By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Biggerboat1 on 13 November 2017
Edit Thread
Azuren said:
Biggerboat1 said:

 

I really don't see anything that I've written warranting you having to have spell anything out tbh... 

I understand why 4k is a thing, and I look forward to buying a 77" oled somwhere down the line when prices aren't quite so insane.

If you don't like the chart that I've quoted then chuck the term 'resolution vs viewing distance chart' in Google and you'll find countless others showing pretty much the same breakdown of info. They surely can't all be wrong...?

I don't have an agenda, I own a 4k telly for God's sake...

My issue is that Sony and Microsoft are pushing the 4k message hard at the mainstream when there's only a tiny percentage of gamers who'll really benefit in a meaningful way. Those that sit very close to a 55" or own a 65" plus, oh, and apparently have fantastic eyesight! The ven disagram is becoming ever more teeny-tiny...

Finally, watching netflix or Amazon or whatever makes sense as most people have unlimited Internet packages  - even if it's only a small improvement, why not! But gaming requires a whopping 4x the graphical power. That's a crazy amount of extra power and/or money for a gain that is proportionate to your tv size & imo you'd be nuts to go that route unless you are sitting crazy close or have a 65" plus. 

You can argue charts all you want on the viewing angle business, but most people will still argue that those charts are bullshit. The more you talk about that chart rather than your own experience, the more I suspect you've never tested it yourself.

 

As far as whether or not Sony and MS should be pushing this, it's up to the consumer. And they've decided they want higher resolution instead of higher frame rates.

 

Also, your last statement is essentially the same as your second-to-last statement... Not quite sure how to respond to it.

My sofa is about 5 feet from my tv, but since you sit back when viewing I'm actually about 6 feet. The difference I've noticed is minimal.  I've never worn glasses or contacts, had the all clear on my last eye test about 18 months ago and as I mentioned, have a job that relies on at least a reasonable level of visual acuity. There's my personal experience, much of which I actually covered in my original post.

I can say one thing and you can say the opposite, except I can actually point towards some outside sources, all you can do is call BS on both my view and the charts... 

It's absolutely not up to the consumer what MS & Sony pushes & I must have missed the referendum on resolution vs frame rate your refer to.

The reason they are pushing 4k is that it's the easiest way to flog an updated system and have developers improve the fidelity of their games - simply increase the resolution to take advantage of the extra horse power - done! In reality the extra power of the pro & X could be harnessed with far greater effect by adding/improving effects/textures/models but that is too much hard work for too small a userbase for most devs to bother with.

My point will be proven when the PS5 & X2 come out and display most of their games <4K. And why do you think that will be?

I'm far from alone on this - have a read through the entirety of this thread and you'll see the overall theme is quite a tepid reception to 4K as it stands. And I'd hazard a guess that some of those seemingly impressed with their new sets are benefiting more from the overall PQ improvements over the tvs they're replacing rather than specifically the jump to 4K.

Finally my last and 2nd last statement on my previous post are variations on the same point but they are consistent so not sure why that would pose an issue to you responding? That doesn't make any sense.