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

Forums - Sony - Sony’s PlayStation 4 to support 4K resolution - Yahoo News

happydolphin on 23 August 2012
M.U.G.E.N said:

and I doubt anyone here actually knows what their expectations, plans, constraints etc are. everyone is just speculating.

However it's a fact that most electronic giants are implimenting plans for 4k. Sony is no exception. And again this is not for games but for media. And if gaf is to be belived this really won't cost much to them at all.

People always tend to blow things out of proportion, as shown in this thread. remember when the vita was gonna cost 399 cuz of oled? 4k is here and it will slowly but surely will grow in the coming years. It would be stupid of them to not push for it through their PS/TVs.

So, let's test your hypothesis.

Where did I say it would cost too much?

@Giants. Who said any different? We weren't discussing the if we were discussing the what. @games. I know, said so twice already.

@speculating. Who said otherwise?



Around the Network
M.U.G.E.N on 23 August 2012
happydolphin said:
M.U.G.E.N said:

and I doubt anyone here actually knows what their expectations, plans, constraints etc are. everyone is just speculating.

However it's a fact that most electronic giants are implimenting plans for 4k. Sony is no exception. And again this is not for games but for media. And if gaf is to be belived this really won't cost much to them at all.

People always tend to blow things out of proportion, as shown in this thread. remember when the vita was gonna cost 399 cuz of oled? 4k is here and it will slowly but surely will grow in the coming years. It would be stupid of them to not push for it through their PS/TVs.

So, let's test your hypothesis.

Where did I say it would cost too much?

@Giants. Who said any different. We weren't discussing the if we were discussing the what. @games. I know, said so twice already.


? how is that a hypothesis. it's a statement/comment. This is not a 'debate' happyd. I'm not talking solely about the things you said here...not sure why you are so worked up :S geez calm down

'you' quoted me yes? And now you are acting as if I was talking to you in the first palce or something. And you ARE talking about the 'if' . this whole thread is based on a 'rumor' . Hence it's a IF to begin with. Everything including most of your statements are IFs. Speculation, nothing more nothing less. I'm just pointing out everyone is pushing for 4k ....sony is no different. This just means with time they see potential for this market. This should not be a shock to anyone. I trust their judgment and they market research over anyone elses.



In-Kat-We-Trust Brigade!

"This world is Merciless, and it's also very beautiful"

For All News/Info related to the PlayStation Vita, Come and join us in the Official PSV Thread!

Euphoria14 on 23 August 2012
happydolphin said:
Euphoria14 said:
happydolphin said:
leatherhat said:
happydolphin said:
leatherhat said:
There are already blu ray players that display 4k. Adding this to the ps4 isn't going to increase cost. And these sets will probably be available at a decent price within 7 years, which will definitely be within the ps4's life span.

How do you know, what numbers are you using?


Its just an estimate. The 4k sets being released right now are around 30000 bucks so we'll see how long it takes to drop to a reasonable price. 

Fair question, but mine was more about the blu-ray players than the tvs. In essence my question here is more about the PS4's BOM than the rate of adoption question (price of 4k TVs on release).

First one to market is a 84" 4K TV by LG and it is 22k. No idea where this 30k number is coming from, let alone we should all know that a 32-42" will cost a whole lot less than a 84".

Seems like so much in this thread is being blown out of proportion.

Why did you reply to me on that?? I didn't even talk about that in my reply, I just reminded him that he was initially talking about BOM not adoption.

It more appears to me that people aren't sticking to a topic and jumping all over the place.

Oops, lol. I meant to quote leatherhat because Kowenicki posted the information on the TV I initially mentioned and it's price a couple pages back.

 

And who is going off-topic? I mentioned from the start the price of the TVs and that the 4K feature was for video playback and that it would not have a huge implication on the cost of the console as long as it was in fact video only, which it will considering that not even PCs can really play games in native 4k resolution.



iPhone = Great gaming device. Don't agree? Who cares, because you're wrong.

Currently playing:

Final Fantasy VI (iOS), Final Fantasy: Record Keeper (iOS) & Dragon Quest V (iOS)     

    

Got a retro room? Post it here!

kitler53 on 23 August 2012
happydolphin said:
M.U.G.E.N said:

and I doubt anyone here actually knows what their expectations, plans, constraints etc are. everyone is just speculating.

However it's a fact that most electronic giants are implimenting plans for 4k. Sony is no exception. And again this is not for games but for media. And if gaf is to be belived this really won't cost much to them at all.

People always tend to blow things out of proportion, as shown in this thread. remember when the vita was gonna cost 399 cuz of oled? 4k is here and it will slowly but surely will grow in the coming years. It would be stupid of them to not push for it through their PS/TVs.

So, let's test your hypothesis.

Where did I say it would cost too much?

@Giants. Who said any different? We weren't discussing the if we were discussing the what. @games. I know, said so twice already.

@speculating. Who said otherwise?

just as a reference...

http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-hdmi-1-3-and-1-4/

 

HDMI 1.3 vs 1.4

In May of 2009, version 1.4 of the HDMI specification was released, updating the capabilities of the standard as well adding new features that make it a bit more competitive with the emerging standards like DisplayPort. The most significant change that we get with version 1.4 is the increase of single link resolution from 2560×1600 to 4096×2160. Although this resolutions are far beyond what you can expect from an HDTV, they are still well within what you would expect from computer monitors, especially large ones, where HDMI is facing stiff competition from DisplayPort.

On the TV side, HDMI improves the support for 3D, which is becoming very popular due to some giant 3D animated movies. HDMI 1.4 supports 3D in all resolutions and even added standards on how the information would be sent across the interface. HDMI 1.3 did allow some sort of 3D but only for the 1080i resolution.

Aside from the improvements mentioned above, two new features were also added in version 1.4, the audio return channel and the Ethernet channel. The audio return channel is used to allow audio to travel both ways. This was created to eliminate the need to add another audio connection between a TV and player to allow the sound from the TV to be heard from the better speakers of the player. The Ethernet channel allows HDMI enabled devices to form a mini network so that they can route information. Instead of having an Ethernet connection for each of your device that are already connected via HDMI, you can simply use one connection on one device and have the information travel across the HDMI cable, thereby reducing the number of cables that are needed.

 

All of the features of HDMI 1.4 can be used while using older cables that were designed for version 1.3. That is except the Ethernet channel. For that you need a cable that was built for version 1.4. HDMI 1.4 also saw the introduction of the micro HDMI connector. It is identical to the bigger connectors and is pretty much like the micro USB connectors.

Summary:

1. HDMI 1.4 has a much higher resolution compared to 1.3
2. HDMI 1.4 totally supports 3D while 1.3 only supports 3D in 1080i
3. HDMI 1.4 is equipped with an audio return channel not present in HDMI 1.3
4. HDMI 1.4 has an Ethernet channel while 1.3 does not
5. HDMI 1.4 defines a newer cable standard than in 1.3



HappySqurriel on 23 August 2012
pezus said:
HappySqurriel said:
pezus said:
DirtyP2002 said:
I doubt the mass market is ready for another new TV after HD Ready, Full HD, 3D. Of course you need a new BluRay Player to watch a handful of movies that support this resolution, and a new HDMI cable as well.

All of that for something 99% of the people can't see an improvement. Of course the PS4 would have at least a $600 price tag and we all know how that worked out. Sony can't afford to lose 2-3 billion USD with one single product in times like these.

Based on? I'm pretty sure you have it in reverse. Have you ever laid eyes on such a high resolution before on a large TV?

Personally, I wouldn't argue that people can't see the difference but would generally find the trade-off between 720p@30fps and 1080p@60fps unacceptable ...

Using the Wii U as a base system, if you launched a system that could maintain the same quality of graphics as the Wii U can output at 720p@30fps it would probably be released 1 to 2 years later, cost $100 to $200 more, be significantly larger and use far more energy.

At the same time if the hardware is constant you can render far more polygons, with far higher texture detail, with more effects that are more advanced at 720p@30fps than is possible at 1080p@60fps; and there would be a substantial downgrade in graphical quality from rendering at the higher resolution.

Going from 30 to 60 fps (at any res) is a drastic change in itself. Why couple 1080p with 60 fps?

It is my opinion that if you have limited resources you should target 720p@30fps and you only would target 1080p when you can output at a stable 60fps.



Around the Network
Deoz on 23 August 2012

$599, Here we go.



oniyide on 23 August 2012

anyone who really thinks that adding this movie PLAYBACK feature to their system which istn coming out anytime soon BTW will make it cost 600 doesnt know what they are talking about



JEMC on 23 August 2012
kitler53 said:
JEMC said:

And as far as I know it's not that hard expensive to make it compatible. The HDMI 1.4 spec supports 4K, so any device with an HDMI 1.4 should be able to work.

this article is probably just a sensational way to say it will have HDMI 1.4 support ... which frankly is a no brainer really.  i'm sure the next xbox will too.

At this point even the WiiU may have an HDMI 1.4 port.



Please excuse my bad English.

Former gaming PC: i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Current gaming PC: R5-7600, 32GB RAM 6000MT/s (CL30) and a RX 9060XT 16GB

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

green_sky on 23 August 2012

I just want good 1080p with 60 frames per second. The 4k tv they are launching is going to cost $30,000 USD. Good luck with reaching mass audience with that even if it comes down in price significantly.



happydolphin on 23 August 2012
Euphoria14 said:

Oops, lol. I meant to quote leatherhat because Kowenicki posted the information on the TV I initially mentioned and it's price a couple pages back.

 

And who is going off-topic? I mentioned from the start the price of the TVs and that the 4K feature was for video playback and that it would not have a huge implication on the cost of the console as long as it was in fact video only, which it will considering that not even PCs can really play games in native 4k resolution.

Haha, that's okay.

No, I never said you were off topic, I just said there was some jumping around from BOM to adoption and vice-versa throughout the thread. I was just saying we should stick to one when arguing one, not saying the posts were off topic, they aren't. ;)

@kitler. Did you mean to quote me? :) I'm not sure anymore. The HDMI was useful to me in what convo?