Discussion in 'Hardware' started by r3loaded, 9 Jan 2013.
Yeah, and 16x16 ought to be enough for anybody...
Haha, that's just being obtuse
I was meaning in comparison to the current dpi found on monitors today, 1080p at 23/24" for instance.
No doubt in a year I'll be a complete convert, merely my opinion at the moment.
May we pin this thread, or have it shown some 5 years from now, so that I can say: "Told you so!" ?
Told you so when LG Panasonic and sharp have all been brought or gone bankrupt. Even Sony is not safe. ( enough jap government will not let them fold)
Of the 5 main electronics makers for tvs none of there pannel or tv departments have made money in years. Together they will of lost at least 10bil+ dollars in the last few years. Panasonic by themselfs have lost 4.4bil.
Well just been looking at the cost of a 4K screen and ouch they are stupidly high in price, around the £17,000 mark for a Sony 86" but couldn't seem to find a price for anything smaller.
Did manage to find something about gaming at that resolution though.
Sorry about the site it's in German or Dutch but looking at the spec's of the machine trying to run Battlefield 3 at a 4K, resolution even a 980X @ stock I would assume (I know) with a Sapphire Toxic 7970 6GB, only manages around the 30fps mark which I think is not bad but still below the playable frame rate.
Apparently the amount of Vram being used was only 3.5Gb out of the 6Gb apparently available to it.
I think if games are to take off at this resolution, then a graphics card is really going to need atleast 4Gb per card or more dependant on detail setting.
I think gaming at this resolution will be fine in around 2 years time when Nvidia Maxwell gpu's really start coming along properly not, the 1st gen of them but the 2nd gen of them.
I think also we are going to need Ivy Bridge E or what ever comes after maybe Haswell E if Intel releases one, so that the cpu's don't hold the gpu's back.
Exactly, things will move on. It was only half a decade ago that we were all still gaming at 1280 x 1024 on our expensive old TFTs.
That's not bad for a single card. And to be fair Bit-tech say anything under 25FPS is unplayable, so 30FPS is still very playable. If films can run fine at 24FPS, then games will too, but 60FPS is preferred by most of us enthusiast gamers.
Running 2 of those cards will see better performance.
I agree, 4GB+ cards will be needed for 4K gaming.
Like you say, Intel AMD and NVidia are gearing up for the new 4K panels by bring out Maxwell, Haswell and the likes, which is suppose to give us a huge performance jump than that of previous generations. So I guess this is why this is the year that they will be bring new console to the market as well.
I can't wait!
I'm inclined to agree with Pookeyhead, and it looks like affordable 4K monitors may not be that far off. Westinghouse is already planning a 65-inch 4K television for $4000 (with 50- and 55-inch TVs selling for $2500 and $3000, respectively). I bought a 55-inch HDTV a year or two ago, and it cost between $2500-$3000, so that seems about right. To be fair, the Westinghouse 4K set is simply a display and does not feature any of the built-in apps that are found on many TVs today. I don't see that as a bad thing. I don't need my display to connect to the internet, that's what my devices are for (HTPC, PS3, iPad, Surface, Roku, cable box, etc).
The point here is that affordable (if not 'cheap') 4K displays will be here before too long, and they'll be followed by 8K. The problem manufacturers face now is convincing a standards-weary public that they really need to upgrade all the HDTV and 3d-HDTVs that they just bought - in a recession no less. I've already voiced my problem with the 4K push, insofar as television is concerned - notably data caps and the lack of a robust infrastructure. Sony announced plans for a 4K distribution network, and Netflix demonstrated streaming 4K video at CES. Sony and Red have both announced 4K media players, with the idea being that the consumer downloads content to play from the device. I don't really see physical media playing a big role in pushing 4K content (and by extension, 4K displays).
Still, I'm confident that by the time my HDTV dies, 4K (and probably 8K) will just be more numbers on the side of the box.
Again. To call a 4k-display being mainstream, it has to hit the price of current 40-50" 1080p screens, i.e. $500.
Even with 24% VAT in Finland I can get a 42" FHD LCD from LG for €400.
$1000 is not mainstream!
Not in your eyes...£700 is about mainstream for a big set.
And sure it won't be long before you can pick up a 42" 4K panel for £700...
Seriously, you can't call 42" panels for $1000 mainstream, especially not with the current economical issues. We're speaking of a full month paycheck for a big set of the population.
I'd say 'mainstream' is when it hits the £500 mark..
The Dell 2405/2407 were high-end mainstream at that price.
To those dismissing the retina MBP as purely visual eye-candy - try using one for doing some work. I was working one that belonged to my friend, set to a virtual desktop size of 1920x1200 and with some code open in Sublime Text.
Even though the font size was pretty small (can't have been more than 10pt), I was amazed at how crisp and legible the text was. I could easily sit back from the screen and read every line without squinting, all while having a bird's-eye view of the code in the file. Yes, the screen is still glossy, but the bonded glass and bright backlight really did help in avoiding reflections in most cases.
I'm not dismissing the retina-display of a notebook or a tablet. I own an iPad 3 myself and the screen is rathe nice for such a device. However, you are usually much closer to a notebook or a tablet due to the smaller screen.
My 27" QHD screen is so wide, that I need to sit 1m away from it, so that I can see the whole screen without turning my head. At this distance a higher resolution simply makes no sense, as it wouldn't change really that much. 10-12pt Text at 1 meter to a 27" QHD screen is allready as crisp as it needs to be.
But what if you had your 27inch resolution on a 23inch screen... now you don't need to be 1m away. Higher pixel density will offer you this.
That's actually about right given that early panels cost 3-4x more than that. A decent 42" TV should run about $700-$1000 (that's ~450-700EU). And when was a 42" considered mainstream? Or even normal? Normal size is still around the 32" mark and even the 26" mark. 42" is actually a rather large TV.
The reason why they've gotten so cheap is because there's about 4 panel manufacturers who sell it to everyone. And they basically sell the same panels.
But 1080 TVs started out at stupid prices too. You don't have to wait until it's 500 dollars to see the way the wind is blowing. People will buy these things in large volumes once they get below 2000 dollars, and that's the tipping point. From then on they'll continue to get cheaper.
This is what happened with 1080, and this is what will happen with 4K.... and the next big thing after that.
This is just history repeating itself.
Also to show you how much they will be pushing 4K.
Here's a 20" 4K Tablet!
4K Media storage
ICC 4K upscaling from a 1080i signal comparing upscale on a 1080p TV and a 4K TV.
So I can see the next gen of console will take advantage of the 4K upscaling engines, to give maximum image quality without the performance hit.
To add, some current BD players will upscale to 4K to take advantage of Sharps ICC engine, or other manufactures engine technology, to give you a crisper picture on upscaling.
HDMI will be the standard connectivity for 4K on TV's.
Exactly. And this is where Nintendo was wrong with the Wii in 2006. Back then very few people had 1080p. The XBox 360 didn't have HDMI port and didn't support 1080p initially. It got saved thanks to a firmware upgrade.. and even then.. 1080p on component? Ouch.
Yet price drop, and while still very expensive, people jump on them like hot cakes world wide.
Like the current console with 1080p content. It's 720p upscale to 1080p. No 1080p native support for 95-98% of games on both consoles. The WiiU does native 1080p for many games, currently. Not bad for quick ports of most games, and developers just discovering the console, and had less than a year to learn how to use it, and port a game already made and optimized for other consoles.
Correct, and I am sure dual layer BD will be use to play 4K content. Bonus content will be on other disks (1080p on single layer BD), due to lack of room on the BD disk. And possibly languages will be limited to 1 or 2. At least until new larger capacity BD disc will came out, and the production of them will be cheaper (maybe a triple layer disk?)
We don't have a choice in any case. Sony and it's supporters have everyone by the balls with this. The consumer is already brainwashed, and now find it normal that an HDMI cable cost 300$ and that this is the price of such cable, so retailers are really happy as well, and are pushing manufacture for high profit margin HDMI cables, and HDMI devices. Retails are already pissed that the WiiU comes with an HDMI cable in the box, to a point that some stores that would normally carry such gaming console, don't. Or they do, but push the consumer into thinking that the provided HDMI is crap, and wont' get the full experience of the game console, unless they buy this special 300$ cable.
Digital Foundry (Eurogamer) article on experimental 4K gaming.
Separate names with a comma.