The problem with that is making a compelling argument to buy the new one instead of using the old. Frame rates and resolution just don't matter that much to most players. Only the vocal minority on forums actually care.
They'd probably just support higher resolutions and frame rates, as opposed to different assets or anything else that costs a lot. They're pretty much already doing the same thing between XB1, PS4, and PC of varying targets.
YesThat is just it, they are embracing the PC methodology and will simply have the games detect if the system it is running on has capabilities to run at a higher resolution or higher gracphics settings (and/or simply use the PC code that most of the games already implement and give you an options menu to turn on/off various graphics effects and change resolution).
This isn't anything new in the PC world (and in fact has been in use for 30+ years over there...).
Klepek's sources warn that the plans they're hearing about seem more "exploratory" and vague than anything concrete at this point.
http://www.asian-central.com/stuffasianpeoplelike/2008/08/08/88-numbers-8-8-08/ said:That prestigious position, without question has to go to the number 8. Our good friend eight (in Chinese at least) is a near homonym for the words for wealth or prosperity. The Roman numerical 8″ is also symmetrical putting it at the top of the numerical dog-pile. Look at it this way, if there was some sort of Asian beat-down where each number from zero to nine had to fight each other to the death; eight would come out triumphant without even raising a sweat. From more obscure acts such as the purchase of the Chinese phone number 8888-8888 for approximately $US270,000, to the enormity of the Beijing Olympic Games opening ceremony on 08/08/08 at 8.08:08 p.m. the number eight is totally all-encompassing, and affects us Asians in a way we cannot imagine!
thi is laughable because they can't even get 1080p games at 60fps consistently on PS4, and they are talking about making the jump 4k already lol. totally think this is a bogus report.
great, 4K at 24fps.
The $400 card will stay strong for longer, though. It wasn't for 3-4 years before my 2009 5850 became the recommended card, and it's just now getting to the point it doesn't hit the minimum mark with regularity. By comparison, the 2013 consoles released with 2011 GPU tech.
Yup, it made me rethink my position for a few seconds but the less powerful XB1 has all the hardware including drive to support UHD Blu-ray according to their Xbox VP.Yeah 4k is a pretty significant jump from 1080p and as you say most games aren't even 1080p at 60fps yet which requires a lot less power to do. The only explanation I can come up with if this was misinterpreted. Perhaps they simply want the VR processor in the new units and are considering adding 4k support in the form of HDMI 2.0a/HDCP 2.2 for HDR and adding a UHD Blu-Ray drive.
Yup, it made me rethink my position for a few seconds but the less powerful XB1 has all the hardware including drive to support UHD Blu-ray according to their Xbox VP.
Microsoft, Sony and AMD have been working on Hardware DRM needs for years. Microsoft and AMD are ARM Trustzone partners and AMD announced that they use the same Hardware that the XB1 uses to support HEVC. Both the XB1 and PS4 use ARM Trustzone TEEs for DRM which are required for UHD media protection and in those TEEs they have Xtensa accelerators for Codecs.
HDCP 2 is required to take place in that same TEE not the HDMI chip. This changes what a HDMI chip does and is. It must just support the timing and clocks for HDMI 2 and pass everything else to the TEE hardware.
At the consoles release in 2013 we have the following statements:It can't and won't without new hardware. The VP was wrong and doesn't know what he's talking about. You expected him to say "oh no, we have to launch a new SKU for more money"? Supporting HEVC doesn't mean you can read the discs, pass the HDCP 2.2 info to the display, and output HDR.
If they have any plans at all to announce some type of 4k support I expect a new sku with a UHD Drive. Though I don't know if the Dolby Vision chips would be ready anytime soon.
All they care about is targeting the plebs who bought 4k TVs. Now those are as cheap as $400. So probably anything to make sure their TV says the signal is "4k". Which means a combo of higher gpu processing and upscaling.
Casuals don't know anything about frame rates, but they sure know when their TV is telling them something is "4k". It's just about catering to the buzzwords. Years ago it was 3D, now it's 4k.
EDIT: Also "VR" is the next buzzword. So they've made sure to release their underpowered version. Casuals don't care as long as the right combination of letters and numbers are on it.
Thanks for providing the link.Your evidence is all a bunch of hearsay with no credible proof at all. Throw a bunch of crap at the wall and see what sticks.
Also HDR10 does not use dynamic metadata at all and requires a new HDMI standard to add in support. Philips has announced a proposal for HDMI 2.1.
http://www.ip.philips.com/data/downloadables/1/9/7/9/philips_hdr_white_paper.pdf
Well, not every 4k TV is the same. There are 4k TVs that support HDR now and none of them are $400, try at least 4-5x that amount to start. I saw a bit of info that MS is trying to bring HDR metadata support to DX12 now so that you can get the benefits of wide color gamut and high dynamic range in video games.
4k and specifically 4k HDR isn't a buzzword anymore. I've been enjoying HDR video content on my 4k TV since December and others even earlier. Now I've been watching UHD Blu-Ray movies on it and they are fantastic. If that makes me a pleb than so be it. No regrets from me.
EDIT: Just did the research on HDR as it applies to LCDs, the standard was kludged for LCD to be all about hitting 1000nits. This converts to about 291 ft-lamberts. Basically it means your LCD must be a light cannon. That kind of luminance in a dark room will hurt your eyes. So really it's meant for rooms with strong ambient light. But that standard is only for LCD again because they can't produce blacks. For OLED the standard is defined at the low end. It still needs to produce 504 nits, but the extra dynamic range is at the bottom with 0.0005 nits black level. Obviously one would need a pitch black room to get the benefits of this. In any case HDR in photography is more about capturing shadow detail while being able to stop down the aperture enough to get detail in the highlights. It isn't about making the highlights brighter. Having looked into the tech, as far as LCDs go it is shaping up to be the 2016 buzzword marketing term again. It's funny how we get a new one every year now. They must really want to sell TVs.
Yeah, I completely agree. HDR on LCD is simply the "curved screen" this year, or the "RGBY" from Sharp, or the 240Hz "refresh" from everyone. Complete marketing crap that actually makes things worse in many cases.
For whatever reason, plasma died, which was most definitely the better display technology at the time. OLED is really the only one that can truly surpass plasma's picture quality, but we are still probably looking 2-3 years before it really becomes mass market and the initial problems sorted out.
I personally wouldn't drop the $4-6k that the LG OLED's are probably going to be later this year, and wait for the first couple generations to come out. We still don't know if they really fixed the longevity problems of some of the wavelengths. I wouldn't want to be stuck with having spent that much on a TV only to have all the blue fail after 3-5 years of usage...
HDR is a real feature and has nothing to do with 4k they are separate things. As for 4k you need to check the size/distance charts for 20/20 vision to see if it makes a difference. The people buying less than 70" 4k TVs and/or sitting further than 10 feet - you get the point.
I would jump on 4k when 4k projectors become somewhat affordable. It makes a huge difference when you consider that sort of size/distance. Since there is no appreciable video/film content yet, it would mostly shine for gaming.
As far as HDR goes I saw an OLED with HDR and it matters there a lot. Given LCD tech which can't really produce blacks I suppose HDR on LCD is another marketing term. It's nice the TV can accept the input of HDR content, but really given LCD tech does it matter? Yes I know about FALD and all the other kludges they try to get LCD to perform. On an OLED it will matter.
But all that aside you know most people bought really crappy 4k TVs, they didn't look at FALD or HDR or Triluminos or actual visual features. They are the market for this "4k" PS4. Anyone in the market for a new TV is getting a 4k because it's been pushed down to all the price points. Those other features were the domain of top end TVs regardless of resolution. It just so happens the introduction of HDR coincides with 4k panels becoming the standard.
4K chart: http://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/
Long story short it is the unfinished standards like Rec. 2020 along with a new HDMI standard for it plus OLED and possibly quantum dot technology that will revolutionize TV as we know it in the next year or two. Still I see quantum dot as another kludge for LCD because it kinda, sort of half way solves one of LCD's problems. OLED is the future. Right now what's being put out is 4K as motivator to upgrade but pretty much useless in and of itself. I would wait for the standards to settle down over the next year or two for real improvements in TVs. We are on the cusp of a true revolution in displays. 4k will come along for the ride but only because that aspect of panel PPI is inexpensive to manufacture.
EDIT: Just did the research on HDR as it applies to LCDs, the standard was kludged for LCD to be all about hitting 1000nits. This converts to about 291 ft-lamberts. Basically it means your LCD must be a light cannon. That kind of luminance in a dark room will hurt your eyes. So really it's meant for rooms with strong ambient light. But that standard is only for LCD again because they can't produce blacks. For OLED the standard is defined at the low end. It still needs to produce 504 nits, but the extra dynamic range is at the bottom with 0.0005 nits black level. Obviously one would need a pitch black room to get the benefits of this. In any case HDR in photography is more about capturing shadow detail while being able to stop down the aperture enough to get detail in the highlights. It isn't about making the highlights brighter. Having looked into the tech, as far as LCDs go it is shaping up to be the 2016 buzzword marketing term again. It's funny how we get a new one every year now. They must really want to sell TVs.
Still, I wouldn't write off HDR, it's a more noticeable improvement than 4k in most if not all viewing situations. But for LCD as usual all benefits depend on a bright room - in which the low end of 0.5 nits is moot. It at least shows the display is capable of high contrast in those high ambient light situations. The major benefits again come in the second "true" HDR standard which only OLEDs can attain and can be realized in practice in a dark room.
Later this year? I've already seen LG's 65" OLED at $3500. The 55" has been $3k for a while.
Yeah, I completely agree. HDR on LCD is simply the "curved screen" this year, or the "RGBY" from Sharp, or the 240Hz "refresh" from everyone. Complete marketing crap that actually makes things worse in many cases.
Later this year? I've already seen LG's 65" OLED at $3500. The 55" has been $3k for a while.
HDR is never worse than SDR. That's absurd. It's not a buzzword or some hack to sell TVs, it's a real benefit and it's an immediately obvious one when you experience it. Especially if you can do a side by side or A/B test of SDR vs HDR. I can hardly watch SDR content anymore because the colors are so muted and the whole picture seems a bit washed out with much less shadow detail. It's that much of a difference that when I go back to watch a 1080p Blu-Ray I think it looks kind of bad.
You missed my key statement, "HDR on LDC". You can't do proper HDR on LCD because LCD can't produce proper black levels. All that it can do is get brighter with a torching bright backlight in an attempt to provide the additional contrast levels for HDR content. The problem is that the moment you calibrate the TV for proper output levels, it can not properly produce HDR images.
Blacks are black on my TV during HDR content. Are they as deep as OLED? No but they aren't grey which is what you are insinuating. I use the same settings across all content and my blacks are fine. Before you ask, no I don't watch movies in a bright room. It's always very dark when I watch movies whether it be HDR or not. Blacks are black not grey, and highlights are very bright. My TV tops out somewhere in the 600nits range.