Uptake on 4K Gaming?

[Jwm]

Another problem, is how quickly will we see 4k uptake and replace existing sets. We still have people upgrading from 720p to 1080p for goodness sake. I am not upgrading until 4k projectors are more affordable, but I will admit I check prices often. ;p

My triple monitor setup is only 1080p, so it will be more than a few years before I upgrade them. Chances are my phone will be the first 4k display in the house. LOL

So I am happy that this generation I do not have to really pay attention to safe-zones in case someone might be on a 480p set. I think 4k will be next generation (although this makes me sad inside) as realistically we know these consoles can't push it properly. On PC, I am giddy for what is to come.

 

[wco81]

There seems to be some belief, mostly by AV enthusiasts, that Sony could release a PS4 Slim later this year with HDMI 2.0 (capable of 18 Gbps throughput) and HDCP 2.2 to support playback of new 4K Blu-Ray discs which are suppose to come at the end of this year.

 

[London Geezer]

There seems to be some belief, mostly by AV enthusiasts, that Sony could release a PS4 Slim later this year with HDMI 2.0 (capable of 18 Gbps throughput) and HDCP 2.2 to support playback of new 4K Blu-Ray discs which are suppose to come at the end of this year.

Haven't followed lately but is the Bluray drive the same? Would we only need a PS4 with updated HDMI?

 

[wco81]

Theory is that PS4 has a BD XL drive, which would be compatible with the 4K disc spec, which would support up to 100 GB I believe, by having 3 layers.

I'm skeptical but people are deferring purchases betting on it. A Slim would be to reduce costs and adding a new HDMI/HDCP chipset probably wouldn't be cheaper than what they're using now, not to mention the testing needed to make sure playback works well with the new chipset and the GPU.

More likely, if people want a 4K player this year, they'll have to buy a dedicated first generation one which will probably cost about as much as a PS4.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I could see ones with the 4k BluRay drive, but it's going to take a while for that format to gain any traction. A cheapish console with the drive would certainly help.

 

[wco81]

Crazy thing is there are probably tens of millions of 4K TVs already out there, though many of them are cheap, no-name Chinese brands which wouldn't have the right HDMI or HDCP for 4K discs.

But UHD TVs, including some which may be upgradeable to HDCP 2.2, supposedly sold well in the US this past Xmas.

 

[temesgen]

There is an analyst covering Netflix saying both XB1 and PS4 will be updated to 4k compatible machines. Apparently 4k streaming is coming but current consoles don't have proper HDMI or HDCP compatible chips. We're not going to see these machines doing 4k games anytime soon though. I'll see if I can find the article....

 

[Shortbread]

There is an analyst covering Netflix saying both XB1 and PS4 will be updated to 4k compatible machines. Apparently 4k streaming is coming but current consoles don't have proper HDMI or HDCP compatible chips. We're not going to see these machines doing 4k games anytime soon though. I'll see if I can find the article....

This doesn't make any sense. If I'm not mistaken; doesn't the current PS4/XB1 have 'type B' HDMI ports? The only thing that is needed is a proper firmware update...

 

[temesgen]

This doesn't make any sense. If I'm not mistaken; doesn't the current PS4/XB1 have 'type B' HDMI ports? The only thing that is needed is a proper firmware update...

Sorry I should have been more clear, the current HDMI port can only do 30 frames versus 60 that newer spec supports

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Sorry I should have been more clear, the current HDMI port can only do 30 frames versus 60 that newer spec supports

Uh.. what? Out of the gate, HDMI revision 1, supported a pixel clock of 165Mhz for 1920x1200 at 60Hz.

 

[Shortbread]

Uh.. what? Out of the gate, HDMI revision 1, supported a pixel clock of 165Mhz for 1920x1200 at 60Hz.

I think tuna was stating that HDMI spec 1.4 can deliver a maximum UHD resolution of 4096x2160/30Hz... while HDMI spec 2.0 can deliver a maximum UHD resolution of 4096x2160/60Hz. All other common resolutions such as 1920x1080, of course (spec HDMI 1.0 and beyond) should be capable of 60Hz.

 

[temesgen]

here is the article which I was referencing in my original post on this:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc...e-consoles-coming-this-year-predicts-netflix/

 

[Shortbread]

If Sony/MS want to release an updated system with HDMI 2.0 compliance that's fine... but don't stiff the current owners from enjoying UHD 30Hz material, or being able to run the OS user interface at 4K. Don't be douchebags...

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I think tuna was stating that HDMI spec 1.4 can deliver a maximum UHD resolution of 4096x2160/30Hz... while HDMI spec 2.0 can deliver a maximum UHD resolution of 4096x2160/60Hz. All other common resolutions such as 1920x1080, of course (spec HDMI 1.0 and beyond) should be capable of 60Hz.

Uh, my bad! Yes, UHD resolutions were limited to 24, 25 and 30Hz prior to HDMI 2.0

 

[fehu]

Here just to say SPOD

 

[FarticusMaximus]

This is not going to be a popular view, but I hope console gaming never goes 4K. Well, not within the next few generations at least. 4K video, sure why not, but gaming? No point whatsoever.

We need better per-pixel quality, not more pixels. With enough geometry detail, colour precision, physics-based rendering and lighting techniques and antialiasing I believe we could currently have near photorealism at, say 480p (DVD resolution). The incessant quest for pointless numbers, mankind's need to be in a constant willy-waving competition, will prevent that from happening of course.

We need horsepower to go into the game world, to animation, AI, physics interactions, new more realistic rendering techniques, and game scope. These things will produce richer games. 4K, and the next resolution, and the one after that, ad nauseum, will have the opposite effect. A console's horsepower should grossly outmatch it's resolution capability, not struggle to reach it.

We also need lower latency displays. More pixels can only result in higher latency.

We are slaves to TV manufacturers who need to sell new products with larger numbers on their spec sheets. WE, gaming consumers, do not need higher resolutions. We are conditioned to want higher resolutions, and we suffer because of it.

Disclaimer: Opinion.

 

[tuna]

We also need lower latency displays. More pixels can only result in higher latency.

I fail to see why this must be true.

 

[FarticusMaximus]

I fail to see why this must be true.

In hindsight you are right there. Image processor hardware in TV's will inevitably become faster, so as long as they keep up with the number of pixels latency should not increase.

Latency is a major bugbear of mine though. Input, audio and display latency. I'm super sensitive to them all.

Off topic, but one thing I would really like on consoles is an ultra-low latency ADC. Primarily for Rocksmith (I know, it's a big ask for one game) but it may have other uses.

The rock band cable introduces far too much lag for me, and when combined with audio-over-HDMI it means I can't use Rocksmith on current gen consoles.

 

[Jwm]

I really need to stop starting new threads inside existing threads.

I thought HDMI 1.4 was 4k at 24hz or low color mode at 30/60hz/

 

[Deleted member 11852]

This is not going to be a popular view, but I hope console gaming never goes 4K. Well, not within the next few generations at least. 4K video, sure why not, but gaming? No point whatsoever.

Higher resolutions will assist with higher detail in objects I'm the distance, basic texture filtering (AF) and solving aliasing issues.