What res are you at now?

1080p 301 61.30%
 
720p 34 6.92%
 
sub HD 8 1.63%
 
1440p 26 5.30%
 
4k 85 17.31%
 
5k 3 0.61%
 
8k, somehow. 13 2.65%
 
Pixels, I require none. 5 1.02%
 
None. 2 0.41%
 
Other. 14 2.85%
 
Total:491

8K won't be that affordable anytime soon.

My TV is 1080p. I'm happy with it. PS4 and WiiU look awesome (Switch MK8 too). But If I get a PS4 Pro then I'd buy a 4K TV.

My computer monitor is an ultrawide 1440p (3440x1440). Better than 4K imo due to the aspect ratio. A 4K ultrawide would be my next monitor but not until it's affordable.



e=mc^2

Gaming on: PS4 Pro, Switch, SNES Mini, Wii U, PC (i5-7400, GTX 1060)

Around the Network
super_etecoon said:
It's funny how people like to brag about their display size...and yet it's never enough.

Well, there is the car / penis theorem about an inversely proportional correlation in size, it might be the same here.

OT - For PC screens there is no difference for the average person (which actually manages better than 20/20 on visual acuity) beyond around 186 DPI.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245413698_PC_display_resolution_matched_to_the_limits_of_visual_acuity

Which in turn, is roughly the DPI of a 24 inches 4K screen. For 5K, the minimum size baloons to around 32 inches. For 8K, that would be around 48 inches.

https://www.sven.de/dpi/

So, I doubt there will ever be the need for more than 5K on PC screens - not accounting here for wider displays, which would skew the "5" on 5K towards a higher horizontal resolution.

There won't even be a use for TV screens since at around 4K the maximum distance to notice the resoltion is around or below the diagonal size of the screen, so even if TV screens increase significantly in size, it's very likely viewing distance will proportionaly increase, unless you want a strained neck from looking above or missing detail below your line of sight, depeding how low or high the middle of the screen is positioned.

Not to mention processors are going to run out of litho shrinks and the exponential improvements that came with them, so for gaming and virtual reality, you would possibly be sacrificing some measure of photorealism for imperceptible resolution, since the most powerful consumer GPUs ever conceived will run out of juice before doing both.



 

 

 

 

 

gergroy said:
I have a 70 inch 4K display and I have a hard time telling the difference between 4K and 1080p on 70 inches... 8k is just completely unnecessary, the human eye can only see so much...

Are you watching 480P content from over a mile away with the wolds worst eyesight?

The difference between 4k and 1080P should be massive on a display that large if you are sitting from a normal distance away.

Yomieeee said:
1080p is my max. My TV is 1080p, my base ps4 is 1080p, my Switch is 1080p, and my PC can run either 1080p at max settings or 4k with low/medium settings. No reason for me to upgrade yet.

Well no. Your base Playstation 4 and Switch struggle to obtain 1080P.

And there are advantages to having 4k content on a 1080P display anyway, so you *can* transition while retaining your last century resolution.

Mnementh said:

Matching the human eye is difficult, because the human eye has no clear-cut resolution. We might already have the pixels to match the cone-cells (color-seeing). Humans have about 5-7 million cone-cells. 1080p are around 2M pixels, 4K are around 8M pixels. But for one the eyes flick around while we look at stuff. Also the density of cells differs, in the central area the density of photoreceptor-cells is much higher than at the borders, so human eyes have no consistent resolution.

The human eye doesn't see in typical pixels.

Everyones eyes are made different, you can actually exceed 20/20 vision.

CladInShadows said:
Currently at 1080p for my main gaming/pc tv/monitor. It's 42 inches and about 4-6 feet from me. I'm not sure how much a 4K screen will help me at that size and distance, and my PC can't quite squeeze 60fps at 4K resolutions. But at some pointi n the near future, I'll probably grab a 4K TV at that size if I can justify it. At the very least, I should be able to game at a resolution halfway between, and when I do my next PC upgrade, I can feel safe knwoing I already have a 4K TV.

It is all about the perceived pixels per inch. On a 42" display you are on the smaller side, but you would still see some big improvements depending on sitting distance.

Turkish said:

Besides 4K is overrated, people barely see any difference between checkerboarding and da true 4k unless you're less than a meter away and pixel counting.

Same could be said about a ton of other different sub-Full HD rendering resolutions between consoles of this generation.


Turkish said:

HDR is where it's at and the only place HDR truly shines right now is with consoles. HDR barely works and supported on PC last I heard.

You heard wrong.

Chazore said:

144hz 4k is the dream. I've heard there is a 4k HDR on the way as well, but it sounds to be quite expensive.

144hz, 4k, 32", 10bit HDR, Freesync, non-curved, IPS would be my perfect display for my PC.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Even 4k is unnecessary imo



Azuren said:
caffeinade said:

So, just putting some probes out, but is anyone here interested in 8k, or are people satisfied / overwhelmed by 4k.

I am not just talking about gaming, I am sure that the PC scene will be there pretty soon.
But for media consumption / creation, productivity, photography, bragging rights and future proofness.

Does anyone here already have a 4k panel, and if so what have been your impressions on the increased pixel count.


As for me, I love it.
I will be getting an 8k display as I am able to get a good quality, 8k HDR OLED monitor for ~$1000.
I have enjoyed my 4k monitor for over two years (perhaps even three) now, but I wish I had spent more money, and got a higher quality panel.
That is something I won't repeat again.

UI scaling is pretty bad, Steam on Linux does not scale to 4k, and I have to sit real close to read text, and there are more examples I could bring up (but cannot be bothered to confirm to see if that is still the case).

Playing games in 4k is pretty incredible, not perfect but if you are used to 720p, 900p or 1080p, you will surly will notice the clarity (unless you are blind).

Don't bother with Youtube's 4k video, that sucks.
Digital Foundry's videos are pretty good though, when they aren't doing console stuff.

1. There are currently no plans for consumer level 8K  OLED screens.

 

2. The only announced 8K screen (Dell) is priced at $5000; five times your shamefully minsinformed price estimate.

 

3. Using an OLED as a computer monitor or gaming TV is beyond ignorant, due to the obscene levels of burn-in OLEDs suffer from. If you truly desire a self-emitting screen, wait for QLEDs to take their next step.

1. A thread about future tech, talks about stuff that is not yet announced...

2. That is a professional screen, it has a very high markup (and early adopters tax) and has been professionally colour calibrated (as well as some cool pro features).
In 5 or so years we should see reasonable priced 8k OLED.

3. I am well aware of the burn in problem, and my desktop does not have much static content, so I am fine.
Also OLED vs QLED; QLEDs are not self emitting.
Suggesting a QLED over an OLED is like saying "get a pet cat" to someone who really wants a pet bear.



Around the Network
caffeinade said:
Azuren said:

1. There are currently no plans for consumer level 8K  OLED screens.

 

2. The only announced 8K screen (Dell) is priced at $5000; five times your shamefully minsinformed price estimate.

 

3. Using an OLED as a computer monitor or gaming TV is beyond ignorant, due to the obscene levels of burn-in OLEDs suffer from. If you truly desire a self-emitting screen, wait for QLEDs to take their next step.

1. A thread about future tech, talks about stuff that is not yet announced...

2. That is a professional screen, it has a very high markup (and early adopters tax) and has been professionally colour calibrated (as well as some cool pro features).
In 5 or so years we should see reasonable priced 8k OLED.

3. I am well aware of the burn in problem, and my desktop does not have much static content, so I am fine.
Also OLED vs QLED; QLEDs are not self emitting.
Suggesting a QLED over an OLED is like saying "get a pet cat" to someone who really wants a pet bear.

1. If it's a thread about future tech, maybe mention that somewhere and not begin discussing a purchase as though it is very nearly on the horizon.

 

2. I wouldn't count on stuff that is very clearly for rich enthusiasts and industrial use to go on sale, nor would I expect it to flip over to OLED in the process.

 

3. Your computer screen is, at any point in time when not full-screened on a movie or game, is more than 80% static imagery. Your task bar, windows, the clock, icons, text- unless you are making a conscious effort to move them, they are static. Using an OLED for a gaming TV is risky, but using it as a monitor is downright irresponsible. And you are correct: QLED is currently not self-emitting. However, Samsung claims that they can make it happen, and plan on making that a reality within the next few years (hence that word "wait"). A more apt analogy would be me suggesting you wait to adopt a healthy bear rather than adopt a bear with crippling birth defects right now. But since this is "future" tech discussion, I suppose it would mean you're just consciously picking the lower-tier TV because you're uneducated on the subject.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Gimme 60 fps first, better lighting and effects second, more objects on screen third, and resolution last. I definitely realize the benefit of higher res displays but the returns on resolutions over 2K are so, so small comparative to 480 to 1080p.

With 20/20 vision, you have to be within 5 feet of a 40 inch display for 4K to yield benefit over 1080p. You have to be within 3 feet of a 60 inch display to get the full benefit of 4K.

Personally, I would like to up to a 4K projector in a few years, as I can definitely see individual pixels on 1080p within 9 feet from my screen (120 inches).



Retro Tech Select - My Youtube channel. Covers throwback consumer electronics with a focus on "vid'ya games."

Latest Video: First Look! RetroTINK 2X Multiformat Preview - Bit-Sized, Episode 5

I use a 1080p LCD tv, 720p plasma in the bedroom, 1080p laptop, 1280x1024 pc screen (old pc, just storage now really), psvr and a 1080p projector.

Of that, a 4K or 8K VR headset makes the most sense.
A 4K projector also makes sense, however there's not enough content yet, nor any affordable native 4K HDR projectors for sale.
A 15.4" 4K laptop, pointless. I'm already sitting too close to read the text.
A 4K pc screen to copy files? Nah.
4K tv in the living room and bedroom, pointless. Can't stream 4K, cable is 720p/1080i, plus it would need to be really big to actually notice the difference.

I'll get a 4K tv sometime when hdmi 2.1 is standard and 4K + HDR gets added to cable tv, which might be after pigs learn to fly. Atm I don't care about upgrading for gaming since my focus there is on VR.

I was pretty hyped about 4K projectors and 4K blu-ray a few years ago. Now the only affordable projectors are half 4K (1080p pixel shift) with compromised HDR if any, 4K blu-ray specs were downgraded to fit on a souped up blu-ray disc and the available titles and quality of conversion is pitiful. Still I wouldn't mind having one of these: http://www.sony.ca/en/electronics/projector/vpl-vw5000es I'll say I won't buy it because it has no hdmi 2.1 support, not the CAD 85k price tag...



I needed to get a new TV the other day. So I looked everywhere through the internet. I need 4K, I thought. You can't buy a new Tv right now without 4K, right? But then it began. There are cheap 4K TVs for like 500 €, but those don't have HDR. They say they have HDR, but they don't have a 10-bit-panel and people told me I need that. So, I looked for 10-bit TVs. Couldn't get one for less than 800 €. That's too much for me. But I don't want to buy something inferior. In the end I didn't know what to fucking buy.

You know what I did? I just got an used 1080p TV. 40 inches, Full HD for just 50 bucks. The thing is 7 years old but it works flawlessly. No smart TV bullshit, which is a plus for me, because I like to keep my data to myself. Plus, it cost literally next to nothing and I still had a huge pile of cash to spend on other things such as games! I will stick to that sucker until it breaks down. Maybe in 3 or 4 years 4K TVs with 10 bit or 12 bit or whatever are cheaper. Until then I'm good with 1080p.

On my notebook I have a 1080p screen anyways. But on my MacBook the resolution is a little higher 2880x1440 I think? I'm not sure. Nor do I care. xP



Official member of VGC's Nintendo family, approved by the one and only RolStoppable. I feel honored.

No thanks, I am still good with 1080p. :)