Support NeoGAF

[dallow_bg]

Hah, never thought I'd see the chart being used again.
It's been trashed for a long time now, I don't have the info handy anymore.

 

[Medalion]

There are no mainstream screens and price points that will take advantage of this

So I say phooey

 

[Atomski]

Considering people have only just begun to adopt 3D HDtvs, don't expect to see this take off television wise for at least another 5 years.

But thats because 3D sucks..

 

[Wazzim]

Sorry OP but that was a pretty silly statement of you.

 

[Kaako]

Way to get carried away man. You'll have to wait a gen or two before this means anything for console gaming.

 

[jonremedy]

Considering people have only just begun to adopt 3D HDtvs, don't expect to see this take off television wise for at least another 5 years.

I'd rather have 4K than S3D.

 

[sentry65]

30" monitors generally have a native resolution of 2560x1600

right, there's like 5 or 6 monitors that support that, that's why I said monitors from 2005 onward "mainly" only support 1080p

 

[TekkenMaster]

Some calculations:

A 60 inch television with the same pixels-per inch as the iPhone 4 (326), would have a resolution of 17048x9590, for a total of 163,490,320 pixels.

A 1080P tv has 1920x1080=2,073,600 pixels

So the "retina display" 60 inch TV would have about 79 times the resolution of a 1080P 60 inch display.

4K TV has 8,294,400 pixels...so a true "retina" 60 inch TV still almost 20 times as many pixels as a 4K TV.

 

[Rorschach]

for all the people who didn't think that Next Gen Consoles would be anything over 1080P 60FPS what's your thoughts now that more & more products are going to be using 4K resolution next year?

haha I doubt we'll see too many games at 1080p with 60 fps let alone above that.

 

[DisenLedZep]

The industry should be pushing for more fps rather than more resolution.

1080p 240hz is SO much better that anything 4K with 30hz - 40hz.

 

[iamblades]

That bullshit chart is close to a banable offense

What makes it bullshit?

It's fairly trivial trigonometry given the fact that 20/20 vision is defined as visual acuity to the level of one arcminute. All you need is a viewing distance and you can mathematically figure out how small pixels need to be to match human vision.

Granted it assumes 20/20 vision, and the fact that video content typically has a lower contrast than visual acuity test patterns means its a bit on the optimistic side for most situations, but it is a good target anyway.

 

[NullPointer]

The industry should be pushing for more fps rather than more resolution.

I agree with this.

 

[FStop7]

I guess this will be beneficial for CGI, high end CAD work, and the film industry. Maybe for game designers, too? Doesn't seem like anything that consumers will see any benefit from for quite a while.

 

[SapientWolf]

PC monitors suck

1080p HD formats pretty much killed monitor R&D to higher resolutions

in 1997 it was all about 800x600
in 1999 it was mostly 1024x768
2001 was finally seeing 1600x1200

2003 saw 1920x1200

2005 went with mainly 1920x1080 and pretty much stayed there for the last 6 years...

No one wants to have to buy like 4 GPUs to drive games to 30fps at some ridiculous resolution.

 

[Brimstone]

The industry should be pushing for more fps rather than more resolution.

All a person needs to do is take a 3d capable PC monitor and have the GPU refresh at 120hz for the GUI. It is easy to notice how smooth the mouse icon moves across the screen.


With Peter Jackson filming The Hobbit at 48fps and Avatar 2 going to be at least 48fps, there will be new standards in the future. Hopefully Sony and Microsoft (and whoever else) push for a 1080p at 120hz spec for video games. More for 2d games like Street Fighter 2 where the extra frame rate would help improve the game.

 

[aaaaa0]

Some calculations:

A 60 inch television with the same pixels-per inch as the iPhone 4 (326), would have a resolution of 17048x9590, for a total of 163,490,320 pixels.

A 1080P tv has 1920x1080=2,073,600 pixels

So the "retina display" 60 inch TV would have about 79 times the resolution of a 1080P 60 inch display.

4K TV has 8,294,400 pixels...so a true "retina" 60 inch TV still almost 20 times as many pixels as a 4K TV.

That kind of resolution is only needed if you use that TV at the same distance you hold your iPhone from your face -- which is absurd, unless you're talking about something like a desk work surface for displaying documents or something like that...

 

[panty]

for all the people who didn't think that Next Gen Consoles would be anything over 1080P 60FPS what's your thoughts now that more & more products are going to be using 4K resolution next year?

Is this a joke?

 

[jonremedy]

What makes it bullshit?

It's fairly trivial trigonometry given the fact that 20/20 vision is defined as visual acuity to the level of one arcminute. All you need is a viewing distance and you can mathematically figure out how small pixels need to be to match human vision.

Granted it assumes 20/20 vision, and the fact that video content typically has a lower contrast than visual acuity test patterns means its a bit on the optimistic side for most situations, but it is a good target anyway.

Just because a person with 20/20 vision can't accurately point out every single pixel on such a display, doesn't mean a difference in clarity won't be noticed.

 

[TekkenMaster]

That kind of resolution is only needed if you use that TV at the same distance you hold your iPhone from your face -- which is absurd, unless you're talking about something like a desk work surface for displaying documents or something like that...

It would be needed for wall-sized windows that mimicked the sensation of looking out a window to see what's outside.

People who live in small apartments could coat an entire wall with a "retina-screen" and it would seem like they have an oceanfront view, even standing a few inches away from the wall.

 

[Limanima]

I see no reason to go beyond 1080p.

 

[eastmen]

No one wants to have to buy like 4 GPUs to drive games to 30fps at some ridiculous resolution.

eh ? Todays gpu's drive high resolutions. I use a single radeon 6950 2GB to push 5760x1080.

With 28nm gpu's coming in the next month or two i'm sure higher res's will be possible with a single card at good frame rates.

 

[eastmen]

I see no reason to go beyond 1080p.

I think its because you haven't seen past 1080p .


I remember a long time ago when my one friend would allways fight me about FSAA . All through the voodoo 3 up till the radeon x1800 days he'd fight me. Till he finally started to turn Fsaa on with his new x1900. Now he can easily see all the jaggies in games when fsaa isn't on.


I think once you get used to using a 4k display you will wonder how you ever lived with 1080p. Just like if you were to go watch 480p tv afer years of using a 1080p tv .

 

[K.Jack]

This is one of those OPs where you triple-check your logic, before hitting the submit thread button.

 

[tci]

"What's beyond 1080p?"
Really? I have been gaming beyond that since 2006. Too bad now that monitors these days "only" do 16x9 with 1080p? Why we go backwards? I want my 1200p back!

 

[Datschge]

Bullshit Intel is the same company that seriously crippled the resolutions its integrated GPUs on Atom systems could output in later revisions after the first one was apparently too lenient for them. Now they advertise higher resolutions on higher end CPUs? Really now?

 

[AzaK]

Since when did 4K start meaning horizontal pixels? Single number resolutions generally mean vertical.

Regardless, 4K TVs are not going to become mainstream any time soon. They are useless for general TV/movie viewing as content doesn't come that high.

And as far as gaming goes I want more pure grunt and shaders etc over res. That will have a much more significant impact on visuals.

 

[n0n44m]

so the OP is gaming on Pixar renderfarm?

what a pimp, we 1080p 60fps peasants don't deserve to even stand in his shadow

 

[jonremedy]

Since when did 4K start meaning horizontal pixels? Single number resolutions generally mean vertical.

Regardless, 4K TVs are not going to become mainstream any time soon. They are useless for general TV/movie viewing as content doesn't come that high.

And as far as gaming goes I want more pure grunt and shaders etc over res. That will have a much more significant impact on visuals.

4K as a horizontal measurement has been the standard for cinema applications for years. Vertical measurements are for TV.

 

[herod]

This will be a niche area for years yet. You'll spend most of your time trying to find content, because there won't be much if any.

 

[Man]

Ivy Bridge is shaping up to be a killer product.

Not because of the 4K resolution in solitude but because of the Trigate transistors, the ring layout, the updated graphics capabilities. It's becoming something really, really standout.

 

[Enco]

This will be a niche area for years yet. You'll spend most of your time trying to find content, because there won't be much if any.

.

Plus you'll spend a crap load on a monitor and gfx card. Not worth it at all. At least within the near future.

 

[amdnv]

Eyefinity is already doing 7680 X 3200.

He complained about monitor resolutions. Eyefinity is not doing 7680x3200. It's doing
2560x1600 BIGFATUGLYBORDER 2560x1600 BIGFATUGLYBORDER 2560x1600
BIGFATUGLYBORDER BIGFATUGLYBORDER BIGFATUGLYBORDER
2560x1600 BIGFATUGLYBORDER 2560x1600 BIGFATUGLYBORDER 2560x1600

 

[Toxa]

thanks but no thanks :

http://www.red.com/store/red-rocket/product/red-rocket

 

[Jarmel]

Yea this ain't happening for awhile. I mean most manufactures aren't even updating their 2560x1600 monitors except Dell with U3011. 4k resolution is indeed the next step but for that to be even close to readily available for consumers, we're looking at roughly 3-4 if not more years down the pipe.

 

[Suairyu]

o god someone posted the viewing distance chart.

Can we please ban it yet?

And yeah, many of us have been gaming at 4K resolution for some games for a while, just not outputting a final image at that resolution. SSAA is amazing!

Also, I imagine '4k compatible' CPUs are more to help with video playback than 3D workload. A properly encoded 10bit 1080p video file causes more stress on the CPU than your average game running at 1080p.

 

[wsippel]

Ten years ago, IBM released the T221, a 22.2" monitor with a resolution of 3840x2400. 4k is a really, really old hat.

 

[mrklaw]

o god someone posted the viewing distance chart.

Can we please ban it yet?

And yeah, many of us have been gaming at 4K resolution for some games for a while, just not outputting a final image at that resolution. SSAA is amazing!

Also, I imagine '4k compatible' CPUs are more to help with video playback than 3D workload. A properly encoded 10bit 1080p video file causes more stress on the CPU than your average game running at 1080p.

it does a good job. Perhaps not perfectly scientifically accurate (I don't know, my trig is rusty), but it gets the point across that resolving resolution is a function of distance as well as pixels. At minimum its a decent rebuff to stupid comparisons with iphones and 'retinaaaaa' displays.

 

[itxaka]

Would a resolution over 1080p benefit a computer monitor? I mean a close computer monitor, like one in a desk or something like that. I game at 1680x1050 on my monitor, but everything above 720 looks quite similar to me, probably because Im too close to the screen.

 

[Suairyu]

it does a good job. Perhaps not perfectly scientifically accurate (I don't know, my trig is rusty), but it gets the point across that resolving resolution is a function of distance as well as pixels. At minimum its a decent rebuff to stupid comparisons with iphones and 'retinaaaaa' displays.

But it isn't. The human eye is very capable of perceiving increases in pixel density. There have been scientific tests and everything. Keep increasing the pixel density of a display (and footage playing on that display) and eventually people start suffering from motion sickness because everything looks more and more real.

AND let's not even forget that we are mostly talking about rendering content on the fly here, not video playback. Resolution increase makes a world of difference in real-time 3D graphics, to the point your grandmother with bad eyesight could tell the difference between 1080p and 4k resolution.

The chart is a load of rubbish and I want it gone. The only accurate notion contained in it is that it's easier perceive increase pixel density at close range, but that doesn't make it as hard as the chart implies at long range.

Would a resolution over 1080p benefit a computer monitor? I mean a close computer monitor, like one in a desk or something like that. I game at 1680x1050 on my monitor, but everything above 720 looks quite similar to me, probably because Im too close to the screen.

The closer you are to something, the more easy it is to perceive the increase in pixel density as the pixels be all up in yo grill, yo.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Diminishing returns

 

[cajunator]

You're gonna need industrial sized fucking fans to cool down these new GPUs that can handle that kind of resolution.

 

[Suairyu]

Diminishing returns

don't apply here!

You're gonna need industrial sized fucking fans to cool down these new GPUs that can handle that kind of resolution.

Or, y'know, the same cooling fans we've been using to play games at >1080p for years.

 

[Enco]

My 24" monitor runs at 1920x1200.

Looks great. No complaints from me.

 

[cajunator]

don't apply here!

Or, y'know, the same cooling fans we've been using to play games at >1080p for years.

My roommates have computers that can play pretty much anything, and they have about 12 fans per case. It sounds like a windstorm in that room.

 

[Suairyu]

My roommates have computers that can play pretty much anything, and they have about 12 fans per case. It sounds like a windstorm in that room.

Sounds like your roommates have a fetish for fans, to be honest. 12 is ridiculous.

 

[Jarmel]

My roommates have computers that can play pretty much anything, and they have about 12 fans per case. It sounds like a windstorm in that room.

They're probably overclocking or have really small shitty fans.

 

[itxaka]

The closer you are to something, the more easy it is to perceive the increase in pixel density as the pixels be all up in yo grill, yo.

But that has to do with ppi instead of resolution no? So for example if the upped the ppi in a 1680x1050 monitor you would notice the difference but if you just upped the resolution you would notice it as well?

I don't see the difference when I put my monitor on 1080p so I just use the native resolution instead.

 

[wsippel]

don't apply here!

It certainly does. Ultra high resolution monitors exceed the resolution of the human eye even at close viewing distances. You waste time and performance drawing pixels you can't even see.

 

[majortom1981]

Console makers should try to get games to actually output and run at 1080p before going after higher resolutions . Arent a lot of games designed around lower resolutions?

 

[Jarmel]

Console makers should try to get games to actually output and run at 1080p before going after higher resolutions . Arent a lot of games designed around lower resolutions?

Sigh. Console games yes. PC exclusive gaming is really coming to a heads in the graphics department with many developers not wanting to put the extra time in for a PC version.