The language suggests it's an issue with the standard rather than a technical barrier. Unfortunately, beginning with 1.4b, HDMI Licensing no longer publicly publishes specification documents:
UHD Blu-ray Game Consoles shipped in 2013
- Thread starter jeff_rigby
- Start date
The language suggests it's an issue with the standard rather than a technical barrier. Unfortunately, beginning with 1.4b, HDMI Licensing no longer publicly publishes specification documents:
dgrdsv
Member
Well, since it's an issue with the standard and not the b/w there's nothing in the way of providing a proprietary extension to the standard for the proprietary PSVR reciever.
The point here is that the fact that PS4 can output 120Hz to 1080p PSVR does not confirm that there's anything but the HDMI 1.4b output in it.
It seems that you don't quite understand the situation. That HDMI 1.4b can send two 1080p60 signals to achieve "120Hz" for 3D media doesn't mean it can support the PSVR as it needs a full 1080p120 signal -- it's a single 1080p screen with a 120Hz refresh rate that splits the frame data to 960x1080 per eye. Similarly, although the the Rift and Vive are both 90Hz, they don't offer a paltry 45Hz per eye.
I don't quite get that last part, do you imply that PSVR does only do 60 fps per eye?
The exact opposite, although most PSVR titles are likely to be 60fps with reprojection rather than truly 120fps.
dgrdsv
Member
I don't see how 1080p @120Hz is different from 2x1080p/2 @120Hz really.
Well, the PSVR receives a 1080p120 signal. The issue is that HDMI 1.4b allegedly does not support 1080p at 120Hz in any fashion beyond sending two 1080p60 signals concurrently for 3D displays, which isn't quite the same thing.
I don't know what kinds of limitations HDMI has over what kinds of resolutions it is allowed to carry/required to be able to ingest, but from bandwidth standpoint, after overhead, 1.4 has 8.16 gbps of bandwidth and 1080p60 requires 3.33 gbps in CVT-R mode and in 120Hz it would be double.
dgrdsv
Member
This is very much the same thing, as the signal being sent is nothing more than a data preceded by a header describing that data. The only hard limitation which can't be circumvented is the bandwidth provided by the physical implementation, the rest is just software.
We're a bit beside the point anyway as the bandwidth requirements for HDR metadata is way lower than for 120Hz refresh - in fact they'll probably fit even into a 120Hz 1080p signal being transmitted over HDMI 1.4b.
So there's nothing in recent PS4 update adding HDR to the OG PS4 indicating that OG PS4's output isn't 1.4b or that it can somehow be extended to 2.0a/b with f/w. On the contrary, you'd think that if that'd be possible - Sony would've done this already ages ago if only to provide UI (browsing, streaming, photos, etc.) compatibility with 4K sets at 60Hz. The fact that they didn't mean that they can't.
Yeah, I realise the bandwidth is there. The article that lead to this discussion also says as much but implies the limitation vis-a-vis 1080p120 is with the standard itself rather than a technical one.
Sorry, but I find myself more inclined to believe the word of someone who appears to have perused the HDMI 1.4b specification. This conversation would be far less messy if the specification document were publicly available!
I've very recently said myself, in both this thread and the accompanying 4K one, that HDR support is not necessarily incontrovertible proof of a HDMI 2-capable port.
