PS4 to Support 4K Resolution - Page 3

Nah, the argument is there is zero benefit for the layperson. HDTV and BD adoption was and is slow because people had a hard time justifying, let alone seeing the difference between SD and HD.

HD to HD+ is going to be even worse, simply from the fact of human optics. Most people don't have a 70" screen, still aren't going to be able to afford one, and even if they did, sit too far away to make use of 4K. I'm not going to notice any difference sitting 15+ feet away from my 70" 1080P set than from my 70" 4K set. Any preconceived benefit is simply marketing placebo mumbojumbo action in effect. At some point the human eye just can't resolve the difference due to the distances.

4K makes sense for true home cinema with very large displays or for large commercial uses, but not really much else besides a marketing ploy. Not many people are going to be sitting inches away from their 40" inch TV....
Edited by TyrantII - 8/23/12 at 10:17am

A new Monster Hunter in 4K! I'd start saving up now if it was guaranteed.

Pretty much spot on. It would be very nice for computer monitors though, as you sit very close to them. And of course it would be awesome for large projectors.

Yup it will be, although you'll still get a lot of converting of lower resolution for most people.

People hate true HD monitors on laptops as is for the most part, because when you're rending in 1080P, type is small and space is wide. It be heaven with large monitors and workstations though...

That more of an OS / Program issue though, as most graphical layouts are still assuming subHD screens are in use, and build accordingly. Rendered at a desktop of 1080+ and it's far to small. Point in fact when AVS upgraded, now my text input box is huge and the type here is tiny on my HD laptop.

I just purchased an Onkyo TX-NR5010 audio receiver; was trying to future-proof myself. It supports 4K Upscaling but not 4K Pass-Through.

And then this rumor comes out....

I agree that the games themselves will probably not run in 4K natively. But being the pessimist that I am, I still wonder if I should I shoot myself in the head now, or will setting my PS4 at a resolution of 1080p and letting my audio receiver handle the upconverting to 4K accomplish the same thing as just setting the PS4's output to 4K on a 4K pass-through audio receiver?

(And yes, obviously this is all a long-ways off, as we have no PS4 and no mass-market 4K HDTVs/projectors.)

For what its worth, I'm not worried about 4K blu-ray players - there will be plenty of them with Dual HDMI outs.

At CES 2012, HDMI org said (link) that their "target release date of the next version of the HDMI specification is the second half of 2012". Perhaps at CEDIA, in September 2012?

Several trade press articles in early 2012 "hinted" that major changes to the HDMI specifications were under consideration . . . which suggests that you might want to wait until next month to evaluate exactly how much you should castigate yourself because of your recent purchase..?!
_

Sony rocks:)

Hallelujah!

I appreciate the reply - thanks.

So its too early in the process to see how well these upconverting 4K receivers will really perform, as their manufacturer's definition of 4K may not meet the actual HDMI specification. So until we know the standardized definition of the next HDMI, any upconverting attempts versus the real deal are like comparing apples and oranges (?).

LoL. I'll unload my magnum for now, then.

Judging from your picture, I would say you are a little young to be owning a fire arm.

Exactly. In my experience, the big selling point for most "laypeople" was the size and form factor of HD displays, not the increased resolution. Even the integration of streaming tech into displays hasn't encouraged people to go out and replace their "old" LCD/plasma sets. At this point, new tech is just a justification to keep displays selling at a stable pace. Nothing I've seen yet looks like it could be a genuine paradigm shift.

HaHa. I'm 33, actually.
I liked the picture because I loved the devilish smirk - it was the closest to a life-like Calvin & Hobbes that I could find. (Man I miss Bill Watterson's work.)

There is no point in 4k for the PS4. Current PC games run at 1080P and look better than anything the PS4 will have to offer. 4K is nothing more than a marketing bullet for stupid people. Same as it was with 1080P.

SIGH, it's VIDEO 4k playback! not gaming, bunch of whiners here

Only time will tell but I'm skeptical of the "support" on the gaming side from a yahoo article. We have known for awhile it would support it but I always figured they were just bringing it up to par with other blu-ray players already out. Meaning it would scale 1080p blu-ray material. It would also display native stills (I have heard before the PS3 was supposed to get a firmware update to support this) Even if the PS4 supports the scaling I wonder what the quality would be considered most HDTVs scale better to 1080p than individual games do through software. Has anyone heard if there would be a dedicated hardware scaler in the PS4?

To me until more information becomes available this "supported" feature could be supported the same way deep color and x.v.YCC is supported. While the playstation system remains relatively unique with it being a SoC that could be improved through firmware updates I just honestly don't see the support on the gaming side. Native content to me is simply out of the question and I remain highly skeptical of even scaling support on the gaming side.

To be honest I like options but I'm almost hopeful this is purely on the movie side of things as I would be much happier with improving the general foundation of load times, screen tearing, pop in, textures, lighting, and a stable frame rate before resolution is even considered to be moved up. Maybe I have just seen too much false marketing hype in the world of Home Theatre but I remain doubtful of even seeing 1080p across the board with a rock solid frame rate. 60fps preferred but I could still see games with a lot of on screen action opting for 30fps just to keep stability.

I read an article a few years ago (forgot where) that claimed the real benefit of 4K x 2k and even higher resolutions were so 1080p full HD 3D video could be resolved at any display size without the need for special glasses. If that is true then it makes a lot of since for Sony and even the other console makers to go down this road. Especially if they are going to make and accomodate more 3D games in the Next Generation.

Japan's already running 4k aren't they ? Like 10 years ago I thought...

EDIT: check this out... 16k!

http://www.strata-gee.com/2012/08/22/forget-4k-japanese-engineers-create-new-global-standard-uhdtv/
Edited by defdog99 - 8/23/12 at 5:22pm

all we need is content now...

This well known chart by Carlton Bale shows that the benefit for anyone sitting at 1.3 SW or closer will benefit substantially from 4K resolution.

 

Chart- 1080P Does Matter - CarltonBale.pdf 125k .pdf file

Some people dont notice their projection TVs are all fuzzy and need recalibrated. But some people like myself notice it instantly.

DJoel
Edited by Djoel - 8/24/12 at 2:30pm

And more bandwidth. And better network/communications infrastructure (in the US).

I wonder if they'll ever invent TVs you can zoom into the picture.

Porns for sure... but even regular movies.

cross game voice chat is one thing im looking forward to. and support to many apps. kind of like the android.

Since, I assume, none of us have seen a 4k movie, we can't really judge if the picture quality improvement for a given screen size and distance is noticeable. HDTV was only supposed to benefit larger TVs, but I can see a quality difference between HDTV and SDTV on my 26" TV from 12' away.

I have a new panasonic 60" TV that looks awesome. When I look out a window or look at the floor, I can see something much sharper. So it seems as good as HDTV is, there's a lot of room for higher resolution improvements.

Id like to hear how you think its different other than the fact that it costs $50 a year. Most of the interaction takes place in the game which would be universal between systems usually.

Sure we can. The Human Eye doesn't have infinite resolution. Science that provides the charts like the one above, tell us exactly where the cutoff is for noticing a difference. (of course with some minor variation based on ones quality of vision)

Everything else would be subjective douchebaggery. sort of like this:

If you're not planning on getting a 80"+ screen, or not planning on sitting <2' from your 45" screen, there's going to be no discernible difference. Period.


Also, sharpness has nothing to do with your TV when cinematography or video compression are taken into effect. Put a crystal clear and sharp image on it, and there will be no difference. Or watch something in 48FPS with no motion blur. Softness is most likely either a calibration issue, or a content issue. Pixel resolution doesn't just go soft.
Edited by TyrantII - 8/24/12 at 9:47am

10 years and 70 friends and family that I game with is one reason I can come up with.

That's not really a reason though. I mean, you can have 70 friends or family on any service. Lock-in isn't really a feature.

Xbox Live is a rip-off. It's a combination of P2P matchmaking and services that are free on other devices.
Edited by number1laing - 8/24/12 at 10:36am

No one is locked into anything, The choice we made to stay on the service is exactly that a choice. You have the option to pay month to month, yearly. Don't see how your locked in if you made the available choices. contract with your phone and Directv is a "locked in service" that punishes you if you decide to exit your agreement early.

Are you locked into PSN Plus to pay to access Betas, content and cloud service for those saves?

One company thought of something the other didn't first. If Sony came first with standard features and setup of Live with they would be charging as well rather than coming up with Plus to differentiate what the same goal is and that is profits.

By "lock-in" I mean, you are on it because your friends are on it.

Companies love that because it's no work for them. For example, back in the old days when people used their phones to talk, I stayed on Verizon because my family was on Verizon and the calls were free. It's not because Verizon was doing something great.

Your description of PSN+ is also a bit disingenuous. The "content" you speak of is full-fledged games, both old and new. Just the past few months, games like LBP2, Infamous 2, Renegade Ops, VF Final Showdown, Borderlands, Outland, etc. were made available. Yea you don't keep them after your membership expires, but that's kind of the point. Sony is keeping people paying by giving them great games. As opposed to paid-for features like... Facebook, Youtube, online multiplayer, and Internet Explorer.