I can get a decent 4K monitor right now for around $450. It's about 28" in size too, which is enough to appreciate the difference at that kind of distance. $2000 dollars maybe for an overpriced television set, but appreciable 4k gaming can be had for far less for PC gamers.
Some British tech site tested the theory with a blind test of a 4K TV and 1080p TV, to see if people could identify the correct one from about 9foot away. Something like 48 out of 50 people could tell the difference.
Anecdotally, my wife can tell the difference and she really is half blind and half dopey.
At the typical viewing distance between user and computer monitor (2ft-3ft)the 4k vs. 1080p difference is appreciable and still quite obvious. I can tell the difference, but I agree you would appreciate it more on a larger screen.
But even if you can see the difference in 4K, is it important enough for most people to shell out $2000 for? HD still looks good for many people
I'd say no.
People say 4K is inevitable in just a couple years time, I disagree. HD didn't get widely adopted until there were HD television broadcasts. There's no 4K broadcasts. Many people can't get fast enough internet to stream in 4K (720p is the best my internet can do).
It took twenty years or so for HD to be adapted. I don't think there will be any rush to go to 4K
I don't know where you're getting $2000 from, as stated above, you can go 4k for as little as $450. A 40" Samsung 4k tv can be had for about $800. It seems your entire argument against 4k (why are you arguing against progress again?) is that it's $2000 and not worth it. Well, it's not $2000, it's only 40% as much. There's certainly value in that, especially if you're looking to future proof in the near term.
Plus, UHD adoption is going to happen MUCH quicker than HD adoption did. People have generally adapted to faster technology/device upgrade cycles, plus PC gamers and video professionals are flocking to 4k. Having a sizeable enough user base that can create and demand 4k content will see it being created and pushed aggressively upon the masses in short order. The consoles may not be 4k capable, but many other things will be by 2016-2018.
Translation : its not worth it because my ps4 can't do it and I want to keep arguing how my ps4 is better than xbone since most of its exclusives are 900p. There is no difference in a resolution that's 4x 1080p but there is a great difference between 1080p vs 900p
UthUth11 always say bs to downplay pc gaming this isn't anything new
At the beginning of last gen there were still tube TVs in stores and most people still had a tube TVs at home. There were HDTVs at the time but we would call those sub-HD today and they were damn expensive, more than $2000 for even the off-brand models. Sorry but $2000 for a decent UHD TV is pretty good in my opinion.
The fact of the matter is that today's HD vs UHD is yesterday's SD vs HD but there is one very important distinction. Yesterday's consoles outperformed the typical household TVs of the time and many people upgraded their TVs specifically for games. Heck, some games on 360/PS3 even ran at 1920x1080 and many people upgraded their TV twice or even three times over the generation. Today is a different story though, anybody want to wager the chances of today's consoles running a game at 2160p when sometimes they can't even eek out [email protected] with medium settings.
I have no desire to upgrade my PC monitor to 4K either. My current one looks good and works fine, and I don't really feel like upgrading my GPU/CPU/HD/Mobo again, I just did it in Jan.
I haven't really seen a 4K display irl but my mates tell me the difference is big (I didn't write the article btw).
I do agree to an extent with you though; 4K is not going to be available for 99% of current-gen consoles so that's a big reason why I won't make the jump.
"Most TVs will take your 1080p console output and display a beautiful 4k image on the screen, with the tiny pixels providing a real (but arguably minor) improvement to the image quality. At a cost. Processing that image introduces an additional 30-50ms input latency over a good 1080p screen"
One of the big arguments for 60fps over 30fps is less input lag. Up to 17ms less. But if you add 30-50 to that for upscaling, you've lost the benefit.
"1080p still looks good, at the distance most people sit from their TVs, 4K offers no real benefit."
900p "still looks good" (see Ryse and SSO), but it doesn't stop everyone blowing a gasket when a game isn't 1080p, and the differences between 900p and 1080p are almost indistinguishable in most circumstances.
The thing that gets me is that people cry about anything under 1080p but I guarantee you nearly all of them have never calibrated their tv's properly. What's the point of making that argument if you can't see the picture as intended anyway?
Regardless of how we feel about it, it's here. Anyone been to a best buy lately? It was harder to find a 1080p TV than a 4k set. Whether we want it or not, it's getting pushed on us.
4k looks amazing, but it's largely expensive, there no main stream support until single GPU set ups can start to run it.
I can do DSR on The Witcher 2, but that takes me to 45fps. with a single GTX780 (No OC)
EDIT: Just cranked LotF to max with 4k DSR on, and it was a very unstable 24fps, with a consistent studder to 8fps.
But full 4k is a ways off, we need stronger GPU's, cheaper 4k Monitors/TV's. It's nice to think about, but still about 3 or 4 years off, from easy to achieve/afford widespread support. and that is optimistic.
Again, price needs to come down. I know I could hit 4k with another one.
But consider this, I spent $530 on my GPU, now they have gone down in price and I can get one for $350
That's $880, then I'd need a monitor for said display, which is $450 (Using your post) and a cooling system for my GPU's because SLI causes allot more heat.
4k will take off, but not for a while, will I have 4k in the next year or so? Most likely, cause I am good at saving money, and with income tax coming up, I might try it.
But at the same time, I am a tech guy who just got stable enough in life to get these things. But most people can't/won't spend that kind of money to just get 4k.
Turn off the options the don't make a difference anyway. Just because you can crank the options to ultra doesn't mean you can actually see the difference. I can turn off aa and others and lock vsync to 30 or unlock and get 40-50's and it is perfect.
Not just cheaper, but better established. It is not easy to get 4K content at the moment, so that makes it pretty hard for most people to justify paying the extra even if they can afford to.
I will upgrade when the eco-system allows for it. Right now its too damn expensive for me. Besides early adopters always get stung in the wallet, once the mainstream manufacturers start churning them out, then I will consider it.
Also some games may support 4k, but they were not built with 4k in mind. Its not just about having a monitor that can support 4k but also all the pc hardware to render it, which is another bucket load of cash.
Naaah... My Ps4, X1 & WiiU will do me nicely for the next couple of years. Thanks for the heads up though.
When I first heard of 4k I thought there's no way it could look significantly better than 1080p but I was wrong, the difference is very noticeable. Will take a while though for people to change their tvs and pick up these new 4k ones.
In 5 years you'll be able to get those kind of screens at half price. I remember the first plasma to land in the UK was £20k, a year later you could pick one up at c.£4,000 (that's when we jumped in :S) and now you can pick up a good plasma for £500. The story with any new piece of tech.
I agree, I don't reckon people should either. I would suggest people should wait until it's affordable. That same £4k plasma is just sitting pretty in the garage. It was one of those insanely heavy 'dumb' TVs, which didn't have freeview or where you need a box to watch TV. It's for that reason I'm holding off on buying a PS4 or Xbox One.
Even if I can afford the tv I'd need a beefy rig to run my games at that resolution. I ain't throwing that much money on new technology that would become much cheaper in the near future.
People are making very generic comments about a subject that requires precision. Unfortunately since it's N4g - I'm guessing most of you are doing it on purpose to serve some sort of fanboi agenda.
As was mentioned before 49 of 50 people were able to tell the difference between 4k and 1080p from 9 feet away using material shot in and stored in native resolution. When viewing upscaled 1080p material they could not. But it is important to note 3 things.
1. This was high end video, not video games. The extra detail allowed the video to capture and display more natural effects in lighting, shadow and color. In gaming, extra resolution just gives you sharper lines and less jaggies. Much less noticeable.
2. The difference was still minor. We are talking 4x the pixels not 40% more (1080p vs 900p). Things like Dolby HDR, 60hz and Contrast matter far more. Callibrating your TV using professional tools will make a far bigger difference then going from 1080p to 4k. Someone made the point that all you fanbois arguing over pixel counts don't even have your TV calibrated. Oh and 1080p OLED KILLS 4k LED. Similarly 20 things matter more to video game graphics then resolution. Otherwise Doom in 4k would look better then Crysis 3 in 1080p. Focus on # of objects on screen, number of polygons in a model, open world vs rails, AI, physics etc.
3. Screen size and distance matter. 9 feet from a 50" screen is the same as 4.5 feet from a 25" screen. If you sit 2 feet from a 30" screen it's noticeable. I have a 108" screen I sit 5-6 feet from. It looks noticeably more blurry then the 65" plasma in the bedroom that is 15 feet from the bed. However, even on a 108" screen from 5-6 feet away, I can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080i (the 2 HDTV standards) because of up scaling And Deinterlacing - which both the Xbone and PS4 do for non native 1080p games.
now watch all the disagrees I get from fanbois that have 1% the level of knowledge, experience or equipment then me, because all that matter is what you believe in your heart.
Do think 4K tech was introduced too early - All TV shows and a ton of films aren't even 4K compatible ( in the true sense - meaning 4K screens can only do is upgrade up to a certain degree ).
Really it's only a small number of PC games and Blu Ray mastered in 4K that have this format in place.
These 400 dollar and below consoles arent doin 4k, woah is me,....not a console capable of 4k would be far to expensive to mass market, not to mention the rarity and high price of even the cheapest 4k monitor or tv are above the price of the consoles alone, geeze what in the world do you want them to do while being so cheap, of course ill get thumbed down bye pc fanboys, because these consoles dont have top of the line gpus in them, pc fanboys are real fickle because these cheap machinescarent running 4k or 3k at 1000fps that they are useless, well they arent, just enjoy gaming, last time I checked we play games for fun not obsess over resolutions that even 1000 dollar pcs cant handle
Is that why you PM and troll people ? No one expected the consoles to do 4k anyway..well actually now I think back some people did. Regardless, they should be doing 1080p 60fps. It's a bit of a joke they still aren't.
4K does look nice, but PC gamers have other options like 144hz refresh as well that arguably make even more difference. Especially for FPS games.
4K is far too expensive and unnecessary
4K won't be really relevant before 2020.
4k looks amazing, but it's largely expensive, there no main stream support until single GPU set ups can start to run it.
I can do DSR on The Witcher 2, but that takes me to 45fps. with a single GTX780 (No OC)
EDIT: Just cranked LotF to max with 4k DSR on, and it was a very unstable 24fps, with a consistent studder to 8fps.
But full 4k is a ways off, we need stronger GPU's, cheaper 4k Monitors/TV's. It's nice to think about, but still about 3 or 4 years off, from easy to achieve/afford widespread support. and that is optimistic.
4k needs to be cheaper first before it can be mainstream.