It's needed at home too because instead of being 40 feet away, you're only a few feet away.
-
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
Ah that's the point of 4K.
EatinOlives
Member
I don't think next-gen consoles will support 4K either, but it's extremely weird that gaming enthusiasts of all people are saying no to higher resolutions at any point in time. Yeah, gg, 1080p is it, no more need for anything better in games. Pack up yo shit cause the tech is done.
Case in point:
Post like these = smh
Hmm now with that 86inch tv with my face a foot away I can truelly be inside the 3D movie. lol If only I could smell and feel what the hero feels.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
Not even close.
Also 720 to 1080 isn't that much (even though still noticeable) compared to seeing the difference between 1080 vs 4K. You'll notice the dramatic difference.
That would be enough to benefit from a 21,481 x 12,068 screen.
I think he might need a bigger resolution for a 200 inch TV at the distance.
He's right. The motion resolution on modern HDTVs is complete shit compared to CRTs.
Sentenza
Member
These kind of arguments are a joke.
It's like when someone says "Show some gameplay to some people and many of them couldn't tell you how many frame per second they are".
It doesn't matter if they "can tell" or not: a better framerate still feels a lot better, smoother, more fluid, even if people aren't consciously capable of pointing a finger and quantify the difference.
Hawk269
Member
Of course it would. Wathcing a video is not going to show you the benefits.
I find it really odd how many people are dissing this in the thread. Ask any PC game that went from 1080p to a 2560x1440p monitor and they will tell you it is a night and day difference in how games look. Yes, you have to have a PC with the balls to run it at decent frames, but it does look incredible.
The rez that those new 4k models are running are even higher and it takes a lot of GPU power to run at that rez and get decent FPS out of games.
AstroNut325
Member
Lots of people are arguing it doesn't do anything WITH a straight face! In this thread and all the other 4k threads!
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
If I'm wrong then prove me wrong. If AV pros can't tell 720p from 1080p sitting 13 feet from a 130" projector screen then what makes you think that even GAFfers can tell 4k from 1080p on a 50" HDTV? People are barely getting the full benefit of 1080p at those viewing angles.
I'm extremely picky about IQ but I'm not going to throw my money down the toilet when I know better. 4K will start making more sense when we're all using VR headsets.
Sentenza
Member
Higher resolution is (almost) always better, but that's not the point.
The reason why 4k panels won't be relevant anytime soon, beside the price, it's that there will be hardly any hardware around capable of making full use of it.
Whoever thinks that "PS4 is going to support 4K panels" is living in a self-deluded state.
The reason why 4k panels won't be relevant anytime soon, beside the price, it's that there will be hardly any hardware around capable of making full use of it.
Whoever thinks that "PS4 is going to support 4K panels" is living in a self-deluded state.
So you have an amazing TV, a beast of a PC but games running at 30 FPS... yeah I think I'll pass... or rather get two more monitors and play in a more immersive setup with better framerate.
Such an odd time for start advertising/pushing something like this but I guess you gotta start early to have people interested and ready to buy in the long run.
Such an odd time for start advertising/pushing something like this but I guess you gotta start early to have people interested and ready to buy in the long run.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Wow, so this thread is pretty vicious.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
You act like there aren't any pros on GAF. That was a small sample. There are many who can notice the difference, even if some of the "pros" on AVS can't. "Appear to be equivalent" and "starts to become noticeable" varies from person to person. It's not even fact, just popular opinion between the people in that study.
By the way, AVS says a lot of stupid elitist crap sometimes. Not everything they spout is truth engraved in stone.
Sentenza
Member
What I'm supposed to prove?
"If you get far enough you won't be able to tell the difference" is a damn stupid argument.
It doesn't prove anything.
I'm slightly myopic. Without glasses I'm hardly capable of watching what's going on on my monitor from few meters away.
But I still can see the difference like day and night if I'm close enough. AND I wear glasses.
Yup. PS4 and Xbox 720 will boviously have support for 4K resolution, anyone that doesn't think so should remember 2005.
Sentenza
Member
Do you mean like the awesome support for 1080p that current generation consoles offered?
they will say it again and people will believe it again. mark my words.
How's that tech coming along by the way?
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
Games have been able to hit over 1080p for years, don't tie in just consoles to this discussion.
Hawk269
Member
Agree. I seriously doubt that we will see many games at true 1080p on the next gen and if we do, I doubt they will break the 30fps barrier. If people think they are going get pure 1080p at 60fps with some decent AA/AF out of the next gen consoles, there are going to be a lot of disapointed people.
I for one hope that we do, but I really doubt it.
TyrantGuardian
Member
Have you people ever looked at a game and went "ugh, I wish it had some anti-aliasing to get rid of all these jaggies!"? If so, you're going to love 4K, since that's exactly what it is, except better since it's native to the screen.
What?
It doesn't take much to get 1080p/60fps from games nowadays. Unless the scope of every game increases dramatically, it's going to be the standard for next gen.
You haven't explained your position at all. All I see from you (and those in your camp) are, "No! THAT'S SO GODDAMN WRONG!"
The point been made by the, 4k is pretty redundant side is this:
There are limitations to human perception.
Technology continues to improve and has and will continue to outstrip the limitations of human perception on an increasing number of fronts.
We are at the limits of our visual resolution when viewing a 1080p screen with a 35 degree field of view on our retina. Which roughly equates to a 60" screen from 6-6.5' away.
Of course you can always move closer, and or get a bigger screen. Great - but the caveat here is that our modern media is implicitly designed for viewing angles of 10 to 50 degrees. Larger than that... and things will start to feel quite wrong. Having to swivel your head around to see two people in a close up conversation... or the elements of your HUD in the corners of the screen.
Also, how much more screen do you think the modern user wants to accomodate in their homes? A projector screen is a pretty niche device, as popular as they are.
While we can certainly see some degree of benefit from 4k screens depending on our usage (i.e. sit closer, buy bigger) - it's definetly crossing over the border of effective diminishing returns in a big way.
That said... I applaud 4k technology nonetheless. But the primary benefit for the technology won't be in providing us with larger more detailed TVs - although that's definetly how it'll be marketed at first.
It'll be for VR - where you can get much larger fields of view (really, you'd want it as large as possible if you can)... and you'll want it at a refresh rate exceeding 80-90hz (about the limitation of motion perception for humans).
To provide a fully encompassing field of view at a resolution that exceeds our natural visual acuity - you'd need roughly an 8000x4000 resolution... @ 100hz.
So given that info, we still need to improve transmission bandwidth by (my rough back of the napkin calculations) around 13 times (from 4k @ 30hz) , before we get to the point that there's no benefit.
Of course, a 4k display @ 60hz is still going to be pretty great for VR - so the additional bandwidth, resolution and motion requirements isn't going to be a massive jump in the quality stakes.
i think he just confused hd and 4k...
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Those charts were created using formulas that determine the minimum distance between two points that a human with normal vision can resolve.
http://www.audioholics.com/educatio...derstanding-1080p-resolution-in-displays.html
A person with 20/10 vision would only be able to resolve 1080p at a 50 inch tv at 8 feet. 4k wouldn't be perceptually different than 1080p at that viewing angle.
Dreams-Visions
Member
lol who are these lames on page 1 talking like old men shouting at trees?
"what's the point of 4K?" really?
Just because you barely afforded to buy your way into 720p/1080p doesn't mean that those are somehow the final destinations for televisions. Television can be and should be much sharper than it is right now. To that end, 4K and 8K are the next 10 years and I greatly look forward to them when the price drops.
"what's the point of 4K?" really?
Just because you barely afforded to buy your way into 720p/1080p doesn't mean that those are somehow the final destinations for televisions. Television can be and should be much sharper than it is right now. To that end, 4K and 8K are the next 10 years and I greatly look forward to them when the price drops.
Read my post above and respond.
Otherwise the only fair conclusion here is you have no idea what you're talking about.
More is not always better - when more doesn't do anything for you, but just costs more.
I don't doubt that some suckers will no doubt buy into the hype, but for every rich dumb sucker there is, there'll be guys like me who know what we're talking about dissuading friends and family from buying into useless shit.
DXB-KNIGHT
Member
I don't see a point for $25K
I won't make this jump until the price is mainstream.
I won't make this jump until the price is mainstream.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
Wow, VR is the main benefit you see out of 4K? This is as uneducated as it gets. Most of this BS being tossed around is about the screen size.
And as far as people in "my camp", we have given many positions as to why 4K is needed- not just wanted, including Pixel depth, aliasing, banding, ramp and noticeable resolution that doesn't require 200 foot projectors to see the quality. What more position do you want from people who have seen 4K televisions and work with 4K media when you haven't?
Dreams-Visions
Member
it's 2012 and people are still quoting that same fucking retarded picture.
It's not accurate. It's never been true. Other forums ban people for posting it.
I read it. It wasn't worth responding to because it was bullshit that you seem to *think* is correct. The only person that has no idea what they're talking about right now is you. If you think 1080p is the limit for human vision at a handful of feet, you don't know shit about vision or you have shit vision yourself. Either way, you should probably stop talking about the subject at all. Long posts don't make people think you're correct; they make people that have a clue laugh even harder.
But I don't blame you. You've probably never seen any higher resolution. Keep shouting at those trees.
While everyone is worried about resolution, people are forgetting about the things that actually make an image look better. The color depth a TV can display is much more important than resolution. If they could create a 10 or 12 bit TV the colors would look phenomenal. To me creating deeper blacks or richer colors is more important than adding more lines.
Dreams-Visions
Member
they're both important.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
Most HDTV's are 10 and 12 bit 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 color ready.
I'd be amazed if they weren't supported.
Both current gen consoles support 1080p.
That said, I'll take native 1080p at a stable 60 frames with great IQ for the next generation of consoles, as has been mentioned (I'm sure numerous times) in this thread.
I don't agree with that argument either really. We will get there some day and it will have a use, especially close large monitors. It'd also be nice for programmers to completely forgo many rendering techniques such as anti-aliasing since lines will be so fine we won't notice any pixeled edges.
I have 20/20 corrected vision.
I move back a few feet from my screen - and the text on the screen is sharp as the text on physical objects on the same size.
Anymore resolution and I wouldn't be able to tell shit - other than smaller icons and other fixed pixel elements on screen.
Once you get to the point where black/white/black/white grid becomes grey on the retina, resolution changes aren't going to do anything to change the way I perceive it.
But tell me, what do you think the limitations are human perception are? Do you even believe in such a concept? What do you think diminishing returns are?
It seems to me like if you do believe in such a thing, but believe that it is far higher than what we currently have - when we get to the point where it reaches what you believe to be that threshold - some other idiot will come in and mock you in a similar manner - you eye sight must be shit, or something as equally ridiculous.
I mean shit... our technology is based on the very principles of these perceptual limitations - using our inability to resolve tiny RGB elements to blend them into various colours.
Starship Troopers doesn't take full advantage of 1080p: http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/titles/starship-troopers-1997/bd-us-01/screenshot-lrg-11.png
Compare it to these movies:
Zodiac: http://images3.static-bluray.com/reviews/905_18_1080p.jpg
The Social Network: http://images4.static-bluray.com/reviews/3695_10_1080p.jpg
That said, 1080p is about the max we need films to be. Games and PC's though would benefit much more from the increased resolution.