I'm fine with 4k being downscaled to 1080p. Playing Dark Souls like that right now!
-
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
I'm fine with 4k being downscaled to 1080p. Playing Dark Souls like that right now!
Reallink
Member
Damn, 25k and they couldn't use a 300MHz HDMI chip? I know the 7970 has one cause 1080p 120Hz (or 60Hz 3D) over HDMI was one of their bragging points. 1080p/120 and 4k/60 should require the same bandwidth, so I can only assume Toshiba's still using an old gimped chip.
My TV is already retina when I'm sitting 8ft away. Thats the problem - these companies are pitching a fixed resolution when what you need is more of a retina approach. How big is your TV, how far away do you sit?
I'd like to see the distribution of TV sizes in homes. I'm sure the US is bigger than everyone else and the average size is growing - but are we really going to get to a point where the average size of a TV screen is large enough to make 4k viable? At that point you're looking at sizes of screen you can serve with a projector
Digital cinemas have been happy with 2k until very recently, and thats basically 1080p give or take a few pixels. If its good enough for a 30ft screen it should be enough for your 50" TV.
I'm happy to be proven wrong in hindsight, but I still think bluray is a great home archive format for movies. Lossless audio and 2k res is enough for the vast majority of homes. I can perhaps see a 4k authored format being like laserdisc, a niche for high end videophiles with dedicated very large screen setups, but otherwise I think you're looking at upscaling - I don't see broadcast switching anytime in the next decade at least - with the move to digital they used the bandwidth for more crappily compressed channels rather than higher quality - IQ went down compared to analog. Lots of broadcasters won't even have fully moved to HD yet.
I'll caveat that by saying that a lot of impressions of these TVs at trade shows etc say its like looking through a window - more so than HDTV was. Is that just because the TV is huge, because they're standing really close which will bring out the pixels in 1080p screens, or is 4k genuinely adding detail that is of benefit?
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
I thought I heard it all. You know The Social Network was shot at 4K resolution, right?
Horse Armour
Member
Even at 4K we'll still need antialiasing to eliminate jaggies.
you need at least a 43inch tv to see a difference between 720p and 1080p at reasonable viewing distance. I dont think much of anyone will see a 4k difference between 46-60. I think you would need an 80+ inch scren( "a wall") to see any discernable difference. and that seems to be what they are aiming at.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
Definitely, but not as much as we need at 1080.
These are noticeable upgrades to very few.
The benefits of 4k as you describe them are even slighter than the benefits of stereoscopic 3D on modern TVs - and at least that upgrade has the decency to be a cheap chip that manufacturers can just throw in as a matter of course.
And yes, VR - because it's the one thing that will allow and force media to better accomodate for its large field of view.
Why would any media designer (movies, TV shows, games, etc) accommodate for a 4k user that puts the screen close enough for a 50-60 degree field of view, when the vast proportion of their users will continue viewing it from the legacy field of view of 20-40 degrees?
But not much, post-process with shading and subpixel resolve should be enough.
There's actually a little more subtelty to the whole 1080p @ 35 degree FOV thing then I've let on (or 1 arcmininute of acuity).
And it relates to contrast - a full black/white contrast is much more perceptible than gray to gray. Obviously.
In games without aliasing, 35 degrees FOV @ 1080p, you're still going to see small pixel crawling issues with aliasing.
In movies where the anti-aliasing occurs naturally, then it's going to be perfectly fine.
But games these days have anti-aliasing.
So in terms of downsampling a 4000x2000 image to 1080p and viewing it at 35 degree FOV versus a native un-antialiased 4000x2000 image @ 35 degree FOV - is going to produce very similar if not identical results for most people.
Which really begs the question... why bother? I mean, sure I'll take a 4k screen when they're at commodity prices - more is always better if more doesn't cost a thing. It'll allow me to sit closer to the screen without aliasing issues - handy for productivity work like photoshop/autoCAD. But the jump to 4k really reeks of an industry that just continues to iterate for the sake of iteration. Has no idea what else it can do to drive sales, so it does the most obvious, although least effective thing that it can do.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
Yeah I'm done. Saying 3D has more benefits than banding and aliasing proves how little you understand about picture quality. Why do we create media at 4K? Because not everyone watches everything only from a couch at a distance. And for those that do, it's still a better image quality than at 1080, for multiple reasons that 4K brings besides resolution.
You should look up the definition of VR. It's not all about a large tv screen that covers your peripheral vision.
Brad Grenz
Member
It's a 300mhz chip. 4K is 4 times the information as 1080p. If you can transmit 1080p at 120hz, you can transmit 4 times the resolution at 1/4th the refresh rate. 3840*2160 at 30hz is the maximum supported by the HDMI 1.4a spec. There is no faster HDMI spec they could have used.
4K will bring ppi of a 50" plasma to that of my work monitor. Finally windows desktop on it will not look like shit. Also 4K its like 2xMSAA@1080p for games, but the question is only if consoles will be able to push that many pixels. RAM will not be a problem, most likely, but the bandwidth may be.
well this crowd of morons would perhaps suggest checking out SMPTE recommendations for theaters, which suggests a maximum of around 30 degrees field of view, not 60+ just so you can be silly with numbers. That comes out to sitting approximately 2 screen widths away.
So for a 50" TV, you'd sit around 7 feet away for the best experience. This ignores ppi, just looks at field of view.
At 7ft away from a 50" TV, normal people cannot resolve the full detail of a 1080p image, you need to be around 6.5 ft away. So using standard SMPTE numbers, 1080p is just about right for home theater viewing. Those figures scale up and down pretty nicely for different sized screens too.
hang on, I'm confused. Are you disagreeing with yourself? Those images are sarcastic right? Too troll-y to be a real post, you're smarter than that. And I agree entirely with your last sentence - higher than 1080p is more useful close up - tablets, VR, laptops. Less needed for Home Theater use.
We already have people gaming on triple 1080p monitors - this is only the equivalent of adding one more to the mix.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
it was connected to one HDMI limited to 30Hz. if it was display port it would do the 60FPS no problem.
well from that link you provided the pictures I saw I could clearly tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.
I'm pretty sure I understand what VR is all about more than most on this forum.
Assuming you mean by banding noticeable colour changes in a gradient - then I'm here to tell you that it's a non issue for most but the most picky discerning types that specifically go out of their way to look at the sky when they're watching a movie or TV show.
Aliasing is covered in my above post - if you anti-alias the image before it hits the screen (either naturally by camera, or through many various techniques used in games), it significantly reduces the problem (to the same - not an issue to all but a handful of people that specifically go out of their way to look for the issue).
I understand films can capture insane amounts of detail and exceed 1080p resolution, but I have little desire to see films at a higher resolution than 1080p. Mind you I'm in the pro-4K camp, as I have the luxury of sitting close enough, but I predict that filmmakers aren't going to utilize 4K that much- few films made up to this point have even taken full advantage of 1080p.
Computer GUI's and games and photography are what will benefit most from 4K.
I think that link does a pretty good job of showing how full of shit people that bleat on about resolution are.
Are there image differences? Yes.
Are they related to resolution? No.
They're related to slight colour temperature and contrast differences.
Hell, from those pics, any differences in resolution is crushed by jpg compression AND off angle AND downsampling of the original images.
Spazznid
Member
That is a lie.
The whole set of, "you can only see around so many FPS so 30 is enough and you can't really tell the difference" and, "on a 40 inch TV, from 6 -8 feet away, you can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p." NEEDS TO STOP.
Fuck what you read or hear.
I HAD a 40inch and I could EASILY tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, 30fps and 60fps.
Hell, I can tell the difference between raw 1080p and downsampled 1620.
I can also usually tell the difference between 50-60 FPS.
When watching a movie, I can kind of understand this concept, sometimes...maybe.
But with videogames, you're displaying raw, aliased, sharp lines.
IIRC some big name said something about if we can Antialias in a way that resembles the focus of film, and also get motion blur to a point similar to that in film, we would be able to get away with normal resolutions and 24 fps without compromising IQ.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
Obviously you don't, especially if you think that it's the only benefit that can come from 4K or thinking you need even that big of a resolution to achieve it.
Rainbow smeared walls and uneven tones on skin and cloth that show a giant grey or green band across an object that shouldn't is a non issue for most? Better image quality closer to what we actually see in reality is a non-issue for most? Now this is getting silly.
If you have to fix media in post with anti-aliasing that you could have avoided during production, you're doing it wrong. With 4K, you don't have to do nearly as much work as you would in 1080- Film, 3D or otherwise.
VR (in the style of Oculus Rift and future VR that follow similar principles) will derive more benefit from 4k than traditional display and media will. Indeed - its the only device where the increased resolution and display bandwidth can still make a big difference - beyond people that like to play a meta-game of spot the image quality problem. Again, that's because it'll provide a much wider field of view than people can comfortably use with any normal 2D display.
And bloody hell, the colour issues are unrelated to the resolution for the most part - the problems you're talking about haven't existed on many decent 1080p screens for a long time.
You seem to think that I'm saying that 4k will provide NO DIFFERENCES. I'm saying that 4k will provide differences that most sane people under normal usage conditions - will not give a shit about.
Always-honest
Banned
can't wait untill it's the standard.
untill that time... i'll wait.
edit: lol "how about 4K phones from the phone?"
untill that time... i'll wait.
edit: lol "how about 4K phones from the phone?"
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Human vision has limits. I don't know how to say it any simpler. They were used as input for that chart. You can ignore it if you want. I explained my reasoning in detail with scientific facts to back it up. You haven't backed up your arguments with a single thing other than harsh language.
Ultimately, people will believe whatever they want to and buy whatever they want to. I'm only trying to educate people.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
VR benefiting more than media is completely objectionable. And if you don't think resolution and pixel depth doesn't have an effect on banding, you're insane. Banding still exists in many tv's, broadcasts, and even blu-ray quality movies and not all of it is due to the codec used but to the resolution it's at.
Differences people won't care about? Typically said by people who have no clue what they would miss out on or have never even seen a 4K tv in action. Those normal people don't care because they are never exposed to or don't even know about or too poor to afford better and noticeable options.
Sane people don't think "that's good enough for me, must be good enough for everyone". There is much farther to go before picture quality looks as good, and accurate as reality, and sticking with a format you believe is un-discernible in distance and resolutions is the wrong way to go. 4K goes far beyond how many pixels there are.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
He really hasn't. Every post I've read from him has been these haughty, snarling one liners that evidence a mind of limited capacity.
I'm referring to all the people who truly don't know the first thing about the relation between size, distance, viewing angle and resolution. It's quite shocking to think of how polluted ones mind can become if they're just innocently reading these threads thinking they're absorbing wholesome information.
66 degrees was overdoing it. After more thorough testing, I've determined 50 degrees is the magic spot for me. That's just slightly less than 1 screen width away.
I didn't disagree with myself. I was trying to say that you're not going to see a difference between 720p and 1080p if your 1080p source looks sub-1080p, and showed how sharp 1080p can look.
Bluray Technnology has been around for ages.
What's objectionable? It fills a larger field of view, therefore additional pixels would provide a more noticeable difference in image quality.
As for - that's good enough for me, must be good enough for most people - I say that simply on the basis that I'm far more aware and far more discerning about image quality issues than most people (I'd think most people participating in this thread are).
I don't doubt for a moment that there are people even more discerning than I - but that would make them part of a very small minority (because I'm part of a very small minority).
Palette Swap
Member
Gaming wise, this could be good in a few years for PC and maybe next next gen for consoles.
Right now, as a consumer product, it's a uselessly expensive toy with pretty slim benefits.
Right now, as a consumer product, it's a uselessly expensive toy with pretty slim benefits.
Actualyl i believe in that for native 4-5k movie sources more than gaming...
Cause i mean there isn't that much details in gaming and if you can power a 4k rez, why wouldn't you ubbersample it to a perfect 2k picture ? At this point, i'm not even sure there would be such a detail loss. I guess the real benefit of outputting a real 4k picture would be the density of the screen, better contrast and all. basically better IQ, but i'm not sure 4k versus ubbersampled 2k or perfectly AAed 2k would offer a big difference.
And when you already hear that those screens are great for 2k sources (logical), will you see the difference between a 2K upsampled videogame picture and a 4k..
Cause i mean there isn't that much details in gaming and if you can power a 4k rez, why wouldn't you ubbersample it to a perfect 2k picture ? At this point, i'm not even sure there would be such a detail loss. I guess the real benefit of outputting a real 4k picture would be the density of the screen, better contrast and all. basically better IQ, but i'm not sure 4k versus ubbersampled 2k or perfectly AAed 2k would offer a big difference.
And when you already hear that those screens are great for 2k sources (logical), will you see the difference between a 2K upsampled videogame picture and a 4k..
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
I don't think you understand the definition of VR. You're still touting it as VR only being some larger field of view when VR is more than what you see with your eyes. Just like movies and shows are more than what you see. That's the objectionable part, because resolution can affect both those types equally. What benefits more is like I said, objectionable.
Your use of the language is curious at best.
I'm fully aware of what VR is. I'm obsessed with it. If you have any clue as to my posting history, you'll see about half of my posts in the last couple months are on VR or topics related tangentially to it. So please, just stop suggesting 'I don't know.'
Of course VR is more than just a large field of view display. But the point that matters as to why it'll benefit VR more is BECAUSE it's a large field of view display (not that it has to be mind you - but the direction that VR looks to be moving along rapidly will generally have to include that large field of view... in order to be immersive, and to compete with the Oculus Rift).
Where as traditional media is implicitly and automatically designed to be reasonable viewing from a 35 degree (or so) field of view.
If you add more pixels to 1080p, while keeping at that field of view, you're simply not going to see much benefit (reduced banding, reduced aliasing - very minor). If you move closer or have a larger screen - you start to encounter problems with the way the media is framed. Moved too close, and it's awkward for you to look at the whole image.
By ignoring these primary arguments, you simply continue to argue against strawmen conceptions of reality.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
And if VR puts out crap content, then it benefits nothing from 4K. Like I said, between VR and 2D media, it's objectionable as to what would benefit more.
What's traditional is outdated and where your knowledge and understanding of media formats ends. It's not automatically designed for any field of view or for any particular configuration, it's designed for multiple formats and outputs. It's designed and formatted in the best way that can come close to displaying the original raw material. Something current and common HDTVs can't do when it comes to film shot above 1080p.
This is where you are most wrong. Horribly wrong. None of those attributes are minor in the slightest. your ability to discern images and distance from it isn't related purely to the size of the screen or the resolution of it.
Thinking these primary arguments is reality shows how far you actually are from it.
I'm done for the night, bye everyone.
Of course media isn't specifically designed for viewing at any one size - that kind of thing just can't be controlled for. At the same time, there's a pretty big implicit difference between filming and creating media for something you know will be viewed at a massive FOV (Omnimax films) vs something you know will be viewed on a smart phone.
Other than saying that I'm horribly wrong repeatedly, you've done really nothing to show how it's a big issue for anyone else other than people like yourself.
Only a blind and blatant insistence that banding and aliasing is the greatest visual sin ever conceived - even while a whole cornucopia of other image issues continue to affect 'the reality' of the image been viewed.
And some of those image issues relate to things like - viewing size, viewing framing, 3D, motion, etc, etc.
On the balance, improvements to aliasing and banding that 4k can bring over 1080p are pretty fucking minor. Despite what you think about it - 3D can absolutely improve image quality - assuming we're now using image quality as something interchangeable for "improves the realism of the image". Of course done poorly, it'll detract from the quality for many - but hey, it's still a perfectly valid vector of improvement. 3D with tightly coupled motion tracking and orthostereoscopy and large field of view as with the Oculus Rift - apparently improves 'image quality' to the degree that it utterly immerses the user. This is despite its absolutely deficient resolution.
So there's little doubt that visuals can continue to improve - but on the balance of things that can and should improve, additional resolution (especially at smaller FOVs), better colour transitions, better aliasing (especially when it can be thoroughly compensated for by anti-aliasing techniques) are pretty low on the list.
Liamario
Banned
I meant relevant in terms of being able to produce a AAA 4k res game on consoles.
More Fun To Compute
Member
People get excited about this new tech and spend a fortune on a new "4k" TV and PS4.
Then they mock the nerds on GAF who point out that the unstable 30fps with screen tearing sort of sucks and that anyway the game is rendered at sub 1080p with nasty upscaling and post processing.
Then they mock the nerds on GAF who point out that the unstable 30fps with screen tearing sort of sucks and that anyway the game is rendered at sub 1080p with nasty upscaling and post processing.
Backfoggen
Banned
Are people honestly still arguing over 720p vs 1080p? Is it 2006?
canebarbone
Neo Member
words of wisdom.
resolution must be considered along with screen size and distance....
this very useful calculator tells you which screen size you need to appreciate 720/1080 at your viewing distance:
http://carltonbale.com/home-theater/home-theater-calculator/
(go past sheet1 in the excel file)
I really don't see the point of 4k right now...
At most tv you won't even see difference between 720p and 1080p on televisions smaller then 32". How extremely big is a television screen needed before you can see the difference between 1080p and 4k? I really have the feeling it has to be like 50"+. I have the feeling that right now most people finally adapted a HDTV (32"~) in their living room now. Also is the media ready for it? Hell, HDTV is even still 1080i (correct me if I'm wrong) and most games struggle with 720p.
I really think it would take another 10 years before 4k is the standard.
At most tv you won't even see difference between 720p and 1080p on televisions smaller then 32". How extremely big is a television screen needed before you can see the difference between 1080p and 4k? I really have the feeling it has to be like 50"+. I have the feeling that right now most people finally adapted a HDTV (32"~) in their living room now. Also is the media ready for it? Hell, HDTV is even still 1080i (correct me if I'm wrong) and most games struggle with 720p.
I really think it would take another 10 years before 4k is the standard.
Brofist
Member
I've used a 55" 4k set, I could easily see the difference from about 5+ feet. Looked beautiful btw. Almost dropped the about $6000 asking price but didn't.
But would average users see the difference? (I honestly don't know, GAF is probably more into graphic then the average user)
Most people now finally adapted the 32" (and it is most likely the most popular screen size). I think it will take a loooooooong time before people will replace their tv again. 55" is pretty big.
Even if there is a significant difference, I have the feeling most customers won't care enough (a lot of people are still "ok" with SDTV) to upgrade. Sure manufacturers will try to sell their new televisions with stuff like 4k (just like they are trying it now with stuff with Real Flow / internet on the tv, though that is a different story) but will customers bite? I don't think so, for now.
TheBioLover
Member
I hope the PS4 supports 4K, lol.
Did you take a note of how far out you stopped noticing a difference? Was there a 1080p side by side running the same signal to compare it to directly?