/v/ - Video Games

I wasn't supportive of 4k and I wont be supportive of 8k. They're memes. Someday they'll be standard but it's just useless fluff.

Fuck no. I haven't even bitten on the 4k meme yet. It's just another needless "upgrade" that won't even be financially feasible for 75% of the intended userbase for another ten years

Will ultrawide ever be mainstream?

not really if you're not using some tv-sized monitors and then question arises why the fuck would you even use such thing

>>16586457

4K is a meme.

everything above 1920x1080 is complete shit on 24" screens as it makes everything to small and no, scaling is not an option as it also sucks ass. 27" is to big and 1920x1080 is also to low for it.

>>16586469

Fags say the same shit about everything all the time

>>16586572

well, for gaming on pc, it also will be good at 4k 24", if game devs put enough work into their games, its only the desktop and all internet pages that are still not ready for anything above FullHD

>>16586572

>being this much of a delusional console fag

lol

I didn't even know what 4K is supposed to mean until I saw OP's image. I haven't been the type to fall for meme technology for almost a decade now.

>>16586587

Good luck with your 80" inch computer monitor then, nerd. :^)

Meme like 3D television. Not saying it won't happen in the future but they are just pushing it out early to fleece the early adopters. Like everything that has come out way ahead of when the market would be ready to financial support it, try again in another 10-15 years.

There's barely a demand for 4k, and being someone that does have the equipment for reliable 4k. It's really not especially important for anything that isn't actual work. It can slightly improve readability in games with sewage tier art direction, but at that point it's an issue of development not, proof of the necessity of 4k.

>>16586615

*720p

>>16586457

No 16K is the sweetspot IMO.

>4K

>3840 x 2160

Strictly, that's only UHD. True DCI 4K is 4096 x 2160.

>>16586632

Human eye can't see more than 100 pixels.

>>16586517

Most everything these days has proper HIDPI scaling.

> 27" is to big

Oh, you're a retarded shit.

>>16586647

i'm using 24" for atleast 10 years and it was fine all those years. i tried that 27" 1440p 144hz ips monitor from asus = it was to big and everything on it was too small on 1440p, and that ips panel sucked so hard with edge glow and light bleeding all around this 550 buck piece of shit.

>>16586457

I watch videos in 144p in a corner of my screen.

Games are fine at 1920x1080.

>>16586457

No.

There barely is demand for 4k…

>>16586572

Find me one console that can run a game at min 60fps in 1080p 144hz without cheating on LOD and other gimmicks that isn't Tetris.

And no the latest ones can't.

>>16586572

>Console gaming will be the future of gaming after all.

Streaming consols, bait-kun.

The 8k they say for both these new consoles is 8k OUTPUT. It just means that you can output true 8k through their HDMI 2.1 ports. It's for watching movies and shit. Not 8k gaming. The spec's leaked for these things months ago, if you think you're actually going to be playing a AAA title at 8k 120 FPS because "those words were used by microsoft!" you're just…idk. Wrong. You're just wrong.

People are expecting 8k gaming because the words "8k output" were used, but the xb1x was called an "uncompromising 4k experience" and the DEMO TITLE was run in 1440p checkerboard rendered.

So they made claims saying "uncompromising 4k experience" and didn't even get close. They mention the word 8k, and people are expecting it in their AAA games.

Sorry it's just not happening. Knowing what we know about these consoles, there's a good chance we'll get 1080p 120 fps, or 4k 60fps with some launch titles, and probably for the first year or two. After that, unless they do a mid gen refresh, I don't see them staying at that level. Unless games don't get any "better" graphically.

Oh and the reason 8k was included was because they probably couldn't NOT include it. Even last generations cheapest GPU's came standard with 8k output potential. Anyone who knows much about hardware heard 8k from both sony and microsoft probably said to themselves "yeah, duh" and waited to hear the next feature.

>>16586469

t. 800x600 Windows XP Gold Edition Brazilian

>>16586685

>There barely is demand for 4k

Most people don't even want 1080p anymore except poorfags but poorfags always lose in the end because people want better shit, not garbage

>>16586858

>1080p

>Garbage

Only thing garbage about 1080p is it isn't 4:3

>>16586457

> ISPs will hopefully start jewing people over and offer actual unlimited data plans without any data caps whatsoever.

You mean this isn't the norm for you?

I download 12megabytes (not bits) per second, with no caps, and pay around 7 bucks a month. Guess it sucks to be American.

One of the most annoying shits that has happened throughout the last decade or so is consolefag terminology being so pervasive that now even self proclaimed "PC gamers" use it. Namely tacking on "p" at the end of the screen's height instead of referring to a resolution like a non-retard. The whole "progressive" or "interlaced" shit should only be used for broadcast TV. It's fucking 320x240 not "240p".

>>16586883

Actually, that's more of a boomer thing. Inches and "p" is all they know.

4K is pretty good for gaming provided the game supports that resolution and the textures are the proper size. Most games look like ass though cause there is always some textures that are low quality and stand out like a sore thumb.

>>16586883

Can you honestly not do a basic ratio calculation?

>>16586862

What about 1440x1080?

>>16586928

I think I had a cintiq around that resolution at some point, very nice monitor.

>>16586955

Bigger than that is pointless or the screen becomes inconveniently too big.

Here's one with boomer tier knowledge. He can't even comprehend that pixels can be made smaller even though he probably owns a smartphone.

Correction

It was 1600x1200, still a nice monitor

>>16586883

>Being this much of a drooling retard

Monitors still use interlaced and progressive, it isn't just a fucking TV thing moron

>>16587003

Anyone who thinks 1080 is the only thing that matters is the same kind of faggot who used to think nothing would be better then 480

>>16587012

Well, if we're referring specifically to videogames, that all depends on the readability of the individual elements on the screen.

the only games that require 4k+ are ultra tryhard simulators like ARMA and Verdun where you sit in a spot and stare at foliage for an hour until a blade of grass moves so you can shoot at it

>>16587003

I thought I was a bit too agressive with saying that you can't comprehend that you can pack the pixels in a smaller screen, but apparently you ARE actually that stupid. Or maybe you can't comprehend the part where more pixels can display a more precise image, possibly without the need for antialiasing.

>>16587023

>>16587028

>getting mad because technology is getting better

lol, always gotta be the samefags who get all pissy and elitist whenever people actually want to improve shit and make it better instead of sitting around playing 8-bit garbage like a fucking hipster fag

>>16586839

Just like the current generation, and what John Carmack warned about, we're going to get 8k at 30 FPS, just like how we got 4k at 30 FPS. 1080p at 60 FPS is far, far better than 4k at 30 FPS.

To add insult to injury, I doubt there will be any 8k televisions with even a 100Hz refresh rate. Most 4k TVs today use a 60Hz refresh rate. Just how the fuck do they even plan on displaying 8k at 120 FPS on a television given no televisions with refresh rates high enough exist. Many TVs just lie to consumers about refresh rates but actually operate at 60Hz. Only top, top of the line TVs output 4k at 120 Hz.

>>16587043

>"technology is better"

whoa, so you're telling me you dont have 16 different 4k+ monitors hooked up to produce 64k EXTREME HD resolutions? what are you, some kinda poorfag? git rekt kiddo lol its technology

>>16587043

It's less about "Technology getting better" more about chasing something that's kind of meaningless for a severe performance detriment, especially if we're in the realm of consumer grade hardware.

>>16587044

I'm still doubting 8k at 30. Running a game at double the rez isn't quite 2x as hard, so we can't make a solid ratio, but 8k is 4x what 4k is. And 4k60 on these consoles is already going to be pushing it, I can't see them quadrupling the rez while only halving the fps. I Think the aim for these things is going to be 4k60/4k30 with 1080p being "unlocked" fps in games.

On a side note, that's a REALLY good thing because it means game devs won't be able to tie their physics to the FPS. Means games ported to pc will have an entire issue just gone thanks to the new console gen. So that's pretty cool!

First raytracing demo with actual gameplay

>>16586998

Where in the world, Latveria or Narnia? I don't see no fucking interlaced option in my settings.

Its a meme not really different from 3D television and motion controls. The benefits to the average user are negligible and the performance hit is massive. Plus the market is swarmed with 1080p monitors and TVs for fairly low prices, not so much the case with 4k or 8k stuff.

If the current consumer grade standard was a GTX 1080 then we could talk about 4K/8K being maybe possible(assuming of course that we would have the current graphical standard) but as things stand its mostly just a bragging point and not much else. And unless hardware prices dont take a nose dive that wont change.

4k legitimately looks better than 1080, sorry /v/bros.

There is always a desire for higher fidelity. Technology trickles down, and so will 8k. 4k is already cheap, and it got cheap a lot faster than 480 to 720, or 720 to 1080.

Shit thread.

>>16587141

No shit retard.

Nobody's arguing that an increase of resolution isn't an increase in visual information.

>>16586457

Once it's cheap, I might pick up a monitor or something. I don't really care. I like 480i CRTs more than anything for gaming.

>>16587162

Are you living under a fucking rock, mate? 4k is the new standard for TVs now. You can get 4k TVs for only a couple hundred quid now.

>>16586457

There isn't even a real demand for 4k. Why they hell would there be a demand for 8K?

>>16587262

tbh this wouldn't be an issue if we all just used vector monitors.

>>16586457

I don't get 4k monitors, much less 8k ones. They'd need to be ridiculously big to actually benefit from the higher resolution to any significant degree.

>>16587262

You'll want to use LoD techniques anyway since it saves you processing power with meshes. You'll also want to keep using MIP mapping with textures since the texture will simply look better when tailored for smaller resulution rather than just shrunk one. Valid points with aliasing, but there already are plenty of AA techniques whose implementation is certainly much less costly than the cost of rendering so many more pixels.

>>16586457

Only content creators with 8K+ cameras are genuinely interested in it. Most of the people I know personally are still watching movies and playing vidya on 1080p displays of some kind (I do as well).

>>16586517

Nigger I just got a 1440p 144hz 27in and its perfect as far as I'm concerned. But this is about TVs, not monitors.

>>16587043

>Anyone who doesnt want to buy into the latest scheme to fool retards out of their cash is poor

>Complains about elitist

You're the worst shill I've seen all year.

>>16587173

>quid

Oi, but then you have to then pay for the loicense.

>>16586799

I make more money in a month than you and your entire family make in a year.

t. navy officer

4K looks gorgeous but you need a monster PC to run any graphically high quality game at decent framefrates. 8K is about 4x worse in terms of performance and almost impossible to see a visual improvement over 4K unless your monitor is over 30”. I’d take better models, textures, lighting and scene complexity before a jump to 8K.

>16:9 is the industry standard.

Legitimately makes me want to hurl, it's fucking unusable for anything except watching fucking movies.

Artstyle > graphics

Graphics are pointless if the draw distance is piss poor and trees pop up at 100 yards away. If it has a simple artstyle and good draw distance, it's way better than muh graphics.

>>16587939

Draw distance is part of graphics, stupid. "Graphics" doesn't just mean "polygon count".

>>16587939

That shit you call artstyle is hipster fag garbage that was dated 10 years ago

>>16587948

Except if you were being honest you'd acknowledge Graphics (Speaking of technical detail) and Art Direction are generally referred to as two distinct things.

You incomprehensible nigger.

>>16587477

>Everything is a scam because I say so

>No YOU'RE the shill

lol

>>16587943

I started experimenting with a CRT as a secondary display and everything looks amazing on it. 1024x768 is beautiful, as is 1600x1200. The smoothness of motion, clarity in motion, the slight softening due to the focus of the electron gun provides a costless anti-aliasing solution. The solution isn't higher resolution, there's barely even detail to resolve at 1440p let alone 4K. The solution is displays that can actually support more than one resolution.

>>16587959

This isn't 1995 anymore you nigger jew

>>16587965

Irrelevant

>pushing the 8k meme when consolegarbage can't even run 4k smoothly and an >60FPS 8k ready desktops are top percentile hobbyist rigs territory.

also fuck E3 has brought the worst of marketing and cuckchan here, this thread is full of "WHAT ARE YOU POOR, GO OUT AND BUY THE [NEXT "BIG" THING] IMMEDIATELY WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR GO GO GO CONSUME BUY SPEND CATTLE."

>>16587959

"Technical detail" is a meaningless term. You'd have to define what you mean by that. Any reasonable definition would include draw distance and LOD scaling.

>>16586673

Life is a fucking pixel.

>>16586858

So far all I see is those faggots who get 3 monitors and "gamer" merch as the only people with real demand for this shit.

>>16587043

Some old games don't have scaled pixel elements. So if you want to play those games you have to lower your resolution to what it was designed for or you won't even be able to read shit. Other games simply just break past a certain resolution because you have to play with things you shouldn't to get it to work instead of just biting the bullet and stretching a lower resolution to fullscreen. A bunch of emulators are more CPU intensive when you upscale its internal resolution, so in many cases it is actually better to just stretch a lower resolution. Heck the oldest emulators didn't even increase the internal resolution the way people thinks it does, it's just 2x interpolation so you really were just better off keeping it at the lowest resolution your monitor supports for best performance, only morons went for higher resolutions at the time.

>>16586457

No. Every single time that you hear about a "demand", it is a (((marketing))) ploy. The (((marketing))) mafia are the ones demanding more money and to keep being paid, so they artificially create propaganda to pretend that there are people interested in any new useless gimmick that the industry come up with.

Whenever there is (((marketing))) pushing for something, that something is literally not needed by anyone, anywhere.

>>16586495

16:9 is already a meme.

>>16588114

'Demand' is fabricated so companies can sell you shittier products, the same with chinkshit.

there isn't even a demand for 4k

4k is useless for anything more than a monitor. The TV companies are doing like digital cameras did. Instead of increasing image quality, they are just increasing pixels. I rather have a 1080p plasma with good contrast ratio than some shitty LCD with 8k.

They want to get people to upgrade to shitty quality 8k screens then come out with OLED 8k to get people to buy twice instead of once nice 4k screen. And it will work on a lot of people.

>>16587386

>I just got a 1440p 144hz 27in

My nigga.

I have two 24in screens myself. 1440p is the perfect resolution with enough fidelity that you don’t have to run god awful Anti Aliasing in games.

>>16587732

>Not even a line officer

How does it feel being viewed as a POG even by other POGs in a POG branch?

>>16586457

I have honestly never seen 4k picture. My parents have one but they have no 4k source going to it. I've been using the same 1080p hdtv for many years. I might as well miss 4k entirely and get my pants blown off by 8k.

>>16586457

>is there an actual demand

Of course there's a demand, there's always some fag who wants MOAR PIXELS. The question is if there's enough of them to actually give a fuck about, or if 8K has just become the new buzzword for COOL NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND SHIT that some fag at the console companies mentioned to their boss.

I don't really give a shit about 8K, I'm going to not pay any attention at all to it until it becomes cheap enough that I'll get it for shit-all, or the world burns to the ground.

>>16588186

We've had bots posting here for some time, anon. Never seen them?

>>16586457

Pointless, current top of the line GPU barely do 4k at an acceptable level, making hte workload 4x heavier is obviously not gonna make that better.

>>16586599

>I didn't even know what 4K is supposed to mean until I saw OP's image.

it's pretty simple, 720p is an image 720 pixels high, 1080p is an image 1080 pixels high, and 4k is an image 2160 pixels high (because it's a bullshit marketing term)

>>16586457

The cynic in me thinks the push for ever increasing resolution well beyond what hardware is reasonably capable of running is merely to inflate file sizes, in an effort to curb piracy. There will be some that jump on the memewagon, for sure, but for everyone else a game that installs for 45gb this year will be 200gb next because muh 8k textures ostensibly.

>>16588408

It’s because it is supposed to have 4 times the pixels as 1080p and 4X didn’t sound as good I guess

>>16588421

I very much doubt pirates won't just downsize the textures and share full HD versions of the game instead. If they want to inflate file sizes, they're going to have to also consider how many people actually have the space for their games, which may end up costing sales too or driving people to aforementioned pirated downsized versions.

>>16587984

E3 has certainly brought in you console cucks thats for sure. Of course it's always the console baby fags who want to keep technology back instead of moving forward because console fags still can't get 60fps because they're retarded

>>16588465

It's just missing a post number.

I got a 4K 50" tv for $300 and I can't tell the difference between 4k content and 1080p content. I can see it if I get real close like a retard, but from a comfortable distance, 1080p is enough.

The only use for ultra-high resolutions is VR headsets.

>>16588519

Only if it's made with 4k in mind. Unless you like niggerball there is very little to actually watch in true 4k, it's all upscaled trash. In the case of games you better have a beefy rig or you won't be able to get a decent framerate to begin with unless it's an older game which won't really benefit.

>>16588639

>unless it's an older game which won't really benefit

Older games benefit greatly as many don't have proper AA solutions.

>>16588645

Upscaling does nothing to fix jaggies, you would have better luck with supersampling and that can be done at lower base resolutions just as well.

>>16586457

>Is there an actual demand for 8K quality?

If you want real photorealistic graphics (not """photorealistic""").

Of course everything they do is wrong.

First: It should be curved encircling display with at least 120 degrees of horizontal FOV and 100 pixels per degree density. Not some tiny (by FOV) 40-50 degrees FOV TV screen on the wall.

Second. Obviously their hardware would ne be able to run native 8K resolution graphics, only menus and upscales.

>>16588519

Aliasing is completely different matter. Eye Vernier's resolution is x10 better and aliasing (shimmer of moving straight lines) can be seen 10 times further away.

>>16587391

> No, the problem with ISPs in US will not change for quite a while

Elon Musk space interwebz would save burgers and world.

>>16588519

>>16588645

Stop upscaling your games and run them in a native resolution that matches your monitor. If that doesn't work then use your graphics card to force anti-aliasing. There problem solved, if it still doesn't work that is usually because you got rused into thinking it is true 3D instead of a sprite or something.

>>16588923

LCD monitors only have one native resolution.

If you ask me, 4K was useless.

Never saw the need, and never saw a difference

WQHD masterrace

More space and detail than 1920x1080, but not too big to fuck up pixelart or old UIs or tank your framerate or anything. Bigger resolutions are fine but it takes time for everything to adapt to it.

>>16589154

You just proved yourself wrong. There's a reason that FOV graph is split into different sections.

>>16586632

I'm holding out for 1M.

1,000,000 x 600,000

Anything lower than that is blocky, ugly rubbish. I have 4K on my 2" screen flip-phone and it makes me physically vomit every time I have to look at the stone-age piece of shit lego-screen.

For the home computer that I just use for checking twitter on once or twice a week, I have 140 10" 5K plasma monitors linked together to emulate some kind of half decent overall resolution, but I can only use it for 2-3 minutes at a stretch before i start involuntarily slamming my face into the desk and keyboard until my eyes are bleeding.

>>16588408

>he was so close, but fell into a retarded heap of stupidity

>>16587262

320x240 was fine, anything higher than that and the game looks like worm-filled dogshit.

Back then your imagination filled in some of the blanks, when 640x480 came, everything started to look like plastic crap.

>>16589168

They are written there.

>>16587732

>Navy officer

I bet you get fucked by your sailors, faggot.

>>16586457

>Is there an actual demand for 8K quality?

So long as there is demand for photorealistic graphics, yes. Good news is that the human eye won't be able to tell the difference between 12k resolution and real life so the end of the HD wars will happen in our lifetime.

>>16589326

>the end of money grubbing marketing campaigns for useless shit will happen

lol

>>16589331

>People will buy something they won't be able to tell the difference between

Just like Bluray, eh?

>>16587012

Not everything is a linear relationship you fucking autist

>>16587141

Does it look proportionally better to the performance and price increase?

motherfucker there isnt even a demand for 4k let alone higher resolutions, if you want half your wall to be a tv you are spoiled child

>>16587143

No there isn't. Things have limits. Will there be a desire for atom sized pixels?

>>16587262

This is the only comment with any sense. Things won't keep getting better. If you can't distinguish between the pixels anymore then there's no need for higher fidelity.

>>16589359

They'll just fnd a way to upgrade our eyes anon, don't worry.

>>16586647

>Most everything these days has proper HIDPI scaling.

If all you use are mainstream phone OSes and macOS, yes. Otherwise, hell no!

My eyesight isn't even good enough to notice 4K let alone 8K

I have a 43inch 4k monitor, its definitely worth it for my particular setup, but I'm mainly using it for work. I tend to drop down to 1080p @75hz for a smoother gaming experience on my aging 770GTX.

If you just want to play games on a regular sized monitor I'd say go for 1440p @120hz+, it is noticeably sharper than 1080p but you can still get over 60fps with a mid range card in most games.

One feature that often gets overlooked is HDR. While a couple of implementations have been poor, it can make a huge difference in image quality (Forza Horizon 4 being probably the best example), and I'm genuinely looking forward to HDR becoming standard.

8k won't be worth it for at least a decade.

>>16586624

>4k isn't needed

I'm very happy with my 4k monitor since I get the benefit of gaming on a large monitor, 26 inch, with a high pixel density, so it doesn't look like shit, like it would with 1080p.

>>16588186

It's not an AI, it's a neural network.

There isn't and has never been an AI created by humans, an artificial intelligence is counter to natural intelligence. It is a form of consciousness created outside of organic life.

This isn't me being pedantic, these are two completely different things and should not be used interchangeably. I don't give a shit what the public thinks.

240p looked fine, I don't see the point in chasing higher resolutions. It's not like the games are any better.

>>16588350

Spending most of your money on medicine lulxdamericucks

>>16588186

Greentext existed long before imageboards did, greenhorn.

nothing even makes use of 4k monitors properly yet

>>16586457

>>16586469

>>16586471

>>16586624

>>16586858

>>16586955

>>16587137

>>16587162

>>16587311

Niggers, >>16587173 is right. Even your shitty $200-300 tvs 40 inches or bigger are all 4k. It's not becoming the standard, it IS the standard. So of course the shitheels at Microsoft and Sony are targeting both it and beyond. Burger 4k tv saturation Is around 31% of households and its expected to reach 50% by the end of the year. 8k as-of-now is a "look at how expensive my tv is" thing. But even then prices on those are starting to range from 5-10k for 65-82" 8k tvs. Those $70k tvs are for car dealerships or other businesses with shekels to drop. It makes complete sense for these companies to target the fastest growing tv technologies and it means there's a chance these consoles might not be hideously underbaked come next year.

>>16589504

>Burger 4k tv saturation Is around 31% of households

I highly doubt that. Most people don't buy a new TV every year or two. And the adoption is much lower than that for PCs, even though that is more enthusiast technology. >>16587943

real gamers will stick with 1080p for a long time, video cards havent gotten any faster in almost 10 years

>>16589504

Studies say 360p TVs are getting popular and already exists in 16% of all households, projected to rise to around 40% by christmas. There's an abundance of second hand 1080p and 4k monitors because people are abandoning it in doves.

>>16589535

https://www.statista.com/statistics/736142/4k-ultra-hdtv-us-household-penetration/

https://www.tellusventure.com/blog/4k-tv-will-be-in-half-of-u-s-homes-by-end-of-2019/

https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/4k-tv-market

Some relevant sources and reading material.

>>16589545

You also have to consider all the people that haven't bought TVs in the last 2 years who are replacing their older televisions. The adoption rate only increases over time due to most/the only products available being 4k. 4k on PC is still an enthusiast level luxury which is why you still see so many entry level monitors being 1080p. That's still a different market from televisions.

>>16589551 (You)

>>16589571 yes

When OP says "actual demand" he means that people who demand them must not only be willing to buy it but also have the means to afford it.

I heard that 8k monitors cost 5 grand so I can say for myself that I can't afford it. Plus, if I were to buy it: my older games and movies would probably look like shit on it and there's hardly anything new I'm looking forward to so I wouldn't buy one if I had to means to afford it.

>>16591160

>TV salesman actually provides sources

>Thread dies

/v/ BTFO

Mainstream demand? Of course not. High-end demand? Certainly. There is a whole segment of society that buys the latest, best thing simply because they can and because it's impressive, even if the improvement is marginal. The same types of people who buy a $100k car to drive around down will buy an 8K TV to put in their living room and brag to their friends over. In turn, those sales will go back into the manufacturing process, making 8K more affordable, until it eventually becomes standard. This is how the entire TV market has worked for decades.

>>16589600

I really hope the parents or doctor of Jazz gets charged with something when he ends up killing himself

>>16591160

>actual sources

Lmfao, /v/ has never been this ass blasted before.

>>16592070

>because graphics have largely stagnated

Yes and no, maybe with consoles sure, but PC's are still getting better and better. The only reason people think it's stagnating is because of the demand for "retro" pixel shit and "goofy" graphics that look like something out of the first Toy Story from 1995. The Tech is all there but few are willing to take the time to use it because time is money and money is money and money is time which is also money

>>16592194

I like chromatic aberration; rainbows are nice to look at.

>>16592228

Neat!

>>16589089

Basically this. My biggest problem with 4k is the need for scaling, since I don't want a monitor over 27". This means images/UI that doesn't scale well would either be stretched (blurry) or too small.

>>16589535

what's the source on this?

RIS turns up nothing.

>>16592484

iqdb.org

saucenao.com

ascii2d.net

I think the ideal monitor size should be directly proportionate with your desk size, something like for every 3 square inch of desk you should have 1 square inch of monitor

>>16587134

Now they should show the fps with raytracing enabled. :^)

>>16587321

>vector monitors

Is there actual vector monitor technology that could be used for displaying all the shit your generic LCD/LED displays?

I just don't see how a vector monitor could do all of that (rendering gradiants, filled shapes, tons of colors and color combinations, etc).

>>16586457

I want 8K, but only because 8K is THE final resolution. Once you get to 8K, there is no purpose for a higher resolution in consumer products. 8K will be the peak and then finally, we'll return to acceptable performance being the norm.

I want to accelerate the resolution race so that we can end the resolution race.

>>16592768

I love hearing this as justification for buying the latest tech trend

I bet you really believe it too, don't you?

You don't realize that right alongside that 'tech race' are buzzwords and hype to sell new expensive shit to gullible idiots every year

I'll see you again at 16k, real excited

>>16592690

>xkcd

>>>/reddit/

>>16592768

To fully cover human FOV at eye acuity angular resolution you need like 16K. At vernier acuity (no aliasing artifacts). you need 160K. So final end of teh resolution race is in the 32-64K with good antialiasing.

>>16592921

>To fully cover human FOV at eye acuity angular resolution you need like 16K

That has to do with aspect ratio, not resolution, retard.

>>16595629

>>16593034

only if you like burn in, LCDs are better for both input latency & longevity.

>>16586457

Lets try and get 1080p60 as a standard before we get any grandiose ideas about even having 4K games.

8K? lmao

>>16592795

No you won't, because there's no point beyond 8k. The only way I'd buy a TV with greater than 8K resolution is if I owned an 8K TV, it died and they don't make 8K TVs anymoe.

>>16586457

>Sony is currently selling an 8K TV for $70.000 a piece, which honestly seems outrageous.

Oh yeah, remember when they also introduced their first 4K TV? It was also priced outrageously if I remembered it correctly. I guess it's their marketing department wanting something with outrageous numbers that noone else have so they can put an outrageous pricetag on it.

Currently I'd say the market isn't really there, maybe starting in 2-4 years we'll see blips of it. That's considering Microsoft and Sony's statements on their next gen consoles, apparently, having ability to play at 8K. I don't know how that is going to work out, since the PS4 and Xbone are not that great at running things at 4K.

So I am of the expectation that they'll probably run things, adequately at 4K, but will chug pretty bad at 8K. Unless some sort of hardware revolution happens, which I very much doubt.

Honestly, until other hardware gets to pace with running at 8K at a decent level of performance for gaming, which will eventually happen, it's probably not really worth thinking about until then. Though 8K will probably be great for watching movies and stuff for the time being for those who can afford it.

>>16592070

> That "4k 120fps" shit getting pushed at e3 is never going to happen.

Not in teh next generation but ultimately with foveated rendering its possible. Of course its would take much hard work to achieve such.

Dumb ignoramuses don't realize that tick rate and refresh rates for the monitor would actually make their game consoles feel next gen. these are simple infrastructure/hardware upgrades. Dunno why the soyim are so riveted by extra pixels.

>>16601719

because MUH 4/8K usually comes with a bigger screen, every brainlet gets that. higher fps are not as obvious and consoles operate at the limit already anyway so upscaling is less of an issue.

>>16587964

I would love for flatron for hdmi but there isnt any around

>>16588429

>>16588408

It's marketing and for dumbass normalfags who brains shut down from hearing "2160p". The names 4K and Ultra HD were chosen because it's easier for the dumbass clerk at best buy to explain to nromalfags what it is.

>>16586457

Not really. Down-sampling is more useful as it can be used on any monitor, act as an aa substitute.

>>16587813

>need a monster pc

I'm driving 60fps 4k on a gtx 1070 and an i7 4770k

This thread is full of people who are completely fucking out of touch holy shit

>>16602372

is that a screenshot of DE:HR

Frame rate and image quality are far more important than resolution.

>>16592206

It looked pretty good in Dying Light.

OP why did you post a image where all of the examples are of the same quality? Also who gives a fuck about 8k, I'm sure it'll be fake anyway

>>16595629

>>16595677

the LG C9 has the lowest input latency you can get on a non CRT, as well as the best picture. Burn in is almost a non issue in modern OLEDs

It’s straightforward and easy to determine the resolution needed for the application. 4K is already beyond the limits of the human eye. If you’re part eagle you might want more resolution. If you sit real close to your tv you might want more resolution. If you put your nose inches from your monitor you might be able to perceive the difference between 4k and 8k, but no one watches tv like that, and (relatively) no one wants to pay for the technology and bandwidth to support it.

Roadside billboards are printed at 5-10 dots per inch and no one ever complains about how pixely they are.

If you are looking at a 30” monitor that’s two feet from your eyes you might be able to tell the difference but you’re lying to yourself if you think the perceived image and motion are worth the extra expense.

There’s a reason consumer cameras keep going up and up in megapixels and the $5000+ professional models are still all around 10-20.

The same thing happens with audio. Nobody gives a shit anymore if their sound card is 192kHz 24-bit or the same 16-bit sound blaster grade we had in the 90s because nobody can tell the difference.

I went back from 4k to 1600x1200. Seriously. Yeah fonts were blurrier at first and high res stuff looks prettier on the HiDPI 4k I have but it's overrated, especially considering the additional hardware requirements and also especially often the poor support in software for such high resolutions/DPI. Don't even miss it anymore. 16:9 is garbage and I was genuinely surprised how many problems this step solved in the overall usability department. One thing I also noticed was how unhealthy close I was sitting to the 4k screen.

It also has to be said that we humans don't have two perfect cameras in our head that record every frame perfectly, but that it's all open to interpretation from our brains anyways. If you get used to 1600x1200 then 1600x1200 is enough for you. I used to use computers with a resolution of 320x200 and that used to be enough, too. For me 1600x1200 is the sweet spot.

Why the fuck would I want to play a game in their highest stats or whatever? I can understand a film but then I would never get it digitally if I could there's no point in upgrading.

Still using 1280x1024 in 2019. 4K requires a lot of media bandwidth and costly gpus to play, w10 scaling is shit even on 1920x1080. 1920x1200 is the best.

>>16587173

And watch your MPEG2/4 TV in 90s resolution, or shittily compressed "4K" youtube video.

>>16607918

might as well. Literally not worth the effort,cost,or problems involved

>>16587899

It is useful, in some applications, Excel and stuff.

>>16586632

For VR, not monitors or TVs.

>>16588421

It does not curb piracy, it just removes insentive to buy those 50Gb titles at all.

>>16586457

For a TV, motion is more important than resolution. Looking forward to VRR becoming standard. But as for resolutions, 1080p is adequate, 4K is great, and 8K is more than most people can perceive from typical viewing distances (ie perfect).

>>16588421

>8k textures

Ace Combat 7 is 46GB, without cutscenes on piratebay it's just 16GB which means 30GB are cutscenes.

This means video content, AKA THE MOVIE SHIT WE WANTED TO LEAVE BEHIND, is two thirds of the game.

And this isn't the only game. You can do pretty good looking things in realtime these days, it's just the target audience and the publishers wanting MOVIE MOVIE MOVIE TV TV TV XBOX XBOX

It has nothing to do with piracy, especially when it's faster than PSN or XBONE Store or Steam

What I hate most is that they defy the medium.

You could have interactive cutscenes as part of your game but muh let's throw some prerendered pixels at the screen.

>>16588408

I still prefer "4K" because it at least refers to something quantifiable on the resolution, namely the width. I remember when cameras used to use the term "megapixels," fuck that shit with a rusty fork. I'm not going to learn a whole new baby scale for resolutions.

>>16597258

>official salaries

>not counting the sideline he makes allowing the filipinos to hustle meth

lmao

I bet someone would still manage to shit up their desktop at 8K.

>>16611917

>>>/sudo/99821

>>16611942

>16K

Goddamn, can hardly read the term.

Honestly. I don't even watch movies any more and I'm in my mid 20s. Like I've never been serious about the damn things but I can't imagine me actually needing a 4K TV. I do like my blacks to be black though but at the end of the day it's still gonna be a shitty movie.

>>16587943

the newest compile of pcsx2 has an option for 8k and even 12k or 16k but my memory is foggy

>>16588326

same. i know many with a 4k tv, but no useful 4k images that make me want one.

>hey anon i got a 4k tv, want to see it in action?

>loads up xbox1x or ps4pro

>loads youtube app

>searches 4k 60fps

>finds concert with that in the title

>manually selects 4k60fps

>loading

>plays a live concert of some band

"neat"

>yea man you gotta get one its awesome

i think i'll pass. right now i play games on 1920x1200 60hz 24". im going to upgrade to 1440p 144hz 27". no reason for a monitor to be bigger or higher res

for bigger displays i may get 60" 4k when i get a 2nd tv but my current 1080p120hz 52"sony tv from 10 years ago is fine. i dont watch tv and its fine for movies. i own like 6 blu rays. most are dvds and vhs tapes. but i rarely watch those either.

the big tvs are mostly used by my kid to watch paw patrol or curious george downloads.

I sure as fuck don't want 8k. On PC it just takes up extra resources needlessly, and for my other games i just use a CRT because they're almost all 480i, if that.

>>16626333

People have 4k TVs because for 2 years thats pretty much the only screens that are sold.

Its much cheaper for factories to have their entire production line switch to 4k panels.

The demand is on the part of the publishers who are trying to fabricate a generated want in consumers, because they have nothing else left to interest anyone with.

Do you remember when everyone was keen on getting the latest GPU, overclocking, watercooling, SLI, etc. because it would let them play new games on the highest settings? Do you remember when there was a night-and-day difference between 'very high' and 'medium' which people were willing to pay hundreds of dollars for?

This is now the arms race which dominates the thinking in the industry. Normies will not accept a game which doesn't look as good as the last one they played. Looks matter more than gameplay and so that's what's being cranked up. Why are there so many cutscenes in AAA games today? Because it's much easier and cheaper to make a cutscene look good, where you have total control over the camera angles, lighting, animations, etc., than it is to make freeform gameplay look good, where you have to account for all the places the player might put himself and all the actions he might take.

The hardware industry caught on quickly and churned out more and more components. But they've now far outstripped the capacity of the developers to make games which actually tax the top-end hardware like they used to. As a result the latest GPUs are emperors without clothes - overpriced and underutilised. In an effort to maintain the illusion they've added gimmicks like Hairworks and RTX, which are hollow attempts to recapture the excitement of getting a new GPU in the mid- to late- 2000s.

Either we are truly reaching diminishing returns in graphical fidelity or no one cares enough to innovate anymore. You've all seen those images comparing Crysis to games released within the last two years. 8K is an excuse to do something with all this hardware capacity overhead we have because demand hasn't kepot up with supply but no one wants to admit it. The real money in hardware is shifting away from video games anyway, since all the industries adopting machine learning techniques are buying up far more top-line GPUs than bankrupt basement-dwelling video game enthusiasts could ever afford.

>>16627094

Your second picture is 3 different sizes you retard

>>16626333

>Uses YouTube to show off new TV

God I hate normalfags. A 1080p bluray looks much better then any 4k streaming shit. If you wanna show off a 4k TV get a properly mastered 4k bluray.

>>16626700 (check)

the 4k DSR (Dynamic Super Resolution) setting on my 1060 works better then any kind of AA (no shimmering during movement) and I get a good 75 to 90fps in most tittles at 4k (no overclock, just power target at 100%) and i'm still using a very nice 1080p screen.

>>16586457

Personally, I can hardly tell the difference between 720 and 1080. I can't imagine anyone can really tell the difference between 4 and 8.

>>16602483

Don't forget that most of these TVs do "after-sales monetisation" on you ie.e they spy so they can sell the data Faceberg/Google style.

>>16627325

CTS can fit more people inside to spy on you though.

>>16627353

CRTs

>>16586457

>4k

>8k

>16k

<just to play modern button-press movies

<classic old games will look shittier and shittier on these things

Nah, you can keep it

>>16627315

Good for you, is that 1080p screen 42 inches? My current tv/monitor has died, you call me a pleb all you want because of input lag, but I have grown accustomed to a 42 inch 1080p screen. Besides the said 4k tv can scale back the resolution to 1080p, the main reason im siding with 4k is that the 1080p model in that size of it is only 40 buck difference.

>>16627325

Is it even possible to buy a non-smart TV these days? My years old 1080p TV has all that streaming garbage installed and there is no way to get rid of it.

Is there literally any reason to go for the 4k monitor meme when I can just buy a super good IPS HDR 1080p monitor for a fraction of the price?

>>16627094

Yeah, that is why you need to buy much larger diagonal for 16:9 than for 4:3 to get the same height.

>>16627094

16:10 is nice compromise, but it costs too much for my taste.

>>16627418

Close enough, my was a sony tv I got from a pawn shop back in 2012, 200 or 300 bucks, I forget. I don't really care about the HDR shit. If my tv wasn't shitting itself I would be waiting it out just like you, but instead HDR formats i'm waiting for the 120 hz tvs to go down in price. And not that bullshit 120 hz, true 120 hz.

4k is already entering diminishing returns, and anything above it only gets those harder. Image sharpness gain basically drops off instantly as you're already getting almost non-existent grain at 4k.

The other issue is that most 4k+ proponents are also pushing for ultrawide which is frankly dogshit that either lacks vertical FOV or has too much horizontal FOV, meaning you have to move your head and eyes around much more to see items in your peripheral vision which can break concentration and is frankly just inconvenient. As well for fitting more shit - multiple screens are a better solution for the non-existent benefit of "it gives more space" that some proponents bring up.

>>16602372

I genuinely like that interface

>>16602483

The televisions often also have worse secondary properties such as contrast and response time, making them incapable of displaying a more detailed image than lower resolution screens, while requiring more hardware to drive them in case of a computer.

It's mostly a meme to sell screens to normalfags who don't know anything. Just like those 10k+ screens that can't even compare to late sony CRTs bought used.

>>16627384

Ironically it's the rebadged chinkshit Smart-TVs that lack these kind of "features" cause they're barebones and not really expected to recieve software updates.

Just look for one using a semi-decent panel.

>>16627577

>>16627540

The 4 series TCL is dogshit for any sort of picture quality. The 5 series is almost as bad but the chunk fucks made it so thin it literally will burn itself out from overheating. The 6 series has so far been the only actually decent value proposition tv from that company with a picture and build quality that doesn't eat absolute ass.

>>16627384

What >>16627607 said. The absolute worst tvs on the shelves are the ones without any form of smart feature. You're about as likely to find one with a good panel as EA is likely to drop microtransactions. I'd actually recommend a monitor instead if you truly cannot have even a single smart feature with your panel.

4k and 8k would be cool for the home movie theatre audience. like a 200" or 400" tv in 4k or 8k instead of a projector. even 1080p at that size would be a huge improvement.

what do you guys think of gsync? it looks better than freesync but theyre expensive.

i saw a 1440p 140hz monitor with gsync for 400. ones without are like 300.

>>16627439

>>16627432

Dell still makes good 16:10 monitors.

>>16628296

Read the thread. No one is angry simply because this stuff exists. What pisses people off is that it gets hyped and then chased after, meaning we end up with shit games with fantastic graphics because all the development resources went into making things look good for these new and incredibly demanding specifications.

>>16628296

It is a meme because of many requirements, for gaming: very expensive gpu, for storage - expensive HDDs with a lot of space, if streaming - good ISP without data cap, good hidpi support, high quality streams required, shit media quality.

(((They))) want to push 4K because it drives costs up, so you can milk dumb consumers more, everyone wins, ISP charges more, you need to buy more HDDs, or subscribe to expensive streaming option, blabla.

>>16628296

diminishing returns, faggot.

youre equating every sales release as revolutionary like niggers do. this could be another beta max, another webtv, or another 3d tv. were those better? were the people that didnt flush their money away like niggers resisting progress?

4k isnt noticeable on displays under 52", and even at 52" you can only notice 2 feet from the tv. 4k on a 70" tv would be worth it for big movie buffs, but theyre selling 4k gaming which requires a huge performance drop in exchange for minimal improvements, and virtually no improvements on small monitor sized displays.

the "next big thing" isnt this just because it was marketed that way you stupid slave.

>>16628421

16:10 is like 1920x1200, right? i have an hp monitor at that size. shame it maxes at 60hz.

When will 16:10 return?

I'm already seeing commercials for 8K tvs. Progress is inevitable.

>>16628689

Never, despite being superior.

>>16628746

>oy vey goyim number is bigger that means progress ha ha big number is good wow lol

Shut up and get out. You’re not intelligent enough to be here.

>>16628296

This is a paid shill spamming across multiple boards at once.

im still using a 1920x1080 the only reason im thinking of switching is because a insect managed to crawl inside the film screen and died right in the middle. Now there's a giant brown/black pixel is infesting my screen also its nasty.

Is a $100 more really worth it though.

>>16628758

Technological progress, yes. "Progress" that kikes use, no. It's not that it should happen, but they'll continue to phase out smaller resolutions. Like how no one produces CRTs anymore. Eventually no one will produce any tvs/monitors smaller than 4K. Some anons already have 16K monitors.

>>16628458

Every TV sold in a store right now is 4k. A $500 49 inch TV is 4k. Its not betamax.

My eyes don't see the difference between 1080 and 4K so I'm not in a rush to even go for 4K.

>>16587732

I make more money in a month than you and your entire family make in a year and if I cross you in the street I'm killing all of you and your dogs.

t. mafia boss

>>16628819

>betamax wasnt sold in every major electronics store.

you have to be atleast 18 to post here, anon.

not that that's the point, we're talking about 4k/8k gaming. the fact that the TV itself has a higher resolution is meaningless and just another dick measuring contest for companies to have with eachother. if youre thinking that because "everyone owns one and theyre cheap" that hardware will move to be able to take advantage of it you should understand around when you were born in 2004 i had a cheap standard CRT monitor that could go as high as 180hz and many others were even higher. do you think standard devices at the time were able to utilize 180hz? even now thats not the standard or even available to people with top of the line hardware most of the time.

>>16588130

Don't forget to take your experimental new "Sea Sickness" Tablets

What's the point if modern hardware can't even serve a fraction of the required fillrate?

>>16631773

oh boy, is that anything like marine "man meals"? or is it the complete opposite because its the navy?

>>16631783

Vitamin supplement buttplugs meant for long deployments

>>16631801

you cant just say "vitamin supplement buttplugs" without any kind of elaboration, anon. i wont allow it.

>>16631805

I've never served, I wanted to when I was in middle school but became too disillusioned with the war by the time I could join

>>16631753

High refresh rate was must for CRT because of its inherent flicker deficiency.

>>16631811

i also wanted to serve israels agenda in a foreign nation putting myself at great risk of personal injury or death when i was younger. now i just hope israel gets nuked. funny how that works, eh?

>>16632106

the flickering is barely noticable at 60hz. at 75hz its virtually gone. yet monitors with well over 120 were commonplace.

>>16631753

Grandpa, 30 year olds are to young to have used betamax.

>>16632307

>the connection between your eyeballs and your brain is well over 100ms and varies.

Nope, what you're suggesting as "latency" is actually just a neurological underpinning in which we tend to group a certain period of time. If something happens within 100ms or less, we tend to perceive it as "instant" as we regard that 100ms as a "single instance of time". This doesn't mean that we have a latency effect, it means that the processing of our brain clusters it.

The closest it gets, context given, is that our brains cap off at a "refresh rate" of around once per 13ms, or 77hz. A response time of 30ms (or more) would be horrible and very, very easy to perceive since the entire 100ms "period of time" would be processed as being visually laggy. This is why 60fps is generally considered good (close to the effective cap for information) but some people swear by 120fps (covers the small amount of remaining perception).

>>16632613

axm is chinese trash and likely 60hz fyi

>>16632366

> so i normally grabbed those and recorded over them.

I wonder how you still alive. I do a same but my father was so angry i had literally flying chair or a dish in me.

>>16586457

>Is there an actual demand for 8K quality?

No, it's just jews telling the goyim what they need.

no reason for more than 1080p

my brain already hurts

>>16652109

60hz if you are lucky. Probably 59 just to fuck with you.

>>16627432

>>16627439

I like 16:10, but in addition to the price and availability, it doesn't get very good support either. Lots of games don't even have 16:10 resolutions and end up stretched or letterboxed.

>>16589401

Fair enough.

For the record I think all humans are biologically sentient. However, humans are only intelligent due to an evolution. The evolution of humans, our ancestors are also a living organism. We were not created to think. We were meant to be driven by intelligence and by instinct. This is an example of how many people would prefer "a single human with one voice". I agree that humans are not perfect, but I would like to see more "humanist" philosophy.

I know that the human brain is complex, but I am also a huge fan of neural networks. Neural networks can be applied to any sort of problems. I hope the human brain will one day become the backbone of AI research, and maybe some day become a very valuable tool in the search for the truth.

>>16588446

This is an 18+ website kid.

>>16632613

Bro 2560x1440 isnt even worth it and i have a gtx 1080 and the predator xb271hu monitor. Its all a waste of money just get 1080p with 144hz. The cost of 2560x1440 gaming is not worth it for a small difference compared to 1080p.

>>16664043

This anon is right.

Anything greater than 1080p for gayming is a meme right now.

The two major pushers of this meme is the movie industry, and the datamining chinks.

4k+ cameras give more details for facial recognition and analysis, and the movie industry is so creatively bankrupt that they see more pixels as a way to repackage the same shit an infinite amount of times.

I guarantee they remastered their 4k releases at over 8k resolution and are simply encoding the videos to whatever the latest resolution is.

>>16587732

I'm a quadrillionaire too anon

>>16664082

Movies aren't even mastered at 4k, even if they're filmed at a native 4k

>>16664082

>Anything greater than 1080p for gayming is a meme right now.

I don't know, I've heard good things about 1440p. However, I'm personally more than happy with my current 1080p 144hz screen.

>>16628453

>you need to buy more HDDs

HDDs have never been cheaper per GB. Even SSDs are coming down in price fast. At least know what you are talking about you fool,

>>16664708

1440p is great for almost anything other than gaming

1440p has almost double the amount of pixels of 1080p and thus requires more expensive hardware to run smoothly

speaking from experience

>>16664043

>>16664082

>>16665396

>gaming at 1440 is a meme/waste of money

Depending on what you're playing it's not even that hard to run games at that res, unless you're talking about 144fps, in which case yeah, go with 1080 if you want that, although it's more demanding than 1440 60fps and isn't even possible in certain games.

Any resolution more than twice as big as your head is a meme.

>>16670174

>cutting the edges of a movie and applying a visual filter is a restoration

>>16586457

No.

It's pointless. Pass a certain point you can't even see the difference and IMHO it looks WORSE

4K is a trap designed to rule you into buying 1000+ usd GPU that you don't really need (remember buying shitphone for 1000+ usd and using at most 200 usd of its features?).

>>16670487

Friend of mine has that exact monitor that he used to endlessly play Halo Custom Edition on.

>>16670487

The only one I know of that's still being made is the Dell UP3017, but it's $900 currently and it's considered a professional monitor, so I don't know what the input lag would be like.

>>16628296

This is nice bait.

>implying new things are always good

>bringing up women who date black guys and Jews for no reason

>(1) and done