or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › PlayStation Area › PlayStation Meeting 2013 (PS4 unveiling - conference replay in first post)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

PlayStation Meeting 2013 (PS4 unveiling - conference replay in first post) - Page 20

post #571 of 1994
The gb of the bluray drive is a pointless spec, the speed matters more. Is it a 12x drive? That is the most fishy part of the whole thing, the rest is realistic sounding.
post #572 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

The gb of the bluray drive is a pointless spec, the speed matters more. Is it a 12x drive? That is the most fishy part of the whole thing, the rest is realistic sounding.
Not at all. Size matters enormously. Getting all that data on a single disc saves money. Developers are constrained by standard DVD sizes.

And we can just do data installs to increase load times. Drive speed isn't much of an issue.
post #573 of 1994
"Size matters enormously."

Tell that to the downloadable PSN titles. Infamous 2 is what, 8GB. LBP2 is 4-point-something. This is a very common theme throughout the PSN retail downloads. For all of the "50 gee-bees!!1" that Sony went on and on about as their selling point over the 360's DVD drive, they sure didn't use it much. In fact, most of what the extra space on BD PS3 games has been used for has classically been duplicating information to reduce seek and read times, the major weakness in storage compared to both it's competitors. Or FMVs. Yes, FF XIII looked great on BD and didn't require three disc changes. Too bad the game was pretty crap.

I don't know about you guys, but I like to play my games, not watch them.

The point is of course that PEN is right. Any BD drive is fine, even if they dropped to a single-layer 25GB as max. Real game data will hang out in the 10GB range for quite a while still, and 8 hours of properly compressed video will look 95% as good at 15GB as it would at 40GB. The BD read speed would matter far more that the size spec.
post #574 of 1994
You're oversimplifying. Size has little to do with FMVs (who does those anymore anyways?) or cinematics.

A lot of it comes down to cost and efficiency. Uncharted, for example, was able to fit high quality voice tracks for multiple regions on the same disc. Now, clearly not every developer can afford to do that, but for those that can, it's ultimately cheaper and easier if they're planning for a multiregion launch from the get-go. And that doesn't even account for just including higher quality textures, VO, score, etc.

Anyhow, I have no idea how much space is "enough" for those making the more tech-forward titles. So, 25GB may be more than plenty for everyone. And you're right that size doesn't matter to everyone. Not every developer will need tons of space. But it definitely matters to those who can afford to push the tech envelope. Whether that's 10GB, 25GB, 50GB, or 2TB, I have no clue.

Now, if your point is that games don't need all that space in order to be good, I completely agree. Most of my favorite games of this generation have been smaller downloadable titles. But that doesn't negate the fact that the top-end needs more room than what a standard DVD offers.
Edited by confidenceman - 6/13/12 at 1:46am
post #575 of 1994
My point was that any BR drive would read 50gb disks, it isn't a spec. When I shop for a PC BR drive I never see a max size spec (isn't it 200gb in theory?) the speed is the only spec I see that is prominently advertised.
post #576 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by darklordjames View Post

"Size matters enormously."
Tell that to the downloadable PSN titles. Infamous 2 is what, 8GB. LBP2 is 4-point-something.
Yes Little Big Planet 2 is 4.7GB but Infamous 2 is actually 14.1GB. As for another title that was offered to Plus users, Ratchet and Clank: All 4 One is 14GB. These are just going off the games that were just offered. Others games such as Metal Gear Solid 4 and Uncharted 3 are much higher.

For sure Sony will have to make sure the read speeds are much faster for next generation since who knows what these same developers will try to achieve. I do wonder if Sony will offer 100GB discs this time for the PS4. That may seam crazy but before the PS3 came out, it sounded crazy that they'd be games that needed dual layer which is more than 25 gigs.
Edited by Paulo Teixeira - 6/13/12 at 9:03am
post #577 of 1994
Why are you guys arguing about 15GB vs 25GB vs 50GB? It's all Blu-Ray at that point. Of course read speed (and seek time) matter. Good thing this isn't going to be first gen BD.
post #578 of 1994
I know that 4K games are not possible on next gen consoles at a reasonable price point... but what about 4K video playback? Sony, LG and Samsung are starting to push 4K displays. I remember reading some articles, earlier in the year, about Sony wanting to finalize the specification for a higher capacity BD. Maybe PS4 will do the same thing for 4K BD, as PS3 did for BD.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2084665/New-Blu-Ray-discs-offering-times-hi-def-2013.html
post #579 of 1994
"Maybe PS4 will do the same thing for 4K BD, as PS3 did for BD."

Modern Bluray is the last mass-market, disc-based video format. Calling it "mass market" is even pushing the term a bit, as it will never do as well as DVD did. People have already proven that they are pretty done with discs. Anything that comes out later will have a lot in common with Laserdisc, an extremely niche product that is vastly overpriced.
post #580 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by darklordjames View Post

"Maybe PS4 will do the same thing for 4K BD, as PS3 did for BD."
Modern Bluray is the last mass-market, disc-based video format. Calling it "mass market" is even pushing the term a bit, as it will never do as well as DVD did. People have already proven that they are pretty done with discs. Anything that comes out later will have a lot in common with Laserdisc, an extremely niche product that is vastly overpriced.

You're right... it would probably be a relatively niche product. I personally would not double dip on any 4K catalog titles, but new releases would be hard to resist.
post #581 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikazaru View Post

I know that 4K games are not possible on next gen consoles at a reasonable price point... but what about 4K video playback? Sony, LG and Samsung are starting to push 4K displays. I remember reading some articles, earlier in the year, about Sony wanting to finalize the specification for a higher capacity BD. Maybe PS4 will do the same thing for 4K BD, as PS3 did for BD.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2084665/New-Blu-Ray-discs-offering-times-hi-def-2013.html
As I understand it, the PS3 already meets the specs for 4k as is (though, please correct me if I'm wrong). There's just no market. Without content, displays, or audience, there's simply no reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darklordjames View Post

"Maybe PS4 will do the same thing for 4K BD, as PS3 did for BD."
Modern Bluray is the last mass-market, disc-based video format. Calling it "mass market" is even pushing the term a bit, as it will never do as well as DVD did. People have already proven that they are pretty done with discs. Anything that comes out later will have a lot in common with Laserdisc, an extremely niche product that is vastly overpriced.
As with all things format related, never say "never." While it might seem like physical media is on the way out right now, there's nothing preventing it from returning in the future in some other way that we can't yet imagine.

Back in the '50s, technophiles were declaring the end of film and the movies (because of TV, home cameras, the then-new technology of video, etc). It didn't happen. The film industry hurt for a while, but then bounced back stronger than ever in the '80s--in the midst of the home video revolution.

A future physical media may or may not be disc based, and it may or may not ever exist. Nothing is certain.
post #582 of 1994
Yeah, and I'm going to be plugging cartridges in to my phone I order to play games too! wink.gif Remember when broadcast radio also moved to cartridges that you carry around with you?

I feel very comfortable saying that physical media as a delivery system for linear data is duuuuuumb. The public is rapidly coming to agreement.
post #583 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by darklordjames View Post

Yeah, and I'm going to be plugging cartridges in to my phone I order to play games too! wink.gif Remember when broadcast radio also moved to cartridges that you carry around with you?
Yes. They were called "8-tracks." Then "cassette tapes." Then they were called "CDs." Those were all quite successful IIRC. I think you proved my point. Just because people could get broadcast music from the airwaves in the '50s, that didn't stop the music industry from ramping up physical media sales in the 1960s. These things come and go across history and media. It's in the nature and origins of cultural products to constantly vacillate between "virtual" and "material" existence. You could say it's part of the DNA of culture.
Quote:
I feel very comfortable saying that physical media as a delivery system for linear data is duuuuuumb.
Plenty of things that exist are "dumb." That doesn't stop them from existing. biggrin.gif
post #584 of 1994
8-track and CD were an evolution of wax drums, not broadcast radio. Cassette tapes didn't have a guy curating the material, nor did the material update itself. You may as well have just told us how you remember the 1972 Firefird for all the relation it has to the topic at hand. smile.gif
post #585 of 1994
At least you didn't make fun of my 67 Firebird. wink.gif

Even though it wasn't relevant, there were plenty of removable media formats that were not successful. MiniDisc anyone? Go back further, we had a 4 track (looked like an 8 track) player when I was a kid. Had a Quadraphonic 8 track, too. They didn't all succeed. smile.gif
post #586 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by darklordjames View Post

8-track and CD were an evolution of wax drums, not broadcast radio. Cassette tapes didn't have a guy curating the material, nor did the material update itself. You may as well have just told us how you remember the 1972 Firefird for all the relation it has to the topic at hand. smile.gif
Blah. Missing the point.

My point was that if you look at the history of popular music and formats, you'd see that mainstream consumers didn't start buying music en masse until the second half of the century. Physical format music was an extravagance. It took the mass proliferation of broadcast youth radio for anyone to care. And prior to that, broadcast supplanted physical media as the dominant mass media format. These things come and go in cycles.
post #587 of 1994
I'm not sure, but let's say a compressed 4K movie requires a 100 GB disc. That would be a 4 layer BD and I don't think the current PS3 BD drive is compatible. From a processing power standpoint, I really don't know. The PS3 is pretty powerful, so maybe a firmware update would do the trick.

I agree that you can't totally count out physical media. Who knows, maybe 4K 80+ inch displays become commonplace in the future (Sharp already has an 8K prototype out). How would future infrastructure handle 4K/8K streaming and downloading?
post #588 of 1994
"I'm not sure, but let's say a compressed 4K movie requires a 100 GB disc."

While 4K video sounds like it's 4x the resolution of 1080p video, resolution isn't everything. As such, bandwidth requirements do not directly scale. Looking at recent video format history as an example, let's take a DVD 480p MPEG2 and compare it to modern 1080p h264. A 2 hour DVD film is roughly 6GB at great quality. While the 1080p h264 is 6x the resolution, you can get a great quality video in roughly twice the space at 12GB. Yes, common BD video is closer to 30GB for that movie, but there really is a lot of bandwidth waste going on there.

Why can you get 6x resolution at only 2x the size increases? Yes, some of it is the varying formats. A lot more of it though is simply that a 2MP scene contains far less than 2MP of actual detail. Just because you have 2 million dots on the screen doesn't mean that all 2 million of them are needed to accurately convey the image to the pretty crap human visual sub-system, and codecs know that. Cranking the res up to 8mp, and yes it can physically show more pixels, but the need for them rapidly diminishes.

The quick and dirty of it? You could quite easily fit 2.5 hours of great quality 4K video in 40GB. More layers would not be necessary. Why is that important? The only chance that disc-based 4K ever has of getting in to the home is if current BD players are firmware updatable to do it. Otherwise it's doomed from the word "Go". Do not mistake this as me making a prediction that this will happen.
post #589 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by darklordjames View Post

The quick and dirty of it? You could quite easily fit 2.5 hours of great quality 4K video in 40GB. More layers would not be necessary. Why is that important? The only chance that disc-based 4K ever has of getting in to the home is if current BD players are firmware updatable to do it. Otherwise it's doomed from the word "Go". Do not mistake this as me making a prediction that this will happen.

It's physically impossible for current BD players to support 4k. Both the decoding and output are impossible unless your hardware is designed for it.

With regards to media size, next-gen codecs like HEVC will lower the bitrate requirements for any given resolution (compared to current codecs). I expect 128GB discs will more than suffice as the max size for high-quality 4k video. And PS4 is likely to have a BDXL drive anyway. That pretty much guarantees BDXL as the chosen disc format for a 4k consumer format

50GB would suffice for some 4k content so it's likely that content producers could choose BD-50, BDXL-100, BDXL-128 for their titles. In the same way as they could choose between DVD5/DVD9 or BD-25/BD-50
post #590 of 1994
I still say the market for 4k is going to be tiny. First off, most buyers can't even tell the difference between a BD and a DVD. I'm not talking about the people who hang out here, I'm talking about the folks that go to WalMart/Costco/Sams and buy the cheapest 46" LCD they can get their hands on, take it home, plug it in, and us it as it is tuned out of the box in all it's blazing blue glory. Second, for those of us that don't have large projectors, there will not really be any gain. Personally I'm 10' from a 60" Panasonic ST50. I seriously doubt I'd see any real increase in perceptible detail if I made the jump to a new 4k player and TV. I believe the market for 4k is going to be small even compared to the number of people that still care about having 3D at home.

All that said, I strongly doubt the new Playstation is going to be a catalyst to move 4k into the home market. If it has the abiltiy, that's fine, but it's not going to be the format defining appliance like it was in the BD vs. HD-DVD war.
post #591 of 1994
4k support would be a waste of resources that could be better spent elsewhere. If Sony really wants to raise the cost of the next PlayStation then do it with 4 gigs of RAM minimum, a faster BD drive, an SSD, or something else that's actually useful. Making the machine do everything quickly and smoothly should be a priority.
post #592 of 1994
I'm betting 4K will be supported, but it's going to be through a hardware scaler and media decoder. Just as the PS3 will scale a DVD now, at little cost to the system.

If you think we're going to see 4K native resolution gaming, I'll tell you right now you're out of your freaking mind. The industry took big hits in fidelity just to get to 720P on these consoles. Most games aren't even running at native 720P.

The next cycle is going to be playing catch up and trying to get games locked at 60FPS again with AA and hopefully native 1080P. Native 4K is about a decade away or more, if it even catches on outside of cinema.
post #593 of 1994
Supported in the fact it'll downscale the image to 1080p.

The PS4 would need a new HDMI spec 1.5 to support 4k speed / bandwidth.
post #594 of 1994
PS4 will 100% be capable of outputting a native 4k signal. HDMI 1.4a already has the bandwidth for 4k @24-30fps and PS4 will use HDMI 1.4b which improves upon this.

(as an aside the PS3 can already output a native 4k signal but can't update the framebuffer fast enough for moving video. thats why the PS3 4k demos have been a still image.)

Rendering games is a completely different issue to outputting a 4k signal. Rendering games at native 4k .....no it won't be practical on PS4 except for graphically simple games (eg a Wipeout type game). In this respect it will be no different to the PS3 and 1080p.
Quote:
4k support would be a waste of resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

There is no waste because the console would be capable of outputting a 4k signal regardless.

And it will have a BDXL drive regardless for larger games.
post #595 of 1994
Elario - Now you're just making things up. Every time you just said "It will have..." and "It will use..." was followed by blatant conjecture.
post #596 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by darklordjames View Post

Elario - Now you're just making things up. Every time you just said "It will have..." and "It will use..." was followed by blatant conjecture.

Tell me what part you disagree with.
post #597 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by elario View Post

Tell me what part you disagree with.

What you are saying is conjecture and speculation because the ps4 does not exist yet and Sony hasn't released any details or specs yet. Even if you were on the Sony ps4 design team at most you could be sharing educated guesses because there has been no consumer hardware built yet. Sony could decide to go in a completely different way. Throw out the book, if you will, and start from scratch. Maybe they will decide to drop the idea of an entertainment system and the ps4 will be a boiled down gaming beast. Doubtful, but anything said about a product that doesn't exist yet is just speculation and conjecture.
post #598 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by brakel View Post

What you are saying is conjecture and speculation because the ps4 does not exist yet and Sony hasn't released any details or specs yet. Even if you were on the Sony ps4 design team at most you could be sharing educated guesses because there has been no consumer hardware built yet. Sony could decide to go in a completely different way. Throw out the book, if you will, and start from scratch. Maybe they will decide to drop the idea of an entertainment system and the ps4 will be a boiled down gaming beast. Doubtful, but anything said about a product that doesn't exist yet is just speculation and conjecture.

Again, please state specifically what you think is wrong. Give your reasons also.

For example, do you think they will use a DVD-ROM drive? Maybe cartridges?

Do you think they will use an inferior GPU to the PS3 (which can already output a 4k signal with the aforementioned technical provisio).

Do you think they will go backwards and use HDMI 1.2 ?

Im struggling to see what you could possibly disagree with. Most of it is technical inevitibility. It's not like I gave a launch date or RRP.
post #599 of 1994
I already told you what i label as obvious conjecture, and brakel already told you his reason. Why are you asking us to repeat ourselves? Or are you just not paying attention?
post #600 of 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by elario View Post

There is no waste because the console would be capable of outputting a 4k signal regardless. And it will have a BDXL drive regardless for larger games.

Prove it. If you can't then you're guessing, hence the term "conjecture".

Yes, I read your paragraph about the PS3 being capable of displaying a 4k still image. Means absolutely nothing.
Edited by Crash44 - 6/15/12 at 2:41pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PlayStation Area
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › PlayStation Area › PlayStation Meeting 2013 (PS4 unveiling - conference replay in first post)