Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Feh. If they think HD is hard, just wait until everybody switches to 4K in a couple of years. (The true videophiles will have 8K or 16K.)


Unless you're sitting within 7 feet of a 70" screen 4k is completely pointless:

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/


And yet people still buy gold plated HDMI cables.


THANK YOU. We might see 4k screens take off for computers, but they don't make sense for TVs right now.


Yeah, my 22" monitor is 1680x1050 - which http://isthisretina.com/ tells me is retina at 38".

As it happens, I'm sitting about 26" from it - so I need about 50% more pixel depth. Even then, that only makes it 50% of 4K resolution.

A 4k screen at 22" is a retina display at 17". That doesn't sound comfortable - although I haven't played with an Oculus Rift yet...


10 feet away from a 90" screen is what many people with projectors currently enjoy.


Having gone in to see one of the screens, I believe it was less than that from a 60+" screen that I could tell the difference.

Go to a store, e.g. Best Buy, and see. Obviously, the people with the standard 37-50" screens aren't going to see much of a change; but when you get large screens, it's pretty clear


I think 4k will be a hard sell for most consumers kind of like 3D because 1080p is pretty damn good quality. I wonder when we will get to a point where it is good enough.


The general "meh" towards Blu-Ray makes me wonder.


There tends to be quite a bit of lag between available video technologies and what people actually have at home, there's still plenty of Xbox 360s out there hooked up to SDTVs for example.


HD is hard. Game companies are barely got to 1080p/60fps for their games with most of them cheating to get near that quality. This next generation they may be able to just throw process cycles at it for the PS4/XBone. I can't imagine how long it will take to get to the 4K/60fps quality rate.


Which is funky, because I was playing games in 1600x1200@60fps in <2003.


And 3d games < 2003 were rubbish graphically compared to today. There was minimal AA and AF. There were almost no particle effects, shaders were just being thought about. Physics in games were a joke until HalfLife2.


Yes, and? Those were the limits of the hardware. Mobile phones have better GPUs now.

Doesn't change the simple fact that you could run the most advanced games of the time at high resolutions. Everyone was saying the Wii was outdated at launch, and they were right.


Nintendo seem to have always aimed to not compete on graphics and hardware. It's been a smart move while they have managed to engage third party developers to make "decent" games around their headline titles but now they aren't being so successful (thanks to much easier cross-platform dev for console/pc freezing them out of the main console market and the rise of smartphones eating into the mobile market) getting good developers on board their strategy is starting to look hollow.

Which is a real shame because historically they have been exceptional at competing on fun, but you can't justify a £200 console based on the possibility of 1 or 2 first party games a year.


My issue was in talking about quality of graphics by qualifying it with screen resolution and frame rate.

My point was that these are irrelevant: we've been playing games at higher resolution than that for a while.

It was a rather pedantic jab, and for that I apologize. My point stands, however.


I think that is a rater optimistic timeline since the next gen consoles will probably still struggle to do 1080.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: