TheWretched
Regular
Yeah guess what... cheap devices aren't all that great. There's a reason, other than "because we can", that there's 4K sets starting at under 800€, yet new ones MSRP at > 2000€.
Predict: Next gen console tech (9th iteration and 10th iteration edition) [2014 - 2017]
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
- Status
I'd say most people don't know. I certainly didn't!
Advertising a TV as 1080p and then not having it show a full 1080p frame every frame is IMO false advertising.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
To be clear, I'm only talking about the TV that I've owned since August. And I don't think freezing a frame would help because what BRiT is talking about is the TV not being able to fully refresh the entire display in motion, in a freeze frame (like a picture) it should catch up.
I am interested to know which 4K TVs are known to exhibit this issue.
The differences can be subtle. When I got my new TV I hooked up my iMac (which can output at 4K) and ran a few Steam games and the drop in aliasing when outputting 4096x2160 vs 1920x1200 is noticeable on a 50" set at 6-8ft. I can't remember all the games I tried but Settlers VII, Borderlands and Torchlight were among them.
I'd say most people don't know. I certainly didn't!
Well most people won't know how to call it, but they would see the blur or any kind of smudging of detail when the image moves. That's what motion resolution is. It's also very easy to test, with a 60fps game for example or any of the news channels with scrolling text.
Nowadays the only way to have the best TVs resolve 1080 lines in motion is by activating the motion smoothing feature which introduces other issues. Last time I checked, NO TV is able to resolve their full resolution natively, although some are better than others. And LCD has always been at the bottom of the list for obvious technological reasons, until these 'soap opera' effects and black frame insertion were introduced to make things better.
This is why at the moment both OLED and 4k TVs are, for me, a big no go. Both produce amazing pictures in their own right, but motion resolution still needs to catch up.
Last edited:
I expect new high end console to launch at least in 2020.
Actually I see a lot of (ok bad quality) 4k tv sold only at a little more than 1080p, and the SPOD people are buying them and ejoying the quality.
A friend of mine showed me his new gigantic Lg 4k smarttv brought for only 600€, for comparison a smaller dumb 1080p tv is about 400€.
In motion it looked like some old bad converted ntsc to pal telefilm and very annoying to look at, but my friend was more than happy and can't understand what I was talking about.
And on top of that we have no real hd tv yet, only 1080i on some selected channels that sometime transmit only upscaled 576i.
It looks that nowadays it's easier to cram unholy amount of pixel in a panel, and in Ces 2017 I'm sure that the buzzword will be 8k.
If microsoft or sony feel comfortable with a 6 years cycle, 8k tv by the time will be cheap , common, and in the stores by 3 years.
Don't you want the first console in history with 8k image quality or you realy want that shitty one with low quality sub 8k ports?
Ok, all this only if we don't have another recession, and if we don't hit a technology wall, and if microsoft and sony have still money and interest, and if the sh are not pulled out of businness for the increasing development cost.
A lot of "if" honestly.
Because of all this I believe that any prediction must target that resolution at least formally.
Actually I see a lot of (ok bad quality) 4k tv sold only at a little more than 1080p, and the SPOD people are buying them and ejoying the quality.
A friend of mine showed me his new gigantic Lg 4k smarttv brought for only 600€, for comparison a smaller dumb 1080p tv is about 400€.
In motion it looked like some old bad converted ntsc to pal telefilm and very annoying to look at, but my friend was more than happy and can't understand what I was talking about.
And on top of that we have no real hd tv yet, only 1080i on some selected channels that sometime transmit only upscaled 576i.
It looks that nowadays it's easier to cram unholy amount of pixel in a panel, and in Ces 2017 I'm sure that the buzzword will be 8k.
If microsoft or sony feel comfortable with a 6 years cycle, 8k tv by the time will be cheap , common, and in the stores by 3 years.
Don't you want the first console in history with 8k image quality or you realy want that shitty one with low quality sub 8k ports?
Ok, all this only if we don't have another recession, and if we don't hit a technology wall, and if microsoft and sony have still money and interest, and if the sh are not pulled out of businness for the increasing development cost.
A lot of "if" honestly.
Because of all this I believe that any prediction must target that resolution at least formally.
TheWretched
Regular
Well, to be fair, most content is also chroma subsampled at 4:2:0, which is "by definition" also not 2K or 4K either.
The resolution difference is much easier to spot if you disable the antialiasing (or use low quality AA). Last gen we had some AAA console games that didn't have any AA (at the beginning of the generation, when post AA was not invented yet). This generation all the console games released so far have supported some kind of AA. In addition to edge AA solutions (such as MSAA and post AA), dedicated specular antialiasing has become quite common (Toksvig, etc). Motion blur and DOF have also become more common (both make images smoother). Next gen games will look more like movies (most of the screen is not in 100% sharp focus, combination of AA techniques hide sharp shimmering edges). This kind of content doesn't gain as much from higher resolution than current game content (especially when AA is completely disabled in current games). I am sure that some people will not be able to distinguish this kind of 4K content from 1080p (assuming common TV sizes stay around 50" to 60").
However if head mounted displays (Oculus Rift style) become popular then 4K is very much needed. This kind of devices cover much larger part of the eye, meaning that 4K actually has lower pixel density than 1080p on average size TVs. Head mounted displays demand two 60 fps images (30 fps is AWFUL) per second (sync locked, tearing looks horrible as well). Current gen norm is 1080p at 30 fps. 4K at 2x 60 fps is 4*2*2 = 16x as demanding (at similar pixel quality). If you want to double the pixel quality as well, you need 32x GPU performance. Unlikely to happen.
At the same time, you'd still need to support TVs in games. That suggests games will have to scale, PC like. Have a TV mode and a VR mode, the TV mode is having prettier pixels and more detail. And if doing that, why not support various quality settings and allow the user to choose 4k, 1080p, high framerate, VR?
The higher quality plasma TV is able to quite handily. No motion resolution issues on many of the Panasonic 1080p plasmas that were on sale in 2013. Shame Panasonic pulled out of that market.
One would hope that if achievable, the 16x performance would not all go to increasing resolution. No one will want to play Uncharted 4 in 8k, just as much as we've had quite enough of playing last gen games at 1080p this time around. Common sense, really.
Give us more accurate lighting/geometry/everything else to try to make 1080p games look more like CGI. Not current games graphics at stupidly high resolutions.
Damn. Thanks for the talks about motion resolution it wasn't even on my radar for my TV purchase. I went and got a Panasonic TC65 s60 because it had great image quality and it had next to nil input lag. But I missed this one section on motion resolution in which my TV does only 700 lines vs 800 lines of the higher model and the gap widens when dejudder is enabled. Explains why my Sony looks so much sharper in motion. My comparison test is Dora the Explorer.
Edit removed remark about price points. Only at the same screens sizes are the price differentials significant.
Edit removed remark about price points. Only at the same screens sizes are the price differentials significant.
Last edited:
Sorry. Ignorance is bliss when it comes to IQ. I hate myself sometimes for reading too much about all the aspects of IQ, which in turn makes you see things you wouldn't even notice normally. I was much happier when I had no idea.
Lol me too. Except it was noticeable that Dora on Netflix on Sony was way sharper than Dora on Netflix on my Panasonic. I chalked it up to post processing since I knew my Panasonic had none. Now it just turns out that the Panasonic is doing 700 lines vs the Sony's 1080 lines (which I just checked). Colour and black levels however the Panasonic still wrecks my Sony.
PS3, 2006, 256 GFlops (actually a 2005 architecture, no?). 16x == 4 TFlops. That arrived in the GTX 780, 2013, 7 (8) years later, at a crazy price-point. What makes you think that 16x PS4, 29 teraflops, will be achievable and affordable in five years?
I know, I have one!
Whatever we will get, I do hope that the resolution race will take second (or third, fourth) place to other aspects of the graphics pipeline which need to be addressed and would improve graphics a lot more noticeably.
I'd say that the res race won't drive console design. It'll be issues of price and power consumption. If someone can put 30 TF in an affordable console, they will, and devs'll have the option to use 4k. If they can only get 12 TF, games won't push so much for 4k. As ever, let the devs decide and they'll be sensible regards what displays people are using and how well they manage to make money with their targets, until the end of the gen when we'll have juddery photorealism at 20 fps with the hardware brought to its knees!
- Status