I kinda hope you are right. The reason being that I just switched to a 4k camera and did two shoots with it, and the results are so much better than 1080p to where even viewing the 4k content on my 65" 1080p plasma paints a remarkably better picture, far better than what DirecTV offers. What amuses me is how I on my own am now able to provide my customers content that looks sharper than what multi million dollar corporations can. So I do hope you are right and Hollywood shuns 4k as that would be fantastic for me, it would be great if people had to turn to internet websites like mine to for best picture quality. I suppose in a way that's inevitable though as my customers already have > 1080p displays available on their ultrabooks, tablets, etc so the transition to 4k is a natural one.
Will gaming ever go 4K/8K?
- Thread starter blakjedi
- Start date
I kinda hope you are right. The reason being that I just switched to a 4k camera and did two shoots with it, and the results are so much better than 1080p to where even viewing the 4k content on my 65" 1080p plasma paints a remarkably better picture, far better than what DirecTV offers. What amuses me is how I on my own am now able to provide my customers content that looks sharper than what multi million dollar corporations can. So I do hope you are right and Hollywood shuns 4k as that would be fantastic for me, it would be great if people had to turn to internet websites like mine to for best picture quality. I suppose in a way that's inevitable though as my customers already have > 1080p displays available on their ultrabooks, tablets, etc so the transition to 4k is a natural one.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
Anyone want to guess what might be the ideal number of ROPs + amount of memory bandwidth for the next generation of game consoles for native 4K gaming, in ~5 or so years?
PS4 is at 32 (more suited to 1080p or 900p) Xbox One is at 16 (more suited to 720p)
I mean like from both a price perspective and a needed-performance perspective on a next generation APUs / SoCs (assuming their from AMD again) taking into account the likely manufacturing nodes such chips choud be on, late this decade.
As far as memory bandwidth, aside from DDR4, GDDR6, etc., what about stacked memory (ala NV's Pascal in 2016-2017) on the APU/SoC for consoles that are likely to be released in by fall 2019?
Also:
What might be the chances those consoles might be capable of native 8K resolution, even if games that do it (at great cost to performance/fps) are few and far between, not unlike how native 1080p was with Xbox 360 and PS3.
PS4 is at 32 (more suited to 1080p or 900p) Xbox One is at 16 (more suited to 720p)
I mean like from both a price perspective and a needed-performance perspective on a next generation APUs / SoCs (assuming their from AMD again) taking into account the likely manufacturing nodes such chips choud be on, late this decade.
As far as memory bandwidth, aside from DDR4, GDDR6, etc., what about stacked memory (ala NV's Pascal in 2016-2017) on the APU/SoC for consoles that are likely to be released in by fall 2019?
Also:
What might be the chances those consoles might be capable of native 8K resolution, even if games that do it (at great cost to performance/fps) are few and far between, not unlike how native 1080p was with Xbox 360 and PS3.
Did you mean 4k?
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
Sorry yes, 4k
djskribbles
Legend
Obviously, the pixel density is insane for a 5.5" display, even at 1080p. Plus there is little to no QHD content for mobile devices. I still have no issues with my 4.7" 720p phone.
The jump from 720 to 1080 was met with a similar response. A lot of people saw little to no improvement with 1080p, because average sized HDTVs were still relatively small by today's standards, and there was little to no true 1080p content. As always, the benefit of higher resolutions really comes with larger displays (with typical TV usage), and when viewing true native content. A lot of earlier '1080p' Blu-Rays out there didn't actually have 'true' 1080p detail.
4K has the same hurdles 1080p had to overcome. 1. Production costs of 4K displays are higher than 1080p displays (as are 1080p displays vs 720p displays), so until they can reduce the costs and sell them at an affordable price, 4K isn't going to take off. 2. There is little to no 4K content out there right now. And 3. To get the most out of 4K you need a fairly large display. #3 may be a bigger hurdle for 4K because at these large sizes, placement/space becomes an issue for some. Sure they will sell smaller 4K displays, but there will be a smaller improvement over 1080p.
That said, there are definitely diminishing returns with 4K, but I think we will eventually get there with consoles. But I think that we're still a ways from it and it will take longer than it took to get where we're at now with 1080p.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
I'd say that the chances of the next-gen going 4k are entirely dependent on whether consumers adopt the technology over the next few years. Judging by the comments here, a technology forum, the interest isn't exactly high and people here would generally be the first to get onto new tech.
Also, if people do start to buy these TVs we should expect another over-long generation.
Also, if people do start to buy these TVs we should expect another over-long generation.
djskribbles
Legend
Yup, and as I said above, that will depend on TV manufacturers bringing the production costs down, and movie production companies / cable/satellite providers producing/supplying true 4K content. Then it will be up to consumers to decide whether it's worth it or not. It's a difficult thing to predict at this point.
I've been a member at AVSForum and HighDefJunkies for several years, and not to offend anyone here, but judging by the 'regular' posters, there is a pretty big difference in terms of what displays people own in general. Adoption of 4K will start with the videophiles, then slowly but (IMO) surely the mass market. Personally, I doubt it will be in time for next-gen.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
Then you also have the satellite/cable companies providing services at the resolution. I don't see mass market adoption until this happens.
djskribbles
Legend
Agreed (I edited that in before you posted
).Film/cable/satellite/Netflix etc. will drive 4K, not gaming. And again, I don't see mass market adoption happening in time for next gen, but I think it will happen eventually.
Last edited by a moderator:
DuckThor Evil
Legend
It seems VR can work with around a 5" display, so that is the size you need. Even a monitor/TV don't have to be that big if you put it close to your face. For one viewing position the size of the screen is not very important, but the perceived size. Projectors will help on the other end. This certainly isn't for everyone, but it's quite easy to make it work in a way that the benefits are clear, at least the display side of it.
There are a lot of digital cinemas with 4K projectors, but the content is just upscaled.
Only IMAX material is distributed at higher resolutions, and even that is not always the case (the IMAX theater here only gets 2K material, you can see individual pixels from the first few rows occasionally).
Only IMAX material is distributed at higher resolutions, and even that is not always the case (the IMAX theater here only gets 2K material, you can see individual pixels from the first few rows occasionally).
djskribbles
Legend
Right, viewing distance is obviously a big factor as well in terms of benefiting from 4K. However, I'm speaking in terms of a typical viewing environment and how it's a hurdle for 4K adoption rate. Most people sit 8'+ from their display. And the projector userbase mainly consists of techies/videophiles... not representative of the mass market. In general, larger displays benefit more from 4K.
I do not think this is true. Sony made noise last year about distributing a lot of cinema movies in 4k. However, if the movie wasn't made in 4k it is kind of pointless....
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
I'm not surprised, you're probably only getting a few thousand pixels per metre. How big is your local IMAX?
djskribbles
Legend
Yeah, we need true 4K content to really see the benefits of it. We also need 4K displays to be affordable if it has any chance at mass market adoption.
Another debate within the videophile world is do you favor sharpness/detail over contrast/picture quality? Plasmas and OLED displays are generally favored amongst videophiles; plasmas are being phased out and OLED 4K displays will be stupid expensive for a while. LCDs will make up the majority of 4K displays (especially in the entry/mid-level bracket). Personally, I'd rather have a good 1080p plasma/OLED display over a 4K LCD.
Another debate within the videophile world is do you favor sharpness/detail over contrast/picture quality? Plasmas and OLED displays are generally favored amongst videophiles; plasmas are being phased out and OLED 4K displays will be stupid expensive for a while. LCDs will make up the majority of 4K displays (especially in the entry/mid-level bracket). Personally, I'd rather have a good 1080p plasma/OLED display over a 4K LCD.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
Very true. Most PC monitors capable of these resolutions have awful contrast compared to TVs.
loekf
Regular
Not going to happen soon:
- I would prefer to have high-res textures first. Is this really a matter of enough memory (>> 8 GB) or just lazy developers ?
- Next console gen (I don't think 100% streaming is going to happen soon) will be 4K, likely 4K@60 fps (HDMI 2.0).
You might call 120 Hz overkill, but I have seen demonstrations by Sony for their security camera sensors. The difference between 30, 60 and 120 fps IS visible to the eye and 120 fps is much more smooth.
Funny enough, HDMI 2.0 is all about 4K at 60 fps, not 120 fps.
However, I doubt whether in 4-5 years from now the price for a 32 GB + GPU capable of 4Kp60 with some CPU + console overhead has dropped to the $400 price point.... Moore's law is in a bit of a stall mode, so x8 - x4 the performance for the same price is a bit doubtfull...
djskribbles
Legend
Most monitors are either TN or IPS/PLS and some are VA. IPS/PLS have the best viewing angles but VA panels have far better contrast. Most LCD TVs are VA panels, but a good plasma or OLED display will still trump a VA panel when it comes to contrast. Some high-end LCD TVs have a full-array of LEDs with local dimming, but they're very expensive, and a good plasma still has better overall PQ IMO. Sad that it seems to be a dying technology.
Plasma offered great bang for buck.