4k resolution coming

[user542745831]

Unless someone is thinking of pre-rendered as the entire background is one bitmap/jpg/png/whatever as in the case of FF7 on the original playstation.

Something more like what is shown in the following two videos for example:

but even more detailed and at 3840x2160 for example .

But would gamers actually be satisified with something like that in this day and age?

You serious? Imagine how awesome a game like "Resident Evil Remake" for example could probably look if it would utilize modern hardware and 1080p resolution or maybe even beyond 1080p, like "4K" for example ?

 

[antwan]

Resident Evil on GC used pre rendered excellent looping movies. The detail and motion was just excellent, far better than any realtime game ever released anyway, if you forget about resolution.
Lighting effects when shooting didn't cast shadows or relight the environment, but then again, looking at Halo4 with it's realtime graphics, neither do all the weapons in that game and Halo4 is already seen as a graphics masterpiece so..

also the shadows were excellent, they positioned the lightsources so that flat objects could receive shadows; which were calculated on a really low polygon version of those objects, and then projected against it.

I am totally with S_B on this one; it would indeed look awesome.

 

[tuna]

If you up the shutter speed there will also be less blur.

Wouldn't it, with 24fps, feel more stuttery as well?

 

[Simon F]

Wouldn't it, with 24fps, feel more stuttery as well?

Very much so.

 

[eastmen]

It's not about moving and static shots, but the capturing system introducing a tiny degree of blur enough to destroy the benefits of 4k.

I personaly wish they would skip 4k and go right to 8k and stay there. Camera's will catch up with the format. Look at the history of the HD camera in the late 90s when the current HD standards were taking shape the camera's were trash . Now towards the end of the HD era we have amazing camera's for 1080p , we are actually filming now in 4k resolution at much better quality than we had 1080p in the 90s .

I think the most important thing on tvs with the resolution bump would be the color accuracy. Thats what I want to see more so than ever.


Right now I can get a 70 inch tv for about $3k . In another 3-4 years I'm sure a 100 inch tv would be in the same price range and you can bet i'd want a higher resolution than 1080p. I can already start to see problems at 70 inches . Not to mention if screens keep getting skinnier and lighter there is no reason not to go bigger. Even in my small apartment I have room on the wall for about a 120 inch tv , esp if it wasn't much thicker than a framed poster .

 

[mrcorbo]

Right now I can get a 70 inch tv for about $3k . In another 3-4 years I'm sure a 100 inch tv would be in the same price range and you can bet i'd want a higher resolution than 1080p. I can already start to see problems at 70 inches . Not to mention if screens keep getting skinnier and lighter there is no reason not to go bigger. Even in my small apartment I have room on the wall for about a 120 inch tv , esp if it wasn't much thicker than a framed poster .

The push towards higher resolution displays/content has to be accompanied by a push towards bigger/cheaper/lower profile screens before it will be relevant to all but a small niche of consumers. Since, given the way their companies are structured, I don't think the big players in the market are going to reverse their fortunes by selling low-volume high-margin products, my concern (and my expectation, actually) is that they intend to charge a premium for a feature that won't benefit most consumers and then use marketing to mislead people into believing that they "have to have it".

Recent history shows that this is not a sound business strategy. Hopefully, for their sake, they either have some insight that I don't have or actually understand that the best way to stimulate sales is to deliver value for money.

 

[eastmen]

Mobile is pushing higher ppi displays and is getting people used to thinking of higher resolutions. It wont be long till your phone has a resolution at 4 inches that is the same as your 42 or 70 inch tv.

I think we should skip 4k and go right to 8k at 7680x4320 . That 42 inch tv suddenly becomes "retina" , 209.8 dpi actually. I think it could be a big selling point . Of course they can't claim retina but they can use other buzz words

 

[rpg.314]

The perceptual limits are much lower than 200 ppi when sitting farther away.

Don't feel like doing the math right now but I wager it would be around 100-150 ppi.

 

[eastmen]

The perceptual limits are much lower than 200 ppi when sitting farther away.

Don't feel like doing the math right now but I wager it would be around 100-150 ppi.

yea but thats 42 inch , go up to 52 inch and your down to 169.45 PPI , go 70 iches and your at 125.88 gp 100 iches and your at 88

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Mobile is pushing higher ppi displays and is getting people used to thinking of higher resolutions. It wont be long till your phone has a resolution at 4 inches that is the same as your 42 or 70 inch tv.

That's a stupid waste of resources, because below a certain threshold we can't resolve better. Photographs are printed at 300 dpi and that's considered perfect, so why push screen beyond 300 dpi? There's no need to go 400, 500, 600 dpi on a handheld, besides maybe as a solution to some display issue. But user won't be resolving down to that 400, 500, 600 dpi. It'll look the same resolution as 300 dpi.

I think we should skip 4k and go right to 8k at 7680x4320.

Using what storage and distribution systems? What editing systems?

. That 42 inch tv suddenly becomes "retina" , 209.8 dpi actually. I think it could be a big selling point . Of course they can't claim retina but they can use other buzz words

Dpi is relevant only regards FOV. 200 dpi on a screen viewed from a distance is utterly pointless. You only need high dpi for close viewing, 300 doi being hand-held close. The reason for higher resolution is to increase FOV - if sticking at the same FOV as we're used to, 1080p offers a pretty ideal resolution. That's probably the way forwards, but after we've increased temporal resolution which will have by far the bigger benefits.

 

[eastmen]

That's a stupid waste of resources, because below a certain threshold we can't resolve better. Photographs are printed at 300 dpi and that's considered perfect, so why push screen beyond 300 dpi? There's no need to go 400, 500, 600 dpi on a handheld, besides maybe as a solution to some display issue. But user won't be resolving down to that 400, 500, 600 dpi. It'll look the same resolution as 300 dpi.

at some point adding the higher dpi wont cost any aditional money over the lower one and thus will be used as marketing

Using what storage and distribution systems? What editing systems?

New compression coupled with streaming and larger hardrives or even better optical. It exists out there. The editing systems will come , its just more software on more powerful computers

Dpi is relevant only regards FOV. 200 dpi on a screen viewed from a distance is utterly pointless. You only need high dpi for close viewing, 300 doi being hand-held close. The reason for higher resolution is to increase FOV - if sticking at the same FOV as we're used to, 1080p offers a pretty ideal resolution. That's probably the way forwards, but after we've increased temporal resolution which will have by far the bigger benefits.

I can see the pixels on the screen with the 70 inch tvs out there and i can stand back about 6-8 feet away to do it. I'm only 3 feet away from my 42 inch tv as we speak and i can see the pixels . I'm of course assuming that just like the jump from crt to hd lcd we will edge up in standard sizes. I would think 100 inch panels will become common place in the next 5 years.

The larger the screen the further back you can be while still seeing the individual pixels. A higher resolution will solve that

 

[Shifty Geezer]

New compression coupled with streaming and larger hardrives or even better optical. It exists out there. The editing systems will come , its just more software on more powerful computers

Sure, but it's a ways off. You're saying yuo don't want any interrim improvement over 1080p and would rather just wait until 8k is available?

I can see the pixels on the screen with the 70 inch tvs out there and i can stand back about 6-8 feet away to do it. I'm only 3 feet away from my 42 inch tv as we speak and i can see the pixels .

Well that's way closer than typical viewing!! A 60" 1080p display viewed from 8 feet away is 20/20.

The larger the screen the further back you can be while still seeing the individual pixels. A higher resolution will solve that

Yes, that's increasing FOV. But that requires closer viewing, like a 70" TV being viewed from 5 feet away. That's atypical viewing. For the sorts of distances people watch from in their living room, you'd need 200" screens for 4k to be necessary. 8k would be complete overkill.

All this said, I've just read something suggesting 20/20 vision isn't an accurate measure of human visual acuity, and we could be twice that. But that's detecting a particle. For the sake of watching TV, factoring in the way the human brain sees, 20/20 is a good target.

 

[user542745831]

I think we should skip 4k and go right to 8k at 7680x4320.

Using what storage and distribution systems? What editing systems?

See for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-definition_television#History

[...]

On August 23, 2012, UHDTV was officially approved as a standard by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), standardizing both 4K and 8K resolutions for the format in ITU-R Recommendation BT.2020 (Rec. 2020).[1][40]

On September 15, 2012, David Wood, Deputy Director of the EBU Technology and Development Department (who chairs the ITU working group that created Rec. 2020), told The Hollywood Reporter that Korea plans to begin test broadcasts of 4K UHDTV next year.[12][41][42] Wood also said that many broadcasters have the opinion that going from HDTV to 8K UHDTV is too much of a leap and that it would be better to start with 4K UHDTV.[12] In the same article Masakazu Iwaki, NHK Research senior manager, said that the NHK plan to go with 8K UHDTV is for economic reasons since directly going to 8K UHDTV would avoid an additional transition from 4K UHDTV to 8K UHDTV.[12]

[...]

and:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/30/panasonics-145-inch-8k-pdp-eyes-on-video/

Panasonic's 145-inch 8K PDP eyes-on (video)

[...]

Developed in partnership with Japan's NHK, the prototype is merely a proof of concept for the broadcaster's planned 2020 launch of Super Hi Vision TV.

[...]

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Developed in partnership with Japan's NHK, the prototype is merely a proof of concept for the broadcaster's planned 2020 launch of Super Hi Vision TV.

We can at this point cut to the chase and say, "I want images beamed directly to my brain," or we can discuss technology as it's developing and available instead of in the distant future.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I personaly wish they would skip 4k and go right to 8k and stay there. Camera's will catch up with the format. Look at the history of the HD camera in the late 90s when the current HD standards were taking shape the camera's were trash . Now towards the end of the HD era we have amazing camera's for 1080p , we are actually filming now in 4k resolution at much better quality than we had 1080p in the 90s .

I think the most important thing on tvs with the resolution bump would be the color accuracy. Thats what I want to see more so than ever.


Right now I can get a 70 inch tv for about $3k . In another 3-4 years I'm sure a 100 inch tv would be in the same price range and you can bet i'd want a higher resolution than 1080p. I can already start to see problems at 70 inches . Not to mention if screens keep getting skinnier and lighter there is no reason not to go bigger. Even in my small apartment I have room on the wall for about a 120 inch tv , esp if it wasn't much thicker than a framed poster .

Sure, if you don't mind paying between 50-100k USD for that 100" 8k screen. A 4k screen in that size is likely to cost over 20k for the next 5 or so years. Likely over 10k for the next 10 or so years.

I also like the marketing behind moving from vertical resolution to horizontal resolution to make 4k sound really impressive. Going from 1080p to 4k sure sounds a lot more impressive than going from 2k to 4k (roughly what is happening) or 1080p to 2160p (assuming that becomes the standard HDTV standard).

Regards,
SB

 

[user542745831]

assuming that becomes the standard HDTV standard

It appears to be called:

UHDTV

See for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-definition_television

[...]

Ultra-high definition television includes 4K UHDTV (2160p) and 8K UHDTV (4320p), which are two digital video formats proposed by NHK Science & Technology Research Laboratories and defined/approved by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).[1][2][3][4]

[...]

 

[wco81]

Direct TV announced they'd move to Ultra HDTV at some point. They conceded that 4k displays are expensive but they anticipate they'll come down to mass market prices.

Well, they don't even support 1080p now so who knows.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Sure, if you don't mind paying between 50-100k USD for that 100" 8k screen. A 4k screen in that size is likely to cost over 20k for the next 5 or so years. Likely over 10k for the next 10 or so years.

I also like the marketing behind moving from vertical resolution to horizontal resolution to make 4k sound really impressive. Going from 1080p to 4k sure sounds a lot more impressive than going from 2k to 4k (roughly what is happening) or 1080p to 2160p (assuming that becomes the standard HDTV standard).

Regards,
SB

They needed a way to let the average consumer understand the 4x jump in resolution. 2K to 4K only seems like a 2x jump, in resolution, to the average person. 1080p to 4K gets the point across, without having to spend millions extra on consumer education. Can you blame them?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't think that's it at all. 1080p is 2x the resolution of 720p but there's no attempt to communicate that. AFAIK the 4k name comes from cinema using a different metric to TV, and we've just switched convention. It is ridiculous, not least because 4k isn't accurate in the horizontal resolution (which varies a lot too), but it's not manipulative.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I would love to see 4K displays in person, but I'm really skeptical of their worthiness. I had a 1080p projector with a 100" screen and I sat 3 meters away from it and you can't see the pixels from one another at that size/distance. I always felt that issues with image quality were due to some other factor besides the resolution, like film cameras having poor quality "night mode" etc. If that size/distance ratio doesn't bring improvements then the tech really is quite redundant.

Computer graphics would probably see more benefit from higher res, but per pixel quality would take an immense hit by going 4K vs 1080p. With something like a 50-60" display from 3-4 meters away, 4K would be an absolute waste imo.