Support NeoGAF

[FLEABttn]

Oh look ... people misinterpreting the resolution chart.

If I am genuinely misinterpreting it, please enlighten. I don't intend to spread false/inaccurate information if I that is what I am doing.

I'm pretty sure it has more to do with system constraints.

But how the system is constrained is left up to the developers. It's a trade off. Anyone can make a 1080p game for consoles, but at the cost of framerate and shaders and what have you. Now, say you know that at the distance people sit from their TV's, they can't tell the difference between 600p and 1080p for the resolution your game is being rendered at. Given strict system constraints, why "waste" more power on resolution when people can't even tell when you are are going above 600p?

Wasn't that chart made a bannable offense?

If it is, it's one of those things that's unofficially bannable, possibly determined before I actually started reading/post here on any kind of frequent basis.

 

[blu]

Oh look ... people misinterpreting the resolution chart.

In what manner? The chart is pretty obvious.

 

[/XX/]

Updated PlayView for Games on the PS3 platform that is based on SCEI Software Platform Development Dept., technology (http://www.jp.playstation.com/software/title/jp0102npjb60001_000000000000000000.html), and uses Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG) with (maybe) Cairo SVG and hyper-linking trees? A prominent work from the company on expanding this feature, it seems... will we see something related but outside of this applications in the future? A standard GUI toolkit for development of similar others perhaps? A WebKit browser?

Someone has to call user jeff_rigby, he sure is going to be happy to hear this!

 

[Doctor_No]

I only had a chance to briefly view the article, but are you referring to when it mentions stuff like, "But If we were to record 48 frames per second with a 2-bladed shutter, then the integration time would be only a 96th of a second, and each of the images would be sharper"?

If so, that's referring shutter speeds when capturing content. I'm not sure of the relevance here..

The point being made in that article is that there is correlation between the perception of resolution and the frame rate. James Cameron makes a similar argument that moving to higher frame rates is more important than moving to 4k. The relevance to gaming is that moving to 4K resolutions may not provide a significant benefit over 1080p if frame rates are scarified.

 

[Raistlin]

If I am genuinely misinterpreting it, please enlighten. I don't intend to spread false/inaccurate information if I that is what I am doing.

In what manner? The chart is pretty obvious.

Historically there are a few areas that people tend to misinterpret the chart:

1) Visual Acuity - The overall chart is assuming 20/20 vision

2) Full vs Partial Benefits - For whatever reason many people have historically thrown out the entire partial benefits portions of the charts, as though you need to fully resolve the image in order for you to see more detail. That's simply not the case.

3) Wiggle Room - There's actually a bit more wiggle room depending on the type of content you're viewing. When looking at movie/TV content, apples-to-apples, you're looking at images that were captured at some resolution ... and then down-sampled to whatever resolution you're running. For games (assuming non-epic AA), you're looking at something that's actively rendered at a given resolution. With the latter, differences can be much more apparent.

It's like comparing LCD vs Plasma vs LCoS/DLP in terms of pixel fillrate. Even though you can't visually resolve the un-filled pixel surrounds at all (at a normal viewing distance), it still actively affects the perceived sharpness.





If you want to get a bit more accurate info, download the following and mess around with it

http://carltonbale.com/wp-content/uploads/theater_calculator_v4.0.xls


On the Home Theater Calculator sheet, modify the blue parameters and check out the results. In particular, screw around with the Screen Size (row 8), Horizontal Resolution (row 11), Vertical Resolution (row 12), Actual 1st Row Seating Distance (row 13), and Visual Acuity (row 36). Results will show up in row 35 on the right.

Note: One thing you'll see is that the results will basically stay at 'First row is far enough away the screen that you may not be able to see the full benefits of this screen resolution; you may want to consider a lower screen resolution' no matter how ridiculous you go in the negative direction. It never expressly states you won't see any benefit since it's too hard quantify due to the actual content having some effect. So basically you'd need to do some testing. Certainly if you're borderline, you'll see some benefit.



As an example ...

at a seating distance of 8', onQ123 with his 20/10 vision would actually fully resolve a 3840x2160 image with a screen in the 56"-68" range. Bigger than that, and it's actually expected he'd benefit from a higher resolution screen.

We didn't, sony marketing did, it's cute.

They didn't, you have no clue what you're talking about, it's cute.

 

[androvsky]

Updated PlayView for Games on the PS3 platform that is based on SCEI Software Platform Development Dept., technology (http://www.jp.playstation.com/software/title/jp0102npjb60001_000000000000000000.html), and uses Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG) with Cairo SVG and hyper-linking trees? A prominent work from the company on expanding this feature, it seems... will we see something related but outside of this applications in the future? A standard GUI toolkit for development of similar others perhaps? A WebKit browser?

Someone has to call user jeff_rigby, he sure is going to be happy to hear this!

So where does it say PlayView uses Cairo?

For PlayView, I don't think they're talking about the product outputting at 4K resolutions, but the source images being 4K.

Isn't one of the major functions of PlayView zooming in on pictures that are much, much larger than 4K? Like...

In the lecture, Yutaka used the "PlayStation Move Motion Controller," a motion-sensitive controller for the PS3, to control the PS3 equipped with the PlayView and demonstrated the technology. For example, he increased and reduced the size of a still image of a park that has a pixel count of about 3.2 billion (34,800 x 92,300).

 

[Raistlin]

The point being made in that article is that there is correlation between the perception of resolution and the frame rate. James Cameron makes a similar argument that moving to higher frame rates is more important than moving to 4k. The relevance to gaming is that moving to 4K resolutions may not provide a significant benefit over 1080p if frame rates are scarified.

The problem is comparing gaming and movies - they aren't the same. For film/video, temporal resolution is a combination of the frame-rate, exposure-time (shutter speed), and the temporal characteristics of the display device. In this case, shutter speed is pretty much the long-pole (though it's realistically somewhat tied to framerate) with the display characteristics also pretty big.

For gaming however (assuming it isn't using temporal motion blur), temporal resolution is a combination of the frame-rate and the temporal characteristics of the display device, with the latter being quite big. This is why LCD's and Plasma look so different at the same framerate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_display_technology#Temporal_characteristics (note current Plasma and DLP really aren't holding a full frame duration as the chart implies versus LCD).




Sure though, even for gaming things are tied together (particularly for LCD). So yes framerate matters. That said, we're assuming a higher resolution necessarily implies a lower resolution. That's really a game decision, but it's not like they're going to release a game at 5fps just to go to a higher framerate. Things will be as they always are. There are certain framerate expectations they won't go below ... plus, the actual display itself is going to have a huge impact on temporal resolution anyway.

If I get the time, I should try to generate some test material.

 

[Liquidsnake]

Even that's far-fetched, I think.

Even if the next gen spans 10 years?

 

[Reallink]

Historically there are a few areas that people tend to misinterpret the chart:
apparent....

When most people take exception to this chart, it's generally because they don't believe or understand the underlying concept--that at some distance it becomes impossible to distinguish X from Y, and that this distance is usually a lot less than people would like. Content differences are not something that can be accounted for on a broad level (which is the scope of this chart), you're always going to have some that fits a rule of thumb and some that errs in one direction or the other. Movie to Movie, TV to TV, Game to Game, there's always going to be variation. This particular example very obviously assumes all else being equal, so conceptually, there is no wiggle room. While I'm sure most have been sufficiently educated by this point, it's pretty clear some of the comments in here were not questioning points #1, 2, or 3, but the idea in general. In my experience, I have never seen dissenters bring up any real issues--it has always been "LOL WTF BS, I see 1080 on my 32" from clear across the street!!!"

 

[Gram Negative Cocci]

There is a excellent article on 4K written by Panavision's John Galt. It covers resolution versus frame rate, the utility of 4K, and an argument of why larger frame rates are more important to our perception of detail than mere outright resolution.

http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels

Sony too has an excellent whitepaper for 4K; where they one would see the benefits, and where one wouldn't...

PDF:
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/static/files/mkt/digitalcinema/Why_4K_WP_Final.pdf

So when you are watching in a dark surround and a dark movie theater, the eye and brain gets into this state called mesopic, that is neither photopic, which is full color vision in bright light, or scotopic which is night vision and no color. It's the in-between state between full color and no color vision. What happens there, the brain takes longer to integrate an image, so it fuses the motion better and we are less sensitive to flicker, but we also lose color acuity.

Holy fuck this guy knows his shit.

 

[Doctor_No]

The problem is comparing gaming and movies - they aren't the same. For film/video, temporal resolution is a combination of the frame-rate, exposure-time (shutter speed), and the temporal characteristics of the display device. In this case, shutter speed is pretty much the long-pole (though it's realistically somewhat tied to framerate) with the display characteristics also pretty big.

For gaming however (assuming it isn't using temporal motion blur), temporal resolution is a combination of the frame-rate and the temporal characteristics of the display device, with the latter being quite big. This is why LCD's and Plasma look so different at the same framerate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_display_technology#Temporal_characteristics (note current Plasma and DLP really aren't holding a full frame duration as the chart implies versus LCD).




Sure though, even for gaming things are tied together (particularly for LCD). So yes framerate matters. That said, we're assuming a higher resolution necessarily implies a lower resolution. That's really a game decision, but it's not like they're going to release a game at 5fps just to go to a higher framerate. Things will be as they always are. There are certain framerate expectations they won't go below ... plus, the actual display itself is going to have a huge impact on temporal resolution anyway.

If I get the time, I should try to generate some test material.

In the classic sense, when we talk about the 'film' we are talking about 24 frames with a 180 degree shutter, which is 1/48th second exposures. So the degree of motion blur and frame rate are fixed in film, but under new proposals this won't be the case. Many modern movies, like The Hobbit and Avatar 2, are being shot in non-classical 48 frames with variable exposure times. None of this matters in gaming as exposure is not a limitation.

The fundamental argument in how we view visual information is that there is a direct correspondence with frame rate and resolution. The amount of data we receive through our eyes, according to folks like James Cameron and engineers at Panavision, are more benefited through higher frame rates than higher resolution as our perception of resolving distances decreases as a function of viewing distance.

The question of 4K gaming isn't will a game be 4K@5fps, but rather if we can get 2k, or even 3k, resolution in the next-generation running at 60 fps it would be more beneficial than 4K running at a spotty 20-30 fps. What is the benefit of 4K resolution compared to the plethora of other visual devices that could be used in substitute?

 

[patsu]

So where does it say PlayView uses Cairo?

Exactly. Who summoned lord jeff_rigby ?

 

[Afrikan]

A minor point, but it'll likely be 4K2K which is 3840 x 2160 resolution. All announced TVs, by all manufacturers including Sony, are all 4K2K resolutions, not 4096x2160 due to pragmatic reasons.

4K2K is Quad-1080p, (1920*2)*(1080*2), which makes scaling and manufacturing much more modular and easy.

oh boy, subHD4K games already?

pixel counter gamers are here to stay.

 

[Zaptruder]

The problem is comparing gaming and movies - they aren't the same. For film/video, temporal resolution is a combination of the frame-rate, exposure-time (shutter speed), and the temporal characteristics of the display device. In this case, shutter speed is pretty much the long-pole (though it's realistically somewhat tied to framerate) with the display characteristics also pretty big.

For gaming however (assuming it isn't using temporal motion blur), temporal resolution is a combination of the frame-rate and the temporal characteristics of the display device, with the latter being quite big. This is why LCD's and Plasma look so different at the same framerate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_display_technology#Temporal_characteristics (note current Plasma and DLP really aren't holding a full frame duration as the chart implies versus LCD).




Sure though, even for gaming things are tied together (particularly for LCD). So yes framerate matters. That said, we're assuming a higher resolution necessarily implies a lower resolution. That's really a game decision, but it's not like they're going to release a game at 5fps just to go to a higher framerate. Things will be as they always are. There are certain framerate expectations they won't go below ... plus, the actual display itself is going to have a huge impact on temporal resolution anyway.

If I get the time, I should try to generate some test material.

Higher resolutions (or more pixels per angle of viewing) are kinda like sound frequencies higher than 20-25k.

That is to say, it'll make a difference primarily only to the most discerning eyes, and even then not so much.


That said, because of the continuing increases in computing and processing power... it's kinda like a; why the hell not?


Also, the benefit of 4k standardization is in increasing the screen size on the retina, while still maintaining an 'optimal' resolution.

Of course this doesn't matter so much for 2D displays - where the physical size of the screen becomes the restriction (most people can't find space for 100"+ screens, even if they could afford it with continually decreasing costs)... but it will in future when we've more fully developed wearable display technology that provides us with full field of vision (that also incorporates head tracking).

 

[jeff_rigby]

Better demos of the technology here.

Something similar at a website http://memorabilia.hardrock.com/ It's just SVG and hyperlinking, at this site totally supported in a browser with SVG.

I agree it's not worth targeting with console games (let's get most games running at 1080p first), but I think it might be worth supporting for certain functions (movie scaling, photo viewing, PlayView, stuff like that). Not many people would be able to use it, but it wouldn't take much effort on Sony's part, and it makes for a nice bullet-point for those that do have a 4k display (disclaimer: I do consulting work for a small company that makes a 4k projector). Kinda like how the launch PS3 supported SACD playback.


Actually, 4k is one of the defined video modes with HDMI 1.4, and since the PS3's HDMI chip has the same video bandwidth, Sony could support it with a simple firmware update. It'd still be stuck at 24 Hz.

100% correct. To restate; Playview is allowing everyone to view 4K by 2K on a TV with a lower resolution now. The discussion started because 4K has been Shown at several CES shows and discussed in NeoGAF. 4K media both pictures and video can be displayed this way on a lower Res TV.

The PS3 chipset can output 4K video NOW if the PS3 firmware is updated, HDMI 1.3 can output 1080P 3-D and 4K@24Hz but the PS3 blu-ray drive does not have enough space for 4K. 3-D 1080P only uses 50% more storage space than 1080P but 4K video needs 4 times the storage space.

There is a technical discussion about this and Sony is using the Cell and RSX in one of their 4K video editing platforms. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=28868088&postcount=549

A discussion about PS4 and 4K started in the NeoGAF PS3 GTKwebkit browser thread because:

1) Sony is porting cross platform libraries for the coming GTKwebkit and applications, anything written using those libraries will be easily portable to the PS4.

2) PS4 is several years away due to the coming updates refreshing the PS3 and Sony needs to wait for a practical blu-ray drive with at least 200 gigabyte storage.

I am guessing Games at 1080P and Media at 4k with support for down scaling to 720P or 1080P.

And it has not been confirmed that Cairo SVG is being used for Playview. I assume it is as it's capable of doing so and is the only SVG library that we know is in the PS3. I say library because my understanding is that OpenGL does the work. Edit: Cairo SVG started out as a SVG library but now also included Pixman code so it supports both SVG and Pixel manipulation/Zooming. Using the SVG only term is misleading and sometimes wrong in this context. Using Cairo is correct.

/xx/ Your link must be broken, please correct so we can lay this to rest. Edit: OK found the movie, I was expecting text similar to what I thought was a quote from the link.

There are multiple chains of logic supporting Sony using Cairo rather than custom code. The biggest is that they will want Playview media usable on multiple platforms and Cairo is a cross platform library usable on any platform with OpenGL and also on Windows and other backends. Cairo contains Skia code (Android) and all Webkit browsers support a common SVG standard which, using the same logic, Playview probably uses the webkit SVG library which is supported by Cairo in the PS3. This is also obvious to /xx/ as mentioned in his post.

If Playview is using a webkit SVG standard then Playview would use the SVG library supporting webkit on a platform. For Android, the Skia compiled library of openGL calls, for the PS3 and Vita, the Cairo library of compiled openGL calls.

Edit: Looking at functionality, Playview also has to know how to display fonts, pictures, Movies and music also 3-D. That requires multiple libraries of considerable size. These libraries can not be contained in playview or any one program because it has to be callable from a game. I would guess it's a certainty that the webkit support libraries, which have to support all the above for webkit, are being used for/by Playview.

Sony will want their media, a good post on this is below from /xx/, on multiple platforms. About the only practical method of doing this is to use webkit support libraries as part of Playview. It seems that the webkit libraries were designed to be called by webkit and other programs, they are a basic set of tools necessary in a modern operating system and looking at Android or Gnome Mobile the webkit support libraries form the core.

Something similar at a website http://memorabilia.hardrock.com/ It's just SVG and hyperlinking, at this site totally supported in a browser with SVG. So from functionality it appears that Cairo is being used to support Playview in the PS3. Again from Sony, the Playview library can be called and used by a game as well as webkit and webkit support libraries which includes Cairo.

 

[Izayoi]

Wasn't that chart made a bannable offense?

Why on earth would that be a bannable offense?

 

[Deegon]

Mabye the PS4 is...4 PS3's?!?! As seen below, GT5 has been shown running in 3840 by 2160.

 

[Medalion]

Wii U capable of 4K confirmed as well? Since it is slightly more powerful than PS3

 

[Mr_Brit]

Wii U capable of 4K confirmed as well? Since it is slightly more powerful than PS3

Depends on its HDMI chipset and whether it is powerful enough to support such high resolutions.

 

[Raistlin]

When most people take exception to this chart, it's generally because they don't believe or understand the underlying concept--that at some distance it becomes impossible to distinguish X from Y, and that this distance is usually a lot less than people would like. Content differences are not something that can be accounted for on a broad level (which is the scope of this chart), you're always going to have some that fits a rule of thumb and some that errs in one direction or the other. Movie to Movie, TV to TV, Game to Game, there's always going to be variation. This particular example very obviously assumes all else being equal, so conceptually, there is no wiggle room. While I'm sure most have been sufficiently educated by this point, it's pretty clear some of the comments in here were not questioning points #1, 2, or 3, but the idea in general. In my experience, I have never seen dissenters bring up any real issues--it has always been "LOL WTF BS, I see 1080 on my 32" from clear across the street!!!"

There are nits I can pick here, but I'm not sure re-opening these wounds is particularly relevant to the thread. Suffice it to say based on your gaf join-date, you missed out on all the fun of the innumerable 1080p TV usefulness debates from back in the day. Or if you were lurking, you have amnesia. Let's just say there was a reason usage of the chart was banned for a while

In the classic sense, when we talk about the 'film' we are talking about 24 frames with a 180 degree shutter, which is 1/48th second exposures. So the degree of motion blur and frame rate are fixed in film, but under new proposals this won't be the case. Many modern movies, like The Hobbit and Avatar 2, are being shot in non-classical 48 frames with variable exposure times. None of this matters in gaming as exposure is not a limitation.

Yep. I probably should have went into a bit more detail but I wasn't sure this is the thread for it. I maintain the captured temporal velocity of film is only indirectly related to framerate since shutter speed is only necessarily tied to it in-so-far as it's maximum duration. It's minimum can technically be anything (obviously lighting, etc becomes an issue as you shrink it further and further). While a 180 degree shutter is the standard, with most cameras that's simply the default. With disk-based shutters, you can swap them out (and film-makers do), and others are also configurable in other ways depending on the mechanics. When you move to digital, it's completely up to you. Hell, many don't even default to what would produce the equivalent of a 180 degree shutter speed.

As you and I said though, it's immaterial to what the others are discussing. None of this matters for games, because there is no equivalent to shutter speed in rendering (unless you actively add temporal blur). A framebuffer has no inherent blur.

Obviously there are effects on the display end for both film and gaming in terms of perceived temporal resolution due to the display characteristics, but that's an entirely different conversation. Motion is a complex beast.

The fundamental argument in how we view visual information is that there is a direct correspondence with frame rate and resolution. The amount of data we receive through our eyes, according to folks like James Cameron and engineers at Panavision, are more benefited through higher frame rates than higher resolution as our perception of resolving distances decreases as a function of viewing distance.

Since there realistically is a correlation between frame rate and shutter speed in capturing, yes ... this is true. Again though, the relationship isn't quite as obvious when talking about gaming.

The question of 4K gaming isn't will a game be 4K@5fps, but rather if we can get 2k, or even 3k, resolution in the next-generation running at 60 fps it would be more beneficial than 4K running at a spotty 20-30 fps. What is the benefit of 4K resolution compared to the plethora of other visual devices that could be used in substitute?

The thing here is that it's not entirely tied to framerate for gaming - the temporal characteristics of your display have a huge impact. This is why in a 30fps game, the temporal resolution on an LCD and plasma is vastly different.

Regardless, I'm not necessarily advocating 4K games since it is impractical even if there was a huge install base of displays for it. That doesn't mean I think 4K displays are useless.

 

[Shadow of the BEAST]

I really hope we dont see a resolution bump next gen.

hd pretty much killed the graphics this gen. It would have been so much more impressive if it stuck with sd resolution.

 

[Raistlin]

oh boy, subHD4K games already?

pixel counter gamers are here to stay.

lol

Actually the resolution differences reflect what's more common in terms of aspect ratios between movies versus consumer displays. Since 16:9 is the standard for TV's, they went with a direct 2x resolution to maintain the aspect ratio and simplify scaling.

For film, they had their own reasons for picking resolution and ratio. Or I should say resolutions and ratios. There are actually several 4K film 'standards', with Full Aperture 4K (4096x3112, AR 1.32:1), Academy 4K (3656×2664, AR 1.37:1), Digital cinema 4K (4096×1714, AR 2.39:1), and Digital cinema 4K (3996×2160, AR 1.85:1) being the most common.

Why on earth would that be a bannable offense?

I can't recall if simply referencing the chart was bannable (it may have been for a bit), but it's usage was. Or I should say, its misusage was. Things were bad during the genesis of 1080p displays. Real bad

 

[Jinko]

4k images have been around on the PC for years and I don't see any dedicated gaming monitors with 4k resolutions.

2K and 4K are common for video editing at a professional studio level and Digital Cinema projection.

I would bet a stack ton of money that we will never see anything above 1440p at a consumer level.

True Side by side 3D is 3840x1080p FWIW.

 

[Raistlin]

Higher resolutions (or more pixels per angle of viewing) are kinda like sound frequencies higher than 20-25k.

Yes, but there are some fundamental differences:

1) On average, there seems to be a greater variance in eyesight

2) Unlike sound (barring severe visual acuity degradation), it's quite straight forward to yield an equivalence in visual acuity of a given resolution. You simply vary the display size and/or viewing distance.

Obviously that isn't always practical, but it is straight forward which makes this analogy quite misleading.

That is to say, it'll make a difference primarily only to the most discerning eyes, and even then not so much.

Whether people care is certainly a personal thing. However, actually resolving resolution is not a subjective thing. It's quite simple to reach an objective equivalence.

That said, because of the continuing increases in computing and processing power... it's kinda like a; why the hell not?

Agreed

Though even I, as a videophile, can understand where going to certain resolutions is impractical - both in terms of use-case, and in terms of trade-offs.

 

[Raistlin]

I would bet a stack ton of money that we will never see anything above 1440p at a consumer level.

In terms of displays? Sure we will. They're being dev'd right now, and have been prototyped at CES/CEDIA.

 

[Jinko]

In terms of displays? Sure we will. They're being dev'd right now, and have been prototyped at CES/CEDIA.

We were seeing 1440p sets being shown at CES back in 2006, have you seen any for sale ?

 

[Raistlin]

We were seeing 1440p sets being shown at CES back in 2006, have you seen any for sale ?

Actually I was referring to 4K.

Have we seen any 1440p? No (though we are starting to see some 2560×1080 - 21:9 displays hitting), but that's because of use-case.

We don't have any content that supports greater than 1080p resolution (well beyond some video you can download), so there needs to be an alternate reason go to a given higher resolutions - and they have found some for 4K:

1) Non-Sequential Passive 3D - Current non-sequential passive 3D displays halve vertical resolution per eye. Manufacturers are using 4K displays so you can get 1080p per eye. No loss of detail.

2) Front Projectors - For large screens, 1080p is nowhere near the limit of what can be visually resolved at typical viewing distances. Think about the scenario of viewing a DVD on a large SD display. Then think about viewing the same DVD on an HD screen of the same size utilizing good scaling. While there isn't any real extra detail, the extrapolated pixels yield a much nicer image. This is really the same thing. The reason for choosing 4K specifically is because of the simplicity (and IQ results) of doing a 2x scale in both directions.

 

[AndyD]

I hope they make it mandatory that all games provide a game manual in game in a standard playview format. I am annoyed at opening games and getting a 4 page black and white manual.

That said, 4k seems overkill, but I can see 4k projectors getting more popular during the next gen, so then the PS4 can be used to at least output something to them, particualrly 3D pictures as they mention.

 

[Raistlin]

That said, 4k seems overkill, but I can see 4k projectors getting more popular during the next gen, so then the PS4 can be used to at least output something to them, particualrly 3D pictures as they mention.

And upscaled video

 

[jeff_rigby]

And upscaled video

Thank you for the many posts explaining this in a more professional mannor than I have attempted in previous posts.

Any time one states that Sony has accepted 4K as a standard they will support for consumer equipment despite the NHK trying to create a ultra-hi-def 8k standard, it starts a war. from /xx/

Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK), with the work from their NHK Science & Technology Research Laboratory (http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/english/index.html), the one who is prominent nowadays in the development of a new broadcasting system based on Ultra High Definition TV imagery and called Super Hi-Vision.

They have even demonstrated in own events like the OPEN HOUSE 2011 Exhibition (http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/open2011/index_e.html) the possibilities that brings this new system, and the different technology advancements devised for its application, as testified by their technical reports published (http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/technical/02_super.html):

・Technical Development Towards Implementation Of Extremely High Resolution Imagery System With More Than 4000 Scanning Lines [IBC2006]
http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/technical/pdf/02_1.pdf

・22.2 Multichannel Sound System for Ultra High Definition TV [SMPTE2007]
http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/tech...7_08040907.pdf

・An Ultra High Definition Color Video Camera With 1.25-inch Optics and 8k x 4k Pixels [SMPTE2004]
http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/technical/pdf/02_3.pdf

Originally Posted by Doctor_No:

There is a excellent article on 4K written by Panavision's John Galt. It covers resolution versus frame rate, the utility of 4K, and an argument of why larger frame rates are more important to our perception of detail than mere outright resolution.

http://magazine.creativecow.net/arti...ture-of-pixels

Sony too has an excellent whitepaper for 4K; where they one would see the benefits, and where one wouldn't...

PDF:
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/static/f...K_WP_Final.pdf

The above Sony paper, Sony up-converting and shooting all new movies in 4K, their 4K editing solutions and Playview 4k by 2k seem to indicate the PS4 would have 4k media playback and "upconverting to 4k" upscaled video.

 

[wsippel]

Why did we switch from using the vertical number to the horizontal? Is it just so they could use the bigger number? Every time I hear 4k I think somethingx4000.

It's a terminology used in film. A single film frame is always the same width, but not necessarily the same height. A lot more funny is that there is no single "4k" resolution, there are several different 4k standards: Full Aperture 4K (4096 x 3112), Academy 4K (3656 × 2664), Digital Cinema 4K 2.39:1 (4096 × 1714), Digital Cinema 4K 1.85:1 (3996 × 2160).

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

It's a terminology used in film. A single film frame is always the same width, but not necessarily the same height.

Heh. Still seems a bit incongruous, since set pixel resolutions shouldn't come into play until using a digital medium rather than physical film.

 

[onQ123]

4k images have been around on the PC for years and I don't see any dedicated gaming monitors with 4k resolutions.

2K and 4K are common for video editing at a professional studio level and Digital Cinema projection.

I would bet a stack ton of money that we will never see anything above 1440p at a consumer level.

True Side by side 3D is 3840x1080p FWIW.

I want in on this bet & trust me you're going to lose! never bet against tech

 

[Raistlin]

Heh. Still seems a bit incongruous, since set pixel resolutions shouldn't come into play until using a digital medium rather than physical film.

It also seems weird since even the digital standards actually do vary in vertical resolution.


Regardless, I'd guess the rationale of applying a resolution terminology to film is two-fold:

1) An approximation can be made to what detail equivalence exists between film stock of a certain type and a digital sample.

2) The terminology really only came into being since the advent of digital post-production. Many movies are still shot on film, but most post is done in the digital domain. Logically, they choose to do post at the resolution that maps well to the above. Granted, that's not always the case depending on budget (I'm looking at you Firefly )

 

[Raistlin]

I want in on this bet & trust me you're going to lose! never bet against tech

Yeah, I'm more than happy to take his bet

Spoiler

I wonder if we should tell him there are already 4K displays that are technically meant for home already (even if they are currently insanely priced) - with more hitting later this year

 

[onQ123]

Yeah, I'm more than happy to take his bet

Spoiler

I wonder if we should tell him there are already 4K displays that are technically meant for home already (even if they are currently insanely priced) - with more hitting later this year

you know what I think he is right & only a fool would bet against him

Spoiler

I'm betting $100,000 so he can pay for my 4K TV

 

[Raistlin]

you know what I think he is right & only a fool would bet against him

Spoiler

I'm betting $100,000 so he can pay for my 4K TV

all in

 

[/XX/]

So where does it say PlayView uses Cairo?

Exactly. Who summoned lord jeff_rigby ?

Spoiler

Guys, the truth is... I was making assumptions based on jeff_rigby guesses to lure him into discussing inside this thread as well, so... mission accomplished! Right?

Now seriously, I know it was a bit of a stretch from my part, and I'll change my previous post to reflect this, but from the convenience standpoint of the Sony Group, it makes sense.

The SCEI Software Platform Development Dept., advancement called by them High-Resolution Image Enlargement Technology (高画質画像拡大技&#34899 consists in tree hierarchies with different and variable in size (down to 256x256 px) image tiles probably consisting in Scalable Vector Graphic representations, the archive data stores information of each image tile position in regards to what is being visualized on-screen. As jeff_rigby pointed, OpenGL back-end compliant Cairo SVG main branch libraries are incorporated into the PS3 platform, so it would be a simple step to use them. Of course, this is all speculation based in approximations, but what is more interesting is the wider picture that some information shows.

Sony Electronics Inc. (SEI) own Sony Developer Network had a, now undisclosed, initiative called Sony’s Networked Application Platform (SNAP) as means to impulse a new framework with the objective of development of applications for different devices, namely (and this is important) those devices from the Networked Products & Services Group and backed by Sony Network Entertainment Inc. (SNEI). A section of the now missing website precisely talked about focus on visual approach of the applications:

SNAP has a re-architected display model and backend based on Cairo evolving toward COLLADA over time. Our look and feel also includes navigation metaphors derived from standard Sony UX constructs such as our XrossMediaBar.

http://fireballed.org/linked/2010/11/24/snap/

This where it gets interesting, as some of the latest Sony Electronics Inc., products already use Pango + Cairo, in the internationalization with dynamic text (i18n-text) for example (http://old.nabble.com/Pango-License-td30466635.html), and for future applications also supported by Sony Network Entertainment Inc., but... where does the PS3 system falls into all of this? Well, Sony Computer Entertainment America (SCEA) recently transferred the management of all online services, that obviously includes the PlayStation Network, to Sony Network Entertainment Inc. (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...America_Taking_Over_SCEAs_Online_Services.php). That means they are preparing the integration of all their backed products into the same network, and for a simple integration you need cross-platform applications and services to use in all of them, and that is why the SNAP Developer Program work and Cairo SVG "easier" assimilation for different back-ends and subsequently different products grants them an advantage in porting, generating in a simple way connectivity and synergies. As Mr. Hirai said, this "will drive vision, strategy, and execution for network services across the entire Sony group".

As PlayView for Games its only the first step for said technology, and different contents not exclusively related to a gaming platform, like digital versions of the PLUP SERIES (プルアップ シリー&#12474 magazines, are going to be distributed in the future as well, it would be a logical step for them to make it available to the rest of Sony Network Entertainment Inc., supported devices through the future general PlayStation Network (or supposedly Sony Network) and Store, right?

I apologize if all of this (and previous posts) assumptions have bothered you, I'm talking hypothetically taking into account the sparse information it is possible to obtain referencing this topic. Sorry!

/xx/ Your link must be broken, please correct so we can lay this to rest.

You can't see anything after the link? It works for me. It is a link to the SCEJ software title information page of PlayView for Games' Monster Hunter Portable 2nd G Database. As it features a video of the application, I thought it would be a good example of the technology uses.

 

[jeff_rigby]

Seriously now, I know is was a bit of a stretch from my part, and I'll change my previous post to reflect this, but from the convenience standpoint of the Sony Group, it makes sense.

The SCEI Software Platform Development Dept., advancement called by them High-Resolution Image Enlargement Technology (高画質画像拡大技&#34899 consists in tree hierarchies with different and variable in size (down to 256x256 px) image tiles consisting in Scalable Vector Graphic representations, the archive data stores information of each image tile position in regards to what is being visualized on-screen. As jeff_rigby pointed, OpenGL back-end compliant Cairo SVG main branch libraries are incorporated into the PS3 platform, so it would be a simple step to use them. Of course, this is all speculation based in approximations, but what is more interesting is the wider picture that some information shows.

Sony Electronics Inc. (SEI) own Sony Developer Network had a, now undisclosed, initiative called Sony’s Networked Application Platform (SNAP) as means to impulse a new framework with the objective of development of applications for different devices, namely (and this is important) those devices from the Networked Products & Services Group and backed by Sony Network Entertainment Inc. (SNEI). A section of the now missing website precisely talked about focus on visual approach of the applications:


http://fireballed.org/linked/2010/11/24/snap/

This where it gets interesting, as some of the latest Sony Electronics Inc. products already use Pando + Cairo, in the internationalization with dynamic text (i18n-text) for example (http://old.nabble.com/Pango-License-td30466635.html), and for future applications also supported by Sony Network Entertainment Inc., but... where does the PS3 system falls into all of this? Well, Sony Computer Entertainment America (SCEA) recently transferred the management of all online services, that obviously includes the PlayStation Network, to Sony Network Entertainment Inc. (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...America_Taking_Over_SCEAs_Online_Services.php). That means they are preparing the integration of all their backed products into the same network, and for a simple integration you need cross-platform applications and services to use in all of them, and that is why the SNAP Developer Program work and Cairo SVG "easier" assimilation for different back-ends and subsequently different products grants them and advantage in porting, generating in a simple way connectivity and synergies. As Mr. Hirai said, this "will drive vision, strategy, and execution for network services across the entire Sony group".

As PlayView for Games its only the first step for said technology, and different contents not exclusively related to a gaming platform, like digital versions of the PLUP SERIES (プルアップ シリー&#12474 magazines, are going to be distributed in the future as well, it would be a logical step for them to make it available to all the rest of Sony Network Entertainment Inc. supported devices through the future general PlayStation (Sony) Network and Store, right?

I apologize if all of this (and previous posts) assumptions have bothered you, I'm talking hypothetically taking into account the sparse information it is possible to obtain referencing this topic. Sorry!

Good explanation. You as I are speculating based on several logical tracks; business and functionality.

You only missed "Very fast" in the Sony description of the process which requires hardware acceleration = openGL. WebGL requires very fast rendering. Cairo was chosen to support most webkit builds and much effort has gone into making it very fast (Skia SVG code was ported from Android for this reason). I suspect the openGL code being used by Cairo has been optimized by Sony as Sony has plans for webGL games.

For business:
The biggest is that they will want Playview media usable on multiple platforms and Cairo (PS3 and Vita) is a cross platform library usable on any platform regardless of backend. Better yet, all Webkit browsers support a common Zooming & SVG standard which, using the same logic, Playview probably uses the webkit libraries which is supported by Cairo in the PS3. This is also obvious to /xx/ as mentioned in his post.

If Playview is using a webkit Zooming standard then Playview would use the SVG library supporting webkit on a platform Edit: Cairo SVG included Pixman code for both SVG and Pixel image manipulation/zooming. For Android, the Skia compiled library of openGL calls, for the PS3 and Vita, the Cairo library of compiled openGL calls.

Looking at functionality, Playview also has to know how to display fonts, pictures, Movies and music also 3-D. That requires multiple libraries of considerable size. I would guess it's a certainty that the webkit support libraries, which have to support all the above for webkit, are being used for/by Playview.

Sony will want their media, a good post on this is above from /xx/, on multiple platforms. About the only practical method of doing this is to use webkit support libraries as part of Playview. It seems that the webkit libraries were designed to be called by webkit and other programs, they are a basic set of tools necessary in a modern operating system and looking at Android or Gnome Mobile the webkit support libraries form the core.

Something similar at a website http://memorabilia.hardrock.com/ It's just Zooming and hyperlinking, at this site totally supported in a browser with SVG support. So from functionality it appears that Cairo is being used to support Playview in the PS3. Again from Sony, the Playview library can be called and used by a game as well as webkit and webkit support libraries which includes Cairo.

Playview from what I have seen is a refinement of the above website but OUTSIDE a browser. I can see Playview becoming a standard for viewing ALL media of just about all formats. Cairo and most SVG libraries support PDF, Postscript, XML and webkit supports most media and text formats.

Playview could become an indispensable utility on multiple platforms.

1) Sony started work on the GTKwebkit April 2010
2) Sony applied for a trademark for "Playview" (date on article is June 2010)
3) Showed a working Playview at CEDEC Sept 4, 2010.
4) PS3 Firmware 3.5 released September 28, 2010 contained a webkit javascript engine with bindings to Cairo. (Cairo openGL had to be in the PS3 at that time)
5) GT5 delayed till after PS3 Firmware 3.5 for it's Playview car database.

* 'Computer game software recorded on optical discs';

*'Computer software for transmitting, sharing, receiving, downloading, displaying and transferring content, text, visual works, audio works, audiovisual works, literary works, data, files, documents and electronic works via video game machines and Hand-held games with liquid crystal displays';

* 'Video game machines with television for personal use'.

Curiously, it also encompasses: 'Retail store services in the field of electronic games, videos, electronic publications and music.'

So we could be looking at some kind of wide-reaching addition to PSN - or perhaps a new service that lets PlayStation owners download and read e-books?

 

[mrklaw]

Is there research on average screen sizes in homes, and average viewing distances?

Considering most digital cinema is 2k, which is basically the same as 1080p, and it still looks great (way better than crappy used physical prints in a well setup cinema), then IMO 1080p is all you need for the home.

Physical 4k screens may be useful for specific use cases, such as passive 3D where you lose resolution, or maybe projection using upscale g to reduce screen door. But even that last example is a stretch, I don't see the value to the consumer for the price it would cost to add. With the recent investment in digital cinema I don't see them upgrading to 4k anytime soon either, except maybe in prestige sites or for digital IMAX.

 

[jeff_rigby]

Is there research on average screen sizes in homes, and average viewing distances?

Considering most digital cinema is 2k, which is basically the same as 1080p, and it still looks great (way better than crappy used physical prints in a well setup cinema), then IMO 1080p is all you need for the home.

Physical 4k screens may be useful for specific use cases, such as passive 3D where you lose resolution, or maybe projection using upscale g to reduce screen door. But even that last example is a stretch, I don't see the value to the consumer for the price it would cost to add. With the recent investment in digital cinema I don't see them upgrading to 4k anytime soon either, except maybe in prestige sites or for digital IMAX.

Very valid argument for the display but not the source. If you could get a 4K blu-ray player that could support all TV formats up to 4K and had a color depth superior to 2K for $20 more than a 2K blu-ray player which would you buy? http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30764910&postcount=820

The argument for a 4K display is obvious, would you pay (projecting an eventual cost reduction for 4K) $6K for a 60 inch 4k display or $1,500 for a 2K display, there being no practical difference unless you get off the couch and move closer to the screen.

For those that have 100 inch screens and a dedicated theater, the answer is obvious.

Now lets look 10 years ahead, OLED has been perfected and it's possible to print LEDs on a flexible material of just about any size. Your TV installer unrolls and wallpapers an OLED screen to your 10' by 8' living room wall and connects it to a set top box. You now have a 8K display, you also have gigabit internet and media that is only 2K from the 2010 decade....you will kick yourself.

 

[mrklaw]

If i'm not buying a 4k screen, and there isn't any 4k source material, why do I want a 4k player?

I'd pay extra for a 1080p bluray player that uses greater bit depth for colour, and i'd pay extra for a display that supported greater colour depth, as well as black level, contrast etc. All that can and should still improve.

But not resolution. Pointless in 95% of homes i'd say.

 

[painful fart]

If i'm not buying a 4k screen, and there isn't any 4k source material, why do I want a 4k player?

I'd pay extra for a 1080p bluray player that uses greater bit depth for colour, and i'd pay extra for a display that supported greater colour depth, as well as black level, contrast etc. All that can and should still improve.

But not resolution. Pointless in 95% of homes i'd say.

When I read this thread it feels like a time warp back to 2006, just replace 4K with 1080p.

 

[mrklaw]

I no Luddite. I can understand the benefits of 1080p. But when cinemas are basically using 1080p on their massive screens, why would you need nore in the home?

I honestly feel that bluray is a decent archival format for the home. 1080p, lossless audio. All I could want more is better colour handling and support if they increase frame rates in the future for movies - so 1080p/60. But for games that isnt an issue

 

[Plinko]

When I read this thread it feels like a time warp back to 2006, just replace 4K with 1080p.

Except 1080p was pushed into homes with the nationwide digital switch that had millions of dollars in advertising and the threat that consumers will lose television coverage unless they didn't switch. Instead of opting for the small box, most consumers upgraded to their 1080p HDTV.

4K will have NONE of that push.

Also, HDTV's were being introduced in the early 1990s. It took almost two decades and that major switch to get penetration into a majority of households in the United States. Again, 4K won't have that push behind it unless the TV industry itself starts including it as standard on their sets. That won't be happening any time soon because of the price.

 

[painful fart]

Except 1080p was pushed into homes with the nationwide digital switch that had millions of dollars in advertising and the threat that consumers will lose television coverage unless they didn't switch. Instead of opting for the small box, most consumers upgraded to their 1080p HDTV.

Excuse my ignorance, when and where did this happen? Was it before 2006?

 

[jeff_rigby]

Except 1080p was pushed into homes with the nationwide digital switch that had millions of dollars in advertising and the threat that consumers will lose television coverage unless they didn't switch. Instead of opting for the small box, most consumers upgraded to their 1080p HDTV.

4K will have NONE of that push.

Also, HDTV's were being introduced in the early 1990s. It took almost two decades and that major switch to get penetration into a majority of households in the United States. Again, 4K won't have that push behind it unless the TV industry itself starts including it as standard on their sets. That won't be happening any time soon because of the price.

Yes but you are not thinking in 10 year cycles.

1) Sony in it's white paper cited in this thread stated that 86% of the viewers in a theater would see a positive difference with 4K over 2K.

2) Sony is up-converting it's media to 4K. Film has a resolution above 2k but less than 4K. 4K appear to be a standard that will not see a degradation in resolution when converting to digital format.

3) 4K standards have a color depth greater than 2K standards. In the case of Sony 1080P TVs, they can display this color depth but it's not a broadcast standard because it would require a larger bandwidth as would 1080P over 1080i.

Did you take into consideration that top end next generation video cameras will be 4k. Within the next 10 year cycle home video cameras will be 4k and 1080P 3-D. Minimum Hard disk size in a PC will be 2+ Terabytes and blu-ray drives of 500+ gigabytes will be the standard.

As a practical matter, 1080P 3-D and 4K require about the same hardware support so if you support 1080P 3-D you are almost supporting 4K.

CES 2011 has already shown all the above except the 500gig blu-ray drives.

 

[Plinko]

Excuse my ignorance, when and where did this happen? Was it before 2006?

It was in the United States and the digital switch occurred in June of 2009.

 

[Plinko]

Yes but you are not thinking in 10 year cycles.

1) Sony in it's white paper cited in this thread stated that 86% of the viewers in a theater would see a positive difference with 4K over 2K.

2) Sony is up-converting it's media to 4K. Film has a resolution above 2k but less than 4K. 4K appear to be a standard that will not see a degradation in resolution when converting to digital format.

3) 4K standards have a color depth greater than 2K standards. In the case of Sony 1080P TVs, they can display this color depth but it's not a broadcast standard because it would require a larger bandwidth as would 1080P over 1080i.

Did you take into consideration that top end next generation video cameras will be 4k. Within the next 10 year cycle home video cameras will be 4k and 1080P 3-D. Minimum Hard disk size in a PC will be 2+ Terabytes and blu-ray drives of 500+ gigabytes will be the standard.

As a practical matter, 1080P 3-D and 4K require about the same hardware support so if you support 1080P 3-D you are almost supporting 4K.

CES 2011 has already shown all the above except the 500gig blu-ray drives.

All of that is great. I look forward to 4k, but I don't think it's a feature that people will run out to buy. I think it ends up like 3D, which isn't taking off at all.

You're talking about a decade or more from now, which is fine. I'm not arguing about it that far into the future. Some in here think it will be industry standard for the next generation of game consoles and I think that's crazy.

I just think people tend to overlook the fact that it took a decade to get people to upgrade their TVs. I can't imagine people wanting to run out and upgrade their TVs again so soon over an incremental increase in quality that will not affect their general television viewing one bit.

 

[painful fart]

It was in the United States and the digital switch occurred in June of 2009.

In 2006 all that was pretty much fiction, similar to the 4K predictions of today.