Where is Emotiva on HDMI 2.1?

[rbk123]

Jan 27, 2023 21:33:12 GMT -5 garbulky said:

The video we watch is heavily lossy when it’s streaming. take a look at YouTube 4K and 1080p 4K videos. They both usually don’t have hdr. The. 4K is substantially better even without hdr.

That's the source. You are missing the point. A 4k source is a superior image than a 1080p source.

However, those 4k Youtube images will be indistinguishable on a 1080p display vs. a 4k display if the displays are equal.

There won't be 8k source for a long time, to look better than 4k (except for video games). And if there were, 8k source will not be distinguishable on a 4k display vs. an 8k display, if they're equal. By the time 8k source is common, HDMI 2.1 will be like Microsoft DOS.

[rvsixer]

Jan 27, 2023 10:57:30 GMT -5 marcl said:

Agreed on 8K and HDR.   Here's a reference point:  If you have 20:20 vision, to actually see 4K resolution with "cinematic" field of view, you have to sit 8-10ft from a 77" screen.  Who (besides me) does that?  I bet most people put a 77" screen 12-15ft away ... where you may push the limit of 1080.  To actually see 8K you'd have to sit so close you could touch the screen with your toes 

Good points on visual acuity, but are people really sitting this far from their 4K sets?  I guess it might be okay for casual viewing, but aren't we buying expensive AV prepros/receivers to setup a theater like (i.e. cinematic/immersive) experience?

8ft is at least in the middle of THX recommended seating distance for a 16:9 76.5" (actual size) set , but anything beyond 10ft. is like sitting past the last row of the theater.

[marcl]

Jan 29, 2023 8:34:23 GMT -5 rvsixer said:

Jan 27, 2023 10:57:30 GMT -5 marcl said:

Agreed on 8K and HDR.   Here's a reference point:  If you have 20:20 vision, to actually see 4K resolution with "cinematic" field of view, you have to sit 8-10ft from a 77" screen.  Who (besides me) does that?  I bet most people put a 77" screen 12-15ft away ... where you may push the limit of 1080.  To actually see 8K you'd have to sit so close you could touch the screen with your toes 

Good points on visual acuity, but are people really sitting this far from their 4K sets?  I guess it might be okay for casual viewing, but aren't we buying expensive AV prepros/receivers to setup a theater like (i.e. cinematic/immersive) experience?

8ft is at least in the middle of THX recommended seating distance for a 16:9 76.5" (actual size) set , but anything beyond 10ft. is like sitting past the last row of the theater.

That's exactly my point.  I think every photo that I see of systems has people sitting more than 10ft from the TV.  I'd say very few of us sit less than 10ft with a 77" screen.

[rvsixer]

Jan 29, 2023 9:06:43 GMT -5 marcl said:

That's exactly my point.  I think every photo that I see of systems has people sitting more than 10ft from the TV.  I'd say very few of us sit less than 10ft with a 77" screen.
View Attachment

Got it.

I guess I hang out at too many HT related forums.  You only occasionally see pics of setups with less then 40-36 degree field of view (i.e. about 92"-102" seated distance from a 76.5" set). 

[garbulky]

Jan 27, 2023 21:37:57 GMT -5 rbk123 said:

Jan 27, 2023 21:33:12 GMT -5 garbulky said:

The video we watch is heavily lossy when it’s streaming. take a look at YouTube 4K and 1080p 4K videos. They both usually don’t have hdr. The. 4K is substantially better even without hdr.

That's the source. You are missing the point. A 4k source is a superior image than a 1080p source.

However, those 4k Youtube images will be indistinguishable on a 1080p display vs. a 4k display if the displays are equal.

There won't be 8k source for a long time, to look better than 4k (except for video games). And if there were, 8k source will not be distinguishable on a 4k display vs. an 8k display, if they're equal. By the time 8k source is common, HDMI 2.1 will be like Microsoft DOS.

Try it for yourself. I set my monitor to 1080p and flipped between 1080 and 4K resolutions on YouTube videos. I paused it and looked at the frame.

[hsamwel]

Jan 29, 2023 9:06:43 GMT -5 marcl said:

Jan 29, 2023 8:34:23 GMT -5 rvsixer said:

Good points on visual acuity, but are people really sitting this far from their 4K sets?  I guess it might be okay for casual viewing, but aren't we buying expensive AV prepros/receivers to setup a theater like (i.e. cinematic/immersive) experience?

8ft is at least in the middle of THX recommended seating distance for a 16:9 76.5" (actual size) set , but anything beyond 10ft. is like sitting past the last row of the theater.

That's exactly my point.  I think every photo that I see of systems has people sitting more than 10ft from the TV.  I'd say very few of us sit less than 10ft with a 77" screen.

View AttachmentView Attachment

That’s probably true.

I have a 65” 4k TV which I sit 3.8m (12.5ft) away from. On that TV I would have a hard task distinguishing 4k SDR from 1080p SDR from
the same source.
However I also have a electric tab tension 104” projection screen with a 4k projector infront of my TV. With this I sit about 3.6m (11.8ft)
away. I get a pretty good cinematic experience. On this screen I see the difference between 4k and 1080p. But it’s not night and day
difference because the projector will always scale up the source and doing some touch ups. So it’s hard to compare.
But compared to my old 1080p projector there’s a huge difference in sharpness and detail.

I’m planning an upgrade to a 110” next year. This is the absolute max for me without having a sound transparent screen and speakers
behind it. Which have its draw backs.

To have a truly maxxed out experience and immersion I think I would have to go as high as 120-130” 16:9 from the distance I’m sitting
at though.

[marcl]

Jan 29, 2023 12:56:39 GMT -5 hsamwel said:

Jan 29, 2023 9:06:43 GMT -5 marcl said:

That's exactly my point.  I think every photo that I see of systems has people sitting more than 10ft from the TV.  I'd say very few of us sit less than 10ft with a 77" screen.

View AttachmentView Attachment

That’s probably true.

I have a 65” 4k TV which I sit 3.8m (12.5ft) away from. On that TV I would have a hard task distinguishing 4k SDR from 1080p SDR from
the same source.
However I also have a electric tab tension 104” projection screen with a 4k projector infront of my TV. With this I sit about 3.6m (11.8ft)
away. I get a pretty good cinematic experience. On this screen I see the difference between 4k and 1080p. But it’s not night and day
difference because the projector will always scale up the source and doing some touch ups. So it’s hard to compare.
But compared to my old 1080p projector there’s a huge difference in sharpness and detail.

I’m planning an upgrade to a 110” next year. This is the absolute max for me without having a sound transparent screen and speakers
behind it. Which have its draw backs.

To have a truly maxxed out experience and immersion I think I would have to go as high as 120-130” 16:9 from the distance I’m sitting
at though.

I looked at it this way (not that I was thinking of getting a projector) ... so I pulled the TV a few more inches toward the couch. 

[hsamwel]

Jan 29, 2023 13:09:30 GMT -5 marcl said:

Jan 29, 2023 12:56:39 GMT -5 hsamwel said:

That’s probably true.

I have a 65” 4k TV which I sit 3.8m (12.5ft) away from. On that TV I would have a hard task distinguishing 4k SDR from 1080p SDR from
the same source.
However I also have a electric tab tension 104” projection screen with a 4k projector infront of my TV. With this I sit about 3.6m (11.8ft)
away. I get a pretty good cinematic experience. On this screen I see the difference between 4k and 1080p. But it’s not night and day
difference because the projector will always scale up the source and doing some touch ups. So it’s hard to compare.
But compared to my old 1080p projector there’s a huge difference in sharpness and detail.

I’m planning an upgrade to a 110” next year. This is the absolute max for me without having a sound transparent screen and speakers
behind it. Which have its draw backs.

To have a truly maxxed out experience and immersion I think I would have to go as high as 120-130” 16:9 from the distance I’m sitting
at though.

I looked at it this way (not that I was thinking of getting a projector) ... so I pulled the TV a few more inches toward the couch. 

View Attachment

Yeah, TVs are always easier to move around. I could have moved the screen forward 2-3ft though. But at the time this was not an option
due to my better half wanting other things done in the livingroom, where I have my setup.

There are other positive things by moving the speakers forward also. You get a deeper sound stage and often less problems with the bass
from the LCR speakers. Also you can have acoustic room treatment and bass absorbants behind the screen and speakers. This way they
will be mostly hidden.

I my room the LCR speakers sit pretty perfectly to my seating position. I have almost only peaks.. And a huge bass bump as low as
25hz. Dirac handles these peaks with ease. It would have been worse if I had a lot of dips.
If I changed depth of the speakers placements I would probably change my bass behaviour completely. Not necessarily for the better.

[cwmcobra]

I sit 10' from a 120" wide scope screen and wouldn't like to sit any farther back. Maybe for DVDs that don't provide the resolution of Blurays or 4K UHD disks. But even with DVDs the immersive video draws me in.

LMMV....

Cheers!

Chuck

[Dreamer]

STAY ON SUBJECT.........

The question (topic) is:


Where is Emotiva on HDMI 2.1?

They are behind the curve, again!

Is anybody home?

[ttocs]

Jan 29, 2023 22:43:07 GMT -5 Dreamer said:

STAY ON SUBJECT.........

The question (topic) is:
Where is Emotiva on HDMI 2.1?

They are behind the curve, again!

Is anybody home?

Please see the responses from Dan, Keith, and Nick on Page 3. That's pretty much all we can expect for an answer from each of them I would think.

I combine their answers to be: eARC works now on one product, soon on other products, and 2.1 will be much later.

[AudioHTIT]

Jan 29, 2023 23:47:13 GMT -5 ttocs said:

Jan 29, 2023 22:43:07 GMT -5 Dreamer said:

STAY ON SUBJECT.........

The question (topic) is:
Where is Emotiva on HDMI 2.1?

They are behind the curve, again!

Is anybody home?

Please see the responses from Dan, Keith, and Nick on Page 3. That's pretty much all we can expect for an answer from each of them I would think.

I combine their answers to be: eARC works now on one product, soon on other products, and 2.1 will be much later.

Not to mention that they announced the G4P models will include 2.1, and are scheduled to be released summer of 2023.

“8K (on all inputs and outputs) HDMI 2.1 with ARC/eARC”

[KeithL]

I may have a different take on all this than a lot of you guys...

To me, with a computer, having a screen that is larger than the images you're viewing, or larger than your field of view, makes sense.
When I'm using Photoshop it's nice to be able to have the image I'm editing fill my field of view... and still have room to put menus and palettes and plugins off to the sides.
And, for video editing, I definitely want "full screen video" but still have plenty of room for other controls at the sides and bottom...
And, when I'm doing other stuff, it's definitely nice to be able to have the entire spreadsheet on the screen at once so I can look from side to side to see all the columns...
Or to be able to put a spreadsheet, and a web page, and a Word document all "on the screen" at the same time and look back and forth between them.
(And this can be done with multiple screens or with one big high resolution screen.)

BUT, when I watch a movie, I prefer for the movie to fill MOST but not all of my field of vision. 
I don't mind a little dead space around the edges...
But I definitely DO NOT want a screen that is bigger than my field of vision...
I don't want to have to move my head back and forth, like I'm watching a tennis match, to see all of the action...
And the thing I DON'T like about the front row in some theaters is having to tilt my head way back to see the top of the screen. 
I've often told people that, when watching that big naval battle, I prefer "the view from the admiral's flagship", where I can see all the action at once, to "being immersed in the center of the mayhem"...

My point is that my goal in a home theater is NOT "to duplicate the experience of a real theater"...
I can live without the sticky floors, and the overpriced drinks, and the tasty but overpriced popcorn, and the noisy kids, and the people on their cell phones...
And I can live without the oversized screen that's impressively large, but a bit too bright, and not quite perfectly sharp, especially around the edges...
I want something BETTER from my home theater...
And, since I rarely (like never) have a few hundred close friends over to watch movies...
I would much prefer a dead sharp good sized direct view screen rather than a projector...
And, at the moment, when I pick a size and distance combination where the screen fills most of my field of view...
Most of the time, with most movies, 4k provides about as much sharpness as I can actually distinguish...
(And I got bored with walking up to the screen so that, from two feet away, I can see the jaggies on the font they used for the screen credits, or the color of the lead actor's nose hairs.)

I strongly suspect that we are already at the limit of the picture quality most movie producers are willing to deliver...
And we are already pretty much at, or already past, the amount of data bandwidth that streaming services are willing to deliver too...
And, if I'm right, that means that, if we had "8k streaming" right now, the picture really wouldn't look any better.
The movie itself is still the same 4k - if even - original... 
And, in order to fit an 8k image into the same bandwidth as a 4k image, you need more compression...
And, as a result of that, you end up with more pixels, but not a picture that is actually sharper...
And I do wonder how many people have already noticed that both 1080p and 4k streams are compressed about 4x MORE than their equivalent disc counterparts.
That's a tactful way of saying that, if we actually had "8k streaming" today, a 4k disc would probably still look better than an 8k stream.

Here's another thing to think about...
The Martian, which a lot of people thought looked really good, was actually edited in 2k (NOT even 4k)...
So, believe it or not, that seems to prove that "good photography" and "good editing" really are a lot more important than a few more pixels...

And, yes, I CAN see the difference between a good quality 4k video and a good quality 1080p version of that same video...
At least when I'm sitting two or three feet away from a good 4k monitor...
And I DO use my computer that way...
But I really DON'T use my TV that way...

Jan 29, 2023 12:34:46 GMT -5 garbulky said:

Jan 27, 2023 21:37:57 GMT -5 rbk123 said:

That's the source. You are missing the point. A 4k source is a superior image than a 1080p source.

However, those 4k Youtube images will be indistinguishable on a 1080p display vs. a 4k display if the displays are equal.

There won't be 8k source for a long time, to look better than 4k (except for video games). And if there were, 8k source will not be distinguishable on a 4k display vs. an 8k display, if they're equal. By the time 8k source is common, HDMI 2.1 will be like Microsoft DOS.

Try it for yourself. I set my monitor to 1080p and flipped between 1080 and 4K resolutions on YouTube videos. I paused it and looked at the frame.

[garbulky]

Jan 30, 2023 12:09:41 GMT -5 KeithL said:

I may have a different take on all this than a lot of you guys...

To me, with a computer, having a screen that is larger than the images you're viewing, or larger than your field of view, makes sense.
When I'm using Photoshop it's nice to be able to have the image I'm editing fill my field of view... and still have room to put menus and palettes and plugins off to the sides.
And, for video editing, I definitely want "full screen video" but still have plenty of room for other controls at the sides and bottom...
And, when I'm doing other stuff, it's definitely nice to be able to have the entire spreadsheet on the screen at once so I can look from side to side to see all the columns...
Or to be able to put a spreadsheet, and a web page, and a Word document all "on the screen" at the same time and look back and forth between them.
(And this can be done with multiple screens or with one big high resolution screen.)

BUT, when I watch a movie, I prefer for the movie to fill MOST but not all of my field of vision. 
I don't mind a little dead space around the edges...
But I definitely DO NOT want a screen that is bigger than my field of vision...
I don't want to have to move my head back and forth, like I'm watching a tennis match, to see all of the action...
And the thing I DON'T like about the front row in some theaters is having to tilt my head way back to see the top of the screen. 
I've often told people that, when watching that big naval battle, I prefer "the view from the admiral's flagship", where I can see all the action at once, to "being immersed in the center of the mayhem"...

My point is that my goal in a home theater is NOT "to duplicate the experience of a real theater"...
I can live without the sticky floors, and the overpriced drinks, and the tasty but overpriced popcorn, and the noisy kids, and the people on their cell phones...
And I can live without the oversized screen that's impressively large, but a bit too bright, and not quite perfectly sharp, especially around the edges...
I want something BETTER from my home theater...
And, since I rarely (like never) have a few hundred close friends over to watch movies...
I would much prefer a dead sharp good sized direct view screen rather than a projector...
And, at the moment, when I pick a size and distance combination where the screen fills most of my field of view...
Most of the time, with most movies, 4k provides about as much sharpness as I can actually distinguish...
(And I got bored with walking up to the screen so that, from two feet away, I can see the jaggies on the font they used for the screen credits, or the color of the lead actor's nose hairs.)

I strongly suspect that we are already at the limit of the picture quality most movie producers are willing to deliver...
And we are already pretty much at, or already past, the amount of data bandwidth that streaming services are willing to deliver too...
And, if I'm right, that means that, if we had "8k streaming" right now, the picture really wouldn't look any better.
The movie itself is still the same 4k - if even - original... 
And, in order to fit an 8k image into the same bandwidth as a 4k image, you need more compression...
And, as a result of that, you end up with more pixels, but not a picture that is actually sharper...
And I do wonder how many people have already noticed that both 1080p and 4k streams are compressed about 4x MORE than their equivalent disc counterparts.
That's a tactful way of saying that, if we actually had "8k streaming" today, a 4k disc would probably still look better than an 8k stream.

Here's another thing to think about...
The Martian, which a lot of people thought looked really good, was actually edited in 2k (NOT even 4k)...
So, believe it or not, that seems to prove that "good photography" and "good editing" really are a lot more important than a few more pixels...

And, yes, I CAN see the difference between a good quality 4k video and a good quality 1080p version of that same video...
At least when I'm sitting two or three feet away from a good 4k monitor...
And I DO use my computer that way...
But I really DON'T use my TV that way...

Jan 29, 2023 12:34:46 GMT -5 garbulky said:

Try it for yourself. I set my monitor to 1080p and flipped between 1080 and 4K resolutions on YouTube videos. I paused it and looked at the frame.

Good points. At this time, I am trying to figure out exactly how big is too big. I think 77 inch may be a more appropriate size IF not for the goshdarn widescreen bars on the top and bottom. For movies which are not full frame, then I think an 83 inch will fill my vision better- though perhaps a little too big for full frame. But if all video was full frame with no bars, I think a 77 inch will be appropriate.

[KimbaWLion]

What I want is eArc and the 120Hz refresh rate. I have a 2.1 outputs in my HTPC, my TV handles HDMI 2.1. I do believe chip shortage is part of the problem.
I mean I must have SOME faith. I bought an RMC-1 during the bring out the dead sale. I received it in December and so far for the most part things are fine.
The next firmware update activating eArc will be really appreciated! And when Emotiva is ready I will send in my RMC1 for the summer upgrade. Given price, IF everything works. I will be happy, hopefully... 
I have not my buying a Trinnov, or Lyndorf, or a Mcintosh for outrageous pricing IMHO. Should have and of those and are happy, I am very glad for you. NO jealousy at all, that is rather unbecoming! 
I am in NO hurry for 8k! The scary part? HDMI 2.XX that will do 8k at 120Hz... Anyway, we will see what happens when it does!

[rbk123]

Jan 29, 2023 12:34:46 GMT -5 garbulky said:

Try it for yourself. I set my monitor to 1080p and flipped between 1080 and 4K resolutions on YouTube videos. I paused it and looked at the frame.

It's because you have it calibrated/optimized for a 4k image. It's why projectors, and I presume higher end TV's, have 10+ setting profiles so you can easily switch between what's best based on source.

[garbulky]

Feb 1, 2023 9:20:57 GMT -5 rbk123 said:

Jan 29, 2023 12:34:46 GMT -5 garbulky said:

Try it for yourself. I set my monitor to 1080p and flipped between 1080 and 4K resolutions on YouTube videos. I paused it and looked at the frame.

It's because you have it calibrated/optimized for a 4k image. It's why projectors, and I presume higher end TV's, have 10+ setting profiles so you can easily switch between what's best based on source.

Well it's not that... you can try it yourself and see.
the difference in pixellation is visible, though granted you have to be up a little close to see it. I use a 65 inch OLED fwiw. I also tried it with a 1080p only monitor to verify. .
Here's an example below but you can try it on any non-hdr 4k video. Just set your tv/computer to 1080p. Then select the resolution on youtube - alternate between 1080p and 4k to compare. You'll probably have to do it on a PC to be able to change the resolutions though. Try at 36 seconds in.

[rbk123]

Feb 1, 2023 11:38:43 GMT -5 garbulky said:

Well it's not that... you can try it yourself and see.
the difference in pixellation is visible, though granted you have to be up a little close to see it. I use a 65 inch OLED fwiw. I also tried it with a 1080p only monitor to verify. .

I disagree and have tried it.  The pixelation is definitely more visible because they are larger and you can see it on 4k as well, but the brightness, contrast and various other settings are different between images, so that contributes far more.  If you don't optimize the display in each mode, the one optimized will always look better.

[garbulky]

Feb 2, 2023 9:19:32 GMT -5 rbk123 said:

Feb 1, 2023 11:38:43 GMT -5 garbulky said:

Well it's not that... you can try it yourself and see.
the difference in pixellation is visible, though granted you have to be up a little close to see it. I use a 65 inch OLED fwiw. I also tried it with a 1080p only monitor to verify. .

I disagree and have tried it.  The pixelation is definitely more visible because they are larger and you can see it on 4k as well, but the brightness, contrast and various other settings are different between images, so that contributes far more.  If you don't optimize the display in each mode, the one optimized will always look better.

How do you optimize non HDR content in 1080p vs 4k streaming video?

[rbk123]

Feb 2, 2023 10:07:00 GMT -5 garbulky said:

How do you optimize non HDR content in 1080p vs 4k streaming video?

You just have to calibrate to that type of source material and save it to a specific settings profile. Switch to that when it's the content you're observing. However there's no point to optimizing a 1080P setting on your 4K tv so don't bother with it, I'm just pointing out that if all things were equal on a 1080P display vs. a 4k display, and it's not HDR, the image quality difference is very small. 8K difference to 4k will be even smaller.
HDR is what really makes 4k shine, and should be leveraged to the max if possible. Currently there is no similar game-changer tech in 8k, just more pixels. Until there's some HDR type game-changer, there's no point in going 8k, *especially* if there's no true 8k source material. That's Dan's point.