| Azzanation said: It all depends on the person. 4k to me makes a huge difference with a solid HDR enable product. Imagine a customer invests into a good 4k TV.. and the brand new consoles on the market are unable to achieve the basic TV settings. Its abit of a put off to the majority. They would be stupid in the marketing catagory to not advertise next gen consoles as 4k machines. If the devs want to downgrade the pixels to 1440p they can always do that. |
Native 4k resolution isn't required for HDR? And you can market a console as a 4k machine, without all of its games being 4k, thats down to developers (most 360/ps3 games aren't 1080p), what I'm saying is that 4k comes at a huge cost of other graphical improvements like lighting, quality of textures, pop in, dOP, VFX/simulations, poly count and of course performance.
And how can we say Full HD has become "obsolete" when its still completely the dominant resolution for media consumption. I have a 4k tv and by default most of the content I consume is in 1080p and I don't see anything "obsolete" about this resolution.
I got a 4k tv because it was on sale, I do love technology and wanted to experience the next jump. I would say I have quite a well trained eye and I honestly see the difference in resolution isn't huge unless you have a huge 60"+ TV or sit right in front of your screen. I appreciate it but I also see 1080p as a very pleasing resolution to the eye.
Given how much pure processing power it takes to render an image natively in 4k in laymen terms we're talking 7-8tflops for PS4 quality visuals,and realistically next consoles will be 10-12Tflops, I just don't see it as a worthy investment when there are still many other improvements they can make that could make an even bigger impression than a slightly crisper image.
For example I'd much rather see a 1440p checkboard (or even 1080p) presentation which represents witcher 3 in its original trailer, than a native 4k presentation of what the game looks like the game when it actually launch.
