4K resolution?

  • Thread starter urbanite9
  • 171 comments
  • 10,156 views
Well, I'm a little tired right now.

That's more a state of being than a thought, though.
 
4 PS3 instead of 3 for triple screen, just like what PD demonstrate several times with GT5. Give the options inside the game to set it up, that would appease those who can afford 4 PS3 and GT6.
 
4K 60fps PSN / Indie game is possible on PS4 - with less demanding graphics - PS3 level detail. Maybe PS3 games might be playable on PS4 at 4K - via Gaikai.
 
4 PS3 instead of 3 for triple screen, just like what PD demonstrate several times with GT5. Give the options inside the game to set it up, that would appease those who can afford 4 PS3 and GT6.

You can do it. You set one of your PS3's as the "server" and the other 3 as "clients". Voila! Multi-screen! (It's somewhere in options from the top level menu...)

Oh and thanks for your thoughts guys!
 
4 PS3 instead of 3 for triple screen, just like what PD demonstrate several times with GT5. Give the options inside the game to set it up, that would appease those who can afford 4 PS3 and GT6.

You can shoot fatties on ebay for less than 150€. Given you got one PS3 already you´d need to get 3 more, thats 450 plus a GT6 copy you´ll get somewhere a little over 500€... I mean compared to Xbox Numero Uno plus Forza5 etc. 💡 :dopey:
 
Honestly, I'd rather just have them work on making 1080p run at a SOLID 60fps rather than trying to work on something impractical like 4k. Unless they can just upscale it on the side just for kicks, kind of like 3D was done for GT5, then it's like, why not?
 
No. It's way too taxing for next gen hardware let alone current gen. Unless it's a non-performance critical or simple "casual" type thing then native 4K shouldn't even be considered. The sacrifices that would be imposed on everything else just to support 4K would be massive.
 
Whenever people ask about 4k I always wonder if they actually have plans to buy a 4k TV. I doubt many are and won't be for many years. Most people have a TV under 60 inches and below that size unless you're right in front of it you won't notice the difference between 4k and 1080p.
 
Whenever people ask about 4k I always wonder if they actually have plans to buy a 4k TV. I doubt many are and won't be for many years. Most people have a TV under 60 inches and below that size unless you're right in front of it you won't notice the difference between 4k and 1080p.

You can notice a 2560x1600 resolution on a 13 inch macbook screen as well as above 1080p resolutions on computer screens less than '30, I don't see why you'd need more than 60 inches for 4k.
 
I'm guessing that one PS5 console will be able to run at 4K, but we'll have to wait a long time for it. I also suspect that GT9 & GT10 will be released on that platform, for obvious reasons.

:D
 
You can notice a 2560x1600 resolution on a 13 inch macbook screen as well as above 1080p resolutions on computer screens less than '30, I don't see why you'd need more than 60 inches for 4k.

Because you're probably less than two feet from your computer screen, whereas you're probably six feet or more from your big TV screen.
 
4K 60fps PSN / Indie game is possible on PS4 - with less demanding graphics - PS3 level detail. Maybe PS3 games might be playable on PS4 at 4K - via Gaikai.
Only if the PS4 has HDMI 2.0.
And at the moment it doesn't look like it. They at least never mentioned it.

HDMI 1.4 hasn't enough bandwidth to allow 4K@60FPS (4K@30FPS would be possible).
 
Not even low detail low colour 2d indie PSN games will be 4k60fps if Sony is using the HDMI 1.4 port, as that only supports 4k at upto 30fps maximum. The xbox1 uses HDMI 1.4 I believe. I'm not sure if there is evidence yet of Sony's port type. But HDMI 2.0 was delayed and is only coming out later this year, too late perhaps for early production models of the PS4, will have to keep and eye on it. It's not something that can be updated by download either.
 
Whenever people ask about 4k I always wonder if they actually have plans to buy a 4k TV. I doubt many are and won't be for many years. Most people have a TV under 60 inches and below that size unless you're right in front of it you won't notice the difference between 4k and 1080p.

I don't agree, there was a test on the gadget show displaying 4k res and the presenter wasn't sure if he was looking at a screen or a mock up with. Someone's face in it, 1080p is good but there is always room for improvement, take digital cameras for example always trying to improve.
 
You can notice a 2560x1600 resolution on a 13 inch macbook screen as well as above 1080p resolutions on computer screens less than '30, I don't see why you'd need more than 60 inches for 4k.

Well, you sit right in front of computers. TVs are viewed from more of a distance.

But I agree that you don't need a 60+ inch TV to reap the benefits of 4k. It's not entirely a matter of being able to notice more detail, it's about making flawed details smaller and consequently less noticable... things like aliasing and image/video compression artifacts. Aliasing being imperceptible due to tinier pixels is a lot more visually appealing than antialiasing, which looks blurry to me and is frankly just a cheat to hide aliasing on low-res displays.
 
The thread title instantly made me think of this Harry Caray quote.

Harry Caray: Hey! How about this mad cow disease?
Ken Waller: What about it?
Harry Caray: Well, it was here for a while and then it went away. Your thoughts.
 
4k isn't going away. Its the next step that the industry is moving towards. The practical term is UHD, Ultra HD. In fact in another thread there were pictures of GT6 being played on Sony's new 4K UHDTV.
 
It may not be going away but that doesn't mean it will be adopted in any meaningful away. The value proposition just isn't there for the majority of consumers.
 
Back