4 ms·
Furthermore, I would be willing to use 16-bit colors for higher resolution.
by mycall 6y ago
Furthermore, I would be willing to use 16-bit colors for higher resolution.
- messe 6y agoI wonder if a little bit of dithering would be enough to compensate for that at that high a resolution. The actual area of our eyes that can resolve colour is quite small, so it might work.
- bigiain 6y ago16 bit colours on a pair of 8K screens is the best part of half a gigabyte per frame... I assume sir will be wanting 60 or 120 FPS as well? :-)
- chomp 6y ago802.11ay can hit that at 15fps theoretically, and if apple culls peripheral video, it may need way less bandwidth!
- WalterSear 6y agoFoveated rendering will cut that in half or more.
- bigiain 6y agoFor some purposes. There's still 72 raw megapixels in the two displays. Even if you "cheat" and run rendered output for the edges in 4K or 1080p, something still has to drive each RGD emitter for each of those pixels, even if you're painting blocks of 4 or 16 of them all the same colour...
- davrosthedalek 6y ago7680x4320x2pixels x2 bytes/pixel ~ 127 MBytes/frame.
- bigiain 6y agoAhhh, right. I'd misinterpreted that "16 bit colour" as wanting 16 bits per colour 6 byte pixels, not 2 byte pixels.
- repsilat 6y agoI read it the same way. I guess the phrasing ("I would be willing") should have made it clear, but it's an understandable misunderstanding: it's used both ways: https://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/ https://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/ https://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch001557.htm https://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch001557.htm
- davrosthedalek 6y agoYeah, but even at 100 MByte/frame, we talk enormous bitrates for sensible frame rates.