New DisplayPort 1.4 Standard Can Drive 8K Monitors Over A USB Type-C Cable (arstechnica.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New DisplayPort 1.4 Standard Can Drive 8K Monitors Over A USB Type-C Cable (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday March 2, 2016 @12:22PM from the 7,680-x-4,320 dept.

AmiMoJo writes: VESA has finalized and released the DisplayPort 1.4 spec, which can drive 60Hz 8K displays and supports HDR color modes at 5K and 8K. The physical interface used to carry DisplayPort data -- High Bit Rate 3 (HBR3), which provides 8.1Gbps of bandwidth per lane -- is still the same as it was in DisplayPort 1.3. The new standard drives higher-resolution displays with better color support using Display Stream Compression (DSC), a "visually lossless" form of compression that VESA says "enables up to [a] 3:1 compression ratio." This data compression, among other things, allows DisplayPort 1.4 to drive 60Hz 8K displays and 120Hz 4K displays with HDR "deep color" over both DisplayPort and USB Type-C cables. USB Type-C cables can provide a USB 3.0 data connection, too.

156 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 12:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Call it what it is. Don't break terminology for marketing.
1. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by rh2600 · 2016-03-02 12:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Agreed... 'visually' lossless for images is a bit like saying 320kbps MP3s are 'audibly' lossless for music... Something is either lossless or not, it's a binary...
2. Re: "visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by bill_mcgonigle · 2016-03-02 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  It means instruments can tell the difference but humans can't. Welcome to 1989.
  I'll still need two cables for 8K at 120Hz, eh? That's OK, I've also been waiting for this kind of resolution for thirty years, so I'll be an early adopter this round. Maybe I'll upgrade to a 1.5-based spec when they get around to it.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
3. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by TwentyCharsIsNotEnou · 2016-03-02 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  Don't assume everything is black or white.
  
  There are varying degrees of "lossy" - though I agree, "visually lossless" doesn't give a very scientific description of where this lies on the scale. But there is a scale.
4. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by TeknoHog · 2016-03-02 12:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This. I thought the whole idea of digital display connections was to make things bit-exact. Let's just go back to VGA and the fun of adjusting displays to the signal. Actually, let's go all the way back to analogue computers while we're at it.
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
5. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by ShanghaiBill · 2016-03-02 12:47 · Score: 2
  
  There are varying degrees of "lossy"
  Yes, there are. But there is only ONE degree of lossless. Just like there are an infinite number of positive numbers, but only one zero.
6. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Gravis+Zero · 2016-03-02 12:49 · Score: 2
  
  no, it's a binary attribute. it's either "lossless" or "lossy". the fact that someone may not notice does not change that fact.
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
7. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Nethemas+the+Great · 2016-03-02 12:50 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Losing information is losing information. It doesn't matter what marketing BS you smear around it, a fact is a fact. Whether it makes a difference to the end-user is a subject on its own. 3 and 2.999999996 for many things are perceptibly identical, but in fact are not. That rounding error in another context may well spell disaster.
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
8. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by aXis100 · 2016-03-02 12:54 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. Marketing sleazebags.
9. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by amRadioHed · 2016-03-02 12:57 · Score: 2
  
  No, I'm pretty sure the whole idea of digital display connections was to remove the unnecessary digital to analog and back to digital conversion.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
10. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by amRadioHed · 2016-03-02 13:02 · Score: 2
  
  That rounding error in another context may well spell disaster
  True, in another context. But to be fair in this context the rounding error is basically meaningless. It would be nice if they were more up front about this being lossless though.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
11. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 13:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yup. It gets to me when people fail to understand binary characteristics: like people who claim that something is "very unique" when what they mean (I assume) is "very rare".
12. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 13:23 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  No, most digital display connectors use some sort of compression already (bandwidth constraints and all that). The point is that you can cram a whole lot more digital information down the pipe than you can analogue with cheaper equipment. More information == better picture, even if you do have still have some loss.
  (the more devious point of digital display connection is to block the so-called analogue hole)
13. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 13:31 · Score: 0
  
  Yup. It gets to me when people fail to understand binary characteristics: like people who claim that something is "very unique" when what they mean (I assume) is "very rare".
  Except that "very unique" does have an actual meaning. There are different ways for something to be unique. For instance, you could have something that is different from every other thing in existence in one way. It is thus unique. This difference might be trivial, in which case it is "technically unique." Something else might be different in every single attribute, thus it is "completely unique." Something closer to the latter than the former might legitimately be called "very unique." Alternately, it could be appropriate when something is both unique, and it was unlikely for it to exist.
  Don't be pedantic and wrong at the same time.
14. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Nethemas+the+Great · 2016-03-02 13:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  In the medical field this is not meaningless. If a radiologist missed the cancer, and the lawyers find that he was using a "lossy" display there's a real possibility of a lawsuit. This is why diagnostic imaging is almost universally stored in a lossless format. The three main choices being uncompressed, JPEG process-14, or JPEG2000 Lossless.
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
15. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by amRadioHed · 2016-03-02 13:43 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Is the human eye capable of detecting the difference you gave in your example? That sounds unlikely.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
16. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Nethemas+the+Great · 2016-03-02 13:48 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Fortunately or unfortunately, that's not the point. There have been demonstrations to that affect but no one is willing to risk it.
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
17. Re: "visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 13:56 · Score: 0
  
  1989? How about NTSC color compression? 1953!
18. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 14:06 · Score: 0
  
  You do realize that there's no such thing as a pure digital display, right? LCD and Plasma are still all analog displays - they have digital display controllers driving an analog display surface.
19. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, really? I challenge you to find a document that specifies digital compression. Ah, that's why you posted as AC because you pulled that out of your butt...
20. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by chuckugly · 2016-03-02 14:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Very true, however if you have to choose between 30fps and shallow color (which is brutally throwing away a fixed amount of data) or an algorithm that can much more intelligently decide which parts of a 60fps HDR stream matter least, the 'lossy' version is very likely to look better and exhibit better fidelity with a 60fps HDR uncompressed original, even if nothing is 'lost' in the standard color 30fps version after the downconversion.
21. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by chuckugly · 2016-03-02 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  I think DLP could be considered digital, since the mirrors are essentially driven on and off for discrete times (PWM) and the 'analog' conversion is done in your wetware.
22. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by cheater512 · 2016-03-02 14:58 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Erm 320kbps MP3's ARE audibly lossless.
  They aren't actually lossless but no one can ever tell the difference in a proper double blind study.
23. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 15:50 · Score: 0
  
  But it *was* highly compressed...
24. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 15:52 · Score: 0
  
  You do realize that the parent was talking about *extra* D-A-D conversions, each of which introduces additional loss, right?
25. Re: "visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 16:18 · Score: 0
  
  But that's exactly what marketing does! ;-)
26. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by epyT-R · 2016-03-02 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yup.. there's already too much 'lossy' in hd for the term to mean much anymore.. I don't want to compound it with lossy in my display connection.
27. Re: "visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 17:01 · Score: 0
  
  More to the point, medical professionals looking at still images of radiology results can zoom in. The threshold for "indecipherable" losses changes at every distance, lighting situation and level of zoom. Significantly less likely in a video situation, but for recordings in a legal context where they're using video for identification, indecipherable losses for the average viewer at normal viewing framerates and distance can be crucially detrimental upon closer inspection.
28. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by lgw · 2016-03-02 17:23 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Something is either lossless or not, it's a binary
  Assuming that everything is black or white is a poor start to a discussion about visual fidelity.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
29. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 17:42 · Score: 0
  
  You should notice that the compression talked about for Displayport 1.4 is referred to as Digital Stream Compresion 1.2, with earlier versions used on things like MHL. And if you want to stick with being vague, HDMI 1.3 included compressed audio options too...
30. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by epyT-R · 2016-03-02 17:48 · Score: 2
  
  Not when you have to convert them to something else.. Also, it depends on the source and the encoder used.
31. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Art3x · 2016-03-02 18:41 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I thought the same thing until I read an article by David Newman, an engineer for Cineform. He personally defined visually lossless as "when the compression error falls well below the inherent noise floor of the imaging device" (Visually Lossless and how to back it up).
  He says, more or less, that if you set a camera on a tripod and shoot a still life of, say, a bowl of fruit, there still will be a difference from one frame to the next in the video, even in a totally uncompressed signal. This can mainly be blamed on noise in the image sensor. All sensors have a noise floor. So first you measure what that noise is. Then you measure how much degradation a certain compression introduces. If the difference between the uncompressed and compressed signal is less than or equal to the difference between uncompressed frames, then you might call the codec visually lossless.
  Actually he takes it one step further. He averaged 72 frames of the stationary object to mostly remove the noise even from the image sensor. He then saw whether the compressed image differed from this "golden frame" by more than any given uncompressed frame differed from it.
  Yes, yes, yes, there's no telling what standard VESA used, but at this point I think visually lossless can have some meaning. Usually, in fact, video that's called visually lossless is very, very good and can only be discerned at much closer-than-average viewing distances and often with various image enhancements to bring out the noise. In normal viewing conditions, most video professionals, and certainly even more consumers, cannot tell the diffference between the original and any of the codecs that tout themselves (scientifically or otherwise) as visually lossless.
32. Re: "visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by amRadioHed · 2016-03-02 18:55 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on how the image data is being corrupted I suppose. A 0.00000004% change in the brightness of a pixel isn't going to be visible no matter how much you zoom in.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
33. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 19:13 · Score: 1
  
  I think you are missing the point. Imagine you have two colours that are just on the edge of human visibility. One is your tumor and the other is your surrounding body. Now imagine that your lossy compression moves those colours slightly closer together. Now imagine that, the person examining the image doesn't spot the tumor which turns up later and kills or injures the patient badly.
  Someone goes back and examines the situation and sees the missed chance to diagnose. Who's to blame? There was still a difference on screen, but it was extremely difficult to spot. Was it the person who didn't look? Was it the manufacturer who should have tried to ensure that such a situation didn't happen?
  In the wrong lawsuit this can get more costly than just using lossless in the first place.
34. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 19:22 · Score: 0
  
  VESA can count me visually lost at buying that kind of garbage. What is the point of increasing resolution if that causes compression-decompression latency and visual artifacts? Why don't they just invent virtual pixels, which exist only on the marketing material?
35. Re: "visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 19:47 · Score: 0
  
  Most displays can only display 8 bits (256 values) per colour. Perhaps the radiology monitors can do 10 bit (1024 values), as that's becoming more common in general.
  The slightest change in compressed signal could cause the rounding to change, which would yield a brightness of 0.39 % or 0.098 %.
  If displaying a multicolour image, the effect on brightness would be smaller, but far greater than 2^-24 or 2^-30.
36. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by thsths · 2016-03-02 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. "Nearly" is marketing speak for not.
37. Re: "visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 20:33 · Score: 1
  
  There isn't much difference between zooming in on a smaller surface or zooming in on an intensity range.
  If you have higher color depth you can over/under-expose the image at will to look at details that aren't visible on the screen you have when the entire range is normalized.
  Not that a 0.00000004% difference would matter, but having 16 bit color depth instead of 8 could do wonders.
38. Re: "visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 20:45 · Score: 0
  
  no, because with "technically" or "completely" you're referring to different aspects of something, some of which are unique and some are not. you're not qualifying the uniqueness of something, you're qualifying how the uniqueness of some aspects of something makes it more or less rare. "technically unique" means "not really unique, but i'll call it that anyway" while "completely unique" is a tautology. so, no, just because you use a word wrong, it doesn't become right. and yes, language is dynamic, but if someone doesn't understand the meaning of what you're saying, because you're using words differently from their still widely used original meaning, then you're still wrong, until you're right.
39. Re: "visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 21:00 · Score: 0
  
  only that this is no assumption. it's either lossless or not - if it were visually lossless, you wouldn't be able to tell a difference, not with a loupe on a still image, not with a machine (e.g. video scopes) and not with human (or any other animal's) eyesight.
  it could be, that you can't spot the difference (which would be hard at those resolutions anyway, unless you press your nose to the screen), but it'd still be either visually lossy or indistinguishable from lossless - but then they'd not call it "visually lossless", because they wouldn't be able to tell the difference as well.
40. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by just+another+AC · 2016-03-02 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  analogue computers while we're at it.
  The audiophiles would love that... they could be videophiles too! I'm off to patent "sending video display signals via a coathanger (on a computer)" right now.
41. Re: "visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 22:05 · Score: 0
  
  Woosh.
42. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 22:32 · Score: 0
  
  It's an important distinction though. Saying something is lossy could mean anything from imperceptible to completely obvious.
  A 320kbps MP3 is indistinguishable from the source to human ears whereas a 64kbps MP3 is almost always noticeably worse. Simply saying something is lossy isn't very helpful because it gives no indication as to what to expect.
  That said, saying something is "visually lossless" is pretty scummy because it's not lossless at all. A truthful description would be "visually indistinguishable".
43. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 22:59 · Score: 0
  
  Not when you have to convert them to something else
  Why would you do that? You should never transcode any lossy format.
  I think you're using MP3s for the wrong purposes.
44. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by drinkypoo · 2016-03-02 23:25 · Score: 1
  
  They aren't actually lossless but no one can ever tell the difference in a proper double blind study.
  It depends on the song. Even at 320kbps LAME, I can tell the difference between the compressed and uncompressed versions of a particular remix of Maroder's "The Chase" because the square waves go all to shit.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
45. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by TeknoHog · 2016-03-02 23:52 · Score: 2
  
  You do realize that there's no such thing as a pure digital display, right? LCD and Plasma are still all analog displays - they have digital display controllers driving an analog display surface.
  This isn't quite true, IMHO -- you'll have to be more specific. The colour of an individual pixel still needs analog control, but with digital you can do exact pixel addressing. Contrast this to VGA where you're basically sweeping a spray can of a variable colour across the display. This is also why VGA monitors need adjustments to align this spray of colours with the display dimensions. No need for that with digital, where you always know which pixel you mean to light up.
  http://iki.fi/teknohog/rants/v...
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
46. Re: "visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Plumpaquatsch · 2016-03-03 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  1989? How about NTSC color compression? 1953!
  Yeah, because if you set two 1953 NTSC TVs next to each other, you could not tell a difference between the colors.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
47. Re: "visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by trabby · 2016-03-03 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  Not
  The
  Same
  Color
48. Re: "visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by jcdr · 2016-03-03 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  Never
  The
  Same
  Color
  FTFY
49. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by greenfruitsalad · 2016-03-03 00:46 · Score: 0
  
  but but but they are audibly lossless
50. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-03 00:50 · Score: 0
  
  There's already a term for that, it's called "transparency". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
51. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by AmiMoJo · 2016-03-03 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  There is a whitepaper with little detail: http://www.vesa.org/wp-content...
  Reading that, it sounds pretty far from lossless. They say that it mostly worked at 8bpp, but wasn't perfect. So not visually lossless at all. They tested with still images too, no work on how it copes with movement. Could be some nasty artefacts as things change from frame to frame, much like how constant bitrate video gets noisy and then suddenly clears up as movement settles down.
  Considering the effort require I'm surprised they bothered. I suppose it's a solution for small devices wanting to produce a pseudo 4k/120 or 8k/60 display, but that seems like a very small market.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
52. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Plumpaquatsch · 2016-03-03 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  Losing information is losing information. It doesn't matter what marketing BS you smear around it, a fact is a fact. Whether it makes a difference to the end-user is a subject on its own. 3 and 2.999999996 for many things are perceptibly identical, but in fact are not. That rounding error in another context may well spell disaster.
  Whine whine whine. This is about displaying a picture to look at. If you can't tell that there is a difference by looking at the picture, it fucking doesn't matter if you could measure a difference. You aren't looking at the measurement all the fucking time - and if you did you couldn't tell if it was send over this link.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
53. Re: "visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Plumpaquatsch · 2016-03-03 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on how the image data is being corrupted I suppose. A 0.00000004% change in the brightness of a pixel isn't going to be visible no matter how much you zoom in.
  Even if that were the case - then you wouldn't use this video link for the 0.0001% of cases instead of making a big fuzz about the 99.9999% cases where it fucking doesn't matter.
  Or are you just preparing a defence why you lost your twitch game? Yeah, you lost because that one pixel was off by 0.00000004% change in the brightness - not because you suck.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
54. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Plumpaquatsch · 2016-03-03 01:37 · Score: 2
  
  I think you are missing the point. Imagine you have two colours that are just on the edge of human visibility. One is your tumor and the other is your surrounding body.
  Then you have a design failure that far outweighs any differences in display link properties.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
55. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Improv · 2016-03-03 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  Then they'll just have to grow up as a field and learn to be sane on this, or get left behind with aging hardware until someone reforms things.
  
  --
  For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
56. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-03 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  But only the blind people in the study could hear a difference!
57. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Plumpaquatsch · 2016-03-03 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  VESA can count me visually lost at buying that kind of garbage.
  Well, nobody is forcing you to pay far less for the new displayport solution than for your high end monster cable you use to hook up your monitor now. I'm sure that you of all people are that special snowflake that can see the difference.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
58. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-03 04:15 · Score: 0
  
  No you can't. You don't even know the correct name of the musician (it's Moroder) or the piece (it's just "Chase"), so why would anybody believe your incredible golden ears claim?
59. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by mattventura · 2016-03-03 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  But even when driven from an analog input, an LCD still converts the signal to digital. So instead of digital to analog, using an analog connection makes it digital-analog-digital-analog.
60. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-03 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  the square waves go all to shit.
  That's the problem with having analog ears. Square waves simply don't exist.
61. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by drinkypoo · 2016-03-03 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  That's the problem with having analog ears. Square waves simply don't exist.
  True, but you know what I mean. The function used to create or at least modify the tones in question is a square wave. And no matter what quality settings I use, it gets crunchy. It's the only thing I've ever still heard get mangled at high quality settings.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
62. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by cheater512 · 2016-03-03 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  No, Digital to Analog converts do not output square waves.
  Nor does MP3 encoding or anything else.
  Go learn a thing or two over here: https://www.xiph.org/video/
63. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by drinkypoo · 2016-03-03 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  No, Digital to Analog converts do not output square waves.
  I never claimed that they did. Perhaps you should learn to read before talking shit.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
64. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-03 11:56 · Score: 0
  
  You're the one full of shit. Go do an ABX and put your money where your mouth is.
65. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by epyT-R · 2016-03-03 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  No, you misunderstood or purposely misrepresented my point.
66. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-03 17:19 · Score: 0
  
  Let's retrace the post history:
  
  Erm 320kbps MP3's ARE audibly lossless.
  They aren't actually lossless but no one can ever tell the difference in a proper double blind study.
  Not when you have to convert them to something else.. Also, it depends on the source and the encoder used.
  The person you responded to was talking about listening to 320kbps MP3 audio. The story is about viewing transparent lossy video. At no time did anyone say that the formats were ideal for transcoding. Transcoding is not listening, viewing or consumption of any kind. Your comment is a non-sequitur. Go learn some comprehension skills, you're arguing against a point that was never introduced.
67. Re:"visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy... by Agripa · 2016-03-04 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  The colour of an individual pixel still needs analog control, but with digital you can do exact pixel addressing. Contrast this to VGA where you're basically sweeping a spray can of a variable colour across the display. This is also why VGA monitors need adjustments to align this spray of colours with the display dimensions. No need for that with digital, where you always know which pixel you mean to light up.
  
  But even when driven from an analog input, an LCD still converts the signal to digital. So instead of digital to analog, using an analog connection makes it digital-analog-digital-analog.
  I was hoping someone would bring this up.
  Except for early models, LCD monitors operating from an analog VGA signal phase lock to the VGA signal so the pulse code modulated red, green, and blue signals can be synchronously demodulated. This effectively results in the ADC connected to the DAC but with the same sampling clock so there is no aliasing and the Nyquist criteria does not apply. The only losses are in the levels do to zero error, gain error, noise, and nonlinearity. In practice an analog VGA connection can be as good as a DVI connection under these conditions.
DisplayPort is for LUDDITES by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 12:31 · Score: 0, Troll

Modern app appers know that ONLY apps can app apps, so appers only use AppPort App Apps, NOT LUDDITE DisplayPort!
Apps!
1. Re: DisplayPort is for LUDDITES by Austerity+Empowers · 2016-03-02 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  Uh... Only PortPorts can MOO, not appity ports, say the cows.
2. Re: DisplayPort is for LUDDITES by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 15:54 · Score: 0
  
  I have the cows blacklisted in my hosts file, which makes me 100% secure against EVERYTHING.
The future looks bright! by FlyHelicopters · 2016-03-02 12:34 · Score: 3, Informative

I have to say that I'm more excited about 4k at 120hz than 8k at 60hz, but it is all an improvement.
As it stands now, 4k displays are wonderful for work, I am typing this on my office computer which has a pair of Acer 32" 4k displays on it.
Acer 32" 4K IPS display
http://amzn.to/1poiivZ
They are beautiful monitors. Not perfect color and I wouldn't suggest them if 100% color accuracy is your goal, but for general business use, they are just about the perfect combination of size and resolution. My home machine runs a trio of Dell 30" 1600p monitors, and while they are nice for gaming, I can tell the difference between a 30" 1600p monitor and a 32" 4k monitor when it comes to text in Windows. Almost all "jaggies" are gone at 4k, the text is the closest I've ever seen a monitor to get to "paper" look. The 30" 1600p monitors still show "jaggies" in Windows text.
Now for gaming, they aren't quite there yet. Between the slower response time of IPS and the inability to get decent GPU performance, 4k is a rough experience. I tried several games and I found that while they are beautiful, the limit is the GPU power.
I did try only a single GPU (GTX 980 TI), I imagine a dual SLI GPU configuration would be better, but I didn't have a second 980 TI to try that out with. 8k will be awhile in terms of gaming, if due to lack of GPU power if anything else.
---
TL;DR - 120hz should be the new standard, it will reduce eyestrain and open up options for gaming and movies that don't exist at 60hz, while the HDR improvements will also be wonderful. I'm not convinced that 8k will show up any time soon or even be needed, but time will tell on that one.
1. Re:The future looks bright! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 13:08 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  According to the specs for that 32" monitor you linked the PPI (pixels per inch) is 3840/29.1 = 131. The correct text scale setting for your 4K monitor is only 125% (the ideal value for your 4K monitor is 131/96 = 136%). Your Dell 30" 2560x1600 monitor should be running at 100% text scale (aka. 96 PPI), at least that was what I used on my old one.
  Going from 100% to 125% is nowhere near enough to remove the "jaggies" in the Windows text rendering. The most likely reason you like the text better on your 4K monitor is better (newer) IPS display technology in your 4K monitor.
  The ideal monitor size for a 4K monitor for office work is 24" as that puts the scale at exactly 200%. The ideal monitor size to replace your old 30" is a 5K monitor at 27" as also puts the scale exactly at 200%.
  Why 200%? Because that's the magical scale that makes it a "retina" monitor where the OS can upscale old applications linear fashion without aliasing articles like bluring.
  As for HDR improvements, as long as Microsoft's Display Window Manager (DWM) only supports 24 bpp you will never see the HDR feature unless you launch a fullscreen game..
2. Re:The future looks bright! by Archfeld · 2016-03-02 13:23 · Score: 2
  
  I totally agree. I watch my hockey in 1080 HD at 240hz and it is unbelievably clear with almost no background blur at all. So much better, that watching 60hz broadcasts makes me think I am losing my mind.
  Go Sharks !!!
  
  --
  errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
3. Re:The future looks bright! by dbIII · 2016-03-02 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  I got a 28 inch 4k screen because it was the largest I could find that could swivel to portrait mode without an extra stand. MS Windows 7 has problems with the thing around every three weeks and will not work using displayport unless I power off both the computer and the monitor for more than a few seconds. Linux works with the nvidia driver which is a very similar codebase to their MS Windows driver so I don't know what is going on.
  However, with that size or above being able to swivel doesn't really matter so much.
4. Re:The future looks bright! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 15:28 · Score: 0
  
  now that everything is really persistent, asynchronous, and digital under the hood. isn't it
  time we just dropped the idea of a fully synchronous frame update? if things aren't changing
  i shouldn't have to deal with flicker at all, and if they are i can trade off update rate with
  image fidelity.
  gimme compressed bitblt please
5. Re:The future looks bright! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  I have a 40" 4k. Much better for office work as you have some real estate to work with.
6. Re:The future looks bright! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 15:51 · Score: 0
  
  I keep my 4k 27" at 100% scale, find that is wonderful to develop my games with. Why would you want to scale? Is it just for those with sight trouble seeing such small elements?
7. Re:The future looks bright! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 15:53 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty sure there is a large different between the 120hz of a pc monitor and the "240hz" claims of tv manufacturers?
8. Re:The future looks bright! by FlyHelicopters · 2016-03-02 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  My 30" panels have 4 million pixels on them. My 32" panels have 8 million pixels on them. The 32" panels have sharper text because they have double the number of pixels to work with.
  The pixel density and sharpness is a nice improvement over the 30" panels, it is a clear and obvious improvement. It is worth noting the 30" panels and 32" panels are actually about the same size, since the 32" panels are 16:9 and the 30" panels are 16:10.
  The 30" panels are also better screens, in terms of color balance and such, since they are professional monitors. Even today they cost more than the 32" 4k screens do, but I've had them for awhile, since before the 4k was an option. Both screens are IPS.
  Since you bought up 5k at 27", you must be an Apple user. I'm not convinced at 32" I'll ever need more than 4k, I can no longer see the pixels like I can on the 30" screens at 2560x1600. At 27" it strikes me as overkill to even have 4k, but maybe that is my 40+ year old eyes. My son has 27" screens at 16:9 2560x1440 and frankly I find it hard to see the pixels on those. They are noticeably smaller than the 32" screens and I can't imagine even wanting 4k at that size.
9. Re:The future looks bright! by billcopc · 2016-03-02 19:18 · Score: 2
  
  Just a few months ago, I replaced my multiple monitors with a 55" Samsung JU7500 TV. Apparently all the 2015 Samsung TVs can do proper 60hz 4K over HDMI 2.0. I picked this particular model for its fast response time: 34ms @ 4K (PC mode) and 21ms @ 1080p (game mode). Color accuracy is obviously not 100% as this is a PVA panel, but the curved screen helps with uniformity, and a little calibration goes a long way. I went SLI 980, mostly to see how Crysis 3 would look (amazeballs). You really don't need to run everything at full res, as the upscaling is very good on this TV, so a single 970/980 would be fine for most people, but I'm a "go big or go home" kind of guy.
  The way I see it, this cost me roughly the same as two mid-range 32" monitors. No bezels in the way, no fussy NVidia Surround to worry about, and it doubles as a pretty respectable TV. The one downside for me is that I have to turn it on and off with the remote - it doesn't sleep and wake like a proper PC monitor, though a $45 CEC injector would solve that. Otherwise, I'm overwhelmingly happy with this setup in both work and play.
  
  --
  -Billco, Fnarg.com
10. Re:The future looks bright! by FlyHelicopters · 2016-03-02 19:30 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the info, I was not aware that any 4k TVs were 60hz. Shame they don't put Display Port on them, that would make it easier.
  You bought a 7500 mode, what do you think of the 6500 models? Do they have 60hz HDMI 2.0 inputs?
  http://amzn.to/1QtpZaV
  That is a 55" unit for $900, far less than the cost of the unit you bought. It appears to be a slightly lower quality and 120 refresh rate instead of 240, but that would be fine for me.
  At $900, it costs the same as a 32" Acer 4k computer monitor, making it an interesting option.
11. Re:The future looks bright! by troon · 2016-03-02 23:47 · Score: 1
  
  Bit of pedantry: the 29.1" width includes the bezel. If it's a real 32" diagonal and a real 16:9 aspect as per the specs, the screen width is 27.9" so 138ppi. #pythagoras
  
  --
  Ydco co ,df C erb-y go. a Ekrpat t.fxrapev
12. Re:The future looks bright! by jcdr · 2016-03-03 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  Fully agree. My first 4K screen was too small (28" or 32" I don't remember) and my vision suffered with it. I tested the 4K 40" screen Philips BDM4065UC I was very impressed by it. Can't go back on anything other. My girlfriend have the same monitor now and find the ones she use at work pretty ridiculous in comparaison.
13. Re:The future looks bright! by jcdr · 2016-03-03 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  I am 45 years old and still have a pretty good vision without correction. But on a 28" 4K monitor I tested for months I noticed an increase of visual fatigue. I now have a 40" 4K monitor and this solved the issue. The feeling is much more natural.
14. Re:The future looks bright! by AmiMoJo · 2016-03-03 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  It depends on your eyesight... 4k @ 27" is pretty good for most people, with either 200% scaling if you have good vision or 150% if you prefer readability. Okay, at 150% you don't get perfect 2x scaling, but 97% of the time it looks perfectly fine.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
15. Re:The future looks bright! by Plumpaquatsch · 2016-03-03 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  I totally agree. I watch my hockey in 1080 HD at 240hz and it is unbelievably clear with almost no background blur at all. So much better, that watching 60hz broadcasts makes me think I am losing my mind.
  Go Sharks !!!
  You are aware that the original video signal is still stuck at 1080i@60Hz, and that the display interpolates images in between? And that the fact that this looks "better" is proof that the whole process is not "visually lossless"?
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
16. Re:The future looks bright! by Archfeld · 2016-03-03 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly no, video interpolation is far from my realm of interest, or understanding. What I am aware of is the background crowd no longer blurs when the camera swings quickly, and the puck remains focused nearly all the time. Tennis matches seem to benefit greatly from the lack of background blur as well. I rarely watch anything but sports so I can't make a statement about anything else. Thanks for the info though.
  Knowing is half the battle, not giving a shit makes up most of the rest of the conflict.
  
  --
  errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
17. Re:The future looks bright! by billcopc · 2016-03-03 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  I think the 6500 would be more than acceptable. I got very good promo pricing on the 7500 during the holidays, otherwise I would have gone with the 6500 or 6700. I suppose you could buy from a store with a lenient return/satisfaction policy if you need the peace of mind. I based my decision on the detailed reviews from RTings.com. Here's their analysis of the 6500:
  http://www.rtings.com/tv/revie...
  The lack of DisplayPort is no longer an issue, as there is finally have a true DP->HDMI 2.0 adapter (Club3D CAC-1070). Amazon has it for $30, though it is out of stock at the moment - it was released just over a month ago so demand is still quite high, but it will do 4K @ 60hz unlike the HDMI 1.4 adapters which only do 30hz.
  You will probably want some kind of desktop management tool. On Windows I just write little AutoHotKey scripts that trap Win+arrow and Win+numpad keys, basically extending / overriding Aero Snap. There are lots of utilities available, free and commercial, but I preferred to work with what I already know.
  
  --
  -Billco, Fnarg.com
Looks like all the connectors are going away by SensitiveMale · 2016-03-02 12:42 · Score: 1

Looks like all the connectors are going away and everything is standardizing on USB Type-C connector. Good. Everything piggybacks over USB 3.1 including power. This looks like the best thing.
1. Re:Looks like all the connectors are going away by Parafilmus · 2016-03-02 13:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Hmm... so you're saying my keyboard's gonna have an AT connector attached to a PS/2 adapter attached to a USB adapter attached to a Type C adapter? Sounds good to me. Bring it on!
2. Re:Looks like all the connectors are going away by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds dangerous. Once all devices use USB with no exception, the USB license could suddenly charge an extra $20 for each device with USB support and there is nothing we can do about it. While I'm pro standards, I'm not happy with a standard, which isn't free. Old standards like the serial and parallel ports were completely free. Anybody could make their own device and hook it up to the computer. USB devices needs to be signed and a license to make signed USB devices cost $4000/year and I think that's for each type of product. It's not a big problem if you make 50k+ devices a year as dividing up the license cost on each device doesn't make a difference. However it eliminates a small starting company from making 40 devices each year as this would charge $100 extra on each sold device.
  Before you mention that 40 units/year is too little to make a business, I do have to point out that it depends on the product. Often they buy a licensed USB to parallel port converter and make a parallel device or they go strait to the parallel port and no USB support. Selling 40 units/year could be high if the intended customer is hospitals or similar. In fact lots of medical devices have parallel only for exporting results and the parallel port system is still widely used in lots of hospitals. The license isn't the only reason as reliability needs to be well tested and documented. A simple protocol is easier (cheaper) to document.
3. Re:Looks like all the connectors are going away by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 13:46 · Score: 0
  
  Hmm... so you're saying my keyboard's gonna have an AT connector attached to a PS/2 adapter attached to a USB adapter attached to a Type C adapter? Sounds good to me. Bring it on!
  Yeah, and similarly, what I'm I going to do with my Centronics interface printer, or my RS-232 interface modem? And don't get me started on my S-100 bus equipment.
4. Re: Looks like all the connectors are going away by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  I work for a business that makra only a couple dozen unita a year (scientific instruments), but we don't pay usb licenses. We just use chips or modules that already paid the fees. And your simple serial and parallel were not well standardized, as you can find varying voltages and even pin usages on serial connections, which was a huge mess for esoteric equipment that needed to assume some voltage, etc.
5. Re:Looks like all the connectors are going away by TeknoHog · 2016-03-02 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like all the connectors are going away and everything is standardizing on USB Type-C connector. Good. Everything piggybacks over USB 3.1 including power. This looks like the best thing.
  Ah, the "universal" serial bus. This will be great until USB 4 which is a completely new technology, but will have USB 2 and 3 pins bolted on to maintain backwards compatibility.
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
6. Re:Looks like all the connectors are going away by Plumpaquatsch · 2016-03-03 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like all the connectors are going away and everything is standardizing on USB Type-C connector. Good. Everything piggybacks over USB 3.1 including power. This looks like the best thing.
  Yeah great. Now everything depends on whether that cheap Chinese USB cable you bought is close enough to standard, not just the speed of your external hard drive.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
7. Re:Looks like all the connectors are going away by mattventura · 2016-03-03 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't it great? Before, we had USB A, USB B, Mini A, Mini B, Micro A, Micro B, Micro B USB 3.0 edition, and Apple's various proprietary connectors over the years. Now we can add one more into the mix that will be deprecated in time, so you get to upgrade your stuff yet again in a few years. It's the same shit every time.
8. Re: Looks like all the connectors are going away by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-03 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  You're exaggerating quite a lot considering A and B are not different cables but just different ends of the same cable. With micro, you just need a new cheap cable. With C, you can use your old device anyway, and would need a new hipset if you wanted the extra speed and power, and that would not have changed regardless of the cable.
60Hz ? by ChunderDownunder · 2016-03-02 12:48 · Score: 1

I realise there are few, affordable, 8K displays on the market but shouldn't a standard assume forward compatibility if it already supports 120Hz at 4K?
1. Re:60Hz ? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  8k at 30 Hz necessarily follows, but not 60 Hz.
  Remember that a 8k display is twice larger in both dimensions than a 4k display, so it needs 4 times as much data per frame to drive a 8k monitor. To compensate, you need to quarter the frame rate.
2. Re:60Hz ? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 14:21 · Score: 0
  
  60Hz ain't shit. I find at least 75Hz is better for people who see flickering at 60.
3. Re:60Hz ? by Osgeld · 2016-03-02 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  this is for computer monitors and almost all of them are 60HZ cause no one makes a good computer monitor anymore
  besides with compression and even USB3 speeds just cause it can drive a 60 or 120hz screen doesnt mean its video is actually refreshing at 60 or 120Hz, things similar in function have been known to drop frames and kind of smudge the leftovers together for a kind of "tween" effect ala 1990's music videos
4. Re:60Hz ? by UnknownSoldier · 2016-03-02 16:36 · Score: 1
  
  > Wouldn't you want 240Hz so that you don't get eyestrain? I don't watch TV but I've heard that somewhere.
  In my experience the magic number for a solid frame rate seems to be ~96 Hz .. 120 Hz, especially for CG.
  While it is easy to tell the difference between 30 Hz, 60 Hz, and 120 Hz, I haven't seen any studies comparing 144 Hz and 240 Hz.
  8K @ 60 Hz with HDR (10-bit to 12-bit) is definitely "good" enough for this camper.
5. Re:60Hz ? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 23:09 · Score: 0
  
  These are CRTs, dumbass.
6. Re:60Hz ? by jcdr · 2016-03-03 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  Not necessary CRT. Fast moving objects rendering at 60Hz can be painful to watch on any monitor technology. Once you have tested a 120Hz rendering you will quickly notice the difference.
7. Re:60Hz ? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-03 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  Apparently the guy calling me a dumbass has no fucking clue what he's talking about. Some people are more receptive to screen flickering at 60hz, while others aren't.
Latency? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 12:52 · Score: 0

It sounds great, but I'm a bit worried about using USB for a video signal. For a start, the USB protocol was never designed for low latency high capacity transfers. Encoding the video into the USB protocol and back could add a bit of latency compared to a dedicated video streaming cable and protocol. Even worse, there could be traffic in the USB cable.
Having said that, if the USB controller could be set into some QoS mode where video has higher priority than anything else, then it could start to look interesting. It would likely require a custom USB controller or at least a controller with support for some feature. However none of the links are very specific about details when they mention "USB Type-C cables", which mean based on this I can't tell if latency can be an issue in some setups. Losing one frame every hour could be acceptable on TV, but likely less acceptable on a high end gaming computer. People claim bad gaming results on lag. Imagine if they start to say "the screen lagged due to high USB traffic".
1. Re:Latency? by aXis100 · 2016-03-02 13:08 · Score: 2
  
  This is not your Grandmother's USB signalling. USB3 has evolved a long way and has excellent bandwidth with significantly reduced latency.
2. Re:Latency? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  Even worse, there could be traffic in the USB cable.
  Well, that would be a reason not to piggyback mass storage devices off of a display using USB Type-C: the display traffic would be soaking up a significant portion of the USB bandwidth, and would be a higher priority, causing slower transfers for piggybacked mass storage devices. It wouldn't much affect devices like keyboards and mice unless you're one of those gamer dude nut jobs that already think there's too much latency in Bluetooth audio.
3. Re:Latency? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 14:29 · Score: 0
  
  Reduced latencty is not 0 latency
4. Re: Latency? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 14:37 · Score: 0
  
  Absolutely nothing in any device has 0 latency.
5. Re:Latency? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 16:13 · Score: 0
  
  A quick lesson in physics for you... There is no latency in a USB cable, the wires inside are metal. Any signal sent through a wire will be almost as fast as light. It's the USB specification you are probably thinking of, but TFA is talking about using a USB cable, not the USB specification like USB 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, etc.
6. Re: Latency? by thsths · 2016-03-02 19:58 · Score: 1
  
  > Absolutely nothing in any device has 0 latency.
  Technically true, but that is a platitude in this context. A CRT has, for all means and purposes, 0 latency. Sure it takes the signal some time to travel down the monitor cable, but it travels at the speed of light, as does the light emitted from the CRT. Both delays are 7 orders of magnitude shorter than the delays found in LCD monitors.
7. Re:Latency? by dave420 · 2016-03-02 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  Light doesn't have "0 latency", so I have no idea what you are complaining about. I suspect you don't, either.
8. Re:Latency? by jcdr · 2016-03-03 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  You get it the wrong way: the cable is used into a "Alternate Mode" http://www.displayport.org/pr/...
  The video signals inside a USB type C cable are just plain Displayport signals without any modification. On the host side there is a multiplexer chip that can switch the source of the signals injected into the USB type C cable from either the USB host controller USB signals or from the GPU Displayport signals.
  More clear explaination here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/...
9. Re:Latency? by Plumpaquatsch · 2016-03-03 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  This is not your Grandmother's USB signalling. USB3 has evolved a long way and has excellent bandwidth with significantly reduced latency.
  Well, the standard has evolved. The cables not so much.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
10. Re: Latency? by Plumpaquatsch · 2016-03-03 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  > Absolutely nothing in any device has 0 latency.
  Technically true, but that is a platitude in this context. A CRT has, for all means and purposes, 0 latency. Sure it takes the signal some time to travel down the monitor cable, but it travels at the speed of light, as does the light emitted from the CRT. Both delays are 7 orders of magnitude shorter than the delays found in LCD monitors.
  You are ignoring all the extra blanks that have to be added to the video signal for a CRT so you don't see the physical latency while moving the electron beam from one line to the next, and up between frames. Unless you already include those blanks in your digital feed to the CRT as extra "empty" bits, you will need to add some latency (and a frame buffer) to get the timing in order.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
11. Re:Latency? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-03 03:19 · Score: 0
  
  For all intents and purposes the speed of light is fast enough. A few milliseconds does matter however.
12. Re: Latency? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-03 03:56 · Score: 0
  
  Never played a game on a CRT eh? :p No latency.
You had me until "USB Type-C cables" by gweilo8888 · 2016-03-02 13:05 · Score: 2

Anybody want to drop a fortune on an 8K monitor only to have it ruined by a shoddy cable? Anyone? Bueller?
1. Re:You had me until "USB Type-C cables" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 13:30 · Score: 0
  
  DisplayPort cables have the same problem. Being misinformed that cable quality doesn't matter for digital signals, I just bought a cable of the correct length. I had dropped frames due to noise. It started out as noise, then black and then it resynced and was back to normal. Quite annoying. Once I moved the computer and I had the "misfortune" of breaking the connector on the cable, revealing that it was overall horrible quality. I bought a new highend cable and despite twice as long, I never had video problems ever again. Granted the dataset is too tiny to tell if it is a general problem or if I was just unlucky. Still 1 out of 1 cheap cables failed badly.
  I suspect bad cables exist for all standards, particularly for open standards with many manufacturers competition on price. The problem is knowing that doesn't help us much. It doesn't tell when the expensive ones are ripoffs or when the cheap ones work badly. All we can do is to rely on people to test for us, like the google engineer did.
2. Re:You had me until "USB Type-C cables" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 13:39 · Score: 0
  
  Anybody want to drop a fortune on an 8K monitor only to have it ruined by a shoddy cable? Anyone? Bueller?
  Or, just don't buy cheap knockoffs that completely disregard the spec (as with most things).
3. Re:You had me until "USB Type-C cables" by PPH · 2016-03-02 14:08 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Type C means Chinese, right?
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
4. Re:You had me until "USB Type-C cables" by aliquis · 2016-03-02 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  Anybody want to drop a fortune on an 8K monitor only to have it ruined by a shoddy cable? Anyone? Bueller?
  Use USB they said - it only requires one cable for everything they said:
  http://greenlightgo.org/educat...
5. Re:You had me until "USB Type-C cables" by aliquis · 2016-03-02 14:40 · Score: 2
  
  My joke could had been fun if I had made it correctly, one article had a lot of cables but I didn't knew whatever all was standard USB ports or not so I googled it and just took one but that one didn't even have the type C port so .. that was pretty stupid. 03:35 local time so I blame that. Also there was the SuperSpeed cables as-well.
  So you've got A, B in normal and mini and micro versions:
  https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
  And then you've got SuperSpeed A, B and micro-B:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  http://www.usb.org/press/cespr...
  http://ecx.images-amazon.com/i...
  And USB type C:
  http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-...
  For at-least 10 different connectors for USB cables =P
6. Re:You had me until "USB Type-C cables" by Nemyst · 2016-03-02 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  Monitors of that size wouldn't be using the USB cable for power under most circumstances, so the shoddy power connection wouldn't matter.
7. Re:You had me until "USB Type-C cables" by secretsquirel · 2016-03-02 18:05 · Score: 1
  
  c is for cookie
8. Re:You had me until "USB Type-C cables" by thegarbz · 2016-03-02 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  The laptop wasn't ruined by a USB cable. It was ruined by lack of I/O protection on a port. There's nothing stopping this happening on any monitor.
9. Re:You had me until "USB Type-C cables" by blindseer · 2016-03-02 18:38 · Score: 2
  
  That's good enough for me.
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
10. Re:You had me until "USB Type-C cables" by jcdr · 2016-03-03 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  "Benson Leung
  +Stephen Warren Our initial failure analysis on my Pixel shows that not everything failed. The main battery charger has reverse-polarity protection and did not fail in this case. The Pericom PI3USB9281 that we use on Pixel for negotiating BC1.2 and Apple charging protocols is NOT tolerant to negative voltages and most definitely was destroyed. Furthermore, something killed the ST PD microcontroller that handles this system's power delivery logic. We are still investigating."
  Found into https://plus.google.com/+Benso...
news flash! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 13:08 · Score: 0

I'm waiting to buy DisplayPort 1.5 next week in preparation for my 16k TV set next year.. :)
1. Re:news flash! by Austerity+Empowers · 2016-03-02 15:38 · Score: 1
  
  I'd wait for DisplayPort 1.99999, "retina" 72" flatscreen or GTFO.
60Hz ? by swell · 2016-03-02 13:24 · Score: 1

"drive 60Hz 8K displays and 120Hz 4K displays..."
Is this adequate? Wouldn't you want 240Hz so that you don't get eyestrain? I don't watch TV but I've heard that somewhere.

--
...omphaloskepsis often...
32inch 4K monitors not ready for prime time yet by NormAtHome · 2016-03-02 13:27 · Score: 2

I'm guessing that most 32inch 4K display's use an LG panel but a lot of user reviews I see of the LG, Dell and Asus complain of moderate to severe backlight bleed not to mention other assorted issues i.e. could not display at 60hz via displayport using the correct certified cables; some people say displayport on these monitors is broken and even with certified cables the computer and monitors don't see each other all the time. For what people are paying for there should not be these problems.
1. Re:32inch 4K monitors not ready for prime time yet by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  For what people are paying for there should not be these problems.
  When people pay for a product, it should do what it says it does without causing problems. Period. If a product claims to do something and it doesn't work as it claims, it's a problem regardless of how much people pay for it. If a product only had to work if the cost is at least $500, then we would get swamped with $400 non-working hoaxes. The law regarding false advertisement and similar doesn't limit itself to only work on some price scales.
2. Re:32inch 4K monitors not ready for prime time yet by nojayuk · 2016-03-02 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  I've been using a Dell 32" 4k display for about 15 months now, running it at 60Hz over DisplayPort from a budget AMD video card, the cheapest I could buy at the time that had DP output. I don't game on this monitor, other than Spider and the occasional sudoku puzzle.
  I used the DP cable supplied by Dell with the montor (UP3214Q) and it's worked perfectly although it took a little time to set it up and get it to run at 60Hz since it defaulted to 30Hz out of the box for compatibility reasons. No backlight bleed that I can see.
3. Re:32inch 4K monitors not ready for prime time yet by dbIII · 2016-03-02 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  some people say displayport on these monitors is broken and even with certified cables the computer and monitors don't see each other all the time
  A weird thing is I'm getting an occasional displayport detection problem (once every three weeks or so) with MS windows but not on linux so there may be some issues that still have to be sorted out. Annoying but if I reboot I can use the monitor in MS windows.
4. Re:32inch 4K monitors not ready for prime time yet by NormAtHome · 2016-03-02 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'm glad someone is getting a good experience with these, but it really seems to be hit and miss, you can read reviews of LG, Dell and Asus with plenty of people complaining about the issues I mentioned. Then some people seem to be fine like yourself but also plenty of people with issues, if I'm going to lay out $1,200 I want something that's guaranteed to be problem free.
5. Re:32inch 4K monitors not ready for prime time yet by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 15:57 · Score: 0
  
  Have been running an AOC 27" 4k for around two years, never had an issue with the monitor, straight to 60hz running at 100% scale.
  I do have one issue but that is between nvidia and microsoft, for windows displayport it automatically drops to a 1024x768 virtual resolution when sleeping the monitor, you can hack it in the registry to stay at 4k. Many forum posts on that online, just doesn't seem to be an issue for the companies to care still.
6. Re:32inch 4K monitors not ready for prime time yet by FlyHelicopters · 2016-03-02 16:41 · Score: 1
  
  Are you guessing or do you know?
  I have multiple 32" 4k monitors, the Acer version, and they all work perfectly...
  32" Acer 4k B326HK
  http://amzn.to/1pouMDM
  What monitor are you using that you're having trouble with?
7. Re:32inch 4K monitors not ready for prime time yet by AmiMoJo · 2016-03-03 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  The two biggest panel manufacturers are LG and Sharp. However, the panel is separate from the controller board which is the part that has 60Hz issues and the like. The cheapest ones don't even have scalers.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
8. Re:32inch 4K monitors not ready for prime time yet by NormAtHome · 2016-03-03 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not guessing because multiple bad reviews on sites for all of the brands I mentioned plus the model you have says these monitors still need some work, I'm not laying out $900-$1,200 for a monitor that potentially has serious issues.
  On Amazon people have these complaints about the B326HK:
  -This panel has a forced overdrive setting that you cannot turn off. Whenever you move a window/anything around there will be a very noticeable almost flashing purpleish shadow following anything you move around (this drove me crazy/caused eye fatigue for me)
  - Mine had dead pixels
  - Colors are muted, even with calibrations this monitor didn't have clear quality color representation
  - AVHA Panel seems to bottom out on the low end of the color scale, things that are dark are way too dark (you lose quite a bit of detail in the blacks)
  -Flashing in some games (Skyrim, ARMA3, etc) and certain Google maps areas, just like the BL3200PT.
  -Very poor black uniformity. The one I received had clouding issues, and the one side of the screen was lighter than the other.
  -Very poor gray uniformity. This display has the same banding issues as the BL3200PT, and it is noticeable in normal use.
  -Noticeable inverse ghosting and unadjustable overdrive. You can see a blue trail on the mouse cursor. It is noticeable in games as well.
9. Re:32inch 4K monitors not ready for prime time yet by NormAtHome · 2016-03-03 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  I mentioned the panel because the most commonly talked about problem on the LG, Dell and Asus 32inch curved models seems to be a serious backlight bleeding problem which I figure is a problem with the panel. I'm sure (as you say) that some of the other issues such as the 60hz issue and intermittent link problems are controller related.
10. Re:32inch 4K monitors not ready for prime time yet by FlyHelicopters · 2016-03-03 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Two thoughts:
  1. You can return it at no charge within 30 days to Amazon if the specific unit you buy has any of those issues.
  2. People with problems complain, people without problems use the product.
  Like I said, I own 5 of those monitors, they all work perfectly as far as I can tell. My wife has one on her desk and I have two machines at the office that have 2 each on them and they are lovely to use.
  I can tell the uniformity and color accuracy is not as good as the Dell 30" professional monitors, but I wasn't expecting it to be. The color gamut isn't as good and the back light isn't as good.
  But it is "good enough", considering they cost less and have more space/higher resolution.
  At the time I bought those panels (in November/December) they were $750 on Amazon. At that price, you'd be nuts to not buy them. Today they are $900, less of a "good deal", but still a decent one.
  If you see the price drop back to $800 or so, try one, you might be surprised.
  Or don't, and wait another year or so for another generation of panels to come out, they'll likely just keep getting better.
Re: 32inch 4K monitors not ready for prime time ye by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 14:15 · Score: 0

Do they advertise that the displays will run indefinitely without needing to be power cycled, that the backlighting is perfectly uniform, and that warranty replacements would be painless? If all they said was it has a certain resolution and refresh rate, don't blame them for false advertising when it sucks in some other way.
I should have said by dbIII · 2016-03-02 14:18 · Score: 1

I should have said that from my limited experience and from what others have said at least some of the displayport problems are in software.
Another is how some monitors work badly directly plugged into a machine but work perfectly if a Matrox two screen displayport splitter box is plugged into the same screen. It's looking a lot like problems in software, probably a step above the manufacturers drivers (because on linux the module supplied by nvidia does all of the work and communicates directly with X - nvidia got it right there so maybe it's somebody else's problem on MS).
cable? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 16:02 · Score: 0

Neat. Wake me up when it can do that without a cable of any kind.
New iMac? by Spudboy2003 · 2016-03-02 18:16 · Score: 1

Hopefully the new iMacs that come out this year will use this. And finally will be able to be used as external monitors.
Step in the tight direction but far too little... by mseeger · 2016-03-02 18:24 · Score: 1

This is a very small step in the right direction.
The bandwidth requirements of modern monitor cables are insane. We have up to nearly 40gbps between a PC and a 4K monitor with 60Hz.
The strange thing is: it is already been proven that 50mbps are more than enough (with compression). There are three orders of magnitude in between.
IMHO the next monitor cable should be something like CAT6A and the GPU and the monitor should speak over an IP connection. This would greatly simplify a lot of things.
Re: "visually lossless" sounds a lot like lossy.. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 21:03 · Score: 0

so it is "visually lossy" after all. if you can tell the difference via video scopes, or any other form of visual analysis, that's probably the definition of "lossy".
I wish it didn't take so long to hit the market by Improv · 2016-03-03 01:58 · Score: 1

I don't think any DP1.3 devices are consumer-available yet, and they're already releasing the DP1.4 spec. Not that it's their fault, but I wish we could have faster movement on the hardware side.

--
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
1. Re:I wish it didn't take so long to hit the market by jacks+smirking+reven · 2016-03-03 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  I am with you, I would love to see more Displayport connectors out in the consumer field. The connector is better than DVI/HDMI and it's an open VESA standard. Unfortunately it seems the media companies and the consumer electronics manufacturers decided on HDMI due to content protection and wanting to control the signal path (never-mind that Displayport has and does support HDCP) even though HDCP hasn't prevented anything and is really just a huge PITA for anyone working with it in a commercial AV setting.
Re:Step in the tight direction but far too little. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-03 04:51 · Score: 0

What kind of input lag would add such a compression/decompression scheme?
I've seen providers talking about 'low latency' with figures of a hundred milliseconds or more, and that is for a measly 1080p video image. That would not be acceptable at all for gaming or serious applications.
Re:Step in the tight direction but far too little. by jacks+smirking+reven · 2016-03-03 09:22 · Score: 1

Not exactly what you are getting at but the main technology that separate Displayport from previous display standards is that the video signal is in fact packetized (but it uses as they call it "micro-packets"). This is how they've been able to get up to 8k/60hz now without changing the cables or the connector. It's not quite as high level as an IP connection but more akin to PCI-Express rather then just a raw stream of bits over a wire.