When will we get 64-bit color depth?
never, because FUCKING RETARDS think 24-60 Hz, 8 bpc color, 16 bit sound is more than enough
There aren't that many colors in existance.
Write your complaints in care of God.
6 bit + FRC is still the standard IIRC
8 bit + FRC on good monitors
10 bit on fancy monitors.
16 bit per channel is used internally by quite a few pieces of software, we really don't need to pump it out to the screen at that quality though.
>>53804498
kill yourself fucking retard
>what is banding/dithering (both disgusting)
>what is HDR
>>53804517
Not an issue with a high pixel density and 10 bit colour.
>>53804536
we'll never need 640 kb ram amirite, especially not for things like VR
>2016
>people will still defend 8-10 bit (per channel) color, "high pixel density", 16 bit sound (with fucking dithering, in a mastered cd, not real-time sound in e.g. a video game), unable to envision something better
10bit monitors are still not consumer products, and likely never will be. Argb is intended for working with print. There's not much appreciable difference and the whole digital media production chain has to improve along with it.
>>53805022
if you build it, they will come
How would >8 bit color integration work on a standardized level if physically all image processing software and even in-engine programming uses 0-255 values for channels?
Or rather how would it even bring a benefit?
What is this shitty meme with the name taggs???
>>53805411
>>53805396
lol
kek
upvote
test
>>53805396
the data can be upsampled or the hardware can have different settings like how sound cards can have different settings for bit depth and bit rate. the real benefit will come in e.g. games which already output 16-32 bit floating-point values per channel, the graphics card will just have to be able to support outputting 10+ bit values to the monitor. but even standard 8 bit content can be upsampled to look better. also, HDR TV's and monitors can be made so that e.g. 0-255 maps to standard color and e.g. 65535 maps to "bright as the sun"
alien: isolation with 8 bits per channel
alien: isolation with 10 bits per channel
>>53805895
>>53805905
Since I have a 8-bit monitor and I can see the difference at 10-bit per channel that means that is still 8-bit per channel. The first image is just shit.
>>53804402
When display technology matches it.
>>53804455
16 bit sound is enough
>>53806205
only with carefully mastered sound with dithering, and with a single recording being played at once, no mixing, and even then it's barely at the limit of what's acceptable, and for example you can't have an explosion that sounds realistic and also be able to hear a pin drop in a silent room
>>53804517
> HDR
> ON A FUCKING LCD
GROW A PAIR OF EYES FUCKRRRR!
>>53804498
My laptop monitor is 6bit with static dithering and still manages to have better colors than most other TN monitors
with 32+ bit sound you'd be able to have "loud" music with far less distortion and clipping
>>53805620
> mapping 8 bit to 16 bit
> implying this would bring any benefit
so you also do upscaling a sd tv image to hd and say it looks better?
NOOOO!
From where does the additional information come?
> interpolation
Oh, and this increases the quality of the picture suuuuuuure!
>>53807109
idiot
at the very least it wouldn't make it WORSE because you can still map 8 bit to 16 bit perfectly fine just as you can upscale 1080p to 2160p with no loss whatsoever
and you can improve the appearance of the image like how waifu2x improves anime
>>53807109
>>53807138
and you can add higher bit depth dithering noise to make the image look better
>>53806978
I don't think you could hear a pin drop over an explosion to begin with.
>>53804494
There are theoretically infinite colors in existence.
>>53807164
no but in real life you could hear e.g. the pin from a grenade drop before you hear the grenade explosion and 16-bit sound with no dynamic volume can't reproduce it faithfully
>>53807198
Would you also like the hearing damage to go along with a faithfully recreated explosion?
>>53807190
Unfortunately resolving power is neither theoretically nor practically infinite.
>>53807138
> idiot
talk to yourself
upscaling does not improve anything!
(that's exactly what i said)
Upscaling makes the picture look lile mud. If you want to display a low-res image on a hi-res monitor, don't use upscaling, display it in it's native resolution!
>>53807242
it was just an extreme example, try listening to spotify or deezer with volume normalization turned on (it's on by default), it sounds like shit. with higher bit depth it would sound less shit.
then listen to NIN - hesitation marks (audophile master) or some "mastered for iTunes" album. the music itself sounds like shit but the sound quality is superb. with higher bit depth you could have that kind of quality but in all ranges
>>53804402
>>53804455
>>53804498
>>53806978
>>53807103
>>53807164
>>53807198
Watch this and have your questions be answered!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM
>>53807289
> volume normalization
Why would you?
>>53807321
the implementations are shit but the idea is that fags these days make their music as loud as possible because louder music tends to sound better (all else being equal), so to play a variety of music the volume could vary a lot so with normalization you get a more consistent volume so the user doesn't have to keep changing the volume back and forth. but spotify and especially deezer still fall for the "loudness war" meme and make the "normalization" really loud and since we already have a low bit depth to begin width and they only use the upper range (the louder range) it sounds even shittier
>>53804402
My vision is augmented
>>53807289
>NIN - hesitation marks (audophile master)
this is 24 bit btw
>>53807381
> fags these days make their music as loud as possible because louder music tends to sound better
That's why I prefer classocal music where you can experience the FULL DYNAMIC RANGE of headphones/loudspeakers!
>>53807550
classocal > classical (typo)
>>53807289
bit depth just refers to dynamic variance when recording. Basically how loud or soft something can be and the number of steps in between.
Quality comes from sample rate, which higher rates really make a difference with things like reverb and most modern analogue modeling plugins.
And then obviously when the final bounce happens, you'll hear a pretty substantial difference between a FLAC and MP3. Often because people still seem to fuck up dithering in this day and age but the compression really sucks the life out of your low and high end
>>53807289
So use higher res processing?
>>53804494
>There aren't that many colors in existance.
You're wrong, there more than that many colors in existence.
Just because your shitty screen can't display them doesn't mean they don't exist.
>>53805905
>>53805917
Lonnie is right. If it was really 10 bit we wouldn't be able to see the difference with an 8bit monitor
>>53807190
the human eye can't see more than 30 cps
>>53807582
the question is
"Do we really need all these colours? Do our eyes even see these colours?"
>>53805620
>already output 16-32 bit floating-point values per channel
Doesn't OpenGL do this?
dumb question:
why is that cinema movies have ~25 frames per second and the video looks smoothe as fuck,
but if you play a vidya game on 25 fps it looks like complete shit?
>>53807636
in the pixel shader you compute high-precision color values but the final output depends on the rendering surface. from what i found on a quick google search, higher-precision colors in opengl are limited to professional applications/graphics cards.
games can do it now with recent versions of directx though
>>53807618
>Do our eyes even see these colours?
Yes, they do.
>Do we really need all these colours?
Well, we don't NEED them, but it would sure be nice to have them to get rid of banding and such.
>>53807640
vidyagamez =|= movie
btw movies in cinema are on 24fps on tv they're 25 Fps in normal countries and 29.97 in freedomburgerland.
>>53807640
in the movie, the camera captures light for a period of time so what you see in one frame is the combined image of "infinitely" many frames. in the game, it's just one snapshot of an infinitely small period of time.
>>53807719
Ahhh the old analog days
PAL vs NTSC
(ntsc = never the same color)
PAL is superior!
>>53807724
thanks. very interesting, do you have a source for that?
>>53807724
motion blur would have to be added to make games look like movies at 24 fps, but in most cases it still looks like shiet.
>>53807765
another question, my parents have an expensive "smart tv" meme, and the video looks weird and cheap. i don't know how to explain it, it's like it looks too real and somehow this makes it look.. different. i believe it has something to do with the motion that makes it look cheap. obviously they can't tell a difference because they're oldfucks
>>53807759
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur#Photography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur#Animation
>>53807602
Yeah Lonnie is king
>>53807603
Underrated post
>>53807790
it's probably upsampling and interpolating 24-30 fps content to 60-120-240 Hz
there should be a setting to turn it off
>>53807791
>Without this simulated effect each frame shows a perfect instant in time (analogous to a camera with an infinitely fast shutter), with zero motion blur. This is why a video game with a frame rate of 25-30 frames per second will seem staggered, while natural motion filmed at the same frame rate appears rather more continuous
noice.
learned something
>>53807790
interpolation of frames?
turn it off in the image settings
(something like smart ... / enhance ... / ultra ... motion ...)
>>53807829
this is why videogames need to run at high fps, so that the blurred motion is created in the eyes of the viewer and not inside the gpu
>>53807790
You're probably noticing what they call the soap opera effect which a lot of tvs have. Lookup how to disable it on whatever model of tv you have.
>>53804402
When Apple introduces it and it's a new revolution, and then "hahaha look at anon with his old PC that can't show all colors!"
>>53807640
>cinema movies have ~25 frames per second and the video looks smoothe as fuck
It doesn't look at all smooth, especially during quicker camera movements. There is a huge amount of juddering.
>>53804402
Beyond the fact we can't see it, it doesn't mean it serves no purpose.
It's actually already used by some very high end cameras, for color correction purposes. Could also serve a purpose with quality OLED screens allowing for proper dynamic range, rather than a simulated one.
>>53807746
In 50 vs 60 fps games there was no problem but 25 v 30 fps games the PAL version is almost unplayable. I recently tried european Super Mario 64 and damn how tortured my childhood was...
>>53804402
Human eyes can't differentiate that many colors
>>53804402
It makes no fucking difference when display technology is holding us back.
LCDs are shit-tier for color accuracy, but work well enough for 90%+ of users out there. It can display all of the relevant colors without an issue.
You need to move to something else if you want to accurately depict "soft" shadows, glaring and other colored lighting effects.
>>53807917
that's exactly it. it's funny how the "cheapness" is pure psychological, because we associate it with cheap soap operas, while in fact it's at least in theory "better" than regular (which i guess that's why the manufacturers put it in the settings)
