Article on 4K and a cool picture on optimal viewing distance

[Stevens]

Not sure where this goes so feel free to move.

Thought some of you here would be interested in this:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinmurnan ... ae2d663909

tl;dr - In order to really see the difference in 4K you have to sit close to the screen.

Graph with optimal viewing distances based on resolution.

Spoiler

[ZellSF]

Ah, that graph is recycled so much and it's so incorrect.

Either I have superhuman vision or we should stop letting half-blind people make authoritative assessments about image quality.

[Fudoh]

really ? what would you feel is more appropriate ?

I think its hits the spot pretty much perfectly. I sit at 10+ ft from a 52" screen and usually a GOOD 720p file is extremely close to a 1080p one (or the other way around: a 1080p version hardly has benefits over a 720p one). Just remember that this is for movie material. To see differences in resolution with HD games is likely much easier.

[Xyga]

btw tftcentral wrote on that two years ago: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/visual_acuity.htm

[SGGG2]

4k is good for PC gaming, CRT shaders via emulation and Passive 3D content.

[bobrocks95]

4k is good for PC gaming, CRT shaders via emulation and Passive 3D content.

I would argue against it for PC gaming right now, instead being in favor of a higher framerate or higher graphical settings, which would make a much bigger impact on visual quality.

Of course, if you spend thousands on a computer and can do all that and at 4K, and definitely since you sit so close to a computer monitor, 4K does have its benefits. I just wouldn't make it a priority right this moment.

[Xyga]

4K is good for work, assuming one needs several resolution-hungry apps on a single screen.
Though at such density (assuming we're talking about a reasonably-sized monitor) the quality of the panel, backlighting and coating have become a crucial thing.

[nissling]

10+ ft from a 52" TV? Man, that sounds small. I'm less than 6ft away from my curved 55" OLED. It's only 1080p though, but one day I'll go up to 4K.

Many people seem to think that the jump to 4K isn't noticeable, which I thought as well. While resolution certainly is only one single parameter (among many others), I once saw a Sony VPL-VW350ES at my friend's apartment. 4K truly made sense when viewed with that projector on a 100" screen and up. I never thought I'd see 1080p look so weak by comparison as I did by then.

[BazookaBen]

I would argue against it for PC gaming right now, instead being in favor of a higher framerate or higher graphical settings, which would make a much bigger impact on visual quality.

I would go 4k because upscaled resolutions will look better. For example, you could go 1440p for one game, 1080p for another, or 900p for a really new game on Ultra Crazy settings. Then for some old DX9 game you could actually play at 4k, or 1080p 120hz, which some 4k TV's support.

That's only based on anecdotal evidence of people using 1440p on their 4k TV's and liking it quite a bit.

[ZellSF]

really ? what would you feel is more appropriate ?

I think its hits the spot pretty much perfectly. I sit at 10+ ft from a 52" screen and usually a GOOD 720p file is extremely close to a 1080p one (or the other way around: a 1080p version hardly has benefits over a 720p one). Just remember that this is for movie material. To see differences in resolution with HD games is likely much easier.

Is it for movie material though? The original article makes no such mention. It's possible it's accurate for that. My main annoyance with that is, that graph is constantly brought up in gaming forums where we have perfect 3D rendered sources or 2D shaders and upscaling algorithms that really benefit from 4K at distances that graphs say they would not.

[bobrocks95]

I would argue against it for PC gaming right now, instead being in favor of a higher framerate or higher graphical settings, which would make a much bigger impact on visual quality.

I would go 4k because upscaled resolutions will look better. For example, you could go 1440p for one game, 1080p for another, or 900p for a really new game on Ultra Crazy settings. Then for some old DX9 game you could actually play at 4k, or 1080p 120hz, which some 4k TV's support.

That's only based on anecdotal evidence of people using 1440p on their 4k TV's and liking it quite a bit.

If 4K displays had integer scaling I'd say that's a good idea. But apparently they still don't.

[BazookaBen]

If 4K displays had integer scaling I'd say that's a good idea. But apparently they still don't.

you don't want interger scaling with 3D games (except for 1080p internal resolution). Bilinear helps smooth out the odd-shaped pixels, and I'm pretty sure that's what AMD and Nvidia use for their internal scaling. So 1440p will look blurrier on a 4k TV than a 1440p monitor, but it would still look damn nice.

When 4k OLED's become affordable, this will be my strategy. Instead of lowering settings until the point I can run at 4k, I'll just play on higher settings and whatever resolution works with said settings. And this will also work well with the viewing distance issue. It will be hard to notice scaling artifacts if you're siting far enough away.

[Lord of Pirates]

If 4K displays had integer scaling I'd say that's a good idea. But apparently they still don't.

you don't want interger scaling with 3D games (except for 1080p internal resolution). Bilinear helps smooth out the odd-shaped pixels, and I'm pretty sure that's what AMD and Nvidia use for their internal scaling. So 1440p will look blurrier on a 4k TV than a 1440p monitor, but it would still look damn nice.

When 4k OLED's become affordable, this will be my strategy. Instead of lowering settings until the point I can run at 4k, I'll just play on higher settings and whatever resolution works with said settings. And this will also work well with the viewing distance issue. It will be hard to notice scaling artifacts if you're siting far enough away.

Pushing games at 4K shouldn't be an issue by the time 4K OLED becomes affordable.

[BazookaBen]

Pushing games at 4K shouldn't be an issue by the time 4K OLED becomes affordable.

What if a game has very complex lighting and geometry? Like Mirror's Edge Catalyst, with it's settings set at max, the GTX 1080 can't hit a consistent 30fps at 4K, and the game is definitely meant to be played at 60fps. I don't that will change very much in the future considering games will always be pushing for more complex environments and effects.

[Xyga]

If 4K displays had integer scaling I'd say that's a good idea. But apparently they still don't.

you don't want interger scaling with 3D games (except for 1080p internal resolution). Bilinear helps smooth out the odd-shaped pixels, and I'm pretty sure that's what AMD and Nvidia use for their internal scaling. So 1440p will look blurrier on a 4k TV than a 1440p monitor, but it would still look damn nice.

When 4k OLED's become affordable, this will be my strategy. Instead of lowering settings until the point I can run at 4k, I'll just play on higher settings and whatever resolution works with said settings. And this will also work well with the viewing distance issue. It will be hard to notice scaling artifacts if you're siting far enough away.

You want integer scaling over any fucking bilinear resizing, no matter the contents. The problem is that consumers keep being satisfied with the latter.
And most TV's and monitors suck at scaling, I don't understand how people cannot see it.
Personally there's no way in Hell I would be satisfied dealing with that crap after paying premium for what's supposed to be cutting edge gpu's and displays to play the latest games at their full potential.

PS: nVidia and AMD are fucking with their customers anyway, they always make products just below expectations of the more demanding crowd and games requirements, and that's enough to permanantly fuel the market.
Displays manufacturers at least have an excuse; they've always been a bit clueless and over-segmented, because it's not very profitable.

[neorichieb1971]

I can tell a huge difference in quality from any distance in video.

[BazookaBen]

You want integer scaling over any fucking bilinear resizing, no matter the contents.

You seem pretty passionate about this...

But there's a reason Durante's GeDoSaTo tool uses bilinear as it's default option. Then in every game engine I've seen that has resolution scaling built-in, it's the same thing. Inconsistent pixel sizes create an undesirable look and bilinear filtering smooths that out. The only area this isn't true is 2D games with pixel-based art. Even high res games like Rayman Origins 2D use bilinear filtering.

I can tell a huge difference in quality from any distance in video.

Placebo

[Xyga]

It's just that I've grown unsatisfied with the overuse of bad resizing/smoothing.
GeDoSaTo is a particular case because uses downscaling, it's a much safer and less destructive process, though it still looks like shit with 2D because real 2D shows you what it really is (Rayman Origins is vector btw, also easier) I have no problem with it where it's good at though.
Bilinear over simply upscaled however never looks good, it' destructive even with 3D, there are way superior smoothing methods, though probably too complex or resource-heavy for the gaming world, and people are happy with their smeared, cloudy picture anyway, even if it's less obvious with higher resolutions.
Letting the displays built-in scalers do the last stage of the job only makes things worse of course, but heh, if people are content with it, what can I say?
I can wish forever that we get only proper native resolution-matching contents or at least properly integer-scaled, or as many better filters as I could dream of, it won't happen tomorrow of the day after. Only things like GeDoSaTo or DSR, primarily for PC gaming naturally, are technically - and commercialy - doable and acceptable today.

[BazookaBen]

there are way superior smoothing methods, though probably too complex or resource-heavy for the gaming world

Well yeah, UE4 can apply FXAA to an image post-upscale, which looks better, but it's definitely more resource intensive. I'd like to see it in more game engines in the future, but if it severely limits the max frame rate or resolution then a simpler upscale may still end up looking better.

I (Rayman Origins is vector btw, also easier) .

You sure? When Legends was released on PS4, they mentioned it would utilize the "uncompressed textures".

http://blog.ubi.com/rayman-legends-rele ... n-secrets/

I figure everything is just hi-res artwork. I could see the models in Origins being vector based, but I don't know if the Ubi-art engine supports that.

[Xyga]

You sure? When Legends was released on PS4, they mentioned it would utilize the "uncompressed textures".

http://blog.ubi.com/rayman-legends-rele ... n-secrets/

I figure everything is just hi-res artwork. I could see the models in Origins being vector based, but I don't know if the Ubi-art engine supports that.

Semantics apparently, but it's just like most '2.5D' works of that generation that fooled people, yes.
For that PS4/Xbone release I don't know what they mean exactly, I'm no designer, but it's not extremly difficult to 'go uncompressed' when the surfaces are devoid of any true pixel art work anyway, it's the same plain colors with shading just in higher resolution thus not necessarily using smoothing or just in a much less visible form thanks to it.
If they have enough memory they most probably can do that with the same engine, it's maybe even easy and not necessarily time-consuming.

[Lord of Pirates]

Pushing games at 4K shouldn't be an issue by the time 4K OLED becomes affordable.

What if a game has very complex lighting and geometry? Like Mirror's Edge Catalyst, with it's settings set at max, the GTX 1080 can't hit a consistent 30fps at 4K, and the game is definitely meant to be played at 60fps. I don't that will change very much in the future considering games will always be pushing for more complex environments and effects.

There will always be demanding games, sometimes it takes a long while before game patches and drivers maximize performance. I'd sooner dump AA and a ridiculously expensive lighting option than drop resolution. Could you link to some benchmarks of the 1080 running it, I'm curious to see how it performs? My line of thought is that 4K OLED prices aren't going to drop a lot in a couple card generations and 4K performance has been making steady and fairly significant improvements.

[BazookaBen]

There will always be demanding games, sometimes it takes a long while before game patches and drivers maximize performance. I'd sooner dump AA and a ridiculously expensive lighting option than drop resolution. Could you link to some benchmarks of the 1080 running it, I'm curious to see how it performs? My line of thought is that 4K OLED prices aren't going to drop a lot in a couple card generations and 4K performance has been making steady and fairly significant improvements.

I currently have a GTX 1080, running it on all Hyper settings at 2048x1536@60hz. In very rare sequences I will drop below 60fps. If you had a 1080p monitor, I'd say you're safe running the game at 75hz.

Here is one benchmark, only a few of the graphs are for Hyper settings though:

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2 ... -1070-390x


Here's a vid of hyper settings, POTENTIALLY SPOILERY because it's a really cool level that you might want to see first in person:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCNTRe3Y1XI

And this page has a few interactive screenshots where you can see the difference between Hyper and Ultra settings:

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articl ... r-settings

[LEGENOARYNINLIA]

My eyes are about 2.8 feet from my 40" 4:3 plasma when I play games. To me that's optimal.

[ZellSF]

Oh if the article is discussing optimal viewing distance (can't read Forbes nor do I really want to) then that's a very different equation for games than movies... A lot of games it's important to see the entire screen, whereas movies will usually have important things only on part of the screen.

[kamiboy]

Optimal or not, one day I'll get that 80-100" screen and I'll be sitting right up close to it, so it completely fills my field of vision. I love that shit. I am the kind of guy who sit on the first row in the cinema, makes for the best experience whether it is movies or games.

[LEGENOARYNINLIA]

When it comes to video games the optimal distance if all up to personal preference. No one gives a shit how near or far we sit from 14" or 20" CRTs when we play Sonic or whatever. And no one is saying "sit/lean a few incher more closer" if a certain arcade cabinet has a 26" monitor instead of a 29" one.

In my opinion, the only time this stuff matters if when you're watching a movie which has subtitles. But then again that is also personal preference.

[Lord of Pirates]

I currently have a GTX 1080, running it on all Hyper settings at 2048x1536@60hz. In very rare sequences I will drop below 60fps. If you had a 1080p monitor, I'd say you're safe running the game at 75hz.

Here is one benchmark, only a few of the graphs are for Hyper settings though:

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2 ... -1070-390x


Here's a vid of hyper settings, POTENTIALLY SPOILERY because it's a really cool level that you might want to see first in person:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCNTRe3Y1XI

And this page has a few interactive screenshots where you can see the difference between Hyper and Ultra settings:

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articl ... r-settings

Thanks. I'd be surprised if it isn't max LOD and shadow distance that cripple performance the most. Especially in situations like the first comparison shot from nVidia. Does motion blur affect performance at all?

[BazookaBen]

Thanks. I'd be surprised if it isn't max LOD and shadow distance that cripple performance the most. Especially in situations like the first comparison shot from nVidia. Does motion blur affect performance at all?

Yeah, I it's the LOD and thousands of shadows that really push the system. And they definitely make the game look better, the world just seems more real and palpable.

Motion blur didn't seem to effect performance, which is may be why they labeled the setting "motion blur enabled" instead of "motion blur quality" even though there are 5 settings. I put it on low, because I do like motion blur, but the higher settings seemed to blur it too much and even made me feel a little queasy, probably because I couldn't focus on objects that I wanted to.