-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The difference between 1440p and 4K is virtually indiscernible even when sitting close to a 55" TV
- Thread starter Deleted member 2834
- Start date
Yeah, even my b6 has some banding on dark scenes but c9 actually don't have that problem. This TV is superb
Ofcourse.
The bitrate of a 1080P Blu Ray is 35-40Mb/s, for Netflix 4K that's 16Mb/s. The picture will be crisper in Netflix due to higher resolution but not better and it's going to be considerably fuzzier in quality during any motion as not only is it only pushing half the bitrate, it's using it to do 4x the resolution and HDR data (I donno how much that takes) so the quality drops even further. So it's using less information to push a lot more pixels.
This is why I've said before that it's pointless to be a resolution purist and dismiss other options like CBR and such due to it not being "real 4K, the fact of the matter ks there are different types of 4K content and they are not all the same. It's the quality of the pixel that matters not just the quantity.
Last edited:
i can tell the difference when i'm looking for it (55-inch OLED, normal-sized living room) but it's super minor for most games when they're in motion.
it's great for something like forza or wipeout where you're spending a long time looking at the same detailed object (and where there's no FPS tradeoff) but i use the performance modes for almost anything else when available.
this is why i think lockhart is actually a good idea. it shouldn't compromise the scope of games and should turn in good results for anyone who doesn't care much about "native 4K".
it's great for something like forza or wipeout where you're spending a long time looking at the same detailed object (and where there's no FPS tradeoff) but i use the performance modes for almost anything else when available.
this is why i think lockhart is actually a good idea. it shouldn't compromise the scope of games and should turn in good results for anyone who doesn't care much about "native 4K".
I can do 4K 30 FPS on a lot of modern games, but I almost always prefer to use 1440p 60 FPS and maxed out settings.
Definitely disagree, the difference is immediately noticeable between 1440p and native 4K.
That's not to say that 1440p doesn't look great though.
That's not to say that 1440p doesn't look great though.
I can tell the difference between 1440p and native 4K, but with each step you take up the resolution ladder the differences become less obvious.
Saying something looks "washed out" is usually a way of saying something is lacking color. That would have nothing to do with the resolution.
This is exactly how it is for me.
It is a noticeable difference but it is really hard for me to latch on to really tiny graphical details once it starts moving. I definitely notice all of this if I am watching someone else play a game, like Forza. But if I start playing Forza you eventually get into the game and focus on doing well and at a certain point I probably wouldn't notice if the resolution was 1080 or 4k if the action was fast enough. Framerates are always obvious though.
I can see the difference. However, I wonder if I should stay at 1080@60 when it struggle to do 2160@30 or 1440@~45 is fine. It feels like 1440 is not a clear multiplication so I wonder how the screen manage that, if any expert could explain me, it would be great!
Bitrate doesn't tell the full story tho, it's also compression. I don't know what type of compression is being used for streaming Netflix, I'd assume it's something proprietary, but it's really a key component to the success of the service.
But it's not enough to just have a 4K TV, you actually need 4K content as well, which is rare still.
But yeah, there is a big difference between a game that runs at 4K60 vs. 1440/60 at the same settings.
You beat me to it lol
But yeah, there is a big difference between a game that runs at 4K60 vs. 1440/60 at the same settings.
You beat me to it lol
It depends on the game. Fallen Order has very, very good image quality even at 1080p.
Some games benefit more from higher resolution than others. It's mostly down to the geometry and nowadays the TAA implementation. Red Dead Redemption 2 comes to mind, as even 1440p can look a bit blurry.
This first post is exactly why resolution matters when playing at a desk versus a living room setup. I agree with the OP. On my 65" screen, the difference is minor from a normal viewing distance. With monitors, you sit much closer so it's far more obvious.
Either way, resolution only matters due to our reliance on fixed pixel displays. None of this would be an issue with a CRT.
1) Most people aren't even integer scaling their 1080p content to their 2160p displays.
2) Most console games aren't even rendering native resolution.
6m from a 65' screen is hardly a proper viewing distance. There's no way you can even resolve 1080p at that distance, let alone 4K.
I'm still on a 1080p display. If a game supports supersampling, 1620p is typically my goto.
And I hope next gen developers will do that as well. Go for 1800p and maximise effects instead of sacrificing visual quality to achieve 4k
Not for me tho, 65" @ normal viewing distance. And I honestly really could not deal with the jaggies in Sekiro, it made that much of a difference.
Hey John, love your work.
Quick question: Is there future TV tech that excites you?
Well...I guess it also depends on the AA. Sekiro doesn't have great image quality so it's more noticeable. With a strong TAA, it's much less obvious.
Not really. Nobody seems to be working on motion resolution. Until modern displays can compare with CRTs in this area, I remain disappointed.
That's pretty much the recommended distance by my calibrator, although it could be more since i'm not sure if he said is 6m lol
I noticed the difference of 4k native even downsampled in a 1080p TV. Below 4k it's quite noticeable.
Ooooow, OK, that makes a lot of sense.
I sit about 2m from my 65" OLED, and about 4m from my 135" projector screen :D. 6m for a 65" is HUGE.
What content did you compare? For various reasons some games look remarkably well even on lower resolutions.
Also how long have you been viewing 4k content? I feel there is an adjustment period, in my experience some people have trouble noticing higher resolutions and framerates if they are not used to them.
Also how long have you been viewing 4k content? I feel there is an adjustment period, in my experience some people have trouble noticing higher resolutions and framerates if they are not used to them.
"The difference between 640 x 480 and 800 x 600 is virtually indiscernible even when sitting close to a 25" screen..." Someone on a forum 20 years ago, probably.
The calibrator pretty much setup and recommended everything and it's probably the best choice I did when it to my entertainment system. I highly recommend getting one
With my 4K 27 inch monitor sitting a few feet away I can see the difference in some games running at 1440p vs 4K but I'm not sure if that could be caused by interpolation artifacts when running in a non-native resolution since it isn't a 1:1 upscale. I'd need a monitor of the same size with a native 1440p resolution to really compare. Some games seem to look fine running at 1440p though so maybe those just don't have as high resolution textures.
I think he is, but your forgetting one thing, with monitors you tent to sit close to. This person uses a 4ktv and sit at "semi" normal viewing distance.
Sure i can see the difference myself, but its really subtle(vegitation looks sharper, maybe more detail on character itself ect). Its not like going from 480p to a 720/1080p screen like 10/15 years ago.
I'm not so sure about that.
PC gamers have almost universally rejected the gaussian-filtered scaling that NVIDIA uses with their dynamic super resolution feature (DSR).
Nearly any time I see a discussion involving DSR there are people saying that the filter should be disabled.
And you often have people saying that DSR looks bad if you are using non-integer scales. Hmm, I wonder why that could be…
What's the difference between that and a CRT?
The CRT has no "native" resolution which bypasses the gaussian filter, like a fixed-pixel display.
On the CRT, all resolutions are essentially gaussian-filtered.
This is similar to Apple's devices.
A large number of Apple's devices now default to using a non-native resolution.
But few people complain about that being blurry, because a filtered output is the default.
Fixed-pixel devices are not actually displaying the signal correctly when you have 1:1 mapping.
Proper sampling means that you should have a display resolution which is at least double the source resolution - or a source that is appropriately low-pass filtered.
But people are used to the extra sharpness that 1:1 pixel mapping provides.
This is why strong TAA implementations make it far more difficult to discern the native resolution of a source, and differences like 1600p vs 1800p are far less noticeable or distracting.
LG had a "Crystal Motion" OLED prototype with 3.5ms MPRT at CES 2019 - so it's being worked on.
The main thing which needs to happen is that they need to reduce the MPRT via panel driving techniques rather than black frame insertion. That will give them much better control over persistence and image brightness.
Someone confused 6 feet with 6 meters.
At 6m you should be using a projector and at least a 128" screen. That would just meet THX's minimum recommended image size for 1080p content. Ideally it would be 200" or larger.
65" at 6m is postage-stamp sized. It's smaller than holding an iPad at arms length.
I can notice higher frame rate easily, but I can barely notice anything over 2K.
And people talk about 8K...
And people talk about 8K...
8K is indeed pretty useless for anything that isn't meant to be some kind of huge poster or banner that people would go up against.
Exactly this. People are sitting too far from their TVs and using TVs that are too small and yet preaching about pixel counts.
I don't know why 1080p would make your picture washed out. The picture should be identical at all resolutions, with just an increase in sharpness and detail.
I had my PC hooked up to my 4k OLED for a long time, and would decide on a case by case basis if I wanted either 1080p or 1440p60 or 2160p30. Sometimes 1080p would look better than 1440p because 1080p scales neatly up to 4k, but sometimes 1440p with good AA (like TAA) would also work.
Honestly, if you can't see the distance while sitting at an appropriate distance, you might need glasses.
I had my PC hooked up to my 4k OLED for a long time, and would decide on a case by case basis if I wanted either 1080p or 1440p60 or 2160p30. Sometimes 1080p would look better than 1440p because 1080p scales neatly up to 4k, but sometimes 1440p with good AA (like TAA) would also work.
Honestly, if you can't see the distance while sitting at an appropriate distance, you might need glasses.
I gotta say, on the C9, things look pretty smooth @ 120Hz.
As for the topic at hand, 4K looks much more crisp than 1440p, unless you are a good distance away. I'm only several feet from a 55" so that difference is apparent.
So when does the resolution difference no long become noticable? I know it's a meme but at some point the human eyes ability to detect actually does become a thing, especially with distance from screen taken into account.
As question for frames? I personally can't tell much above 60 but that's just me. What about over 120? Can people tell the difference above 120? Seems like the number of frames flickinering per second would actually become undetectable at some point.
As question for frames? I personally can't tell much above 60 but that's just me. What about over 120? Can people tell the difference above 120? Seems like the number of frames flickinering per second would actually become undetectable at some point.
yep, this plus sapphire trixx boost is fucking amazing. Basically running above 2080 super FPS at 15% under 1440p and it looks considerably better than 1440p native.
I'm confused, isn't Ultrawide a resolution jump too just vertically?
