I'm sure you will be fine with 1080p, 60fps upscaled to 4K.
I'm fine with 4k being downscaled to 1080p. Playing Dark Souls like that right now!
I'm sure you will be fine with 1080p, 60fps upscaled to 4K.
it's the fact that it's hooked up through 1 HDMI cable that can only handle 4K at 30FPS.
The way Retina Display pixel density screens are catching, we'll get there faster than ya think
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
Goon: http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ra...-4320-9339-2c5b77894693/screenshot-lrg-36.png
War Horse: http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ra...-4322-9bd7-b709f8f180e3/screenshot-lrg-01.png
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.
Even at 4K we'll still need antialiasing to eliminate jaggies.No jaggies future is closer and closer.
Your brain can resolve the resolution pretty easy on a 46-60+ sizes. Don't get res mixed with ppi.
Even at 4K we'll still need antialiasing to eliminate jaggies.
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?
Even at 4K we'll still need antialiasing to eliminate jaggies.
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.
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?
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.
Said this a few days ago, don't feel like saying it again to a new crowd of morons:
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.
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
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.
Yeah I'm done. Saying 3D has more benefits than banding and aliasing proves how little you understand about picture quality. You need to stop thinking everyone watches everything only from a couch at a distance.
You should look up the definition of VR. It's not all about a large tv screen that covers your peripheral vision.
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.I thought I heard it all. You know The Social Network was shot at 4K resolution, right?
well from that link you provided the pictures I saw I could clearly tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.
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.
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).
Obviously you don't, especially if you think that it's the only benefit that can come from 4K.
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.
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.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.
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.
well from that link you provided the pictures I saw I could clearly tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.
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.
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.well this crowd of morons would perhaps suggest checking out SMPTE recommendations for theaters
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.which suggests a maximum of around 30 degrees field of view, not 60+ just so you can be silly with numbers.
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.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.
The days when 1080p blu rays look outdated damn, why can't we just let us enjoy this shit for a bit longer?!
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.
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".
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).
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.
Bluray Technnology has been around for ages.
What's traditional is outdated and where your knowledge 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.
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.
I meant relevant in terms of being able to produce a AAA 4k res game on consoles.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.
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 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.
But would average users see the difference? (I honestly don't know, GAF is probably more into graphic then the average user)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.
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.