-
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 there a need to go higher than 4k?
- Thread starter Vex
- Start date
When they said that DVD was an unnecessary luxury, I told them it was the future.
When they said that 1080p wasn't that big a deal, I told them they needed glasses.
When they said that 4k was not perceptible, I told them they didn't know what they were talking about.
Now that we are at 4K HDR, I say...alright this spec is really more than enough for home media. 8k isn't helping anybody. Now the advancement that we need is in other areas. First and foremost, the device that displays the media. Maturing OLED and MicroLED, reaching rec2020 color gamuts, hitting proper hdr luminance, sorting out the ongoing HDR format wars. Additionally, the creation of the media itself. True 4K media is rare. Native gaming is a ways off. Even with 4kHDR bluray and a new OLED, most of the stuff you watch is a 2K upscale. Even Hollywood usually isn't rendering in 4K, it's too expensive and time consuming. They need time to catch up.
So to those that are already clawing at 8k I say...your priorities are wrong. The media format is already ahead of the tech surrounding it. It's time to let 4k simmer for a while while focussing on more important things.
When they said that 1080p wasn't that big a deal, I told them they needed glasses.
When they said that 4k was not perceptible, I told them they didn't know what they were talking about.
Now that we are at 4K HDR, I say...alright this spec is really more than enough for home media. 8k isn't helping anybody. Now the advancement that we need is in other areas. First and foremost, the device that displays the media. Maturing OLED and MicroLED, reaching rec2020 color gamuts, hitting proper hdr luminance, sorting out the ongoing HDR format wars. Additionally, the creation of the media itself. True 4K media is rare. Native gaming is a ways off. Even with 4kHDR bluray and a new OLED, most of the stuff you watch is a 2K upscale. Even Hollywood usually isn't rendering in 4K, it's too expensive and time consuming. They need time to catch up.
So to those that are already clawing at 8k I say...your priorities are wrong. The media format is already ahead of the tech surrounding it. It's time to let 4k simmer for a while while focussing on more important things.
Because high resolutions will never hit high framerates, right? Besides, the blur you get from lower framerates and blur from anti-aliasing solutions are quite different.
Deleted member 45957
Guest
4k gaming is a waste.
4k is too taxing for the current hardware, and even the next generation of consoles.
Higher framerates, better AA, better shaders and lightning, almost everything yields better visual results than increasing resolution dramatically.
Take a PS1 game, play it in 16k. Yep, it's still ugly.
Sure, eventually 4k will be the standard, but it's been pushed way too early, and this strategy has held back the evolution of real time graphics over the past few years.
Edit : 4k+ for VR is nice though, but framerate is more important, and 4k / 120fps isn't coming anytime soon on consoles.
4k is too taxing for the current hardware, and even the next generation of consoles.
Higher framerates, better AA, better shaders and lightning, almost everything yields better visual results than increasing resolution dramatically.
Take a PS1 game, play it in 16k. Yep, it's still ugly.
Sure, eventually 4k will be the standard, but it's been pushed way too early, and this strategy has held back the evolution of real time graphics over the past few years.
Edit : 4k+ for VR is nice though, but framerate is more important, and 4k / 120fps isn't coming anytime soon on consoles.
we're always going to want more and moreeeeee
(I'm still using 1080p screens, I care more about frame-rate)
(I'm still using 1080p screens, I care more about frame-rate)
Funny thing...I completely disagree with you on 8K really not making a difference (my next TV will be 88"+ though), but I think you say a ton of VERY accurate and important things in your post. The color volume and HDR stuff especially, as a 4,000 nit emissive display would look SOOO realistic regardless of whether it was 4K or not.
Just looking at the posts here from PC gamers. What percentage of people on PC customise their settings so it's 4K but with settings at low/medium like you see on consoles? Not high I'd say. You almost always see people playing at 1080p or 1440p at high/max settings or pushing extremely high frame rate.
Thanks for the support. Regarding 8K, well sure it might make a difference in your specific usage case at a whopping 88+ inches at home but you must understand that you are in the small minority there and that my thoughts about 8k apply very much to the vast majority. At greater than 88 inches I'd practically call you a special case. And tv size still doesn't address the larger problem with 8K. Considering hollywood can hardly even satisfy native 4k, I imagine your dreams of 8k wouldn't turn out like you would hope. Even if you got 8K bluray tomorrow, you'd still be getting mostly 2K upscales. If you were lucky a few would be 4k upscales. It wouldn't be the upgrade you wished for. Which is why we should let 4k simmer for a while, and why 8k wouldn't do us any favors anytime soon. The content being produced just isn't nearly ready for it, and won't be for a long time. We're not even fully ready to support 4K right now.
Ask me about 8K again in 10-15 years and maybe I'll have a new opinion once we're all rocking 70" rec2020 microleds like it's old news.
Last edited:
I feel like 4k is.... really a nice spot for PC gaming when it comes to large monitor sizes. If you are eventually going to game on a 35" monitor, 1080p and the like just won't cut it. 4k is perfectly sharp for that range.
But I don't know if Im ever going to game on a display larger than 35"-36". With the distance that I sit from my gaming monitor that starts to approach the 'Turn your head to see the side of the screen'-territory. I hate that in gaming.
But for Television? Hell yeah, bring on 8k or more. 60"++ TV's are a thing, and we sit much further back from them, so you can increase that resolution forever for all I care.
But I think gaming is going to rest at 4k for a long time like how 1080p was a rest spot for yeaaars.
But I don't know if Im ever going to game on a display larger than 35"-36". With the distance that I sit from my gaming monitor that starts to approach the 'Turn your head to see the side of the screen'-territory. I hate that in gaming.
But for Television? Hell yeah, bring on 8k or more. 60"++ TV's are a thing, and we sit much further back from them, so you can increase that resolution forever for all I care.
But I think gaming is going to rest at 4k for a long time like how 1080p was a rest spot for yeaaars.
4K isn't going anywhere. Its more important to implement raytracing in games improving the tech.
Yeah, apologies if I made it sound like mine was a normal use case...I know it's not. For 99% of viewers you're right, it probably won't make a difference - or NEARLY as much of a difference as everything else you mention
I think it will be the standard for quite some time, but technology (and the marketing to fuel the demand) will obviously go on. I do believe resolution increases will probably slow down a bit, as there are other areas of image quality which could improve and/or reach mass consumption faster (HDR, ray tracing, refresh rates, etc.).
Not if we already talk about 8k while we are years away from reaching real 4k50+ on consoles. PS4 Pro and XOX still fail at reaching 1080p60 for most AAA games.
Yes, motion blur is even worse than the blur you get by using anti-aliasing on 1440p or 4k resolutions.
There really isn't much of a need for displays higher than 4K (you need a combination of a large display and a short viewing distance to even get benefit from higher than 4K). Rendering games at higher than 4K, on the other hand, is hugely important. 4K is nowhere high enough to eliminate rendering artifacts and achieve the perfect IQ.
Yeah, 4K already makes a much bigger difference in games than it does for UHD film and the main reason is aliasing/shimmering which typically isn't much of a problem for videos .
How long until its affordable (under 400) to get a gpu that can run 4k 144fps at current pc graphics ultra settings for this years games?
You do start to get into diminishing returns. 4k will be the standard for the next two generations. Everyone saying 1080p is good enough..... have you seen a game running at 4k on a high end TV like an LG OLED at 65 inches? Because the difference is huge.
then that's when I will make my decision on whether 4K is good enough, that or until Dennis8K changes his username
I honestly cannot perceive the difference between 1440p and 4k unless the picture is frozen and I look at it for a bit.
The thing about questions like this and technology is that you don't think you'll ever NEED a 16k monitor setup until the day it's possible and you finally SEE a 16k setup or whatever your talking about.
Yes, but not for a while. a 4K standard has to become the norm first.
There are very few 8K TV's for consumers and even less 8K content. but in 5-10 years it will be a different story.
There are very few 8K TV's for consumers and even less 8K content. but in 5-10 years it will be a different story.
I saw the new 85'' 8k Samsung TV a few times at the store. It's definitely a step up from 4k. It's hard to explain just how clear it looks. But we all know 8k content is no where to be found, outside of special situations like demos. But it did look pretty damn amazing, I can't lie.
I remember a thread about 1080p being the best we needed, back when 4K was around the corner and very expensive.
People will always be chasing the new tech, and game companies will always follow.
I'm more worried about films. We already have digital movies that were filmed in 1080p, so a 4K version cannot exist.
8K blu-rays are going to be non-existent.
People will always be chasing the new tech, and game companies will always follow.
I'm more worried about films. We already have digital movies that were filmed in 1080p, so a 4K version cannot exist.
8K blu-rays are going to be non-existent.
There's no reason that new movies couldn't be made in 8K (down the road as tech progresses). Sure, old movies are locked at the resolution they were made at, but movies today are often filmed in 4k. It will keep progressing.
After 1080 or maybe 1440, I feel like high anti aliasing is the way to go. 4k is neat but the rush to burn up cycles on it prematurely is dumb. And beyound that... Um whatever. At 4k the detail can be very very dense; you can see grass blades and stuff. Yay. When they come up with something higher to sell new tvs, ill chill till it's cheap.
Unless there are fundamental shifts in what a tv is, I won't have need for higher than a 4k for a a long time, if I were to venture a guess it would be a decade. I still use 1080p, most streaming/tv is still native 1080.
VR is where resolution/pixel density will explode since it's so close to your face and covers a majority of your field of view.
VR is where resolution/pixel density will explode since it's so close to your face and covers a majority of your field of view.
I've recently upgraded to a 4k TV and while it's nice I don't think the jump in IQ has been as great as everyone made it sound to me. It's nice to have but not a necessity to me.
I would have been happy to stick with 1080p games but make the bump up to 60fps. I hoped a lot more games would offer the option but it's just not happening.
I would have been happy to stick with 1080p games but make the bump up to 60fps. I hoped a lot more games would offer the option but it's just not happening.
I don't doubt that they'll keep pushing resolution towards 8K as 8K TV's are already trickling out, and will obviously become more affordable after 5 years. That said, I'd obviously prefer at least the mid gen refresh versions next gen consoles to be powerful enough to maintain a locked 4K 60, no variable resolution or frame rate.
We can always keep going higher and there will always be a noticeable improvement when we hit certain numbers but running things in native 8K won't be possible for something like another 10 years at least without horrific performance so I'm not all that concerned about it at the moment. 4K with HDR is what we need right now.
This is highly dependent on the size of the screen, the viewing distance and content. On an 88" screen from about 7 feet away you'd be able to tell.
My 32'' TV from 8 years ago broke down last week and 2 days ago I bought a cheap Chinese 43'' 1080p screen (Onn) and it's gorgeous, couldn't be any happier.
Then next gen Switch will still struggle to reach 1080p, Netflix will still stream at 1080p, my internet is not getting fast enough for 4k, anytime soon, on air TV is still 720p, and my room has a small wall that can't used anything bigger than 43''.
there'There's no benefit for me at that size of TV to switch to 4k, the future only holds bad scaling.
1080p is fine for another 8+ years, or whenever the Chinese TV breaks down.
Then next gen Switch will still struggle to reach 1080p, Netflix will still stream at 1080p, my internet is not getting fast enough for 4k, anytime soon, on air TV is still 720p, and my room has a small wall that can't used anything bigger than 43''.
there'There's no benefit for me at that size of TV to switch to 4k, the future only holds bad scaling.
1080p is fine for another 8+ years, or whenever the Chinese TV breaks down.
While you can definitely see the difference between 1440p and 4k on a computer monitor, it really isn't something that pops as much as the jump from 1080p to 4k. I'm fine with sticking with 1440p for a while...
Considering the explosion in bandwidth requirements it's hard to justify anything close to native 8k.
With a proper sparse shading and reconstruction methods it does allow more stable image in motion, so there should be advantage even if overall shading amount is less than 4k.
Would be interesting to see shading in texture space and rasterization in full 8k, possible both running at seperate fps or shading being up to certain sample amount for 16ms or displayed frame.
With a proper sparse shading and reconstruction methods it does allow more stable image in motion, so there should be advantage even if overall shading amount is less than 4k.
Would be interesting to see shading in texture space and rasterization in full 8k, possible both running at seperate fps or shading being up to certain sample amount for 16ms or displayed frame.
People say this all the time. Then 10 years later new thing comes out.
Its gonna keep happening. Dont assume that tech will stall
Its gonna keep happening. Dont assume that tech will stall