, I've tried to explain that 10x. It's like bashing your head against a wall.
Quote:


The distance to the screen which is constantly refereed to in 4K discussions (not only by you) are not as important as it is claimed.

Right, but so long as they keep turning the discussion to useless concepts like pixels and pixel structure it "proves" that it is.
Quote:


You can sit closer than a 2K display. One reason is that the image quality is better so you don't see the inherited artefacts that is in almost all 2K sources.

But you will also see the improved quality when sitting further away than you normally would do on a 2K display, because the quality of the image is better.

Again, I feel like you're joining me in a chorus that some people can't hear the notes of.
post #801 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

HDMI 1.4 can accept full 4K at only 24 fps and 3840x2160 at 24/25/30 fps.
So they'd be useless at those resolutions for Super Hi-Vision, or anything with high motion (eg. Hobbit).

Though I think there was a recent HDMI update (edit: October 2011 HDMI 1.4b was released according to wiki) that they didn't publicise the specs of. - that I read somewhere increased the bandwidth of - but it's strange they didn't release the updated specs.

According to some HDMI site, the next HDMI version is scheduled for the 2nd half of 2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdmi#Version_comparison

I stand corrected. I never noticed 4k on 1.4 spec besides the ARC and 3D. In any case, HDMI is not going to be the bottleneck
post #802 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdmi#Version_comparison

I stand corrected. I never noticed 4k on 1.4 spec besides the ARC and 3D. In any case, HDMI is not going to be the bottleneck

The new H.265 codec should allow 4K over standard HDMI. For reference the JVC 4K camcorder uses H.264 and multiple HDMI cables to process the 4K stream in real time at 144mbps. H.265 should allow it at 86mbps in real time. A blu-ray of course could allow for buffering and have an average rate in the 40-50 range. So yes, it should be doable over HDMI 1.4b.
post #803 of 3670
The new HDMI standard is expected later this year according to the HDMI Forum, unfortunately.
I wish the whole HDMI mess could just go away. Must be the worst connector plug in the history of electronics, and it hasn't become better through the years.

Tunderbolt/Lightpeak could be a good alternative.
post #804 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

The new H.265 codec should allow 4K over standard HDMI. For reference the JVC 4K camcorder uses H.264 and multiple HDMI cables to process the 4K stream in real time at 144mbps. H.265 should allow it at 86mbps in real time. A blu-ray of course could allow for buffering and have an average rate in the 40-50 range. So yes, it should be doable over HDMI 1.4b.

...except that HDMI has to pass the video after it has been decompressed, so the codec tech is irrelevant.
post #805 of 3670
I rarely visit the high end section but i found this thread interesting-

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1393347

Most notably amirm's post. What do you guys think?

Me and irkuck are probably the only ones in this thread who would agree with him though.
post #806 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

Can current HDMI cables accept 4K resolution? Im not completely clear on this.

High Speed HDMI cables can support up to 2160p30. As for the future at the CES 2012 HDMI press conference (starting at 11:40 in the video) it was announced that the next HDMI specification would support 2160p60.
post #807 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

High Speed HDMI cables can support up to 2160p30. As for the future at the CES 2012 HDMI press conference (starting at 11:40 in the video) it was announced that the next HDMI specification would support 2160p60.

That's good. Would have been better at even higher than 60 fps (like SHV at 120). They also didn't give a clear answer on what it would be for stereoscopic 3D (or any other types of 3D). Would 3D at 2160p be a max of 30 fps? If so that's not good for The Hobbit etc. But even if the cable supports 2160p60 that doesn't mean that the next optical disc format (eg. Blu-ray "4K") would also support it as an allowable content format (with/without 3D). I suppose the next HDMI spec (bandwidth-wise at least) would also allow 1080p at say 120Hz.

They also said they were going to change video timings for Europeans with things like 3D. I suppose that means they'll move from 59.94Hz? But if they move to 50, surely that would flicker too much with active 3D (or the TVs/glasses could use double what they were being sent through he cable?), maybe they'd move to 100Hz, or it could switch between different ones (hopefully >50) depending on the source format.
post #808 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

That's good. Would have been better at even higher than 60 fps (like SHV at 120). They also didn't give a clear answer on what it would be for stereoscopic 3D (or any other types of 3D). Would 3D at 2160p be a max of 30 fps?

Very likely, and I can't imagine the HDMI Forum adding 2160p60 support to the next HDMI specification without also adding up to 2160p30 per eye 3D support as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

I suppose the next HDMI spec (bandwidth-wise at least) would also allow 1080p at say 120Hz.

The current HDMI specification allows that and there are video cards on the market capable of 1080p60 per eye 3D video output using HDMI 1.4a.
post #809 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert2413 View Post

...except that HDMI has to pass the video after it has been decompressed, so the codec tech is irrelevant.

You are right, my mistake. I don't know how exactly they are getting it done, but the new AMD HD 7900 card can display 4K over a single HDMI 1.4 cable.

post #810 of 3670
HEVC (the next major video codec) is being designed for higher resolution video. During the last development meeting on HEVC they defined the levels for HEVC. Note that the following information might change since it is based on a draft document. The document is called JCTVC-H0738 and was released on February 10, 2012.

The maximum level in HEVC (Level 6.2) can support 4320p120 video with a maximum bitrate of 800 Mbps. What I find most interesting is that Level 5 in HEVC can support 2160p30 video with a maximum bitrate of 50 Mbps. For comparison the lowest level in MPEG-4 AVC High Profile that could support 2160p30 was Level 5.1 with a maximum bitrate of 300 Mbps.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

I don't know how exactly they are getting it done, but the new AMD HD 7900 card can display 4K over a single HDMI 1.4 cable.

Higher bandwidth 300 MHz HDMI chips were released last year (discussed in this thread) that allow for HDMI products to support 1080p120, 1080p60 per eye 3D, or 2160p30 (all three having a bandwidth of 297 MHz).
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?