No, and this is one of those fools that think we shouldn't have 4K until we fully utilize 1080. Sure, let's hold new tech back until we squeeze everything out of old out-dated tech.
Ok if the fastest video card on the market is struggling to hit 30 fps at that res how in the hell is the PS4 gonna manage that? I am not looking forward to sub-HD games being upscaled to 4K.
Boy ain't that the truth. This race for increased resolution while still using tech that's terrible for motion is baffling. Who cares what res the tv can push when it drops to a fraction of that when anything moves. I see people buying monster rigs to play pc games at crazy resolutions and hooking them up to displays that are the worst tech to maintain that res while playingRather have crystal clear motion handling over increased resolution since I move In most of the games I play.
I'm sure you will be fine with 1080p, 60fps upscaled to 4K.
Man, listen to these speakers. Can you hear how clear they are? They're rated for 75,000hz. Tweeters never sounded so good. Listen to all that DETAIL in the 2-5hz range. That super-low bass, man, really rounds out the auditory landscape!
It's not a matter of squeezing the most from out of date tech. It's recognizing that the human eye, in tandem with the human brain, needs an image to be extremely large (or you're sitting extremely close, or the pixels are so tightly packed it might possibly be powered by Apple-brand black holes) in order to discern a difference between 1080p and 4k. I used that article because it explains things pretty clearly. At some point, you hit the limits of auditory/visual perception in the human body.
Isn't that still being upscaled to 4x it's resolution? I'm not really familiar with how well LCDs handle that kind of upscaling. How did 720p look on 1080p TV's? I know when I run games at anything other than my monitor's native res, it looks awful.
Human eye can only see 1078 pixels.
So a 680/7970 can only run console ports at 30fps in 4k?
I'm so glad 4K is getting pushed. Even if it's not affordable now, it eventually will be. I also don't understand this argument of "most people don't have _______ so it's not worth pursuing". While I don't have hard statistics, I know a TON of people that have bought 46"+ TVs in the last few years because HDTVs have boomed. It's not really unrealistic to shell out $800+ on a new TV nowadays.
But of course, we need 4K content and that's a separate issue all together. Master race ftw!
Considering that the latest retina display Macs look way better than 1080p, the difference is indeed noticeable.
CRTs aren't fixed pixel displays so resolution isn't nearly as important for gaming IQ on those monitors.And you probably didn't see the point of 720/1080p when you were still rocking a CRT in 2003.
Human eye can only see 1078 pixels.
Good luck convincing all those people who finally upgraded their tube TVs and can't tell the difference between 480p and 1080p to upgrade again.
You can't compare audio spectrum to the difference between a noticeable 1080 to 4k, especially since ears are nowhere as complex and information grabbing as the eye. And it doesn't have to be extremely large. Again, you're confusing resolution and ppi. 4K isn't the limit of the human eye, unless your tv is stupidly small and you're too far away.
Talk when you see one in person.
"Geoff. As an expert you should know that contrast and color fidelity are also directly related to the number of pixels. If you have an area of 400 pixels to display 2,000 grades of color you will be able to display only 400 out of those 2,000. Now if you have an area of 1,600 pixels, you will be able to display 4 times more grades of color." Posted by "Muzztard"
This is an interesting comment. Using the current TV system (which I'll discuss in a moment), each pixel could be used to potentially show a different shade of color. More pixels, more visible shades per gradation. However, the eye's color resolution is significantly worse than its black-and-white vision. I'd argue it would be unlikely most people would see a difference for all the same reasons mentioned above. However, unlike the strict stance I took against the increase in resolution, I see some validity in "Muzztard's" argument. When 4K TVs do inevitably ship, I look forward to testing this aspect. Seeing as most people don't notice, care, or adjust their TVs away from inaccurate color, I don't think this is going to be a major selling point. Not sure how it could increase contrast, though. That part I don't get.
For the many other comments about how 4K will increase color accuracy, or any of the other regurgitated Apple marketing hype from their Retina displays, these are flat-out wrong. The pixels themselves don't have anything to do with color accuracy. Our current TV system is 8-bit, which means 256 steps (0-255, though generally only 16-235 are used, so 219 steps, but let's not nitpick). This is for each of the three colors, so there are a possible 16,777,216 colors (256x256x256). In reality, there are more variables than this simple math, but I'm getting off track. If you increase the bit depth of the video system, to say 10-bit, now you have over a billion colors (1,024x1,024x1,024). More bits, more gradations, and a smoother picture. More bits, more gradations, more subtle shades of color. While we're at it, how about expanding the color palette so there are even deeper, more realistic colors to choose from?
Except, we're not talking about any of that. We're talking about the resolution. If you want to talk about increasing bit depth or expanding the color palette, I'm game for the conversation. Just increasing the number of pixels won't do any of these.
To experience the most insane video-gamging ever, get a 4K Quad-FHD screen from Toshiba and connect a powerful PC with a 4K-capable latest/fastest GPU such as ATI 7970 and Nvidia 680, you can then play many of the latest big high-end games that thus render the full 3840x2160 of the game at 30fps, it looks awesome.
Ok if the fastest video card on the market is struggling to hit 30 fps at that res how in the hell is the PS4 gonna manage that? I am not looking forward to sub-HD games being upscaled to 4K.
Pretty much this. I'm no technophile, but the Retina display convinced me that screen quality can go above and beyond what you already thought was crystal clear quality. Arguments against 4K are based in reality I'm sure, but they can't help but remind me of the "HUMAN EYE CAN'T SEE BEYOND 30fps" faux pas.
Considering that the latest retina display Macs look way better than 1080p, the difference is indeed noticeable.
Like all other graphics and display technology, it will be a luxury for the first few years, then soon enough we'll be saying 1080p looks like crap vs 4k, just like SD looks bad compared to HD today.
I don't see the point of 4K.
Exactly. People on smaller screens are appreciating resolutions well above 1080p. But for televisions and games.... Totally worthless.
Gamer logic!
Exactly. People on smaller screens are appreciating resolutions well above 1080p. But for televisions and games.... Totally worthless.
Gamer logic!
Considering that the latest retina display Macs look way better than 1080p, the difference is indeed noticeable.
It's a much higher resolution that results in a higher quality image... what's not to get?
I love the advancement of technology. The people who don't must be Nintendo fans.
3840x2160
4k
wat?
was 1920x1080p called 2k resolution?
3840x2160
4k
wat?
was 1920x1080p called 2k resolution?
Someone needs to archive this thread. I'm certain that a vast majority of those posting here will change their tune; and in ten years say that they've "seen the light" and can no longer watch 1080p content.
Just like broadband.
Just like 720/1080 HD.
Just like SSDs.
Ok if the fastest video card on the market is struggling to hit 30 fps at that res how in the hell is the PS4 gonna manage that? I am not looking forward to sub-HD games being upscaled to 4K.
I love the advancement of technology. The people who don't must be Nintendo fans.
Blu Rays don't come in this resolution..
And you probably won't get to see the extra detail on an average sized tv unless your sitting a foot away from your tv set.And you probably didn't see the point of 720/1080p when you were still rocking a CRT in 2003.
Eh, good timing of the video with Sony talking about their $25K TV
I love the advancement of technology. The people who don't must be Nintendo fans.