And what about the input lag of 4k sets? This incredible article talks on the issue of input lag and the detailed list of TVs showing the input lag of each model features 4k models too, but they are laggy?
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/input-lag
Uptake on 4K Gaming?
- Thread starter Jwm
- Start date
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/input-lag
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I'm 44 this year. TV input lag is the least of my problems, brain lag is the killer.
Yeah.. it'll happen to all of you!
Yeah.. it'll happen to all of you!
This is true, I also don't need lense flare as that is now a built in feature to my eyeballs. Along with with fuzzy AA, 2xMSAA at least is now free.I'm 44 this year. TV input lag is the least of my problems, brain lag is the killer.
Yeah.. it'll happen to all of you!
I'm 44 this year. TV input lag is the least of my problems, brain lag is the killer.
Yeah.. it'll happen to all of you!
Total lag = input lag + brain lag.
hah, you sound like a shifty geezer in the works.I'm 44 this year. TV input lag is the least of my problems, brain lag is the killer.
Yeah.. it'll happen to all of you!
Well, input lag is extremely important for me. Anything over 30 ms of input lag I lose precision.This is true, I also don't need lense flare as that is now a built in feature to my eyeballs. Along with with fuzzy AA, 2xMSAA at least is now free.
FarticusMaximus
Newcomer
Yes, at the expense of per-pixel quality. When it comes to 1080p vs 4K, I don't believe that is a trade-off worth making. Incredibly sharp geometry and textures with basic lighting to me looks worse than richly lit and shaded objects.
Of course it depends on what type of game you are making, but generally I'd say if you are compositing a 3D scene then lighting, shading and realistic material representation will have more of an effect on creating a convincing sense of perspective, depth and object relation than razor-sharp objects which don't sit in the scene as well.
For the PC crowd, yeah what the hell, go nuts with resolution if you have the budget to accommodate it. Consoles don't have anywhere near enough power to fully exploit 1080p resolutions yet and won't be 4K capable for a very, very long time.
Most of the 4k tv sets are over 40ms from the reviews I've seen. Though they're not that clear if they disabled all the postprocessing options or tried different inputs. Its one area that reviews seem to struggle with if they even cover it at all.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Every graphical decision is a trade off. You mentioned "realistic material representation" in a bit of post I snipped and things like fabrics, carbon fibres, stone and many other organic matreials can be rendered more accurately at high resolutions where details like threads and grain can be reproduced clearer.
LIke next generation, already being worked on by teams inside Microsoft and Sony. Give the developers the option to do what they think is best for their games I say.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
40ms (+/- 2ms) is where the fastest 4K sets currently fall in game mode (zazzy processing disabled), rising upwards to 100ms
My Bravia 4K X8505 has a display lag of 40.1ms, which is a tad more than my previous (2010) 1080p Bravia EX703 which had a display lag of 38.7ms in game mode. I can't recall what my earlier Samsung 720p had. You can certainly find much faster 1080p sets with measurable lag as low as 6ms but if you read the reviews of the panels, they're often not that great in terms of contrast, black levels and colour reproduction.Being the old bugger that I am, 40ms is imperceptible to me but it may be to somebody younger or just with better visual acuity. In 60Hz display refresh terms 40ms is 3Hz lag. In FPS terms in a solid 60fps game, the lag is 3 frames. In a solid 30fps game the lag is 2 frames. Anything under 16ms is obviously the ideal.
Looooooooseeeeeeeeeeer!
Keep torturing your eyes with that blurry sub hd 4k monitor, here is my true hd 8k!
At least the standard
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015...standard-supporting-devices-with-8k-displays/
Keep torturing your eyes with that blurry sub hd 4k monitor, here is my true hd 8k!
At least the standard
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015...standard-supporting-devices-with-8k-displays/
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
900p perhaps is the sweet spot for you, on what I assume is a 1080p TV but for me, on a 49" TV at around six feet distance (and occasionally a little closer if I'm beanbagging it), BF4 at 900p on PS4 is perceptibly less sharp than it's contemporary COD:AW at 1080p on PS4. Naturally there's is more to image quality than the number of pixels but objects in the distance really suffer with less pixels.But 900P is the sweet spot, we don't need more pixels, we need better pixels.
I wonder if this is more pronounced on 4K sets. Even in game mode the TV is performing adaptive upscaling (rather than a basic 1:4 pixel upscale from 1080p to 4k) so it makes sense that the more raw data will improve the resulting upscaled image.
Yes, but I am not ready to drop $10/$20k on a decent 4k setup! I have a 110" BlackDiamond screen, and a 90" SI, both of those are rated at 4k (whatever that means on a screen, LOL). With where I sit 1080p looks really good, and I can "actually" notice 900p, 720p like BF4 is horrid and reminds me of my Atari Lynx.
They should be gaming on PC!
Me too. I can't afford a decent, low input lag 4k HDTV and I am not in a hurry to buy one either. We will have to wait til next generation of consoles for games to run at 4k -maybe even 120 fps-Yes, but I am not ready to drop $10/$20k on a decent 4k setup! I have a 110" BlackDiamond screen, and a 90" SI, both of those are rated at 4k (whatever that means on a screen, LOL). With where I sit 1080p looks really good, and I can "actually" notice 900p, 720p like BF4 is horrid and reminds me of my Atari Lynx.
Almost 8 years later and 4K still isn't the norm, on modern games. Vesa were ahead of their time. I got a cheapo 4K 28" monitor a few years ago, but apart from the resolution, it was so bad IQ wise that I barely used it except for some productivity reasons.
Older games are superb at 4K, because they are more efficient to run.
Today playing Skyrim -pc gamepass-, I started the game and I noticed that in the intro -where the dragon appears- just before the executions, when one of the prisoners tries to run away and the imperials shoot him with a bow, he gets an arrow in the calf muscle and collapses and instantly falls dead.
Never seen that detail before because I had never played Skyrim in 4K, and when I saw the arrow (which is the actual thing I've never seen before, the distance and the blurriness never helped and to me that always looked realistic) in the calf muscle today,
well... it made me chuckle.
The 4k uptake is maybe faster for console simply because more of them use TV?
