HDMI 2.1 Is Here With 10K and Dynamic HDR Support (engadget.com) 176
Swapna Krishna reports via Engadget: Back in January, the HDMI Forum unveiled its new specifications for the HDMI connector, called HDMI 2.1. Now, that HDMI specification is available to all HDMI 2.0 adopters. It's backwards compatible with all previous HDMI specifications. The focus of HDMI 2.1 is on higher video bandwidth; it supports 48 GB per second with a new backwards-compatible ultra high speed HDMI cable. It also supports faster refresh rates for high video resolution -- 60 Hz for 8K and 120 Hz for 4K. The standard also supports Dynamic HDR and resolutions up to 10K for commercial and specialty use. This new version of the HDMI specification also introduces an enhanced refresh rate that gamers will appreciate. VRR, or Variable Refresh Rate, reduces, or in some cases eliminates, lag for smoother gameplay, while Quick Frame Transport (QFT) reduces latency. Quick Media Switching, or QMS, reduces the amount of blank-screen wait time while switching media. HDMI 2.1 also includes Auto Low Latency Mode (ALLM), which automatically sets the ideal latency for the smoothest viewing experience.
Why celebrate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Celebrate because: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, sure, but you actually want displayport.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I like innovation but most television providers still deliver their content at 720p. The Verizon FiOS install guy quietly admitted to Verizon only offering HD content at 720p. Why in the sam hill would I pony up the money for a 10K TV when content is nowhere near ready.
Which is a pity for those who consume through that archaic model. There's all sorts of alternative methods of consuming media and many offer 4k content, for far cheaper than cable. That said, HDMI 2.1 has as much to do with cable TV and TV resolution as USB2 or 3 does.
I assume that, if you're asking why you would pony for a 10k TV, you either don't fall into the commercial category, or you didn't RTFS? I'm assuming the latter because you completely glazed over all of the other benefits.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
8k test broadcasts have already started in Japan. They will be broadcasting the 2020 Tokyo Olympics in 8k, although it sounds like Verizon might down-sample to 720p for you.
Strange that the free market wouldn't provide you with a higher quality stream... But there is always The Pirate Bay for 4k content.
Re:Why celebrate? (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead of asking why you would want a TV better than 720p, you should be asking why you're sticking with a distributor who reduces the quality of the content provided.
Re: (Score:2)
What is this television provider thing you're talking about and what does it have to do with the amount of 4K content available from Netflix, Youtube or this antiquated thing called Bluray.
Was television some kind of a predecessor to all of these?
Re: (Score:3)
You wouldn’t, but that’s sorta like asking why we bother adding lanes to highways when they already have enough lanes to cover today’s needs. We add them because we need to be ready to handle tomorrow’s needs.
These sorts of specs are the roads tomorrow’s content will be driving on, so if we ever want better content, we need to keep pushing out the means by which we’d enjoy it. And, frankly, while it sounds like Verizon is screwing you over (a shock, I’m sure), there
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn’t, but that’s sorta like asking why we bother adding lanes to highways when they already have enough lanes to cover today’s needs. We add them because we need to be ready to handle tomorrow’s needs.
What strange place is this that you live in?
Where I live the roads are slowly being upgraded to handle the traffic from 20 years ago, instead of the traffic from 50 years ago. Nobody is talking about upgrading them to accommodate CURRENT traffic, let alone FUTURE traffic! (and if you find a place that is capable of handling current traffic, you can guarantee that they will implement "traffic calming" measures and either reduce the number of lanes of traffic, reduce the speed of traffic, or implement additio
Re: (Score:2)
Cable and OTA are not the only sources of content. In fact, the trend is away from those as sources. When 4k was released, people made the same complaints... now there are UHD 4k Blu-Ray disks, streaming services, and even game consoles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why celebrate? (Score:2)
Sure, I like innovation but most television providers still deliver their content at 720p.
And even worse - far worse, IMHO - most so-called "720p displays" have resolutions of 1366Ã--768, thus eliminating pixel-for-pixel clarity unless you have a setting to disable "zoom" (yeah, I understand the industry's need for a vertical rez compatible with legacy standards...).
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to be great for VR.
The Oculus Rift CV1 is neat, but still suffers from low resolution. If a 4K headset was available, I would buy it right this minute. The problem is that it would have to be 4K at 90 FPS, which this development solves.
Re:Why celebrate? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that _you_ missed the point. When the existing standards have bandwidth requirements that are beyond the ability of content providers to distribute and there is virtually no planned upgrade path, further upgrades to that standard are of little/no use.
Re:Why celebrate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Who (beyond the people making money off of HDMI licensing) says that we _HAVE_ to upgrade HDMI _NOW_, long, long before content providers are ready to distribute any content that will need it? If you need 10K screens & it _isn't_ for video, why aren't you using DisplayPort which is cheaper?
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you assuming a TV is the only device on the end of a HDMI cable? I’m looking forward to 4k / 120hz monitors.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think that HDMI (which because it has mandatory monetary licensing is better than DisplayPort, which is technically superior and because it doesn't have the mandatory licensing is also cheaper?
Re: (Score:2)
its better because it costs more... i mean you get what you pay for... right?
Re: (Score:2)
both institutions are working as intended.
IRS is taxing whom ever the current despot wants to tax/pressure
USG is passing all the bought for laws. money well spent
Re: (Score:2)
welcome to serfdom, taxation without representation is back baby.
Re: (Score:2)
I don’t see how what you have written makes any sense as it is a bit garbled. I don’t see any connection between a relative comparison between displayport / hdmi and whether or not improvements in hdmi would only apply to cable tv (your earlier argument). What are you trying to say?
Re: (Score:2)
You might find remedial reading courses helpful.
The people who will need HDMI 2.1 in anything under 5 years are vanishingly rare. By that time it will certainly be better and cheaper to use DisplayPort. Thus the HDMI 2.1 specification is of very little use other than enriching the members of HDMI Licensing LLC.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you need some kind of remedial writing course instead?
The newlines are added to help you see the disaster that is your attempt to write a coherent sentence. I serious;y doubt there is a reading course anywhere in the world that could overcome your disability.
Users of hdmi2.1 within 5 year
Re: (Score:2)
Ohhh look, junior puzzled his way through a very slightly complicated sentence. We hope that one day he'll be reading at the third grade level....
Re: (Score:2)
It is disturbing that you believe that is a valid sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
If third grade reading is too complicated for you go back to second grade.
Re: (Score:2)
It is laughable that you believe what you wrote is valid. You need something like a second grade education yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Why, so you would have someone to talk to? Your puerile "I don't understand so you're the problem" bores everyone.
Re: (Score:1)
10K TVs need to be technologically possible before content will be generated, otherwise there'll be nothing to watch it on. And there is watchable 4K right now. Netflix, Amazon Prime, Bluray. Some over the air, cable and satellite content is 4K too (BBC's Planet Earth 2, Blue Planet 2, some Sky programs). Sorry your providers are behind the curve. Console games are also moving into 4K now as well (Xbox One X).
Re: (Score:2)
My content provider is a GPU, and it's mostly limited by the communication and display standards supported by my monitor, TV, and headset.
HDMI has long since grown beyond a TV interface. And even the global TV market has grown well beyond the anemic offerings of the US cable providers.
Re: (Score:2)
In that context, one should have a clear preference for DisplayPort which generally supports higher display rates than HDMI and doesn't artificially make the screens & graphics cards more expensive by forcing everyone to pay licensing like HDMI does.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. And when it comes time to replace my 40" monitor (TV) I really hope I can find one that supports DisplayPort without having to compromise elsewhere. Barring that, it doesn't look like HDMI support on TVs is going away anytime soon, so I'm all for it becoming more capable.
Re:Why celebrate? (Score:4, Insightful)
What makes you think that viewing content provided by Verizon over their TV feeds is the only use for HDMI?
Re: (Score:2)
DisplayPort is a cheaper and generally technically superior solution for those who aren't "viewing content provided by [X] over their TV feeds". Thus HDMI is for everyone else.
Re: Why celebrate? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that _you_ missed the point. When the existing standards have bandwidth requirements that are beyond the ability of content providers to distribute and there is virtually no planned upgrade path, further upgrades to that standard are of little/no use.
The ability to have VR headsets with a pair of 4k screens that you can drive with stereoscopic visuals is certainly a reason to have standards like this.
Re: (Score:2)
That is indeed an exception but I still fail to see why HDMI is superior to DisplayPort for this.
Re: (Score:2)
HDMI 2.1 can do 8k @ 120Hz with 3:1 DSC, DisplayPort 1.4 can only do 8k @ 60Hz with the same compression ratio. The next version of DisplayPort should match HDMI 2.1 though. 120Hz is VERY important in VR.
In any case I said 'standards like this', whether that is DisplayPort or HDMI doesn't really matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Elsewhere in this thread I’ve said that DisplayPort is generally (but not always) technologically superior to HDMI. If the past is any guide, by the time that they have actual HDMI 2.1 cards & screens, DisplayPort 1.5 cards and screens will have been selling for 6 months.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends how close you sit, and how large the TV is. The "sweet spot" right now in TVs is 65-70". At 70", a 4k screen is clearly beneficial at 5 ft away and arguably beneficial at 8 or 9ft. I don't think it is absurd to assume that the sweet spot will continue to march upwards, and with it the benefits of higher resolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Only an idiot claims that an upgrade is needed when it will not be needed for the foreseeable future. Also note that there is no clear planned upgrade path comforts _my_ position, not yours.
Lack of imagination (Score:2)
Only an idiot claims that an upgrade is needed when it will not be needed for the foreseeable future.
Who are you to decide what other people might need in the foreseeable future? You have to have the hardware in place for people to develop content for it. Some people probably have a use for 10K content even if you lack the imagination to see what it is today.
Re: (Score:2)
Who are _you_ to decide that _I_ need yet another HDMI version when the use of the _current_ HDMI versions brings absolutely no benefit? People who need 10K are generally using computer generated content and should be preferring DisplayPort which is generally technically superior and don't force everyone to pay obligatory licensing fees like HDMI does.
Yes, but will it... (Score:1)
...will it run Linux?
Re:Yes, but will it... (Score:4, Funny)
If my video cable runs Linux I may just have to abandon modern society as having gone completely insane.
Re: (Score:2)
You can already get one built into a power adapter [wikipedia.org], so it's probably just a matter of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The day a cable has enough integrated electronics to require an OS, I'm out. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, that actually looks pretty awesome....
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem with a *computer* running Linux - I love my Ubuntu laptop (at least, after replacing their abomination of a sidebar with a glorious XFCE panel)
It's when the *cord itself* needs an OS that I'm out.
So...Monster was right after all? (Score:3)
That sounds like an ad for one of those $200 directional Monster cables. Or $10,000 AudioQuest Ethernet [hothardware.com] cables.
Gold Plated (Score:1)
Does it required the connectors to be gold-plated for faster throughput?
Re:Gold Plated (Score:4, Funny)
Does it required the connectors to be gold-plated for faster throughput?
No, there's a new precious metal used these days to maximize the speed of marketing throughput.
They call it "bitcoin".
Re: (Score:2)
Gold plating on cable connectors isn't all that expensive even with the current cost of gold (so don't pay a huge premium for it anyway). Having a non-corroding metal is still useful if you want it to last a long time - especially in a bit harsher of an environment.
Gold plating costs (Score:5, Informative)
Gold plating on cable connectors isn't all that expensive even with the current cost of gold
Disclosure. I am the general manager of a company that manufactures custom wire harnesses for my day job. I buy terminals and connectors daily.
First a bit of pedantry. Connectors are assemblies typically consisting of a housing, some sort of contact and sometimes some locks or seals. Gold plating goes on the contact portion of the assembly, typically a terminal or insulation displacement contact. So saying "gold plated connector" is a bit of a non-sequitur although I understand what you mean.
When you are talking about gold plating a contact the price difference between a gold plated version and a tin or bronze or copper version typically is close to an order of magnitude. If I use a contact that would cost $0.01 in a tin version, the gold plate version will typically cost $0.07-0.10 each. Basically move the decimal point. Now this might be a relatively small cost in the overall cost of the cable assembly but it definitely isn't cheap on a component cost basis.
99.99% of the time that gold plated contacts are specified they are a complete waste of money that provides zero marginal utility to the customer. There are applications where gold is the proper material but these applications are uncommon. The vast majority of the time gold is used it is purely for marketing value to unaware consumers. It works fine but its an unnecessary extra cost most of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
First a bit of pedantry. Connectors are assemblies typically consisting of a housing, some sort of contact and sometimes some locks or seals. Gold plating goes on the contact portion of the assembly, typically a terminal or insulation displacement contact. So saying "gold plated connector" is a bit of a non-sequitur although I understand what you mean.
So you understood what he meant, I understood what he meant, everyone understood what he meant, he used common language terms that everyone uses, and yet you criticized him for it? This is what makes dealing with some specialists (like yourself) so much harder than it has any need to be. If a reasonable person can understand what the average person needs, then you should be able to just interpret it and not need the dick waving contest of trying to prove that you know more than he does.
When you are talking about gold plating a contact the price difference between a gold plated version and a tin or bronze or copper version typically is close to an order of magnitude. If I use a contact that would cost $0.01 in a tin version, the gold plate version will typically cost $0.07-0.10 each. Basically move the decimal point. Now this might be a relatively small cost in the overall cost of the cable assembly but it definitely isn't cheap on a component cost basis.
As the average person
Calm down (Score:2)
So you understood what he meant, I understood what he meant, everyone understood what he meant, he used common language terms that everyone uses, and yet you criticized him for it?
I didn't criticize him, I corrected his terminology and hopefully educated in the process. By your userID number you've been here long enough to know that if you say something technically inaccurate someone will correct you. It's happened to me too and I learn things when it happens. Just because lay people commonly say something incorrect does not in the world of engineering make it correct. Just because people commonly refer to concrete as cement does not mean that they are the same thing. Concrete i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen non-gold coax cables bind to the other receptacle and contacts tear off because they were not gold plated and were two different metals, like tin and copper. Gold works as a great in-between that keeps my items from binding.
Not arguing that there aren't applications for gold plating. There certainly are. Most common use is for corrosion resistance since gold is relatively non-reactive compared with other common metals used in conductors. Point is that such applications are the exception rather than the rule and that most gold plating on consumer applications are a waste of money, brains and time.
Re: (Score:2)
This could be selection bias, but I've never had an issue unscrewing a gold plated coax cable, even from the cheapest brands, but I hav
Accuracy in terminology (Score:2)
Sometimes they gold plate the housing since many of them are made of metal and in some cases they serve some transmission purposes, usually ground but occasionally signal. A USB cable is sort of like this - the "housing" for the signal contacts is really a conductor too (usually embedded in molded plastic for strain relief) and sometimes it is gold plated though this is rarely necessary in practice. Obviously the contacts are almost always what we mean so why not say it accurately and say gold plated contacts when that is what you actually mean? We're engineers here on slashdot so sloppy shorthand is kind of unbecoming.
Re: (Score:2)
So what about coax connectors?
What about them? Unless you have gold plated every component in a connector assembly, saying gold plated connector remains an inaccurate description. I cannot recall ever seeing such a beast though perhaps they do exist for some weird reason.
gigaBITS (Score:3, Informative)
RTFA please before you post about it. gigaBITS, with a small "b". There's an 8 (or 9) fold difference between "Gb" and "GB". If you can't remember what the abbreviation stands for, quit using it and just spell it out properly.
(from TFA: "A bigger pipe (48 gigabits per second) allows more information for higher resolutions, ")
Pisses me off to no end when broadband providers get it wrong in their ads. "can I get that in writing?" (long hold) "actually sir what we meant to say was..."
Re: (Score:2)
I've done a lot of work with benchmarking data transfer rates, (mainly in attached storage) and it's been my experience that /9 almost always yields more accurate real-world estimates than /8. That comes from a mix of things like parity, frame and packet overhead, processing overhead, latency, retransmission, and a bunch of other things t
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't Gibibits the funny gray things inside turkeys?
10k? (Score:2)
Re:10k? (Score:5, Informative)
10K is not 16:9 but an ultra-wide variant of Ultra HD. 10240 * 4320.
There is no such thing as 16K, yet. ... which is 15K ! 4 * 3840 = 15 * 1024.
And if someone tells you they have 16K then they probably have only four times Ultra HD
Actual HDMI Forum Press Release Links (Score:3)
Here are links to the actual HDMI Forum press release on the HDMI 2.1 specification, and high-level presentation discussing the new features in the 2.1 spec.
Press release: https://www.hdmi.org/press/pre... [hdmi.org]
High-level presentation: https://www.hdmi.org/download/... [hdmi.org]>
it's frame rate, not refresh rate (Score:5, Informative)
The frame rate the cable is capable of supporting has nothing to do with display refresh rate. Example: LCD's of recent years refresh at 120hz, using 24 and 30hz source frame rates.
Re: (Score:2)
Barring horribly slow refresh rates that can cause eyestrain and headaches, there's really no point refreshing higher than the input frame rate, is there? So lets not be so pedantic when publications cite that a new cable spec can push enough bits to support the display of a certain resolution at a certain refresh rate.
HDMI voodoo (Score:2)
8K at 60 does not fit in 48Gb it is over 71Gb, of course 4K does not fit in 16Gb either for the old standard. You have to be giving up something.
Re: (Score:3)
The other notable throughput increase is in eARC (previously ARC), allowing 32 channel audio now.
Wonderful, now ... (Score:2)
To take advantage, once any 10k content becomes available, all I have to do is upgrade my TV, DVR/Tivo, home theater receiver, Blu-ray player, etc... Can't wait! So happy I skipped the 4k revolution. Maybe I'll just wait until HDMI is upgraded to support Quantum Entanglement or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To take advantage of 4k content, you will also have to upgrade your EYES, because human visual perception is incapable of perceiving more than 4000x4000 pixels!
The human eye's resolution depends on how far away you expect the screen to be. A VR display, which takes up your entire visual field, could easily use 8K or 10K resolution for an appreciable increase in quality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To take advantage, once any 10k content becomes available, all I have to do is upgrade my ...
Or just upgrade your graphics card and bask in the glory of a thousand Xterms at once.
Still waiting on HDMI 1.4 (Score:2)
That's nice, a new HDMI version. I'm sure it will be picked up by the industry just as well as HDMI 1.4.
HDMI 1.4 added audio return channel, an Ethernet channel, 3D, and 4K. I've started looking for a new KVM switch to replace my VGA switch, something that I know will support at least 4K for future growth. All my computers have some kind of digital output so I don't much care if the KVM is HDMI, DisplayPort, or something else. So long as any kind of adapter I'd need is cheap enough then I don't care wha
Re: (Score:2)
Getting 10K on HDMI is useless if I can't even find 4K on HDMI. It looks like everyone has moved on to DisplayPort for 4K.
I can get 4k over HDMI, but I always use DP because HDMI can only manage 30Hz, not 60Hz, and the mouse movement is very obviously not smooth to me at 30Hz. I've got a bigass NVidia card and a dell monitor.
Re: (Score:2)
I can get 4k over HDMI, but I always use DP because HDMI can only manage 30Hz, not 60Hz, and the mouse movement is very obviously not smooth to me at 30Hz.
I have to wonder if it's the refresh rate or something else going on. 30Hz should be fast enough to keep mouse movement smooth. That must be HDMI 1.4 then, HDMI 2.0 would support 4K/60. That just shows I'm not the only one seeing a lack of support for HDMI 2.0.
I don't think I'm asking too much of HDMI here. DisplayPort 1.2 and HDMI 1.4 both came out in 2009, and both support at least 4K/60. Why is it that HDMI 1.4, or later, on real and actual devices is so hard to find? Why has DisplayPort succeeded
Re: (Score:2)
Since it looks like the cursor is jumping when it moves more than one pixel at a time. Naively,
Re: (Score:2)
HDMI 1.4 can pass 4K at 30Hz. I strain to use the word "support" in this instance since no one is making monitors or TVs with 30Hz refresh rates.
That's no different than having those old CRTs that would do 1600x1200 at headache inducing 60Hz. This is not new. Perhaps you should be thankful it supports HDMI at all?
Looking closer at the spec I see that HDMI 2.0 came out in 2009 and supports 4K/60, a 4K display that does not support HDMI 2.0 is stretching "support" to me as well. That's 8 years of not updating their HDMI support to the latest spec. Much of what separates HDMI from DisplayPort is the spec having an audio return channel and Ethernet.
Numbers game (Score:2)
Missing the most important change (Score:2)
HDMI 2.1 gives you a usable Audio Return Channel! ARC gains enough bandwidth to actually make a surround sound setup worthwhile, it gains reliability since it isn't dependent on 1kHz CEC signalling with dubious vendor support, it gains more reliability because the wires it runs over are guaranteed to be properly shielded (little known fact: If you want to use ARC on HDMI 2.0 and below, buy a HDMI-ethernet-cable), it gains usefulness because it contains a lip-sync signal so you don't have to fiddle with audi
Re: (Score:2)
HDMI has vastly more capacity in one direction. Modern ethernet is full duplex. If you replace HDMI 2.1 with ethernet, you first have to use twice the lanes, and half of them would then sit mostly unused.
You could use plain 100Gbps ethernet over copper, but even the cheapest transceiver options would be close to the cost of a cheap TV.
USB-C alt mode? DisplayPort compatibility? (Score:2)
One thing I wonder is if HDMI 2.1 will be an alternate mode of USB-C. They point out that new cables will have to be labeled as "48G" to support HDMI 2.1. USB-C seems to have a max bandwidth of 40 Gbps, and HDMI 2.1 is 48 Gbps. Can HDMI 2.1 work on USB-C?
A side note on the HDMI cable naming conventions, they seemed to have fallen in the same trap as USB. The cables are "Standard", "High Speed", "Premium High Speed", and now "48G". Unless there is a chart to go with the cables describing the difference
Re: (Score:1)
I can see the standard being useful so that we allow for this situation. It means that if someone does want to make a VR ball, then they just need to think about the display; the generation hardware simply needs to be able to output at that speed. I'm sure some high end off-the-shelf hardware maxes out the specs of HDMI 2.0.
Re: (Score:2)
which means a 10K screen would need to obstruct your ENTIRE field of view to be useful
Or maybe, since this is for commercial displays, you don't need to see the whole screen at once for this to be useful.
Think about a McDonald's digital menu board without seams every couple feet. Or an information display at an airport.
Re: (Score:3)
Displays are often different in size to the content size they finally produce for consumers to enjoy.
Re:The same megapixel craze mistake as in digicams (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition to the other good points raised - the human eye can detect the *presence* of detail at considerably higher detail than it can actually resolve what that detail is. E.g. it can tell that there's a difference between a high-resolution checkerboard pattern and a uniform field of the same average color, even though it can't tell what exactly the pattern is.
Perhaps more relevantly,HDMIis a video interconnect standard, and there's lots more video uses than just TVs, monitors, and signs. A couple obvious ones:
- Light field displays - the HoloPlayerOne for example integrates images from 32 different angles using a "2k" 2560x1600 display, meaning that assuming an optimal pixel distribution it averages only 128k pixels per view, or about 358 pixels square on a display about a foot across. Pretty chunky. 7680x4320 8K would push that up to a 1018 square, 10k a bit farther. I bet you a 40" lightfield display would benefit from many times more pixels than that.
- VR/AR, because lets be honest - pixel densities and field-of-view both have a long way to go before they start reaching human perceptual limits. And that's even before you consider integrating light-field or other technology to provide proper focal depth.
Basically, a video interconnect standard is well behooved to stay many years in front of widespread adoption, so that developing display technologies are inclined to user the existing standard rather than having to develop a new one that might become a competitor.
4K command line (Score:3)
What's the point of a 4K command line, anyway?
A whole bunch of them at once without overlap. Or *gasp* maybe doing something else at the same time. I know, crazy right?
Re: (Score:2)
Multi-tasking is obsolete [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Linux will support it just fine. Your graphics chip has to speak HDMI, but Linux doesn't. And you don't have to use HDCP, so no worries there.
Re: (Score:2)
Just good old ARM (Macrovision).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Not in this case. The "dynamic range" in HDR is the ratio of the highest and lowest value of the signal the display can produce. With a "dynamic" HDR there isn't a fixed ratio - it can be changed as conditions demand. There is repetition of a word, but without redundancy.
On the other hand, "LED diode" isn't wrong as such either; it's redundant, but redundancy itself often has a purpose: clarification. For example, if I mention an "ATM machine" you probably know that I'm talking about an automatic teller eve
Re: (Score:2)
Not in this case. The "dynamic range" in HDR is the ratio of the highest and lowest value of the signal the display can produce. With a "dynamic" HDR there isn't a fixed ratio - it can be changed as conditions demand. There is repetition of a word, but without redundancy.
That doesn't really make any sense, the "dynamic" part is like dialing an area code first, before it was per stream now it's per frame but the net effect is a broader dynamic range. There's still a min and max value, but the granularity is relative to the base... if you're staring into the virtual sun there's no need for a zillion shades of almost black.