SD to HD vs. HD to 4k

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by drekula2 (1945 posts) -

This generation, there has been a leap from Standard Defintion to High Definition (1080p).

The generation after the upcoming gen may have 4000p resolution available to the masses.

Will this giant jump be as significant as the first jump to HD, or does diminishing gains apply here?

#2 Posted by clyde46 (46324 posts) -

The power needed to drive 4K at the moment is nuts.

#3 Edited by RossRichard (2389 posts) -

HD-4k has diminishing returns. It's great on PC, where you game 2ft from your screen. But in a living room setting where you sit 5-10ft from your screen, you won't see much difference in 1080p vs. 2160p(4k).

#4 Posted by drekula2 (1945 posts) -

that can change. but how is the performance of 4k? is it a bigger jump or a diminishing gain?

#5 Edited by YearoftheSnake5 (7418 posts) -

I haven't experienced 4K on PC yet, mainly due to my old graphics card and how f**king expensive those monitors are(more expensive than my rig), so I can't say how noticeable the jump is. That's a LOT of pixels, so the level of detail one can see could get significantly better.

#6 Posted by clyde46 (46324 posts) -

@RossRichard said:

HD-4k has diminishing returns. It's great on PC, where you game 2ft from your screen. But in a living room setting where you sit 5-10ft from your screen, you won't see much difference in 1080p vs. 2160p(4k).

2160 is not 4K.

#7 Edited by RossRichard (2389 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

@RossRichard said:

HD-4k has diminishing returns. It's great on PC, where you game 2ft from your screen. But in a living room setting where you sit 5-10ft from your screen, you won't see much difference in 1080p vs. 2160p(4k).

2160 is not 4K.

Yes it is, the 4k is the number of pixels horizontally. Look it up.

#8 Posted by chikenfriedrice (10432 posts) -

I saw a 4K TV in action at Best Buy, they had a Sony dude there and everything. The picture is amazing when you actually have 4K programming. Problem is there isn't much content to justify the price tag.

Once the cost comes down and the content is there, I will be on board. It's that impressive.

#9 Edited by clyde46 (46324 posts) -

@RossRichard said:

@clyde46 said:

@RossRichard said:

HD-4k has diminishing returns. It's great on PC, where you game 2ft from your screen. But in a living room setting where you sit 5-10ft from your screen, you won't see much difference in 1080p vs. 2160p(4k).

2160 is not 4K.

Yes it is, the 4k is the number of pixels vertically. Look it up.

I stand corrected.

#10 Posted by Ninja-Hippo (23433 posts) -

I cant see games ever having a resolution that high. They struggle enough with 1080p and that's been the standard for near enough a decade.

#11 Posted by clyde46 (46324 posts) -

@Ninja-Hippo said:

I cant see games ever having a resolution that high. They struggle enough with 1080p and that's been the standard for near enough a decade.

The 780Ti seems to run 4K pretty well.

#12 Posted by Sparky04 (3385 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

@RossRichard said:

HD-4k has diminishing returns. It's great on PC, where you game 2ft from your screen. But in a living room setting where you sit 5-10ft from your screen, you won't see much difference in 1080p vs. 2160p(4k).

2160 is not 4K.

2160p is 4k, 4k is 3840 x 2160, I think 4k a misleading title because it implies that the vertical pixel density is four times greater than 1080p when it's actually just twice the size.

#13 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

The leaps WON'T be as big cos Sd to HD wasn't just about how many pixels you had, it was also going from 4:3 to 16:9 which was HUGE at the time. You got to see so much more of the game on screen so coupled with the added pixels it seemed so much more

#14 Posted by drekula2 (1945 posts) -

@Ninja-Hippo said:

I cant see games ever having a resolution that high. They struggle enough with 1080p and that's been the standard for near enough a decade.

Technology rapidly changes over time. I wouldn't shudder at the thought of 1080p being archaic in 2020.

#15 Posted by emgesp (2149 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

The power needed to drive 4K at the moment is nuts.

PS5 will be capable of it. So, expect 4K gaming on consoles in 2018-2019.

#16 Posted by clyde46 (46324 posts) -

@emgesp said:

@clyde46 said:

The power needed to drive 4K at the moment is nuts.

PS5 will be capable of it. So, expect 4K gaming on consoles in 2018-2019.

I somehow doubt that.

#17 Posted by emgesp (2149 posts) -

I think the main benefit of 4K gaming is probably the fact that you probably could go without using any kind of methods of AA. 4K is probably enough res to render lines and such without any jaggies natively.

#18 Posted by emgesp (2149 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

@emgesp said:

@clyde46 said:

The power needed to drive 4K at the moment is nuts.

PS5 will be capable of it. So, expect 4K gaming on consoles in 2018-2019.

I somehow doubt that.

An 18 Teraflop GPU could handle 4k gaming without an issue.

#19 Posted by Kinthalis (5317 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

The power needed to drive 4K at the moment is nuts.

At the moment... Although it cna be done, on PC.

I think in 3 years it'll be doable with a single $300 GPU.

#20 Posted by GhoX (5014 posts) -

@drekula2: Relative visual differences:

#21 Edited by emgesp (2149 posts) -

@Kinthalis said:

@clyde46 said:

The power needed to drive 4K at the moment is nuts.

At the moment... Although it cna be done, on PC.

I think in 3 years it'll be doable with a single $300 GPU.

You probably won't be hitting 60+ fps, but definitely a solid 30-40 fps.

#22 Edited by drekula2 (1945 posts) -

@seanmcloughlin said:

The leaps WON'T be as big cos Sd to HD wasn't just about how many pixels you had, it was also going from 4:3 to 16:9 which was HUGE at the time. You got to see so much more of the game on screen so coupled with the added pixels it seemed so much more

Finally someone answering the question.

Do you think the ratio will increase in the future? As it did from 4:3 to 16:9

#23 Posted by lamprey263 (23975 posts) -

When I got my HDTV in mid-2006 I got a good deal on a Bravia but it was only 720p/1080i and had no HDMI, but damn did my Xbox 360 and PS3 games look beautiful on it, over the years 1080p not only became more standard on HDTVs but the HDTVs got significantly cheaper, now 720p/1080i is considered peasant standards, and the PS4 and X1 are HDMI only, though I feel the reason for that decision is to cut down on video piracy of movie rentals really than forcing a higher standard.

Anyhow, wonder if this gen with 4K HDTVs out there if by the end of the console generation if 1080p and 4K will be peasant standards and 8K or better will suddenly become the standard... where will it end?

#24 Posted by emgesp (2149 posts) -

@drekula2 said:

@seanmcloughlin said:

The leaps WON'T be as big cos Sd to HD wasn't just about how many pixels you had, it was also going from 4:3 to 16:9 which was HUGE at the time. You got to see so much more of the game on screen so coupled with the added pixels it seemed so much more

Finally someone answering the question.

Do you think the ratio will increase in the future? As it did from 4:3 to 16:9

No. 16:9 was chosen because of its versatility. Wide enough to handle both 1.85.1 and 2.39.1 sources well, while at the same time not giving up too much screen area when displaying 4:3 content.

You might see some small batch 2:39.1 screens for those Home Video Enthusiasts, but 16:9 will be the standard for at least another 50 yrs.

#25 Edited by Kinthalis (5317 posts) -

I've seen one at a tech show in NYC. With 1080p content, I couldn't tell the difference, though it looked a bit blurry. BAsically like watchign 720p content ona 1080p TV.

But when they switched on the 4K content... wow.

They also had a 4K camera pointed at us, and it looked like I was looking into a mirror. Pretty cool.

#26 Edited by Gaming-Planet (14022 posts) -

4k Will be the new 720p

8k Will be the new 1080p standard.

#27 Edited by Kinthalis (5317 posts) -

@drekula2 said:

@seanmcloughlin said:

The leaps WON'T be as big cos Sd to HD wasn't just about how many pixels you had, it was also going from 4:3 to 16:9 which was HUGE at the time. You got to see so much more of the game on screen so coupled with the added pixels it seemed so much more

Finally someone answering the question.

Do you think the ratio will increase in the future? As it did from 4:3 to 16:9

TV's? There might be some options in the future, but the mainstream models will stick to 16:9 fo rthe forseeable future. With monitors however, almost certianly yes.

Already 21:9 monitors are on sale, for pretty cheap too. the 29" IPS panels looks really nice. But I don't want to give up my 1440p verticla resolution for one, so I'm waiting for higher pixel densities.

An ultra wide 4K monitor would rock!

#28 Posted by clyde46 (46324 posts) -

@Kinthalis said:

@drekula2 said:

@seanmcloughlin said:

The leaps WON'T be as big cos Sd to HD wasn't just about how many pixels you had, it was also going from 4:3 to 16:9 which was HUGE at the time. You got to see so much more of the game on screen so coupled with the added pixels it seemed so much more

Finally someone answering the question.

Do you think the ratio will increase in the future? As it did from 4:3 to 16:9

TV's? There might be some options in the future, with monitors, almost certianly yes.

Already 21:9 monitors are on sale, for pretty cheap too. the 29" IPS panels looks really nice. But I don't want to give up my 1440p verticla resolution for one, so I'm waiting for higher pixel densities.

An ultra wide 4K monitor would rock!

Dell have a 32in 4K monitor but its only in China at the moment.

#29 Edited by ShepardCommandr (2698 posts) -

Can't say until i try it and that's not happening until i can get a 4k monitor/tv for 500 euros or less.

It's the max i am willing to pay for a tv.

#30 Posted by Motokid6 (5642 posts) -

@RossRichard: Why do people keep bringing up resolution-viewing distance? Its complete bs. I dont care what study article you post i know that I, myself can see the difference like night and day. I too had the opprotunity to see a 4k tv in action. They had a 1080p set next to it. I could notice the difference walking in the door 40 feet away. Tell yourself what you want. I can tell the difference.

Cant wait for 4k. Ill get once they reach the price of 1600p monitors.

#31 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (7280 posts) -

I'm not going to care about being able to play games in 4k until I actually get a tv or monitor that can even display it. That's probably at least 4-5 years away for me.

#32 Posted by Chozofication (2882 posts) -

480p to 1080p is a much, much bigger jump than 1080p to 4K, in perceived quality. But keep in mind we didn't go from 480p to 1080p in games, just 720p. Now, 720p to 1080p might not be as pronounced as going to 4K in the 9th generation, but we'll see.

1080p looks extremely crisp at the right viewing distance.

#33 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (7280 posts) -

@Chozofication said:

480p to 1080p is a much, much bigger jump than 1080p to 4K, in perceived quality. But keep in mind we didn't go from 480p to 1080p in games, just 720p. Now, 720p to 1080p might not be as pronounced as going to 4K in the 9th generation, but we'll see.

1080p looks extremely crisp at the right viewing distance.

I played the vast majority of my games at 1080p last gen.

#34 Posted by no-scope-AK47 (2806 posts) -

4k looks great on the spec sheet but OLED is the next big thing. I saw them at the same show with 4k sets and the OLED 1080p had a much better picture. A cheaper way to see the huge jump would be looking at the old vita vs the new lcd vita. The old oled vita picture is much better.

#35 Posted by Chozofication (2882 posts) -

@no-scope-AK47 said:

4k looks great on the spec sheet but OLED is the next big thing. I saw them at the same show with 4k sets and the OLED 1080p had a much better picture. A cheaper way to see the huge jump would be looking at the old vita vs the new lcd vita. The old oled vita picture is much better.

Exactly. The next TV I get will be a 1080p OLED, but OLED is far from being available commercially.

I thought the Vita having an OLED screen meant we'd see it in TV's sooner, but obviously it was too costly.

#36 Posted by Chozofication (2882 posts) -
@PurpleMan5000 said:

@Chozofication said:

480p to 1080p is a much, much bigger jump than 1080p to 4K, in perceived quality. But keep in mind we didn't go from 480p to 1080p in games, just 720p. Now, 720p to 1080p might not be as pronounced as going to 4K in the 9th generation, but we'll see.

1080p looks extremely crisp at the right viewing distance.

I played the vast majority of my games at 1080p last gen.


You'd have to elaborate. Generations are defined by consoles, and clearly that's what the TC was talking about.

#37 Posted by no-scope-AK47 (2806 posts) -

The quality of the display and the lighting and correct viewing distance is also critical. A quality 720p plasma looks better than a cheap 1080p 60hz lcd. A example is watching the same dvd on the 360 vs the ps3. The ps3 picture looks much cleaner using the same tv and hdmi cables. You would also be surprised how much a difference getting your hdtv calibrated makes also.

#38 Edited by Gue1 (10029 posts) -

1080p will be the standard for at least 10 more years. Easily.

4K will only be a thing between PC enthusiasts just like in the late 90's early 2000's.

#39 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

@Gue1 said:

1080p will be the standard for at least 10 more years. Easily.

4K will only be a thing between PC enthusiasts.

1080p won't be standard for another 10 years.It's already been the standard for actual "HD" for quite some time. There is a real push and talk about 4 k these days

I think 1440p will be the next general standard

#40 Posted by treedoor (7648 posts) -

The difference between 1080p to 4k is unnoticeable. You'd be lying if you said you could tell the difference.

Well, I mean, until a console comes out that plays games at 4k. Then it'll be amazing, and 1080p will be unplayable.

#41 Edited by Kinthalis (5317 posts) -

@treedoor said:

The difference between 1080p to 4k is unnoticeable. You'd be lying if you said you could tell the difference.

Well, I mean, until a console comes out that plays games at 4k. Then it'll be amazing, and 1080p will be unplayable.

Lol! This, so much. You've captures consolite logic/hypocrisy perfectly.

#42 Posted by kraken2109 (13056 posts) -
@treedoor said:

The difference between 1080p to 4k is unnoticeable. You'd be lying if you said you could tell the difference.

Well, I mean, until a console comes out that plays games at 4k. Then it'll be amazing, and 1080p will be unplayable.

System wars in a nutshell

#43 Posted by Mozelleple112 (6665 posts) -

@clyde46:

@clyde46 said:

@RossRichard said:

HD-4k has diminishing returns. It's great on PC, where you game 2ft from your screen. But in a living room setting where you sit 5-10ft from your screen, you won't see much difference in 1080p vs. 2160p(4k).

2160 is not 4K.

Big dummy alert. "4K" is cinema resolution (DCI) which means its goes by the horizontal pixels, not the vertical like used in the consumer market (480p, 720p, 1080p)

4K (4096x2160p = 1.89 : 1 ratio) was preceded by 2K (2048x1080p = 1.89:1)

Ultra-HD (3860x2160p = 1.78:1) is the consumer variant.

So technically 4K =/= Ultra HD. these consumer monitors and HDTVs are Ultra HD, not 4K. the Sony VW1000ES and other cinema projectors / professional cameras are 4K though.

And the next step (JVC and Panasonic have already released an 8K projector, cameras and plasma TV, though these cost like $500,000 ++) is 8K (8192x4320p = 1.89:1)

Consumer variant of 8K would be Super Hi-Vision or 7680x4320p = 1.78:1 ratio.

Boy I can't wait for them 8K projectors :3

/vidoeophile #rant over

#44 Edited by Mozelleple112 (6665 posts) -

@Gue1 said:

1080p will be the standard for at least 10 more years. Easily.

4K will only be a thing between PC enthusiasts and digital cinema just like in the late 90's early 2000's.

Fixed. PC enthusiasts are still DCI's b*tch. PCs have only just begun to get 4K recently, but 4K has been around since 2001 in the cinema world. Japan's NHK has been working with 8K Super Hi vision (4320p) for years.

#45 Edited by -Unreal- (24544 posts) -

People like commenting on the visual improvement 4k has without having seen a game running at 4k on a 4k monitor.

#46 Posted by shellcase86 (1934 posts) -

SD to HD had a bigger impact than HD to 4k ever would. Diminishing returns.

#47 Posted by Couth_ (10128 posts) -

There is some diminishing returns, but that's why they are pushing the next big jump as 4k instead of 2k. lol @ goons that say it doesn't make a difference though. more pixels means more details at any size, at any distance. And even 1440p monitors obliterate 1080p ones

#48 Posted by NFJSupreme (5378 posts) -

@Ninja-Hippo said:

I cant see games ever having a resolution that high. They struggle enough with 1080p and that's been the standard for near enough a decade.

don't confuse consoles struggling to run games at 1080p with running games at 1080p being hard to do. It's actually quite easy and the hardware to do it has been there for years on PC. On PC all games are at 1080p. It's pretty much the default PC resolution. Getting up to 1440p and beyond is where you start to need to get super expensive sli/cf set ups to run games at 60fps. But any modern GPU can run games at 1080 without breaking a sweat.

#49 Edited by glez13 (8835 posts) -

@Sparky04 said:

@clyde46 said:

@RossRichard said:

HD-4k has diminishing returns. It's great on PC, where you game 2ft from your screen. But in a living room setting where you sit 5-10ft from your screen, you won't see much difference in 1080p vs. 2160p(4k).

2160 is not 4K.

2160p is 4k, 4k is 3840 x 2160, I think 4k a misleading title because it implies that the vertical pixel density is four times greater than 1080p when it's actually just twice the size.

It's so misleading that it made the TC come up with a 4000p resolution. :P

#50 Posted by glez13 (8835 posts) -

@Couth_ said:

There is some diminishing returns, but that's why they are pushing the next big jump as 4k instead of 2k. lol @ goons that say it doesn't make a difference though. more pixels means more details at any size, at any distance. And even 1440p monitors obliterate 1080p ones

Not really. The visible detail depends on resolution/size/distance. 2K is basically the same as 1080p but with 128 extra lines.