I mean, I guess so. This "Hey, I've really noticed the difference 4K makes on my TV now" vs. "Nah, you aren't actually seeing any difference there, it's a visual sugar pill" conversation seems to always crop up in topics like this.
It always goes something like, "here's the actual science about what human eyes can do", and then the people who have invested in the technology and want to feel like it's money well spent tend to go "well I can notice the difference", and the first group don't believe them because... again... science.
Quote:
I haven't browsed the stats on average living room size lately, but I'm fully aware of the distance/resolution charts and took them in to account when I was making a TV purchase. Nonetheless, I have thousands of hours of use on two different OLED TV's, and the difference has definitely been there for me. I bounce between PS4 Pro and XB1X all of the time and have often played the same game on both (...not simultaneously). The difference in resolution between the console that renders at a native 4K vs. something like 1440p is rather noticeable (and certainly more so with something like 1080). The maximum benefit's certainly achieved much closer for UHD than HD, but it's absolutely a factor beyond that window as well.
Well, if you did your research, selected the appropriate set for your TV environment and adjusted that environment accordingly to get what you want out of it, I have no doubt that you're seeing a benefit. I just think that if we're talking about the normal use case, people don't tend to build their living room around their TV's resolution. My impression (since we're going with personal experience) - and I seem to be the person people ask about their TV buying decisions - is that for most people, they either get what the salesman tells them to get or just buy a TV that seems to be a good deal, and put it where the spot for the TV is in their house. And for the vast majority of people, the benefit of a modern set over the late FHD generation of TVs from ~7-8 years ago is HDR, not the resolution bump.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
It always goes something like, "here's the actual science about what human eyes can do", and then the people who have invested in the technology and want to feel like it's money well spent tend to go "well I can notice the difference", and the first group don't believe them because... again... science.
Well, if you did your research, selected the appropriate set for your TV environment and adjusted that environment accordingly to get what you want out of it, I have no doubt that you're seeing a benefit. I just think that if we're talking about the normal use case, people don't tend to build their living room around their TV's resolution. My impression (since we're going with personal experience) - and I seem to be the person people ask about their TV buying decisions - is that for most people, they either get what the salesman tells them to get or just buy a TV that seems to be a good deal, and put it where the spot for the TV is in their house. And for the vast majority of people, the benefit of a modern set over the late FHD generation of TVs from ~7-8 years ago is HDR, not the resolution bump.
We don't disagree that HDR is the bigger evolution for TV's across a larger body of use cases. Nonetheless, your original contention that 4K is effectively useless because most people sit farther away seems to paint the situation with a bit too broad a brush. I mean, I revel in the difference at around 6.5-7 feet, and it isn't all that marginal, and I'd suggest furthermore that a lot of the people who linger around in threads like this (or people who would invest the extra money in something like an Xbox One X over an S, or in a PS4 Pro over a base model), are likely to already be a bit more savvy and dialled in to what benefit they're getting from the hardware.
__________________ Is your cat doing singing?
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Max Cow Disease For This Useful Post:
Perhaps "effectively useless" was a bit of an overstatement. But the conversation was actually about whether it makes sense for Playstation to focus on delivering a better framerate, or a higher resolution. In that context, my vote is unequivocally, unreservedly for framerate, because most people who buy a Playstation 5 are not going to have home entertainment setups that actually get any real use out of 4k resolution. Framerate - particularly the difference between a consistent 30 and 60 - will make for a much smoother experience for just about everyone regardless of what TV they have or where they sit.
It's not about the people in this thread, it's about what the designers of the system - and the people making the games that run on it and the engines that those games use - should be prioritizing.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I'll likely get a PS5, but have also been looking for a new TV. I was going to pull the trigger on one but noticed that to take advantage of the PS5's visual features, you'll need a TV with HDMI 2.1 (I think). So for those shopping for a new TV and eventually buying a PS5, please take this into consideration.
The Following User Says Thank You to sketchyt For This Useful Post:
I'll likely get a PS5, but have also been looking for a new TV. I was going to pull the trigger on one but noticed that to take advantage of the PS5's visual features, you'll need a TV with HDMI 2.1 (I think). So for those shopping for a new TV and eventually buying a PS5, please take this into consideration.
You can't go wrong with a LG C9 55 or 65 inch tv.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Fire For This Useful Post:
While that's true (in that the C9 is a fantastic TV in general), for HDMI 2.1 purposes, it actually apparently only supports HDMI VRR, so it's only partial HDMI 2.1 support.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Perhaps "effectively useless" was a bit of an overstatement. But the conversation was actually about whether it makes sense for Playstation to focus on delivering a better framerate, or a higher resolution. In that context, my vote is unequivocally, unreservedly for framerate, because most people who buy a Playstation 5 are not going to have home entertainment setups that actually get any real use out of 4k resolution.
While I agree that framerate is more important (and more attainable than pushing for higher and higher resolutions), I think 4K is table stakes at this point with TV manufacturers ramping on Gen 10.5 fabs. 65" and 75" panels are going to get a lot cheaper and become far more mainstream than where they currently are.
The Last of Us Part II runs at 1440p on PS4 pro and it's absolutely gorgeous on a 4k TV. I'd rather have that same resolution with the frame rate bumped up to 60, and actually stable, than have 4k/30. 60fps needs to be standard before 4k is, IMO.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CroFlames
Before you call me a pessimist or a downer, the Flames made me this way. Blame them.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to codynw For This Useful Post:
The Last of Us Part II runs at 1440p on PS4 pro and it's absolutely gorgeous on a 4k TV. I'd rather have that same resolution with the frame rate bumped up to 60, and actually stable, than have 4k/30. 60fps needs to be standard before 4k is, IMO.
Digital Foundry shows that playing on a Pro you don't get a stable 30FPS it has some dips but the regular PS4 its solid 30FPS. I agree 1000% 60FPS is far more important than res.
Should I just wait for the PS5 to buy TLOU II ? I have the first gen PS4.
I might wait for the PS5 to buy the game as well. Good chance they would have an update to bump it up to 60 FPS like they did with TLOU when it came on PS4. Saying that, it looks great on PS4 as well.
Should I just wait for the PS5 to buy TLOU II ? I have the first gen PS4.
TLOU2 runs better on the regular PS4 than the PS4 pro. Regular has solid 30FPS and the pro has dips under 30FPS. If you want 4k and solid 30FPS sure wait but looking at the side by sides they both look amazing right now.
The Following User Says Thank You to Raekwon For This Useful Post:
TLOU2 runs better on the regular PS4 than the PS4 pro. Regular has solid 30FPS and the pro has dips under 30FPS. If you want 4k and solid 30FPS sure wait but looking at the side by sides they both look amazing right now.
I can report some very occasional stuttering on the PS4 pro but not enough to distract or annoy me. It's definitely one of the best looking PS4 games to date.
The Following User Says Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
Halo infinite already delayed apparently. That Craig meme was terrible, but it won't show up for the console launch.
Early teething issues for sure. PS5 having issues as well as it's starting to look like a reversal of the beginning of the current gen where games will be lower framerate/resolution compared to Xbox which appears to make for more straightforward PC porting;
I watched a video explaining Nvidia's DLSS 2.0 AI upscaling system, and it almost sounds like native 4k is a wasted effort if DLSS 2.0 is that effective. It can internally render at quite low resolutions yet look absolutely fantastic upscaled to 4k thanks to the AI chip in their video cards. Pretty impressive stuff. I wonder how AMD is supposed to match that?
The Following User Says Thank You to Mazrim For This Useful Post:
Early teething issues for sure. PS5 having issues as well as it's starting to look like a reversal of the beginning of the current gen where games will be lower framerate/resolution compared to Xbox which appears to make for more straightforward PC porting;
After almost 20 years of being an xbox user, I am going to make the switch to PS this winter. However, I'm leaning towards buying a second-hand PS4 after the PS5 is released. For me, I did Xbox because I loved Halo, but I think I am done with Halo now. I really want to play the Spiderman games. So I will give the PS a try.
After almost 20 years of being an xbox user, I am going to make the switch to PS this winter. However, I'm leaning towards buying a second-hand PS4 after the PS5 is released. For me, I did Xbox because I loved Halo, but I think I am done with Halo now. I really want to play the Spiderman games. So I will give the PS a try.
This will be the first time in two generations that I will get both. PS5 mainly for the exclusives, Xbox because it looks like it will once again be the best place to play non-exclusive games and of course Halo.
