It'd make sense, because it's the same bandwidth as 120 Hz 1080p, which is pretty standard.
Try a different tune. Or a source, for once.
When you're already trying to sell people on visual benefits that may or may not exist for most people's actual usage with native content, telling people they can just feed regular 1080p signals and it won't look any worse than a 1080p set is a great bullet point.
And how are the two related? TV manufacturers would love people to just buy 4k Smart 3D TVs, since a regular 1080p might as well be made at cost (hence all of Sony's problems in the market for the past decade), but there's little reason to think 1080p screens being so cheap is the reason 4k TVs are so expensive.
I can buy a ~48 inch LG 1080p Smart LED for about 450. I can buy a ~48 inch LG 4k Smart LED for about $840. Where does "a bit" come into play?
Sounds like you went to a pretty crappy shop.
You can't change the laws of physics, Jim!
No, late 2013 to early 2014 models support 4K@60Hz with 10bit color depth.
It seems no sort of source will do apart from a GT game running on retail PS4 in front of consumer eyes at that performance, so I guess I just have to be "lucky" again and hopefully it happens soon.
It indeed is a great bullet point IMO, you can watch your low resolution content and might look better than your old TV and you also have a TV that can take advantage of higher resolution as availability increases.
Economies of scale and 4K Ultra HD panels are already quite cheap as can be seen from the more generic branded TVs.
So here is a 47" LG 1080p IPS LED TV: Link for $591.79 and 49" LG 4K Ultra HD IPS LED TV: Link for $839 new. It is a bit extra IMO and I think a lot of people already have 1080p TVs. If you are looking for replacement and if main TV, I don't think it is much extra to spend for a bit more future proofing. It wasn't that long ago when the difference was much bigger and it likely reduce even more this year but I do think manufacturers will try and keep the margins for as long as they are still selling the 1080p TVs.
You are probably right about that regarding TV selection but given UK seems like it usually is quite more expensive to buy stuff than US, it only worked out through currency conversion $614.59 USD for a decent 42" 4K Ultra HD TV.
Input lag can be quite high on a lot of 1080p TVs. Sony seemed to step their game up regarding this area, hence I got one of their TVs. Hopefully they make a decent 4K 32" TV with low input lag, 1080p looks like such a low resolution on a screen on that size to me.
That extra "bit" is actually 40% and the 1080P tv is 120Hz vs. 60Hz for the 4K. The 60Hz version is only $479, which increases that "bit" by over $110 and alters the price jump going from the 1080p to the 4K to 75%, quite a "bit".
That's not true. Pretty much anything would be better than the "because PS4" nonsense you keep asserting supports your point.
A broken watch is right twice a day.
Assuming your TV actually supports whatever broadcast standard the industry actually decides on.
Pick an argument.
And then it would drop down to 20fps in the next second.
It's not good for your eyes to sit that close to the television.
Both are 60Hz IPS screens.
View attachment 315286
Nope. It's almost 45% cheaper, roughly like for like. If you check more options boxes for a 1080p TV then of course the 1080p one will be closer.
That's great for the people whose TV buying habits seemingly include going to one specific TV shop that only sells three televisions.
The thing is, it's impossible with the current HDMI connectors. Making a leap of faith and assuming it's technically possible to soft-upgrade them to 2.0 (which will require some kind of proof/source), then 4k/60FPS in a game like GT (a board or other simple game would be a different story) is still extremely far off the mark in terms of hardware capabilities. It can't be done by simple optimization, so you'll have to drop major parts of functionality and/or reduce models and textures to a level where they look like crap, so you end up with a very nice high res picture with cars and tracks that look like ****. Or they don't and it will move at 1FPS. Or PD could cheat and just upscale the image to something lower than 4K, then upscale it to 4K and call it '4K', like they did with GT5(P)/6 being '1080p'. But true 4K/60FPS? No way.
Which did you get? I'd like one of the 55" Sony's, but so far held off because I have no hardware (pc/console) or content (movies) that support 4k.
And the mentioned LG's all suck when it comes to input lag. The Sony's don't, but then you're looking at a really different kind of price tag.
You can bet that PD will be cooking something 4k related for the PS4.
It depends on which of the HDMI 2.0 features you want to support. Notice that those articles are talking about TVs, and hence HDMI receivers only (the actual ICs receiving the HDMI streams, not your A/V "receivers").
Yes, it's somewhat inconclusive, and the simplest answer is that it's a repackage as you say.Just as likely it is an off the shelf chip that Panasonic agreed to repackage and house number for Sony, seems to be the way these days. Long gone are the days when we could just grab a manufacturers data book and find out what secret black boxes are in the latest gadget we just bought
I remember the same exact argument when GT introduced the 1080p PS3 gameplay at the time that 720p tvs were common and 1080p expensive and rarer.
GT never introduced 1080p PS3 gameplay, as it a) wasn't the first, b) doesn't run at 1920x1080 (as opposed to other games that do). By the time they released GT5P 1080p was already common (at least over here in NL), hardly anybody was buying 720p (HD-ready) because they knew 1080p was becoming cheap. It's basically the same situation with 4K now, people are skipping the early models and waiting for better/faster models to become available.
I agree, but this is all the more reason to not get one right now, and wait for the faster/better models in a year or two.
I think they'll start with Photomode (already on PS3) and replays. Gameplay will probably be higher than 1080p too, but they won't make 4K/60FPS (not without dropping quality in a manner that would make 4K a joke, and that's assuming they can make the output work with a soft-change).
The first playable GT was released in dec 2006 (GT-HD), GT5P in EU was in march 2008, but the arguments started before that when PD first announced the use of the 1080p mode when that was sci-fi in consoles, like it happens now. I'm not going to discuss what anyone personally would consider a valid 1080p mode, GT6 it has more native rendered pixels and more clarity in a full hd tv than any 720p game could dream of and every of its frames have 1080 horizontal native lines rendered in Progressive mode. That is the point of running a 1080p mode and it does its job in GT.
PD care about resolution not as a gimmick but for gameplay reasons, if finally 4k is introduced they should follow the same path as in PS3: menus, hud, etc at native 4k resolution and the gameplay resolution cutted from the starting 4k, depending of the resources available, and later scaled to fill the gaps.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...ka-lack-of-vision.317579/page-3#post-10131164John Carmack had an interesting quote about PS4 GPU performance vs PC GPU performance (have to look it up). The factor was roughly 2x. So if a PS4 developer pushes the GPU to a maximum, you'd need a GPU with twice the power on PC to match the resolution/image quality/FPS. That should give a fair estimation on what's technically possible on a PS4, since we know what hardware is in it and how it rates. So anywhere between 0.1x (if you're Activision or Ubisoft) and 1.9x (if you're PD or Naughty Dog) goes.
That seems the reason why you think it won't be able to do it. If weaker GPUs on PC can play games like iRacing at higher resolutions than 4K Ultra HD at over 60FPS, I don't see any reason why console developers can't or is it "because PS4" nonsense you think it can't?
Shows you how inaccurate you can be then...
HDMI 2.0, HEVC decoding and 3840x2160 resolution is a good place to start I think. It supports also the Blu-ray 4K Ultra HD standard and you can already get a few 4K Ultra HD streaming content sites such as Netflix and Amazon Instant Video. Also it seems it will be the European standard going by this: Link . It also is resolution Sky used to broadcast live a football match.
That was the argument.
It likely stays effective 120FPS on time trial mode on a course generator track, about effective 100FPS on track like Nurburgring and worst case scenario can be about effective 36FPS so don't see where you getting information that it can drop 120FPS to 20FPS in the next second. Do you have a source for that?
Really? I see devices with screens such as mobile phones and laptops closer and they have higher PPI than a 32" 4K Ultra HD would. If anything it would be good to sit close enough to see as it would likely put less strain on eyes.
Looks like someone from LG saying it is only 60Hz: Link Couldn't find anything about it in the manual.
My comparison is more like for like, have same number of HDMI slots and both are IPS panels. You do get also 2" more display size. If you compare say budget TVs then something like this 55" 4K Ultra HD TV for $699.99 or 39" 4K Ultra HD TV for $339.99 should likely close differences to comparable budget 1080p TVs.
The shop sells more than three televisions, they are just the same size ones I could see at time.
It should be able to do it through YUV420 colour space on HDMI 1.4. If rubbish is better than GT6 then I don't mind. It is not upscaling to 4K.
42" LG 4K Ultra HD. I'm waiting for 32" one, hopefully by the time Sony potentially make one, it will be using really fast processors and support all the latest standards. No rush myself to get one, 1080p is much easier on my budget gaming PC and input lag on screen is really low so don't see any reason to change for the moment.
There is reasonable LG TVs regarding input lag, my parents have 42" 3D LG TV and that has 31ms input lag. My 32" Sony TV is 15ms and that is probably the fastest gaming TV on the market.
It is possible to run at 3840x2160 60Hz YUV420 on HDMI 1.4.
That is good thing about 4K Ultra HD, you can even get away with no AA. I think a PS3 game had an internal resoluton of 3840x2160 so when shown at 1080p, it limited any aliasing.
Doubt it will be the norm, it will IMO be a bit like how 1080p at 60FPS is on PS3 if they enable the output of 4K Ultra HD.Funny thing: back when PS3 launched, people were all excited about 1080p/60FPS and claiming it would be the new norm for PS3/Xbox360: and look how it turned out.
Doubt that will be the case and haven't seen any signs of this. Also with DX12 on PC coming soon, I think you will get even better use of PC hardware, less likely for CPU bottlenecks which should allow better GPU utilisation. Also do think Windows 10 is less demanding than game console operating systems.John Carmack had an interesting quote about PS4 GPU performance vs PC GPU performance (have to look it up). The factor was roughly 2x. So if a PS4 developer pushes the GPU to a maximum, you'd need a GPU with twice the power on PC to match the resolution/image quality/FPS. That should give a fair estimation on what's technically possible on a PS4, since we know what hardware is in it and how it rates. So anywhere between 0.1x (if you're Activision or Ubisoft) and 1.9x (if you're PD or Naughty Dog) goes.
John Carmack had an interesting quote about PS4 GPU performance vs PC GPU performance (have to look it up). The factor was roughly 2x. So if a PS4 developer pushes the GPU to a maximum, you'd need a GPU with twice the power on PC to match the resolution/image quality/FPS. That should give a fair estimation on what's technically possible on a PS4, since we know what hardware is in it and how it rates. So anywhere between 0.1x (if you're Activision or Ubisoft) and 1.9x (if you're PD or Naughty Dog) goes.
That was not the point. You said that PD introduced 1080p gameplay on PS3. This is not the case as there were PS3 launch games that had 1080p/60FPS and they featured more than one track/one car on track. GT-HD was a limited tech-demo. The first 'real' 1080p game from PD was GT5P. And I say 'real' because it's not actual full-HD (again, still a very impressive feat).
I never said it was, I said quite the opposite.
I would dare to contest that, and it really depends on the situation because when it comes to raw processing power, the RSX in the PS3 is a technological marvel, and not all that slower than what is in the PS4 (in terms of GFLOPS anyway).
👍 I think we are more in agreement than we perhaps realize.
Maybe but saying the RSX is a technological marvel when it was quite far behind the Xbox 360 GPU is not something I would agree with. I would refer to it as a "poor GPU" as Kaz said a few months before releasing GT6 on that platform.👍 I think we are more in agreement than we perhaps realize.
That's where you're wrong, my friend. The RSX is lightyears behind PS4's GPU, RSX is universally considered a pos GPU by every developer out there including Kaz. In no way is it comparable to PS4 in it's capabilities, I think you've bought into the whole NVidia's claim of 1.8 TFlops for RSX when in reality it's less than 200 Gflops. It's widely known that you can't compare NV's flops to AMD flops. So in reality PS4's GPU is roughly 10 times stronger than RSX, not to mention the widely different architecture and a dramatically different memory setup.
Good luck selling a game that looks like and is as featureless as iRacing to GT7 buyers
. You're making the common mistake of completely ignoring how much more detail, features, polygons, eye candy, weather, time change, night/day etc. there will surely be in GT7 vs iRacing, that deliberately leaves out most of that stuff so that the game is accessible to even moderate gaming pc's that are a few years old. It's nowhere near an apples to apples comparison, not even apples to appleseeds they are so far apart. The benchmark GPU on the minimum system requirements for iRacing is 225 with a release date of 2005 vs. a typical gaming computer build that would have a minimum of around 4000-5000 today, and the new standard GTX970 card is in the 9000 range. That gives you an idea of how easy iRacing is on your pc, which is the reason it can run in 4k. I could probably run it in 16k on my pc if there were a monitor for it, it's that easy on the hardware. It's not that difficult to get 200-300fps or more in iRacing, it's very easy on the system.
