4K Resolution TVs

[Friendly]

aka Ultra HD are coming:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/261242/l ... h_yet.html
http://www.bgr.com/2012/08/21/sony-80-i ... esolution/

Apparently PS4 will support 4k...

However, considering the crazy bandwidth requirements, there won't be 4k streaming any time soon, and there are no optical discs with enough space either: 1h of 4k video takes up ~1TB.

EDIT: The Ultra HD standard (4K & 8K) has just been approved by the International Telecommunication Union
http://news.techworld.com/personal-tech ... ards-body/

[moh]

aka Ultra HD are coming:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/261242/l ... h_yet.html
http://www.bgr.com/2012/08/21/sony-80-i ... esolution/

Apparently PS4 will support 4k...

However, considering the crazy bandwidth requirements, there won't be 4k streaming any time soon, and there are no optical discs with enough space either: 1h of 4k video takes up ~1TB.

this sounds too stupid for a multi-billion dollar industry to invest in developing..

[Skykid]

Just in-case anyone is struggling to keep up, this should solve any absent RSS needs. A compilation of all twelve Friendly threads over the last three off-topic pages:

4K Resolution TVs

Sony Closes Studio Liverpool (fomerly Psygnosis) (WipeOut) SONY RELATED

How Xbox Live is blatantly better than PSN SONY RELATED

So Facebook's IPO was pretty much a Flop

The PS Vita Thread SONY RELATED

The Playstation Move Thread SONY RELATED

Anything Interesting at Gamescom?

Neo Geo X Gold - $200 USD Handheld (LOCKED)

Google Creates PS3 Youtube App SONY RELATED

Samsung: Apple's iPhone Started as A Sony Ripoff SONY RELATED

OUYA - $99 USD Android-Based Video Game Console 900% Funded

Losing Your Digitally Distributed Games - This Week: Steam

[Friendly]

aka Ultra HD are coming:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/261242/l ... h_yet.html
http://www.bgr.com/2012/08/21/sony-80-i ... esolution/

Apparently PS4 will support 4k...

However, considering the crazy bandwidth requirements, there won't be 4k streaming any time soon, and there are no optical discs with enough space either: 1h of 4k video takes up ~1TB.

this sounds too stupid for a multi-billion dollar industry to invest in developing..

Well, they already did. But like it says in those articles, there is no 4k home media at this point. Furthermore, unless you have a wall-sized TV, 4k makes no sense, because your eyes can't see the difference between a 55" 1080p display and a 55" 4k display from a few meters/feet away.

[mesh control]

who cares

[Op Intensify]

who cares

I might if they actually looked any better, but is that really going to be the case?

[stryc9]

Yeah what Mesh said.

[GaijinPunch]

240p4evar

[CMoon]

I still jerk off manually.

[moh]

I still jerk off manually.

word.

[KAI]

I'm sure DOJ is going to look awesome in one of those,

[Ed Oscuro]

If the people in government (and voters) didn't have their heads up their asses we'd be a lot closer to 4K streaming than we are now. Granted, I think that 1080p is about all you need for streaming video - 4K is nice but I see that much resolution as a luxury. A bit surprising about the PS4 claim - I guess Sony realizes they need to do something really substantial to excite people. But I don't know how many Joe Average gamers are going to be able to make that investment even a few years down the road ($22K for the LG set, ehh) - I also bet there are still a very sizable market of people who get angry that text looks bad in PS3 or 360 games on their old standard definition TVs.

[Ganelon]

This upgrade is excellent for cinema but I still agree with the classic thread here from years back that decried expanding resolutions for inhibiting video game visual growth. In an era where it's still not possible to fool human eyes with the best realtime graphics around, we'll get even more detailed polygons at the cost of much-needed realistic light effects.

Also, such a large resolution increase ultimately won't mean much since current console max resolutions are rarely reached by today's games. The speed bottleneck hasn't been raised high enough since the start of this generation that 2K for an upcoming AAA title in the next 5 years will be remotely feasible. Playing games like Pac-Man in 4K probably won't be very fun anyway for various reasons.

[neorichieb1971]

4k is the maximum scanned resolution of 35mm film. So for catalog titles it does reach that pinnacle of what is achievable. With 70mm film the maximum scanning resolution is apparently 8k.

Some speculation though :

Will 4k be enough to drive another format?
Will hurdles exist for current TV owners (I would imagine new HDMI leads are required, not to mention players and support from Hollywood. Even now 3D blu ray is quite thin on the ground).
will the TV's use the 48fps codec or will you have to buy another 4k TV down the road that does this?

In the earlier days PC monitors left TV's for dead straight away. But with HD the gap has been lessened (to the naked eye anyway).


Some people do care about 4k. But its even less people that cared about blu ray. Which makes it an unviable project for mass market. Which means the prices will be ridiculous.

[ancestral-knowledge]

And the games and movies will be even worse than they are today.

But hey look! It's the 345th remake of star wars/lotr/marvel/crap movies we already had in the 80ies/90ies but now in 48/60 fps /3D/ 4k resolution! It will be awesome!!!

[Friendly]

It would be nice if game companies finally realized that for ports of old 240p games, a scanline filter of sorts is needed. Upscaling 240p even to 720p with a blur filter is just wrong, I don't even want to know how upscaling 240p to 4K that way would look.

Btw, 4K isn't the end of it: There is also 8K (which is the resolution IMAX uses).

4K resolution for home use does have one real advantage: It would allow for passive 3D in full 1080p resolution.
The bright side is that 4K/8K should mark the end of the resolution arms-race, because (depending on screen size) it's already beyond the capacity of our eyes. There won't be any need to upgrade again as long as evolution doesn't provide us with sharper eyes.

[Gozer]

I think TV manufactures need to focus on building a better panel that can surpass LCD/Plasma and their shortcomings. Not upping the resolution. How about making OLED tech more affordable to produce.

[moh]

I think TV manufactures need to focus on building a better panel that can surpass LCD/Plasma and their shortcomings. Not upping the resolution. How about making OLED tech more affordable to produce.

exactly. but i've always wanted an 80" TV

[kid aphex]

Cool,
I've been waiting for 10k+ res, oled, pan-surface, flush wall/ceiling screens
Hopefully we capture some ultra-high-res videos of the wilderness before it's gone
That way, future generations can blanket themselves in the comfort and beauty of the once-beautiful Earth,
while they descend ever deeper into the virtual world of the psychotic, global Omni-Mind.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think TV manufactures need to focus on building a better panel that can surpass LCD/Plasma and their shortcomings. Not upping the resolution. How about making OLED tech more affordable to produce.

Such a thing does exist. It is called SEDtv (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display) and it is too damn expensive to produce. There is a variant on it - Sony's FEDtv - still too damn expensive.

Cool,
I've been waiting for 10k+ res, oled, pan-surface, flush wall/ceiling screens
Hopefully we capture some ultra-high-res videos of the wilderness before it's gone
That way, future generations can blanket themselves in the comfort and beauty of the once-beautiful Earth,
while they descend ever deeper into the virtual world of the psychotic, global Omni-Mind.

Have you sworn off your tubes yet? Energy efficiency gains are still happening with flatscreens; and LED backlights (CFLs aren't terrible either) are letting screens get brighter with less energy use. At some point, of course, you will still need a lot of energy to create a very bright image, although I am not sure how loud the clamor for a sun-bright screen is...certainly at typical sizes and brightness levels, energy usage is quite reasonable. And I personally have my daily use LCD monitor's brightness dialed way down.

[Friendly]

Right on time for this topic:

Ultra High Definition TV, with 7680x4320 resolution and 120 frames/sec, was approved by the International Telecommunication Union

The standard also includes a smaller layout, which is 3840 by 2160 pixels. The two arrangements are commonly referred to by their horizontal pixel counts, or 8k and 4k.

http://news.techworld.com/personal-tech ... ards-body/

[Stormwatch]

120 fps? Now THAT is somewhat interesting.

[neorichieb1971]

120fps only benefits PC games at the moment. Hopefully PS4 or Xbox 3 will pump out those sorts of frame rates.

[Ed Oscuro]

When the stars align I can get 120 fps for a moment on my two-and-a-half year-old video card in CS:GO.

You know, I think one of this gen's (wherever we are now) defining moments must be when I was looking at the shadow of a person going through the wall in cs_office...and then I realized the waving flag off to the southwest was casting that shadow.

I suppose fillrate issues aren't a problem, but once you add lots of full-screen effects things get dicey, performance-wise. Even adaptive AA seems able to eat up a lot of power. And you also have the problem of needing all those assets to look good - I think that actually has to be the biggest problem here. How many teams really have the chops to make games in HD that look this good, without just resorting to photographs or heavy use of photoshop? We're way past N64 or PSX levels of texturing where you could get away with something badly drawn in MSPaint and have it still fit in the game world, but I have to wonder if this won't actually cripple the ability of artists to render certain kinds of scenes arbitrarily. Heck, even in the PSX era people were using photo references all the time, but Ashley Riot didn't look out of place in Vagrant Story, either.

What I would actually be more interested in is getting work done on fixing visual tearing in games, without the use of vsync or buffering; on a 4K or 8K 80 incher that tearing is gonna be much more notable, even (and especially) at 120fps where there will be lots of bands running down the screen. I've already seen something like this in CS:GO; shadows of helicopter blades lead to tearing in small strips, and I don't think 120fps in of itself will help that, but rather could halve the height of the strips.

[KBZ]

seems like games are having enough trouble hitting 60fps at 1080p.

120fps is something I've really enjoyed, but I can only attain it consistently with older games.

[Jeneki]

So, basically, with next gen consoles and next gen displays, I can play games with higher framerate and better resolution ... than reality itself! I can't wait to walk up to my screen, look close, and see individual atoms making up the character models, all in slow motion since my brain is too slow to process it.

[ZacharyB]

So, basically, with next gen consoles and next gen displays, I can play games with higher framerate and better resolution ... than reality itself! I can't wait to walk up to my screen, look close, and see individual atoms making up the character models, all in slow motion since my brain is too slow to process it.

I wonder what kind of technological progress we'll see in the pleasure sector when cybernetic brain enhancements appear.

[Ex-Cyber]

1h of 4k video takes up ~1TB

That's got to be in some kind of production or otherwise non-consumer format, because that translates to a data rate of roughly 2 Gbps. A heavy consumer 1080p stream (e.g. on Blu-ray) is tens of Mbps, and I hear that with a good encoder you can get away with under 10 Mbps. Even assuming that 1080p is a "1K" resolution, that would mean that "4K" should need roughly 16x the data rate, i.e. something on the order of several hundred Mbps.