By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - 4K TV Resolution Is Overrated

SvennoJ on 17 May 2013
Corey said:
SvennoJ said:
Corey said:
4K is pointless

TV, at least where I am is either 576i or 1080i and is a long way from ever reaching 4K let alone 1080p
Gamers would rather better graphics then ridiculous high resolutions especially for the general 23" monitor
There are no physical discs for 4K and blu ray has only just started becoming standard
4K files are way too large and streaming of 4K content won't be feasible for many countries
Unless we are speaking of 50"+ tv's 4K is mostly pointless even if we had 4K content readily available.

I really don't see 4K catching on anytime soon

The exact same arguments as in 2005 when the first 1080p tv's came out.

Full 4K benefit on a 23" monitor is apparent at 1.5ft, not an unreasonable distance for a pc monitor.
Multi 1080p screen pc gaming and oversampling at 4K has been going on for years.
Higher res means less need for anti aliasing, less artifacts while upscaling. 720p content will look better upscaled to 4K then to 1080p.
Did people compain about higher dpi CRT tvs / monitors? More pixels provide a clearer image, regardless of the source.

At least the average Joe won't think he needs to be able to see every individual pixel for it to have benefit to him.
And you would finally be able to see all those 8MP and up pictures you've been taking for years the way they were meant to be seen.

My main argument was the ability to produce 4K content for these screens in the coming years. How is the content going to be delivered to homes without a 4K media disc, console gaming restrictions (what developer is going to waste the hardware power on a 4k res), low resolution tv channels and incapable internet all over the world.

Consumer's aren't going to mass upgrade to a technology where there xbox looks the same, where the football looks the same and where all of their previous content looks the same, the difference with 1080p wasn't just for the resoltuon but the convenience of thin and large flat screen tv's that came with it.

For 4K to be feasable it needs the consumer to see a large benefit from having an upgrade, at this point in time and likely for many years to come it will remain pointless. 1080p console gaming, streaming and TV channels still aren't exactly the standard, yet they are already jumping at the possibilities of 4K.

Same argument in 2005 again. No content available to homes, and 10mbps movie streaming was still a pipedream for 99% of people.
There are already a few 4K streaming services planned, 20-30 mbps with better compression formats, that should give you about 6-8 times the quality of current 5-10 mbps 1080p streaming.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/14/4098896/netflix-chief-product-officer-neil-hunt-expect-4k-streaming-within-a-year-or-two
http://www.eyeondemand.com/2013/04/10/news-sony-presents-4k-on-demand-for-your-streaming-future/
http://www.techradar.com/news/television/tv/first-ultra-hd-player-for-the-home-goes-on-sale-1138876

Previous content will look better. Upscaled dvd looks better on 1080p does it not? So will upscaled 1080p. Upscaled 720p will not suffer from artifacts as it does upscaling it to 1080p.

Average consumers won't run out and upgrade, but when they're ready for a new tv they will see the new lightweight bigger tv's in stores, walk up to the screen and say yes this looks better compared to that 1080p set next to it. If it is not that much more expensive, they'll buy it. For years they put up with stretched 4:3 on widescreen tvs before widescreen finally became standard.

Anyway my 1080p lcd is starting to show it's age after 7 years. It it lasts another 1-2 years until good 65" 4k HMDI 2.0 tv's are under $2000 then I'm in.



Around the Network
SvennoJ on 17 May 2013
Kaizar said:
SvennoJ said:
walsufnir said:
SvennoJ said:
walsufnir said:
SvennoJ said:


Anyway better reason not to jump in yet is no HDMI 2.0.
HDMI 1.4a is limited to 2160p24 no 60 fps support. Another HD ready 1080i fiasco waiting to happen.


That's why there will be no PS4-gaming at 4k. Or did they announce PS4 will feature hdmi 2.0?

HDMI 2.0 hasn't been released yet, still targeted for first half of 2013, coming soon. So I'm 90% sure that's too late for the ps4. Yet Sony does have some connections to get the specs early. There are rumors, but no specific HDMI version has been confirmed yet.

However blu-ray 4k playback is pretty much out since it will have a 6x CAV blu-ray drive, too slow to maintain 4K playback bitrates accross the disc. And without support for 100gb or 200gb I don't see it happening anyway. Sony does want to release 4K streaming for the ps4 at 100GB a movie.

The blu-ray consortium is still twiddling it's thumbs about the physical 4K format, not expected until the end this year now. They have just been gathering opinions on what it should support for now. (which 4K format, what frame rates etc)
It will be on blu-ray though, probably on a 4 or 8 layer (100gb or 200gb) disc with h.265 (HEVC) codec. Both incompatible with current players unfortunately.

All the pieces are there, 12x CAV (or 5x CLV, sustained 180mbps throughput) blu-ray drives, 200GB discs, and a twice efficient codec.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/09/nhk-and-mitsubishi-develop-the-first-h-265-encoder-for-8k-video/
CES 2014 might see the first 4K blu-ray player, more likely CES 2015 the way things are continually getting delayed.

A ps4 slim in 2016 might get 4k blu-ray playback.


Oh, I wasn't talking about 4k-bluray but gaming :) 4k-bluray will be possible (at 24 frames) for sure.

Well there are rumors, nothing confirmed either way.
24fps gaming will be possible at 4K and I don't think next-gen hardware is powerful enough for 4K60 anyway.
A slower adventure game like beyond 2 souls might look mighty fine at v-synched 4k 24fps.
GT6 show room and photo mode definitely possible at 4K 24fps.


Hey, there are these HDMI cables that do up to 13 GB a second, that gets advertise in best buy ad papers. What are these for?

And what can HDMI 1.4 do in terms of 2 different 1k images & also at 2 different 2K images. What frame rate per image for each resolution?

The cable will stay the same, pretty much any cable can do HDMI 2.0, but some low quality cables might be too noisy to sustain 13 GB a second. HDMI 2.0 only needs 18 gbits/sec, 2.25 GB a second. Just marketing to get you to buy a more expensive cable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdmi Check there for available image formats.
You could do side by side 3D in the same image using the 2560x1600 format to get 60fps or 75fps 3D at 1280x1600 or 2560x800 per eye, nobody uses that though. You're stuck with 30fps 3D until HDMI 2.0




Kaizar on 17 May 2013
NiKKoM said:
Well there is a simple reason for that.. There is almost no 4K content.. No tv show is shot in 4K.. The max old movies can do with converting film is 3.6K but you would have to find a very good percerved copy of the film.. Most would get to 3K.. New films arent shot 4K except some Red one and IMAX films.. But i do have to say.. i have seen 4K shot footage on 4K screens and its beautiful.. The amount of details is amazing and makes it more lifelike.. That said it will take some time before enough 4K content is created to justify a 4K TV


Actually a lot of today's movies are recorded with digital 4K cameras in these past several years, because it's cheap and high quality.

IMAX rarely uses 4K cameras, and that's only for certain 3D IMAX films during certain scenes where they need a lighter weight camera then the 250 pounds 3D IMAX Cameras, and also in different sitituations when they need a small enough 3D cameras for certain spots where they clearly can't capture wi the ridiculous size of stereoscopic IMAX Cameras.

The Great Gatsby was most likely shot with digital Stereo 4K cameras.



SvennoJ on 17 May 2013
NiKKoM said:
Well there is a simple reason for that.. There is almost no 4K content.. No tv show is shot in 4K.. The max old movies can do with converting film is 3.6K but you would have to find a very good percerved copy of the film.. Most would get to 3K.. New films arent shot 4K except some Red one and IMAX films.. But i do have to say.. i have seen 4K shot footage on 4K screens and its beautiful.. The amount of details is amazing and makes it more lifelike.. That said it will take some time before enough 4K content is created to justify a 4K TV

Sure the average 35mm movie might only go up to 3K but that's full color 3K.
Current 1080p formats only support 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, which means that while brightness is stored for every pixel, color info is only stored for 960x540. (Every other horizontal pixel and every other line's color is stored resulting in avg 12 bits per pixel)

A 4K version with 1920x1080 color sampling is going to look better for those old movies.

Plus there is the thing about 35mm anamorphic movies, presented in 2.35:1 They have the full height on the original frame but you only get 1920x817 on blu-ray. Sure would look better in 3840x1634, considering 3K is 3072x1620 quite a good fit.

I would love to see movies originally shot in Todd-AO 65mm in 4K. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_70_mm_films
Baraka and Samsara both already have been scanned in 8k and are mastered in 4K, they look stunning in 1080p, yet that's still only 1/4 of what they're capable of.

It's just been the start of digital cinema that has seen a drop in image quality. Too bad for LOTR for example, made in 2K. You might get better color out of a 4K release, but it will pale in comparison to a well preserved 35m movie.

That's passed, 5K RED camera's are now used for movies, 8K video cameras already exist for a year. http://gizmodo.com/5914262/first-ultra-high-def-shoulder-mount-camera-brings-8k-ridiculousness-closer-to-reality
Finally digital catches up to analog from 1955, but a lot more manageable and affordable now, and capable of 120 fps.