or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Video Games Discussion › PS4 vs XBOX ONE (What would you buy and why? No fanboy like comments please)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

PS4 vs XBOX ONE (What would you buy and why? No fanboy like comments please) - Page 37

Poll Results: What would you buy the XBOX ONE or the PS4?

 
  • 16% (48)
    XBOX ONE
  • 70% (212)
    PS4
  • 13% (39)
    Neither
299 Total Votes  
post #541 of 1075

 from the link:

 

"The differences in detail I did see were limited to the very best 4K demo material. Larger TVs or closer seating distances make that difference more visible, as do computer graphics, animation, and games, but even then it's not drastic."

 

So what he is saying is resolution seen in captured video is hard to tell, however for the purposes of this thread, not so much.

post #542 of 1075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

The problem with 4k NOW is that TV manufacturers are eventually going to start using all the best stuff on the 4K tvs, leaving the 1080p sets with worse specs, etc. That way, people who want the best picture quality when it comes to other specs unrelated to resolution are basically forced to buy the 4K sets.

Like all things in business that depends on how popular 4k gets.  At its current price point it is several times more expensive than typical 1080 sets that are otherwise identical.  I would hope consumers would then be more likely to demo 4k sets before buying them and realize their differences compared to 1080p sets.  If 4k fails as badly as 3D did it wouldn't surprise me if 1080p stayed the norm, at least until 4k prices become comparable to 720p->1080p pricing.

post #543 of 1075
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeremyR View Post
 

 

While this is the general case, it's not 100% true. Stand 15 feet away from a 4K TV in best buy, and you can tell it's the 4K TV. You can't put your finger on why you know, but you know. The difference is clear.

 

Also, today's TV's and computer monitors only differ in use cases. They are the same technology. No one can calculate on a forum how readers use there consoles. Millions of console players sit at a desk with there console connected to a computer monitor. I happen to be one of them. Millions of people play PC games connected to TV's.

 

It's not the old days anymore.

The problem is no, you can't tell a difference.  Unless we're talking a mammoth sized tv from 15 feet away you won't be able to tell a difference.  I went to best buy just the other day and with the exception of being 1-2ft away from the screens I couldn't tell any difference, at all.  If you plan on using a 4k tv as a monitor it would be the most practical realistic application of a 4k tv.  The problem right now is most 4k tvs are still relatively large compared to standard monitors, so unless you're the guy sitting 2ft off a 40"+ tv (which you shouldn't in the long term if you value your sight) using a 4k tv as a monitor isn't practical.  If you're sitting further away there won't be any differences unless you have abnormally good eyes, most people don't.  Like I said in an earlier post there are already 4k monitors though, which may be a good investment.  It's just that all but the largest 4k tvs are usually impractical.

post #544 of 1075
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott5526 View Post
 

Like all things in business that depends on how popular 4k gets.  At its current price point it is several times more expensive than typical 1080 sets that are otherwise identical.  I would hope consumers would then be more likely to demo 4k sets before buying them and realize their differences compared to 1080p sets.  If 4k fails as badly as 3D did it wouldn't surprise me if 1080p stayed the norm, at least until 4k prices become comparable to 720p->1080p pricing.

 

To me, 4K shines when the source is generated locally. So as a computer monitor. And yes, in your living room hooked up to an XBox One, it's a computer monitor.

 

Now I know it does not support this today, but let's say in 2 years after the 15th patch, the One supports 4K. So while the games would be upscaled and most likely would never look any better, if you snapped a Skype call that's being recorded in 1080p while you watch TV or played a game, the call would look noticeably better.

 

Also, as with anything, when these techs first come out, the difference to the eye is small. I remember when DVD came out, the delta over S-VHS was small, however after watching DVD's for a few months, when I went back to a S-VHS it looked horrible. This phenomenon happened as well with DVD to 720, and 720 to 1080.

 

I am sure it's happening now with 1080 to 4K. Does not look that much better. But once everything you see is in 4K, 1080 is going to look like crap to you. 

post #545 of 1075
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott5526 View Post
 

The problem is no, you can't tell a difference. 

We will just have to disagree here.

post #546 of 1075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

No. Wanna know what the difference is? The 4k tv at best buy is being fed the best signal out of all their televisions. Thats the difference. Also, it has the best specs, in terms of colors, contrast, etc.

When you dial in a similar 1080p set being fed with the same exact 4k source, you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference. Even cnet covered this at length.

It's store trickery. All their 1080p sets are being sent spliced, degraded signals, while the 4ks get the best treatment.

At 15ft, you wouldnt see the difference.

 

This is accurate to an extent. Source, I worked for Best Buy Magnolia Home Theater from '06-'09. When it comes to the store demos you will indeed find the best sources on the newest/best TVs. We sold the Pioneer Elite monitors front and center running them off the best Blu-ray player we had available. At the time it was a $3000 Pioneer Elite BDP. That said, every television and monitor that was wall mounted was running off the same 1080i feed so they were getting equal treatment. But just as MLE says we had the latest and greatest always running off Blu-ray to increase sales. That said, if a customer wanted to demo a specific unit I'd hook up a Blu-ray player to any TV for them. 

 

We also did the side by side comparison showing a calibrated set and one straight out of the box. We intentionally left the non-calibrated unit on the showroom setting and had the calibrated set properly. When we had the lights on in the room customers preferred the non as by default they're overly bright and the contrast is too high. But when we dimmed the lights to normal levels people began to prefer the calibrated and when we turned the lights off customers hated the "stock" set.

 

In a nutshell stores do what they can to increase sales of the best services. Can the average Joe tell the difference between a professionally calibrated and a self calibrated set when they aren't side by side? Absolutely not. When the average person takes their TV home and can't compare side by side to others more and less expensive will they notice? Not at all. But if you go to a reputable store that actually cares about getting you the right set for your needs they won't be trying to take advantage of you. If the best TV for my customer was a $160 HDCRT that's what I sold them. If what they wanted was the $30k 107" LCD and it suited their needs, that's what they bought. If they wanted big, would I offer front projection as an amazing size/quality:price ratio? You bet. Hell, I gave the same customer a demo week after week after week for about 4 months before he finally decided. I wasn't out to get a sale on every person, I was out to get the perfect combination for that customer no matter how long it took.

 

Not every store is out for the quick sale. Most of them are, and that's reality, but go to the right place and they'll do it right.

post #547 of 1075
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeremyR View Post
 

 from the link:

 

"The differences in detail I did see were limited to the very best 4K demo material. Larger TVs or closer seating distances make that difference more visible, as do computer graphics, animation, and games, but even then it's not drastic."

 

So what he is saying is resolution seen in captured video is hard to tell, however for the purposes of this thread, not so much.

Not entirely sure what that CNET author is talking about regarding the bolded parts.  The issue with 4k is the human eye's ability to make out the extra pixels.  The cases where it can include watching a 4k tv from very close up or when watching a huge tv.  There are exceptions, such as people gifted with abnormally good eyes, but for the vast majority of people those are the limitations.  It's not so much about having better quality material on the screen as much as your eyes can't register the extra resolution.  That's why the jump in picture quality from SD to HD was so huge and the jump from HD to UHD isn't when UHD is 2160p.  Think about it.  If 360p to 720p brings on such a huge jump in picture quality why doesn't 1080p to 2160p bring in a bigger one?.  Your eyes can pick up 360p to 720p at normal viewing distances on, for this argument, a 40".  At the same time, your eyes can't pick up the jump from 720p (or 1080p) to 2160p at the same distance.  

 

EDIT:

You shouldn't need a lot of 4k material to tell a difference between 4k and 1080/720p.  A few clips of films done on native 4k vs native 1080/720p should make the difference obvious.  Even when HD originally came out when there wasn't a lot of material out for it I remember watching football games on a 42" from 6-10ft away that were done in HD and the difference between SD and HD was completely undeniable.  That isn't the case this time around from 720/1080p to 2160p though.


Edited by scott5526 - 12/23/13 at 9:27am
post #548 of 1075
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelCloris View Post
 

 

Source, I worked for Best Buy Magnolia Home Theater from '06-'09.

 

I am a fan of Magnolia stores. Then again, I am a fan of Best Buy, so that might make me a minority. Dick Schulze is a family friend of ours, so we kind of have to be.

post #549 of 1075
I didn't expect those poll results to be so one sided, but i went PS4, got it a week ago, poor launch line up unfortunately but they always are.
post #550 of 1075
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeremyR View Post
 

 

I am a fan of Magnolia stores. Then again, I am a fan of Best Buy, so that might make me a minority. Dick Schulze is a family friend of ours, so we kind of have to be.

 

I'm still a fan of their stores as well. Because of how rarely they get sales compared to normal Best Buys their sales goals are much lower. If I made one sale a week I met my goals. And since I actually listened to what people needed getting that one sale was simple. So my team focused on doing right by the customers. Heck, on word of mouth alone a local gentleman came in and spoke with me one day asking about his home cinema. There were many specialty stores in Cincinnati at the time focusing on home cinemas but he came to us after a friend's recommendation.

 

After about 3 hours he walked out spending $12k. We had him up and running within two weeks (several items were special order) and didn't see him from that point for a few months. Then December rolled around and I received a letter from him. He was thanking us for giving him an excellent experience from first walking in the door to watching his first movie on his new setup. He had included cash as a thank you but our policy was to decline any tips from customers. My team also kept track of some customer information such as birthdays and anniversaries and we'd send them a birthday card and such when time came. So I sent him back a holiday card and let him know that we had made an anonymous donation to a local charity with his funds.

 

Magnolia was a great company to work for until Best Buy underwent the corporate restructure in 2009. That's when I left and came to my current employer.

 

Damn, I'm being quite wordy today.

post #551 of 1075
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott5526 View Post

 If 360p to 720p brings on such a huge jump in picture quality why doesn't 1080p to 2160p bring in a bigger one?
Easy. Because 360p is horrible large pixels that our eyes CAN discern. Why not 1080p to 2160p? Because the pixels are too small to make out the differences. Why don't you go to a 1080p screen, and see at WHICH distance do you stop seeing the space between pixels? If you can see the space between the pixels at 15feet from any moderate 1080pHDTV (hell even a 65 inch one), then I applaud those eyes of god that you have. You stop gaining benefit of increased resolution at around the point where you can't make out individual pixels.
Edited by Mad Lust Envy - 12/23/13 at 9:45am
post #552 of 1075
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott5526 View Post
 

Not entirely sure what that CNET author is talking about regarding the bolded parts.  The issue with 4k is the human eye's ability to make out the extra pixels.  The cases where it can include watching a 4k tv from very close up or when watching a huge tv.  There are exceptions, such as people gifted with abnormally good eyes, but for the vast majority of people those are the limitations.  It's not so much about having better quality material on the screen as much as your eyes can't register the extra resolution.  That's why the jump in picture quality from SD to HD was so huge and the jump from HD to UHD isn't when UHD is 2160p.  Think about it.  If 360p to 720p brings on such a huge jump in picture quality why doesn't 1080p to 2160p bring in a bigger one?.  Your eyes can pick up 360p to 720p at normal viewing distances on, for this argument, a 40".  At the same time, your eyes can't pick up the jump from 720p (or 1080p) to 2160p at the same distance.  

 

Let me use a practical example, to see if I can explain what I am talking about.

 

let's say you are playing a game with first person perspective, and you come to a rope bridge like this one:

 

however let's say that bridge is so long, it fades off into the distance. the last several board you can see before you can't see anymore, will be about 1 pixel wide. If in real life, you then tilt your head, the end of the bridge would look the same. However on a TV, the end of the bridge will start to moire, like this:

 

This effect you will see at any distance in a room. As the resolution of your TV approaches infinity, this effect approaches zero. The higher resolution your TV, the less this will happen. Game developers get past it by using anti aliasing, but that degrades the over all image.

 

This is why while playing a game, if you had a 10K monitor, at 10 feet away, it would be better then a 4K tv, and that would be better then 1080p (provided the game had variable AA at those resolutions).

 

Once game manufactured no longer care about AA, and not using it does not produce the above effect, we have reached max resolution. We are far away from that point at the moment however.

 

For watching movies, I agree with you, as this effect almost never happens. But this is a game thread :)


Edited by JeremyR - 12/23/13 at 9:58am
post #553 of 1075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post


Easy. Because 360p is horrible large pixels that our eyes CAN discern. Why not 1080p to 2160p? Because the pixels are too small to make out the differences. Why don't you go to a 1080p screen, and see at WHICH distance do you stop seeing the space between pixels? If you can see the space between the pixels at 15feet from any moderate 1080pHDTV (hell even a 65 inch one), then I applaud those eyes of god that you have. You stop gaining benefit of increased resolution at around the point where you can't make out individual pixels.

That was my point.  Your eyes can't see the increased resolution past a certain point

post #554 of 1075
Yeah, distance is about as important, if not more than the actual resolution. The stupidity with 4K TV is that TV sizes in parallel to the overwhelming majority of living room conditions and viewing distances will never add up.


To really benefit from 4K without looking like a massive idiot with your nose to the screen is that 4k is only truly viable for monitors (where you're very close to the screen as well as visual acuity being better at such a distance), and front projector displays with huge screens.

I myself owned a 1080p projector for a brief period, and I could see the pixel structure from a standard distance of about 10-12 feet. In this instance, I'd TOTALLY go for 4K. But for TV? It's stupid, and unncessary. I always say, TVs should've stopped at 1440p. This would eliminate pixel structure from basically any normal human being's size/tv distance.

As for computer gaming and graphics, that's an issue with the lack of technology to keep aliasing from being such an issue. It's less to do with resolution, more to do with the graphics behind these things.


Long story short: Go back to your Best Buy, check that 4KTV again. Put your nose up to the screen, then slowly move back. AT WHAT distance do YOU stop seeing pixel structure? At around that point is where you are losing 4K benefits and styepping into 1080p territory. A good test for this is a desktop screen, with the time being diaplyed. The fine white text shows pixels quite clearly. I stop seeing the stair stepping on my clock at around 8feet. from my 60inch. Guarantee most of you don't sit 8 feet from a 60 inch screen.
Edited by Mad Lust Envy - 12/23/13 at 10:06am
post #555 of 1075
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeremyR View Post
 

 

Let me use a practical example, to see if I can explain what I am talking about.

 

let's say you are playing a game with first person perspective, and you come to a rope bridge like this one:

 

however let's say that bridge is so long, it fades off into the distance. the last several board you can see before you can't see anymore, will be about 1 pixel wide. If in real life, you then tilt your head, the end of the bridge would look the same. However on a TV, the end of the bridge will start to moire, like this:

 

This effect you will see at any distance in a room. As the resolution of your TV approaches infinity, this effect approaches zero. The higher resolution your TV, the less this will happen. Game developers get past it by using anti aliasing, but that degrades the over all image.

 

This is why while playing a game, if you had a 10K monitor, at 10 feet away, it would be better then a 4K tv, and that would be better then 1080p (provided the game had variable AA at those resolutions).

 

Once game manufactured no longer care about AA, and not using it does not produce the above effect, we have reached max resolution. We are far away from that point at the moment however.

 

For watching movies, I agree with you, as this effect almost never happens. But this is a game thread :)

I see your point regarding aliasing.  I understand that increased resolution is a solution to aliasing, but I don't know the extent resolution needs to be increased to for aliasing to become un-noticeable to the human eye and under what conditions.  I'll leave it at that.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Video Games Discussion
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Video Games Discussion › PS4 vs XBOX ONE (What would you buy and why? No fanboy like comments please)