or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts? - Page 103

post #3061 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by rightintel View Post

It won't be all that big a deal actually. They'll simply release a console w/ the new HDMI 2.0 spec port(just like they did w/ version 1.2a to 1.3) when and only when a substantive amount of 4K content is in demand/supply a few years from now. Hell, I think the 360 started out w/ component, then VGA, then DVI, then HDMI adapters for those ports, then HDMI 1.2a, and lastly 1.3.

True, updating is always possible. What might be peculiar in this case however is timing. Xbox 1 is scheduled now to appear Nov. 30. Then in a month time one can expect manufacturers demonstrating prototype 4K devices with HDMI 2.0 at the CES'14 with first products coming in the Spring'14. Thus Xbox 1, while claiming the 4K support, will miss crucial HDMI 2.0 component by a couple of months.
post #3062 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

True, updating is always possible. What might be peculiar in this case however is timing. Xbox 1 is scheduled now to appear Nov. 30. Then in a month time one can expect manufacturers demonstrating prototype 4K devices with HDMI 2.0 at the CES'14 with first products coming in the Spring'14. Thus Xbox 1, while claiming the 4K support, will miss crucial HDMI 2.0 component by a couple of months.

Inside reports are that the Xbox One is 6 months behind the PS4 in terms of fabrication. While development was going forward on Durango they were also concentrating on extending the life of the 360 with Kinect and other features. Sony was determined not to let MS get a year head start like last generation, so they pushed for Christmas 2013 for the PS4. I would not be surprised to see the Xbox One ship a a small number (less than 500K units) in time for Christmas 2013, to make people hold off on the PS4. Then the bulk of the production to begin in Summer of 2014 probably with HDMI 2.0. Sale numbers for both the PS3 and 360 are very good, and even though both system are near the end of their lifespan, Sony's decision to jump the gun may prove a disaster for the entire video game industry because the hardware and 4K infrastructure is just not ready. Honestly, both systems can barely match the performance of a 2-3 year old top end gaming PC.
post #3063 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

Inside reports are that the Xbox One is 6 months behind the PS4 in terms of fabrication. While development was going forward on Durango they were also concentrating on extending the life of the 360 with Kinect and other features. Sony was determined not to let MS get a year head start like last generation, so they pushed for Christmas 2013 for the PS4. I would not be surprised to see the Xbox One ship a a small number (less than 500K units) in time for Christmas 2013, to make people hold off on the PS4. Then the bulk of the production to begin in Summer of 2014 probably with HDMI 2.0. Sale numbers for both the PS3 and 360 are very good, and even though both system are near the end of their lifespan, Sony's decision to jump the gun may prove a disaster for the entire video game industry because the hardware and 4K infrastructure is just not ready. Honestly, both systems can barely match the performance of a 2-3 year old top end gaming PC.

I don't understand why they would not wait if they can make the system better. Maybe the next systems will be 8k
post #3064 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

I don't understand why they would not wait if they can make the system better. Maybe the next systems will be 8k
HDMI 2.0 adds nothing that is relevant for the current generation of consoles. They won't be rendering games at 4K (except maybe some download-only indie stuff, similar to how 1080p was handled on the previous generation of hardware) and certainly not games at 4K above 30fps.

Moving to 4K from 720p is roughly 9x. According to irkuck, the Xbox One hardware is 8x faster than the Xbox 360 - so it wouldn't even be able to render current games at 4K, at 30fps.
The extra power is for moving to rendering games at 1080p rather than 720p, and with greater fidelity than the previous generation of consoles.
post #3065 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

HDMI 2.0 adds nothing that is relevant for the current generation of consoles. They won't be rendering games at 4K (except maybe some download-only indie stuff, similar to how 1080p was handled on the previous generation of hardware) and certainly not games at 4K above 30fps.

Moving to 4K from 720p is roughly 9x. According to irkuck, the Xbox One hardware is 8x faster than the Xbox 360 - so it wouldn't even be able to render current games at 4K, at 30fps.
The extra power is for moving to rendering games at 1080p rather than 720p, and with greater fidelity than the previous generation of consoles.

Xbox1 is at least 8x faster and likely has many graphics efficiency improvements over Xbox 360, it should be able to run 4K with good fidelity. But of course it is possible the 4K is just a PR statement and there is no real support for it in Xbox1. That would not be terribly surprising anymore: there are 4K TVs with no content to run and thus XBox1 could be a 4K content machine providing no content confused.gif.
post #3066 of 3670
I have my doubts about H.265 being playable without dedicated hardware decoding, i.e. a chip designed for it. A software update won't do.

Try the following samples. You'll have to download the Elecard Player Alpha as well to play them:

http://www.elecard.com/en/download/videos.html

Note that if you have a 4Ghz i7, CPU usage may be 50%, or more. That's a bunch, and none of the samples have a resolution higher than 1080p.

Now, of course there's plenty of room for optimization. Not just for decoding, but for encoding as well. Early builds were in the range of 40x to 60x times slower than H.264. Last I looked at the H.265 discussion at Doom9, 10x was possible. The point being, there's a lot of computational overhead.

Remember the history of H.264, which has been around for what? Ten years? For the first three, it was no great shakes. I say a little patience is in order.

Anyway, my subjective impression is that H.265 is definitely better visually than H.264. It has almost no temporal artifacting, although at the cost of less detail in backgrounds. H.264 (using the x264 encoder) is the opposite, giving more detail at the cost of large distortions. Look carefully sometime at a Blu-ray with leaves moving in the wind. Or moving water. You'll see flickering in the former, shimmering in the latter.

I suppose many of you have seen the following, but here goes anyway. The proposed extensions to HEVC are interesting:

" Companies including ATEME, Broadcom, Cyberlink, Ericsson, Fraunhofer HHI, Mitsubishi, NHK, NTT DOCOMO and Qualcomm have already showcased implementations of HEVC. The new standard includes a ‘Main’ profile that supports 8-bit 4:2:0 video, a ‘Main 10’ profile with 10-bit support, and a ‘Main Still Picture’ profile for still image coding that employs the same coding tools as a video ‘intra’ picture."

"The ITU/ISO/IEC Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) (formerly JVT) will continue work on a range of extensions to HEVC, including support for 12-bit video as well as 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 chroma formats. Another important element of this work will be the progression of HEVC towards scalable video coding. The three bodies will also work within the Joint Collaborative Team on 3D-Video (JCT-3V) on the extension of HEVC towards stereoscopic and 3D video coding."

Source:

http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/01.aspx#.UZ5hBDefil1
Edited by fritzi93 - 5/23/13 at 12:28pm
post #3067 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzi93 View Post

I have my doubts about H.265 being playable without dedicated hardware decoding, i.e. a chip designed for it. A software update won't do.
Try the following samples. You'll have to download the Elecard Player Alpha as well to play them:http://www.elecard.com/en/download/videos.html
Note that if you have a 4Ghz i7, CPU usage may be 50%, or more. That's a bunch, and none of the samples have a resolution higher than 1080p.
Now, of course there's plenty of room for optimization. Not just for decoding, but for encoding as well. Early builds were in the range of 40x to 60x times slower than H.264. Last I looked at the H.265 discussion at Doom9, 10x was possible. The point being, there's a lot of computational overhead.

If you are talking about the i7 Ivy Bridge I would rather say this is generic implementation of the H.265 which does not take any hardware optimization in the processor. How I know this? I made experiments on how many H.264 streams I could run on i7 3770K and it was a lot. This is of course possible since there is specific decoding support in the processor which is used by the software. I think running H.265 on the XBox1 @4K will be a piece of cake with hardware optimised decoder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzi93 View Post

I
Anyway, my subjective impression is that H.265 is definitely better visually than H.264. It has almost no temporal artifacting, although at the cost of less detail in backgrounds. H.264 (using the x264 encoder) is the opposite, giving more detail at the cost of large distortions. Look carefully sometime at a Blu-ray with leaves moving in the wind. Or moving water. You'll see flickering in the former, shimmering in the latter.

This is illustrating well the issues with current extreme compression schemes. This is the game of masking artefacts. So one can lower artefacts by cleverer masking some details or show more details at the cost of more artefacts but not both.
post #3068 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

HDMI 2.0 adds nothing that is relevant for the current generation of consoles. They won't be rendering games at 4K (except maybe some download-only indie stuff, similar to how 1080p was handled on the previous generation of hardware) and certainly not games at 4K above 30fps.

Moving to 4K from 720p is roughly 9x. According to irkuck, the Xbox One hardware is 8x faster than the Xbox 360 - so it wouldn't even be able to render current games at 4K, at 30fps.
The extra power is for moving to rendering games at 1080p rather than 720p, and with greater fidelity than the previous generation of consoles.

If the PC is the ultimate gaming system, why not output games at 4k, like the PC?
post #3069 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Xbox1 is at least 8x faster and likely has many graphics efficiency improvements over Xbox 360, it should be able to run 4K with good fidelity. But of course it is possible the 4K is just a PR statement and there is no real support for it in Xbox1. That would not be terribly surprising anymore: there are 4K TVs with no content to run and thus XBox1 could be a 4K content machine providing no content confused.gif.
The Xbox One has slower hardware than the PlayStation 4. If you were also rendering games at 4K, the graphics would be significantly worse. Console gamers don’t care about image quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

If the PC is the ultimate gaming system, why not output games at 4k, like the PC?
High-end PC hardware is significantly faster than the new consoles.
post #3070 of 3670
To make games in 4K they have t be created in 4K by the game developer. That will take an enormous amount of computing power and time.
The movie industry is still not able to do VFX/CGI in 4K because of the render time, so it will be even longer for the games developer to even try this.
That's also why all movie that have VFX/CGI and is claimed to be "Mastered from 4K" or released as 4K DCP for cinemas are really up-converted 2K masters to 4K, even if the live filming is done in 4K and above.
post #3071 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

The Xbox One has slower hardware than the PlayStation 4. If you were also rendering games at 4K, the graphics would be significantly worse. Console gamers don’t care about image quality. High-end PC hardware is significantly faster than the new consoles.

Both Xb1 and PS4 use the same main 8-core AMD processor. It remains to be seen what is the special graphics support but at this point there is no basis to claim one is significantly faster than the other. High-end PC hardware with special graphics adapters is definitely much faster but it is big power consumer. Consoles have power envelope about 100 W, PC with similar power envelope will not be much faster
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

To make games in 4K they have t be created in 4K by the game developer. That will take an enormous amount of computing power and time.
The movie industry is still not able to do VFX/CGI in 4K because of the render time, so it will be even longer for the games developer to even try this.
That's also why all movie that have VFX/CGI and is claimed to be "Mastered from 4K" or released as 4K DCP for cinemas are really up-converted 2K masters to 4K, even if the live filming is done in 4K and above.

The question is then what 4K in the Xbox1 really means? Just an ability to upconvert 2K to 4K without anything native 4K?
post #3072 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Both Xb1 and PS4 use the same main 8-core AMD processor. It remains to be seen what is the special graphics support but at this point there is no basis to claim one is significantly faster than the other.
Sony hos would disagree. wink.gif
Quote:
High-end PC hardware with special graphics adapters is definitely much faster but it is big power consumer. Consoles have power envelope about 100 W, PC with similar power envelope will not be much faster
The question is then what 4K in the Xbox1 really means? Just an ability to upconvert 2K to 4K without anything native 4K?
I upgraded my PC earlier this year...only thing I've delayed purchasing is the video card. The high-end from Nvidia (i.e. Titan) alone probably costs about double the projected costs of these consoles, lol. That said, should I ever get back into gaming, at least I'll be set horsepower-wise for ~5 years.

All the clamoring for 4k still makes me laugh (cart before the horse increasingly comes to mind). At least true 1080p gaming is finally here.cool.gif
post #3073 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Both Xb1 and PS4 use the same main 8-core AMD processor. It remains to be seen what is the special graphics support but at this point there is no basis to claim one is significantly faster than the other.
Same architecture, different hardware though. I personally know people that have been working on projects for both systems for a while now. They tell me that the PS4 is clearly faster - for one thing, the amount of hardware reserved for running the OS and background services is quite different between the two machines. (it might be an 8-core procesor, but Xbox games don't get to use all 8)

Even if the AMD APU were the same on both machines, as well as the amount of resources they dedicate to background tasks (they are not) the PS4 is using GDDR5, and the Xbox is using DDR3 with a 32MB ESRAM cache - meaning that the PS4 has significantly more bandwidth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

High-end PC hardware with special graphics adapters is definitely much faster but it is big power consumer. Consoles have power envelope about 100 W, PC with similar power envelope will not be much faster
This just reads as "if we take away the thing that makes them faster, then they aren't any faster."
They also aren't limited by price. If you limit the cost of a PC to $400-600 then it will probably perform similarly to the consoles as well. (for now, at least)
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

The question is then what 4K in the Xbox1 really means? Just an ability to upconvert 2K to 4K without anything native 4K?
It may be able to upscale to 4K and play back native 4K video. But it would never be rendering anything at 4K, at 60fps, so HDMI 2.0 wouldn't make a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

All the clamoring for 4k still makes me laugh (cart before the horse increasingly comes to mind). At least true 1080p gaming is finally here.cool.gif
Well it depends on what you mean by "true 1080p gaming" - if you mean actually rendered at 1920x1080, then you may be right. A large number of games on the previous generation weren't even rendering 1280x720. As I understand it, if Microsoft had gone with ~12MB EDRAM rather than 10MB it would have made all the difference for that.

But I suspect most of the new games will be using things like post-process anti-aliasing, still be lacking when it comes to anisotropic filtering, and they will definitely be targeting 30fps rather than 60 or even 120fps on PC, so even though it's still "1080p", image quality will be far behind PCs.
I must admit though, I'm going to miss there being such a gap in performance between the consoles and PC as there is right now - I love being able to super-sample games for incredible image quality. (virtually no aliasing at all)
post #3074 of 3670
indeed, comparison of Xb1 and PS4 hardware shows that CPU is the same but PS4 has more graphics resources, memory and bandwidth. Not having anything about 4K and graphics would be weird snce Microsoft uses 4K in the main line of marketing features. Perhaps there will be some gaming in 4K available, not demanding graphically.
post #3075 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

The question is then what 4K in the Xbox1 really means? Just an ability to upconvert 2K to 4K without anything native 4K?
The ability to download 4K compressed consumer movie content and play it back to a 4K display.

Native 4K games you can forget, but maybe up-converting games to 4K/60Hz output without the need to use the displays up-converting engine when HDMI 2.0 becomes available.

If they have been really smart, they have used a programmable HDMI chip, but not likely.

First after one to two years of mass production they know how to reduce BOM cost and need some new features to make people repurchase. This would already be in the strategy for the future progressions
Early adopters will always suffer.
post #3076 of 3670
^If Xb1 is 10x more powerful then Xb 360 than 4K games are possible just by recomputing the current games, no?
post #3077 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

^If Xb1 is 10x more powerful then Xb 360 than 4K games are possible just by recomputing the current games, no?
Only with the current level of fidelity, which means it will look like a last-gen game that has less aliasing, rather than a generational leap in fidelity.
post #3078 of 3670
In the next five years--what will be the largest 4K display that you can buy? How far away from it will you have to sit to notice the 4K improvement?

If you have 20/15 instead of 20/20 vision--how much difference would that make? When I go for the yearly eye exam sometimes I can read the 20/15 line and sometimes I can't. I was just wondering how much further out you could enjoy 4K benefits if you could see with 20/15 vision as opposed to 20/20 vision?
post #3079 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Only with the current level of fidelity, which means it will look like a last-gen game that has less aliasing, rather than a generational leap in fidelity.

If one concerns scenario of gaming on 100" class 4K display it will be hugely better than upconverted 720p.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

In the next five years--what will be the largest 4K display that you can buy? How far away from it will you have to sit to notice the 4K improvement?

If you have 20/15 instead of 20/20 vision--how much difference would that make? When I go for the yearly eye exam sometimes I can read the 20/15 line and sometimes I can't. I was just wondering how much further out you could enjoy 4K benefits if you could see with 20/15 vision as opposed to 20/20 vision?

Man 5ys is too long time for reasonable predictions. But 110"@4K LCD displays are in production by Chinese manufacturers and TVs were shown. The question now is only when they hit the streets and what is the price. Taking the 110" size and 2.5 PH viewing distance for comfortable soaking of 4K pixels one concludes that this is within reasonable living room watching.
post #3080 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post


...Taking the 110" size and 2.5 PH viewing distance for comfortable soaking of 4K pixels one concludes that this is within reasonable living room watching.

Don't mean to get into the infinite discussion about viewing distance, etc., but I think 2.5 PH is rather far to appreciate the benefits of 4K. E.g., with my 6 ft H screen this would be 15 ft, and I don't think I would see much difference from 1080p at that distance. I sit at just under 12 ft , ~ 2.0 PH, and do very much appreciate the Sony1000ES. Of course this is only 4K upconverted from 1080p, which is clearly an improvement over 108p, but one awaits true 4K sources to get the complete 'picture'.

PS Sony actually touts 4K projection as allowing one to sit at the 'ideal' distance of 1.6 PH. For me this would be under 10 ft; I tried it that close but at present find this too close for me.
post #3081 of 3670
Can a 110-inch fit through a seven foot door? I figure that maybe whatever could fit through a seven foot door might be the limit for size when it comes to 4K.

Anyone know what the biggest screen you could fit through a seven foot door is?

A lot of people might think these gargantuan sizes are too big but I think it's what you need for real home theater.

If they do become popular I think that Hollywood will nail down the charge out the wazoo streaming business the same way as they made sure that no one could copy Blu-ray business.

I think they will make a super Blu-ray that can handle 4K. It will be the last disc they make before ONLY streaming.
post #3082 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

Don't mean to get into the infinite discussion about viewing distance, etc., but I think 2.5 PH is rather far to appreciate the benefits of 4K. E.g., with my 6 ft H screen this would be 15 ft, and I don't think I would see much difference from 1080p at that distance. I sit at just under 12 ft , ~ 2.0 PH, and do very much appreciate the Sony1000ES. Of course this is only 4K upconverted from 1080p, which is clearly an improvement over 108p, but one awaits true 4K sources to get the complete 'picture'.

PS Sony actually touts 4K projection as allowing one to sit at the 'ideal' distance of 1.6 PH. For me this would be under 10 ft; I tried it that close but at present find this too close for me.

Sure if one sits closer benefits of 4K will be more apparent /provided content is of VQ (virgin quality)/. Sitting close is OK for the cinema/HT viewing scenario which is rather time limited. But for the living
room TV-viewing type of scenario one has to take into account practical limitations. Typical viewing arrangement in the living room sets the close and unobtrusive viewing distance in the range of 10 feet which,
assuming the 2.5 PH, produces the display size in the range of 110",already quite large. One can of course reduce the 2.5 PH, which would mean that at fixed 10 feet distance the display has to be even bigger. BTW, the 2.5 PH is not taken from blue sky but from detailed investigation of this problem by Sony. The 110" display size is also
not a fantasy, such displays were shown and are rather likely to be available in a near future.
post #3083 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Sure if one sits closer benefits of 4K will be more apparent /provided content is of VQ (virgin quality)/. Sitting close is OK for the cinema/HT viewing scenario which is rather time limited. But for the living
room TV-viewing type of scenario one has to take into account practical limitations. Typical viewing arrangement in the living room sets the close and unobtrusive viewing distance in the range of 10 feet which,
assuming the 2.5 PH, produces the display size in the range of 110",already quite large. One can of course reduce the 2.5 PH, which would mean that at fixed 10 feet distance the display has to be even bigger. BTW, the 2.5 PH is not taken from blue sky but from detailed investigation of this problem by Sony. The 110" display size is also
not a fantasy, such displays were shown and are rather likely to be available in a near future.

Yes, my remarks were relevant to projectors and not flat panel tvs. But I do note that I use mine like a 'tv', ie., all sorts of programming, in addition to BD movies.
post #3084 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

If one concerns scenario of gaming on 100" class 4K display it will be hugely better than upconverted 720p.
Most people playing console games have been happy with eight years of playing (sub) 720p games on a 1080p display. Rendering those games at 4K will offer very little benefit for them.

Increased fidelity - things like realistic grass covering the ground everywhere (rather than the patchy 2D grass we see in current games) large-scale battles with 50 people on-screen instead of 5, more realistic looking characters, fancy particle effects (realistic dust, smoke, explosions etc.) and larger worlds are the sorts of things that people will notice.

If you simply rendered games with the current level of fidelity at 4K, few people would notice a difference, and most certainly wouldn't consider buying a new console for it.
I think we are already starting to approach the point where a meagre 10x increase is not a big enough leap to offer the kind of improved fidelity that people expect from a new generation of games.

And you are out of your mind if you think a 100" 4K display will ever be mass-market enough that the consoles will be targeting it. The people with those displays won't be playing on consoles. This generation of consoles is about 1080p, not 4K.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Man 5ys is too long time for reasonable predictions. But 110"@4K LCD displays are in production by Chinese manufacturers and TVs were shown. The question now is only when they hit the streets and what is the price. Taking the 110" size and 2.5 PH viewing distance for comfortable soaking of 4K pixels one concludes that this is within reasonable living room watching.
Just because something may exist, does not mean that it will be affordable, or even desirable, and certainly not mainstream.
post #3085 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

Can a 110-inch fit through a seven foot door? I figure that maybe whatever could fit through a seven foot door might be the limit for size when it comes to 4K.

Anyone know what the biggest screen you could fit through a seven foot door is?

muttering out loud in case I botch it....
7 feet is 84"
Looking for the fundamental unit "a":
screen is 16a:9a
9a = 84
a = 9.333
diagonal is sqrt(16a * 16a + 9a * 9a)
= sqrt(337 * a * a)
= sqrt(337 * 9.333 * 9.333)
= sqrt(29354.347593)
=171.331 in screen. (with no bezel or stand, so you'll have to hope for smaller. LOL).
post #3086 of 3670
People. If 84" isn't enough of a TV for you, call me. I'll come over, smack you hard. I'll then move the couch closer and you'll thank me for it.
post #3087 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

People. If 84" isn't enough of a TV for you, call me. I'll come over, smack you hard. I'll then move the couch closer and you'll thank me for it.

I have a 140in that I use for tv and movies. I have a 75in in my room and I barely watch it. Too small. Don't hit me!!!!!!
post #3088 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

People. If 84" isn't enough of a TV for you, call me. I'll come over, smack you hard. I'll then move the couch closer and you'll thank me for it.
Careful what you offer, you're gonna' need some medical treatment by the time you're done. eek.gif
post #3089 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Most people playing console games have been happy with eight years of playing (sub) 720p games on a 1080p display. Rendering those games at 4K will offer very little benefit for them.

Increased fidelity - things like realistic grass covering the ground everywhere (rather than the patchy 2D grass we see in current games) large-scale battles with 50 people on-screen instead of 5, more realistic looking characters, fancy particle effects (realistic dust, smoke, explosions etc.) and larger worlds are the sorts of things that people will notice.

If you simply rendered games with the current level of fidelity at 4K, few people would notice a difference, and most certainly wouldn't consider buying a new console for it.
I think we are already starting to approach the point where a meagre 10x increase is not a big enough leap to offer the kind of improved fidelity that people expect from a new generation of games.

And you are out of your mind if you think a 100" 4K display will ever be mass-market enough that the consoles will be targeting it. The people with those displays won't be playing on consoles. This generation of consoles is about 1080p, not 4K.
Just because something may exist, does not mean that it will be affordable, or even desirable, and certainly not mainstream.

You make some interesting points. People forget the 360 was INITIALLY about gaming, and music/tv/movies were an afterthought. This new Xbox has reversed the order. Most gamers(like myself, 82" display) aren't even talking about/aware of 4K. The 4K thing is largely irrelevant, regardless of whether or not it makes a substantive visual difference.
post #3090 of 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

People. If 84" isn't enough of a TV for you, call me. I'll come over, smack you hard. I'll then move the couch closer and you'll thank me for it.
I really miss having a 120" projection setup for watching films and gaming on, and the next time I move, I will be going as big as the room allows.

However, I question whether I would even want one of those 55" OLED displays. My current television is smaller than that, and even it seems too big sometimes.
There's a world of difference between a fixed-frame white projection screen that fills the wall (and many people are happy projecting onto the wall directly, or using a motorized screen) and this giant black slab stuck on a TV stand or on the wall though.

If we have moved to solid-state lighting at that point, rather than using UHP lamps, I may get rid of the flat panel altogether, or replace it with something considerably smaller, like a 27" monitor.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 4k by 2k or Quad HD...lots of rumors? thoughts?