Initial D World - Discussion Board / Forums [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

Initial D World - Discussion Board / Forums > Computers and Technologies > Is 4K Really Necessary?

Posted by: khat17 Nov 11 2017, 08:09 AM

An attempt to rekindle this section of the forum.

So video technology has been getting better and better. Phones give good quality video and cameras are getting better as well (both still and video).

Now we've moved to 4K video which is excellent. But do you think it's necessary? I mean - from a tech perspective it's nice that we're moving forward with the development, but can the human eye discern details above a certain point? The differences between 720/1080 that I've seen is marginal. Unless I'm specifically sitting and looking for stuff, it makes no difference. I can watch it and it still looks good. Details are still there. So when I go to 4K - what am I going to see there that will be noticeably different from 1080? And when we move to higher than 4K - what would the benefits be?

From a gaming perspective - I think it's just another ploy to make more money from the consumer. I've had persons running older AGP cards but still dominating online. The higher priced hardware doesn't make the difference to the gamer (as long as he/she is comfortable with it).

From a photography perspective (not professional) there's little difference. My phone can take some decent quality photos, but I still turn down the quality to 8MP. Unless I think it may make some difference I don't raise the quality. Still looks good and takes up less space.

So - waiting on your thoughts.

Posted by: xiao Nov 11 2017, 08:36 AM

Yes .. to me it's necessary.

Remember when people were arguing if the transition from CRT to LCD screens was necessary, and likewise from DVD to Blu-ray, and from BlackBerry to PDA/Smartphones, and from 56k to broadband internet？

I mean if I compare a YouTube video on my HTC M9 phone to the same video on a Galaxy Note 8 .. my eyes'll throw my HTC M9 in a volcano pit & choose the Galaxy Note 8 in a heartbeat.

We're just getting old & grunchy & worried about RL things like time money and being pragmatic. If you were to ask the same question to an 11 year younger version of yourself ～ you'd probably say hell j'yeah boy bring on the 8k screens！ user posted image

Posted by: Nomake Wan Nov 11 2017, 01:59 PM

At some point you get diminishing returns. In my opinion, it makes little sense to exceed a 24" monitor because you start getting color shifts in your peripheral vision beyond that size.

So, the solution? VR. Size and resolution requirements are very different when the 'monitor' is right up against your face.

Just my opinion though. I don't see the point of 4K since I don't have enough content to warrant it.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Posted by: SgtXDNX Nov 11 2017, 06:04 PM

Definitely agree with N1 on this one, I don't really see the need for 4K when I've got 2 1080p monitors on my desk that look fantastic and didn't break the bank. Between that and the Rift, I don't really need another hideously expensive monitor to replace them, even if they do look pretty sharp.

For the photography thing, I usually shoot in high-res out of habit, makes images way easier to clean up before resizing them to the res you actually need.

Posted by: khat17 Nov 11 2017, 06:42 PM

QUOTE (xiao @ 9 hours, 58 minutes ago)

I agree that moving forward is necessary. Think I said so. But for the average person (and even the average gamer) I don't think it's necessary. It's more of a commodity that you can go for if you want. Visually it may be very nice, but the human eye can't discern more than a certain number of frames or colors.

QUOTE (Nomake Wan @ 4 hours, 34 minutes ago)

And I agree here. VR is the way to go. If they can do 4K and then move the content to VR then fine.

QUOTE (SgtXDNX @ 30 minutes, 16 seconds ago)

Photographers will always shoot in higher resolutions for the same purpose that you said. Easier to clean up after. But day to day usage really doesn't warrant the higher resolution or megapixels. If I'm not mistaken - the older DSLR cameras had like 8MP but would give you far better quality than phone cameras that have say 16MP. Lens and image processing make the difference. In reality - a phone is for calling but it's evolved and gives access to lots of other stuff. If you want to take good photos get a camera.

I'm not against the change. But I can't personally justify throwing out my old stuff to get new 4K monitors that I won't be able to appreciate above 1080. But that's just me.

Posted by: Meteor Nov 14 2017, 04:56 AM

4k isn't a must yet, and it'll be at least a few years before it is. 1080p is already fairly high in detail, there's a relative lack of good 4k content so far, the tech is still kinda expensive, and it's very demanding on the tech that does currently exist. It's certainly nice to have, but at this early stage, lower resolution displays will still do just fine and cost much less.

There's one thing I have to disagree with though.

QUOTE

the human eye can't discern more than a certain number of frames or colors.

The human eye doesn't see in terms of "frames". All it sees is photons hitting its receptors multiple times a nanosecond, and transmits that information to the brain at a rate limited only by how fast the nerve signals can get there. Even if your brain can't always process all of that information, it doesn't just throw it away - it does the eyesight equivalent of frame-averaging and makes use of the information as best as it can.
For all intents and purposes, the eye's "framerate" can be considered unlocked, and present day displays just aren't close to the maximum rate at which either the eye or the brain can process images. Now I would say that you don't need more than 60 fps (except maybe if you're a pro gamer playing something that has the physics and/or inputs tied to the framerate), but that doesn't mean the eye won't notice a difference switching to something higher.

Posted by: 207 Nov 14 2017, 09:03 AM

id say its not needed. my current TV is still good and working with good pic quality. why throw something out before it breaks/isn't broken??

4K is just a new way to grab cash from people that dont need it right now. society is already of a disposable nature with popular new tech devices. 4K TVs are easily lumped into that disposable tech category.

Posted by: khat17 Nov 20 2017, 02:46 PM

QUOTE (Meteor @ Nov 14 2017, 04:56 AM)

A little too technical - but you got what I was saying in any case. Some games when I go over 60FPS I can see the difference it makes. But I don't think that over 120FPS is needed for anyone.

Posted by: umustwait101 Nov 20 2017, 05:14 PM

I am of the opinion that 4k is as necessary as any other improvement in technology. People got by fine before 4k just like people got by fine in the days of 320 x 240. It's only after you get used to the new technology that you wonder how you lived before. There's always minor complaints but people can use the technology available to them and be generally satisfied.

As someone who got into 4k last year, I definitely notice now when I watch a 1080p video. I can still be happy, and in most cases the actual content surpasses the image quality in terms of importance, but given the option of having the same film in 4k or 1080p, I would go for 4k.

There are a few other benefits of 4k. Nomake brought up a good point about how 24 inches is the optimal size before you start noticing color shifting. I would argue that it depends on the panel. I got a 48 inch 4k tv and I do not see color shifting unless if I put my head really close to the TV on one side and look at the other side. So there are times when other factors will conflict with the benefits of 4k.

In terms of whether 4k makes a tangible difference depends on the main factors: the screen size, how far away you view the screen from, and how good your eyesight is. Therefore, it is possible for 4k to make no difference at all if you sit far enough from the screen or the screen is too small or you have bad eyes. But, I think most people can have a setup where they can see a difference with 4k.

4k is physically equivalent to having a 2x2 setup of 4 1080p monitors minus the bezels. This transitions nicely to my last point. Any technological improvement is necessary in order for people's standard of living to rise. Buying four 1080p monitors is more expensive than buying one 4k display, and that means that for the same money or income people are now able to live more comfortably. Even if you personally don't appreciate 4k, by having 4k around, that will introduce downward pressure on 1080p screen prices, which you might appreciate more.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Posted by: Nomake Wan Nov 21 2017, 09:43 AM

QUOTE (umustwait101 @ Yesterday, 5:14 PM)

Nomake brought up a good point about how 24 inches is the optimal size before you start noticing color shifting. I would argue that it depends on the panel. I got a 48 inch 4k tv and I do not see color shifting unless if I put my head really close to the TV on one side and look at the other side. So there are times when other factors will conflict with the benefits of 4k.

I was referring to a monitor, which you sit in front of. TVs are completely different, both in terms of viewing distance and panel design.

Posted by: evangulbis04 Jun 7 2022, 12:03 AM

According to versus comparison, A 4K TV is only worth it if you have a large enough TV, and you are sitting close enough to your screen. According to the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, you would need to be sitting less than eight feet from a 65-inch TV to notice the difference between 4K and 1080p