|
|
|
VESA introduces 8K eDP standard for laptops
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 10 February, 2015
VESA or Video Electronics Standards Association has introduced a new DiplayPort standard. The Embedded DisplayPort (eDP) 1.4a standard promises 8K resolutions to laptops and other devices with embedded displays.
8K-resolution, which in pixels is 7680 by 4320, is four times more accurate than Full HD both vertically and horizontally. In addition to crisper and more detailed picture eDP ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
hearme0
Senior Member
|
10. February 2015 @ 16:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ugh..........DisplayPort can be likened to Bitcoins. A fruitless, LAME ASSED means to circumvent the original, tried and true tested system.
I've never seen an org that has tried so hard to make something 'generally accepted' as I have with DP. I don't use, I don't know anyone that uses, never seen it used and frankly, never will use.
Oh.....BTW.........4K was dead the moment it was conceived and 8K will be even worse. Nobody gives a shit about either. After having asked dozens of tech, Bestbuy employees and others about seeing an in-your-face difference between 1080 and 4K, they have all made the same claim....."Not a noticeable enough difference to pop for a technology that will likely NOT take off"
To Hell with 4K!
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
audvare
Newbie
|
10. February 2015 @ 19:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
Not sure what you mean. I mean, 4K is not a big deal to me (4 30" 2K monitors here, rest 1080P). But if you have not seen a high DPI display in action I suggest you do. It makes a tremendous difference in being able to read text with all kinds of different fonts, whereas now to get smooth fonts we have to have font hinting to achieve a similar look. It is a bit ridiculous we are stuck to 96 DPI or 72 for so long. No modern phones or even tablets have this low DPI.
8K will not be a big deal to most people because most people will not be able to see the difference. But again, most people are probably not seeing the difference between 1080p and 4K anyway.
Ultimately it will come to whether or not it is a necessary thing at this point when it is still expensive to make. When it is not expensive to make years from now, it will just be there and nobody will notice.
Regarding DisplayPort, I am not sure what you are referring to when you say 'circumvent the original'? Are you talking about HDMI? None of the companies pushing for the two technologies have a monopoly on resolutions. And HDMI has lagged behind for years. Every monitor and every professional video card (Quadro, etc) and now consumer ones has supported DP (sometimes alongside DVI-D) because very few monitors actually have support for HDMI 1.3 even to get above 1920x1200. I guess you can blame the monitor manufacturers if you want, but there is also not even a good reason any 24" (only slightly above typical home PC monitor) should have anything other than double the pixels for a higher DPI (so basically 2160P). DP is also royalty-free. So of course the manufacturers of monitors would favour that over HDMI just so they can get the high resolution monitors out (in particular, they are out of the box compatible with Macs, a nice market to be in as a monitor manufacturer).
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
11. February 2015 @ 08:55 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by audvare:
Not sure what you mean. I mean, 4K is not a big deal to me (4 30" 2K monitors here, rest 1080P). But if you have not seen a high DPI display in action I suggest you do. It makes a tremendous difference in being able to read text with all kinds of different fonts, whereas now to get smooth fonts we have to have font hinting to achieve a similar look. It is a bit ridiculous we are stuck to 96 DPI or 72 for so long. No modern phones or even tablets have this low DPI.
8K will not be a big deal to most people because most people will not be able to see the difference. But again, most people are probably not seeing the difference between 1080p and 4K anyway.
Ultimately it will come to whether or not it is a necessary thing at this point when it is still expensive to make. When it is not expensive to make years from now, it will just be there and nobody will notice.
Regarding DisplayPort, I am not sure what you are referring to when you say 'circumvent the original'? Are you talking about HDMI? None of the companies pushing for the two technologies have a monopoly on resolutions. And HDMI has lagged behind for years. Every monitor and every professional video card (Quadro, etc) and now consumer ones has supported DP (sometimes alongside DVI-D) because very few monitors actually have support for HDMI 1.3 even to get above 1920x1200. I guess you can blame the monitor manufacturers if you want, but there is also not even a good reason any 24" (only slightly above typical home PC monitor) should have anything other than double the pixels for a higher DPI (so basically 2160P). DP is also royalty-free. So of course the manufacturers of monitors would favour that over HDMI just so they can get the high resolution monitors out (in particular, they are out of the box compatible with Macs, a nice market to be in as a monitor manufacturer).
Don't pay attention to hearme0. You know the old saying "every village has an idiot", well hearme0 is Afterdawn's idiot. You'll find that 99% of his posts are nothing more than nonsense which he attempts to pass off as fact.
You're new here. Give it a bit more time. After you read a few more of his ramblings you'll realize that he gains all of his "vast tech knowledge" from the electronic aisle at Walmart.
|
Senior Member
|
11. February 2015 @ 15:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
I am 1/2 way with @hearme0
This article is about 8K support to computers monitors via DisplayPort. Not about 4K TV's that will need a HDMI 2.0 cables, that will be ready for the next year or so since they running way behind.
Until now, there is no CE standard able to handle 4K at 60p only for lower frame rates (-30fps).
On the another hand:
Today's 4K TVs don't have a firmware update path to enable HDMI 2.0
Saying so:
with out this 2 things: people who want to watch a real 4K on TV's is not happening yet.
"8K" Monitors or TV's are just an illusion. (Marketing Tool)
Just my $0.02
Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. February 2015 @ 15:24
|
|
hearme0
Senior Member
|
11. February 2015 @ 16:36 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by bhetrick:
Originally posted by audvare:
Not sure what you mean. I mean, 4K is not a big deal to me (4 30" 2K monitors here, rest 1080P). But if you have not seen a high DPI display in action I suggest you do. It makes a tremendous difference in being able to read text with all kinds of different fonts, whereas now to get smooth fonts we have to have font hinting to achieve a similar look. It is a bit ridiculous we are stuck to 96 DPI or 72 for so long. No modern phones or even tablets have this low DPI.
8K will not be a big deal to most people because most people will not be able to see the difference. But again, most people are probably not seeing the difference between 1080p and 4K anyway.
Ultimately it will come to whether or not it is a necessary thing at this point when it is still expensive to make. When it is not expensive to make years from now, it will just be there and nobody will notice.
Regarding DisplayPort, I am not sure what you are referring to when you say 'circumvent the original'? Are you talking about HDMI? None of the companies pushing for the two technologies have a monopoly on resolutions. And HDMI has lagged behind for years. Every monitor and every professional video card (Quadro, etc) and now consumer ones has supported DP (sometimes alongside DVI-D) because very few monitors actually have support for HDMI 1.3 even to get above 1920x1200. I guess you can blame the monitor manufacturers if you want, but there is also not even a good reason any 24" (only slightly above typical home PC monitor) should have anything other than double the pixels for a higher DPI (so basically 2160P). DP is also royalty-free. So of course the manufacturers of monitors would favour that over HDMI just so they can get the high resolution monitors out (in particular, they are out of the box compatible with Macs, a nice market to be in as a monitor manufacturer).
Don't pay attention to hearme0. You know the old saying "every village has an idiot", well hearme0 is Afterdawn's idiot. You'll find that 99% of his posts are nothing more than nonsense which he attempts to pass off as fact.
You're new here. Give it a bit more time. After you read a few more of his ramblings you'll realize that he gains all of his "vast tech knowledge" from the electronic aisle at Walmart.
EVERYTHING I SAY IS "FACT" unless I state as "opinion" so pipe down with your nonsense! I've never ever put out propaganda or false info.
The sad thing is you replied to a post that did not actively rag on my comment or condemn it. Yet you posted simply to state I'm the "village idiot".
I would expect more from a tenured AD "addict".
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. February 2015 @ 01:01 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by bhetrick:
Originally posted by audvare:
Not sure what you mean. I mean, 4K is not a big deal to me (4 30" 2K monitors here, rest 1080P). But if you have not seen a high DPI display in action I suggest you do. It makes a tremendous difference in being able to read text with all kinds of different fonts, whereas now to get smooth fonts we have to have font hinting to achieve a similar look. It is a bit ridiculous we are stuck to 96 DPI or 72 for so long. No modern phones or even tablets have this low DPI.
8K will not be a big deal to most people because most people will not be able to see the difference. But again, most people are probably not seeing the difference between 1080p and 4K anyway.
Ultimately it will come to whether or not it is a necessary thing at this point when it is still expensive to make. When it is not expensive to make years from now, it will just be there and nobody will notice.
Regarding DisplayPort, I am not sure what you are referring to when you say 'circumvent the original'? Are you talking about HDMI? None of the companies pushing for the two technologies have a monopoly on resolutions. And HDMI has lagged behind for years. Every monitor and every professional video card (Quadro, etc) and now consumer ones has supported DP (sometimes alongside DVI-D) because very few monitors actually have support for HDMI 1.3 even to get above 1920x1200. I guess you can blame the monitor manufacturers if you want, but there is also not even a good reason any 24" (only slightly above typical home PC monitor) should have anything other than double the pixels for a higher DPI (so basically 2160P). DP is also royalty-free. So of course the manufacturers of monitors would favour that over HDMI just so they can get the high resolution monitors out (in particular, they are out of the box compatible with Macs, a nice market to be in as a monitor manufacturer).
Don't pay attention to hearme0. You know the old saying "every village has an idiot", well hearme0 is Afterdawn's idiot. You'll find that 99% of his posts are nothing more than nonsense which he attempts to pass off as fact.
You're new here. Give it a bit more time. After you read a few more of his ramblings you'll realize that he gains all of his "vast tech knowledge" from the electronic aisle at Walmart.
I thought I was the village idiot...no wait I am the town drunk.... :P
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
|
|
hearme0
Senior Member
|
14. February 2015 @ 11:19 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Originally posted by bhetrick:
Originally posted by audvare:
Not sure what you mean. I mean, 4K is not a big deal to me (4 30" 2K monitors here, rest 1080P). But if you have not seen a high DPI display in action I suggest you do. It makes a tremendous difference in being able to read text with all kinds of different fonts, whereas now to get smooth fonts we have to have font hinting to achieve a similar look. It is a bit ridiculous we are stuck to 96 DPI or 72 for so long. No modern phones or even tablets have this low DPI.
8K will not be a big deal to most people because most people will not be able to see the difference. But again, most people are probably not seeing the difference between 1080p and 4K anyway.
Ultimately it will come to whether or not it is a necessary thing at this point when it is still expensive to make. When it is not expensive to make years from now, it will just be there and nobody will notice.
Regarding DisplayPort, I am not sure what you are referring to when you say 'circumvent the original'? Are you talking about HDMI? None of the companies pushing for the two technologies have a monopoly on resolutions. And HDMI has lagged behind for years. Every monitor and every professional video card (Quadro, etc) and now consumer ones has supported DP (sometimes alongside DVI-D) because very few monitors actually have support for HDMI 1.3 even to get above 1920x1200. I guess you can blame the monitor manufacturers if you want, but there is also not even a good reason any 24" (only slightly above typical home PC monitor) should have anything other than double the pixels for a higher DPI (so basically 2160P). DP is also royalty-free. So of course the manufacturers of monitors would favour that over HDMI just so they can get the high resolution monitors out (in particular, they are out of the box compatible with Macs, a nice market to be in as a monitor manufacturer).
Don't pay attention to hearme0. You know the old saying "every village has an idiot", well hearme0 is Afterdawn's idiot. You'll find that 99% of his posts are nothing more than nonsense which he attempts to pass off as fact.
You're new here. Give it a bit more time. After you read a few more of his ramblings you'll realize that he gains all of his "vast tech knowledge" from the electronic aisle at Walmart.
I thought I was the village idiot...no wait I am the town drunk.... :P
Indeed......NO ONE encroaches on my "village idiotness" :)
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
bkkcanuck
Newbie
|
16. February 2015 @ 21:40 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mrguss:
I am 1/2 way with @hearme0
This article is about 8K support to computers monitors via DisplayPort. Not about 4K TV's that will need a HDMI 2.0 cables, that will be ready for the next year or so since they running way behind.
Until now, there is no CE standard able to handle 4K at 60p only for lower frame rates (-30fps).
On the another hand:
Today's 4K TVs don't have a firmware update path to enable HDMI 2.0
Saying so:
with out this 2 things: people who want to watch a real 4K on TV's is not happening yet.
"8K" Monitors or TV's are just an illusion. (Marketing Tool)
Just my $0.02
8K is more about telling you about how much bandwidth that the new specification can handle in an easily comparable/understandable manner rather than telling you in bits and bytes. The cabling standard is more about bandwidth and flexibility than about one specific resolution.
8K = 4 x 4K - so whether you have 4 x 4K Monitors @ 60hz daisy chained to your laptop, or you have an 8K monster monitor - it is all the same to the cable - it supports both. I could easily use 3 x 4K 40" monitors in my work environment, oriented in a cockpit type manner (better yet if it were one wrap around monitor :p -- but that would be crazy to pack and move). There are only two standards that seem to be working on future proofing itself, one being this Displayport (whether it is a displayport or embedded in thunderbolt which is also part of this announcement) or the superMHL standard. HDMI seems to be going the way of irrelevance moving forward.
|
|
