Support NeoGAF

[ElectricKaibutsu]

Am I correct in presuming that graphic processing power will never be able to keep up with advances in resolution? The new consoles are still struggling with 1080p. So the newest and highest resolution will probably continue to be one step ahead?

Yeah, I think consoles will always be a step behind behind TV res but I don't know if I'd necessarily say the PS4 is struggling with 1080p. Isn't the only sub 1080p game BF4 at 900p?

 

[Mandoric]

Am I correct in presuming that graphic processing power will never be able to keep up with advances in resolution? The new consoles are still struggling with 1080p. So the newest and highest resolution will probably continue to be one step ahead?

Yes and no. It's not some kind of linear "you must have x level of power to push 4k"; there are tradeoffs between effects, model complexity, resolution, and framerate. Effects and model complexity are more useful to 720p/1080p@60 set owners and more obvious on news sites and Youtube, so currently most GPU potential is being used to improve them, but there's absolutely no reason other than HDMI 1.4 we couldn't have the PS4 and Xbone pushing, say, a title that looked like Team Fortress 2 at 4k locked 120fps.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Am I correct in presuming that graphic processing power will never be able to keep up with advances in resolution? The new consoles are still struggling with 1080p. So the newest and highest resolution will probably continue to be one step ahead?

No. Why would you limit the discussion to consoles?

 

[HTupolev]

The softness effect is definitely noticeable between 720p and 1366x768 panels even on 3d and video content, though.

Yes, when the resolutions are almost identical, scaling is going to result in a similar-but-less-good image, whether it be ringing or blur or blocking that does you in. This is an argument for staying native, not for using nearest neighbor.

You simply can't add detail that isn't there

I'm not suggesting that we try to. I'm suggesting that we try to preserve the details that are there as accurately as possible.

Nearest-neighbor may emulate the look of some 720p or 1080p TVs, but this is only because said TVs use poor image reconstruction. Square pixel fill can occasionally accurately reproduce an edge, but the vast majority of the time it will take the form of a quantization artifact; most edges don't align with the pixel fill edges, and even those that do will usually not lie very close to the pixel boundaries.

Who knows, maybe you're right in this case. In that maybe weird complications make it fairly difficult to strictly out-do the quality of a square kernel when you're only going up a factor of two on each axis. After all, you don't have a whole lot of options for filter shape unless you're willing to use a really wide function (though I wish I had MATLAB on hand, it would make it super easy to try out some 4-by-4 patterns I have in mind).
But on something like a factor of three or four (or more), where you can more easily implement a filter shape that's tight enough to not cause blurring but also doesn't have the directional preference and quantization issues of nearest-neightbor? No way the square approach still looks attractive.

 

[amdnv]

How about an example:

(Source image courtesy of Narcogen)


//==============

I'm not saying that nearest-neighbor is a terrible choice when you have an integer-multiple resolution you're scaling to, but I wouldn't call it the best option either, and the argument that it's somehow a more correct way of dealing with edges than the other approaches has as many dangerous caveats as compelling attractivenesses.

There are better choices than nearest neighbor, but it does give a faithful representation of the original content.
The images in your example are of different sizes due to a 4x increase in resolution, but that's not a good way to compare. After all, people are wondering whether a 4K 60" TV will display 1080p content worse than their 1080p 60" TV. So the size of both output images needs to be identical, with pixels on the 4K TV at 1/4th the size. This kind of comparison is not possible on a single display.

It's not fair to say that 1080p content on an 80" 4K TV looks worse than the same 1080p content on a 40" 1080p TV. Of course it looks worse because everything is magnified 4x, and an 80" 1080p TV would do no better.

 

[Badlucktroll]

I own this set: http://www.sears.com/seiki-39inch-c...p-05703146000P?prdNo=2&blockNo=2&blockType=G2
Keep in mind that this TV only does gaming at 30hz. Its a cheap 4k screen.

here is a good overview on the tv https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFkdWHfb1kM

 

[ShinMaruku]

wut

Floss= show off. Upgrade your lexicon.