Why Do Monitor Manufacturers Not Allow Native 1080p On 4K Displays?

[Mira Yurizaki]

9 minutes ago, PixelTwitch said:

That makes no sense. If that was the cause technologies like Gsync/Freesync would simply not work. Same with active 3D over HDMI, High hz interp or HDR. 

That's because they take over before the actual data of the pixels are sent. GSync and Freesync control the Vertical Sync signal, which is generally considered to be the start of the next frame. 3D is done by alternating frames really fast, with the glasses having an LCD shutter that alternates what you see. HDR increases the pixel bit-depth (among requiring other things), but you just increase the output of what the LCD controller can do, nothing more.

 

All of these technologies you mentioned are handled before touching the LCD controller itself.

Quote

Also when it comes to input lag that is normally due to additional processing on either the GPU or Display. 

This is why I am suggesting NATIVE 1080p on a 4K display and not simply scaling.

Well... 1:1 scaling is "Native" 1080p.

 

Either way, you can't have the display automagically take a 1080p signal and just double the pixels. It has to figure that out, which ... requires additional processing. The only other way around it is to use nearest neighbor interpolation, which makes all of the other resolutions look fugly.

[Glenwing]

52 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

That's because they take over before the actual data of the pixels are sent. GSync and Freesync control the Vertical Sync signal, which is generally considered to be the start of the next frame. 3D is done by alternating frames really fast, with the glasses having an LCD shutter that alternates what you see. HDR increases the pixel bit-depth (among requiring other things), but you just increase the output of what the LCD controller can do, nothing more.

 

All of these technologies you mentioned are handled before touching the LCD controller itself.

Well... 1:1 scaling is "Native" 1080p.

 

Either way, you can't have the display automagically take a 1080p signal and just double the pixels. It has to figure that out, which ... requires additional processing. The only other way around it is to use nearest neighbor interpolation, which makes all of the other resolutions look fugly.

You keep saying it like there is some technical challenge involved with doing this, but there isn't. Displays already do scaling on their images (bicubic / bilinear). All that would be required is a different scaling algorithm. I'm not sure what you mean when you say nearest neighbor interpolation would be the only other way around it... nearest neighbor interpolation is exactly what he's talking about, except only applied at specific resolutions, which can easily be done with a whitelist on the initial handshake, it wouldn't require continuous image processing or add any latency.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, Glenwing said:

You keep saying it like there is some technical challenge involved with doing this, but there isn't. Displays already do scaling on their images (bicubic / bilinear). All that would be required is a different scaling algorithm. I'm not sure what you mean when you say nearest neighbor interpolation would be the only other way around it... nearest neighbor interpolation is exactly what he's talking about, except only applied at specific resolutions, which can easily be done with a whitelist on the initial handshake, it wouldn't require continuous image processing or add any latency.

Well I'm just going to throw it out here: how many of us actually know what goes on in a display controller?

 

Because until we can find some documentation of various controllers, we can make all the guesses we want about why or why not this is possible. Yeah, the "obvious" solution seems like it's the easiest solution, but that's not always the case.