PS4 to Support 4K Resolution - Page 8

4k and 3D are two entirely separate display modes. There's absolutely no relation there. Just cause it supports 4K doesn't mean it has support for 1080p/60/3D. HDMI 1.4b can manage 4k (at 24fps), but not 1080p/60/3D.

Thanks again. I feel like I'm in a corner here against joeblow!

Just in case anyone is now completely baffled by all that talk:

HDMI 2.0 (which both PS4 and nextbox *should* ship with - it doesn't exist yet) should support at least 4k/60, 1080p/60/3D, and probably at least 4k/24/3D. Both the nextbox and PS4 will likely be able to display the UI and/or some really low spec games at all of the above - like remasters of PS3/360 games. This will require that your entire chain of components support HDMI 2.0 - console, receiver and TV. Any link in the chain that's still at HDMI 1.4, and you're stuck at a max of 1080p/24/3D, although some may support 4k/24. 4k isn't some big deal proprietary spec that's Sony exclusive - it's just more pixels, everything will support it (in a basic sense) going forward.

Now as far as TVs go, later this year HDMI 2.0 TVs will start shipping. 1080p models should support 1080p/60/3d. Active 3D sets will display the full resolution. Passive 3D sets will still cut resolution in half, as would any glasses free 1080p 3D sets (if they exist). 4K TVs will be able to display full 1080p/3D in active, passive or glasses free, because there's twice as many pixels in each direction. Theoretically, they could also make a panel that just has double the pixels in one axis - it wouldn't be 4K, but it could still display 3D in full 1080p passive/glasses-free.

As far as game support goes, think of it in terms of pixels/sec:

720p/30/2D = 28M
720p/30/3D = 55M
720p/60/2D = 55M
1080p/30/2D = 62M
720p/60/3D = 110M
1080p/60/2D = 124M
1080p/30/3D = 124M
1080p/60/3D = 248M
4K/30/2D = 248M
4K/60/2D = 497M
4K/30/3D = 995M

It gets pretty silly towards the end. From what we've seen so far, 1080p/30 (62M) is the "standard" game. That makes 720P/3D (55M) no prob at all. Simpler games will push it higher, but 248M pixels/sec is a LONG way from 62M. So when they say they wont support 4K for games, theyre basically also saying they wont support 1080p/60/3D. There will be a few exceptions that prove the rule, but forget about anything approaching what we saw at the PS4 reveal.
Edited by bd2003 - 2/26/13 at 2:29pm

I thought video was completely different than game graphics anyway. Different technologies.

Just because it supports 4k video doesn't mean it can even output 4k game. Whether or not it has the horsepower to display it. At least that's how my limited understanding takes it.

Outstanding work here!

Nah, if it supports anything at 4k, it can support games. I mean, technically it could do even the new killzone at 4K....at like 10fps. Everyone can agree that'd be kind of pointless.

Since you bumped this thread I've gone out of my way not to state an opinion as a fact (underlined here for emphasis):

Even though I strongly feel that it is a no-brainer for us to see examples of 3D 1080P @60fps next gen, I always presented that as an opinion until we hear otherwise. What I tried to get you to understand as fact is how having 4K resolution means that those ideal target 3D specs are possible with the new HDMI spec, and that if it is possible to achieve that at 60fps then developers will likely do so whenever possible.

You were so caught up in the Sony exec statement that you couldn't seem to get past the fact that he is making a true statement I've said for months (no 4K games on the PS4) without recognizing that the ability for the machine to do 4K means other possibilities are possible as well, like 1080P 3D @60fps and glasses free 3D.

That's a summary of this recent discussion in a nut shell. It's not confusing when you think about it. I'll address some of the later points made in a separate post.
Edited by joeblow - 2/26/13 at 7:49pm

In my last post right before your comment, I said:

So your response doesn't make much sense. The main thing I was trying to get him to understand is that Sony can truthfully say there will be no 4K games while also later having the option to say we will see some 3D 1080P @60fps. That means there is a difference, so again your comment is confusing.

However, to go on to say that they have no relation to each other is just wrong. You can not have 3D 1080P @60 fps displayed by a device that is unable to produce 4K (obviously all the other hardware components need to be in place too). Once 4K is available, only then can it be possible to hit that ideal 1080P 3D spec and not before. Maybe it comes down to one person saying tomayto and the other saying tomahto, but the answer can easily be explained I think (a lot of basic stuff coming up for clarity):

~~~

In the end we are all talking about pixels on a display. Focusing on that point should make things clearer. Almost every gamer is familiar with the resolutions 480P, 720P and 1080P. Many also know that they are shorthand for the number of vertical pixels produced on your progressive screen (i.e. 1080P = 1,920 horizontal pixels and 1,080 vertical pixels, or 2,073,600 total). For whatever odd reason, the tech powers that be decided to use the number of horizontal pixels in 4K resolution to be the shorthand notation: 4K = 3,840 horizontal pixels x 2,160 vertical pixels, or 8,294,400 total).

What is important to note for this discussion is the fact that 4K resolution has exactly twice the number of horizontal and twice the number of vertical pixels as 1080P. It also means that 4K has four times the total number of pixels as 1080P. Now let's see why this is important.

To achieve 1080P in 3D @60fps (with a 4K set and the new HDMI standard in place or it is impossible), the console has to send sixty 1080P rendered frames each second to the left eye and also, separately, sixty different frames to the right eye. That means that each 1/60th of a second, the console is pumping out two 1080P images (one for each eye) to maintain that fluidity in 3D at this resolution.

How many pixels is that per second? 2 (one frame per eye) x 2,073,600 (pixels in a 1080P image) x 60 (frames in a second) = 248,832,000 (or, ~249 million pixels per second)

To achieve the minimum, most basic 4K image in 2D at 30fps (again with a 4K set and the new HDMI standard in place or it is impossible), the console has to send thirty 2160P (i.e., 4K) rendered frames each second to both eyes simultaneously. That means that each 1/30th of a second, the console is pumping out only one 4K image for this resolution.

How many pixels is that per second? 1 (a single frame) x 8,294,400 (pixels in a 2160P -or 4K- image) x 30 (frames in a second) = 248,832,000 (or, ~249 million pixels per second)

~~~

So you see? Like I said at the beginning, it all comes down to the number of pixels being splashed on the screen. By me saying you need 4K tech in a machine or 1080P in 3D @60fps is impossible, I am basically saying you need to be able to generate a high enough pixel count to achieve that goal, and that pixel count is the exact same minimum number of pixels generated by the most basic 4K image. If your machine cannot display a basic amount of 4K pixels, it can't do 1080P in 3D @60fps either.
Edited by joeblow - 2/27/13 at 6:50am

1920x1080p@120hz stereographic gaming has been available via DVI Dual Link for quite some time.

HDMI Type B cables are forward/backward compatible with DVI Dual Link.

So why continue to use Type A HDMI connections when there is so little room for error when pushing high pixel counts?

With so many cheap/crappy HDMI cables flooding the market, does anyone see a problem here?

Thanks for a very illuminating post! This is the first time I've heard about HDMI 2.0. Wikipedia's HDMI 2.0 section seems to support what you've said.

Can I hold out for the HDMI 2.0 checkbox for my next TV and A/V receiver, both are coming due for a refresh in our household? I may still be tempted on any HDMI 1.4 equipment deals before then since it can still output quad HD. :~)

Have we heard anything elsewhere in the AVS forums, CNET / Engadget, or CES about HDMI 2.0 equipment? My quick searches turned up nothing.

Whatever it will be called, the next HDMI spec will ship on 4K sets. I don't know why it would be needed on 1080P sets since HDMI 1.4 already handles the bandwidth for most of its needs.

Will HDMI PS4 to support stereo 3D games at a resolution of 1080p?

HDMI 1.4b adds support to 1080p video at 120 Hz.
Will this be enough to support stereo 3D games at a resolution of 1080p?

You should edit your posts instead of making two in a row.

Yes, the PS4 will be able to output games in 3D at 1080P and 60 fps. We'll see how many strive for that. You'll have to have a 4K HDTV to run games at those specs however, otherwise your 3D HDTV will output 720P at 60 fps.

Getting PS4, 4k set, 4K media player shall be all mute if we do not have a HdMi switching AV RECEIVER capable of 4K pass through? How about current HdMi cables?

Those exist and have for awhile now.

So does this mean that if a full HD TVs in 2014 will be hdmi 1.4b, then they will probably play in 3D stereo full HD games with PS4?
Or Full HD TV with hdmi 1.4b will never be released?

HDMI 1.4b specifications still don't support 1080p/60/3D, even if it can do 120hz. The only way to get 1080p/60/3D right now that I'm aware of are 120hz 1080p PC monitors using dual link DVI.

You're going to have to wait for the next revision of HDMI to see it on TVs, whatever they call it. Might be late this year, early next year, who knows at this point. No guarantee the first revision of the PS4 supports it either.
Edited by bd2003 - 4/22/13 at 4:56am

Is it for the order to be able to play games in stereo 3D 1080p hdmi insufficient to support 1080p/30/3D?
Or hdmi 1.4b does not support 1080p/30/3D?

HDMI 1.4 3D supports 720p/60 (or 50 in PAL regions) and 1080p/24. That's it, unfortunately. I doubt you'll find a TV that can accept anything higher, until HDMI 2.0 comes out.

I'm guessing you're thinking that if the cable can handle 1080p/120/2D than it should have no problem handling 1080/60/3D. And you wouldn't be wrong, but the TVs wouldn't know what to do with that signal. They can only accept the specific formats they were designed to accept, and right now, nothing over 24fps in 1080p/3D is going to be accepted.
Edited by bd2003 - 4/22/13 at 12:27pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI
"HDMI 1.4b was released on October 11, 2011.[149] One of the new features is that it adds support to 1080p video at 120 Hz"
Is this not enough to support the games in stereo 3D full HD?
If tv full hd and ps4 will have hdmi 1.4b.

If it'd cut cost by $5, I'd remove 3D support ;-)

Just cause you change a few words around doesn't mean you're going to get a different answer.

PS4 will have hdmi 1.4b or 2.0?

Unknown. PS4 isn't out yet, and neither is HDMI 2.

You have to remember that actual 1080p 3D games are still pretty unlikely even if it is HDMI 2. The PS4 just isnt powerful enough. So you're kind of getting excited over nothing.

It would still be very nice to have HDMI 2.0 especially for 2160 60p videos. We have cameras that are 5 grand and up that can do that and it wont be long until we see cameras that are much cheaper. Same with the fact that it wont be too long until we see HDMI 2.0 capable 2160p TVs. I'd say it would be a very smart move to make sure the PS4 is 2.0 capable, H.265 capable and have a BDXL drive.

They already confirmed it won't be BDXL, but with HEVC/h.265, good looking 24p 4K video is definitely doable on a 50GB disc or two.
Edited by bd2003 - 4/24/13 at 11:43pm

It would be good to have regardless if it will or wont have it. Plus, frame rates such as 50p and 60p are gaining popularity very quickly. Still, I'm not sure how much extra if any it would be to make the unit read BDXL discs or rather or not this unit could be firmware upgradeable in the future to support the discs. For sure they'll be issues if in a few years we start to see 4K movies being released on BDXL discs and we can't play that on the first generation PS4 units.It would also be a good way for people to share each other's 4K videos that they recorded.
Edited by Paulo Teixeira - 4/25/13 at 4:29pm

Yeah, I agree, I'd love to have it too. I doubt its firmware upgradeable - why would they hold that back in the first place? I can def see it coming in a second revision though.

No idea how much extra it is, but it must have been significant enough not to include it.

Well, if you check Amazon, you'd see that BDXL burners are actually very cheap so perhaps it might not cost much if it's not upgradeable..The disc prices aren't though but on the other hand, the original Blu-Ray discs were also very expensive back them. Who knows what the story is but hopefully if it's not too much hassle to implement, Sony will will see the light.