Slashdot Mirror
VESA Embedded DisplayPort 1.4a Paves Way For 8K Displays, Longer Battery Life
MojoKid writes: The VESA standards organization has published the eDP v1.4a specification (Embedded DisplayPort) that has some important new features for device manufacturers as they bump up mobile device displays into the 4K category and start looking towards even higher resolutions. eDP v1.4a will be able to support 8K displays, thanks to a segmented panel architecture known as Multi-SST Operation (MSO). A display with this architecture is broken into two or four segments, each of which supports HBR3 link rates of 8.1 Gbps. The updated eDP spec also includes VESA's Display Stream Compression (DSC) standard v1.1, which can improve battery life in mobile devices. In another effort to conserve battery power, VESA has tweaked its Panel Self Refresh (PSR) feature, which saves power by letting GPUs update portions of a display instead of the entire screen.
It seems like the bigger sticker with 4k is how most interconnects have been locked to 30hz. eDP 1.4a supports 8k but at what refesh rate ?
Nope. I saw an 8K video at CES. It's jaw dropping, like looking out a window. It's clearly superior to 4K.
I have a 7yr old dell e6500 laptop with a 1920x1200 screen. cpu is only a c2d 2.93 but with a SSD its pretty good. between this laptop and smartphones with slide out keyboards i think things have gone nothing but downhill since.
Of 8k for the most part? I mean, ok if it's for VR I get it. But for a TV you'd have to have something the size of an Imax screen to appreciate that resolution in any way whatsoever. Heck even for 4k you need a 100"+ screen to actually care at all.
Dear TV makers: Where is our REC 2020 color gamut screens? Or screens with a brightness of 5k nits or more? Or our 10,000 to 1 contrast ratios. You know, things our eyes can readily see a difference in an appreciate beyond "moar pixels!!!" I'd buy a glassesless 3D display if it was a lightfield display and refracted light correctly for different focusing depths, that would be really cool. But I do not need an 8k TV.
It boils down to solid angle per pixel -- sit close enough to a huge screen and you'll be able to tell the difference.
I could imagine absolutely humongous curved screens being really cool -- the periphery might not contain any information relevant to the plot of the movie, but it would make for a very immersive experience. I call it the 4pi steradian display...
Yep.
I have an M6400 and rather than upgrade when the motherboard finally gave up the ghost, I bought a new motherboard. Why? Screens have gone backward in time. I have an RGB-led backlit 1920x1200 display, and the new ones have just white LEDs backlighting 1080p displays. Give me another RGB-LED option that is 1440p (in a 17" form factor) and I'll upgrade to a new Precision right now. Until then I'll keep my m6400 chugging along. :-(
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Nice shill, but unless you were standing within like a foot of it or have 20/10 vision you simply can't appreciate the difference. Multiple tests have shown that, unless its a very specific image meant to test the limits of human vision (line pair tests) people don't really care about a 50" TV having anything over 1080p from the average viewing distance of six feet away.
While human vision can far exceed even 8k in total, this is only with specific imagery, meanwhile for the average use a 1440p screen looks no different than a 1080p screen on a 5" phone. Meanwhile a lot of people can have a hard time telling 4k from 1080p on a 50" if they stand 6 feet away. Meanwhile the fact is that what you saw looks nothing like a window. Todays displays simply can't display the contrast ratio the human eye can detect and does in every day scenarios, which can range from 10:000 to 1 to 128,000 to 1 or more. Meanwhile brightness on displays is pitiful. Full sunlight and a blue sky can be up to 10,000 nits, while even a good display is only about 300 nits in brightness. Further there's an entire range of color that displays can't reproduce and no display manufacturer seems interested in doing, a chicken and egg problem because there's no content for color gamuts beyond SRGB, but then there's no point if displays can't show it.
So yes, 8k is for the most part useless. Meanwhile displays continue to lag far behind "real life" because display manufacturers are obsessed over increasing resolution to the umpteenth level despite a dramatic decrease in payoff over time. So, sure, you "can" see and appreciate and 8k TV if you get close enough and squint and it's big enough. And yet it's still the same crap brightness, the same limited color range, the same limited contrast ratio that displays have been stuck at for a decade+ now while the obvious improvements to such continue to be ignored.
Wait for 3D holographic displays and projectors coming *real soon now*.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It's clearly superior to 4K.
How could you tell it's clearly superior? Did they have side by side demos? I'm also wondering at what size it actually matters - or perhaps more accurately, the size to viewing distance ratio. Very often, these demos have you watching a very large TV from a relatively short distance away which makes it very easy to see the improved quality.
I've got a 60" LCD TV at home, and I'd guess I watch TV from about eight feet away or so. I can more or less discern the difference between 720p and 1080p content in most cases. I did a quick bit of research, and according to one chart I saw, for 1080p screens at 60 inches, I'm just at the inner edge of the optimum viewing distance for that size TV at eight feet. Assuming the same viewing distance, in order to see any significant difference in picture quality at 4K, I'd need a 70 or 80 inch screen. I'm guessing I'd probably need at least a 90 inch screen at 8K!
I sort of have a feeling that the industry will simply standardized on 4K largely because it's costlier to manufacture multiple models. A 4K 60 inch is only a couple hundred dollars more than the 1080 TV I bought just a couple of years ago. It's hard to say now if 8K will catch on at all, though. My guess is that only a fraction of the population will ever be able to appreciate the difference, because most people don't have giant TVs that they sit relatively close to, and so will never be able to see the difference.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
I seem to need wider than 1024 pixel window to prevent overlapping columns on Slashdot's main page now.
People have been focusing on 8K monitor actually (7680 x 4320 at 60hz) as if this cable is hard wired to only support a specific config. It supports multiple MST configurations, which means the ability to configure panels into one screen - using multi streams, or multiple monitors with multiple streams. This means it has more than enough support to drive 3 x 4K monitors using this cable, which I personally could easily put to work (I have 4 monitors of various HD resolutions and sizes). I would like having 3 x 40 inch 4K monitors on my desktop. It would be great if I could use a laptop and have the same setup (though there is a limitation on that due to processor restrictions right now - though Skylake looks like it will have enough power to do it). Now if they were able to do a cockpit type monitor that curves around as one monitor with 23040 x 4320 @ 60 hz that would be great to (but hard to move around :o ).
I have seen some people complaining that 7680 x 4320 is not 8K (8000 x 4000) but if it has the bandwidth for the first, it has the bandwidth for the second configuration (less pixels). They seem to fail that the cable is not for a specific resolution but to support higher bandwidth monitors going forward.
What happens with thunderbolt? Will there be data only thunderbolt? Will apple have to have Display only ports on the next mac pro?
4K and 8K are not as much of a benefit to TV as it is to monitors. When pictures are in motion, the higher your perception of image detail is not as noticeable by ones eyes. As a monitor for a work environment where images are not motion pictures, 4K and 8K are very easily noticeable. It will give the image more depth and you will be able to use the extra workspace on a 40+ monitor. If you shrink down the image it is more recognizable than if you display the same image in the same size on a HD monitor. You have both peripheral vision for dashboard use, and a neck to move back and forth to different documents/ images / text displayed on a larger workspace -- but when you are looking at something you are focusing on a small area on the monitor. If the extra resolution were not usable to provide extra depth to your pictures, cameras would not be pushing up to 50Mpixel resolution.
People confuse the difference between perceptible and optimal. So ya, to see every pixel on a 4k screen, it needs to be pretty big (or you need to be pretty close). However we should stop wanting that. Computer monitor have too long taught us that we should work at a resolution where we can make out each and ever pixel. Rather, the individual pixels should be so small that they are completely imperceptible under any circumstances. That requires a lot more pixels.
As for your other requests, have you done any research on what is available, and the difficulties of what you are asking? This is the real world here, there are real engineering challenges. Let's go one by one:
Rec 2020: That requires laser illuminates. Since the primaries are points along the spectral curve, you have to have monochormatic light sources, meaning lasers. You can get that from laser projectors currently, if you are willing to pay, no consumer displays. Of course it matters little since there is no Rec 2020 content. However you can have a DCI display no problem, the Panasonic 4k displays are just shy of a DCI gamut. Oh and Rec 2020 specifies an 8k resolution, by the way.
5k Brightness: You don't have a power plug in your house sufficient for that kind of brightness, nor would you want to crank a display that high. Go have a look a commercial displays sometime, go see one of these things turned up to 700-800 nits. They are painfully bright in anything but a very brightly lit space. We are talking stuff made for direct sunlight usage. You don't want that in your home. That aside, you'd need a massive amount of power to deal with something like that, and noisy cooling fans to go with it.
10000:1 contrast ratios: You can have that right now. High end LCDs pull it off with backlight dimming, OLEDs can handle it as is. You want an LCD that does it static? Not going to happen, and a basic understanding of how blocking technology works will tell you why. Emissive screens like OLED can do it without much trouble, but of course you are going to have real issues if you want a high bright display out of those since brightness is a killer for emissive technologies.
Seriously, less with the silly whining. If you truly are interested in display technology, go learn about it and the limitations and issues. But don't just bitch and act like people should be able to magically figure out a way around tough engineering challenges. If it was easy, it'd be done already. If you think you have a solution well then, get on that. Go solve it and make a bunch of money.
What you really need to know is this: Cinemas *at best* have DCI 4K, which has essentially the same resolution as UHD (4096x2160 theoretical, 3996x2160 actual for 1.85:1 and 4096x1716 for 2.39:1. Does cinemas - that can project a wall full with extremely expensive projectors look pixelated to you? No? Then you don't need 8K.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Ever heard of VESA mounts? There are lots of standards that are defined by VESA when it comes to intraoperative of Video electronics. All my monitors can be mounted using a VESA standard mount.
Because it's easier to maintain quality when post-processing if your shoots and edits take place in a higher resolution, and you downsample to get the final product. 8k edited to 4k is going to look better than 4k to 4k. Same as why movies are shot in 5k or higher when BluRay is "only" 2k.
Latest iMac sure looks nice, but I wonder if 4K at close distance would be any different. After all, it's only considered useful for pretty big TVs. Sounds like number-based marketing like clock speed in Pentium 4 days. What would the framerate be like if I try to play a game on this thing?
I did not hear much discussion about how HD on a 13/15 inch laptop was overkill when it became standard more than a decade ago.
I use a 40 HD monitor as my main display, but I would definitely notice the difference the difference in having a 4K monitor (when I run the iPhone simulator - the resolution is high enough that it will not fit on the screen). A 40 inch screen is 600+% larger than that 15 inch laptop. So to keep the real resolution (pixel size) the same for a 40" monitor you would require 5K.
In addition I use multiple monitors (4), and displayport monitors have the ability to be chained on the same connection -- which would allow me to get a laptop (later this year when Skylake is out) and have 3 x 40" monitors attached using this standard.
Why dont they just support multiple cables to one monitor for the higher bitrates?
It's really a question of what you're willing to pay. My laptops are 1366x768, but I always go for low cost. You can certainly do much better.
RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
Some manufacturers are making Adobe 1998 RGB monitors. Even wider gamut is technically possible, but requires engineering compromises like narrow-bandwidth filters which are less efficient, or expensive options like more than 3 channels of LED backlights, or laser backlights, etc.. Sharp did introduce a 4-color TV, has this given them any market advantage?
High brightness is of little use indoors, and is a disadvantage for motion picture display because it requires a higher framerate. Tom's Hardware considers brightness over the 200 nits they test at to be excessive.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Still images require greater resolution than movies for the same level of visual satisfaction.
Early laser printers had 300 dpi, which was visibly inferior to printed material. That's 2550 pixels across a letter-size sheet of paper. Can you honestly say there's no use for having three sheets of paper visible at once?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Madness
It is madness to increase of the data rate in video signals even further. A monitor cable transmitting 32.4 gbps is not a good solution. It is something engineers can boast about but it also limits cable lengths and makes them more expensive. Trying to get 4K UHD over 20m is as expensive as a PC and the display together.
Instead they should adapt and norm low-latency compression methods for the transmission of video signals. 1 gbps should be more than enough to transport an 8K UHD signal with 100Hz (and without any gamer noticing a difference).
The inclusion of DSC is a good start but is seems to be just a sidekick.ï
Nope. I saw an 8K video at CES. It's jaw dropping, like looking out a window. It's clearly superior to 4K.
What you are seeing is the exceptional quality of a properly calibrated top of the line Tv. Provided that you are not sitting right in front of it you will not notice a difference from a top of the line 4K Tv and if you take a few steps even further back even a top of the line HD Tv will look just as good. I really love it when people compare old TFT LCD's to new higher quality IPS LCD displays and proclaim to be able to tell the huge difference retina makes. Hint it has little to do with resolution.
I personally see little value in 8k displays under the size of an /entire wall/ of your house.
That being said, in 10 years, who knows, maybe we'll lay a flat, OLED sheet on a black painted wall and.... you know 240" TV?
As for the frame rate, for the /most part/ I see little value in high refresh displays, but there are uses. If this plus is 'open' (no license fee) and powerful, well so be it. The more performance the better.
That being said I did just discover this recenttly
https://www.google.com.au/sear...
Sigh.... standards? Can we just have fucking one, open, real goddamn powerful one and be done with it?
Apparently, you'd have to sit closer than 3 feet away to a 96 inch 8K screen to be able to see any pixelation. Close indeed.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Didn't hear about VESA since the XXth century!
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
The GP probably saw Ultra HD, not just 8k resolution. I've seen it too, and it is a major step up from 4k. It's not just the 8k resolution, it's the 120Hz frame rate and increased colour gamut. Sure, some TVs can fake 120Hz, but you get artefacts. Some TVs can fake the extended colour gamut, but look somewhat artificial. Ultra HD really is like looking at a window, the images don't look like a screen any more. If it were not for the lack of parallax you would be hard pushed to tell it wasn't real, with the right scene.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Hey mate, Dells are piss easy to modify. Service manuals and all. Isn't there a new Dell laptop you can put your screen into? I have an E5500 with a 1920x1200 screen I got of an older precision. The connectors at the back of the LCD were the same and although the screen is darker than I would like (CCFL?), it's still pretty good.
Isn't that beyond human perception?
No, its approximately the same resolution as my 24" desktop display (1920x1200) at 50".
I fully intend to replace my 4-arm LCD display rig with a single 50" panel as soon as a good 8K display hits $2000. I'm excited there's a connector for it now.
I believe I'll finally be done buying displays at this point, save for device failure. It's great when technology reaches the "good enough". I'm just not used to it after buying progressively better displays for the past 35 years (that 14" RGB display was so much better than the TV composite on the Apple ][ clone!). But, hey, I learned to program on a discarded 60's TV set, so some of this is simply a matter of comfort and productivity.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
And I have a 720P TV that has had multiple people who own larger 1080p TVs ask if it was 4k. When you don't have it side-by-side, 99% of people won't know. Most of the "problems" in displays today are because of poorly matched resolutions, and even worse scaling. A good viewing environment and well set up components makes a whole lot more difference than throwing pixels at it. And it's cheaper than pixels too.
Learn to love Alaska
My laptop is better than that, and my 5.5" phone is 2560 x 1440. Resolution isn't stagnant, it's just improving on devices you don't use.
Learn to love Alaska
You're right that Dell laptops are relatively easy to modify and upgrade - for a laptop. But still you can't expect to transplant a motherboard into any but the most closely related model. I upgraded my old M90 to an M6300 by replacing the motherboard, CPU and memory. For the M6400, I believe that the motherboard and case from the M6500 should be compatible (provided you change the CPU and CPU heatsink) but I cannot be entirely sure. The newer 17 inch Dell models have 1920x1080 screens instead of 1920x1200. You couldn't jam the older screen into them because it is physically a different size, even if the connector turns out to be the same.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
So Sharp was the only company at CES that knows how to calibrate their TVs?
I can more or less discern the difference between 720p and 1080p content in most cases.
Then you need new glasses or retinas or something. The difference between 720 and 1080 is massive.