bradman
True Bro
token old guy
Posts: 1,178
|
E3 2017
Jun 18, 2017 14:23:40 GMT -5
Post by bradman on Jun 18, 2017 14:23:40 GMT -5
Didn't the Pro launch a year ago? Blowing a year old system out of the water with a new, unreleased system, should be the bare bones minimum it should do Except it doesn't blow Pro out of the water. XbX has more RAM, but its' going to run games at the same resolution and frame rate as the Pro, Destiny2 for example. It will also be a real tough sell at $500 with virtually no exclusives. The upshot for everybody is developers may put more emphasis and effort into 4K/HDR with another manufacturer on board.
|
|
bradman
True Bro
token old guy
Posts: 1,178
|
E3 2017
Jun 18, 2017 14:25:48 GMT -5
Post by bradman on Jun 18, 2017 14:25:48 GMT -5
I think PS4 Pro was about getting a year jump on X, putting something out with some support for VR and 4K, an just to have a SKU to compete with Switch for marketing... in other words more of a strategic than a practical product. VR is available on base PS4, and all PS4s are HDR capable. Pro not only adds 4K, but runs older titles better, with shorter loading times. Better network and wireless performance, etc. etc. . It's a better PS4 in very practical terms.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
E3 2017
Jun 18, 2017 14:48:26 GMT -5
Post by mannon on Jun 18, 2017 14:48:26 GMT -5
It's a bit better than standard PS4, but not a huge jump. VR is available without pro, but VR is also more taxing on systems so I imagine the extra power is nice. I really don't see any good reason to get a Pro if you already have a PS4 unless you really want 4K or just have money to throw around. The cost/benefit ratio isn't great since you won't get much for your old system. If you are in the market for a PS4 anyway or can manage a situation that puts you in that situation then it's just a little more expensive so it makes a lot more sense.
It would be very nice if the Pro, and X were better upgrades and if they were supported to the extent that they really would improve almost all games and that you'd have a choice of what mode to run the game in if you had a 4K display. As is most of the improved games have been pretty minimally improved. If they could actually make 60 FPS almost standard that would really be something. As is most developers are unwilling or unable to do so... *shrug*
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on Jun 18, 2017 19:51:39 GMT -5
The Switch will outsell the X. Handily.
|
|
qupie
True Bro
Posts: 12,400
|
E3 2017
Jun 19, 2017 3:38:30 GMT -5
Post by qupie on Jun 19, 2017 3:38:30 GMT -5
Didn't the Pro launch a year ago? Blowing a year old system out of the water with a new, unreleased system, should be the bare bones minimum it should do Except it doesn't blow Pro out of the water. XbX has more RAM, but its' going to run games at the same resolution and frame rate as the Pro, Destiny2 for example. It will also be a real tough sell at $500 with virtually no exclusives. The upshot for everybody is developers may put more emphasis and effort into 4K/HDR with another manufacturer on board. It has a faster processor, a much more powerfull graphics card and more memory. I think the Destiny 2 thing is not so much that the new Xbox couldn't run it on 60hz, I think it is very plausible it can, more like sony didn't want Bungie them to run it at 60Hz on Xbox (and probably bungie didn't really feal it either, creating two different games for 2 consoles, but I am not sure how much work that would be). Also, here is the problem of the "old generation" all over again... Creating a more powerfull console in the same generation is quite stupid tbh, because developers will have a hard time (and very little motivation) using the additional power while the older systems need to run the same game.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Jun 19, 2017 10:12:41 GMT -5
I dunno. Yeah it takes a little more effort to make your game scalable for performance on different hardware sets. On the other hand there are many many many ways of doing this, such as merely unlocking framerates or using dynamic LoD, ect... You don't even have to tweak the game to run different versions if it can adapt dynamically. Besides this is an extremely minor version of what EVERY PC game has to deal with, and these days most of these games are going to be on PC as well anyway so the same systems to handle performance on different versions of PC's can be applied to the consoles.
Take, for example, Titanfall 2. The game already dynamically alters rendering resolution based on performance and then rescales it to the video display. So rather than bogging down and losing frames it will render lower resolution and upscale. If the system has more power then the game should simply run at higher resolution more of the time. Boom... dynamic. Many games already include some form of dynamic LoD as well and would also automatically benefit from more power. Many other games experience frame drops at various times, and while that's certainly not idea it also represents an area that will automatically improve with better hardware without the need to specifically support it.
The catch is that the benefits are going to be minor unless a game is either designed for it or was already performing badly on the basic hardware. There's currently no HUGE upside to buying one of these more expensive versions. The biggest difference is the ability to have 4K, but the player base that even has 4K displays is still pretty small.
Oh the other hand having any gaming option for 4K on console, however expensive, is infinitely more options than zero. 4K is still new so you've got a lot of chicken before the egg issues same as HD had back in the day. It's too expensive for most consumers, but it won't come down until manufacturers can make and sell them in greater quantities, but there's also only so much you can do with it. You need 4K content for it too or else it's mostly wasted and up to now the consoles couldn't do that which meant only PC or 4K video providers.
Personally I don't think either the Pro or the X are really practical upgrades. They are only going to appeal to a very small market. They also complicate development and testing of games. But having them has some benefits for both Sony and MS. I'd say these are mainly strategic moves. For one thing it's an opportunity to put a new product out that can generate some marketing hype, even if the sales won't be strong. Console generation cycles have gotten very very long and merely releasing cosmetic and slim versions doesn't really fill the gaps well between generations. Both of these also let the developers test out 4K and some improved hardware in the market. They aren't expecting huge sales from these but it does give them some data that can be useful for planning their next major console development. I'm sure they were both feeling pressure to put something new out with the release of the Switch as well. Mostly it's all strategy and marketing hyperbole, though. Neither the Pro nor the X are going to be major contenders in the market. We'll have to wait for the next true generation for that.
Still, if you got the money and nothing better to do with it... gopherit!
|
|
bradman
True Bro
token old guy
Posts: 1,178
|
E3 2017
Jun 19, 2017 11:36:40 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by bradman on Jun 19, 2017 11:36:40 GMT -5
Any TV worth buying in TOOL2017 is 4K ready, so as these sets, which are historically cheap, get into homes, the new iteration of consoles make much more sense.These panels are also better hardware than sets from just a few years ago, making 1080p content look better. Again, this ain't 3D or VR.
|
|
|
E3 2017
Jun 19, 2017 13:05:35 GMT -5
Post by TheHawkNY on Jun 19, 2017 13:05:35 GMT -5
The upgraded systems really don't do anything to change the marketplace. They exist for competitive reasons - against PC, against each other, against the used market.
The question is when will the next generation of consoles come out? How long will it be until the original versions of these consoles are considered to be holding back development (like the previous generations were considered to be holding back Destiny)? How long can they realistically compete with PC in terms of graphics?
|
|
|
E3 2017
Jun 19, 2017 18:04:21 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by GodMars on Jun 19, 2017 18:04:21 GMT -5
We're due for 9th generation consoles in 2019, I'd think.
|
|
qupie
True Bro
Posts: 12,400
|
Post by qupie on Jun 20, 2017 5:07:42 GMT -5
If my current plasma would break right at this moment (it does have some difficulties now and then) I am going to buy an 1080P OLED over an 4K LCD any day (4K OLED are still a bit too pricey). 4K Is hugely overrated imho. I would go for a 50-55" and sit about 3 meters from my screen (42" right now). According to guides you can find online, that would make 1080p barely worth it. Unless you are going to get a 90"screen or are planning to sit with your nose in the tv, 4K really is more of a sales pitch over anything else. One day, in my future man-cave, there will probably be something like this (although a projector could be a better option), but in the living room where my SO likes to hang out too, 55" 1080p is more than sufficient. Really if you look at this graph, who is going to sit 2 meter from a 55" tv? Pc monitor, yeah I can get why one would like a 4k or even better. Living room tv? spent your money on better audio or better dynamic range or higher refresh rate over more pixels.
|
|
|
E3 2017
Jun 20, 2017 7:37:50 GMT -5
via mobile
qupie likes this
Post by blackbarney on Jun 20, 2017 7:37:50 GMT -5
Thanks for that Qupie. I never even heard of Ultra HD. I sit pretty close to my tv so I'm glad to know resolution is something I should consider
|
|
bradman
True Bro
token old guy
Posts: 1,178
|
Post by bradman on Jun 21, 2017 15:52:20 GMT -5
I sit about 7 feet from a 55" set. The 4K difference vs. 1080p is obvious to anyone who sees it. 1080p material looks fantastic as well, why not have more options? You know, if you sit far enough back,you can probably dig out your old VCR and live it up this weekend. Maybe a Golden Girls marathon. Don't forget to listen to some 128k MP3s while you're at it, or maybe that old mixtape on cassette.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
E3 2017
Jun 21, 2017 15:58:11 GMT -5
Post by mannon on Jun 21, 2017 15:58:11 GMT -5
We watch Golden Girls all the time. ;3
|
|
qupie
True Bro
Posts: 12,400
|
E3 2017
Jun 22, 2017 4:19:48 GMT -5
Post by qupie on Jun 22, 2017 4:19:48 GMT -5
I sit about 7 feet from a 55" set. The 4K difference vs. 1080p is obvious to anyone who sees it. 1080p material looks fantastic as well, why not have more options? You know, if you sit far enough back,you can probably dig out your old VCR and live it up this weekend. Maybe a Golden Girls marathon. Don't forget to listen to some 128k MP3s while you're at it, or maybe that old mixtape on cassette. What exactly is obvious though? That your new 4K screen does a better job than the 5 year old 1080? Or that 20 GB 4K video file looks better than the 3 gb 1080P file? That screen or file might have a lot of different enhancements over the previous itteration, and that is probably a big part of what you are seeing as improvements. There can be a lot of factors, but because eye sight is limited it is a fact that over some distance a higher resolution won't change a thing. Doesn't mean other things in your tv/file didn't improve as well. High dynamic range images are beautiful for example. p.s. 7 feet from 55" seems like madness to me tbh but yeah, you are on the edge on that graph, just within 4K range, so your argument doesn't really hold true for my (and many others) situations. The graph is not a golden standard, it is a rule of thumb. If you are even close to a threshold, I would definitely go for the higher resolution, but if you are not even close, why bother? You made the right decision based on your viewing distace, but I think a lot of people are sitting further than 2 meters away from a 55" screen. That is exactly what I am advocating, you do have more options, and if you are buying a relatively small tv or you are sitting far from the screen, opt in for things that matter, like sound quality (external from your tv ofc) dynamic range, OLED > LED and refresh rate. The only option I see with buying a 4K 55" in my situation, would be an option to sit closer in the future. Probably not going to happen. I can spend that 500 extra bucks on anything, now those are options.
|
|
bradman
True Bro
token old guy
Posts: 1,178
|
E3 2017
Jun 22, 2017 15:13:16 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by bradman on Jun 22, 2017 15:13:16 GMT -5
This gives me warm fuzzies, I had these exact same arguments with folks when hi-def started rolling out. Lots of peeps wanting to stick with 480i, lol.
|
|
qupie
True Bro
Posts: 12,400
|
E3 2017
Jun 23, 2017 4:49:11 GMT -5
Post by qupie on Jun 23, 2017 4:49:11 GMT -5
Difference is, that actually made a difference @ Mouse, the eye works in degrees/RAD, so yeah, might be the case that one part of the screen is further away than the other, but you can't change how your eyesight works, it is what it is. The human eye has an angular resolution of 0.02, meaning pixels smaller than 0.02 degree can not be seen. That means 50 pixels per degree. Now lets say your field of vision is 40 degree filled with your TV (which is huge), That would mean you could distinguish up to 50*40 pixels --> 2000 pixels. A 1080P screen has 1920 If we use Tangus to calculate the distance one needs for 40 degree, we get the following: (tan = opposite side / adjacent side as a refresher, I had to google it too ) A 55"screen has a 48"width, 24"(half tv to get 90 degree angle to use TAN), 20 degree FOV (again to get 90 degree angle). tan 20 = 24 / X x = 24 / tan20 x = 24 / 0.364 = 65" (= 5.5 feet, ~ 1.6 meters). So from that I conclude that the chart is actually quite right, as 1920 pixels would be just a little short for that FOV, meaning 4K is worth it. I don't really understand half of what you were trying to say, but fact remains one can not see a difference smaller than 0.02 degree. So as long as one pixel is smaller than 0.02 degree (aka >50 pixels per degree of vision), you are golden.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
E3 2017
Jun 23, 2017 5:07:18 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 5:07:18 GMT -5
This gives me warm fuzzies, I had these exact same arguments with folks when hi-def started rolling out. Lots of peeps wanting to stick with 480i, lol.
|
|
qupie
True Bro
Posts: 12,400
|
E3 2017
Jun 26, 2017 3:52:17 GMT -5
Post by qupie on Jun 26, 2017 3:52:17 GMT -5
I started my math for a 40 degree view angle, which is about the max advised if you don't want any sports (for sports it is 30). So if you get to that 40 degree viewing angle, 4K is barely worth it.
What is the difference between distinguishable and visible? I can understand it could contribute to better color resolution though, didn't think of that (although that doesn't hold as much for OLED, which has multiple LEDs within one pixel). But in my personal experience the graph hold a lot of merit.
Your theoretical cutoff for 4K is exactly what I was talking about. If 1080p pixels hit their smallest distinguishable size, 4K has very limited use. And that is just below the 40 degree angle. (lets say ~37 degree).
Your last sentence hits exactly what I am trying to point out, 4K is often little value for a lot of bucks. Unless you sit really close.
|
|
markopolo
True Bro
Once a LMG Camper, Then a Voidlock, Now a Lexington 25-8-366 Runner
Posts: 5,567
|
Post by markopolo on Jun 26, 2017 10:08:50 GMT -5
I was bored so I checked it out: I sit 14' away from my 42" 780p TV.
If I'm reading that chart correctly, it says that 1080p and the other ones, are not worth it.... unless I get a 72"+ tv.
If that is correct, then the chart is total f$$king bull$hit, because I had a 1080p 55" tv for the semifinals and finals of the Brazillian World Cup... I could totally tell the difference between the 2 tvs then. And it was totally worth it. And because my living room isn't about to change, it will never be worth it for me to have anything other than 1080p? Unless I get a 100"+ TV?
Monica, please.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Jun 26, 2017 15:35:32 GMT -5
I think a better measurement would be to calculate the apparent size of pixels at the closest point of the screen and not worry about field of view or anything. Thing is I think this actually gets a lot more complicated than just whether or not you can make out individual pixels. At some given distance you won't be able to make out individual pixels of either 1080p or 4K, but could still potentially tell the difference between small details on the screen that are more than a single pixel wide. In other words a lot of small details will be made larger and blockier by the lower resolution display. I'd be willing to bet that you get better diagonal lines and edges as well, even if you can't make out the individual pixels. Other rendering artifacts could also be less noticeable at higher resolution.
It's not all about making out individual pixels. In fact I's say very little of what we view on screen has anything to do with viewing individual pixels. We are generally identifying groups of pixels of various sizes, shapes, colors, and textures. That's not to say that there isn't a distance at which 1080p truely is indistinguishable from 4K. I'm 100% certain there is such a distance. I'm not sure the chart has accurately identified that threshold, though.
For that matter people may well have differing preferences. Some may prefer to sit far enough away that they can't see individual pixels for the extra realism. Others may want to intentionally sit close enough that they can to get the maximum amount of information they can obtain from the screen while gaming. Due to this I sit on my couch to watch TV or if I'm playing a really chill game I don't care about the details for. But if I play something with online multiplayer or even just that I really want to appreciate the graphics I get a chair and sit closer to my screen. *shrug* Of course I'm spoiled by having the ability to see all that 1080p detail on my PC so I don't like the downgrade if I sit all the way back on my couch, at least not for anything where it matters.
|
|
bradman
True Bro
token old guy
Posts: 1,178
|
E3 2017
Jun 27, 2017 18:15:12 GMT -5
Post by bradman on Jun 27, 2017 18:15:12 GMT -5
I was bored so I checked it out: I sit 14' away from my 42" 780p TV. If I'm reading that chart correctly, it says that 1080p and the other ones, are not worth it.... unless I get a 72"+ tv. If that is correct, then the chart is total f$$king bull$hit, because I had a 1080p 55" tv for the semifinals and finals of the Brazillian World Cup... I could totally tell the difference between the 2 tvs then. And it was totally worth it. And because my living room isn't about to change, it will never be worth it for me to have anything other than 1080p? Unless I get a 100"+ TV? Monica, please. Yeah, the sacred chart is a bunch of garbage if you have anything close to 20/20 vision. Laughable, actually.
|
|
qupie
True Bro
Posts: 12,400
|
Post by qupie on Jun 28, 2017 4:28:34 GMT -5
lol, just keep wasting money on pixels then
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 5:21:49 GMT -5
But they are the highest quality pixels.
|
|
markopolo
True Bro
Once a LMG Camper, Then a Voidlock, Now a Lexington 25-8-366 Runner
Posts: 5,567
|
E3 2017
Jun 29, 2017 9:24:28 GMT -5
Post by markopolo on Jun 29, 2017 9:24:28 GMT -5
But they are the highest quality pixels. I thought you would have gone with a whole "they're the best pixels" -low fruit - Trump kinda schtick... good for you
|
|
markopolo
True Bro
Once a LMG Camper, Then a Voidlock, Now a Lexington 25-8-366 Runner
Posts: 5,567
|
Post by markopolo on Jun 29, 2017 9:27:15 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2017 15:07:21 GMT -5
But they are the highest quality pixels. I thought you would have gone with a whole "they're the best pixels" -low fruit - Trump kinda schtick... good for you Donald Trump does have a son. He's 71 years old. He has computers. He's so good with these computers- it's unbelievable. He can render fully uncompressed pixels, it's amazing how high quality these pixels are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2017 5:14:45 GMT -5
|
|
wings
True Bro
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by wings on Jul 30, 2017 7:04:23 GMT -5
lol, just keep wasting money on pixels then For me to upgrade there would need to be a big push across most media to make 4K the norm to make the investment worthwhile. I'd happily take graphical improvements for cinematic films that would benefit hugely like Lord of the Rings, but I don't care for sports being shown in the best resolution possible. There are some quality games from previous generations that aren't exemplary in the graphics department but they will still be remembered for being quality games. Amusing we're having the push for graphical fidelity whilst I'm still waiting for another iteration of Crysis, often regarded as the exemplar for graphics in the gaming industry. The last thing I want is another Golden Axe: Beast Rider because of the over-emphasis on graphical resolution.
|
|