New display cable created makes 8K Resolution @ 120Hz possible

[ionbasa]

So you want us to compare 4:4:4 and 4:2:0 on Youtube which only supports 4:2:0? Are you serious?

Readup: http://www.shutterangle.com/2014/shooting-4k-video-for-2k-delivery-bitdepth-advantage/

Even if YouTube takes a 4:4:4 chroma space video and converts it to 4:2:0, it is still noticeable versus content that already was 4:2:0

 

This works off the same principle as downscaling an image or superscaling on computer games, but instead of resolution, the same theory can be applied to the colorspace.

 

EDIT: Will it be 100% accurate? No. Can you still notice the difference? Yes

If I find some native content uncompressed on the web, I'll link it later. if I can't find any, I'll put some up myself.

Edited January 7, 2015 by ionbasa

[Guest Strangerbob]

correct me if I'm wrong but i think displayport 1.3 can do that...

 

Well, you ARE wrong.

DP1.3 will have about 2.5 times less bandwidth to work with, than this superMHL.

The best you can hope is to run 8k @ 30fps with displayport 1.3

[TheKDub]

Well, 4K limiting cables are now over until we hit like 10K.

Or 16K

[brownninja97]

i like the cable

[Kukielka]

SuperMHL has basicly the same data bandwidth as DisplayPort 1.3 + Audio + Remote-signal-control-thingy.

This cable isn't the newest awesome thing since sliced bread (and I fucking love sliced bread, stole that from someone, however forgot who it was). 

 

Explanation: 4:2:0 = 1/4 of 4:4:4

Therefore 8k@30hz + Audio etc.

[ShadowCaptain]

SNIP

 

You deserve a medal for this post

[TheMcSame]

8K @ 120Hz.

[GoodBytes]

Well, you ARE wrong.

DP1.3 will have about 2.5 times less bandwidth to work with, than this superMHL.

The best you can hope is to run 8k @ 30fps with displayport 1.3

But it will be 8K on a single stream, meaning no tearing.

What SuperMHL does is the same as you use 2x DisplayPort cable or 2x HDMI cable to power a monitor. The graphics card will them as separate monitors, and you use multiple display to make it look like 1. This is the same problem with early 4K monitor that only supported multi-stream DisplayPort, due to the cost of 4K compatible controllers. In this case, it's not the monitor/TV controller the problem, is the cable.

[LAwLz]

So you want us to compare 4:4:4 and 4:2:0 on Youtube which only supports 4:2:0? Are you serious?

Haha that's what I thought as well. Reminded me of those ads that appeared when HD was a new thing. Ads showing how much better HD TVs looked and people with SD TVs went "oh wow HD does look much better", and they didn't realize that they were still watching SD.

It's like trying to compare FLAC vs MP3, by putting both tracks into a single file and then encode it into MP3. I have seen people do FLAC vs MP3 tests on YouTube, even though YouTube will reencode all audio to AAC (or Vorbis for WebM stuff).

 

 

I have never heard of MHL. So this is super news to me.

MHL is pretty common but it has never been its own cable before. You know how you can put an adapter that goes from microUSB to HDMI into your smartphone and then just put it into let's say a TV? That's because the microUSB connector supports MHL.

 

 

could anyone actually explain what the 4:2:0 means... i have no idea

Hopefully I'll get this right. Feel free to correct me if I got something wrong:

 

Video is usually not just saved as one blue channel, one green channel and one red channel because that's pretty inefficient. Instead it is saved as something called YUV (or more accurately, Y'CbCr).

 

Y is the black and white image, the "luma channel". The human eye is more sensitive to differences in brightness than to differences in color so we usually give that more bandwidth than the color information. This is the 4 in 4:2:0.

U and V are so called chroma channels and it's these that gives the video its color. These channels are made by removing the luma signal from blue, and from removing the luma signal from red.

I want to say U is the channel were blue is removed, and V is the channel were red is removed but it might e the other way around.

Note: U is not the 2 in 4:2:0, nor is V the 0 in 4:2:0. When going from 4:2:2 to 4:2:0 you reduce the resolution of both the U and V channel.

 

You can think of your typical video as just being a really high definition black and white image, then on top are two slightly lower resolution images which contains different color info and together they create a good looking image with clean shapes and lots of colors.

Here is an example I took from Wikipedia.

The top is all channels together. The black/white image is only the Y channel, the blue image is the U channel and the bottom image is the V channel.

 

4:4:4 means that all channels has the same resolution.

4:2:2 means that the horizontal resolution of the U and V channels is half of the Y channel. This has next to no impact on image quality and it saves quite a lot of space.

4:2:0 means that both the horizontal and vertical resolution of the U and V channels is half. This means that the resolution of the U and V channel is 1/4 of that resolution in the Y channel. This saves a lot of space and doesn't really have that much of an impact on image quality either (because we keep the image the human eye is sensitive to very high resolution, and only reduce the resolution of stuff the eye is not sensitive to).

[LukaP]

Haha that's what I thought as well. Reminded me of those ads that appeared when HD was a new thing. Ads showing how much better HD TVs looked and people with SD TVs went "oh wow HD does look much better", and they didn't realize that they were still watching SD.

It's like trying to compare FLAC vs MP3, by putting both tracks into a single file and then encode it into MP3. I have seen people do FLAC vs MP3 tests on YouTube, even though YouTube will reencode all audio to AAC (or Vorbis for WebM stuff).

 

 

MHL is pretty common but it has never been its own cable before. You know how you can put an adapter that goes from microUSB to HDMI into your smartphone and then just put it into let's say a TV? That's because the microUSB connector supports MHL.

 

 

Hopefully I'll get this right. Feel free to correct me if I got something wrong:

 

Video is usually not just saved as one blue channel, one green channel and one red channel because that's pretty inefficient. Instead it is saved as something called YUV (or more accurately, Y'CbCr).

 

Y is the black and white image, the "luma channel". The human eye is more sensitive to differences in brightness than to differences in color so we usually give that more bandwidth than the color information. This is the 4 in 4:2:0.

U and V are so called chroma channels and it's these that gives the video its color. These channels are made by removing the luma signal from blue, and from removing the luma signal from red.

I want to say U is the channel were blue is removed, and V is the channel were red is removed but it might e the other way around.

Note: U is not the 2 in 4:2:0, nor is V the 0 in 4:2:0. When going from 4:2:2 to 4:2:0 you reduce the resolution of both the U and V channel.

 

You can think of your typical video as just being a really high definition black and white image, then on top are two slightly lower resolution images which contains different color info and together they create a good looking image with clean shapes and lots of colors.

Here is an example I took from Wikipedia.

The top is all channels together. The black/white image is only the Y channel, the blue image is the U channel and the bottom image is the V channel.

 

4:4:4 means that all channels has the same resolution.

4:2:2 means that the horizontal resolution of the U and V channels is half of the Y channel. This has next to no impact on image quality and it saves quite a lot of space.

4:2:0 means that both the horizontal and vertical resolution of the U and V channels is half. This means that the resolution of the U and V channel is 1/4 of that resolution in the Y channel. This saves a lot of space and doesn't really have that much of an impact on image quality either (because we keep the image the human eye is sensitive to very high resolution, and only reduce the resolution of stuff the eye is not sensitive to).

finally a reasonable post disputing all the BS flying around... pretty much everything is 4:2:0 anyway, youtube, your TV and Netflix signal, idk about bluray, but that is probably 422

[qwertywarrior]

i believe eventually everything will merge and become one cable

[LAwLz]

finally a reasonable post disputing all the BS flying around... pretty much everything is 4:2:0 anyway, youtube, your TV and Netflix signal, idk about bluray, but that is probably 422

I am pretty sure bluray discs use 4:2:0 as well.

I got some Chinese cartoons that are 4:4:4 but that's the only thing I have ever seen that's 4:4:4 or even 4:2:2.

 

There really isn't any reason to complain about it only supporting 4:2:0 because it seems to be aimed at consumers stuff anyway.

 

[Recon97]

Enough of this heavy breathing bullshit cat.

Anything is possible.

[LukaP]

I am pretty sure bluray discs use 4:2:0 as well.

I got some Chinese cartoons that are 4:4:4 but that's the only thing I have ever seen that's 4:4:4 or even 4:2:2.

Chinese Cartoons.PNG

 

There really isn't any reason to complain about it only supporting 4:2:0 because it seems to be aimed at consumers stuff anyway.

oh wow, i really thought they went with a "better" compression standard on BR. well i guess im wrong proves my point even further anyway haha

[-TesseracT-]

Welcome to LTT, where people can tell the different between 120Hz and 144Hz, so of course someone is gonna complain about this doing 8K @ 120Hz @ 4:2:

And I'm being a bit of a dick about this. What is the consumer impact of 4:2:0 to 4:2:2 to 4:4:4? What consumer even knows? This is stuff that creators worry about and consider. What the guys working on the next big rendering project. Those kinds of people who strive for utmost accuracy will give a damn.

120 Hz still doesn't look as smooth as real-life, it is not enough.

[LukaP]

120 Hz still doesn't look as smooth as real-life, it is not enough.

well then you can have 4K@480Hz if thats what gets you off

[shujin]

well then you can have 4K@480Hz if thats what gets you off

that would be awsome I want that 

[McMurderMonkey]

I think I am going to cry, this is so beautiful.

[Guest Strangerbob]

Guys... this cable has a bandwidth of 72 Gbit/s

 

Heres a bandwidth calculator:

https://emsai.net/projects/widescreen/bandwidth/

 

Go nuts

[BiG StroOnZ]

Guys... this cable has a bandwidth of 72 Gbit/s

 

Heres a bandwidth calculator:

https://emsai.net/projects/widescreen/bandwidth/

 

Go nuts

 

I'm getting way more than 72 Gbit/s. You sure you are inputting 7680x4320?

[Wesley219]

Can't wait til computers can actually run games a 8k or even 4k really.

[GoodBytes]

You need to take the max resolution device by 16, as you have 16 lanes (or 16 cables in 1, if you want to see it that way), and that would be your bandwidth, IF it used 0 compression (which is confirmed that it does), and that the calculator is correct. The logic is the same as your multi-core CPU. You have 2 cores at 4.0GHz, you don't have 8GHz CPU, Right? I think that is obvious, so the same principal applies, something that we can't forget.

So applying the math, it is ~8Gb/s, which is inline with DisplayPort 1.2.

I set to 30-bit colors (10-bit per channel), 120Hz, 7680x4320, and look at CVT-R in favor of the connector.

[BiG StroOnZ]

You need to take the max resolution device by 16, as you have 16 lanes (or 16 cables in 1, if you want to see it that way), and that would be your bandwidth, IF it used 0 compression (which is confirmed that it does), and that the calculator is correct. The logic is the same as your multi-core CPU. You have 2 cores at 4.0GHz, you don't have 8GHz CPU, Right? I think that is obvious, so the same principal applies, something that we can't forget.

So applying the math, it is ~8Gb/s, which is inline with DisplayPort 1.2.

 

Where are you getting your numbers from, they are not nearly in line with what Display Port advertises itself.

[GoodBytes]

Where are you getting your numbers from, they are not nearly in line with what Display Port advertises itself.

I have edited my post with my calculations. ~8Gb/s is what DIsplayPort 1.2 is

[pit5000]

when gaming on PC don't you get 4:4:4?