How good is 4K? It seems everyone are pushing to abandon 1080p

>>380880787
Well even at 4k you can still see the pixels so it can't be that good.

>>380880787
4K is a gimmick to get dumbasses to buy another tv now that HD is cheap to make. At some point the eye is incapable of distinguishing the difference between high levels of visual quality, but "muh graphics" is a normie selling point.

>>380880787
4K is a meme desu.
I'll take 1440p with 60 FPS minimum over 4K 30FPS which is what this new generation is pushing for.

>>380880787
More screen estate, more detail and objects visible. It's very nice and useful.

File: resolution comparison.png (2MB, 1316x1316px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1316x1316px

>>380880787
>>380881430

>>380882259
PC vs Console

>>380882259
Which one is which

>>380882259
Good example anon, the resolution doesn't matter if the textures are still shit. Look at that rock.

File: mgsvtpp_2017_06_06_01_09_32_285.jpg (564KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 1920x1080px

1080p

File: rrari2.jpg (435KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 1920x1080px

I can give y'all a quickie example in FH3 if you'd like

Exhibit A: 1080p (High)

File: mgsvtpp_2017_06_06_01_09_51_455.jpg (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

>>380882758

4k.


The difference in motion is subtle to be honest but compare the stills and you see massive improvements.

File: forza2.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>380882815
aaand...

Exhibit B: 4k (High)

>>380881430
You can easily get most of 4K benefits on a regulat 1080p screen thanks to downsampling.
Granted there are diminishing returns caused by the resolution limitation but you can still squeeze A LOT more detail from a 1080p screen just by downsampling from 4K.

>>380881284
4k tv is cheap as fuck too so you wouldnt buy 1080p televisions regardless anymore. and it also looks significantly better in film. in games i havent tried it yet.

>>380880787
anyone who is saying 4K is meme or gimmick is in the same class of poorfag that argued you didn't need anything more than 720p and 480p before that.

>>380881292
This every day. 1440p at 60 is the sweet-spot right now and would make a much more sensible target until the hardware catches up, and I say this as someone with a 4K display. 30fps a shit.

File: 1080in4k.jpg (515KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 3840x2160px

>>380883589
Dark Souls is actually a tremendous example of the benefits of 4k. The armor models are exquisitely detailed.

Also, pic related is what 1080p is like in relation to 4k.

>>380881284
isn't that what they called 'retina displays' on smartphones? what's the cutoff resolution where the eye doesn't see improvement anymore?

>>380884079
It depends entirely on the screen distance, that's why VR still sucks.

File: resolution(3).jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

>>380883973
Yup. Your image demonstrates the sheer difference in screen real estate quite well.

>>380884079
That would depend entirely on the physical dimensions of the screen and how far you're viewing it from. On apple devices the ppi is something like 350.

>>380884354
well, say you're about 1 inch away from the screen, just to see at what point it would be overkill

what about regular computer distance, say 2 to 3 feet, isn't 4k already overkill for that?

i saw someone at E3 announcing a game with shitty graphics for the xbox 1 X and it was fucking 30 fps. like, wat? also minecraft at 4k what a joke

>>380880787
It's a dumb meme.
2k 144hz and 144fps master race

File: 292030_screenshots_20170402154115_1.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>380880787
Pretty awesome, absolutely worth upgrading once 4k monitors become affordable.

4k is the future like 1080p, but nobody fucking has it yet. Stick with a 1080p TV until at least 2020, and don't buy a VR headset until 2025.

File: 4kv1080.jpg (167KB, 1918x537px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1918x537px

If you game at sub-4k, you're basically not even human.

>>380880787
It's pretty good, but still very far for major consumer market.

File: 379720_screenshots_20160911213402_1.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

Particle effects and high detailed textures can unfold their full glory here, especially when combined with HDR the results are excellent.

>>380884778
>what about regular computer distance, say 2 to 3 feet, isn't 4k already overkill for that?
Nah, it's definitely not 'overkill'. My 4K monitor is 28", sitting at about 2' away I can just about make out individual pixels, even more so if I were to run a 3d program without any form of anti-aliasing.
But honestly, it's not even about how games look, it's the amount of space you have available on your desktop and whilst browsing or doing work for example is really great, a 1080p or even 1440p screen feels very limited in comparison.

I'll consider 4k once my 1080p screen is dead and amd deliver high end gpus.
I just love freesync.

File: 20170502165316_1.jpg (1MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1440px

>not going with a nice middle ground between 1080p and 4k

I wish there was more than one game that has good graphics and is actually a good game

>>380887338
there's definitely something that can be said for games being lower fidelity

remember the PS2 games that ran at a shit resolution and had that biliner filtering and 60fps? so comfy. try playing the HD re-releases of them and they just look weird

>>380880787
>4K
you mean 2160p?

File: MH.jpg (3MB, 7680x4320px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 7680x4320px

>>380887569
To each their own, but I can see where you're coming from. And yes, low resolution games have a distinct feel, but it's usually the wonky textures in HD remasters that make it feel off.

File: DOOMx64 2017-05-20 14-34-59-738.jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

Its amazing, you can see so much beautiful detail that elevates games from meh looking to pre rendered e3 bullshot tier good looking. It looks so good I am actually saving for a 4k rig even if it doesnt max everything at 60fps. Theres so much little detail in textures and models that we never see because of the lower resolution, so much so that it seems like a waste to put them in the games at all. I cant wait for 4k to become the status quo, however long that takes. Obviously 144/60 is better for now though.

4k is 4k. Personally I can barely tell the difference between 1080 and 1440 on a monitor a foot and a half away from me so I wont be buying 4k until it is the bottom end but it IS a higher resolution.

Remember: "4k" is a marketing tool, the standard for resolution was the height of the screen in pixels/in^2 (720 = 1280x720,1080 = 1920x1080, 1440=2560x1440) while 4k = 3840x2160. Under the standard naming convention this generation should be called 2160P but they chose the length instead of the height and rounded it up to 4000.

Everything about this is hype to cement at least one more solid generation of traditional monitors before VR sets and interfaces drastically chnge the market.

tl;dr 3840x2160 is a higher resolution than 2560x1440 and that is generally good but beware that all competitors are using the same marketing tool to make it seem like a bigger gain over 1440 than it really is.

>>380888428
You don't need a special rig, just get yourself a beefy cpu. Any modern taxing titles are GPU bound at 2160p or even 1440p in some cases, and those that aren't you'd be able to run well in any case.

>>380888095
i dunno why but i just LOVE the ps2 aesthetic. the bilinear filtering is so perfect looking, and PS2 games have some kind of distinct color filter that the remasters always lack. also reminder that it was like the last console to be 60fps.

i guess plenty of people get floored by new graphics at the time, but when i first saw PS2 footage, i was floored, and the things i described above definitely had something to do with it, because I still think ps2 games are super aesthetic coupled with 60fps

yeah and whoever makes the remasters is usually a bunch of talentless jackoffs

>>380880787
whoa, do 4k monitors come with a 400% zoom option so I can marvel at the details?

>>380885371
>don't buy a VR headset
FTFY

>>380888712
you're right, but consoles have still never seen 1440. fuck, most console games run at like 900p 30fps and still chug

>>380888767
I really doubt my gtx 960 will run games at 4k just because I get a better cpu

>>380885371
I'd say 2030 and 2050. Actually, 2100 and 3000.

>>380883017
>cheap as fuck
>need a new display and console/pc

>>380888712
It's not really about monitors or vr, 4K is more of a marketing term for TVs.
Also 2160p is still 2,25 times the pixels of 1440p.

>>380889084
It's a typo, I meant to type GPU.
But honestly, you would actually be fine on older less taxing titles as you are now. I used to play last-gen games at 4K on a 970 and be able to hit 60fps even maxed out.

4K gaming is a meme

4K with HDR movies isn't

Is 4K the new 60 fps?

>>380883017
>>>380881284
>4k tv is cheap as fuck too so you wouldnt buy 1080p televisions regardless anymore. and it also looks significantly better in film. in games i havent tried it yet.
My dad just spent $2000 on a 4K tv and $50 for a special cable. I told him to wait until networks broadcast in 4K and 4K BDs come out. It could take years.

File: mgs.jpg (619KB, 2560x1280px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 2560x1280px

>>380887569
The problem is a mismatch in fidelity when it comes to the different aspect of the graphics, like resolution, models, textures, lighting etc. The games were designed to look good at a certain resolution, so while you can increase it and it might look OK, often all it'll do is make the low polycount and crappy textures more evident, and you risk losing the atmosphere and look of the game because things just don't gel anymore.

Personally I often prefer playing older games at lower resolutions, particularly things like PSX with its horrible textures and frequent mix of 2D and 3D. The only problem then becomes scaling to the display resolution so depending on the game nearest neighbor/pixel scaling or throwing tons of AA at it is desirable.

File: NE.jpg (7KB, 250x224px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x224px

>spend $3500USD on a 4k 65" Pr0 Xbox 1 X gaming TV
>21ms delay

4k is a meme

>>380890051

I got a 50" 4k TV 2 years ago for $600

>>380890172
This is HDR and UHD.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-55-class-54-6-diag--oled-2160p-smart-4k-ultra-hd-tv-with-high-dynamic-range-silver/5252800.p?skuId=5252800

okay so ill explain this shit to you retards:

the viewing distance and size of screen HEAVILY matters, as well as your personal eye sight.

There are indeed a few conditions where 4k Gaming is great:
1) A very big screen (think 50"+)
2) Sitting very close to the screen
3) Having perfect eyesight

If these conditions are NOT met, theres no point to buy a 4K screen and hardware for it. It's literally a waste of money. You can't see any difference if you don't sit extremely close to the screen, which no one does, because you'd have limited rear sight then.

See smartphones. For them, it actually makes somewhat of a difference to have 1080p+, because the screen is so small. BUT even there, 4k and anything over ~1440p is a waste, you can barely see a differen.

It's all about pixel density, guys.

>>380890096
I think with the PSX it's mostly down to the crappy lighting on low poly models getting smoothed out by the dithering. You can upscale PSP games and they mostly look fine despite the PSP only being a step above the PSX in the resolution department.

File: 1497632714426.png (832KB, 1240x1118px) Image search: [Google]

832KB, 1240x1118px

>>380880787
>mfw all those trash 4k displays with 20+ms of reaction time
I wonder what will be the next hot meme on the monitor market. Curved displays are total shit, 3D crashed and burned, HDR still isn't standardized.

>>380890139
>less than 1 frame difference at 60Hz to the monitor standard of 10ms
Yeah, what a joke right?

>>380891226
console standards are a joke yes

>>380882884
>>380882758
I don't see the difference

File: Untitled.png (59KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 3840x2160px

It's a big change but not as big as it is being marketed.

Games already look bad at 1440 because the textures are too sharp for the models especially in terrain.

File: battlestation_b.jpg (143KB, 1000x676px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1000x676px

>>380890649
>You can't see any difference if you don't sit extremely close to the screen, which no one does
I do, but then I'm a figurative NEET and live alone. Very few normal people have a screen size/seating distance ratio that makes full use of 4K. That's why getting things up to 60fps minimum as a standard should have been prioritized, since the difference would be evident no matter the distance.

>>380880787
4K@60FPS is still simply out of the price range for most consumers.

4K@30FPS is getting into the affordable range, and is preferable if you're only doing browsing, work, or videos. (However if that's all you're using your machine for you're probably content with 2K)

For gaming though, 2K@60FPS is definitely preferable to 4K@30FPS.

>>380891991
>4K@60FPS is still simply out of the price range for most consumers.
Even top notch expensive rigs have issues hitting 60fps in 4k unless it is some lighweight in gfx game

>>380885790
so why 4k? would dual monitors give you more real estate if thats what you wante

>>380891187
>HDR still isn't standardized.
Wait, I thought all (or most) 4k monitors would get HDR. Without it, there's pretty bad gains to requirements ratio.

>>380892241
Because I really like high resolutions, and games (and photos, videos etc) look absolutely amazing in 4k and beyond.
And I have multiple displays, and still the difference between 4K and lower resolution monitors is huge.

File: 1475822161913.jpg (36KB, 805x669px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 805x669px

>>380891881
>Games already look bad at 1440 because the textures are too sharp for the models especially in terrain.

>>380892380
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_video#Standards

wake me up when only 1 or 2 of them remains

>>380892380
I don't know about monitors but almost all 4K TVs in the last couple of years have HDR. The problem is that there a few different standards for content, and displays can have HDR capabilities to varying degrees, which leads to some uncertainty and differences when it comes to proper presentation, colors, calibration and stuff like that.

>>380891937
The ideal is having the edges of the screen in your periphery. No motion sickness from movement on the screen and distractions are minimized.

Curved monitors were a meme. The answer is bigger screens and closer viewing. Remember being close to a screen does not strain your eyes with LCD or LED.

4k native resolution would be a 46" screen ~2' away from your face. Movement on the sides of the screen would act like movement in your periphery.

>>380891187
20ms is just a frame and a half of lag on a 60fps game. For most users is perfectly playable and not noticeable. I seriously hope that you are not confounding input lag with response time, that would be embarrassing.

>>380880787
I bought a gtx1080 with a 4k monitor. Don't do that.

>>380890139
this. I had to plug my ps4 into my PC monitor just to make the games playable.

bloodborne is hell when played on the latency of a tv without a game mode

>>380892808
Have you played a game recently? There is an uncanny effect when looking at high resolution textures on low polygon models but high resolution textures don't create as heavy a load on the GPU as high poly geometry does.

>>380890451
No, the reason that was $2000 is because it's OLED. You can get 50" HDR 4k TV for $700 right now and it looks just as good as OLED for most content.
Also, there are already 4k Blu-ray and services that stream in 4k. If you use your TV for mixed media and gaming it can be worth it over a 1080p TV.

its better to play at 1080p with 140 fps
than to play at 4k with 30-60 fps

>>380880787
Blegh

FPS>Resolution

Great for PC fags because they sit close to the screen, useless for Console fags because they tend to sit far away on a couch

Xbox X should be aiming for 60fps

>>380893579
>Not playing at 4k120

>>380893670
console games rarely run at 60 fps but that is primarily a problem with developers not the hardware.

>>380893418
i can't agree here, beat DS2/3/BB on PS4 using an old-ass low-end toshiba FHD TV without any issues

>>380893431
What you said makes no sense at all.
High resolution textures look considerably worse and off the lower your rendering resolution is.

So much hate, why are people so keen on not realizing that we are so close to affordable perfect fidelity displays.

The real problem is fidelity in world geometry.

>>380894101
What you said has no bearing on what I said.

I am talking about the high resolution textures being used on extremely low polycount objects like rocks and trees. When you have very high resolution textures that imply a detailed surface layed over a rock with maybe 12 faces, the effect is uncanny and detracts from the realism the developer intended with the high res texture in the first place.

>>380880787
I bought a Dell 4k monitor a couple years ago for $400 when it was on sale, and I have a GTX 980.

It makes things clearer, but compared to 1080p it doesn't feel like that huge of a jump. I might upgrade to a 1080ti so I can play newer games in 4k 60fps.

File: 1490244178459.jpg (13KB, 277x277px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 277x277px

4K isn't going to be wholly relevant for a couple of years.
4K displays don't run games very fast and I don't like the tradeoff with FPS
Tons of streaming services don't even do 4K yet, so my 4K Smart TV was a waste of money. Smart TVs are super laggy right now too.

Why don't you just check it here: https://designcompaniesranked.com/resources/is-this-retina/

4k has no benefit unless you're like 1m from a huge TV or monitor, but screens make more money than GPUs for the tech conglomerates so they push it instead of 60FPS.

>>380880787
144fps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4k

TV adoption of 4k is more prevalent than 60fps.

In fact, I don't know any channel that shows in 60fps.

So the market for 4k is larger an more well known, even if by a teensy bit.

As someone who uses his PC to run native 4K on his TV, it is quite nice. The biggest benefits I have seen is richer colors, next to no need for AA, and pictures do not look as soft and blurry as they do in 1080p (Its way more noticeable when you can switch between the two).

However, the requirements to run games at 4K/60 FPS for recent stuff are still pretty demanding and there are a few games I ran into issues with due to unsupported or poor 4K support. For example, there was a common issue with Mass Effect: Andromeda where the cutscenes would occasionally get fucked if you played it in 4K. Not to mention many games require you to turn down some of the luxury settings to get it to work without frame pacing issues (Especially anything to do with Nvidia Gameworks stuff, especially godrays. I've had multiple games take massive nosedives because Godrays were on when playing at 4K).

I still use 1080p sometimes on my TV when 4K is not a option due to bad optimization/shit framerate and I want to play on my couch (I can't do 1440p on my TV well without some trickery), and 1440p 144hz on my gaming monitor when I sit at my desk.

>>380894973
Netflix has many 60 fps shows especially korean shit.

Personally I hate 60 fps for movies and shows but if a game I am playing has an action sequence I will be damned if I give up my 60 frames for a dev's cinematic experience.

>>380893398
Not to mention that even gaymen monitors commonly have around 10-12ms of input lag, so compared to that 20ms even less of a problem than people make it out to be.

>>380895683
Yep, I'd be happy if movies and shows stayed at 24fps and just improved resolution, colors, contrast etc. 60fps just changes the look too much. For games though 60fps is a necessity.

File: 60 fps is not important.webm (3MB, 1280x696px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x696px

>>380896397

>>380896576
I thought this was an encoding issue of an inept rip, but nope, the blu-ray is just as messy. I still don't undertand why they thought this was okay. How the fuck after watching this can you say: "Looks fine to me"?

>>380893225
>Curved monitors were a meme.
Only for TVs at couch distances, up close they're beneficial, and in fact would be necessary for the ideal you mention, which if it were implemented as a monitor would be something like a half-sphere that completely covered your field of view.

4k is great, but there's a catch. Gonna try to keep this in layman's terms

Games use triangles to make graphics. Everything is comprised of a bunch of triangles. Eventually games get the point where they're using more triangles than can be seen at a certain resolution. In this case, the only fix is increasing the resolution, which will allow more triangles to be visible. However, if the game doesn't hit that triangle count, the increase in resolution won't do very much at all to increase visual fidelity, and is basically just a marketing buzzword. Few games actually hit that triangle count to make 4k worth it, and fewer yet on console. The Xbox One X will be a hell of a lot closer to hitting that threshhold than the PS4 Pro, but it's still gonna be spotty

Example: my PC has an R9 280 3GB in it. I can run Metro Last Light Redux at 1440p at low settings, or 1080p high settings. Marketing buzzwords would make you think 1440p looks better, but I'm not even close to hitting that triangle threshhold at low settings, so an increase to res is a moot point. 1080p/high looks much better as a result

4K is a marketing gimmick to trick stupid customers into spending a significant amount of money on something that is relatively unimportant. Obviously it is objectively better than 1080p, but if you're watching from a significant distance away from the screen then you won't notice the difference unless you actively look for it.

>>380882758
>>380882884
>>380882815
>>380882919
>>380891704
You won't be able to see the difference with a 1080p monitor you dumbos

File: 3bbe48050053f783d5bf653bffb319f6.png (146KB, 276x266px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 276x266px

>>380891704
>using a 1080p monitor to see the difference between 4k and 1080p
I got 1080p and I can see a difference in his arm's seems.

>>380897669
You can if you zoom.

>>380897968
What's the issue, just look at the images in their native sizes instead of trying to make out details of an image in 25% of its actual resolution.

>>380896576
I'm not saying it doesn't make a difference, in fact the opposite, but that I personally don't like the look of it, and it would put even more focus on doing Whoa-tier sequences and effects for capeshit movies (just like 3D) instead of having great cinematography, composition, good looking shots and just make great movies.

4k looks real real sharp, HDR which is seemingly tied to 4k makes a bigger difference

>>380898713
Just letting anon know that you can still see some difference even if you don't have the corresponding display

>Just bought a 65 inch 4k TV
>Already wish I went bigger

For gaming, 4k is practically useless because it ruins the framerate.

However, i see the following dynamic at play here: developers will be increasingly incentivized to make games for 4k with "decent" framerates, but the games will still be "compatible" with 1080p, which will lead to higher framerates across the board. Compatibility for old versions of PS4 and Xbox will only add to that.

The term "framerate" seems enters the public discourse more often recently anyway, so I believe there will be a growing acceptance for high framerate being part of visual fidelity (and general playability) instead of just bullshots.

..or am I too optimistic?

>>380895834
No they don't. Gaming monitors have 5ms response time usually if they're IPS and always 1ms if they're TN.

>>380897152
>Half sphere

That TV would have to be bigger than most living rooms to work.

>Necessary for the ideal

No, human peripheral vision is incredibly inaccurate especially with distances and shapes. A flat monitor is easier and cheaper to construct and there would be no quality lost as long as the edges of the screen were near the edge of the periphery.

>completely covered your field of view

This is one of the primary causes of nausia and disorientation. It is a bad hing.

Curved monitors were a meme because most didn't actually rest in your periphery and the ones that did had an extremely niche resolution which meant most games would have to be stretched.

>>380898902
You can see all the differences if you only were to look the images in their actual resolution instead of a zoomed-out mess, it just might be harder to fully understand when you can only see 1/4 of the full image at a time.

>>380890051
your dad is a bit of a retard, because there are many 4k tv options that aren't even half of that price.

>>380899526
Did you even read my first post?

>>380899632
If you're referring to >>380897968 , your post isn't actually telling of how to see the difference, in fact it more implies that you're just looking at a 4k image resized to 1080p.

File: 1467898147767.jpg (54KB, 566x480px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 566x480px

>>380899892
>he's this new

>>380881284
The sad part is that basically nothing you watch on your 4K TV is actually in 4K.
It's like buying a Full HD TV just to play your Wii on it. Not even the WiiU, the fucking Wii.

>>380890051
4K BDs have already been out for over a year. That price is a bit much though unless it was an OLED.

>>380899892
A 4k image resized to 1080p is still better than a 1080p rendering because of the anti-aliasing effect you get from supersampling.

>>380894514
I think the best example of what you mean are the HD/UHD Minecraft texture packs.
The shit looks so freaking uncanny that it's ridiculous. I don't know how anyone can play with that shit.

1080p can be considered established standard today.

The industry is currently trying to push 4k to sell more hardware, however I think there is a chance that 4k will stay niche or become outright obsolete, similar to 3d glasses and VR.

>>380900895
>1080p
>established standard
>most games aren't 1080p but actually dynamic resolution because consoles can't handle 1080p during busy scenes

>>380890172
congratulations, you bought a piece of shit

what's the model?

File: Spaceballs The Reaction Image.jpg (31KB, 499x268px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 499x268px

>mfw bought a PS4 Pro and a 4K TV today

It's so fucking good, totally worth it.

whether you think 4k is a gimmick or not, it's kinda crazy how long 1080p has been the standard for pc monitors. What's it been, like 9-10 years now?

>>380902006
Why buy a 4K TV when you have a PS4 Pro?

>>380902132
Because the Pro requires a TV, it can't display a picture on it's own you dummy.

>>380902006
Spaceballs: The text response

>>380902337
Yeah, but why a 4K when you can go with a 1080p?

>>380902442
pro upscales to 4k and it looks good

>>380902442
Because it outputs at 4K. How about you get original with your shitposting.

>>380902071
1440p could have been the standard but people didn't want to drop 144hz for a mild step up. The prices of 1440p monitors that did 120/144hz were and still are too expensive

>>380900895
>think there is a chance that 4k will stay niche or become outright obsolete
Nope, too late for that. 4K will be the standard for the simple reason that production of 1080p panels is already more or less phased out except for the lowest-end of the TV market. And even if you don't have true 4K content, there are no drawbacks to having a higher pixel density.

On the monitor side it's going to take a bit more time though due to issues with UI scaling and performance and things like that.

Becuase jews can promoge it better than 60fps

4k is only viable depending on 2 things:

1. How big is your screen

2. How far away are you from your screen

4K on a normal Tv with 42 inches above 2 meters will not show you any advantage over Full HD

Mustards play in most cases closer than 50 cms away from their screens so tey can actually see a difference

>>380903120
What is a promoge? I'm not familiar with this term.

>>380901384
Black Friday sales and clearance from new lines arriving mean you can get $2000 TVs for <900 here

144Hz monitors are still superior

>>380902770
I guess it depends on what ppl consider expensive. I got a 1440p/144hz gsync monitor for under $400, and I'm pretty happy with it.

How come ppl have no problem spending that much on graphics card but not a monitor? A monitor will last you 5-6 years at least, you'll likely replace your GPU in 3 yrs or less.

>>380903615
Especially considering how important the monitor is when it comes to graphics and gameplay. It's the one item you really shouldn't go cheap on.

>>380903615
Recently yeah the prices are fine. 2 or 3 years ago it was the ROG Swift at like 900 dollars. If I were to buy a monitor I would definitely rather get 1440p/144hz over 4k/60.

>>380903952
But what about an 8K, 300hz?

>>380880787
Forget 4K and get 1080p OLED

File: 1800hotlinememes.jpg (74KB, 690x460px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 690x460px

Will there ever be a point where the resolution wars will stop?

I mean the difference between 720p and 1080p is enough to give me a headache, but the difference between 1080p and 4K seems hardly noticeable at all to me. I feel like 1080p is the last reasonable resolution capable of expressing adequate detail, whereas 4K simply allows for more distinct noise within tiny spaces.

Like I don't think the gap between 1080p and 4K is enough to express any distinct amount of meaningful detail, and considering the performance loss as a result of 4K rendering, I'd see 4K as totally inferior to 1080p until most hardware is capable of 60FPS 4K high-fidelity real-time rendering.

File: 1497643859584.jpg (11KB, 320x287px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 320x287px

4k at low frame-rate for video games is one of the dumbest gimmicks ever and people are falling for it just like they fell for the pay to play online scam.

File: viewing-distance-tv-monitor-hd-4k-2a9cf0725816d6c7-1280x720.png (65KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1280x720px

>4k

>>380904112
>1080p OLED
Worst advice ever (you'd probably have a hard time finding one anyway, and if you did it'd probably be some banged-up refurb). First-generation OLEDs suck compared to the recent 4K ones.

File: 1327206715091.jpg (10KB, 299x293px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 299x293px

>>380904675
>3 feet from a 55 inch TV 4K TV is optimal

>>380905160
Thats 8k UHD faggot

>>380905394
No, 8K says 2 fucking feet.

>>380882259
There's no frame of reference for this pic. It depends how far away you were from the objects in frame. did you take if from 3ft away? 10ft away? because something like this viewed from 10ft or more away the pixelation would hardly be noticeable unless you had your face right up against the screen.

What a shitty example.

>>380882259
One X vs Pro

>>380897669
ah, so I have to buy an overpriced monitor just to experience a gimmick resolution?

I have a 240hz monitor and a 4k monitor, the 240hz is much nicer to look at. Even just browsing the Internet.

>>380905160
I don't think you understand the graph. It's not talking about optimal distance. It's talking about optimal distance TO SEE A DIFFERENCE.
Meaning you have to be closer or have a bigger TV to see a difference between resolutions.
55" at 2 feet would have a noticeable difference across all high resolutions but 55" at 8 feet and there's no reason to go for anything more than 1080.

>>380880787
You can bullshot with a higher resolution, but not with a higher framerate.

>>380905874
Anon...

The optimal distance to see a difference is the same as the optimal distance. If you disagree can you explain the difference? What else does optimal viewing distance mean besides "optimal distance to see a difference"? What would be optimal about it if you were at a distance where you couldn't distinguish the difference between 4k and 1080p?

>>380880787
Nowhere near as vital as OLED itself.

>>380880787
>It seems everyone are pushing to abandon 1080p instead of 60fps/144fps.
Wait until you don't need a $650 dollar graphics card to do 60FPS in SOME games.

By the time the next gen of GPU's roll around, the X80 cards will be doing 4K pretty well, and the 80ti's will be doing solid possibly even at whatever next meme res we go to.

>Film has been around for 100+ years
>No one has attempted to make a full-length movie at 120+ fps in all that time

File: 1080vs4K.png (633KB, 1551x673px) Image search: [Google]

633KB, 1551x673px

>>380891704
>>380897669
the difference...

>>380904112
>1080p OLED
Too rare. May as well just spring for the 4K OLED.

>>380906232
Which one's which?

>>380906223
They tried 48 but the public was so used to 24fps that they hated it.

Low framerate faggots must have Stockholm syndrome or something.

>>380906184
Because if you have a 80" 8K TV it wouldn't be "optimal" or even logical to sit 2 feet away.
It's just pointing out how stupidly close and huge the TV would have to be to make any difference. Not telling you where you should sit.

>>380906441
it just looks jarring to them. it's something they'd have to get used to - which would only happen if every film dropped 24fps

I don't even have a HDMI monitor yet and you fucks are already talking about 4K stuff? Holy fucking shit how far behind am I?

I need a job fast...

>>380885560
>sub 60fps game
>sub 30fps game

>>380906806
You are literally a decade and a half behind. Holy shit anon.

we finally have a little extra power. lol locked 30 fps games, you buy look nice no?

>>380887569
>try playing the HD re-releases of them and they just look weird
when I emulate ape escape 2 and 3 I always bump the resolution up until my GPU fans start spinning and I love how clean it looks

>>380880787
4k is a real nice bump up in resolution. A friend of mine got a 4k TV a few weeks ago, and after hooking his PC up to it we downloaded a couple 4k movies to check it out. Looks real great. Game also look really nice in 4k, but I'd much rather have a higher frame rate and stick at 1080 or maybe 1440.

>>380906806
>I don't even have a HDMI monitor yet
Remind me what are the 90's like, I miss them.

>>380880787
>no support for 4k in tv broadcasts
>no hype for 4k as far as tv broadcasting goes
>barely any support for 4k in movies
>no hype for 4k as far as movies go
>some support for fake 4k in vidya
>tons of hype for 4k as far as vidya goes
They've identified the audience that's retarded enough to buy it and are pushing them hard. Buying 4k TVs for consoles is like buying gamer-branded stuff for PC.

>>380906441
They do. Then again, for a passive medium it must be difficult to shake off century-old habits.
Glad I'm not into low IQ mediums like cinema.

>>380906630
I understand that it wouldn't be logical, it's too close. But if a comfortable viewing distance is so far back you can't see the difference between 8k and 1080p why would you need 8k?

>>380890051
Ok, so your dad bought an expensive 4k TV. I know 2 people with Vizio 4k TVs, one cost $550 and the other cost $700, and they're both really nice.

>>380906806
I had a 1080p monitor in 2010 for fucks sake. That was 7 years ago the equivalent of 1993-2000.

>>380906363
4k---1080p

>>380907249
I had a 1600x1200 monitor in 1995, checkmate.

>>380907034
Broadcast 1080 still looks like garbage, nobody is ever going to broadcast in 4k. There's no reason. 4k is mainly for movies, and not movies streamed over Netflix. Any kind of streaming or broadcasting compression totally defeats the point of 4k.

>>380907034
Actually games are what usually drive adoption.

Remember when PS3 came out in 2006? It had a Blu-ray player back when nobody had an HDTV. By 2009 when the PS3 Slim came out still only half of households had 1080p.

Games being 4k are what will drive everything to be in 4k. Even if Xbox One X doesn't do 4k gaming, the fact that it has a UHD Blu-ray player will drive 4k adoption the same way PS3 did for HD.

>>380907529
HD sports drove HDTV adoption.

I currently use a 720p 32" tv as my pc monitor.

Yes. Everything is big, and you can clearly see the pixels.

I was gifted a Titan Xp, and was wondering which screen I should get...

Should I go for 27" 1440p?

Or, should I get a 32-40" 4k tv as my monitor?

I have tried 24" 1080p in a cyber cafe, and that pixel density was nice. I've read that it's the same as 40" 4k.

I'd like a screen that makes me ENTER inside the games, and help me deconnect from my real life.

>>380890051
I sure hope it was an OLED because you can get 4k TVs as cheap as like $300 for smaller 40 " inches. Even up to 60" it's not that expensive unless you go OLED or some shit.

>>380907150
That exactly the point of the graph. It's saying if it's a smaller screen and/or far away then there's no point in high resolution. It's showing how pointless super high def is because most of the time it's no different from where you'll be watching.

>>380908126
Sell the titan for a 1080ti and spend some extra cash for a 4K monitor instead of a tv.

>>380906441
Don't know why. Movies would be twice as fast meaning the movie theaters can show twice as many in a day and make twice as much profits. Seems like a no brainer

>>380908569
I can sense the dumb fish already swimming for this bait.

>>380908569
But I already watch my movies at 1.25x speed, that would just make them unbearable.

>>380908541
Tried, but none wants to buy it at that price.

They can get 3 fps less and save half the price by buying a 1080Ti.

File: 39834-river-raid-atari-2600-screenshot-a-game-in-progress.gif (3KB, 320x200px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 320x200px

4K is nice, but I'm not paying for a new console and a TV if I'm just playing the same substandard video games.

I literally played River Raid today and had fun. It's hard to do that with a lot of modern console titles.

>>380908126
>I'd like a screen that makes me ENTER inside the games, and help me deconnect from my real life.
Feels bad man, we all know that

Feels like both resolutions over 1080p and FPS over 60 has some pretty big diminishing returns. At least for the ridiculous price you have to pay.

Though granted I've mostly just played games with them in shorter bursts while visiting a friend, but at least then it was kinda underwhelming.

>>380897669
yes, you will. it'll act essentially as the highest quality anti-aliasing there is.

>>380906806
>I don't even have a HDMI monitor yet
HDMI is legit worth it for even 720p. Composite has charm, but HDMI always tops it as long as the encoding is good or source is raw.
I highly recommend picking up even a second hand HDMI capable monitor to check it out. In your case though, some kind of hdmi capable CRT might be preferable.

>>380880787
When 1080p came out, you didn't have to look at pictures side by side to see a difference. It was obvious as fuck. When I got my 4K TV, I didn't notice a difference between 4K and 1080p UNTIL I saw them side by side. That means yes there is a difference, but not enough that it will change your world like 1080p did.

The only thing that makes my 4K TV seem worthwhile is the HDR which is extremely noticeable.

>instead of 60fps/144fps
This is just as bad as the 4K hype. 30fps is fine. 60fps is admirable, but what is more important than 30 vs 60 is stable vs changing. 60fps dropping to 50fps is infinitely worse than 30fps if that 30 holds steady.

>>380882259
>4K has 4x as many pixels as 1080p
>left picture has 9x as many pixels as right picture
What 2 resolutions are you trying to compare anon?

File: diagonal_pixels.jpg (822KB, 2560x1392px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 2560x1392px

>>380880787
>People still fall for this bullshot

4k was retarded, still retarded, and will be retarded for the very least 3 to 8 years, until we finally start seeing UHD TV channels and 4k textures in games. Thanks to monopolistic broadcast companies and console scum, that won't happen anytime soon.

>>380910942
But early adopters are a good thing to make the price go down faster, just to buy when its really better

>>380910656
Fairly sure that's just caused by jpeg compression being shit.

File: diagonal_pixels.jpg (195KB, 1570x1000px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1570x1000px

>>380911139
Nope, no other square have this, that's totally diagonal "pixels" to make the eye look more round than it actually is, you can check the nvidia site directly.

>>380911462
"Hey guys let's demonstrate the power of 4K"
"Fuck it's not good enough just fuck with the pixels and make it better. No one will notice"

>>380881292
Now I just want to see memes in 4K. Just to emphasise the 4K meme further.

isn't 8k already coming? why dump a shitload of money on 4k when you can get 8k later?

>>380912771
>waiting for 8k when you could just wait a little longer for 16k
Waste of money to be desu.

>>380912771
8K is already here. It's just never used cause nothing is filmed or played in 8K.

File: 1484593585679.gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>380913434
> nothing is filmed or played in 8K

IMAX 3D

>>380903615
I always wonder why people are willing to spend shitton of money on GPU while skimping on monitors. Hell, monitors will last through multiple CPU upgrades and having graphics settings up isn't gonna help much if you are viewing vidya through the cheapest possible TN monitor. Better colors, better contrast, higher refresh rate, G/Freesync, all of them make absolutely massive difference.

>>380881284
For gaming it makes sense. It is definitely way fucking clearer in 4k. As for everything else, yeah it's fucking retarded. Nothing really supports it fully yet. Though, if I had to pick between 4k and higher frame rates I will always pick frame rate. Playing on a 144hz monitor is fucking amazing.

>>380913551
That's true. I was thinking nothing commercial or for home.

>>380913627
Exactly, and that's part of the reason why getting a 4K TV makes sense. Even if the resolution itself doesn't matter you're getting something with a higher refresh rate, HDR, and all that other shit that will make anything look better.

>>380912771
Because:
-it's not a shitload of money
-you get it now instead of later
-4K is already hitting diminishing returns in a bad way, how pointless do you think 8K will be for most setups?
-the same problem with lack of content and difficulty to drive games at high resolutions except even worse.

Also if it matters to you 4K is about the limit of what you can get out of physical film, so for the first century of that medium there would be no point going further than 4K.

File: 1497418675023.png (729KB, 730x732px) Image search: [Google]

729KB, 730x732px

>>380880787
It's been about a year since I've checked in on 4K. Are there any good monitors under $400 yet? Because it seems like last year every 4K monitor that didn't have shit colors or shit refresh rate was at least $600+

>>380912771
8K isn't coming to consumers for at least 4 years, and not at an affordable price for at least another 3
>>380912979
That's not coming until at least 2030. There isn't even a 16K TV in existence

>>380913627
Anyone who uses TN should be publicly mutilated. I still use VA panels from many years ago. Why should i buy a new monitor? High refresh rate? Don't make me laugh, it's only for dumb dudebros playing session multiplayer shite

File: porn.png (3MB, 1544x1200px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1544x1200px

>you'll have to redownload your javs once 4k becomes mainstream

File: preview.jpg (24KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 512x512px

>>380884079
It's strange, but the difference is negligible in general use between a 5.5 inch 1440x2560 display (538dpi) and a 5.5 inch 1080x1920 display (401dpi).
But little things like the tiny stars on the Pokémon Go app icon may not be visible on the 401dpi display, whilst you an see them on the 538dpi display.
It's a detail that absolutely doesn't matter on a screen that size anyway, but it's observable.

>>380882259
>you have to zoom in to even see the difference
Not worth it

File: Catsuit.jpg (4MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3840x2160px

I cant get off unless I see the fabric in the clothes

File: 1497720916564.png (9KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 420x420px

Every discussion about this meme resolution to get you idiots to buy another TV gets derailed into so much shitposting that the shills end up winning cause no one is certain of anything anymore lel

Why bother? 8k is where it's at, just wait until super ultra HDHD TVs are cheaper in a few years. Shit will blow 4k plebs out of the water.

>>380913434
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfOLimMAhrs

skip to 4:00

>that fucking framerate

>>380914112
I tried some Doom on a 120Hz monitor, it was pretty uncanny, but in the end I'm fine as long as it's 60fps. Agree TN is shit, but VAs have their share of issues as well.

>>380880787
>spam
1440/60FPS is a thousand times better than 4k/30FPS but they don't get to use as many buzzwords or sell as many TVs.

Sacrificing framerate for marginally better graphics is never worth it.

Unless you're a film librarian with incredible ammounts of money and connections to get original files of 2K/4K restorations of films/films themselves because BD is too stinky compared to a private 32mm tapes collection, 4K is still a meme.

if you can afford a high end GPU and a 60fps 4k monitor, 4k is pretty great but it is practically the definition of a luxury and not a necessity. i have a 30fps 4k monitor, but the strong suit is not games or even netflix or whatever, i like having the 4k monitor because my eyes are shit and it's easier for me to read larger text.

i can crank up the scaling and everything doesn't look like a pixelated potato shitblob so i can dig 4k for that reason.

1080, 4k, i dont care

I just want 60fps to be industry standard across the board

>>380914112
Yeah, VAs are quite nice. My monitor is IPS which is otherwise great, but it greatly suffers when presented with a dark scene, the contrast just isn't there to handle them perfectly. A VA panel would be a lot better for that, considering that they have a lot better contrast ratio and can do blacks and near black detail much better.

Too bad that there weren't really any 1440p monitors that had VA panels back then when I bought that IPS one.

>All these people saying they can't see a difference

Well other people can, you blind shit

>>380899572
not the anon you are replyIng to, but there isnt a single 75 inch tv less than that im aware of and my folks just did something similar for similar reasons.

>>380916260
75 inchers are fuckexpensive luxury options, not something one should consider when talking about the prices of regular televisions. It's 55" or 65" for almost everybody now, with 55" being the regular option and 65" being the one for people who want bigger screens. Anything past that, the proce premium becomes almost unbearable.

File: greatness awaits.gif (2MB, 504x279px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 504x279px

>>380880787

If you want 144fps the way to go is 2560x1440p not 1080. 1080 has long been "solved" in the case of mid end to high end gfx cards. Even a cheap $200 580 can handle 1440 very well.


4K with full HDR is the real deal though.

File: 1466895467132.png (65KB, 277x219px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 277x219px

>all these pixels
Fuck, it reminds me too much of me playing Counter-Strike 1.6 on software mode on my grandmother's gateway years and years ago

>>380914912
AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>380880787
4k is just the latest TV and console trash meme

>>380916028
That's IPS for you, great with bright stuff and absolute shit with dark scenes. I get why it's popular with monitors, but it goes beyond my understaning why there are televisions with IPS panels. Couldn't stand to watch movies in dark with IPS screen.

>>380905674
fuck off fucking xbot retarded

8k is far superior, wait for that.

>>380918447
>8k
>not 16k

Online games cant run 4k at good fps.
Shitty cable tv can barely make 1080p work and it still sucks.
Dubious improvement depending on tv screen size snd viewing distance.

>>380918447
>>380919651
ok so if more number is better then what I don't understand is why we don't just jump up to the biggest number? is this like some jewish thing to milk the money instead of just giving the best right away?

>>380920236
Cost versus production. It's difficult and expensive to make high pixel density screens like that and there are only so many people willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars for them.

This is economics 101 kid.

4K is great but not viable. Industry should've gone 1440p60fps with 4K being the next step but instead they're making a huge leap that the hardware can't match up to.

>>380881284
the difference is visible for monitors but for TV screens where you're sitting a certain distance away, you're correct.

>>380920236
oh and also come 4k is to better than 1080p? 1080 is waaaaaaaaaaay bigger than 4

>>380884079
>what's the cutoff resolution where the eye doesn't see improvement anymore?

it depends on distance from the screen and size of the screen.

>>380920335
ok so what is economics 4k?

>>380881284
I hope no one actually believes this. I can quite clearly tell the difference between 1440p and 1080p on my 5.5 inch smartphone, it would be even more noticeable on a bigger screen.

>>380915534
We're going to see more 4k/30fps because of shitty consoles.

4k/30fps, the GPU is the bottleneck. 1440p/60fps, it's the CPU.

Is 4K the end boss of resolutions? I don't see how you could push much higher than 4K in resolutions and still have a noticeable increase how the picture look at normal consumer display sized/view distance.

I don't get it. What difference does it make for a smaller monitor? Will there even be a discernible difference when 8k arrives?

>>380880787

I find 720p to be perfectly adequate. I sit on a couch, and have my PC hooked up to a 60" TV about 8-feet away. My games easily hit 60fps with high graphic settings, on a shitting 2 year old 'gaming laptop' (that is 1080p native). There's pretty much no difference, so I allocate resources to framerate and better graphics instead of microscopic picture improvement you won't notice after the first 2 seconds.

There is no reason you'd need anything higher than 1080p on a screen that you're more than 5 feet away from. The reason phones/tablets use 4k is because your face is right in front of it, so you can absolutely make out every single pixel. They *have* to be ultra high-res.

File: 1347117087636.jpg (260KB, 920x662px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 920x662px

>>380922067
>720p on a 60" TV

>>380885371
>4k is the future

I think this is a really good description of what 4k is. Soon, it will be standard. But, right now, no, it's not remotely necessary or even useful on a television. Just a ton of people singing its praises because it's new and shiny, and not thinking about whether or not they actually need it.

>>380921103
Definitely not for monitors, on a decently sized 4K screen you can still see pixels and aliasing on diagonal lines without AA.

For general TV use it probably should be the end game, but it won't. TV manufacturers will still want to sell you 8K even if it's largely pointless over 4K.

>>380922550
I'd rather the overall quality standard of TVs to rise. There's a shitton of bad 1080p displays out there, and there'll be plenty more of shit 4K displays in a few years toting "HDR" compatible, even though it'd look worse than a proper 4K display.

I'm on PC and prefer framerate so went 1440/144hz.

I'll make the jump to 4k when I can regularly run it over 100fps and can download most of my movies at that res

>>380922139

You would understand if you tried it. The higher the resolution your PC outputs to a big screen TV, the harder it is to read a fucking thing. At 1080p, my desktop icons start to get uncomfortable to read because they're so tiny. At 4k, they'd just be specs on the TV. Sure, you can scale the OS, but that doesn't change the interface in games which can also get tiny.

You're talking about a TV that is rougly twice the size of a computer monitor. So think of your desktop icons, then imagine them twice as big, and trying to easily read them from 10 feet away. Or the HUD in your favorite vidya.

And that is why low res is best for living room PC setups. Sure, you can read it, but it's hard on the eyes to do it for hours on end. The better graphic performance is just a bonus.

>>380922724
Eh, if people don't care about buying shit then let them buy shit. There are really good, in-depth review sites now so it's not much of an issue even if you have high standards.

>>380890051
>$50 for a special cable
Fuck, your dad is dumb.

>1440p/144hz PC monitor for shooters and twitch games
>4K TV for all the "cinematic" console games that only need 30 FPS

Best of both worlds.

>>380908291
>tfw not in the market for 4gay
>tfw OLED makes me hard as a rock from a mechanical perspective
The technology is just really cool.

>>380923221
Yeah, but we're not at the point that an HDTV can potentially suck until you update the firmware on it.

>>380880787
It's easier and cheaper to upscale, than to target 60FPS

>>380923204
That's only a problem for older games, I don't even remember the last time I played a game that used fixed pixels instead of relative scaling for UI. And you can just lower the resolution in those cases and problem solved.

>>380882259
Oh no. I thought this was a real picture made pixelated.

>>380923243
144hz is a meme faggot


ill be here with my comfy 1080p 60hz ips panel monitor and my 4k tv

>>380924548
Enjoy your microstuttering poorfag.

Not gonna bother with 4k until 4k 144 Hz monitors are more common. I think right now there are only 2 on the market (acer and asus I think) and they are mega expensive, plus the money I would uave to spend on graphics cards to push to at 60+fps is pretty steep too. For now I'm content with 2560x1440 144hz

File: XR_3DA 2017-06-17 20-35-40-677.jpg (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

wait a second....

>>380923317
It really is, especially the fact how the whole screen is basically just one ultrathin film is really cool.

>>380925158
I can't wait until there are affordable 4k 144hz monitors with reasonable response times. I will no longer accept anything less than 4ms at 144hz.

>>380880787
You have literally no reason to ditch 1080p atm unless you got a fuckhuge tv or monitor,

You are better off upscale to 4k on a 1080p monitor since the pixels are so small you dont even notice the difference.

>>380925826
Although by the time it happens we'll probably start seeing 8k monitors. Apple already offers 5k and 8k cameras are a thing.

>>380881284
With proper 4k textures you're god damn right there is a massive difference.

However 99% of "4k" things are upscaled so there is no actual differences.

>>380926575
Dell is selling an 8k monitor for 5,000 dollars. The average consumer is going to stop at 4k. 8k will be for artists and people that need that for high detail accuracy.

>>380882884
Even on a 1080p monitor the 4k has a much smoother anti aliasing look to it compared to the jagged 1080p screen.

>>380910942
>tv channels
>relevent in any way

r u 80yo or something.

im ready to move to 4k the moment there are more 4k blu rays and 4k streaming doesnt look like total ass.

no one watches tv anymore faggot

>>380900242
Netflix, amazon, and a lot of youtube content is in 4k right now, and it looks pretty great. the fuck you talking about

File: 1497602108447.png (59KB, 252x221px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 252x221px

>>380881284
This pretty much. these companies need to make the money they once did so they found a market for 4k resolution.

File: luffy!.jpg (50KB, 320x232px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 320x232px

>>380882556
Fucking kek, played this so much and still laugh about the rock textures.

>>380880787
>Buy 4k Television
>Buy 4k ready hardware
>Spend thousands on that shit and nothing supports it
>When things finally start supporting 4k, 8k will be a thing that exists

File: 1398292600608.jpg (120KB, 500x608px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 500x608px

>>380880787
>Newest games are all in 4k
>At 30 fps sometimes drops lower

>>380887338
>>380883589
I wonder why the nips put such detail into everything when the weren't even initially going to bring it to PC anyway

File: TESV.exe_DX9_20170519_093557.jpg (201KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1080x1920px

Better textures and models are more important than resolution past 1440 desu

File: 1497724975693.jpg (292KB, 1000x600px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1000x600px

>>380897669
The trees and grass looks a lot better.

>>380889323
stop being poor

>>380887696
4K sounds better.

>>380929642
It's called actually having pride in what you do, something the west knows nothing about.
*TIPS KASA*
*FADES INTO THE SHADOWS*

>>380880787
because industry is cancer and pc plebs think 4k is the greatest thing ever, its just uprendering console assets

>>380929940
I had an English teacher in school who didn't know she had long sighted vision problems until she was about 15. She just thought trees were supposed to look like green blurs unless you were up close.

>>380890649
I see people post stuff like this all the time and I have no idea what they're talking about. I go to electronics stores, look at the side by side comparison and notice a difference right away.

File: guesswhicho6lk.jpg (172KB, 749x643px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 749x643px

>>380929642

Some of that detail can be seen in game, it looks weird but you can tell there's something there.

File: iz4j768blh2z.jpg (1MB, 4647x3098px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4647x3098px

>>380882758
>>380882884
The only real difference I see on a 1080p monitor is that the farther details are a little more defined, like I can see more individual branches and leafs (leaves? plural of leaf?) on the 4k res than the 1080 native.

That said, 4k downscaled to 1080 does look a little more crisp, but the difference being overall game performance. With a 1080Ti, I can get away with 4k downsampled without AA, but I'll usually get a continuous 60fps without drops ever if I just run 1080p with as much possible AA as I can throw at it.

For anyone who wants more AA, set the game up to max, then go into your video card control panel settings and get the card to supplement what it's already doing to the game. I get some good shit out of this sort of thing, without the frame slap in the face from 4k. I'll take some photos of DragonAge Inquisition to show what I mean. Video gameplay would probably make it more apparent, so I'll try that, but youtube will fuck me anyways because I don't know what settings in Vegas will give me the best result.

>pic not related, wait up for the DAI pics

>>380880787
They aren't pushing it.

They're pushing fake 4k like it's real though, I'm sure there's some loop hole they can abuse in court if it's ever brought up.

Sony and Microsoft fucking trying to be Chinese salesman and shit.

Reminder: Do not learn Mandarin.

File: 1.jpg (785KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

785KB, 3840x2160px

4K is a the future.

File: these aren't my glasses bird.jpg (67KB, 569x315px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 569x315px

>>380883589
>Eyesight is bad
>Don't bother with glasses or contacts
>Used to seeing everything kind of blurry at a distance
>Seeing really clear distant objects with 4k looks "fake"

>>380931406
>>380931459
>>380931514
>>380931559

Not video games.

>>380930839
That's me right now, a bit.

It isn't so bad. A nice upside is that it makes everyone way more attractive when you can't easily see their imperfections.

>>380918447
How long till that's affordable? 10 years? Great advice.

>>380931514
>>380931559
wtf i love 4K now

Recommend me a good TV for gaming and anime /v/. My price range is 400-600.

>>380881284
Say whatever you want about whether you think 4K is worth it or not, but the "muh eyes can only see so well" meme needs to stop. If things were up to you fags we'd still be at 480p with 24 fps.

>>380880787
I don't play games with a screen 1 foot, or less from my eyes, so i don't give a fuck.

File: 1494415391095.jpg (225KB, 682x600px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 682x600px

>>380931897

File: 100-percent-nuclear.jpg (48KB, 601x469px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 601x469px

>>380902006
hellooooooooooooooo shill

>>380931514
>>380931559
What kind of fucking dance is this supposed to be?Is she mocking people?

>>380932090
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxZvLRPF2j0

4k is still a meme resolution as long as japs keep making fucking games thinking on 720/1080p as the base res and 60fps in mind.

And what's up with the shill posting resized shit for 1080p shots?

4K is fine on PC. Garbage on console since it'll be both unstable 30fps, and motion blur out the ass which hides any detail you'd get in motion that 4K offers.

File: Untitled.jpg (248KB, 850x550px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 850x550px

>>380932203
It's easier to tell the difference if you zoom in.

>>380931459
Where's the lonk

>buy into the 144fps 4k meme
>a year later realize i wasted my money
for one, even my 1080gtx cant fucking run new games at 60fps consistently at 1080 let alone at 4k
of recent games doom4 ran best probably keeping around 200fps maxed out at 1080

but when i do play older games at 4k i only see how shitty and dated teh graphics are, rowel resolution better hides crappy draw distance and shtity repeating textures
only advance of 4k seems to be getting rid of jaggies, but proper alaising at4k will melt your fucking gpu, so you are left with shitty post aa solutions that blur the shit out of the screen and you might as well play at 1080p at this point

>>380933936
>144 fps 4k
There are two monitors on the market that offer this and one of them only just came out. In fact I'm not even sure if there are two.

Once 4k becomes the standard and not just a selling point I'll hop on it.