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.
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.
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.
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.
The revisions are universal across both dedicated DisplayPort connectors, as well as embedded Thunderbolt.
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
The first monitors out that were higher bandwidth requirements supported multiple cables, but consumers rejected that and preferred the displayport single cable solution. The standards organizations are just trying to make sure they can support what consumers generally want.
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
If compression/decompression were such a cheap thing to make standard, why is there not compression/decompression in every networks switch and network card? My networking using the standard low speed 1GBit for the local network is rather slow. For that matter how about the sata controller and hard drives? Or why not compress between the CPU and PCIe bus itself? If compression were cheap then all those could use it.
I have a rather old mac pro, and the mplayerx I believe does not use the GPU and probably is not implemented to use multiple threads, and it cannot play 1080p without a video/sound sync problem (the internal player works fine - not sure if it is more efficient or uses the GPUs I have installed).