10K How does it work?

[aandril]

4K 4096x2160 = 8,847,360

10K 10328x7760 = 80,145,280

 

80,145,280/8,847,360= 9.058666088

 

HDMI 2.0 about 18Gbps

HDMI 2.1 48Gbps

 

48/18= 2.666

 

HDMI 2.1 supports 2.66 times the bandwidth, but 10K is 9.05 the times as 4K resolution.

 

 

WUT? How does that work?

 

[badreg]

Two cables, like how the circa-2014 5k Apple display worked. It was two DP 1.3 cables, if I remember correctly.

[aandril]

1 minute ago, badreg said:

Two cables, like how the 5k Apple display works. It was two DP 1.3 cables, if I remember correctly.

2x 2.66 is still under 9. You'd need 4 cables... 

It's claimed by several sources 2.1 HDMI supports up to 10K res.

[Jurrunio]

1. There's extra video compression for video over 8K resolution

 

2. 10k resolution with 16:9 aspect ratio should never be 7760 pixels wide, you screwed up your math.

[badreg]

9 minutes ago, aandril said:

2x 2.66 is still under 9. You'd need 4 cables...

Then some form of compression or chroma subsampling. 4:2:0 requires half the bandwidth as 4:4:4, but is fairly transparent for consuming content.

 

EDIT: according to Wikipedia, "HDMI 2.1 specified a new 48G cable which supports a bandwidth of 48 Gbit/s and Display Stream Compression (DSC) 1.2 is used for video that is higher than 8K resolution with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling." Uncompressed 10k will require multiple cables with current standards.

[aandril]

11 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

1. There's extra video compression for video over 8K resolution

 

2. 10k resolution with 16:9 aspect ratio should never be 7760 pixels wide, you screwed up your math.

1. By What, 10%? 

 

2. So even if It's 10000x5600 it's still 56,000,000. 56mil/8.6mil= 6.5

10% taken off 6.5 leaves 5.9 which is still more than 2.66.

[aandril]

13 minutes ago, badreg said:

Then some form of compression or chroma subsampling. 4:2:0 requires half the bandwidth as 4:4:4, but is fairly transparent for consuming content.

 

EDIT: according to Wikipedia, "HDMI 2.1 specified a new 48G cable which supports a bandwidth of 48 Gbit/s and Display Stream Compression (DSC) 1.2 is used for video that is higher than 8K resolution with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling." Uncompressed 10k will require multiple cables with current standards.

Technically then, 2.1 doesn't support 10k... sigh.

[Glenwing]

2 hours ago, aandril said:

4K 4096x2160 = 8,847,360

10K 10328x7760 = 80,145,280

 

80,145,280/8,847,360= 9.058666088

 

HDMI 2.0 about 18Gbps

HDMI 2.1 48Gbps

 

48/18= 2.666

 

HDMI 2.1 supports 2.66 times the bandwidth, but 10K is 9.05 the times as 4K resolution.

 

 

WUT? How does that work?

 

 

1. When HDMI 2.1 says 10K they are referring to 10240×4320 (≈21:9), which is 5.33x as many pixels as 3840×2160.

 

2. The data rate of HDMI 2.1 is 3x compared to HDMI 2.0 due to more efficient use of bandwidth, not 2.66x. HDMI 2.0 is 80% efficient (14.4 Gbit/s out of 18 Gbit/s usable), and HDMI 2.1 is 88.8% efficient (42.66 Gbit/s out of 48 Gbit/s), 2.96x the data rate.

 

3. HDMI 2.1 supports 10K at up to 120 Hz only using Display Stream Compression (DSC) or chroma subsampling, not uncompressed/4:4:4.

 

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/729232-guide-to-display-cables-adapters-v2/?section=calc&H=10240&V=4320&F=120&format=ycbcr422&compression=dsc3.0x