Will 4k to 16k gaming be as noticeable a visual upgrade as 1080p to 4k was?

[marklar1234]

Assuming that we'll have the raw horsepower and advanced dlss by then to power 16k 120hz

 

Cheers

[Master Disaster]

You mean 8K, right?

 

1080p to 2160p is x4

2160p to 8640p is x8

[Streetguru]

6 minutes ago, marklar1234 said:

Assuming that we'll have the raw horsepower and advanced dlss by then to power 16k 120hz

 

Cheers

4k is plenty

 

the reverb G2 VR headset already has near perfect visual quality as well, which is where the real metric is.

Otherwise no resolution doesn't matter at that point, you're better off using the performance for in game stuff

[Levent]

Depends on the size of the display imo.

[marklar1234]

4 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

You mean 8K, right?

 

1080p to 2160p is x4

2160p to 8640p is x8

I mean 16k. The vids I've seen on 8k gaming are pretty mehh unless you're sitting super close

[Ash_Kechummm]

2 minutes ago, marklar1234 said:

I mean 16k. The vids I've seen on 8k gaming are pretty mehh unless you're sittingng super close

well then 16k is just gonna be more of the same innit (i might sound blunt, i'm sorry in advance)

Edited April 9, 2021 by Ash_Kechummm
it does actually sound blunt, sorry for that

[marklar1234]

3 minutes ago, Levent said:

Depends on the size of the display imo.

65 inch TV?

[Kilrah]

2 minutes ago, marklar1234 said:

I mean 16k. The vids I've seen on 8k gaming are pretty mehh unless you're sitting super close

 

16K will need you to be again 2x closer.

[marklar1234]

Just now, Ash_Kechummm said:

well then 16k is just gonna be more of the same innit (i might sound blunt, i'm sorry in advance)

I have no idea, that's why I'm asking, blood

[marklar1234]

1 minute ago, Kilrah said:

 

16K will need you to be again 2x closer.

What's about a 75 inch TV?

[Ash_Kechummm]

22 hours ago, marklar1234 said:

I have no idea, that's why I'm asking, blood

sorry, lemme explain what I meant (hopefully without salt this time):

1080p to 4k was a 4x jump in raw pixelcount, and it was easy to see the difference.
4k to 8k is another 4x jump in raw pixelcount, but we can't seem to see a difference easily apart from huge 100" or bigger screens.

if you follow this pattern of diminishing returns, a jump to 16k won't benefit anybody unless you want a video wall with the pixel density of a 720p smartphone screen.

Edited April 10, 2021 by Ash_Kechummm
I don't see my english or my math improving :(

[marklar1234]

Just now, Ash_Kechummm said:

sorry, lemme explain what i meant (hopefully without salt this time):

1080p to 4k was a 4x jump in raw pixelcount, and it was easy to see the difference.
4k to 8k is an 8x jump in raw pixelcount, but we can't seem to see a difference easily apart from huge 100" or bigger screens.

if you follow this pattern of diminishing returns, a jump to 16k won't benefit anybody unless you want a video wall with the pixel density of a 720p smartphone screen.

Oh jeepers! Thanks alot mate

[K2S]

16 minutes ago, marklar1234 said:

Assuming that we'll have the raw horsepower and advanced dlss by then to power 16k 120hz

 

Cheers

Nahhh it seems too unlikely. Not because 16k is not sweet, but because the human eye is the bottleneck here! Incase magically tv sizes and resolution increases, then sure. It would be awesome

[Kilrah]

20 minutes ago, marklar1234 said:

What's about a 75 inch TV?

To fully benefit from all the pixels on a 4K TV you need to be at about the same distance as the diagonal, so 75" in this case. With 8K you halve that, and with 16K you halve again so unless you were with your face stuck 18" from the TV you're essentially wasting pixels, and at that distance you can't see the whole TV at all...

 

4K is already all you need even on large screens (I'm on a 49" 4K TV at monitor distance right now). 8K will give that "smoothed text" look at same distance as on a high res laptop if you like that but then you have to use scaling and some stuff looks crud due to it, 16K will be utterly useless for anyone, basically always being way beyond what our eyes can discern at any practical distance.

 

 

[tarsius]

3 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

2160p to 8640p is x8

 

3 hours ago, Ash_Kechummm said:

4k to 8k is an 8x jump in raw pixelcount

 

Guys, you really have to revise your napkins.

[SolarNova]

5 hours ago, marklar1234 said:

Assuming that we'll have the raw horsepower and advanced dlss by then to power 16k 120hz

 

Cheers

Yes but not for the reason some people will think.

 

It will have nothing to do with the physical Displays Pixel Per Inch,

it will however have everything to do with Games LOD.

The higher the resolution, the better distant objects will look.

Every object in a game bar the most foreground objects scene, usually the character, is rendered below that of the native chosen resolution. As such things get more aliased the further away they are as they cross the various LOD settings.

Once resolution gets high enough, even far of details will eventually be rendered at a resolution where aliasing become negligible.

 

Even at 4k, we need Anti Aliasing, unless the display being used is small enough to 'hide' this, or the Game uses motion blur and/or DoF (blur).

 

At '16k' one would expect Anti Aliasing to be totally unnecessary unless the game has very very harsh LOD settings in effect to improve performance.

 

An example of a game with terrible (harsh) LOD is No mans Sky. Even at 4k there's aliasing everywhere due to the harsh render scaling of the LOD settings.

[dilpickle]

16K 240Hz is the current goal for VR.

 

For TVs it is overkill unless you are talking about >200".

[Ash_Kechummm]

19 hours ago, tarsius said:

 

 

Guys, you really have to revise your napkins.

oops

fixed it