I meant standard for new TVs in retail marketplace. It's difficult to find non 4k tvs now
-
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.
Is 4K good enough for the foreseeable future?
- Thread starter chanunnaki
- Start date
4k is getting into overkill territory already, i doubt most people would be able to identify 1440p vs 4k without putting them side by side.
I started wondering another thing, will we ever move away from square pixels or pixels in general?
I play on a 55" and the jump to 4k was extremely big, Im very sensitive to performance and quality so I will be more than happy when the jump goes to 8k but its hard to say if it will be as noticable.
They're saying that at 8K the pixel density is high enough that at the distance you sit from a TV the human eye would not be able to notice any more increases in quality like 8K to 12K, or if they could the difference would be miniscule. Not as big as the difference from 4k to 8k or 1080p to 4k. Essentially the higher you go the less of an improvement you are going to see.
4K will be plenty for years to come. Resolution helps you see fine details especially in objects in the distance, sort of like how you can read much smaller text when you have more pizels to represent letters. This in turn will require games to change LOD handling a bit. If you can see a tiny figure all the way on a mountain top it's going to need more detail than the few pixel sprite or a couple of polygons we have had previously.
I think the more interesting developments will be things like AI-driven antialising solutions like Nvidia's DLSS. These can potentially make a bigger difference than upping the resolution. For example using MSAA over FXAA/SMAA in GTA V makes a big difference because it reduces things like shimmering on fine objects like phonelines. The whole image becomes more stable.
I think the more interesting developments will be things like AI-driven antialising solutions like Nvidia's DLSS. These can potentially make a bigger difference than upping the resolution. For example using MSAA over FXAA/SMAA in GTA V makes a big difference because it reduces things like shimmering on fine objects like phonelines. The whole image becomes more stable.
4K is more than enough for now, keep in mind its worldwide adoption has been slower than expected. Most people still use 1080P screens, so even though 8K is technically available it will take at least five years to be widely adopted.
Some game devs will likely aim for native 4K/60FPS next-gen, but I'm certain Sony/MS won't force them in any way.
Personally, I much rather see improvements in AA, DOF, Shadows, Tesselation, while aiming for a locked 60FPS frame-rate.
Some game devs will likely aim for native 4K/60FPS next-gen, but I'm certain Sony/MS won't force them in any way.
Personally, I much rather see improvements in AA, DOF, Shadows, Tesselation, while aiming for a locked 60FPS frame-rate.
I find it very hard to believe that adoption of 8k is going to be common for at least 10 years. 4K is getting more common and most new TVs are 4K. HOWEVER, the average consumer simply isn't going out and replacing their reasonably high quality 1080p screen for a £900+ 4k one. The trouble the industry has is that, while most new TVs are going to be 4K, convincing the mass market that their 1080p screen is worth chucking in the bin is much harder.
8k is frankly fairyland at the moment.o
8k is frankly fairyland at the moment.o
I'd prefer 1440p with smart upscaling techniques like checkerboarding and temporal injection. Have a 4k UI whatever, just don't waste all those resources on insanely sharp pixels where you can instead spend a lot more resources on fidelity, not just raw pixel count.
Even the high end digital cinema screens do 4K at max. Anyone that tells you that you can tell the difference between 4K and up on a screen smaller than 80 inch while having a viewing distance of anything beyond 6 feet is just talking crap. At PC viewing distance 4K is overkill, 1440P is a nice resolution at that distance.
It's a far better idea to spend resources on higher refresh rate, variable refresh rate, HDR etc than more pixels at that point.
It's a far better idea to spend resources on higher refresh rate, variable refresh rate, HDR etc than more pixels at that point.
4K on a 27inch monitor wouldn't even get close to the sharpness on phone displays. So after 4k we will probably move onto 8k quickly.
I just upgraded to a new 4K HDR TV. For me the next generation of consoles is going to be gunning for 4K as a standard resolution even though 8k may be around the corner. I don't see the need to even worry about 8k for 8-10 more years myself.
HDR is where it's at right now. I have not got my new tv it's being delivered this week but my buddy says HDR is a game changer.
HDR is where it's at right now. I have not got my new tv it's being delivered this week but my buddy says HDR is a game changer.
At least. 720p Netflix still looks sharp enough to me sitting about 10 feet away on the couch.
Assuming a 60 inch screen and sitting 10 ish feet away can the human eye see a difference between 8k and 16k?
Yes, it is, except you're buying 150'' TVs and want to sit 2 meters away tops. There are only so much pixels per inch your eye can see from a specific distance. Damn, in my living room with a 55'' TV and sitting 2,25m away even 4k barely makes sense.
And with better antialiasing technologies we don't need to downsample from ridiculous high resolutions. TAA + 1440p or 4k is a killer. It can only get so sharp... there's a natural limit to it and even in real life you don't see things as sharp and crisp as some downsampled high Res screenshots (with even further added sharpness) might suggest.
And with better antialiasing technologies we don't need to downsample from ridiculous high resolutions. TAA + 1440p or 4k is a killer. It can only get so sharp... there's a natural limit to it and even in real life you don't see things as sharp and crisp as some downsampled high Res screenshots (with even further added sharpness) might suggest.
Even native 4K's benefits, while awesome, are kind of questionable considering the amount of extra GPU power required to push it. I'm hoping next-gen games go the same route as, to give a recent example, Spider-Man on the PS4 Pro. Native 8 games would just be silly.
4K is absolutely not the "stopping point", and it definitely isn't "good enough". Not a chance. Pixel density on TVs is still atrocious compared to phones. This is mitigated by the distance at which you view these, which is way different, but still. There's still a very long way to go.
I do think we shouldn't rush to get there though. The jump to 4K made sense on TV/movie discs and streaming, but consoles really jumped the gun. Though I'm sure we'll get mediocre 30 FPS 8K before 4K60 is feasible, and the cycle will just repeat itself.
Things I want in TVs before another resolution bump:
- HDM 2.1 for 4K60 10bit 4:4:4 HDR
- HDMI ARC and handshaking to uh work decently
- OS/app performance needs a huge leap, TVs still feel way too laggy
- Overall peak brightness to go way higher than current sets allow
- Variable Refresh Rate and Doly Vision and Dolby Atmos support to be standardized
I do think we shouldn't rush to get there though. The jump to 4K made sense on TV/movie discs and streaming, but consoles really jumped the gun. Though I'm sure we'll get mediocre 30 FPS 8K before 4K60 is feasible, and the cycle will just repeat itself.
Things I want in TVs before another resolution bump:
- HDM 2.1 for 4K60 10bit 4:4:4 HDR
- HDMI ARC and handshaking to uh work decently
- OS/app performance needs a huge leap, TVs still feel way too laggy
- Overall peak brightness to go way higher than current sets allow
- Variable Refresh Rate and Doly Vision and Dolby Atmos support to be standardized
1080p is good enough for me. Hell, on a moderate size display, I don't find 720p aggressive to me eyes either.
Same here. No complaints with 1080p yet. Maybe if we get a cheap 4k 60fps GPUs and fast refresh g-sync monitors, I'll grab the opportunity.
Last edited:
sarcasm aside both Samsung and LG are going to be pushing 8k big next year. companies are fast tracking 8k to consumer market sooner than originally plan. by the time next gen launches holiday 2020 8k tvs are expected to be in millions of homes.
Its really not. Even upscaled games at 4K look a lot better than 1080p on Pro/X. Movies went from yeah that looks great at 1080p to holy shit its like being at the movies in 4K.
Maybe not, but do people actually sit 10 ft away from TVs? I have a 65 inch screen and sit probably around 5-6 ft away
Yup. I'd rather just sit here, get the framerates up, and not put that extra cost burden on development.
It's good enough for the next couple years I guess. Still, if the end goal of computer graphics is truly lifelike photorealism we will need more pixels to get more details.
Cramming more pixels into tighter spaces is also super helpful at cutting down aliasing. I chose a smaller 4K TV to hook up to my PC for just this reason. Pixel density is an interesting and helpful thing. I don't believe people who say that 4K doesn't need any Anti-aliasing, but I will say that 4K with a high pixel density allows for less demanding AA solution. I personally find that a single frame of post-process SMAA is good enough for most games these days. SMAA is pretty cheap too, so it leaves more GPU headroom.
Cramming more pixels into tighter spaces is also super helpful at cutting down aliasing. I chose a smaller 4K TV to hook up to my PC for just this reason. Pixel density is an interesting and helpful thing. I don't believe people who say that 4K doesn't need any Anti-aliasing, but I will say that 4K with a high pixel density allows for less demanding AA solution. I personally find that a single frame of post-process SMAA is good enough for most games these days. SMAA is pretty cheap too, so it leaves more GPU headroom.