lol
Because if they were competent they'd be designing their spec for the future, not just wasting all this time to bring it up to par with what manufacturers are already doing by having to use hacky workarounds.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
HDMI 2.0 officially announced: 18Gbps bandwidth, 60fps 4K, 32 channel audio
- Thread starter mocoworm
- Start date
lol
Because if they were competent they'd be designing their spec for the future, not just wasting all this time to bring it up to par with what manufacturers are already doing by having to use hacky workarounds.
I'll care when I can get a TV with 4k. And that won't be for a while.
You're playing the wrong system. This is a big deal for PCs.
LeeRoyBrown
Banned
I sell 4K tv's at my work, and I simply don't give a fuck about the concept.
65" Sony at $8k.... no thank you.
How about getting rid of screen lag or shit I might actually care about, this higher detail in a blurry sports game being filmed at 1080p means fucking nothing to me.
65" Sony at $8k.... no thank you.
How about getting rid of screen lag or shit I might actually care about, this higher detail in a blurry sports game being filmed at 1080p means fucking nothing to me.
polyh3dron
Banned
ehh I see this console generation being shorter.. Like 5 or 6 years honestly.
LeeRoyBrown
Banned
Why?
EDIT: As in what is it going to do? 8k with no content to support it at 240fps when you would need 16 GTX titans use that shit anyway? Maybe 40 audio channels for my 40 speakers in my car?
Flachmatuch
Member
I'm skeptical whether this will be the norm in 8-10 years as some of you guys are suggesting. 1080p was adopted by the masses as there was an abundance of media that used it, blu ray, cable (or sky HD here in the UK) and to some extent gaming with this gen which (although 720p) made people think they were missing out by having a SD set.
4k prices will only drop to current 1080p panel levels when they are producing enough of them to drive costs down and I think the masses aren't going to be that taken with it personally. It's unlikely that cable services are going to be broadcasting at 4k levels anytime soon given they still cannot manage 1080p (well here in the UK at least it's interlaced, not sure about elsewhere) and many people still shun blu ray as upscaled DVD looks good enough. As others have mentioned consoles couldn't dream of rendering anything close to 4k for actual games.
As an enthusiast I hope I'm wrong, I will be getting one as I like new shit, but does it have mass market appeal? If they can come up with some media or whatever that can use it other than films then yes, otherwise I'd say it will be niche until TV or on demand TV services start using it, which I can't see happening anytime soon personally - well until the worlds BB infrastructure is at sky net levels anyhow
AFAICS HD was mostly adopted because you could only buy HD sets
Not purely of course, as HD was a visible improvement for enthusiast groups, but mostly. This was helped by new tech supporting most importantly much larger screen sizes without the associated problems of CRTs and, afaics, the low absolute cost of quality (resolution etc) increases. That HD content was available was imo not nearly as important as the screen size stuff (which itself makes HD resolutions more necessary so it reinforced this process). Imo if 4k is within the "natural" range of this development (ie. it can be added without serious overall cost increases), it will be adopted, but I agree that the real "need" for it is not that big.Shadow Hog
Member
Does this mean we can finally have an HFR version of The Hobbit, 2:1:1:1 pulldown or no? Because I want an HFR version of The Hobbit in my home.
Backfoggen
Banned
Just give me a fucking 4k tv finally
Display Port? You mean an Apple proprietary format? WTF am I reading?
I'm on a Retina Macbook Pro and you people are making me scream.
Turin Turambar
Member
I barely notice the increase of quality in the jump from 720p to 1080p in movies, in my tv.
One more time:
YOSHIDA EXPECTS TEN YEARS OF PS4
'A key executive at Sony Computer Entertainment has pledged a decade of support for PlayStation 4 and expects the new console's lifespan will be as long as its predecessors.'
These consoles will be supported for 10 years. SONY
I really don't think so. 720/1080 found widespread adoption because the price of slim, wide flat screens came down and everybody replaced their boxy, curved, small old CRTs. There's an obvious physical advantage to the upgrade. But 1080 -> 2160 is a harder sell. It's better, but it's not that much better at 40" when viewed from across the room. Not better enough to be mainstream. And certainly not mainstream enough to consider baselining it for home consoles.
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
Support != length of generation.
CambriaRising
Member
PsOne was "supported" for ten years, Ps2 was "supported" for ten years, Ps3 will be "supported" for ten years. That doesn't mean the generation will be that long.
Part of me is glad that I don't have a 120 Hz monitor since I think I'd go broke trying to hit that framerate at high settings.
Theonik
Member
HDMI is predominately a Media connection standard and Media doesn't need anywhere near 120FPS realistically speaking. Maybe a new Display Port revision will oblige but doubling bandwidth isn't easy to do.
KojiKnight
Member
The reason they stopped at 60hz is because they wanted to maintain full compatibility with cables/sets. This is good(ish) in the short term... but a pain for the long term.
Really shouldn't have called it HDMI 2.0 as it really seems more of a HDMI 1.5 territory.
Really shouldn't have called it HDMI 2.0 as it really seems more of a HDMI 1.5 territory.
it has almost 2x the bandwidth of HDMI 1.4 so it would be crazy of them to call it HDMI 1.5.
Theonik
Member
HDMI 1.3 had more than 2x the bandwidth of HDMI 1.2.
Numbers really mean nothing.
Maybe their is some other small changes that = to a .6 change instead of a .1 change since it's been 4 years since 1.4
Super Nothing
Member
Is it just me or is this chart ridiculous? Most living room TVs are between 40 and 60 inches and I'd guess that most people are around 10-15 feet away from their TV, but the chart suggests that you should have 4k resolution for that setup. 1080p is just fine for those conditions. I realize that in the future, 4k will be more common, but I would set that as the high bar, not as the recommended settings.
Yes?
4K is so much nicer than 1080p when you see it in person. I just want a 4k 32" tv.
I'm waiting for a decent brand to get to 2.5k $ and I'll jump in at that point.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
for pc displays and stuff like the occulus rift? hugely.
Fudgepuppy
Banned
I can't see how it would be worth getting a 4K tv early on if you're not buying a 70"+.
I kind of don't want to see 4K become a standard just yet as my blu-ray collection has just gotten kind of decent and don't want to have to buy it again in 4K.
Seriously, they're kind of forcing me towards streaming everything since atleast then I get what I pay for.
I kind of don't want to see 4K become a standard just yet as my blu-ray collection has just gotten kind of decent and don't want to have to buy it again in 4K.
Seriously, they're kind of forcing me towards streaming everything since atleast then I get what I pay for.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
blu rays should look just as good on a 4k tv, if not better.
i wouldnt recommend a 4k tv to anyone who doesn't plan on hooking it up to a computer though.
slicedmass
Banned
I'm not delving in to the 4k arena until response times are good and the price for an 80" 4k is is the vicinity of $2k.
The important thing to note in this thread is that you'll finally be able to run your 120Hz TVs at 120Hz. This is huge.
Of course, you need the video card manufacturers to start making video cards with HDMI 2.0. That's step 2.
Of course, you need the video card manufacturers to start making video cards with HDMI 2.0. That's step 2.
Millions, at least.
Azzurri
Member
Me too, but waiting on dell or Samsung to make a 4k monitor.
The chart definition of "enough" is "more would be indistinguishable". Given that, it's reasonable.
I think there's a serious case of diminishing returns here.
I know a lot of people who had a hard time telling the difference between SD and HD when HDTVs were just coming out. Hell, some of my family members still can't be bothered to switch to the HD channel from the SD channel when watching broadcast TV because they don't notice the difference enough.
So to assume that the jump from 1080P to 4K is going to matter in a mainstream way is folly. Maybe it looks good on the display when you walk by the Sony store, but that's not why most people buy their HDTVs. HDTVs caught on after the enthusiasts bought them and were able to show off HD content (both BluRay and broadcast) to their friends. Until cable and Netflix broadcast much higher resolution content, and until higher capacity BluRays become normal, nobody is going to notice how much better 4K is.
I know a lot of people who had a hard time telling the difference between SD and HD when HDTVs were just coming out. Hell, some of my family members still can't be bothered to switch to the HD channel from the SD channel when watching broadcast TV because they don't notice the difference enough.
So to assume that the jump from 1080P to 4K is going to matter in a mainstream way is folly. Maybe it looks good on the display when you walk by the Sony store, but that's not why most people buy their HDTVs. HDTVs caught on after the enthusiasts bought them and were able to show off HD content (both BluRay and broadcast) to their friends. Until cable and Netflix broadcast much higher resolution content, and until higher capacity BluRays become normal, nobody is going to notice how much better 4K is.
My PC disagrees with you.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
I'm still waiting for Cable to be 1080p which doesn't seem to be happening anytime fucking soon. 1080p football would be fucking nice!
Theonik
Member
Because the OP was curious on whether it is likely that consoles will get HDMI 2.0+ compliant revisions down the line.
And yet people still don't know the difference between FPS and HZ..
Reason people are mad is that 2.0 doesn't do 4k at 120 fps, therefore not allowing you to watch a 24 fps movie in 1:1 pulldown. This new standard still makes most movie buffs watch movies in a 3:2 pulldown on a TV ( in 4k)... Sigh. It's also bad for 3D movies.
It has nothing to do with Hz..
hz != FPS...
Reason people are mad is that 2.0 doesn't do 4k at 120 fps, therefore not allowing you to watch a 24 fps movie in 1:1 pulldown. This new standard still makes most movie buffs watch movies in a 3:2 pulldown on a TV ( in 4k)... Sigh. It's also bad for 3D movies.
It has nothing to do with Hz..
hz != FPS...
SmoothRunningGun
Member
Absolutely in about 3 years when the tvs are below $2000.
Similar threads
- Locked