There's no reason to be against it, 4K is currently only for the enthusiast market or the absurdly rich. Nothing wrong with selling to an available audience.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
4K Video Gaming is already here (Toshiba Video Demo )
- Thread starter onQ123
- Start date
There's no reason to be against it, 4K is currently only for the enthusiast market or the absurdly rich. Nothing wrong with selling to an available audience.
Keep pushing for higher resolutions. The sooner they make a shit ton of these TVs, the sooner the prices will might down, the sooner the public may adopt. I'm gonna wait a good while before I even consider it but I hope they keep pushing tech like this because I like it. That's all that really matter, really.
metalslimer
Member
For the average 42 in tv 4k is pretty much useless right? I would be interested in a 2k tv. The thought of how expensive game crearion would be at 4k is scaey.
4K on 42" would give you a 105 dpi monitor. You can buy a huge desk and pretend you're using a moderately sized giant's pc.
4k is great and all for what it brings (when the price becomes mainstream). However, as I've said in previous threads, I'd like to point out that if you sit ~5 feet or more away from your television (50", 1080p), you won't notice any extra pixels with a similar size 4k television. I do like that there is less of a need for anti-aliasing, though. Luckily, this will give rise to high pixel-density computer monitors, where pixel density is still an issue.
phosphor112
Banned
What kinda bullshit claim is that?
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
I laughed a little too. I really don't know but it seemed awfully low lol
phosphor112
Banned
It literally makes zero sense. :lol
AstroNut325
Member
I'm pretty sure that person was joking or mocking the Anti-Resolutionists.
Dimitri2401
Member
The projectors for digital cinema are mostly 4K, and I don't believe I will have a TV screen as big as a theater screen anytime soon... Or maybe I should upgrade the resolution of my eyes.
I don't really see the point of 4K, except obviously for Sony, Toshiba, etc... (selling you TVs), but if it comes at an affordable price and becomes a standard, why not.
I don't really see the point of 4K, except obviously for Sony, Toshiba, etc... (selling you TVs), but if it comes at an affordable price and becomes a standard, why not.
phosphor112
Banned
Ok, good, I was hoping someone would confirm this (thanks).
EatinOlives
Member
You honestly think Toshiba's trying to get people to buy these TVs in a mass-market scenario anytime in the near future?
Herp indeed.
Ur Retinaz.
Isn't stinkles Frankie formerly with Bungie and now with 343?Yeah, it was a joke.
Poimandres
Member
I'm always for the progression of technology. Would the leap be akin to say seeing blu-ray for the first time when you're used to DVD? That was impressive.
People are talking about this bump in resolution not really being noticeable, but I guess I'll ultimately let my eyes be the judge.
People are talking about this bump in resolution not really being noticeable, but I guess I'll ultimately let my eyes be the judge.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
I read this article when it first came out. I work with 4K, I know what 12 bit color is because thats what I shoot in. I'm not talking about color. I'm talking about ppi vs resolution, and those are not the same. You can see the difference in 4K compared to 1080.
I'm not arguing about what he said, I'm arguing about what you said.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Actually, the large majority of digital projectors used in theaters are 2k.
Wait, did you read what I linked, or did you read the previous article written by that same author?
I know that you're an industry professional trained to photograph/edit/process imagery, and that you are a person who works frequently with hi-def imagery, and have trained your eyes to pick out details others would miss, to notice how light plays across an image the way others wouldn't even think to see, to discern minute differences in contrast, color, tone, hue, gradations and the like. You sit really close to monitors for extended periods of time a day, you study images non-stop, pictures are constantly flying past your face at high resolutions, in great detail, and this is what you do not just for fun, but for a living.
You are in a really, really small minority of people with the ability/skillset to even know WHAT to look for, much less the acuity to spot it when you see it. It's a pretty specialized gift you have, yes? Not everyone has that. In fact, the majority of people who consume visual media don't. A LARGE majority. An even larger majority don't watch 42" displays from 3 feet away while editing Hi-Def video all day. They watch it from 8-10ft away on that same 42" display.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
Perhaps also when we will be replacing our biological eyes for superorior artifical 100k eyes.
billy beane
Banned
I like the idea of 4K resolution.
I don't like the idea of having to buy all my movies again. But I'll do it anyways.
I don't like the idea of having to buy all my movies again. But I'll do it anyways.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
Not really. Quality is quality, you don't need to be an expert to see the difference. Even attendees with me not in the industry could see the difference when placed against a 1080p TV of the same size. And they are the average people you're talking about. 4K isn't stupid, it's the next step. Why hold it back?
And speaking to everyone, "there's no media for 4K TVs! There are no consoles that can run 4K at 60!" You're right, and it will stay that way if there are no televisions capable of displaying it. It's a two-way street. There is no reason to push technology back just because one part of it isn't ready to support the other. Understand that one leads to the other.
I find 2560x1600 to be the sweet spot in terms of diminishing returns:cost (I'm talking about a 24" monitor from 2 feet and the equivalent setups for televisions). Anything larger feels like a waste when there are other aspects that should be dealt with such as subpixel rainbow shimmering in LCD monitors.
When it comes to internal resolution however, the higher the better I always say!
When it comes to internal resolution however, the higher the better I always say!
That's certainly one of the last things I expected to be called.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
You would need a projector to appreciate 4k in the living room, and modern PCs will have a hard time driving games at those resolutions. And even if they could, PC gamers would be better off downsampling on a smaller resolution monitor.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
looooooooooooooooooooool It's like technology will never improve enough to support it or something. End of the road guys. For some reason this guy thinks you need a projector.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I didn't say you needed to be an expert. I said you're in a minority.
but so far as that goes, if you are an editor, or a cinematographer, you do have a pretty specialized skillset. I don't know why you'd argue that you don't.
Again - it's not a question of "holding things back." People are working on it. Companies are investing in it. The technology isn't being held back - it's getting made. That's how we're commenting on it.
I think the pushback comes with people questioning whether the cost of entry into this technology is actually worth the benefit it gives, and as evidenced by some of the people in this thread not even understanding that the majority of theatrical projection isn't even at levels these TVs could provide, the benefit doesn't seem to equal the potential cost of not only getting the panels produced/sold, but the cost of manufacturers pushing that many pixels/polygons, and developers having to create games that take advantage of that increased resolution.
When the cost of entry drops to 700 bucks for a 42" 4k TV, and a console that can display 4k can sell for 400, and games on whatever media format is used can output native 4k res? Then people will adopt regardless of whether they can actually discern a visual increase or not.
Imax Am Cry
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
Sure, to do skills that come with the job, but my eyes aren't anything special compared to the majority to see how good 4K resolution looks. And I wear glasses with a 6-years-too-old prescription.
I believe that screen is measured in meters.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
But the footage is much higher than 4K, that's what he's talking about. with 65mm film you can digitize up to 16K pretty easy. 12K is usually the norm.
Its needed there in Imax, I doubt its needed on a standard 37inch. In Imax you need these extreme high resolution so that the image won't look blurry on a very big screen and so that the 3D is top notch.
EatinOlives
Member
Higher resolutions won't be relevant? What's going on in this thread? Is this a dream?
I'm not advocating 4K adoption anytime in the near future, but absolutely nobody can argue with a straight face that a higher resolution doesn't do anything for gaming. That's just objectively false.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
One way it would help is that with a high density pixel display at 4K, developers wouldn't need to worry so much about aliasing, since the high resolution would mitigate a lot of it. And with a lower need for anti-aliasing, that's less work for the program to render, and aliasing takes up more resources to render than it would to display the game at a higher resolution.
2K isn't much different from 1080P & even on a monitor 27" you can see that there is a need for more than 1080P.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Resolution is not the end all, be all in image quality. It's not even in the top 3 most important features for display technology. Even AV enthusiasts have problems telling 1080p from 720p in the living room. People just see bigger numbers and assume it must look better.
You would need an extreme viewing angle to get the full benefits of a 4k resolution. Like sitting a few feet away from a 200" screen.
BurnOutBrighter
Banned
Not to mention that the eyes don't see things in pixels.
I've never been personally able to tell the difference between a 1 to 1 native shot and the same shot unscaled to fit more pixels (assuming a good upscaler so it isn't all blurry). Seeing as most of the next game games will still be 720p with a few more 1080p games (if we are lucky), I don't really see the point for next gen consoles to support 4k games besides advancing technology for the sake of doing it.