Is PS4 will be... 4K?

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

Oh yeah? Then prove me wrong.

peterw007

Resolution/screen size? GOogle it. And you really think films highest native resolution is 2K?

Film. As in, actual film. You know...real 35mm film that they used to shoot movies on?

And yes, I have researched it in the past.

..

The Digital Resolution of Film

So how many pixels does it take to describe all the detail we can get from film?

Fuji Velvia 50 is rated to resolve 160 lines per millimeter. This is the finest level of detail it can resolve, at which point its MTF just about hits zero.

Each line will require one light and one dark pixel, or two pixels. Thus it will take about 320 pixels per millimeter to represent what's on Velvia 50.

320 pixels x 320 pixels is 0.1MP per square millimeter.

35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters.

To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels.

But wait: each film pixel represents true R, G and B data, not the softer Bayer interpolated data from digital camera sensors. A single-chip 87 MP digital camera still couldn't see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film.

Since the lie factor factor from digital cameras is about two, you'd need a digital camera of about 87 x 2 = 175 MP to see every last detail that makes onto film.

That's just 35mm film. Pros don't shoot 35mm, they usually shoot 2-1/4" or 4x5."

At the same rates, 2-1/4" (56mm square) would be 313 MP, and 4x5" (95x120mm) would be 95 x 120 = 11,400 square millimeters = 1,140 MP, with no Bayer Interpolation. A digital camera with Bayer Interpolation would need to be rated at better than 2 gigapixels to see things that can be seen on a sheet of 4x5" film.Ken Rockwell

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

You need a really large screen to tell the difference between a 1080p Blu-ray and a 4K movie.

Even in games, 4K only shows its benefits when you have a very large screen.

And all throughout history, film's highest native resolution has been 2K (1080p). Having another kind of disk format that supports 4K is just redundant.

peterw007

I don't think a word you just said is in any way correct.

Oh yeah? Then prove me wrong. I have no problem with being wrong, but you have to give me some evidence.

What you said is all wrong. There's no such thing as "native resolution" for films "all throughout history", because films aren't shot digitally all throughout history. They were shot on FILM, an analog format with no native resolution. There are theoretical limits from what information you can extract, but there's no such thing as a "native resolution".

Heck, there have already been a few select films utilizing 8K processes, let alone 4K. Classics such as Ben Hur and Lawrence of Arabia were shot on 65mm film, and in preparations for blu-ray release were actually scanned at 8K resolution before being downscaled to 1080P for home video release. 4K is actually pretty standard these days, not for home video, but along the mastering process. Many 35mm films utilized a 4K process in their "remastering" for blu-ray. 4K supposedly is about "as good as it gets" as far as extracting data off of 35mm film elements. Obviously for some really old films shot on 35mm a 4K scan will add almost no value, but for the most sharp and pristine 35mm films then 4K will be an added benefit. But more importantly for the "evidence" you seek, it already exists in the production pipeline (i.e. the "masters" are already sitting there waiting in 4k for a large quantity of films). I'm not going down the list of films canned in 4K already, because it would probably be too long.

[QUOTE="XBoxgamer555"]

[QUOTE="edidili"]

Are there 4k videos on the net? Never seen one.

fernandmondego_

there are somestreams in youtube on 4K native resolution.

He is right, theu im not sure if those are real 4K

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0m1XmvBey8

To turn it on you need to set to "Original" resolution, video lags so there defently somethign beyound HD

wikipedia also got 4K sample in OGV format, but it's only a slideshow

Upscaled 4K will probably look nasty with non native content or content that is not at least 1080p. The jump from 1080p to 4k is close to the jump from standard TV 480p to 1080p (when it comes to pixel count). And we all know how non HD content looks on a screen built for HD. There wont be any native 4k broadcast for a LONG time. There is hardly any 1080p native broadcast. 4k is going to really push our network infrastructure and will require a major overhaul. Right now, Netflix eats almost 25% of the global internet bandwidth (and thats with less than a 1/3 of its content being in 1080p). That being said, I am a believer in technology moving quicker than expected. I hope 4k is added, but it wont be missed if it isn't. lhughey

For exactly the reasons you state, it will probably be 10 years before the average person even *THINKS* about a 4K television set. It took quite awhile for HD television adoption rates, and even now there is still tons of content in SD. I myself don't even subscribe to HD cable, and of course much of Netflix is also still SD.

Upscaled 4K will probably look nasty with non native content or content that is not at least 1080p. The jump from 1080p to 4k is close to the jump from standard TV 480p to 1080p (when it comes to pixel count). And we all know how non HD content looks on a screen built for HD. There wont be any native 4k broadcast for a LONG time. There is hardly any 1080p native broadcast. 4k is going to really push our network infrastructure and will require a major overhaul. Right now, Netflix eats almost 25% of the global internet bandwidth (and thats with less than a 1/3 of its content being in 1080p). That being said, I am a believer in technology moving quicker than expected. I hope 4k is added, but it wont be missed if it isn't. lhughey

Nobody say that there need to be 4K brodcasts and internet streaming on day 1, same thing was with HD. We talking here about device that have local content

[QUOTE="lhughey"]Upscaled 4K will probably look nasty with non native content or content that is not at least 1080p. The jump from 1080p to 4k is close to the jump from standard TV 480p to 1080p (when it comes to pixel count). And we all know how non HD content looks on a screen built for HD. There wont be any native 4k broadcast for a LONG time. There is hardly any 1080p native broadcast. 4k is going to really push our network infrastructure and will require a major overhaul. Right now, Netflix eats almost 25% of the global internet bandwidth (and thats with less than a 1/3 of its content being in 1080p). That being said, I am a believer in technology moving quicker than expected. I hope 4k is added, but it wont be missed if it isn't. ShadowriverUB

Nobody say that there need to be 4K brodcasts and internet streaming on day 1, same thing was with HD. We talking here about device that have local content

Well that's good, because there won't be. :P

Plus the sets are probably going to cost $50,000 or something on day 1, whenever that is.

THe eye can't even see at 4k.

Why would they even bothe?

What you said is all wrong. There's no such thing as "native resolution" for films "all throughout history", because films aren't shot digitally all throughout history. They were shot on FILM, an analog format with no native resolution. There are theoretical limits from what information you can extract, but there's no such thing as a "native resolution".

Heck, there have already been a few select films utilizing 8K processes, let alone 4K. Classics such as Ben Hur and Lawrence of Arabia were shot on 65mm film, and in preparations for blu-ray release were actually scanned at 8K resolution before being downscaled to 1080P for home video release. 4K is actually pretty standard these days, not for home video, but along the mastering process. Many 35mm films utilized a 4K process in their "remastering" for blu-ray. 4K supposedly is about "as good as it gets" as far as extracting data off of 35mm film elements. Obviously for some really old films shot on 35mm a 4K scan will add almost no value, but for the most sharp and pristine 35mm films then 4K will be an added benefit. But more importantly for the "evidence" you seek, it already exists in the production pipeline (i.e. the "masters" are already sitting there waiting in 4k for a large quantity of films). I'm not going down the list of films canned in 4K already, because it would probably be too long.

2Chalupas

Nice point. You did prove me wrong.

But even if the film technically retains more details, it doesn't mean the user will be able to perceive those details.

(For reference, HD is referring to 1080p resolution)

There is an international study on this issue, called Image Resolution of 35mm Film in Theatrical Presentation. It was conducted by Hank Mahler (CBS, United States), Vittorio Baroncini (Fondazione Ugo Bordoni, Italy), and Mattieu Sintas (CST, France).

In the study, MTF measurements were used to determine the typical resolution of theatrical release prints and answer prints in normal operation, utilizing existing state-of-the-art 35mm film, processing, printing, and projection.

The prints were projected in six movie theaters in various countries, and a panel of experts made the assessments of the projected images using a well-defined formula.

As the study indicates, perceived differences between HD and 35mm film are quickly disappearing. Notice I use the word "perceived." This is important because we are not shooting a movie for laboratory study, but rather for audiences.

At this point, the typical audience cannot see the difference between HD and 35mm. Even professionals have a hard time telling them apart.

Industry Expert

Who cares about 4K if people can't see the difference on anything but a massive screen?

[QUOTE="2Chalupas"]

What you said is all wrong. There's no such thing as "native resolution" for films "all throughout history", because films aren't shot digitally all throughout history. They were shot on FILM, an analog format with no native resolution. There are theoretical limits from what information you can extract, but there's no such thing as a "native resolution".

Heck, there have already been a few select films utilizing 8K processes, let alone 4K. Classics such as Ben Hur and Lawrence of Arabia were shot on 65mm film, and in preparations for blu-ray release were actually scanned at 8K resolution before being downscaled to 1080P for home video release. 4K is actually pretty standard these days, not for home video, but along the mastering process. Many 35mm films utilized a 4K process in their "remastering" for blu-ray. 4K supposedly is about "as good as it gets" as far as extracting data off of 35mm film elements. Obviously for some really old films shot on 35mm a 4K scan will add almost no value, but for the most sharp and pristine 35mm films then 4K will be an added benefit. But more importantly for the "evidence" you seek, it already exists in the production pipeline (i.e. the "masters" are already sitting there waiting in 4k for a large quantity of films). I'm not going down the list of films canned in 4K already, because it would probably be too long.

peterw007

Nice point. You did prove me wrong.

But even if the film technically retains more details, it doesn't mean the user will be able to perceive those details.

(For reference, HD is referring to 1080p resolution)

There is an international study on this issue, called Image Resolution of 35mm Film in Theatrical Presentation. It was conducted by Hank Mahler (CBS, United States), Vittorio Baroncini (Fondazione Ugo Bordoni, Italy), and Mattieu Sintas (CST, France).

In the study, MTF measurements were used to determine the typical resolution of theatrical release prints and answer prints in normal operation, utilizing existing state-of-the-art 35mm film, processing, printing, and projection.

The prints were projected in six movie theaters in various countries, and a panel of experts made the assessments of the projected images using a well-defined formula.

As the study indicates, perceived differences between HD and 35mm film are quickly disappearing. Notice I use the word "perceived." This is important because we are not shooting a movie for laboratory study, but rather for audiences.

At this point, the typical audience cannot see the difference between HD and 35mm. Even professionals have a hard time telling them apart.

Industry Expert

Who cares about 4K if people can't see the difference on anything but a massive screen?

Initially it will only be for home theater freaks (cinephiles/audiophiles) to watch movies at best possible quality.

I only have a 42" myself and it's not like I'm going to pay $50,000 (or even $5000) or whatever for a 4K set or a 4K projector. For me it's just something to keep an eye on, a projector might be a good way to go initially when the prices become reasonable. I agree with you that having a 24" or 34" set with 4K resolution is rather pointless, but that isn't going to happen for many many years anyway - kind of like how 1080p worked it's way from high end down to the smallest screen now being 1080p. Initially it will be just projectors and the very biggest screens. HDTV's basically pushed 42" screens into the maintream, so 4K maybe will bump up the "standard" size to like 70" or perhaps more people will look at having 4k projectors onto an even larger screen ;)

I don't really buy into "studies" like that. You can find studies that claim people can't tell MP3 files from uncompressed audio, and that's kind of rediculous if you are listening on anything but an IPOD. For gaming purposes it's like the average gamer seeing they can't see 60fps vs 30fps, or can't see screen tearing that other people clearly notice. Dubious claims at best.

[QUOTE="lhughey"]Upscaled 4K will probably look nasty with non native content or content that is not at least 1080p. The jump from 1080p to 4k is close to the jump from standard TV 480p to 1080p (when it comes to pixel count). And we all know how non HD content looks on a screen built for HD. There wont be any native 4k broadcast for a LONG time. There is hardly any 1080p native broadcast. 4k is going to really push our network infrastructure and will require a major overhaul. Right now, Netflix eats almost 25% of the global internet bandwidth (and thats with less than a 1/3 of its content being in 1080p). That being said, I am a believer in technology moving quicker than expected. I hope 4k is added, but it wont be missed if it isn't. ShadowriverUB

Nobody say that there need to be 4K brodcasts and internet streaming on day 1, same thing was with HD. We talking here about device that have local content

Initially it will only be for home theater freaks (cinephiles/audiophiles) to watch movies at best possible quality.

I only have a 42" myself and it's not like I'm going to pay $50,000 (or even $5000) or whatever for a 4K set or a 4K projector. For me it's just something to keep an eye on, a projector might be a good way to go initially when the prices become reasonable. I agree with you that having a 24" or 34" set with 4K resolution is rather pointless, but that isn't going to happen for many many years anyway - kind of like how 1080p worked it's way from high end down to the smallest screen now being 1080p. Initially it will be just projectors and the very biggest screens. HDTV's basically pushed 42" screens into the maintream, so 4K maybe will bump up the "standard" size to like 70" or perhaps more people will look at having 4k projectors onto an even larger screen ;)

I don't really buy into "studies" like that. You can find studies that claim people can't tell MP3 files from uncompressed audio, and that's kind of rediculous if you are listening on anything but an IPOD. For gaming purposes it's like the average gamer seeing they can't see 60fps vs 30fps, or can't see screen tearing that other people clearly notice. Dubious claims at best.

2Chalupas

That's always a thought. I just don't see the industry latching onto 4K as they did with HD technology.

It's really hard to convince the average television/movie watcher that "you won't see a difference unless you buy a 70" projector/TV."

I know it's a definite turnoff for me, especially when the detail for a 42" screen is exactly the same no matter if the picture is in 4K or in 1080p.

[QUOTE="2Chalupas"]

Initially it will only be for home theater freaks (cinephiles/audiophiles) to watch movies at best possible quality.

I only have a 42" myself and it's not like I'm going to pay $50,000 (or even $5000) or whatever for a 4K set or a 4K projector. For me it's just something to keep an eye on, a projector might be a good way to go initially when the prices become reasonable. I agree with you that having a 24" or 34" set with 4K resolution is rather pointless, but that isn't going to happen for many many years anyway - kind of like how 1080p worked it's way from high end down to the smallest screen now being 1080p. Initially it will be just projectors and the very biggest screens. HDTV's basically pushed 42" screens into the maintream, so 4K maybe will bump up the "standard" size to like 70" or perhaps more people will look at having 4k projectors onto an even larger screen ;)

I don't really buy into "studies" like that. You can find studies that claim people can't tell MP3 files from uncompressed audio, and that's kind of rediculous if you are listening on anything but an IPOD. For gaming purposes it's like the average gamer seeing they can't see 60fps vs 30fps, or can't see screen tearing that other people clearly notice. Dubious claims at best.

peterw007

That's always a thought. I just don't see the industry latching onto 4K as they did with HD technology.

It's really hard to convince the average television/movie watcher that "you won't see a difference unless you buy a 70" projector/TV."

I know it's a definite turnoff for me, especially when the detail for a 42" screen is exactly the same no matter if the picture is in 4K or in 1080p.

[QUOTE="2Chalupas"]

Initially it will only be for home theater freaks (cinephiles/audiophiles) to watch movies at best possible quality.

I only have a 42" myself and it's not like I'm going to pay $50,000 (or even $5000) or whatever for a 4K set or a 4K projector. For me it's just something to keep an eye on, a projector might be a good way to go initially when the prices become reasonable. I agree with you that having a 24" or 34" set with 4K resolution is rather pointless, but that isn't going to happen for many many years anyway - kind of like how 1080p worked it's way from high end down to the smallest screen now being 1080p. Initially it will be just projectors and the very biggest screens. HDTV's basically pushed 42" screens into the maintream, so 4K maybe will bump up the "standard" size to like 70" or perhaps more people will look at having 4k projectors onto an even larger screen ;)

I don't really buy into "studies" like that. You can find studies that claim people can't tell MP3 files from uncompressed audio, and that's kind of rediculous if you are listening on anything but an IPOD. For gaming purposes it's like the average gamer seeing they can't see 60fps vs 30fps, or can't see screen tearing that other people clearly notice. Dubious claims at best.

peterw007

That's always a thought. I just don't see the industry latching onto 4K as they did with HD technology.

It's really hard to convince the average television/movie watcher that "you won't see a difference unless you buy a 70" projector/TV."

I know it's a definite turnoff for me, especially when the detail for a 42" screen is exactly the same no matter if the picture is in 4K or in 1080p.

That simply isn't true. Look at an iphone retina display, and then go back a generation. The current push is "smart tv"--essentially wanting people to use the television as the internet/movie/game/music hub. As someone that does photography, digital artwork, and video editing, higher resolution displays are extremely attractive. Not only that, but we will be reaching near archival versions of films which I think is just great. Blu ray is great, but as evident by the recent Star Wars release, companies are still able to get away with dishing out older transfers etc.

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

[QUOTE="2Chalupas"]

Initially it will only be for home theater freaks (cinephiles/audiophiles) to watch movies at best possible quality.

I only have a 42" myself and it's not like I'm going to pay $50,000 (or even $5000) or whatever for a 4K set or a 4K projector. For me it's just something to keep an eye on, a projector might be a good way to go initially when the prices become reasonable. I agree with you that having a 24" or 34" set with 4K resolution is rather pointless, but that isn't going to happen for many many years anyway - kind of like how 1080p worked it's way from high end down to the smallest screen now being 1080p. Initially it will be just projectors and the very biggest screens. HDTV's basically pushed 42" screens into the maintream, so 4K maybe will bump up the "standard" size to like 70" or perhaps more people will look at having 4k projectors onto an even larger screen ;)

I don't really buy into "studies" like that. You can find studies that claim people can't tell MP3 files from uncompressed audio, and that's kind of rediculous if you are listening on anything but an IPOD. For gaming purposes it's like the average gamer seeing they can't see 60fps vs 30fps, or can't see screen tearing that other people clearly notice. Dubious claims at best.

Heirren

That's always a thought. I just don't see the industry latching onto 4K as they did with HD technology.

It's really hard to convince the average television/movie watcher that "you won't see a difference unless you buy a 70" projector/TV."

I know it's a definite turnoff for me, especially when the detail for a 42" screen is exactly the same no matter if the picture is in 4K or in 1080p.

That simply isn't true. Look at an iphone retina display, and then go back a generation. The current push is "smart tv"--essentially wanting people to use the television as the internet/movie/game/music hub. As someone that does photography, digital artwork, and video editing, higher resolution displays are extremely attractive. Not only that, but we will be reaching near archival versions of films which I think is just great. Blu ray is great, but as evident by the recent Star Wars release, companies are still able to get away with dishing out older transfers etc.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

That's always a thought. I just don't see the industry latching onto 4K as they did with HD technology.

It's really hard to convince the average television/movie watcher that "you won't see a difference unless you buy a 70" projector/TV."

I know it's a definite turnoff for me, especially when the detail for a 42" screen is exactly the same no matter if the picture is in 4K or in 1080p.

lhughey

That simply isn't true. Look at an iphone retina display, and then go back a generation. The current push is "smart tv"--essentially wanting people to use the television as the internet/movie/game/music hub. As someone that does photography, digital artwork, and video editing, higher resolution displays are extremely attractive. Not only that, but we will be reaching near archival versions of films which I think is just great. Blu ray is great, but as evident by the recent Star Wars release, companies are still able to get away with dishing out older transfers etc.

New markets are being created though. The popularity of the Canon 5D started the boom of an entirely new way to shoot digital cinema(on a consumer level). There are new cameras coming out specifically for that--some of which are 4k. It isn't only about "dvd/bd/etc", but how the entire "home entertainment hub" is evolving and being pushed. Tablets will likely wipe out laptops alltogether, and home computing will likely be incorporated into that entertainment hub--or at least attempted to.

[QUOTE="lhughey"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

That simply isn't true. Look at an iphone retina display, and then go back a generation. The current push is "smart tv"--essentially wanting people to use the television as the internet/movie/game/music hub. As someone that does photography, digital artwork, and video editing, higher resolution displays are extremely attractive. Not only that, but we will be reaching near archival versions of films which I think is just great. Blu ray is great, but as evident by the recent Star Wars release, companies are still able to get away with dishing out older transfers etc.

Heirren

New markets are being created though. The popularity of the Canon 5D started the boom of an entirely new way to shoot digital cinema. There are new cameras coming out specifically for that--some of which are 4k. It isn't only about "dvd/bd/etc", but how the entire "home entertainment hub" is evolving and being pushed. Tablets will likely wipe out laptops alltogether, and home computing will likely be incorporated into that entertainment hub--or at least attempted to.

I have a Canon 5DM2 and the video files are huge. More often than not, I shoot in 720p/24 format so I could keep the files smaller. 300meg files for 2 minutes of video content is not where its at. I can only imagine what it would be like to edit 4k video. And its not like my machine is a slouch.

Also, the "cheapest" video cameras I know of that allow for 4k content are RED cameras. And that "low end" is $12,000 for the main "component" of the camera. By the time you add a lense and the other needed components you are looking at $25,000.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="lhughey"] If you do video editing, you know how large 1080p files are (even without HD audio). Now imagine those same files being at least 4x as large. Now imagine distributing those files with the current internet infrastructure. Most people haven't even replaced their DVD collection with BR. Now we are asking them to get rid of both and upgrade their videos to 4k? Thats a hard sale.lhughey

New markets are being created though. The popularity of the Canon 5D started the boom of an entirely new way to shoot digital cinema. There are new cameras coming out specifically for that--some of which are 4k. It isn't only about "dvd/bd/etc", but how the entire "home entertainment hub" is evolving and being pushed. Tablets will likely wipe out laptops alltogether, and home computing will likely be incorporated into that entertainment hub--or at least attempted to.

I have a Canon 5DM2 and the video files are huge. More often than not, I shoot in 720p/24 format so I could keep the files smaller. 300meg files for 2 minutes of video content is not where its at. I can only imagine what it would be like to edit 4k video. And its not like my machine is a slouch.

Also, the "cheapest" video cameras I know of that allow for 4k content are RED cameras. And that "low end" is $12,000 for the main "component" of the camera. By the time you add a lense and the other needed components you are looking at $25,000.

I understand where you are coming from, but the 5D is this market in its infancy. The Scarlett X is around $10k vs the Reds $40k. My point is that prices are coming down for what is available to consumer. It is just silly to think that 4k displays aren't around the corner(as in a few+ years).

Wow. It's like Sony hasn't learned a thing. It's no wonder a lot of people like myself doesn't support them anymore & why they deserve to go under.

4K TV's? Seriously? If they are having trouble selling their HDTV's at higher prices, then why on earth do they think that 4K TV's will do it? I seriously got to question their marketing plans.

Plus games on 4K won't happen. It'll be very impossible to, as well as being more expensive.

Is that Ultra HD or something different? I'd expect Ultra HD to be avaialble around 2016 from what I've read.

[QUOTE="lhughey"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

New markets are being created though. The popularity of the Canon 5D started the boom of an entirely new way to shoot digital cinema. There are new cameras coming out specifically for that--some of which are 4k. It isn't only about "dvd/bd/etc", but how the entire "home entertainment hub" is evolving and being pushed. Tablets will likely wipe out laptops alltogether, and home computing will likely be incorporated into that entertainment hub--or at least attempted to.

Heirren

I have a Canon 5DM2 and the video files are huge. More often than not, I shoot in 720p/24 format so I could keep the files smaller. 300meg files for 2 minutes of video content is not where its at. I can only imagine what it would be like to edit 4k video. And its not like my machine is a slouch.

Also, the "cheapest" video cameras I know of that allow for 4k content are RED cameras. And that "low end" is $12,000 for the main "component" of the camera. By the time you add a lense and the other needed components you are looking at $25,000.

I understand where you are coming from, but the 5D is this market in its infancy. The Scarlett X is around $10k vs the Reds $40k. My point is that prices are coming down for what is available to consumer. It is just silly to think that 4k displays aren't around the corner(as in a few+ years).

First thing first, who has a display of that high resolution?

Wow. It's like Sony hasn't learned a thing. It's no wonder a lot of people like myself doesn't support them anymore & why they deserve to go under.

4K TV's? Seriously? If they are having trouble selling their HDTV's at higher prices, then why on earth do they think that 4K TV's will do it? I seriously got to question their marketing plans.

Plus games on 4K won't happen. It'll be very impossible to, as well as being more expensive.

garland51

First thing first, who has a display of that high resolution?

D1zzyCriminal

Is that Ultra HD or something different? I'd expect Ultra HD to be avaialble around 2016 from what I've read.

SOedipus

Ultra HD is even bigger then 4K, it's7,680 × 4,320

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Television

Games will likely run around 1080p native. 4K resolution is ridiculously high, so I can only possibly see this for things like pictures. I can't imagine upscaling a movie/game to that resolution.

Regardless, 4k displays will likely not become anywhere close to mainstream for a long time.

Wow. It's like Sony hasn't learned a thing. It's no wonder a lot of people like myself doesn't support them anymore & why they deserve to go under.

4K TV's? Seriously? If they are having trouble selling their HDTV's at higher prices, then why on earth do they think that 4K TV's will do it? I seriously got to question their marketing plans.

Plus games on 4K won't happen. It'll be very impossible to, as well as being more expensive.

garland51

Sony don't push other then projectors yet4K yet just hintent that they working on 4KTVs, and LG pushed 4K even more with there 4KTV

Wow. It's like Sony hasn't learned a thing. It's no wonder a lot of people like myself doesn't support them anymore & why they deserve to go under.

4K TV's? Seriously? If they are having trouble selling their HDTV's at higher prices, then why on earth do they think that 4K TV's will do it? I seriously got to question their marketing plans.

Plus games on 4K won't happen. It'll be very impossible to, as well as being more expensive.

garland51

Might as well say, why move onto HDTV when SDTV sales are struggling? Because you could basically say that when HDTV's were first coming out, the CRT television market was already mature and was struggling mightily.

Glad you are not in charge. No company in consumer electronics is just going to sit on current technology as retail prices plummet, meanwhile "generic" Wal-Mart manufacturers move in and slash everyone's throats, there is no way to make margin selling 40" LCD's for $500. There has to be a reason for poeple to demand the high priced sets and for that there has to be a tangible feature to set it apart. 4K will just be the next thing in line after DLP, Plasma/LCD, LED, 120hz, 240hz, 3D, and so on. Next thing in line will probably be 4K and OLED and those will be more tangible improvements than simply going 120hz or 240hz. It is all marketing to an extent, but there will definitely be people that want 4K. 4K is at least less "gimmicky" than 3D because with 4K you are getting a substantial and tangible pixel increase on the same level as moving from SD to HD. In any case, the bottom line is that in consumer electronics you basically have no choice to push technology forward. Basically their entire business is based upon continually improving and coming out with new products.

Whether it becomes "mainstream" or not is an entirely different question - it probably will be fairly mainstream in about 10 years though just because all the big manufacturers will probably jump on board. 3D is sort of standard thing now for high priced sets, I don't really care about 3D and I'm sure lots of people don't. But it's there. At worst, 4K will probably be like 3D. Where eventually most of the higher end sets are 4K, movie studios will also want to cash in one more time on another format if there's any possibility to do so.

[QUOTE="D1zzyCriminal"]

First thing first, who has a display of that high resolution?

lhughey

So what's wrong with that? Basically what you are saying is in 3 years you can get a 4K set for the same price you can get a "high end" 1080p set today. Sounds good to me!!!

That will probably be just in time for some actual 4K content to be coming about (i.e. new digitally shot films), or some older 35mm or 65mm films that are scanned in 4K. Also these displays would be badass to hook a PC into.

Wow. It's like Sony hasn't learned a thing. It's no wonder a lot of people like myself doesn't support them anymore & why they deserve to go under.

4K TV's? Seriously? If they are having trouble selling their HDTV's at higher prices, then why on earth do they think that 4K TV's will do it? I seriously got to question their marketing plans.

Plus games on 4K won't happen. It'll be very impossible to, as well as being more expensive.

garland51

It will do 4k with doom level graphics. Remember you cant just quadruple the res without sacrificing other aspectsCranler

Or 2D games

For PS4 to render games at 4096x2160, it will need some serious GPU power... which could mean $599 again lol

For PS4 to render games at 4096x2160, it will need some serious GPU power... which could mean $599 again lol

anotherone10

The only games that would realistically be 4k are simple games like Super Stardust.