Kagey K
Banned
It's self explanatory if you step back for a second and think about it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Is 4K enough for you? Should the gaming industry pursue higher resolutions for PS6-XB? And what's the limit?
StateofMajora
Banned
It’s incoherent. If it’s something about shortages both pc and console hardware are affected.
Kagey K
Banned
I'm going to guess due to reply time, you didn't actually think about it.
It's not about shortages, but costs in general.
500 console = 1500 pc so basically the same.
Most PCs are close to PS2 now(obvious exaggeration), yet everyone runs around screaming about them.
4K should be good enough for a while! In the past 20 years we've gone from the like 480i to 4k, it's got to the point where native rendering is becoming harder and harder and becoming reliant on tricks (DLSS, etc) to have any hopes of maintaining 4k whilst having decent graphical features. There's still PLENTY to squeeze out of 4k, let 120Hz become mainstream, let gets HDR above 1000+, let Rec.2020 be used properly, etc. We seem to be obsessed with chasing higher resolutions before we even master the current stock, and this is even more so in the gaming industry where we're trying to do ray tracing features AND still keep a 4k target.
We're also getting to the point of where content is becoming difficult, the majority of movies are still being mastered on a 2k level, plenty of movies are being shot at 3.6k. 16mm film can be scanned at its highest of 5k, 32mm you're talking around 6/7k on average. 4k sits nicely between all of them as being able to offer a quality boost when things are done right and still not overly relying on content being upscaled, which 8k does. We have 20 years of TV shows mastered at 1080p for example. We don't need 8k just yet, we won't even need it in 10 years time, let technology catch up and let newer TV tech shine! Shit once MicroLED comes down in price you're going to see a massive boost in quality there alone!
We're also getting to the point of where content is becoming difficult, the majority of movies are still being mastered on a 2k level, plenty of movies are being shot at 3.6k. 16mm film can be scanned at its highest of 5k, 32mm you're talking around 6/7k on average. 4k sits nicely between all of them as being able to offer a quality boost when things are done right and still not overly relying on content being upscaled, which 8k does. We have 20 years of TV shows mastered at 1080p for example. We don't need 8k just yet, we won't even need it in 10 years time, let technology catch up and let newer TV tech shine! Shit once MicroLED comes down in price you're going to see a massive boost in quality there alone!
TonyK
Member
These answers should be accompanied with poster's screen size and viewing distance.
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
I’m not saying I don’t notice between resolutions, I just don’t really care.
Last edited:
Boss Mog
Member
pretty sure he was being sarcastic, hence the "amirite?"
StateofMajora
Banned
Did I say I was ditching playstation for pc because of money…?
This is low, low quality bait.
It’s simple for me ; i’m transitioning next gen because A. i’m disappointed by Sony first party studios more and more and B. Sony are putting these games on PC anyway.
Similarly, I have had 0 use for xbox one because MS began to put all titles on PC.
If I didn’t already have a huge library of ps4 games I could have easily skipped the ps5 as well.
Since consoles, and indeed “AAA” developers are offering less and less compared to past generations, it’s an easy choice to make.
Best graphics, most freedom (to combat the ever worsening industry) and also I have 0 interest in a console that doesn’t have a disc drive which presumably will be the ps6. Digital on consoles is just stupid as there’s no ownership nor price saving like you get on PC. I prefer physical and even though you have no choice on PC (digital) you get far better deals and options like GoG.
I don’t mind spending extra money for the best performance either
i’m not paying scalper prices ; I payed $400 for my evga 3060 XC.
Last edited:
TonyK
Member
But can you share your TV size and viewing distance? If it's not a problem for you, I'm sorry if it sounds rude. It's only that, for me, I was feeling 2k was totally enough until I get a bigger TV. So I think even if you think you don't care it's maybe because you doesn't need to care about something that it's not really noticeable.
For example, in my TV my minimum would be 4K, but playing in PC in my monitor, 1440p is more than enough. So, it's not a problem about an absolute resolution but about relative size and viewing distance.
NecrosaroIII
Banned
What is the max resolution the human eye is capable of perceiving
01011001
Banned
absolute nonsense. 1080p might look ok if your screen is below 40", but with modern 55"+ TVs the pixel density alone would look like ass.
your argument might work if we never switched from CRT technology to fixed resolution screens with a visible pixel grid, but we did, and those don't look great at low resolutions.
4K is IMO the sweetspot. first of all you don't see the pixel grid easily at normal distances, and secondly games running at or around 2160p look sharp to the eye and with proper treatment also look indistinguishable from native res even when they are slightly below 2160p.
I remember playing 900p games on my old 40" 1080p TV, and even tho 900p is not that far below 1080p, it looked like utter shit.
meanwhile 1800p on a 2160p screen looks almost perfect even tho it's about the same percentage difference as the 900p-1080p example.
so 4K TVs finally almost eliminate the issue of the fixed pixel grid being extremely obviously when running sub native games. while render resolutions at or slightly below 4K look clean even on the big TVs of today.
1440p is the lower bound of what looks good on a big screen, but only with proper Antialiasing.
Last edited:
Tschumi
Member
I rate games by their art. If a 1080 game looks okay, I'm okay. It's possible for these games to look fine with AA, blur, whatever.. the inverse is possible... I'll take resolutions as they come. .. DF are not going to pixel count, i think, this year? If they're not doing it surely forum dilettantes can't do it
Haggard
Banned
If screen sizes keep increasing like they have in the past decade there is no telling what kind of resolutions we'll effectively need.
Maybe something like these modular micro led panels will become affordable in the future and we'll transform whole walls to screens.
There's really no way to name a limit, and there are no general diminishing returns as long as the screen size / pixel density isn't in the equation.
Realistically more than 4k + upscaling is probably not withing consoles hardware budgets within the next 5-10 years when we also want significantly better graphics (more RT, ultimately path tracing) and 60fps minimum. With how good ml upscaling has become there's probably no need either.
Maybe something like these modular micro led panels will become affordable in the future and we'll transform whole walls to screens.
There's really no way to name a limit, and there are no general diminishing returns as long as the screen size / pixel density isn't in the equation.
Realistically more than 4k + upscaling is probably not withing consoles hardware budgets within the next 5-10 years when we also want significantly better graphics (more RT, ultimately path tracing) and 60fps minimum. With how good ml upscaling has become there's probably no need either.
MilkyJoe
Member
Who are the blind cunts that cannot tell the difference between 1080p and 4K at 2m ???
Mister Wolf
Member
4K is the max I will ever need to go for a 65" display.
Kerotan
Member
8k should be the limit. Not this gen but ps6 will have some 8k 60fps games. Ps6 Pro 8k 120fps.
You'll need a 65" TV or bigger which the majority of gamers will never use so it shouldn't be a priority. We'll probably get 5/6/7k up scaled to 8k first though.
Still though by the time we get a ps7 8k @ 240fps will be standard and all further advances in tech can go towards elsewhere like textures, AI, NPC's, particle effects and so on. It's a necessary endgame because after 8k and 240fps the human eyes won't tell the difference.
You'll need a 65" TV or bigger which the majority of gamers will never use so it shouldn't be a priority. We'll probably get 5/6/7k up scaled to 8k first though.
Still though by the time we get a ps7 8k @ 240fps will be standard and all further advances in tech can go towards elsewhere like textures, AI, NPC's, particle effects and so on. It's a necessary endgame because after 8k and 240fps the human eyes won't tell the difference.
Kerotan
Member
Yeah bro lmao. While it's not as obviously I can clearly tell the difference between 1080p and 4k on the new uncharted collection and I'm just over 2M away.
I couldn't care less about resolution or fps. Sure the higher the better as with all things but it's actually the least thing I notice for what it costs in terms of computing power required.
Give me better more realistic looking worlds, give me better physics, give me better AI. Not something I need to get a magnifying glass out to notice and not something most people can't even tell the difference from.
Give me better more realistic looking worlds, give me better physics, give me better AI. Not something I need to get a magnifying glass out to notice and not something most people can't even tell the difference from.
Rest
All these years later I still chuckle at what a fucking moron that guy is.
Total non issue. 1080p is great. 4k is optional, if a dev can get good results shooting for it that's fine. If 8k becomes commonplace, devs can work towards that if and when it makes sense. No team should waste time and energy shooting for bulletpoints on the back of a box. Fun gameplay should come first. Appealing art should be second. Tech specs are a far distant third.
Bernd Lauert
Banned
4K is enough. I'd rather have them push for 120 fps. It's a big difference in some games.
Vick
Member
On an hypothetical identical panel/electronics (minus pixel number obviously) reproducing the same identical content perfectly encoded/lossless, one 1080p and the other 4K?
Everyone.
That's because:
1 - The two modes are drastically different in the way they are rendered PQ wise to begin with.
2 - You are judging 1080p content on a 4K display.
720p signals look soft and blurry on a 1080p display of considerable size, let alone on a 4K. On a 50'' Pioneer 506 XDE the same 720p is so sharp you could cut yourself.
REDRZA MWS
Member
I voted 4K, but right now for me, 1440o is a sweet spot. It seems even my 2080ti, as well as the new gen consoles Still struggle with 4K/60FPS, in any game that has current graphics. So for me, 4K would be great if they can lock frames and offer great graphics, but for now I wish they’d target 1440p.
FingerBang
Member
The questions asked in the title and the poll are different.
Yes, 4K is absolutely enough for me, with a 55" at around 2m/6ft. I think I would need a higher res only going with a 77" at the same distance, and that won't happen.
But the point of diminished return is absolutely 1440p. Games at that resolution look GOOD enough upscaled on my TV, and are absolutely enough for PC gaming (less than 1m/3ft from a 27" screen). The difference between 1080p and 1440p is much, much bigger than what you get moving to 4K. 4 times that resolution makes only sense on giant TVs and it's not worth the power needed to push it.
Yes, 4K is absolutely enough for me, with a 55" at around 2m/6ft. I think I would need a higher res only going with a 77" at the same distance, and that won't happen.
But the point of diminished return is absolutely 1440p. Games at that resolution look GOOD enough upscaled on my TV, and are absolutely enough for PC gaming (less than 1m/3ft from a 27" screen). The difference between 1080p and 1440p is much, much bigger than what you get moving to 4K. 4 times that resolution makes only sense on giant TVs and it's not worth the power needed to push it.
Dr.brain64
Member
I was already overwhelmed by how good ps3 games looked...
Sean Mirrsen
Banned
I think you're arguing from the perspective of a console gamer. I sit 40cm away from a 11.6'' 1080p screen, and have absolutely no need for higher pixel density for gaming. Especially not when reaching that higher pixel density, or higher resolutions, or the screen size at which that higher resolution matters, or the hardware power level at which it all becomes even marginally worth it, is a self-perpetuating moneysink that is impossible to get out of if you get caught in it.
Midn1ght
Member
TheDreadLord
Member
For real applications, 8k should be the target as most people don’t even have room to place TVs big enough to justify going above that resolution. After that point, I guess that the evolution of TVs will be to incorporate more advanced upscalers (perhaps even featuring dedicated hardware).
Last edited:
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
Letting me choose whatever resolution I want is what is enough. God Gabe bless PC.
I think you need a pretty low screen to distance ratio even to NOTICE 4k over 1440p. As in, a bigger screen than most people would even want in their homes.
To get the full benefit of 4k, you need at least 77" in a typical lounge. That's way bigger than most people want or can afford.
To start needing MORE pixels you'd probably want like a 100" screen. That's plainly unrealistic just in terms of cost, never mind the practicalities.
1440p is imo the point of diminishing returns. Assuming we get some kind of DLSS type ML in the next consoles, a lower resolution reconstructed to 4k would be the obvious solution.
To get the full benefit of 4k, you need at least 77" in a typical lounge. That's way bigger than most people want or can afford.
To start needing MORE pixels you'd probably want like a 100" screen. That's plainly unrealistic just in terms of cost, never mind the practicalities.
1440p is imo the point of diminishing returns. Assuming we get some kind of DLSS type ML in the next consoles, a lower resolution reconstructed to 4k would be the obvious solution.
bitbydeath
Member
Memba when everyone drooled over the 8K textures in the PS5 UE5 demo?
ABnormal
Member
I hope so, otherwise there's some confusion
Vick
Member
And better shadows.. gimme good shadows on modern games ffs, Nvidia PCSS were so damn transformative and sublime in every game they were on, wtf happened?
Of course you were, you had a CRT at the time.I was blown away by the image quality of Lethal Weapon 4 on DVD in 1999.
CherryFalls
Banned
I'm not even at 1k yet
But yes, higher resolution should always be pushed, and is one of the best things for image quality.
But yes, higher resolution should always be pushed, and is one of the best things for image quality.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rudius
Member
For flat gaming I'm ok with 1440p or even 1080p with good AA. 4K is sharper, but not enough to choose it over 60fps or better graphics. The framerate should be a solid 60; 30fps feels much worse and 120 is too expensive for a smaller perceived return. Some say 120 and 4K are soooo much better, but if you just accustom yourself with 1080p60 it fells perfectly fine.
For VR it is a different story. 1080p is very blurry and 60fps is jittery. Maybe even 8K won't be "enough" and 120fps is noticeably better than 60. The way to achieve that is with eye tracking and foveated rendering
For VR it is a different story. 1080p is very blurry and 60fps is jittery. Maybe even 8K won't be "enough" and 120fps is noticeably better than 60. The way to achieve that is with eye tracking and foveated rendering
LazyParrot
Member
We’re long past the point where increases in resolution and screen size are more than just window dressing. Whenever I go up a screen size or increase the resolution after a hardware upgrade the difference is striking at first, but then I get used to it very quickly. Same goes for dropping back down.
I’m not really having any more fun playing games now than I did 15 years ago when I was using a 19“ monitor and a 32“ TV.
I’m not really having any more fun playing games now than I did 15 years ago when I was using a 19“ monitor and a 32“ TV.
MilkyJoe
Member
I have a 50 inch with a chair and head position exactly 6 foot from my screen. The difference between that and a 1080p panel us night and day. Don't be so daft.
Similar threads
- Locked