4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 13 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #361 of 3692 Old 11-29-2011, 04:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mr. wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: land of the pumas
Posts: 3,807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

Most movies are converted to 4K or 8K masters before being transferred to Blu-ray, as was the case with the recent Star Wars Blu-ray release. More and more movies are being shot on 4K digital gear instead of 35mm film. There was 1080p sets long before there was much 1080p content. The real push will be for passive 3D, not to be confused with glasses free. Passive requires those cheap light glasses like you get at the theater instead of the eye-straining active shutter glasses. There are already passive 3D sets out there, but you currently only get half the picture at a time, so basically 540p 3D. 4K sets will give you true 1080p HD 3D. All the intel graphic chips for next years laptops will be able to display 4K and some games are being made to render up to that increased resolution. It is definitely coming as the next great marketing push, though its advantage on smaller size displays will not be as dramatic. Once mass produced it will not cost a whole lot more than regular 1080p displays.



so the content will be limited to br dvds, 3d br dvds, and computer?

neflixis our nemesis
mr. wally is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #362 of 3692 Old 11-29-2011, 04:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegiri Nenashi View Post

I'm puzzled how some can doubt benefits of increased resolution. The argument about viewing distance is irrelevant: if past history tells us anything the screen sizes would progressively increase until it fills in the full view. Its all about virtual reality, isn't it?

There are plenty of other advantages. Today, even though consumers have shiny "true-HD" displays in front of them, many sources are not HD. It is so easy to loose pixels somewhere along image rendering pipeline! The source can be shot with 640x480 camera (or worse), be broadcast via 480p, be windowboxed due to confusion among various AR. Even supposedly flawless BRD material steals 200 pixels of vertical resolution on letterbox movie. Increased display resolution would mount a pressure on all today's non HD-sources to increase pixel count so that users can comfortably zoom/crop it.

In computer display area price race to the bottom stagnated any innovation. I haven't see any price movement in "high end" 2500x1600 display for the last 6 years or so. The 4K would put an end to this unfortunate state of affairs.

In a word, no, 1080 pixels is not enough for everybody. Bring on 4K!

No one doubts there are benefits with increased resolutions for given applications, x, y, and/or z.

But that of course has nothing to do with this dialogue.

The question at hand is the validity/usefulness regarding how we currently use/view televisions. Pull out your crystal balls and guess what we'll be doing in ten years...everyone else does.

Full view? Ok. How's a 130" screen grab ya? At 1080 you need to be within 15' to fully resolve it. Again, Ill never sit that close to an eleven foot screen in my life, but, sigh, I know others vehemently dispute such. Fine.

And all this, nevermind the cost of producing these displays. Forget projectors. They'll never be sought after by anyone outside of a fraction of a fraction of the populace. Until 100+" flat screens become remotely affordable we'll continue the circular argument regarding the usefulness of doubling (or quadding) resolution on 40-60/70" screens.

Only a melon would proclaim that 1080 is enough for "everyone", but of course that's about the absolute last factor the industry is considering.

And as an aside, I'd love to know where all
of these people who are suffering with their "non-hd" sources are located.

1080HD camcorders are unbeliveably affordable and there's $99 cell phones with 8 megapixel cameras all over the place.

Local HD is available OTA free and ditto for many pay providers and certainly not more than $10 a month if it's not the default (over the programming subscription rate of course).

Streaming devices are doing 1080 already and of course there's blu ray and millions of files available online in HD.

HD is everywhere.

James

Actual phone call (see pic to left):

 

Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"

Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."

mastermaybe is offline  
post #363 of 3692 Old 11-29-2011, 08:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sytech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,086
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

so the content will be limited to br dvds, 3d br dvds, and computer?

No, ESPN is set to start a 4K channel in the next year or so. One advantage of filming football or any sporting event in 4K resolution will be the advantage it will give reply in deciding disputed calls. Just this last weekend I saw many calls the were digitally zoomed in on during reply to determine if the location of a the ball or players foot. 4K will allow you to zoom in on that detail with much greater clarity. The 2012 Olympics are supposed to be broadcast in 8K resolution.
sytech is online now  
post #364 of 3692 Old 11-30-2011, 07:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,846
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech; View Post

The 2012 Olympics are supposed to be broadcast in 8K resolution.

Seems to be a limited trailhttp://www.digitalversus.com/london-...8k-n20820.html
8mile13 is offline  
post #365 of 3692 Old 11-30-2011, 08:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

Most movies are converted to 4K or 8K masters before being transferred to Blu-ray, as was the case with the recent Star Wars Blu-ray release

Do you have the source for this? I thought the most recent 2 were shot digitally at less than full 1080p (imdb says Episode 3 was also converted to IMAX but that's up-conversion - the source was still under 1080p res)?
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #366 of 3692 Old 11-30-2011, 12:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mr. wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: land of the pumas
Posts: 3,807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

No, ESPN is set to start a 4K channel in the next year or so. One advantage of filming football or any sporting event in 4K resolution will be the advantage it will give reply in deciding disputed calls. Just this last weekend I saw many calls the were digitally zoomed in on during reply to determine if the location of a the ball or players foot. 4K will allow you to zoom in on that detail with much greater clarity. The 2012 Olympics are supposed to be broadcast in 8K resolution.


really? espn can't even properly broadcast 720p currently. most of their sports
broadcasts are crap compared to cbs and nbc. seems like it would be a huge investment on their part to go to 4k when very few 4k displays will be available and the other major networks are not on board.

neflixis our nemesis
mr. wally is offline  
post #367 of 3692 Old 11-30-2011, 12:52 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,112
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 465
One problem with predicting the future is that 25" TVs used to cost $900 in 1975 dollars. That's $3600+ today, which would buy you a 70" Sharp TV at any big-box retailer. If we were having fun and extrapolating, that'd be the equivalent of about a 175" TV before 2050 for the same kind of money.

Now, life is not so linear, but I promise you this: As much as I've been a skeptic about OLED and other flat-panel techs taking over (largely for reasons I've repeated 100x over: exactly three TV techs have ever actually "made it" in the market, despite dozens being announced), 35 years is a long time.

If we step into the Wayback Machine and examine people's beliefs about what was doable in 1975, I can assure you that while the notion of really big flat-panel TVs existed, the understanding of how/when/if they'd get built did not. The first active-matrix, mass-market display wouldn't exist on a laptop for another 15 years (heck, even full-resolution passive-matrix LCD wouldn't exist for 10 or so). Plasma existed as a lab experiment.

In 2011, it's possible to imagine that someday, somewhere, someone will have massive inkjet printing technology to deposit OLED material by the barrel load. Just because no one has, doesn't mean within the next decade or three someone won't figure out how to mate already existing technology. And TFT backplanes based on IGZO can already be made big enough to support the 70" Sharp in a 2x3 configuration.

Do I believe 120" TVs will be $100 30 years from now? No, I sure don't. Do I believe they will be $1000 30 years from now? Quite possibly. And if we mean $1000 of 2011's dollars -- i.e. that number can grow with inflation -- then I haven't a shred of a doubt. They might still only be popular with a small segment of the population for a lot of reasons, but they are going to exist. And they are going to have more than 2 million pixels. By a lot.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #368 of 3692 Old 11-30-2011, 05:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sytech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,086
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

really? espn can't even properly broadcast 720p currently. most of their sports
broadcasts are crap compared to cbs and nbc. seems like it would be a huge investment on their part to go to 4k when very few 4k displays will be available and the other major networks are not on board.

You can check out the details here.

http://engt.co/nWyL84

It might have more to do with their desire to broadcast in 3D than in 4K resolution. Passive 3D would require them to broadcast in in the higher resolution anyway, so a side benefit would be 4K resolution 2D material. Still 2-3 years away, but it is definitely coming.
sytech is online now  
post #369 of 3692 Old 11-30-2011, 06:47 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

Passive 3D would require them to broadcast in in the higher resolution

Active or passive all depends on the TV, not the signal it is receiving from the broadcaster. A 4k passive display would allow every pixel of a 1080p 3D image to be displayed. Even if ESPN could send your 4k passive TV a 4k 3D signal, it would still have the problem of half resolution.
Airion is offline  
post #370 of 3692 Old 12-01-2011, 08:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

One problem with predicting the future is that 25" TVs used to cost $900 in 1975 dollars. That's $3600+ today, which would buy you a 70" Sharp TV at any big-box retailer. If we were having fun and extrapolating, that'd be the equivalent of about a 175" TV before 2050 for the same kind of money.

Now, life is not so linear, but I promise you this: As much as I've been a skeptic about OLED and other flat-panel techs taking over (largely for reasons I've repeated 100x over: exactly three TV techs have ever actually "made it" in the market, despite dozens being announced), 35 years is a long time.

If we step into the Wayback Machine and examine people's beliefs about what was doable in 1975, I can assure you that while the notion of really big flat-panel TVs existed, the understanding of how/when/if they'd get built did not. The first active-matrix, mass-market display wouldn't exist on a laptop for another 15 years (heck, even full-resolution passive-matrix LCD wouldn't exist for 10 or so). Plasma existed as a lab experiment.

In 2011, it's possible to imagine that someday, somewhere, someone will have massive inkjet printing technology to deposit OLED material by the barrel load. Just because no one has, doesn't mean within the next decade or three someone won't figure out how to mate already existing technology. And TFT backplanes based on IGZO can already be made big enough to support the 70" Sharp in a 2x3 configuration.

Do I believe 120" TVs will be $100 30 years from now? No, I sure don't. Do I believe they will be $1000 30 years from now? Quite possibly. And if we mean $1000 of 2011's dollars -- i.e. that number can grow with inflation -- then I haven't a shred of a doubt. They might still only be popular with a small segment of the population for a lot of reasons, but they are going to exist. And they are going to have more than 2 million pixels. By a lot.

I don't have an issue with most of this. In fact, I wouldn't doubt much of it will be a reality...much, much, further down the road, is all.

Higher resolutions are coming and certainly- all being equal- I (like everyone else) welcome them with open arms.

But clearly that future is not now -or perhaps better put: shouldn't be now- and in my opinion, we're nowhere near as close to it as some think.

Let's wait to see where 70" screens are priced in the next 5 years before we begin to guess how much a 100" version will cost, never mind when it will exist. Even if they're halved, what % of the populace spends nearly $2,000 on a television? 1%? I know, prolly much less.

The bigger problem though is of course that there's other areas of display technology that are more deserving of time, money, and resources now that would offer the consumer improved image quality over increased resolution when considering how televisions are currently being utilized.

When, not if, your and my future of gigantic, inexpensive/affordable screens becomes a reality, these resolutions will be exponentially more beneficial, until then, it leaves me with not much more than the feeling that we have an industry (again) focused upon selling "the (perceived) next best thing" and much less concerned with improving image quality. The $$$'s, to no one's surprise.

But that's their prerogative of course.

James

Actual phone call (see pic to left):

 

Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"

Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."

mastermaybe is offline  
post #371 of 3692 Old 12-01-2011, 09:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,513
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 175
mastermaybe, I'm with you 100% on all this.

Mourning the disappearing usage of the -ly suffix. Words being cut-off before they've had a chance to fully form, left incomplete, with their shoelaces untied and their zippers undone. If I quote your post (or post in your thread) without comment, please check your zipper.
CruelInventions is offline  
post #372 of 3692 Old 12-02-2011, 11:06 AM
Member
 
Lord Humongous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 62
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Lord Humongous is offline  
post #373 of 3692 Old 12-02-2011, 01:31 PM
Advanced Member
 
Turrican4D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

Most movies are converted to 4K or 8K masters before being transferred to Blu-ray, as was the case with the recent Star Wars Blu-ray release.

Unfortunately not.
Turrican4D is offline  
post #374 of 3692 Old 12-02-2011, 11:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,112
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 465
So you're questioning whether my predictions for 2045 are too optimistic?

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #375 of 3692 Old 12-03-2011, 05:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,561
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #376 of 3692 Old 12-03-2011, 08:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sytech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,086
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 162
I think the Sharp 4K ICC set is going to be the star of 2012 CES. I have watched video of it and even on my 1080p monitor you get a sense of 3D depth to the picture. I guess it is because of the innovative way the I-Cubed chip recreates the picture, sharpening the resolution of objects further away from the standard focal point, giving a real world view. Supposedly, it totally recreates standard 1080p to 4K resolution so it can be used now, even though there is still very little native 4K sources.

http://www.thetechcheck.com/gadgets/...ality-of-hdtv/
sytech is online now  
post #377 of 3692 Old 12-03-2011, 02:25 PM
Member
 
Lord Humongous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 62
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

Thats the wierd thing. If this panel is listed as in production, where does it go? Perhaps its only sold within China?
Lord Humongous is offline  
post #378 of 3692 Old 12-03-2011, 10:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pokekevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 5,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 101
If I was to go 4k id kind of want to do a projection based set up. but still 4k...is it worth it...eh

No subwoofer I've heard has been able to produce the bass I've experienced in the Corps!

Must..stop...buying...every bluray release...
pokekevin is offline  
post #379 of 3692 Old 12-07-2011, 07:50 PM
Member
 
markjwebb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Please note that what counts is viewing scenario . It does not matter if you use computer monitor or TV, what matteris the viewing distance 1H for the monitor and 3-4H and more for the TV. So what is your viewing scenario my lord?

Well I for one play PS3 games on my HDTV from a distance of about 6 feet away. My current display is only 720p, and I can notice the lack of detail and pixelation in the images. I'm sure that 1080p would be an improvement. Perhaps in 2012 we'll have a PS4 that can actually output 4K, if so I will be looking to buy a TV that can display at 4K. Also, I'd be very interested if they could up the frame rate on this next generation of TV's from the paltry 24 fps so we don't need all that soap-opera artificial frame interpolation.
markjwebb is offline  
post #380 of 3692 Old 12-08-2011, 03:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,487
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by markjwebb View Post

Well I for one play PS3 games on my HDTV from a distance of about 6 feet away. My current display is only 720p, and I can notice the lack of detail and pixelation in the images. I'm sure that 1080p would be an improvement. Perhaps in 2012 we'll have a PS4 that can actually output 4K, if so I will be looking to buy a TV that can display at 4K. Also, I'd be very interested if they could up the frame rate on this next generation of TV's from the paltry 24 fps so we don't need all that soap-opera artificial frame interpolation.

You do not mention what is the size of your HDTV but 6 feet is close enough to see that this is not a TV viewing scenario. What is said here is that 4K does not make sense for this scenario. It does make sense for other scenarios like your playing games and computer monitors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

No, ESPN is set to start a 4K channel in the next year or so. One advantage of filming football or any sporting event in 4K resolution will be the advantage it will give reply in deciding disputed calls. Just this last weekend I saw many calls the were digitally zoomed in on during reply to determine if the location of a the ball or players foot. 4K will allow you to zoom in on that detail with much greater clarity. The 2012 Olympics are supposed to be broadcast in 8K resolution.

Now you do not understand basics so you are not able to ask right questions here. As said above 4K does not make sense for TV viewing scenario. But the the absolutely essential question about the ESPN 4K and your desire to zoom out for details (which is not basic scenario) is: What will be the bit rate after compression used by the ESPN to transmit 4K. Now remember that in order to get amount of detail equal to 2K the bit rate has to be 3-4x HIGHER than 2K. Which is very expensive in terms of transmission. One may thus expect that ESPN will increase the rate just so-so and there will be no more detail than in 2K. Thus, the 4K will be a baloney system for ignorants. Instead of increasing the bit rate for 2K they will make 4K which is nonsense.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #381 of 3692 Old 12-08-2011, 04:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,561
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by markjwebb View Post

Perhaps in 2012 we'll have a PS4 that can actually output 4K, if so I will be looking to buy a TV that can display at 4K.

Not going to happen with console games, we'll get 1080p as the standard resolution if we're lucky. (but probably still at 30fps or less, rather than 60)

With PCs, it's already possible today. While it takes a very high-end system to do it with the latest titles, I'm using 2-8x supersampling with a number of games today, which means rendering at an internal resolution of 2-8x 1080p (so 4K and higher) and scaling the output down to 1080p to eliminate aliasing.

Strangely this was actually possible with id's Rage until the most recent drivers. I'm not sure what changed but the game looked amazing with 4x supersampling, eliminating virtually all aliasing and it was still locked to 60fps. Now with the latest drivers it stutters very badly here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markjwebb View Post

Also, I'd be very interested if they could up the frame rate on this next generation of TV's from the paltry 24 fps so we don't need all that soap-opera artificial frame interpolation.

TVs can do 24/60Hz, TVs in PAL regions can also do 50Hz. It's how films are shot that is the problem.

Unfortunately, they seem to have settled on 48fps as the "new standard" rather than 50/60fps, which would require new displays to sync properly. Some PAL owners may be lucky and have a TV that will sync at 48Hz as it could be within the margin of error for some 50Hz displays. There's probably more chance of that happening using VGA rather than a digital connection, but you might be lucky.

I've just tested my own screen, and that does not seem to be the case unfortunately. I used to own an old DLP projector that only did 50/60Hz officially, but worked at 48Hz for 24p film playback.

So with 48fps content, I would have to either speed it up to 50Hz (films have traditionally been sped up from 24 to 25fps in PAL regions to avoid judder rather than using 3:2) halve it to 24Hz, or get a new display.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #382 of 3692 Old 12-08-2011, 07:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sytech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,086
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Not going to happen with console games, we'll get 1080p as the standard resolution if we're lucky. (but probably still at 30fps or less, rather than 60)

With PCs, it's already possible today. While it takes a very high-end system to do it with the latest titles, I'm using 2–8x supersampling with a number of games today, which means rendering at an internal resolution of 2–8x 1080p (so 4K and higher) and scaling the output down to 1080p to eliminate aliasing.

http://www.techspot.com/news/45956-i...2-release.html

Even Intel's new bottom of the line CPU will have built-in 4K capability next year. 4K is needed for passive 3D to catch on, which the movie studios desperately want. And if Apple takes the lead once again with a 4K Apple TV product in 2013, everyone else will have to follow. It doesn't matter if 4K only helps on larger displays at closer distances, it is simply a matter of when it is coming instead of if.

http://www.electronichouse.com/artic...ion_is_coming/
sytech is online now  
post #383 of 3692 Old 12-08-2011, 08:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 155
^ Absolutely no disagreement there. Doesn't mean it's needed or more beneficial than other improvements, but you can be guaranteed it'll arrive anyway.


James

Actual phone call (see pic to left):

 

Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"

Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."

mastermaybe is offline  
post #384 of 3692 Old 12-08-2011, 08:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,561
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
4K output is totally different from natively rendering a game at 4K.
4K output is completely feasible, and it will likely support 4K Blu-rays/video files if such a format is made.

Current generation consoles typically render games at or below 1280x720, whether the signal being sent to your TV is "720p" or "1080p" and framerates are frequently sub-30fps.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

I would expect the next generation of consoles to render games at 1080p, 30fps with one or two rare cases of 4K native games, just like there are some 1080p native console titles this generation.

For example, here is a comparison between a PS2 game being rendered at 1080p, and at its native 640x477 resolution:


Source (a Google search result)

Both halves of the image are "1080p" but the resolution the game is being rendered at has a significant impact on image quality, and that's not even a very good example.

It's really surprising just how much better games look when rendered natively at 1080p or greater, at 60fps, compared to the 720p or less at 30fps that current consoles do.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #385 of 3692 Old 12-08-2011, 08:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 155
I don't recall any ps3 games looking like the atrocious right side of that image on my 60" Kuro, but then again I was playing them at 10'.

James

Actual phone call (see pic to left):

 

Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"

Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."

mastermaybe is offline  
post #386 of 3692 Old 12-08-2011, 10:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,561
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

I don't recall any ps3 games looking like the atrocious right side of that image on my 60" Kuro, but then again I was playing them at 10'.

James

It's not as bad as that, but the majority of titles are 720p or less, and there is a lot of aliasing in games as a result, unless they apply a blur filter on top. (which I feel just gives you blurry aliasing rather than hiding it, personally)

A more recent example would be Modern Warfare 3 on PC. By default it runs at the console resolution, which is blurry and full of aliasing compared to rendering it natively at 1080p.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,8...pscaling/News/

Things are far more apparent in motion. While the blurred look might hide aliasing in still shots, it looks awful when things move.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #387 of 3692 Old 12-08-2011, 12:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sytech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,086
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 162
There are a lot of new games that support 2560 x 1600 resolution that already look amazing on Ultra-HD monitors and would look awesome on a 70"-80" TV. The next gen Xbox and PS4 will support it as well, but PC gaming should have it as soon as 4K displays start hitting the market in a few years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HNoOBNlFw4
sytech is online now  
post #388 of 3692 Old 12-08-2011, 12:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,561
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

There are a lot of new games that support 2560 x 1600 resolution that already look amazing on Ultra-HD monitors and would look awesome on a 70"-80" TV. The next gen Xbox and PS4 will support it as well, but PC gaming should have it as soon as 4K displays start hitting the market in a few years.

I would put money on there not being any console games next generation supporting 2560x1600/1440 natively.

Most games will be 1080p native, and a very limited number of titles may support native 4K. 2560x1600/1440 won't be considered as a native resolution for anything. You'll be lucky if it's even a supported as an up/downscaled output from the consoles.

You will need a PC for 4K (and/or 60fps) gaming, just as you need a PC for 1080p 60fps gaming today.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #389 of 3692 Old 12-09-2011, 12:57 PM
Member
 
realmike15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Eastern, PA
Posts: 193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm surprised to hear people say they don't think you'll see a difference.

4k videos on Youtube display a noticeably clearer image than 1080P, and that's just with changing the source.

Look at profile for Gear info.
realmike15 is offline  
post #390 of 3692 Old 12-09-2011, 01:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,513
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 175
... If you've read for context, then you wouldn't be surprised because no one has said that. In certain specific but also very common circumstances, you won't notice a difference. But that hardly rules out other user situations where there would or could be benefits.

Mourning the disappearing usage of the -ly suffix. Words being cut-off before they've had a chance to fully form, left incomplete, with their shoelaces untied and their zippers undone. If I quote your post (or post in your thread) without comment, please check your zipper.
CruelInventions is offline  
Reply Flat Panels General and OLED Technology

Tags
Samsung Bd D7000 3d Blu Ray Disc Player Silver , Samsung Pn51d8000 51 Inch 1080p 3d Ready Plasma Hdtv 2011 Model , Displays , Pioneer Pdp 5080 Hd
Gear in this thread - Pn51d8000 by PriceGrabber.com

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