Well that's a boost, nice and should hold a while going by the bandwidth availability at least. 🙂 Although for mainstream well 5k and beyond is probably a while off yet whether it's for media or gaming but it's good to see this being future proof from the looks of things. (Well it's not just about bandwidth but it'll help.) Though from reading the article it's not going to be available for well for quite some time yet so mid to late 2019 perhaps at the earliest. Guess it's just waiting and seeing but having the specs finalized is a good start although hardware is going to take a while after that. And it also looks like it'll increase bandwidth above even what the upcoming display port revision is offering after comparing against the details available on that. (Which seems to be around ~40 GB/s or so?) Though yeah going to be a while before there's any GPU's on the market that can use this standard and then monitors or TV's too. (New cable required as well?) Although viewing content in 8k (7680x4320) and in high-quality HDR must be quite spectacular looking, at least when it's running above single digit framerates ha ha. (For gaming that is, media playback probably fares better.) What would that be then for 10k, something like 10240x5120 or so? And 120Hz support? Specs of HDMI2.1 in their own right and all but I have a little feeling the pricing of the hardware is going to be a bit amazing too. (Glad to see support for it though and also 4k, 5k and 8k for the enthusiasts.)

Guess that's all we need at home for a long while. I heard you need a giant screen to get any real use out of 8k.

For me, this is less about 8k, more about HDR. With current HDMI 2.0, it is impossible to maintain 4:4:4 sub chroma sampling if you enable HDR at 4k/60. For games, this is what I am looking for (4k/60 HDR with 4:4:4). I couldn't care less about 8k, 10k, etc.

I hope they improved cables... It's really hard to find long cable (>10m) that can pass 4K 60hz 4:4:4

Amaze:

Guess that's all we need at home for a long while. I heard you need a giant screen to get any real use out of 8k.

Eh, I'm not so sure considering many people can spot the difference between 1080p and 1440p on a phone screen, myself included. Perhaps it's not that obvious to everyone, but the difference from 720p to 1080p is more than noticeable on 5" screens. In light of that, I have good confidence that we can see well past 8k on a big panel. It will depend on the viewing distance, but if you take a 27" monitor I bet my ass there's a big difference between 4k and 8k from a normal gaming distance.

Amaze:

Guess that's all we need at home for a long while. I heard you need a giant screen to get any real use out of 8k.

You already need a giant screen to get any real use out of 4K (or be unrealistically close to a normal sized (45"~55") screen).

Where is this all headed? In 10 years will I be buying a 32k/960Hz TV Wall? Will future generations not understand what anti-aliasing was for?

@heffeque no you dont. 24" monitor with 1080p is at 91.79 ppi 48" UHD tv at 2160p has 91.42 ppi. 90" @ 4320p will do 92 ppi when i was running UHD tvs at work, 6ft was ok for a 65", for the 50in i was about 3-4ft away when gaming (1080p upscaled to UHD), and it was what i would use for gaming/movies, tv/regular broadcast can do sitting further away.. what most ppl dont know/forget, if you want to be "in" the game/movie, it needs to basically fill your whole FOV (why i laugh at ppl getting tickets for the back of the theater, unless you dont plan on watching the movie your wasting your money) . which means we can now sit 10-12ft away from the screen, while still getting a similar experience to sitting on a desk using a monitor. well, for those with the cash.. lol

To actually start seeing the pixels on my 1080p 55" screen I have to sit less than 2 meters away, which is not a normal distance to put a sofa on a normal living room. I can imagine that with 4k on a 55" screen the distance is even "stupider" to actually see pixels. I don't want to put my sofa at half a meter distance. For me, HDR and proper color tuning play a much larger roll towards image quality than increasing from 4k to whatever comes.

I wonder how much these cables will cost at 15-20m, i still need a proper 4K cable for my 55KU6000. Haven't really seen a proper 4K movie yet that looks incredible. The one's on Netflix have these annoying grain look to it, even with sharpening off and a filter enabled that minimizes it. Youtube on the other hand, looks stunning, clean and crisp.

signex:

I wonder how much these cables will cost at 15-20m, i still need a proper 4K cable for my 55KU6000. Haven't really seen a proper 4K movie yet that looks incredible. The one's on Netflix have these annoying grain look to it, even with sharpening off and a filter enabled that minimizes it. Youtube on the other hand, looks stunning, clean and crisp.

Actually... grain is usually added so that movies don't look like cartoons. You can try adding noise reduction filters that washes out all grain so that it looks smooth and plain.

xIcarus:

Eh, I'm not so sure considering many people can spot the difference between 1080p and 1440p on a phone screen, myself included. Perhaps it's not that obvious to everyone, but the difference from 720p to 1080p is more than noticeable on 5" screens. In light of that, I have good confidence that we can see well past 8k on a big panel. It will depend on the viewing distance, but if you take a 27" monitor I bet my ass there's a big difference between 4k and 8k from a normal gaming distance.

Yeah sorry I was thinking of TV. A bit different with monitors true.

Amaze:

Yeah sorry I was thinking of TV. A bit different with monitors true.

Yeah with TVs you definitely need quite a big panel if you're watching at a normal distance; you're right. I mean my parents watch it from what.. 3-4m away? 1080p->4k was noticeable but that's just because the difference is absolutely huge. Not sure I can see more than that from that distance.

xIcarus:

Eh, I'm not so sure considering many people can spot the difference between 1080p and 1440p on a phone screen, myself included. Perhaps it's not that obvious to everyone, but the difference from 720p to 1080p is more than noticeable on 5" screens. In light of that, I have good confidence that we can see well past 8k on a big panel. It will depend on the viewing distance, but if you take a 27" monitor I bet my ass there's a big difference between 4k and 8k from a normal gaming distance.

As you said, it depends on viewing distance and screen size, though what you're trying to view matters too. In most cases, a 36" 1080p display that is a couple meters away from you is not going to have a noticeable quality loss vs a 36" 4K display, at least if anti-aliasing is used. From less than 1m away, you will probably notice a difference. Meanwhile if the content you're trying to view has a lot of very fine details (for example, a view of the night sky or trying to snipe someone very far away) then a 4K display at 2m would offer a noticeable difference. I hear true 4K displays almost completely eliminate the screen-door effect in VR. I'm not sure if that means a 4K display per eye or one 4K display spread across both eyes, but if 4K is already close enough to nearly match human vision, I figure 8K is pretty much as high as anyone would realistically ever need to go. I'm sure I can say with confidence that I will not be buying anything beyond 8K in the next decade.

^^^The screen door effect is s a very strange thing on VR, i can see it quite clearly in some stuff yet in others i have to go out of my way to see it, a bit like when you pick out and listen a specific conversion in a room full of people, it is a strange thing, i think the worse game i have for the SD effect is Alice VR, just terrible and actually causes me to get eye fatigue, the first and only game i have that does that, yet say Elite, i can only pick out the SD affect in the text, but can almost eleminate that with changing the colour of the hud and text, and of course supersampling seems to also help with the SD effect although with my GTX970 i don't have any power left for such a feature.......but yeah, i can't wait for 4k VR, i will be all over that like game devs and publishers on lottery gambling in £50, child age rated games, (little bit of gaming politics there."). 😛

XP-200:

^^^The screen door effect is s a very strange thing on VR, i can see it quite clearly in some stuff yet in others i have to go out of my way to see it, a bit like when you pick out and listen a specific conversion in a room full of people, it is a strange thing, i think the worse game i have for the SD effect is Alice VR, just terrible and actually causes me to get eye fatigue, the first and only game i have that does that, yet say Elite, i can only pick out the SD affect in the text, but can almost eleminate that with changing the colour of the hud and text, and of course supersampling seems to also help with the SD effect although with my GTX970 i don't have any power left for such a feature.......but yeah, i can't wait for 4k VR, i will be all over that like game devs and publishers on lottery gambling in £50, child age rated games, (little bit of gaming politics there."). 😛

The screen door effect is the most noticeable on bright scenes or objects that don't have much movement. If your eye is tracking something and if the object isn't too bright, it's pretty much unnoticeable. I too am patiently waiting for good 4K VR. To my knowledge there are 4K headsets but they're either still in development, or, their usage/compatibility is too limiting to be worth investing in. I will continue to use my R9 290 (basically the AMD equivalent of the GTX 970) until I can get a VR headset (with a reasonable price and no SDE) to replace my current one. I'm hoping by then there will be a GPU capable of driving such a headset that doesn't cost more than the rest of my PC...

schmidtbag:

As you said, it depends on viewing distance and screen size, though what you're trying to view matters too. In most cases, a 36" 1080p display that is a couple meters away from you is not going to have a noticeable quality loss vs a 36" 4K display, at least if anti-aliasing is used. From less than 1m away, you will probably notice a difference. Meanwhile if the content you're trying to view has a lot of very fine details (for example, a view of the night sky or trying to snipe someone very far away) then a 4K display at 2m would offer a noticeable difference. I hear true 4K displays almost completely eliminate the screen-door effect in VR. I'm not sure if that means a 4K display per eye or one 4K display spread across both eyes, but if 4K is already close enough to nearly match human vision, I figure 8K is pretty much as high as anyone would realistically ever need to go. I'm sure I can say with confidence that I will not be buying anything beyond 8K in the next decade.

You actually make a good point, considering 4K almost eliminates the screen door effect when using VR headsets perhaps I overestimated how much more we can see. Thinkin about my phone example; at the end of the day we keep our phones close to our eyes, plus that my phone has an OLED screen. These screens were known to show more 'distinguishable' pixels, not sure if it's still the case.

schmidtbag:

The screen door effect is the most noticeable on bright scenes or objects that don't have much movement. If your eye is tracking something and if the object isn't too bright, it's pretty much unnoticeable. I too am patiently waiting for good 4K VR. To my knowledge there are 4K headsets but they're either still in development, or, their usage/compatibility is too limiting to be worth investing in. I will continue to use my R9 290 (basically the AMD equivalent of the GTX 970) until I can get a VR headset (with a reasonable price and no SDE) to replace my current one. I'm hoping by then there will be a GPU capable of driving such a headset that doesn't cost more than the rest of my PC...

Yeah, i have that 970 and i have had no real issues with VR games, yes on some i cannot have ultra settings in vr, but i have been somewhat impressed at how VR has run on my mid range PC setup, and i hear you on GPU prices, i also won't be touching a GPU until they drop, i mean for £450 for the cheapets GTX1080 here in the UK i could get a 55in 4kTV or a XBX, damn if i'm spending that amoung for some extra FPS. lol

sweet 2018 TV should start having support for 2.1 hdmi and eARC which mean A/V revicvers should too, time to start looking for new A/V recivers and TV seeing i been waiting for eARC and 8k+ is bonus, along with the Enhanced refresh rate features ensure an added level of smooth and seamless motion and transitions for gaming, movies and video. They include: Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) reduces or eliminates lag, stutter and frame tearing for more fluid and better detailed gameplay. Quick Media Switching (QMS) for movies and video eliminates the delay that can result in blank screens before content is displayed. Quick Frame Transport (QFT) reduces latency for smoother no-lag gaming, and real-time interactive virtual reality.

schmidtbag:

The screen door effect is the most noticeable on bright scenes or objects that don't have much movement. If your eye is tracking something and if the object isn't too bright, it's pretty much unnoticeable. I too am patiently waiting for good 4K VR. To my knowledge there are 4K headsets but they're either still in development, or, their usage/compatibility is too limiting to be worth investing in. I will continue to use my R9 290 (basically the AMD equivalent of the GTX 970) until I can get a VR headset (with a reasonable price and no SDE) to replace my current one. I'm hoping by then there will be a GPU capable of driving such a headset that doesn't cost more than the rest of my PC...

My apologies, after all my hot air about not buying one i just did, i just ordered a GTX1080 for £470 as i am getting £90 for my 970 cash in hand, bringing that 1080 down to £380, but no chocy bic's of iron bru for a month for being so weak willed. 😳