-
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
Bobby Roberts
Banned
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It's not a matter of squeezing the most from out of date tech.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.
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!
But of course, we need 4K content and that's a separate issue all together. Master race ftw!
I'm sure you will be fine with 1080p, 60fps 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 playing
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.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
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.
chixdiggit
Member
I'll pick one up with in two years I imagine. Seems kind of silly to own one right now.
PC monitors tend to have terrible scalers while hdtv's do much better with scaling.
Halo 5 & 6 maxed out at 1078 pixels confirmed.
it's the fact that it's hooked up through 1 HDMI cable that can only handle 4K at 30FPS.
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!
That isn't really the logic used (for me at least). I just wish they would focus on other ares rather than adding more pixels which isn't very important. I'm willing to bet that the people who have large enough televisions, sit close enough to fully enjoy 4K's benefits, or even can differentiate between the resolutions are in a very small minority.
Basically, I find 4K to be a pointless and unnecessary cost.
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.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
CRTs aren't fixed pixel displays so resolution isn't nearly as important for gaming IQ on those monitors.
Teletraan1
Banned
In 5 years when those upgraded TVs shit the bed cause everything is built to break they will upgrade to whatever is available at the time and it will be 4k.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Did you even read what I linked? It's not as if the arguments you're making aren't being addressed at all. They are. for example:
Shai-Tan
Banned
People already run multi monitor setups that are pushing 5760 x 1200 so it should be OK in a few years when it's financially viable to own a 4k tv. Sure you need SLI/Xfire to actually get good frame rates in games like Battlefield 3 with all options maxed but the cost of the TV dwarfs the cost of that graphics hardware.
BurnOutBrighter
Banned
Yup. While there is a biological limit to what the eye can perceive, we haven't reached it yet.
For audio, we've reached that point. We've been listening to 44100hz 16-bit CD audio for three decades now, and for anything higher, the difference is either imperceptible, or so minuscule that it's not worth doing.
AstroNut325
Member
Exactly. People on smaller screens are appreciating resolutions well above 1080p. But for televisions and games.... Totally worthless.
Gamer logic!
Avallon
Member
It's a much higher resolution that results in a higher quality image... what's not to get?
That's because the viewing distances are larger. Not mention that on a TV, you aren't doing things like regularly reading text and graphic designing.
Zombie James
Banned
But viewing distance!
That's because you're sitting close to the display.
high resolution slideshow. can´t wait.
AstroNut325
Member
Pretty much!
"What? It's going to cost more money? F*** it!"
It's like the Republicans and taxes!
Skel1ingt0n
I can't *believe* these lazy developers keep making file sizes so damn large. Btw, how does technology work?
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.
Just like broadband.
Just like 720/1080 HD.
Just like SSDs.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
In the film industry, they measure resolution horizontally, not vertically. So yes - many films you saw digitally projected at the theater only had 1080 lines of vertical resolution. the compression was just a lot better because the hard-drive fit 150gigs instead of the 50gigs your blu-ray can hold.
I really can't see the use of this. Blu Rays don't come in this resolution, neither do games or TV, we'd be making huge upscales just to fill out the TV.
It is useless in 2012 and will continue to be useless until 2014. People will change to 4k in 2016, so 1080p is here to stay.
It is useless in 2012 and will continue to be useless until 2014. People will change to 4k in 2016, so 1080p is here to stay.
metalslimer
Member
I love new tech and all and resolution can definitely inxrease but as someone not interested in huge tvs 4k seems worthless. If i were building a home theater than hell yes but i dont see this being mainstrea for a long time like not even in the next decade.
Well, in 10 years time we'll be in the console gen after next and it will matter to everyone then. Ten years is a massive amount of time in tv tech.
Quixz
Member
The guy pointed out that the TV was connected to the PC via a single HDMI limited to 30hz/FPS.
nope. just pissed of the 30 fps. that was the reason i gave up ps3/xbox360 and went to pc. but with 4k the shit seems to crawl onto pc
4K Blu-ray players already exist.
That tv uses the modified Cell processor I think.
Neuromancer
Member
Someone should bump this thread in about 10 years. It'd be interesting.
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.
Brofist
Member
Cause that $25k TV is meant to appeal to the mass market, right?
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Herp.
I'm not against this in a holding back tech way. I'm against this because it's going to be a stupid business decision for all involved. It took YEARS and a federally mandated digital switch to make HD TV in a majority of houses.
No way will enough people think this is a big enough reason to switch again.
metalslimer
Member
Also do people really expect tv broadcasters to make a huge switch to this in the mext decade when most of them wont even output past 720 npw?