40 
Home 3D is dead, or might as well be, what with the poor sales of 3D compatible devices — especially now Sony is reportedly working on releasing a new 80-inch TV with 4K resolution. It’s hardly surprising that this has sparked new rumours on whether or not the yet-to-be-announced PlayStation 4 will support 4K resolution.
For those of you who don’t know, 4K blasts out a 4096×3072 resolution, way beyond the current standard 1,920×1,080 most TVs are capable of now. Obviously this new rumour joins a host of others that are circulating the web, however this could well be close to the truth, since 1080p has been commercially available for at least a decade. Time for an upgrade, then. In any case, 4K could be a huge advantage to the PS4; future-proof it, and give it a huge boost in graphical prowess over its non-4K next-gen rivals. [BGR]
The GoPro Hero3's 4K Resolution Is Wonderfully Useless
BBC and Sony Providing Wimbledon 2013 Gusset Shots at 4K Resolution
Yellow Submarine Remastered In Eye-Bleeding 4K Resolution For the Benefit of Future Generations
not a chance ps3 will be have 4k native games (i.e. not upscaled 1080 etc)
the current ps3 hardly does any games in 1080p that arent upscaled…
i think it will do 4k movies for sure. maybe upscaled games to 4k but that all games will be 1080p, hopefully 60fps.
i also hope they allow customisation of 7.1 to specify FW/FH/SR (FW being the best IMO and according to experts… screw you THX
)
haha! i’d like to see how long it takes for game devs to bring out 4K titles… from working in the film VFX industry, I can tell you when we get a 4K show in it’s a pain in the arse.. and we don’t have to worry about all the extra crap that you get with developing games!
well, they are capable, most games are 3d and capable of supporting any res that they need to. the FPS would be crushed though and it would be unplayable.
remember there are plenty of people running 3x 1080p displays playing games. 4k isnt many more pixels than that. you are looking at best part of a grands worth of GPUs though!
all new HDMI cables support 4K and any decent AVR will too.
i was thinking more of the devs… modeling, texturing and shading to that level of detail? ouch..
There will be no extra requirements for the devs – in general, the artist produces the models and then has to cut many parts out in order to get the model to render efficiently – the modelling, texturing and shading has already been done. Typically, games are made to a far greater level of detail than you’d normally see.
The problem is that the playstation 4 will not graphically be up to pumping games at native 4k resolution, changes to games or not. It’d just be really expensive if they made that possible. Since 4k won’t be in most households for a very long time, it shouldn’t matter.
If Sony continue to close studios like they are, the old meme “PS3 Has No Games” will continue to the next generation. As Dan already said, if devs are struggling to produce decent games for the PS3 at present, they are going to be spending far too long creating completed games for the PS4 at these resolutions as well.
More money will be needed just to keep studios afloat while they generate all these 4K Native games, let alone the extra time needed, and will push up the price of games even higher.
still has drake games, IMO the best of the exclusives on any console.
4k games wont be more expensive to make. its just the hardware needed to output that many polys.
wasnt sony liverpool’s only game this gen ‘wipeout’ which was a bit crap anyway. on the ps1 it was revolutionary. its so ‘meh’ now…
4K games *will* be more expensive to make… render times for testing… compiling… most companies would need to restructure their whole pipeline just to develop the games.. the end user will need an expensive GPU etc. to play the damn thing, but making it *will* be more expensive.
Most of the PS3 Games not Dont even do 1080P No Dev Will Make 4K Games
worms 4k will be about it!
its one of my only ps3 games to do native 1080p. or gran turismo, but it would be graphically gimped due to the massive additional GPU grunt needed. the original PS1 version had a mode that used better gfx (better lighting if i recall) but could only handle 1 car on a few certain tracks.
But at what cost. I don’t think anyone would be willing to pay £1000 + for a PS4 no matter what resolution it had, and games would probably hit the £100 mark.
making games in 4k wouldnt require much extra work. its the hardware that will fall on its ass.
Haha I doubt we will even have 1080p 60fps games next generation :L
Introducing 4K now is utterly pointless. IF the adoption of HDTV is anything to go by then we won’t be seeing 4K available for the masses for at least another 10 years, by which point we will have seen the PS5 hit the shelves.
i think it will just be for movies to be honest. BR is 4k capable, as are the AVRs as are the HDMI. its just future proofing.
I thought that 1080p TVs are often considered to be ‘Retina’ displays, because when viewed at a normal distance they are capable of displaying images at a higher resolution than the human eye can resolve.
If that’s true, then isn’t the notion of 4K TVs a little pointless unless we’re talking about massive 80in screens or projectors?
If so, then I can hardly see this becoming mainstream technology any time soon, even if the PS4 can play 4k video.
but who sits 10m away from a 42″ screen? i sit about 5 feet from mine and even without my glasses i can see every pixel. i want to get a 60″ screen too but that would need to be 4k else i will see big pixels. it would be like watching lego make movies
retina is just some Apple marketing gimmick. resolutions have kind of hit a stumbling block since 1080p became popular. hell, i was running similar to 1080p back before 2000 on a 15″ CRT. i had much better than retina display on 24″ CRTs
I’m aware that the ‘Retina’ term is a marketing vehicle, and I hate coining it as such. However, the concept is sound. Once you raise the pixel density above what can be resolved by the eye, it’s pointless going any further.
Admittedly, 4K might be useful at sizes above 60″, but I’ve got a great 40in TV, and I can’t see individual pixels when sitting 6 feet from it. I’ve got 20/10 vision btw, as stated on my JAR medical certificate.
BTW, a little Googling reveals that Giz agrees with me here…
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/07/why-your-hdtv-is-already-a-retina-display/
i think some of us sit nearer the TVs than we should or prefer a larger set that advised
i dont want to see aliasing or pixels.
as i say we had that kind of PPI available on old CRT monitors. then went backwards with 1080p 26″ monitors etc. fair enough we sit much further away from TVs than we do monitors.
“fair enough we sit much further away from TVs than we do monitors.”
That makes all the difference right there. It’s not about the pixel density itself so much as the combination of pixel density and viewing distance.
According to that august establishment, Gizmodo:
- Existing 40 inch 1920×1080 HDTV is a “Retina Display” when viewed from 5.2 feet or more.
- Existing 50 inch 1920×1080 HDTV is a “Retina Display” when viewed from 6.5 feet or more.
- Existing 60 inch 1920×1080 HDTV is a “Retina Display” when viewed from 7.8 feet or more.
What are you on about? you can see the quality of resolution anywhere. I mean having a high resolution means you don’t need AA which current gen consoles barely use so you see a shit ton of jaggies. I mean I can see the difference of 1080p on my 24inch monitor and 2560×1440 on my 27 inch monitor when sitting across the room.
You’re talking about relatively low resolutions for the close distances you’re viewing them at. At normal TV viewing distances (10 feet) and, say, 46 inch displays, you’d struggle to see any advantage in resolutions above 1080p. I’m not saying that you or I couldn’t, I’m saying that most people with average vision couldn’t. I remember reading somewhere that most people cannot tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 42″ TV viewed at 10 feet. It’s those people who drive the market.
I’m not the only one with this view. I’ve read more than a few articles of this ilk:
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/
If the estimates people have made about a decade before 4k becomes popular we could well see that 60+ inch tvs are more common and cheaper than they are at present so 4K may be worthwhile, in that sceneraio
Agreed, but we’re talking, what, > 5 years there, maybe more? That’s enough time that 4K could almost skip a console generation.
I think there may also be some consumer resistance to buying 60+ inch TVs which could hinder their uptake, particularly in this country where houses don’t tend to be mansions. That might sound ridiculous to anyone who’s a regular on this blog, but I’ve been trying to persuade my sister to buy a new TV for years. She insists that she doesn’t want anything bigger than 28″ in her lounge.
Perhaps that’s not such an issue in the US though.
Americans dont want anything unless it comes with s supersize option!
So true
They could call it the Playstation 4K.
Most the PS3 games are even sub 720p.
It only makes sense for the next console to support 1080p. I don’t see TV’s shifting higher than that in the next few years. When they do it’ll be like 2015 and it wont pick up fast, 1080p took a good 4 years and we still barely have any TV content at that resolution.
Am I the only one who doesn’t give a flying shite what tech features a new console has? I just want to play great games.
A machine that can comfortably do 1080p/60fps is all we need, then devs can stop spending all their money on optimising and spend more on decent gameplay.
Amen brother!