3 ms·

Rather than invalidate a ton of legacy content and gear, I would much prefer explicit support for integer frame rates, and see exactly that in a lot of gear I

Rather than invalidate a ton of legacy content and gear, I would much prefer explicit support for integer frame rates, and see exactly that in a lot of gear I use now. Industry tends to love mandates that force new purchases. And hardware people tend to love it when their hardware just works too. Clear conflict of interest here. Making sure we have robust integer frame rate support means new material can be produced. Great! So let's do that. Making sure we explicitly remove support for fractional frame rates means old material will either not be usable, or degraded. We really do not need the latter. Simply doing the former will work this all out over time. There really is no rush.

Unklejoe 5y ago
Right. Not only that, in my experience, TVs and monitors really don’t even support specific rates - what I mean is, they can usually accept a range of timings. It would probably require extra work to intentionally _not_ support some specific rates. They might report support for specific rates in their EDID, but you can usually feed it almost totally arbitrary video timings and it will still work as long as your vblank, front porch, etc. values are somewhat reasonable and you don’t exceed its max rate. Furthermore, if you were to send a display a video signal with timing parameters for 24 Hz but actually clocked at 23.9, I doubt the monitor would even care. After all, it must tolerate some frequency difference since the incoming signal is being clocked by the sending device. The only time I’ve ever seen a display (in this case, an LG 4K monitor) act weird is when I fed it an interlaced signal.
- ddingus 5y ago
  Many HDMI devices will display a very wide range of inputs. A group I hang with are exploring all that with a micro able to output native HDMI / DVI. It has been enlightening. The industry support at the display level is good and can be even better. This really is all about streaming having to compete with a body of legacy media. To a lesser degree it is about the most efficient solutions between creators and distributors. The Xbox problem mentioned can be fixed with a firmware update. So do that... sheesh!

Unklejoe 5y ago

Right. Not only that, in my experience, TVs and monitors really don’t even support specific rates - what I mean is, they can usually accept a range of timings. It would probably require extra work to intentionally _not_ support some specific rates. They might report support for specific rates in their EDID, but you can usually feed it almost totally arbitrary video timings and it will still work as long as your vblank, front porch, etc. values are somewhat reasonable and you don’t exceed its max rate. Furthermore, if you were to send a display a video signal with timing parameters for 24 Hz but actually clocked at 23.9, I doubt the monitor would even care. After all, it must tolerate some frequency difference since the incoming signal is being clocked by the sending device. The only time I’ve ever seen a display (in this case, an LG 4K monitor) act weird is when I fed it an interlaced signal.

ddingus 5y ago
Many HDMI devices will display a very wide range of inputs. A group I hang with are exploring all that with a micro able to output native HDMI / DVI. It has been enlightening. The industry support at the display level is good and can be even better. This really is all about streaming having to compete with a body of legacy media. To a lesser degree it is about the most efficient solutions between creators and distributors. The Xbox problem mentioned can be fixed with a firmware update. So do that... sheesh!