16k is too high, even for me. Get out of here with that talk!
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Is 4K (or below) good enough for you?
- Thread starter Stowaway Silfer
- Start date
16k is too high, even for me. Get out of here with that talk!
When I was 13 years old, I wondered whether the (then) new N64 would ever be topped in graphics. Playing Mario and Starfox was about the coolest thing I had ever seen.
The original goal of moving to high definition probably wasn't to force you to buy a new display, but to create gameplay worlds beyond what was in front of you. In the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation, there were some gorgeous games, but they had to cut corners to put some of the better looking games in front of you, use tricks and rely on good art direction - which is fine. I love that generation. In the 360/PS3 days, we finally achieve more of that clarity and low-polygon characters stopped being so much of an issue. The worlds were rendered out before us. Those details only hinted at in previous generation were now clear. There were still many compromises and some pretty lackluster framerates, but for the first generation in high definition, it was hard to imagine going back. Of course, for PC gamers, this was all a matter of hardware and settings. With the PS4 and Xbox One, there were many refinements in the graphical details of open worlds, producing gorgeous vistas that could for the first time show off stuff all your grass and mountains without all that pop-in and such. All the architectural details seem to immerse the player even further. Now we're talking about even greater leaps like characters seeing the NPCs in windows and whatnot.
Meanwhile these little settings - quality vs. performance now standard in all menus have taken over the last few years of conversation. I must be one of the few people left who can appreciate the beauty at any resolution, but without nitpicking all the details. For me it's still all about visual impact.
I still look back to Ninja Gaiden Black for the original Xbox. Now, what stood out for me was standing against the foreground on my 32 inch CRT, looking at how shiny Ryu was. I used to do all the same things on other games, such as looking at the bark on the trees in Oblivion.
I think once these beautiful things stop having an effect on you, you start looking for imperfections in things that aren't really that ugly. I say let the art and worlds speak for themselves. I fit hundreds of games onto that tiny PS3 hard drive. Now I can't fit 10 on my PS5 because of all this resolution chasing.
If a game runs well and fulfills its artistic vision, I'm in for it.
The original goal of moving to high definition probably wasn't to force you to buy a new display, but to create gameplay worlds beyond what was in front of you. In the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation, there were some gorgeous games, but they had to cut corners to put some of the better looking games in front of you, use tricks and rely on good art direction - which is fine. I love that generation. In the 360/PS3 days, we finally achieve more of that clarity and low-polygon characters stopped being so much of an issue. The worlds were rendered out before us. Those details only hinted at in previous generation were now clear. There were still many compromises and some pretty lackluster framerates, but for the first generation in high definition, it was hard to imagine going back. Of course, for PC gamers, this was all a matter of hardware and settings. With the PS4 and Xbox One, there were many refinements in the graphical details of open worlds, producing gorgeous vistas that could for the first time show off stuff all your grass and mountains without all that pop-in and such. All the architectural details seem to immerse the player even further. Now we're talking about even greater leaps like characters seeing the NPCs in windows and whatnot.
Meanwhile these little settings - quality vs. performance now standard in all menus have taken over the last few years of conversation. I must be one of the few people left who can appreciate the beauty at any resolution, but without nitpicking all the details. For me it's still all about visual impact.
I still look back to Ninja Gaiden Black for the original Xbox. Now, what stood out for me was standing against the foreground on my 32 inch CRT, looking at how shiny Ryu was. I used to do all the same things on other games, such as looking at the bark on the trees in Oblivion.
I think once these beautiful things stop having an effect on you, you start looking for imperfections in things that aren't really that ugly. I say let the art and worlds speak for themselves. I fit hundreds of games onto that tiny PS3 hard drive. Now I can't fit 10 on my PS5 because of all this resolution chasing.
If a game runs well and fulfills its artistic vision, I'm in for it.
8k can diaf. i really hate that it's being supported at all. i hope it is destroyed as a standard.
4k annoys me a little bit. a waste of gpu resource for games imo. in screenshots sure, but in motion 1440 with high framerate and better IQ (rt, ssr, tesselation, shadows etc) is much more impactful. i think it's damn hard to tell the difference in game between 1440 and 2160. for movies though, with the size of televisions these days i think it's fine. still, imo it would've been a lot better for p much everyone if 2k/"QHD" was the standard.
4k annoys me a little bit. a waste of gpu resource for games imo. in screenshots sure, but in motion 1440 with high framerate and better IQ (rt, ssr, tesselation, shadows etc) is much more impactful. i think it's damn hard to tell the difference in game between 1440 and 2160. for movies though, with the size of televisions these days i think it's fine. still, imo it would've been a lot better for p much everyone if 2k/"QHD" was the standard.
Fair enough. I admit it's a subject I'm not terribly invested in; I have been using the same monitor for over a decade and I watched a "HD-ready" 720p television well into the 1080p era. I only bought a 1080p TV about four years ago.
I imagine that, when I finally buy a 4K television, the market will already be shifting towards 8K.
bad comparison; no-one questioned the jump to 1080, most people came from 480 and it was a revelation. nearly everyone with eyes agrees that the jump from 1080 to at least qhd is very noticeable.
4k less so, and we're getting even more diminishing returns from 8k. i do think there is benefit though. softer, more natural edges will give increased sense of realism in film, but the cost for rendering pipelines and asset creation at that resolution outweighs the benefits imo (slightly improved immersion). it will hopefully remain a very niche market segment for imax style nature doco experiences and VR tech where you really want that increased pixel density for the foreseeable future.
i use 4k monitors all the time, but prefer to game at 3440x1440. you would never get someone except the most stringent contrarian talking about preferring 720 or 480p over 1080.
4k is already a bit overkill for me. Yes, I can see it, and yes, it's nice, but it's not necessary.
1440 on my computer monitor is fine. I'll take higher framerates over resolution, anyway...though they have diminishing returns as well once you hit about 100fps.
1440 on my computer monitor is fine. I'll take higher framerates over resolution, anyway...though they have diminishing returns as well once you hit about 100fps.
I love IQ and even for me 4K seems good enough, at least on my current TV size and the distance I sit from it.
I don't like the look of 1440p games (on my 4K display at least, on 1440p screens they probably look fine. Like Jedi Fallen Order on Series X, Uncharted 4 on Pro/PS5), so that isn't high enough for me. Dynamic 4K with reconstruction methods that get pretty close to native 2160p is a good compromise if it means we can get 60FPS or raytracing on consoles (maybe even both on PC).
Hopefully DLSS 2.0+ and other similar technologies do make 8K and future resolution transitions less of a burden if/when they are forced upon us.
I don't like the look of 1440p games (on my 4K display at least, on 1440p screens they probably look fine. Like Jedi Fallen Order on Series X, Uncharted 4 on Pro/PS5), so that isn't high enough for me. Dynamic 4K with reconstruction methods that get pretty close to native 2160p is a good compromise if it means we can get 60FPS or raytracing on consoles (maybe even both on PC).
Hopefully DLSS 2.0+ and other similar technologies do make 8K and future resolution transitions less of a burden if/when they are forced upon us.
I have to say that I'm quite disappointed to find that you don't even have a 5K, 6K, or 8K screen considering how much you push for higher resolutions on here.
I thought you would have to be one of those enthusiasts that show up in PC gaming communities every so often with the 8K display, dual Titans/3090s etc.
4K is trash, it makes my eyes bleed, I don't know how anyone can stand to not view all their content in 8K.
Honestly, I sit far enough away from my TV that 1080p still looks okay (4K is noticeably clearer, but 1080p scales pretty well). 4K is absolutely enough for me.
With regard to film, 4K Blu Rays definitely feel another notch above 4K streaming. The picture is generally extra detailed and I've been surprised how much more depth that extra visual information creates. It's probably where I get the most benefit out of 4K.
Honestly, I sit far enough away from my TV that 1080p still looks okay (4K is noticeably clearer, but 1080p scales pretty well). 4K is absolutely enough for me.
With regard to film, 4K Blu Rays definitely feel another notch above 4K streaming. The picture is generally extra detailed and I've been surprised how much more depth that extra visual information creates. It's probably where I get the most benefit out of 4K.
I moved from 1440 to 4K w/HDR10 this year. Sure, they seem more than enough right now, but so did 1080p not long ago.
There is a noticeable difference in picture each time I upgrade and I'm sure 8K will be more of the same.
There is a noticeable difference in picture each time I upgrade and I'm sure 8K will be more of the same.
There's literally no reason to go above 4k. From a normal viewing distance, for both monitors and TVs, you aren't going to notice the difference. It's just a waste of resources.
I don't really mind lower than 4K. I was just playing with my PS3 a few days ago and I barely cared.
As for 8K, leave it for next gen. There are very little 8K TV's around. Most people who do own it are rich people.
Some people out there are still using 720p and 1080.
As for 8K, leave it for next gen. There are very little 8K TV's around. Most people who do own it are rich people.
Some people out there are still using 720p and 1080.
My answer will change as GPU strength increases.
Right now I have a 1080p/240Hz display. When the ability to push 1440p/240Hz and then 4K/240Hz are realistic, I will move up. When 8K/120Hz is realistic, I will consider that.
I love pixel clarity but I love temporal resolution even more.
When I can push 8K, I will want 8K.
Right now I have a 1080p/240Hz display. When the ability to push 1440p/240Hz and then 4K/240Hz are realistic, I will move up. When 8K/120Hz is realistic, I will consider that.
I love pixel clarity but I love temporal resolution even more.
You remind me of "Is 30fps good enough" threads, where people who only had the option of 30fps would argue for how acceptable it was. Then this new 60fps console experience dropped, guess how actual availability changed how people felt.
When I can push 8K, I will want 8K.
Until VR is standard for gaming a 4k ceiling is the way to go.
Considering the fact that these new consoles are weaker than i was hoping for I think this gen should aim at 1440p+ reconstructed @30fps to compensate.
Graphics over 60fps for me. If I want 60fps I will just play the PC version.
Its more important to me that the baseline graphics are as high as possible.
Considering the fact that these new consoles are weaker than i was hoping for I think this gen should aim at 1440p+ reconstructed @30fps to compensate.
Graphics over 60fps for me. If I want 60fps I will just play the PC version.
Its more important to me that the baseline graphics are as high as possible.
I think this is the best answer. Basically, I'm fine with whatever my system can do and I'll just upgrade whenever my budget allows me.
If movies can be shown in theaters that are finished at only 2048x1080, then I kind of feel like anything above 4K is a waste of time.
I know video and real-time rendering are a different thing, but honestly I don't really see a ton of difference between 4K and 1080p with good antialiasing. Personally I think HDR is a far bigger game-changer than 4K, and now that I've got 120fps console games, I think that's way better than 4K as well.
Really the only benefit I can see to 8K is that it will provide higher pixel density for scaling low resolution content better. Retro games with rectangular pixels should look a lot better.
I know video and real-time rendering are a different thing, but honestly I don't really see a ton of difference between 4K and 1080p with good antialiasing. Personally I think HDR is a far bigger game-changer than 4K, and now that I've got 120fps console games, I think that's way better than 4K as well.
Really the only benefit I can see to 8K is that it will provide higher pixel density for scaling low resolution content better. Retro games with rectangular pixels should look a lot better.
Is there something wrong with my eyes?
I have the 77" CX and the switch home screen and games look fine to me. I specifically tested a few right after I played AstroBot and Miles Morales. PS5 looks much better obviously but it's not hard at all for me to watch 1080 or play a Switch (smash brothers with the fam played and looked great) . Pretty sure my cable is not true 1080 and it looks amazing to me watching sports on the tv (my favorite activity and second is movies).
8K is the useful limit. There's no benefit to 16K unless you own stock in a TV company.
Have you tried Xenoblade 2? It's a blurry mess on my small TV, I can't imagine playing it on a 77"...
No Odyssey, Zelda, Smash and Splatoon. They are looked good.
Honestly everything looks good to me on the OLED.
I mean I said 1080 was enough back then, but then 4K arrived and the boost to IQ was pretty significant. It even affects my perception when playing Switch games because the difference in IQ is just too great. Switch Pro can't come soon enough.
So I can't say about 8K until I have spent a good amount of time with it. Maybe there will be more diminishing returns, or maybe the IQ jump will be big enough to justify it again.
That said, I'm a big supporter of reconstruction techniques, which is exactly how developers should be getting to those higher resolutions. Native 4k, let along 8k, feels like a waste of resources.
So I can't say about 8K until I have spent a good amount of time with it. Maybe there will be more diminishing returns, or maybe the IQ jump will be big enough to justify it again.
That said, I'm a big supporter of reconstruction techniques, which is exactly how developers should be getting to those higher resolutions. Native 4k, let along 8k, feels like a waste of resources.
I can't wait to see devs really take off with 4K thru this gen. 8k? Idk I doubt that becomes mainstream if it does until 2025+.
But I'm down!
But I'm down!
4k is plenty of resolution. I don't need any more pixels. I honestly doubt I'd be able to tell the difference between 4k and 8k content when I think about how much of my field of view the screen takes up.
Obviously tv manufacturers want it to be desireable because it's another way for them to differentiate a new model of tv but I don't think there's much point in that sort of device.
Obviously tv manufacturers want it to be desireable because it's another way for them to differentiate a new model of tv but I don't think there's much point in that sort of device.
You should definitely notice at monitor viewing distances.
Is it worth what it takes to render at those resolutions though? Probably not, for most people.
So… not 4K then.
Honestly I'm perfectly fine with 1080p, and I say that as someone with a 4K TV and a 1440p monitor. 4K is nice and a noticeable step up, but not to the extent that that 1080p is over 720p, or vs SD resolutions. Especially with decent antialiasing.
The human eye is only so good - a few years ago there was a huge "war" over resolutions for phone screens with manufacturers trying to outdo each other in pixel count and PPI, but very quickly we reached the point where people honestly couldn't really tell whether one screen has more pixels then another. And in the audio space, most people are perfectly fine with audio that sounds "good enough" - despite the massive computational advances over the last few decades, most audio is still served somewhere in-between MP3 and CD quality, because anything more then that is really isn't necessary for most people. I'm sure companies like Spotifiy have done a huge amount of market research to figure out what the optimal audio quality is for the average user, balancing that with the bandwidth considerations on their end.
I sort of feel the same way with 8K: most people won't see a huge difference, and the ones that do either have amazing eyesight or massive 80-90+ TVs that stretch the limits of people's physical space in their living rooms with eyewatering prices to boot. Stuff like HDR and higher frame rates are a much better way to improve image quality then bumping up the resolution even further.
The human eye is only so good - a few years ago there was a huge "war" over resolutions for phone screens with manufacturers trying to outdo each other in pixel count and PPI, but very quickly we reached the point where people honestly couldn't really tell whether one screen has more pixels then another. And in the audio space, most people are perfectly fine with audio that sounds "good enough" - despite the massive computational advances over the last few decades, most audio is still served somewhere in-between MP3 and CD quality, because anything more then that is really isn't necessary for most people. I'm sure companies like Spotifiy have done a huge amount of market research to figure out what the optimal audio quality is for the average user, balancing that with the bandwidth considerations on their end.
I sort of feel the same way with 8K: most people won't see a huge difference, and the ones that do either have amazing eyesight or massive 80-90+ TVs that stretch the limits of people's physical space in their living rooms with eyewatering prices to boot. Stuff like HDR and higher frame rates are a much better way to improve image quality then bumping up the resolution even further.