Remember that whole "people can't see 1080p" thing?

Started by Legend, Jan 22, 2019, 08:01 AM

previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Legend

That was so weird at the beginning of the generation.

It's also weird that this exact same thing was repeated for 4K. I wonder if we'll be hearing an updated form of it once next gen comes out. It's also pretty common to say "people can't see 60 fps" or similar but I think VR might have killed that off for good.



(this thread could also be about how we just assume well presented videos are correct. I watched a fact check type video about Christopher Columbus on youtube that called out others for presenting Columbus as an idiot instead of just not a hero. I didn't fully agree with his reasoning but I assumed the underlying information was correct. Then youtube recommended me a video from his channel about Scientology being misrepresented in a similar fashion. That triggered the skeptic in me so I started watching a video of his about 4K tvs to see how accurate his videos were. Sure enough it had the standard misinformation about 4k not being visible and how only fighter pilots can see 120fps. His other videos might not be as horribly wrong but it was just a good reminder for me to not just assume youtube info channels have any sort of inherent accuracy.)

ethomaz

Jan 22, 2019, 02:32 PM Last Edit: Jan 22, 2019, 02:36 PM by ethomaz
Is there any "people can't see 1080p" movement at all?

What existis is distance to see difference between 1080p and 720p... from far away both will look exactly the same... same for 4k.

In a big TV like 65" you will see difference of 4k until 2.4 meters... that is more than most TV rooms.


Legend


ethomaz

Jan 22, 2019, 04:29 PM Last Edit: Jan 22, 2019, 04:40 PM by ethomaz
One example IGN: The naked eye cannot perceive the difference between 1080 and 720 before 50in | NeoGAF

It was said a lot at the start of the gen.
The article says the same I said...

You need to sit 4 feet (1.22 meters) or closer at 27"
You need to sit 7 feet (2.13 meters) or closer at 50"

If you sit more than these distances with that size of screen you won't see difference.

BTW the pic I posted before have some weird conversions... like 10 to 50 feet?

Here a better tool: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship



That is exactly why Portable even with low resolution looks better than most TVs... you are close to the screen.

Legend

The article says the same I said...

You need to sit 4 feet (1.22 meters) or closer at 27"
You need to sit 7 feet (2.13 meters) or closer at 50"

If you sit more than these distances with that size of screen you won't see difference.

BTW the pic I posted before have some weird conversions... like 10 to 50 feet?

Here a better tool: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship



That is exactly why Portable even with low resolution looks better than most TVs... you are close to the screen.
The thread is correct. It's IGN that made the mistake.

the-pi-guy

I certainly remember that and the frame rate stuff.

I don't think we will see anything like that next gen.  Except maybe with VR.

ethomaz

VR I think affect more senses than only vision... it clearly trick your mind.

I have to try myself first :D

kitler53

my transition from 480p to 1080p was a thing of beauty.   the extra resolution was very noticeable and improved my viewing experience.

when I am at the store I can "see" that 4k is sharper than 1080 as a viewing distance similar to what I sit at home (~8-10 feet).  I also feel like the improvement is fairly easy to not give a shame about.  i'll buy 4k when i buy next but i can't say i'm excited about it.  8k is just absurd.  even if it is "better" i'll just prefer to spend less money than pay for that "improvement".



30 vs 60 fps isn't something i've ever given a shame about in normal games.  i can see it in those gifs that show spinning squares or whatever but i never knew that ratchet and clack was 60 fps until after someone told me.  it just isn't that impactful to me.  in VR though it really seems important.  even at 60 fps (or whatever i'm viewing) i can really see the blur when i move my head and it is very nauseating.  i don't know what value i need to feel better but i need it to be higher.


Featured Artist: Vanessa Hudgens

Legend

my transition from 480p to 1080p was a thing of beauty.   the extra resolution was very noticeable and improved my viewing experience.

when I am at the store I can "see" that 4k is sharper than 1080 as a viewing distance similar to what I sit at home (~8-10 feet).  I also feel like the improvement is fairly easy to not give a shame about.  i'll buy 4k when i buy next but i can't say i'm excited about it.  8k is just absurd.  even if it is "better" i'll just prefer to spend less money than pay for that "improvement".



30 vs 60 fps isn't something i've ever given a shame about in normal games.  i can see it in those gifs that show spinning squares or whatever but i never knew that ratchet and clack was 60 fps until after someone told me.  it just isn't that impactful to me.  in VR though it really seems important.  even at 60 fps (or whatever i'm viewing) i can really see the blur when i move my head and it is very nauseating.  i don't know what value i need to feel better but i need it to be higher.
I'm in a similar boat. 4K is definitively better than 1080p and 60fps is definitively better than 30fps but it's still a give and take between a whole bunch of factors. TV wise it might not be worth the cost and game wise it might not be worth the performance hit.


PSVR mostly runs at 60fps with 120fps asynchronous timewarp. It looks great under most circumstances but native 120fps really feels better.

the-pi-guy

Can you even see ray-tracing? | ResetEra

Quote
This is a test to see if people can see ray tracing. It's too bad they don't provide direct feed of what they're seeing so we can play along too.  
[/size]

ethomaz