4K is crap

Watch
adam271
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
Ok, this is my view.
I believe 4k is just utter tosh.

To game in 4k you need to spend £200-300+ on a 4k TV / Monitor.
Do you see a graphical difference thats worth that amount. Nope.
Go watch a 1080 vs 4k movie trailer the difference is noticeable, yes BUT not massive.

The leap from 480 to 1080 was massive and noticeable. But 4k is just not worth the extra cost and I believe it wastes massive amounts of CPU and GPU power on rendering that could be better spent on photo realism.

Can you imagine how good graphics would be if we stuck to 1080p but just went all in on getting photorealistic graphics? I personally think that would be awesome.

But thats not the way we are going. So, what will happen is graphics will look largely the same as on the ps4/xbox one but just look crisper with 4k graphics which is a shame.


And that is my rant done for the day, feel free to tear me apart.
0
reply
LuigiMario
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
8K is coming!

OK, I'll give references
"Apple AR Glasses: Potential Specs
Apple’s headset has also been rumored to blow even the most high-end VR headsets out of the water. The pair of glasses could use an 8K resolution display for each eye, according to an April 2018 CNET report. That would far exceed the lies of the HTC Vive, that clock in at 1,080 by 1,200 pixels per eye. "

I don't do gaming, but I seem to have quite a few VR things lying around the house, and they are creeping up in specs, soon in Specs!

and back to your point of expensive CPU/GPU/VDU 'why'
https://www.howtogeek.com/688625/nvi...res-whats-new/
with the new RTX3070 outperforming the old , triple the price, RTX 2080 Ti - and getting close to 'reasonable' 4K gaming, I'd say "go for it!' I will buy one this xmas - but then I use my cards for CUDA physics & crypto, as well as just gaming.

it's Moore's Law all over again, doubling in performance approx every 18 months, tho' as this latest GPU series is 8nm, the coming 5nm systems are going to be entering the scary quantum world soon, and more physics will be needed.
Last edited by LuigiMario; 1 month ago
0
reply
ozzyoscy
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
Sounds like from that random outburst that you looked into 4K, balked at the cost, and now are trying to convince yourself you never wanted it in the first place anyway.
Last edited by ozzyoscy; 1 month ago
3
reply
username5383500
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
(Original post by adam271)
Can you imagine how good graphics would be if we stuck to 1080p but just went all in on getting photorealistic graphics? I personally think that would be awesome.
Well we'll have to imagine, since realistically we're a long way away from it. It's not like if we suddenly decided to stop at 1080p and not make any high resolution assets we'd have made huge leaps in more realistic assets.

Not to mention 1080p is hardly the resolution we should be aiming at for photorealism.
0
reply
adam271
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#5
(Original post by AcseI)
Not to mention 1080p is hardly the resolution we should be aiming at for photorealism.
Resolution does not affect photorealism.

(Original post by ozzyoscy)
Sounds like from that random outburst that you looked into 4K, balked at the cost, and now are trying to convince yourself you never wanted it in the first place anyway.
True. You saying the cost is worth it?
It's a bit better if your using a ps5 or Xbox Series X
But if your into a gaming PC you need to spend well over £1000 to get a decent 4k gaming experience probably quite close to £1500 at the min.
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
I have been gaming in 4K for quite some time now and it does make a difference, landscape scenes especially can be truly breathtaking.

RDR2 was magnificent in 4K.
1
reply
College_Student7
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
I could not care less about 4K. Games on the Switch look brilliant (in particular Breath of the Wild) and that definitely doesn't have the best specs.
0
reply
Gofre
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
The idea that 4K cannot provide an appreciable difference is just flat wrong. The current gen (for a few more weeks) consoles typically make less of a pronounced effect since they're having to cheat their way into 4K with things like upscaling a lot of the time, but properly rendered 4K and even 1440p games on modern PC hardware do have visibly superior fidelity over 1080p.

Thankfully we're entering a new console generation where the "standard" consoles from both manufacturers are powerful enough to support native 4K from the outset, and the hardware requirements on PC are also coming down in price significantly, with cards like the 3070 coming in at about the price of a new 4K console and able to be paired with relatively inexpensive CPUs- you're looking at about £650 for a 3070 paired with a 2600/3600 and B550 board once prices stabilise after the early rush of demand, and that's about all most people will need to upgrade any gaming PC bought since the advent of DDR4 with the exception of maybe PSU. And as 4K becomes increasingly accessible it will become increasingly popular, and as it becomes increasingly popular it will see more time and resources invested into it from developers.
Last edited by Gofre; 1 month ago
0
reply
username5383500
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by adam271)
Resolution does not affect photorealism.
If that were actually true, then why don't we just have 480p photorealistic gaming. I'm sure it'd look great /s

Simply put, the fewer pixels you have the more limited you are in terms of the detail you can display. That's not to say you can't have a 1080p photorealistic image, because there are many factors in play. But in this context, suggesting 1080p as a suitable resolution is silly.

A quote in 2015 from AMDs chief gaming scientist:
It starts with the facts that, for a person with 20:20 vision, they will need a screen with a resolution of about 8k-by-6k to enjoy photorealism.

They also go on to say that we'd need hardware that is magnitudes more powerful than what we have now. So even if we did just stop with 4K, we are not even remotely close to photorealism in games. No matter how good some games may look.
0
reply
adam271
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by AcseI)
If that were actually true, then why don't we just have 480p photorealistic gaming. I'm sure it'd look great /s

Simply put, the fewer pixels you have the more limited you are in terms of the detail you can display. That's not to say you can't have a 1080p photorealistic image, because there are many factors in play. But in this context, suggesting 1080p as a suitable resolution is silly.

A quote in 2015 from AMDs chief gaming scientist:
It starts with the facts that, for a person with 20:20 vision, they will need a screen with a resolution of about 8k-by-6k to enjoy photorealism.

They also go on to say that we'd need hardware that is magnitudes more powerful than what we have now. So even if we did just stop with 4K, we are not even remotely close to photorealism in games. No matter how good some games may look.
I guess im blind then.
Im watching Sky News in 360p and it looks plenty photo realistic to me.
0
reply
username5383500
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by adam271)
I guess im blind then.
Im watching Sky News in 360p and it looks plenty photo realistic to me.
Seems like you're just being obtuse for the sake of the argument.
0
reply
adam271
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by AcseI)
Seems like you're just being obtuse for the sake of the argument.
No, I'm being factual.
If you play a game say in 800x600 windowed mode you can crank up the graphics settings to max quite easily to get very impressive graphics.
For the sake of argument imagine how well graphics would look if resoultion wasnt a bottle neck and the processing and gpu power used for resoultion was instead used in polygon count and lighting etc.

You get my point?
If not my point is if we stuck to 1080p we would have so much extra grunt for developers to make games that look far better graphically and technically. Atm we are wasting a considerable amount of the power on the next gen consoles purely on resoultion. Heck some games coming out cant even manage 4k 60fps.
0
reply
CosmicApathy1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by DiddyDec)
I have been gaming in 4K for quite some time now and it does make a difference, landscape scenes especially can be truly breathtaking.

RDR2 was magnificent in 4K.
RDR2 is orgasmic at 4K.
0
reply
Gofre
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by adam271)
If you play a game say in 800x600 windowed mode you can crank up the graphics settings to max quite easily to get very impressive graphics.
Have you then tried running that in full screen mode on a standard sized monitor, never mind a full sized TV?
0
reply
CosmicApathy1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
If you hate 4K then go for 1440p. 2560 x 1440 is still plenty good in 2020. I use this resolution and it's great.
0
reply
adam271
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#16
(Original post by Gofre)
Have you then tried running that in full screen mode on a standard sized monitor, never mind a full sized TV?
Ye that resoultion is obviously not ideal. Just trying make a point.
CosmicApathy1 I agree 1440p is probably a good middle ground. The jump from 1080p to 4k is huge.

That being said hopefully I am wrong, I hope the graphically leap this generation will be of a similar magnitude of the PS2 to the PS3.
I just dont want games that are practically the same just at 4k res.
At the moment though all the games being displayed for the PS5 and Xbox look like they could just run on the current gen consoles.
0
reply
CosmicApathy1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
(Original post by adam271)
I guess im blind then.
Im watching Sky News in 360p and it looks plenty photo realistic to me.
You're not comparing live broadcast television to 3D polygons being rendered are you? This comparison doesn't work.
0
reply
adam271
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#18
(Original post by CosmicApathy1)
You're not comparing live broadcast television to 3D polygons being rendered are you? This comparison doesn't work.
Ok then compare a game playing at 720p on max settings windowed to a game running at 4k on low settings.
And it does work.
Imagine all the processing power being spent on rendering photo-realistic characters and screens at lower resoultion as opposed to have a crisp 4k display of graphics that have been simply stayed the same just upscale for 4k. Because that is what I think we will see.
0
reply
Medkid100
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
Y’all using 1080p? I’m still on 360p
1
reply
username5383500
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 month ago
#20
(Original post by adam271)
No, I'm being factual.
If you play a game say in 800x600 windowed mode you can crank up the graphics settings to max quite easily to get very impressive graphics.
For the sake of argument imagine how well graphics would look if resoultion wasnt a bottle neck and the processing and gpu power used for resoultion was instead used in polygon count and lighting etc.
Factual and obtuse.

This is precisely why I said there are many factors. What you're experiencing here is high pixel density. A 1080p image will look substantially better on your phone than a large monitor, as a result of having high pixel density. The amount of detail being displayed is exactly the same though, because it's the same image. I won't comment on the impact viewing distance has.

(Original post by adam271)
If not my point is if we stuck to 1080p we would have so much extra grunt for developers to make games that look far better graphically and technically.
No we wouldn't, you are severly underestimating the amount of processing power required here. Photorealism is all well and good in 2D images, but when you start trying to push 60+ frames per second it's a totally different matter. Having to push a quarter of the pixels (1080p vs 4K) does not make up for that.

You know what 3D "photorealistic" assets already exist? Movies. With current technology, rendering a 30 FPS movie takes hours per frame. That's without any additional processing to account for player controlled characters, physics, etc. We are so hilariously far away from having a video game that looks as realistic as a movie that's it's untrue.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you travelling in the Uni student travel window (3-9 Dec) to go home for Christmas?

Yes (120)
28.3%
No - I have already returned home (57)
13.44%
No - I plan on travelling outside these dates (83)
19.58%
No - I'm staying at my term time address over Christmas (40)
9.43%
No - I live at home during term anyway (124)
29.25%

Watched Threads

View All