PS4 to Support 4K Resolution - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 11:07 AM
Member
 
WVUTampaAlum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12

I wouldn't call it a ripoff. A ripoff is paying $100 + a month for cell phone bill.... then paying home phone. In Xbox world anyone can talk text msg and video phone any length of time. Did MS try to force people into HD DVD? This new coming generation of gaming will not be so good for Sony. Even long time Sony fans are becoming tired of them. Would you feel safe if they had your user and Credit card info?
WVUTampaAlum is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 11:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mboojigga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Little Rock AFB, Arkansas
Posts: 7,958
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1laing View Post

By "lock-in" I mean, you are on it because your friends are on it.
Companies love that because it's no work for them. For example, back in the old days when people used their phones to talk, I stayed on Verizon because my family was on Verizon and the calls were free. It's not because Verizon was doing something great.
Your description of PSN+ is also a bit disingenuous. The "content" you speak of is full-fledged games, both old and new. Just the past few months, games like LBP2, Infamous 2, Renegade Ops, VF Final Showdown, Borderlands, Outland, etc. were made available. Yea you don't keep them after your membership expires, but that's kind of the point. Sony is keeping people paying by giving them great games. As opposed to paid-for features like... Facebook, Youtube, online multiplayer, and Internet Explorer.

I am in it because the service works for me and just so happens to work for my friends and family. The PSN service works as well. I just make the choice to game online on Live. I gave one reason out of many as to why I still game on Live today. The reasons for many have more to do with preference than it does with if you paying for one or the other. Controller, download speeds, standards, multiple logins, achievements and games in general are the reasons I choose to game on the 360 more than my PS3. Sure I can access Netflix and Hulu on my gaming PC, Ipad, Iphone and PS3. I just choose to use my 360. None of the customers that come to Home Theater feel ripped off when they talk about using their 360 after I had suggested using a Roku on their new display. The answer they say is convenience. No one that I talk to at Best Buy or on my list are ignorant about choices they have available. No one is getting ripped off by making a decision. No one feature outweighs convenience. It has been 10 years and more continue to access Gold with full knowledge of other options and the reasons are not because they can access Facebook.

The 5.0 is here
mboojigga is online now  
post #93 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 11:32 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,388
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by WVUTampaAlum View Post

I wouldn't call it a ripoff. A ripoff is paying $100 + a month for cell phone bill.... then paying home phone. In Xbox world anyone can talk text msg and video phone any length of time. Did MS try to force people into HD DVD? This new coming generation of gaming will not be so good for Sony. Even long time Sony fans are becoming tired of them. Would you feel safe if they had your user and Credit card info?

I'd call it a ripoff. I pay for PS+ with a smile, and I pay for XBL with a frown.

On XBL, I'm paying $60 a year for features that are free everywhere else, and on top of that, ads are shoved in my face.

On PSN, I can get most of that for free, with few ads. And I can pay less than a yearly sub to XBL to get access to a ton of *good* games and discounts.

Honestly, the only reason I still pay for Xbox live is purely because so many of my friends are on it. If I was able to organize a mass defection, I'd love to just drop the sub altogether. Until then, all I can really do is just stop buying games for my 360 other than exclusive MP games.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #94 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 11:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mboojigga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Little Rock AFB, Arkansas
Posts: 7,958
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

I'd call it a ripoff. I pay for PS+ with a smile, and I pay for XBL with a frown.
On XBL, I'm paying $60 a year for features that are free everywhere else, and on top of that, ads are shoved in my face.
On PSN, I can get most of that for free, with few ads. And I can pay less than a yearly sub to XBL to get access to a ton of *good* games and discounts.
Honestly, the only reason I still pay for Xbox live is purely because so many of my friends are on it. If I was able to organize a mass defection, I'd love to just drop the sub altogether. Until then, all I can really do is just stop buying games for my 360 other than exclusive MP games.

So do the next best thing. Get more friends on PSN. I am surprised you are on this forum and still pay $60 with the known knowledge the service can be had for $20-30 less if you are still going to pay for it which is the original reason you buy it because of MP.

The 5.0 is here
mboojigga is online now  
post #95 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 11:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,388
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by mboojigga View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

I'd call it a ripoff. I pay for PS+ with a smile, and I pay for XBL with a frown.
On XBL, I'm paying $60 a year for features that are free everywhere else, and on top of that, ads are shoved in my face.
On PSN, I can get most of that for free, with few ads. And I can pay less than a yearly sub to XBL to get access to a ton of *good* games and discounts.
Honestly, the only reason I still pay for Xbox live is purely because so many of my friends are on it. If I was able to organize a mass defection, I'd love to just drop the sub altogether. Until then, all I can really do is just stop buying games for my 360 other than exclusive MP games.

So do the next best thing. Get more friends on PSN. I am surprised you are on this forum and still pay $60 with the known knowledge the service can be had for $20-30 less if you are still going to pay for it which is the original reason you buy it because of MP.

It isn't about the price. Even if I had to pay $20 a year, it'd still be a ripoff. The sheer amount of advertising on that dashboard should fund everything as it is.

In the past few years, XBL has gotten more expensive and way worse, and PSN has remained free, gotten way better, and now are offering a service that I gladly choose to pay for. The shift was gradual, but it happened. PSN is simply a better service for gaming than XBL now, even without plus. With plus, it just obliterates XBL.

It's too late in the console cycle to switch, but this is definitely influencing my decision of which next gen console to purchase first.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #96 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 12:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mboojigga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Little Rock AFB, Arkansas
Posts: 7,958
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

It isn't about the price. Even if I had to pay $20 a year, it'd still be a ripoff. The sheer amount of advertising on that dashboard should fund everything as it is.
In the past few years, XBL has gotten more expensive and way worse, and PSN has remained free, gotten way better, and now are offering a service that I gladly choose to pay for. The shift was gradual, but it happened. PSN is simply a better service for gaming than XBL now, even without plus. With plus, it just obliterates XBL.
It's too late in the console cycle to switch, but this is definitely influencing my decision of which next gen console to purchase first.

PSN remains free for a reason and again, if situations were different and Sony thought of Live first people would be paying for that service. the features PSN do & don't have are because of Live. PSN is simply the same setup that it was for PC and the only difference between it is the unified account. Yet a system that is geared for multiplayer is gimped by only one person logged in at a time.

I turn on my Xbox and I hit play disc or go to recent. Don't know what this in your face ads you talk so over the top about as if you turn on the system and have to wait to watch something for 30 seconds before the dash is available.

PSN seems to be a very slow service and it goes back to the difference where one has standards and the other doesn't. Live has patches which average 5-10mbs vs PSN that has variable sizes and slow downloads and once again just like A PC you download and then wait for it to install. I have a different experience with PSN that I don't see how anyone could say Honestly they would pay for it when it hasn't really changed much since it launched.

The 5.0 is here
mboojigga is online now  
post #97 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 12:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
number1laing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,993
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Well, I'm in the same boat as bd2003. I mean, in 2006 - XBL was awesome and so much better than anything else out there. I remember logging onto PSN for the first time and saying "that's it?"

That's not the case anymore, especially on the gaming side. XBL has been stagnant on the quality of MP gaming since party chat. Other services like Steam have put in great game-centric features in that time. PSN+ is an amazing value for anybody who likes a lot of games. It's almost too good - someone can seriously buy a PS3 and a Plus sub and be set. It's always been kind of ridiculous to pay money to play online games but it's just gotten more ridiculous over the years.

For non-game stuff, XBL is just adding a bunch of stuff that is literally free on every other service. I don't need to pay to use Youtube, surf the web, Netflix, etc., on any other device, so the idea that MS is "delivering value" (their words) by offering these features is just ridiculous.. I don't see the value proposition of XBL anymore.
number1laing is offline  
post #98 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 12:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,388
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by mboojigga View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

It isn't about the price. Even if I had to pay $20 a year, it'd still be a ripoff. The sheer amount of advertising on that dashboard should fund everything as it is.
In the past few years, XBL has gotten more expensive and way worse, and PSN has remained free, gotten way better, and now are offering a service that I gladly choose to pay for. The shift was gradual, but it happened. PSN is simply a better service for gaming than XBL now, even without plus. With plus, it just obliterates XBL.
It's too late in the console cycle to switch, but this is definitely influencing my decision of which next gen console to purchase first.

PSN remains free for a reason and again, if situations were different and Sony thought of Live first people would be paying for that service. the features PSN do & don't have are because of Live. PSN is simply the same setup that it was for PC and the only difference between it is the unified account. Yet a system that is geared for multiplayer is gimped by only one person logged in at a time.

Sure, that's true. Sony took their success and their PS2 customers for granted, and didn't innovate or provide the same value that MS did at the start of the cycle, and they lost out for it. I've bought about 10x as many 360 games as I have PS3, cause I bought into the ecosystem.

It's finally come around full circle - MS is taking their audience for granted, and Sony is really hungry. To bring this back on topic....Without knowing anything specific about them, sight unseen, I'd take a PS4 over a 720.


Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #99 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 12:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,388
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1laing View Post

Well, I'm in the same boat as bd2003. I mean, in 2006 - XBL was awesome and so much better than anything else out there. I remember logging onto PSN for the first time and saying "that's it?"

That's not the case anymore, especially on the gaming side. XBL has been stagnant on the quality of MP gaming since party chat. Other services like Steam have put in great game-centric features in that time. PSN+ is an amazing value for anybody who likes a lot of games. It's almost too good - someone can seriously buy a PS3 and a Plus sub and be set. It's always been kind of ridiculous to pay money to play online games but it's just gotten more ridiculous over the years.

For non-game stuff, XBL is just adding a bunch of stuff that is literally free on every other service. I don't need to pay to use Youtube, surf the web, Netflix, etc., on any other device, so the idea that MS is "delivering value" (their words) by offering these features is just ridiculous.. I don't see the value proposition of XBL anymore.

Especially when you take these ridiculous online passes into account. They're supposed to cover the cost of the MP infrastructure....but wait, wasn't that why I was paying for XBL in the first place?

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #100 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 12:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mboojigga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Little Rock AFB, Arkansas
Posts: 7,958
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1laing View Post

Well, I'm in the same boat as bd2003. I mean, in 2006 - XBL was awesome and so much better than anything else out there. I remember logging onto PSN for the first time and saying "that's it?"
That's not the case anymore, especially on the gaming side. XBL has been stagnant on the quality of MP gaming since party chat. Other services like Steam have put in great game-centric features in that time. PSN+ is an amazing value for anybody who likes a lot of games. It's almost too good - someone can seriously buy a PS3 and a Plus sub and be set. It's always been kind of ridiculous to pay money to play online games but it's just gotten more ridiculous over the years.
For non-game stuff, XBL is just adding a bunch of stuff that is literally free on every other service. I don't need to pay to use Youtube, surf the web, Netflix, etc., on any other device, so the idea that MS is "delivering value" (their words) by offering these features is just ridiculous.. I don't see the value proposition of XBL anymore.

That's fine. I don't see the value in PSN+ on games in the past or from a year ago I already played. That's even if the person even cares for those type of games that Sony chooses to release. Not every subscriber to plus cares to play Infamous 2 anymore than someone paying to play online and and don't care for the other features in their subscription.

You have gamers who still play more COD on Live than they do on PSN or PC. That's all they care to play and keep doing it because of preference.

The 5.0 is here
mboojigga is online now  
post #101 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 12:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,388
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by mboojigga View Post

You have gamers who still play more COD on Live than they do on PSN or PC. That's all they care to play and keep doing it because of preference.

The bitter irony is: I play Cod on XBL cause everyone buys it for 360. Everyone buys it on 360 because it gets the maps sooner. It gets the maps sooner cause MS throws them money to do so - money that comes from the XBL subs we pay for. We individuslly choose to pay those subs so we can play COD on the same platform everyone else is playing on.

If we stopped paying the subs, they wouldn't be able to pay off activision, so PS3 would get the maps at the same time, and we'd no longer miss anything by not paying the sub.

It's a vicious cycle. frown.gif

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #102 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 12:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mboojigga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Little Rock AFB, Arkansas
Posts: 7,958
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Especially when you take these ridiculous online passes into account. They're supposed to cover the cost of the MP infrastructure....but wait, wasn't that why I was paying for XBL in the first place?

No the decision to pay for Live since it launched in 2002 was to play games online. Had nothing to do with the decision years later made my publishers to start doing online passes and it doesn't matter if you bought the game brand new which is what a lot of consumers do because your not paying for the online pass. Choosing to buy it used and choosing if you want to pay that publisher to play that game online has nothing to do with a decision from 2002. You know the online pass has to do with pugblishers that want money from used game sales they were not getting You all continue to complain about a service that continues to draw consumers to use it daily whether it is to game or watch on that system. People know very well the option to pay to play on the 360 yet this system keeps getting sold here in the US more than the direct competitor.

The 5.0 is here
mboojigga is online now  
post #103 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 01:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,388
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 1368
I think I'm finally starting to understand stockholm syndrome.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #104 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 01:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mboojigga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Little Rock AFB, Arkansas
Posts: 7,958
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

The bitter irony is: I play Cod on XBL cause everyone buys it for 360. Everyone buys it on 360 because it gets the maps sooner. It gets the maps sooner cause MS throws them money to do so - money that comes from the XBL subs we pay for. We individuslly choose to pay those subs so we can play COD on the same platform everyone else is playing on.
If we stopped paying the subs, they wouldn't be able to pay off activision, so PS3 would get the maps at the same time, and we'd no longer miss anything by not paying the sub.
It's a vicious cycle. frown.gif

How is this any different when Sony secured exclusive deals like GTA on the PS2 before being ported to the Xbox? The more popular system got the better games. With DLC as popular as it is MS changed the role that Sony dominated with exclusive games coming to their system first. That's just business.

The 5.0 is here
mboojigga is online now  
post #105 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 01:11 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,388
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by mboojigga View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

The bitter irony is: I play Cod on XBL cause everyone buys it for 360. Everyone buys it on 360 because it gets the maps sooner. It gets the maps sooner cause MS throws them money to do so - money that comes from the XBL subs we pay for. We individuslly choose to pay those subs so we can play COD on the same platform everyone else is playing on.
If we stopped paying the subs, they wouldn't be able to pay off activision, so PS3 would get the maps at the same time, and we'd no longer miss anything by not paying the sub.
It's a vicious cycle. frown.gif

How is this any different when Sony secured exclusive deals like GTA on the PS2 before being ported to the Xbox? The more popular system got the better games. With DLC as popular as it is MS changed the role that Sony dominated with exclusive games coming to their system first. That's just business.

It's no different at all. It's lame either way. It's consumer unfriendly and it deserves to be called out. No one should make excuses for it.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #106 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 01:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundChex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, west coast
Posts: 2,635
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by defdog99 View Post

I wonder if they'll ever invent TVs you can zoom into the picture. Porns for sure... but even regular movies.

Coincidentally, I posted this on another website earlier today:
Quote:
"We’re so used to “sitting sufficiently far enough away that we can’t see individual pixels” that we don’t know what to do if there is more ‘source detail’ than can fit on the TV screen. There are times watching a show on a 1920×1080 screen that I would like to “zoom in” to see a smaller portion of the screen in more detail; I can’t do that today because all the ‘source detail’ is already on the screen. But NHK knows (and I’m sure the Adult Film Industry does too) that you can ‘digital zoom’ a smaller portion of some 7680×4320 source up to 16x for display on a 1920×1080 screen, just by adding more detail from the original source program. If I recall correctly, NHK has already demonstrated this feature…"

And I remembered this article from theverge com, "The future of TV as seen in Super Hi-Vision" (link), which addressed that issue:
_
_

[Home Office system schematic]
"My AV systems were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many speakers. And they have . . . A PLAN."

SoundChex is offline  
post #107 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 01:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mikazaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,742
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

I think I'm finally starting to understand stockholm syndrome.

biggrin.gif LOL
Mikazaru is offline  
post #108 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 03:40 PM
Member
 
n5667's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I wouldn't mind the current PS3 supporting 1080p. *rimshot*

I know, I know - it does - but what's so important about these consoles supporting high resolutions when those high resolutions are rarely taken advantage of?
n5667 is offline  
post #109 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 06:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
confidenceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by n5667 View Post

I know, I know - it does - but what's so important about these consoles supporting high resolutions when those high resolutions are rarely taken advantage of?
Looking at all of these posts, I think everyone here agrees. Also, we're all jumping the gun by assuming that anyone in game development even cares about 4k at this point. As others have already said, the next console will probably support 4k, but there won't be much content or display tech to support that support for 4k. wink.gif

PSN & XBL ID: drop me a private message
confidenceman is offline  
post #110 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 09:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dralt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
After so many years, mboojigga is still out to educate the masses on the worthlessness of PS3 and PSN. That's some serious consistency. biggrin.gif
Dralt is offline  
post #111 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 09:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dralt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post

Looking at all of these posts, I think everyone here agrees. Also, we're all jumping the gun by assuming that anyone in game development even cares about 4k at this point. As others have already said, the next console will probably support 4k, but there won't be much content or display tech to support that support for 4k. wink.gif

The thing is: They need to bring the FUN back into games. There is no technology that will save the day until they do.
Dralt is offline  
post #112 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 09:22 PM
Member
 
Mihadis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Folks, it's a content player that will be used into 2020 !!! Future proofing for the upcoming 4K standard is not something anyone should have anything against, AT ALL.

Some people just can't see past their own limited VHS needs. rolleyes.gif
Mihadis is offline  
post #113 of 280 Old 08-24-2012, 09:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
confidenceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dralt View Post

The thing is: They need to bring the FUN back into games. There is no technology that will save the day until they do.
Depends on who you mean by "they." I think some developers are doing a phenomenal job of bringing the fun back. Just steer clear of the big schlocky blockbusters, and you'll do fine. PSN titles have been consistently fantastic, if not actually getting better and better.

And among retail releases, I was more consistently wowed by Rayman Origins than just about anything else over the past few years. It's the smaller development studios returning to game design basics that are truly revolutionizing the industry at the moment. It isn't the big boys.

So, yes, all the tech in the world won't make games more fun. This generation more than any other has proven that.

PSN & XBL ID: drop me a private message
confidenceman is offline  
post #114 of 280 Old 08-25-2012, 03:17 AM
Senior Member
 
Randomoneh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Why all the "you won't benefit from it" nonsense?

Let’s get serious here.

Will you benefit from it over 1080p set? Let’s calculate.

Research done by Japanese NHK shows us healthy observers can notice image quality improvement up to the point where spacing between separate pixels is ~0.005 degrees of arc [of viewer’s field of view; regardless of viewing distance]. 0.005 arc-degrees is angular resolution of 200 pixels per degree.

So, for example, if you have two displays, one with angular resolution of 100 and other with 200 pixels per degree, you’d be able to notice difference in quality between those two. But, if you had a display with angular resolution of 300 pixels per degree next to one with 200 ppd, there would be no perceivable difference between those two.

Let’s find out at which point 1080p meets this requirement, for usual viewing distance of 9 feet (2.7432 meters).

At 9 ft distance, pixel spacing must be 0.0094247 inches or less. For 1080p set, this equals to 18.09’’ width or less. With Pythagorean theorem we can find out diagonal measurement. It is ~21’’.

So, at 9 ft viewing distance, 1080p TV set is meeting visual limitations of healthy observers when TV set diagonal measurement is 21 inches or less. That means you’ll benefit from 4K (2160p to be precise) if your TV is bigger than 21 inches.

Let’s see when a 4K TV set meets this requirement, for 9 ft viewing distance too.

At 9 ft distance, pixel spacing must be 0.0094247 inches or less. For 4K (2160p) set, this equals to 36.19’’ width or less. With Pythagorean theorem we can find out diagonal measurement. It is ~42’’.

So, at 9 ft viewing distance, 4K (2160p) TV set is meeting visual limitations of healthy observers when TV set diagonal measurement is 42 inches or less. That means you’ll benefit from 8K (4320p to be precise) only if your TV is bigger than 42 inches.

Any questions?
Randomoneh is offline  
post #115 of 280 Old 08-25-2012, 05:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
confidenceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

Let’s find out at which point 1080p meets this requirement, for usual viewing distance of 9 feet (2.7432 meters).
Those of us living in cities just chuckled.

Also, having 20/13 vision means most of these calculations that I come across (here and elsewhere) are meaningless to me. I see "healthy observer," and I think "people with bad eyesight." wink.gif

PSN & XBL ID: drop me a private message
confidenceman is offline  
post #116 of 280 Old 08-25-2012, 05:59 AM
Senior Member
 
Randomoneh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post

Those of us living in cities just chuckled.
Also, having 20/13 vision means most of these calculations that I come across (here and elsewhere) are meaningless to me. I see "healthy observer," and I think "people with bad eyesight." wink.gif

I'm glad you have 20/13 acuity. However, these are the acuities of study participants:



And I'd like to add that Snellen chart acuity does not correlate directly with ability to benefit from higher [angular] resolution. Snellen chart results underestimate that "ability".
Randomoneh is offline  
post #117 of 280 Old 08-25-2012, 06:12 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,388
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 1368
This is my understanding as well. The traditional viewing distance measurements deal only with being able to clearly distinguish two points from each other. That's a traditional measure of resolution....but your eye can subtly sense more.

In the same way that traditionally 24hz is the "flicker fusion frequency", where a flickering light is sensed as a continuous light - that doesn't mean your eye can't sense more than 24fps. 60fps usually appears butter smooth - but you could tell the difference between 60fps and 120fps side by side.

Same with 96k audio....you can only hear up to 20khz at best, and traditional 48k sampling can handle that...96khz sounds subtly better.

So if you put a 4K and a 1080p TV at that distance where you're not supposed to be able to tell based on the chart - you'll probably have no problem picking out which is which, even if you can't see the pixels. And the 4K will look better. Not as big a jump as 720 to 1080, but you'll see it.

That being said - frame rate is a much bigger deal, since we're so much further from sensory limits with the standard 30fps. Pretty much everyone here recognizes that. But....they can't sell you a new TV based on that, since every TV can do 60fps.


Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is offline  
post #118 of 280 Old 08-25-2012, 06:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
confidenceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 37
I'm no expert by a long shot, but wouldn't that skew the results to have so many participants with far better than 20/20 ("healthy") acuity? And if a traditional Snellen chart underestimates the effects of increased display resolution, would that make that sample group even less representative, not more? Regardless, this stuff is all beyond my pay grade.

PSN & XBL ID: drop me a private message
confidenceman is offline  
post #119 of 280 Old 08-25-2012, 07:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
defdog99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Can people tell the difference from a PC display thats Yx1200 and Yx1080 PC screen resolutions ?

Of course they can. And that difference is 102 lines. Not 2000 lines.
defdog99 is offline  
post #120 of 280 Old 08-25-2012, 09:54 AM
 
darklordjames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 93
Exceptionally flawed logic there, defdog.

Nobody would proclaim that 1920x1200 is sharper or more detailed than 1920x1080. The screens are a different shape, and given the same screen series the 1200 screen would just be a bit taller with the same physical size pixels. Besides, at a 2' experience, a 1080/1200p 24" monitor is still pretty easy to pick out individual pixels on.
darklordjames is offline  
Reply PlayStation Area

Tags
Playstation 4 Console

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off