6 ms·

That's really too bad. It makes the 4K support useless for building an HTPC, which is a common use for the Pi. As far as I can determine, several of their compe

That's really too bad. It makes the 4K support useless for building an HTPC, which is a common use for the Pi. As far as I can determine, several of their competitors already support 10bit decoding, although specifics (about stable HDR support) are sometimes hard to come by.

ggm 7y ago
As a fifty seven year old, I don't have 4k eyeballs. agree you have a limitation, not one which is holding me back since osmc does 720p just fine, for Olde telecine mp4s of B&W movies
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ekianjo 7y ago
  If the screen is large enough about everyone gets 4k eyeballs.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    I have a 4K-capable 40 inch TV in a standard living room (for Europe). 4K videos look slightly crispier than full HD ones. While I could have a slightly larger TV, I think that for typical domestic use 4K's improvement is marginal because people are not sitting 50cm from the screen and room sizes are limited. Really, so far the top benefit has been that I could tell my wife: "Look, if I move right up to the screen I can still see Jeremy Clarkson's individual hair strands!"
    - ohyea 7y ago
      A 40 inch TV is on the small end for 4K having any real benefit (at least at a normal living room viewing distance).
      - downtide 7y ago
        I'm still struggling a bit with large screens. For something like playing games I'm guessing you can comfortably sit back. High resolution screens for computers feel attractive, but getting up close and personal can feel a bit much with light levels. I'm guessing OLED might be nicer in that regard.
    - bin0 7y ago
      For those of us who aren't there, can you clarify how big a standard European living room is? This has nothing to do with the resolution stuff you mentioned, just curious.
      - downtide 7y ago
        In the UK in a victorian terrace, and our front room is perhaps on the small side at about 3x4m. I'd guess somewhere between that and 4x5m is about average. For us 32inch still can feel imposing. And that size screen seems to be being phased out.
        bin0 7y ago
        Oh dear God that's tiny. How do you stand that? Genuinely curious; I feel like I'd end up claustrophobic.
        downtide 7y ago
        We do have another room, that's slightly larger but it's a bit bleak. And weirdly it's a more fussy room to furnish. The smaller size is better in the winter. The old brick terraces aren't that warm. In large houses people can gravitate to smaller rooms for that reason. Personally I'd like a large room that I could bring the furniture in from the sides. Lucky to even have a house to live in to be honest, so can't really grumble.
        bin0 7y ago
        I looked up some pictures; would you say this is representative? https://img-new.cgtrader.com/items/969757/41efc6817b/modern-european-living-room-3d-model-low-poly-max.jpg https://img-new.cgtrader.com/items/969757/41efc6817b/modern-... If so, you're right; that's pretty small. Is it just a matter of acclimation? Also, can you clarify what you mean that you're lucky to have a house? I wasn't aware of a major homeless problem in Europe.
        7y ago
    - jerf 7y ago
      I've got a 4K TV and it's placed in a location that I can tell whether or not something is 4K if I sit a bit closer, but the core problem is that it's still very difficult to provide it true 4K content, since I've not been willing to drop the money for 4K blurays. I've got a variety of content that is, technically, a video stream that decodes into a framebuffer that is a "4K" framebuffer according to the metadata on the video, but without enough bits for it to truly be "4K"; the same number of bits dedicated to a 1080P video would look just as good. For all the bragging about how streaming is the future, it seems to me that the companies providing those streams at scale still have a lot of incentive to cut the bitrate back so far that it's not practically a 4K stream anymore, because 95%+ of their audience can't really tell.
- simonh 7y ago
  I'm in my 50s as well and may eyes are definitely showing their age, but if anything I find high fidelity screens more important to me now than they were years ago. I use 1080p 23" screens at work and the slight blurriness from pixelation is definitely noticeable. Comparatively, the 5k screen on my iMac is dramatically sharper and easier on my eyes. I find that when my own vision is slightly blurred, add in even more slight blurring on the screen and they compound each other. On the other hand if the source image is pin sharp, it makes it easier to cope with the flaws in my own vision.
- throw0101a 7y ago
  > I don't have 4k eyeballs. I'm sure higher resolution is nice, but nowadays I'm more interested in HDR and larger colour gamuts (Rec.2020). I don't doubt 4K and 8K look "better", but IMHO we're approaching the point of diminishing returns, and visual enhancements in other areas are worth exploring (even for 1080p).
- zeristor 7y ago
  I suppose a future AV improvement will be to upgrade eyeballs; iSpheres anyone?
  - benj111 7y ago
    Yeah, with DRM that blanks out copyrighted content you haven't paid to watch, and reinserts adverts that your adblocker removed. And they'll remove the optic nerve connector in favour of Bluetooth that will allow them to be 0.1mm thinner, and be wireless! Ps did you miss iBalls on purpose?
    - zeristor 7y ago
      I think Apple would go with iSpheres, it sounds more expensive.
  - zupzupper 7y ago
    I know we're talking video here but I wanted to share something. My father just got a new set of 'ears', he's been going deaf. They are titanium studs that are implanted into the bone just behind the ear, about the size of pencil erasers. They work through bone conduction. The hearing part are replaceable electronics that snap on and off the studs. The current gen are about the size of a quarter and are bluetooth capable, so he can sync to his devices, watch movies, etc with these little guys tucked behind some hair. It got me thinking, I wonder if audio guys have started to look at some of this sort of thing to really "hear" music perfectly. Very interesting tech.
    - zeristor 7y ago
      There are some earphones that use bone conductance, but this sounds like a special case. If hearing is down to tiny hairs in your ear resonating with the audio frequency, I would have thought being hard of hearing was down to those hairs not being able to function properly. How does bone conductance audio get around that? Does it use a different sense? My eyesight is also going, I have to rub my eyeball on the phone screen like one of those anti-deorderant balls, I daresay my hearing will be next. homo cyberia (That's probably nonsensical latin, if anyone with a modicum of latin knowledge wants to go all Life of Brian on it, please feel free. What is latin for augmented human?)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bin0 7y ago
I'm not sure I'd use a pi has an HTPC for true blue-ray type 4K. Not to ding it, and I'm very excited (and happy to be proven wrong), but I'm not sure it will have the performance for that. I expect quite a bit will depend on whether or not someone puts in the software optimization work, as I remember how powerful PCs couldn't decode what they can on today's codecs a few years back. But we'll see. I guess maybe if you added a heatsink and/or fan? I'd be a bit concerned about component life, taxing it that hard. Oh yeah, and I wanna see how this thing overclocks.
znpy 7y ago
> That's really too bad. You people are never happy, aren't you? You're still getting more stuff for basically the same price...

ggm 7y ago

As a fifty seven year old, I don't have 4k eyeballs. agree you have a limitation, not one which is holding me back since osmc does 720p just fine, for Olde telecine mp4s of B&W movies

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ekianjo 7y ago
If the screen is large enough about everyone gets 4k eyeballs.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  I have a 4K-capable 40 inch TV in a standard living room (for Europe). 4K videos look slightly crispier than full HD ones. While I could have a slightly larger TV, I think that for typical domestic use 4K's improvement is marginal because people are not sitting 50cm from the screen and room sizes are limited. Really, so far the top benefit has been that I could tell my wife: "Look, if I move right up to the screen I can still see Jeremy Clarkson's individual hair strands!"
  - ohyea 7y ago
    A 40 inch TV is on the small end for 4K having any real benefit (at least at a normal living room viewing distance).
    - downtide 7y ago
      I'm still struggling a bit with large screens. For something like playing games I'm guessing you can comfortably sit back. High resolution screens for computers feel attractive, but getting up close and personal can feel a bit much with light levels. I'm guessing OLED might be nicer in that regard.
  - bin0 7y ago
    For those of us who aren't there, can you clarify how big a standard European living room is? This has nothing to do with the resolution stuff you mentioned, just curious.
    - downtide 7y ago
      In the UK in a victorian terrace, and our front room is perhaps on the small side at about 3x4m. I'd guess somewhere between that and 4x5m is about average. For us 32inch still can feel imposing. And that size screen seems to be being phased out.
      - bin0 7y ago
        Oh dear God that's tiny. How do you stand that? Genuinely curious; I feel like I'd end up claustrophobic.
        downtide 7y ago
        We do have another room, that's slightly larger but it's a bit bleak. And weirdly it's a more fussy room to furnish. The smaller size is better in the winter. The old brick terraces aren't that warm. In large houses people can gravitate to smaller rooms for that reason. Personally I'd like a large room that I could bring the furniture in from the sides. Lucky to even have a house to live in to be honest, so can't really grumble.
        bin0 7y ago
        I looked up some pictures; would you say this is representative? https://img-new.cgtrader.com/items/969757/41efc6817b/modern-european-living-room-3d-model-low-poly-max.jpg https://img-new.cgtrader.com/items/969757/41efc6817b/modern-... If so, you're right; that's pretty small. Is it just a matter of acclimation? Also, can you clarify what you mean that you're lucky to have a house? I wasn't aware of a major homeless problem in Europe.
        7y ago
  - jerf 7y ago
    I've got a 4K TV and it's placed in a location that I can tell whether or not something is 4K if I sit a bit closer, but the core problem is that it's still very difficult to provide it true 4K content, since I've not been willing to drop the money for 4K blurays. I've got a variety of content that is, technically, a video stream that decodes into a framebuffer that is a "4K" framebuffer according to the metadata on the video, but without enough bits for it to truly be "4K"; the same number of bits dedicated to a 1080P video would look just as good. For all the bragging about how streaming is the future, it seems to me that the companies providing those streams at scale still have a lot of incentive to cut the bitrate back so far that it's not practically a 4K stream anymore, because 95%+ of their audience can't really tell.
simonh 7y ago
I'm in my 50s as well and may eyes are definitely showing their age, but if anything I find high fidelity screens more important to me now than they were years ago. I use 1080p 23" screens at work and the slight blurriness from pixelation is definitely noticeable. Comparatively, the 5k screen on my iMac is dramatically sharper and easier on my eyes. I find that when my own vision is slightly blurred, add in even more slight blurring on the screen and they compound each other. On the other hand if the source image is pin sharp, it makes it easier to cope with the flaws in my own vision.
throw0101a 7y ago
> I don't have 4k eyeballs. I'm sure higher resolution is nice, but nowadays I'm more interested in HDR and larger colour gamuts (Rec.2020). I don't doubt 4K and 8K look "better", but IMHO we're approaching the point of diminishing returns, and visual enhancements in other areas are worth exploring (even for 1080p).
zeristor 7y ago
I suppose a future AV improvement will be to upgrade eyeballs; iSpheres anyone?
- benj111 7y ago
  Yeah, with DRM that blanks out copyrighted content you haven't paid to watch, and reinserts adverts that your adblocker removed. And they'll remove the optic nerve connector in favour of Bluetooth that will allow them to be 0.1mm thinner, and be wireless! Ps did you miss iBalls on purpose?
  - zeristor 7y ago
    I think Apple would go with iSpheres, it sounds more expensive.
- zupzupper 7y ago
  I know we're talking video here but I wanted to share something. My father just got a new set of 'ears', he's been going deaf. They are titanium studs that are implanted into the bone just behind the ear, about the size of pencil erasers. They work through bone conduction. The hearing part are replaceable electronics that snap on and off the studs. The current gen are about the size of a quarter and are bluetooth capable, so he can sync to his devices, watch movies, etc with these little guys tucked behind some hair. It got me thinking, I wonder if audio guys have started to look at some of this sort of thing to really "hear" music perfectly. Very interesting tech.
  - zeristor 7y ago
    There are some earphones that use bone conductance, but this sounds like a special case. If hearing is down to tiny hairs in your ear resonating with the audio frequency, I would have thought being hard of hearing was down to those hairs not being able to function properly. How does bone conductance audio get around that? Does it use a different sense? My eyesight is also going, I have to rub my eyeball on the phone screen like one of those anti-deorderant balls, I daresay my hearing will be next. homo cyberia (That's probably nonsensical latin, if anyone with a modicum of latin knowledge wants to go all Life of Brian on it, please feel free. What is latin for augmented human?)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

bin0 7y ago

I'm not sure I'd use a pi has an HTPC for true blue-ray type 4K. Not to ding it, and I'm very excited (and happy to be proven wrong), but I'm not sure it will have the performance for that. I expect quite a bit will depend on whether or not someone puts in the software optimization work, as I remember how powerful PCs couldn't decode what they can on today's codecs a few years back. But we'll see. I guess maybe if you added a heatsink and/or fan? I'd be a bit concerned about component life, taxing it that hard. Oh yeah, and I wanna see how this thing overclocks.

znpy 7y ago

> That's really too bad. You people are never happy, aren't you? You're still getting more stuff for basically the same price...