DuckThor Evil
Legend
I'm pretty sure he(she?) meant 720p games aren't rare.
4K displays announced at CES 2011
- Thread starter jeff_rigby
- Start date
I'm pretty sure he(she?) meant 720p games aren't rare.
Ah, yes, you're right. My bad. 720p is a quite ordinary resolution. Shame 60fps isn't a normal speed!
chavvdarrr
Veteran
Jesus, last time I used monitor with 768 lines it was 14" IBM CRT.
Yet 10+ years later, getting monitor able to represent perfectly any resolution between 800x600 and 1920x1200 is next to impossible.
Thats what I call "progress"
Yeah. Give me 60fps or give me death!
Actually, I'd prefer 120fps.
We don't really need higher res, we need more fluid framerates and better texture filtering and antiailiasing.What we in particular DON'T need is higher res at the cost of better texture filtering and antialiasing....
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Well, perhaps not for gaming but IBM had a 22" monitor capable of 3840x2400 resolution almost a decade ago.
Absolutely beautiful at that screen size, but pixel response was atrocious. So graphics cards can drive that resolution. Whether you get playable frame rates will depend on cost of video card (or cards), game used, and how much you wish to reduce game IQ settings.
Regards,
SB
well eyefinity uses some coding magic to say to the driver this isnt 6 displays its a single display with a res of 5760x3200 so if it didnt work with a 4k display i'm sure it could be easily made to
Davros is guessing alphawolf would also like some pie
Davros, his point was about the maximum single port resolution supported by the display outputs.
I checked the wikipedia entry for displayport but it was a mess. Under some versions/bandwidths it can support at least 2k displays.
Maybe Dave can clear the issue, what version of DP and what top bandwidth are supported by the DP output drivers?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
It's going to be purely a matter of bandwidth. DP 1.2 has max bandwidth of 17.28 Gb/s. That would allow 3840x2160x30 bpp @ 60 Hz with CVT-R timings (16.00 Gb/s).
As an interesting sidenote, HDMI 1.4 has far less bandwidth and would require dropping back to 30 Hz or 24 Hz at that resolution. HDMI 1.4a doesn't bump up available bandwidth and thus would also be limited in that respect.
As such I'm not sure PS3 could even display video at "4k" resolution unless all source material was at 24 Hz.
Regards,
SB
As an interesting sidenote, HDMI 1.4 has far less bandwidth and would require dropping back to 30 Hz or 24 Hz at that resolution. HDMI 1.4a doesn't bump up available bandwidth and thus would also be limited in that respect.
As such I'm not sure PS3 could even display video at "4k" resolution unless all source material was at 24 Hz.
Regards,
SB
corduroygt
Banned
For the common living room TV sizes and viewing distances, going beyond 1080p does not make a visible difference. Hell, a lot of people wouldn't even notice the difference between 720p and 1080p in a typical living room environment. 4k is only for those with front projection setups with huge screens, and I'd expect 4k projectors to be much more popular than 4k TV's. They're still both very small niches though.
aaronspink
Veteran
As already mentioned, this was a solved problem in the first half of the decade. Only thing I can't remember is if it was 2 DL or 4 SL cables to drive the IBM panel. Was supported in numerous cards (ATI, Nvidia, etc).
I'm not sure I would call that problem solved. They made a workaround, is that the expected solution going forward?
The PS3's HDMI interface may have that kind of bandwidth, but I doubt the PS3 itself will have the decoding power necessary for 4k.
Yes... I suppose the analogy is overenthusiastic, but I had the opportunity to see Samsung's own quad-hd display back in CES2008 and the source material they showed made it seem literally like looking out of a window. And that was only slightly less than 4K.
The sad thing is, even though they say this caliber of devices will be available as early as this year, much much more needs to happen before their usage becomes practical.
The sad thing is, even though they say this caliber of devices will be available as early as this year, much much more needs to happen before their usage becomes practical.
aaronspink
Veteran
The biggest issue is content and content distribution. 4K is a lot larger than HD and as youtube has so generously shown, you can do it, if you are willing to compress that crap out of it so it looks worse than 480P!
Realistically, you are looking at in the min range of 45-65 Mb/s AVC streams to maintain quality which is a lot heftier that is reasonably possible right now. And double that for 3D.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
As mentioned, it's purely a matter of bandwidth.
And both DP 1.2 (60 Hz) and HDMI 1.4a (24 Hz) are supported at 4k resolution.
HDMI will need a revision to boost bandwidth in order to support 60 Hz content.
And as to that 3840x2400 display back in 2001, it originally used a Matrox card with dual specialized outputs. A revision a year later used either 4 single link DVI (960x2400 stripes or later 1920x1200 quads) or 2 dual link DVI (1920x2400 stripes). Necessary since no connector could provide the bandwidth required for that resolution of video. And since the DVI consortium was disbanded in 1999, there weren't going to be any updates to the DVI standard.
So, if a company decided it wanted to do it, they could easily release a 4k panel that worked via 2x Dual Link DVI.
I wouldn't consider any of those solutions workarounds. It's all a matter of bandwidth, how you achieve that bandwidth is somewhat irrelevant, IMO. And as aaronspink mentioned, it was video card agnostic. It didn't matter what video card was used, all it required from a video card were either 4 single link DVI or 2 dual link DVI. So a person can rightfully say that 4k resolution has been supported by all PC video cards since 2002 that had 4x single link DVI or 2x dual link DVI ports.
Regards,
SB
That's pretty much the definition of a workaround. Making something work within the confines of existing limitations. I certainly wouldn't want to have to use multiple outputs on my receiver to support my TV. And which devices will support this output and how, and are you going to put 48 HDMI ports on a TV so it can accept inputs from multiples devices to meet the required bandwidth
Call it supported if you want, but if there's no standard existing to support the required bandwidth there's a problem going forward.
I'm sure by the time these things are actually ready for a retail market (say in 5 years) we'll see some actual support.
My bet is that it will take much longer than that.
There is zero content for 4K displays, and there wont be for the immidiate future. Next gen console will struggle to do stereoscopic 1920x1080. Every single TV production company in the world just transitioned to 720P/1080i. A lot of money has been invested in production equipment and infrastructure.
4K will suffer the same fate as IMAX, a few boutique production companies will make content for a niche market,.
Cheers
Also, given that NHK & BBC are working on "Super Hi Vision" which is 16x the resolution of HD (8k*4k res), maybe 4K will just be a backwater.
