New PS4.5 in the works?

[sxr7171]

I'm not implying your blacks are not black. What I am implying is that on even the highest end LCD with local dimming LED backlight, you will never get proper HDR. The whole point of HDR is that it is showing the dynamic between dark and light when you have something like sunlight filtering through leaves on a tree, or through a cloud, etc... Even with local dimming, you can't get the pixels that are showing full white to be next to pixels that show black because the backlight behind them will need to be on torch mode to make the full white pixel and thus can not be dimmed to make the black pixel black (or vice versa with the white not being full white because the backlight is set lower so that the black is actually black, and in reality what you get is that the backlight goes to an average of the intensity of the pixels that the backlight projects). The only solution is that each pixel be able to control its own light intensity independently from any other pixel, which LCD's can not do, as groups of pixels are linked together in their intensity level due to the shared backlight.

This is why plasma had a superior picture than LCD, as the intensity of the pixels was independent of the other pixels around it. The problem with plasma was that it used a lot of energy, was heavy, and "thick".

You are much more patient than I am in explaining this. It's very hard to discuss with someone who thinks visual acuity charts are laughable. Why not just dismiss the entire profession of optometry and while we're at that why not dismiss the entirety of the science of optics? It's all laughable I guess.

As for plasma I'm still enjoying my ST50 Panasonic. I think the cost of manufacture, shipping, weight, materials put an end to it. Besides marketing alone can overcome any real disadvantages. Just make people believe LCD is better. I found it very disappointing when I heard otherwise smart techically inclined people dismiss my choice of plasma over the horrible LCDs especially of that era. Today's LCDs are much better but are kludged up in every possible way to compete. It's sad how corporate marketing can cloud the judgement of even the smartest people. It's sadder still when you consider it does the same to very smart people even in fields like food safety and medicine.

The verdict on the latest LCD kludge solution is in:

http://www.extremetech.com/computin...-head-to-head-in-65-inch-displaymate-shootout


Link showing how crappy local dimming really is (see the videos):

http://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/movies/dark-scene/local-dimming

1000nits/291FtL. I think a brief conversation with an ISF certified display calibrator would show how ridiculous that is. They know the target is 16 ft-lamberts in a dark room and that some consumers reasonably prefer up to 40ft-lamberts. 291ft-lamberts is for outdoor applications or maybe for viewing inside an ultra bright big box store. The only reason a TV designed for indoor regular room use would get that bright is because it's yet another cheaply achieved marketing bullet point. Making LEDs brighter doesn't take a rocket scientist. Even if clear across the screen the panel can do 0.5nits somewhere can the human eye discern it when something is blasting it at 1000nits in its field of view? Can you make out the brand of the car when looking straight into its headlights? The standards people certainly bent over backwards to make the marketers job easy. They have disgraced the science of visual perception to help the LCD makers have their new buzzword.

 

[cmdrdredd]

It blows all SDR content out of the water when the content is graded well. How it does it does not matter at all. The end result is a superior picture and that is the only thing that really matters.

Why don't you guys go experience some good HDR content before you bash it eh? Everyone at CES was blown away by UHD Blu-Ray playing HDR and it's been overwhelmingly positive from consumers who have become early adopters of the first player. Nobody has complained about how it looks on an LCD TV.

 

[Lil Frier]

It blows all SDR content out of the water when the content is graded well. How it does it does not matter at all. The end result is a superior picture and that is the only thing that really matters.

Why don't you guys go experience some good HDR content before you bash it eh? Everyone at CES was blown away by UHD Blu-Ray playing HDR and it's been overwhelmingly positive from consumers who have become early adopters of the first player. Nobody has complained about how it looks on an LCD TV.

Well, I think it's because we see too many things get overhyped in ideal settings or a fancy showroom that don't pan out, or are ultimately underwhelming.

Heck, I was bored at work and watched the Apple event today. People cheered that the new, 4" iPhone is ONLY $400. They clapped and cheered that they could get the iPad Pro Mini in pink. People overreact to small things, so seeing a tech reporter whose press value is tied to his writing oversell isn't a great selling point for many of us.

None of this dismisses HDR. However, as someone who (STILL) is living on a 720p TV that's 8 years old, HDR isn't at the forefront of my mind by any measure. MAYBE I can see the improvements in HDR. That won't make me go buy something HDR-capable. I'll still just aim for a solid, 1080p TV to upgrade to, since my TV is used to do 3 things:

1. Browse on my computer.
2. Watch 1080p and below TV shows.
3. Play 1080p and below console games.

HDR might be fantastic. I won't overpay to adopt the tech early, though, because I likely won't ever experience it for years. It's most likely going to start with movies I have no interest in, for example. I'd rather pay $700 for a decent TV now, then $700 for a better one later, rather than pay $1,500+ to get extra bells and whistles I won't use early on.

 

[sxr7171]

It blows all SDR content out of the water when the content is graded well. How it does it does not matter at all. The end result is a superior picture and that is the only thing that really matters.

Why don't you guys go experience some good HDR content before you bash it eh? Everyone at CES was blown away by UHD Blu-Ray playing HDR and it's been overwhelmingly positive from consumers who have become early adopters of the first player. Nobody has complained about how it looks on an LCD TV.

Just read this thread. If you get through it you'll know far more about it than anyone I know. But from my limited reading of it the current consumer TVs can accept HDR signals but are not tested to actually display the content correctly. Even the calibrators are figuring out how it works now.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/139-display-calibration/#/forumsite/3207/topics/2130474?page=1

Also it's clear to me if you buy an HDR TV you really need an ISF calibration from someone who knows this stuff cold.

All this tech is pretty half baked right now. There is scarcely 4K content leave alone properly mastered HDR content outside of demos. I'm bullish on both but for 4K I'd need a projector and a large screen. For HDR and new color gamuts I'd need a new display technology that can produce it and until factory calibrations are correct an ISF calibration. Otherwise who knows what's coming out of the screen?

One studio has even gone on record that they will not remaster anything in HDR unless the director goes back and oversees the remaster on a calibrated consumer HDR setup. The point is to have your calibration match what the director used so what you see matches his/her creative output. That doesn't seem to be happening any time soon despite the badges on these TVs.

Also there is a huge debate going on about whether addressing 4 times the pixels individually is the most intelligent use of bandwidth. It's clear that it only benefits a very small percentage of setups - think JVC 4K HDR projector plus high end tested screen. Not many have that kind of a setup. The bits could be much better used for better contrast, dynamic range (which you clearly agree with) and color reproduction. I think it'll become a non issue in time as we get all the standards worked out and bandwidth becomes really cheap. But for right now I'd hate to be forced into the TV market.


Anyway my point to all this is that just having a 4K badge or even HDR badge in and of itself means nothing. I'm saying it is analgalous to the average 4K buyer - not necessarily you. Also that this "4K" PS4 will be designed to cater to that market. Which I suspect will involve 30fps and upscaling. Because to most console buyers all that matters is that it's outputting at 4K.

Even for PC an SLI 980ti can scarcely output 4k60 on today's AAA games. The ecosystem needs time.

 

[sxr7171]

Well, I think it's because we see too many things get overhyped in ideal settings or a fancy showroom that don't pan out, or are ultimately underwhelming.

Heck, I was bored at work and watched the Apple event today. People cheered that the new, 4" iPhone is ONLY $400. They clapped and cheered that they could get the iPad Pro Mini in pink. People overreact to small things, so seeing a tech reporter whose press value is tied to his writing oversell isn't a great selling point for many of us.

None of this dismisses HDR. However, as someone who (STILL) is living on a 720p TV that's 8 years old, HDR isn't at the forefront of my mind by any measure. MAYBE I can see the improvements in HDR. That won't make me go buy something HDR-capable. I'll still just aim for a solid, 1080p TV to upgrade to, since my TV is used to do 3 things:

1. Browse on my computer.
2. Watch 1080p and below TV shows.
3. Play 1080p and below console games.

HDR might be fantastic. I won't overpay to adopt the tech early, though, because I likely won't ever experience it for years. It's most likely going to start with movies I have no interest in, for example. I'd rather pay $700 for a decent TV now, then $700 for a better one later, rather than pay $1,500+ to get extra bells and whistles I won't use early on.

Two of the 4 major broadcasters still broadcast in 720p.

These new standards need to be worked out from content creation to display. The whole chain needs to be worked out and the standards published. Right now they want to push out the new acronyms because the manufacturers need them to stay afloat so they push them out half baked. I'll go check out the demo but I know that's all there is. A demo.

 

[MTDEW]

PlayStation 4.5 PRICE, RELEASE DATE! - The Know
I guess it's confirmed, all current Sony console owners now own the "Playstation Poor" version of the console.

 

[Lil Frier]

Well, never mind my previous plans. I wanted to get a PS4 next week to play The Show, but to hell with buying a console that will get replaced in 6 months, because I know I'd want the new version.

 

[RockinZ28]

If this stuff about new PS4 games being developed and running higher res/improved gfx/fps on a ps 4.5 turn out to be true, think I'll be buying one, playing through a game, and returning the console within the return period multiple times.

If it's just adding 4k gaming upscale and 4k media playback, doesn't interest me.

 

[zerocool84]

PlayStation 4.5 PRICE, RELEASE DATE! - The Know
I guess it's confirmed, all current Sony console owners now own the "Playstation Poor" version of the console.

No other sites have picked up on this so I'm still waiting on some type of confirmation.

 

[Lil Frier]

If this stuff about new PS4 games being developed and running higher res/improved gfx/fps on a ps 4.5 turn out to be true, think I'll be buying one, playing through a game, and returning the console within the return period multiple times.

If it's just adding 4k gaming upscale and 4k media playback, doesn't interest me.

You couldn't play that con for long, if at all. You might get away with it once per-retailer in your area, if you're lucky. I doubt that goes well, though. You'd probably be better-off on the obvious trade deal that would let you upgrade from the old model to the new one.

I don't get the real point, though. It's a PS5, that's what it is. It's just what we basically expect future consoles to be--still x86, with easy backwards compatibility. In this case, it's also sticking to the same OS. However, it's a new level of hardware that improves on the old, but they're making a more-sophisticated software experience that detects and adjusts to hardware. This kind of has a "Wii U" stink to it, where people won't get why the prices are different and the one is better with the same games. It runs the risk of confusing and annoying console gamers.

Me, I'm already mad. To the point I don't know if I'll ever buy something from Sony again. I was going to buy a PS4 tomorrow, because I want to get MLB 16 Tuesday. Then I see this, and I want to wait for the new hardware, because I know I'll want it. However, then baseball season is over, and I'll probably just wait for MLB 17, rather than buy a near-death version. So, you've then got me waiting another year, and at that point, I might just not even care. This is a terrible mess of an idea. Heck, I might take that hoax NX controller over this.

No other sites have picked up on this so I'm still waiting on some type of confirmation.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...ystation-4k-is-real-but-why-is-sony-making-it

Not quite the level of certainty on what it is, but a report on the idea that something is coming that is improved in at least ONE way (4K media playback).

 

[spat55]

If it is true it's not a bad idea but make it so all games run on both but better on the newer PS4.5, add in UHD blu-ray feedback and you might be onto a winner, especially if they can make it smaller with the latest improvements in die shrinks.

 

[JujuFish]

I'd been planning on finally getting a PS4 when Uncharted 4 releases. Looks like I'll be holding off, at least until concrete info is out.

 

[Aikouka]

I think the only thing that they'll have to worry about is making sure to be very clear to the consumer about what this means. Stuff like this can be very confusing as it's against what we're used to in the "console space". We have had upgrades in the past... (e.g. N64's ROM Pack), but none of them have been that big of a deal nor all that popular.

I'm just wondering when we'll get some sort of game that requires it? I know the rumors are saying that it won't, but I'm thinking that we'd definitely see it when it comes to VR.

 

[zerocool84]

Nevermind the fact that there's no way it'll be able to render 4k at all. It will probably be able to finally do true 1080p60 which is a great step above what we have now but there's no where near enough power to render the games we play at 4k.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Nevermind the fact that there's no way it'll be able to render 4k at all. It will probably be able to finally do true 1080p60 which is a great step above what we have now but there's no where near enough power to render the games we play at 4k.

Sorry in advance for the wall of text.

It also makes it harder on developers who now have to make their game run on two different consoles possibly at two different resolutions and levels of detail. I can see developers getting lazy and really not doing anything except resolution increase for the newer console. How many people out there would be willing to buy a new console when they can play the games fine on the one they own now? That's what makes the least sense to me. Consumers need to see a real benefit and without locking them out from new games and forcing the upgrade you basically set it up for failure in the marketplace. Despite what these rumors say I am still not convinced this is anything more than someone leaking info on the ps5 that isn't going to be out for a while yet. I have no doubts that Sony and Microsoft have both been working on or planning their next release. That isn't uncommon at all. Remember how long the rumors lasted for the PS3 and look how long it took for that box to release after we first heard about it. The ps4 as well had a long period of leaks and rumors. It didn't come out months after we heard about it, it took a couple years. I don't think it would be that hard to launch a newly upgraded console next year if they wanted to but I am not sure they are ready to do it and that the way the rumors make it sound is the best way to go about it. At the risk of repeating myself, consumers are generally not willing to spend big money on a device that doesn't have a clear benefit over what they are using currently. Tell them their old console will play all the new games is a sure fire way to keep people from upgrading at all.

 

[Subyman]

I only see this as a way for MS and Sony to continue to command the "launch" price for the console. MS is down in the high $200s every now and then and Sony is in the low $300's with bundles on their PS4. Even if this is just a small bump in performance and a new form factor they will market the hell out of it and resituate the console at the higher price point. As for the devs, likely the new console will bump the resolution or FPS. Not a huge deal on the dev side.

They may even have a feature that will increase the resolution of older PS4 games so they can have the bulletpoint of "enhanced library support" or whatever.

 

[Lil Frier]

There are just so many crappy aspects. Like, say Microsoft also does this with the XB1. I like my Halo 5 console. However, I'd like to get the better internals. I wouldn't want to go back to a plain, black box. That would suck. It would leave me tempted to buy a new XB1, open both up, and swap the internals, so the bland case is the weaker console.

If this happened, I hope they have a SERIOUS trade-up program to push. That, or I'd love if you could send in a console, get its guts upgraded, then get it back. Overall, I think it's just a confusing mess, and an admission that this generation is a failure on the hardware front.

 

[ImpulsE69]

There are just so many crappy aspects. Like, say Microsoft also does this with the XB1. I like my Halo 5 console. However, I'd like to get the better internals. I wouldn't want to go back to a plain, black box. That would suck. It would leave me tempted to buy a new XB1, open both up, and swap the internals, so the bland case is the weaker console.

If this happened, I hope they have a SERIOUS trade-up program to push. That, or I'd love if you could send in a console, get its guts upgraded, then get it back. Overall, I think it's just a confusing mess, and an admission that this generation is a failure on the hardware front.

I think it is more of Sony trying to keep a step ahead of MS. What doesn't make sense though is it's not really going to gain them any good will. It's going to be the similar fiasco that is 3DS and New 3DS.

 

[sze5003]

I think this is a bad idea. Besides if they do this it won't be true 4k gaming. Think about a really high resolution expansion. Take a 1080p picture and pretty much up the resolution to the next highest amount. What's it going to look like? I'm sure many of you have blown up a picture or two before, doesn't look as good as the original resolution.

What this new system will do is just scale it to "4k". I don't see them selling well at all because like many have said already, why buy another console just for this reason when the library of games isn't even strong.

I have both Xbox one and ps4 as well as a PC and I'll be honest I got them all for exclusives. The library of games hasn't been interesting. I have close to 20 ps4 disc games and 5-6 Xbox only games. The rest have been remakes or rehashes of the same generations cod, assassins Creed, sport games, etc.

Might as well upgrade my PC and just forget it. If this does happen, I would want all those exclusives to be out on PC as well, there would be no reason not to have them then.

 

[iluvdeal]

I'm guessing this is more about adding 4k media capabilities (4k Blu-ray and Netflix, any others?). But if games do look and run better on the PS4.5, then isn't that what most gaming fans want as it would be more PC-like? If there's no problem playing the same game on low, mid, of high end setup on PCs, why not do the same on consoles? Let those who can afford it pay more for a little extra eye candy if they want.

 

[purbeast0]

i still don't think this is legit at all. i mean technology is just seems "impossible".

i mean ps4 and x1 can't even do 1080p at 60fps consistently. that alone makes me LOL at the thought of a console coming out 3 years or whatever later doing 4k @ 60fps, that is only an "upgrade" to the current console.

it just does not seem technically feasible. let alone in a little ass ps4 case.

 

[ImpulsE69]

It's not 'doing' 4k. Nothing has said it will. It's just upscaling. My guess is maybe a big higher speed CPU and a bigger GPU and maybe a bit of extra memory and thats it. And it will be priced way higher than it should be.

 

[purbeast0]

if that is the case it makes it even more worthless.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I'm guessing this is more about adding 4k media capabilities (4k Blu-ray and Netflix, any others?). But if games do look and run better on the PS4.5, then isn't that what most gaming fans want as it would be more PC-like? If there's no problem playing the same game on low, mid, of high end setup on PCs, why not do the same on consoles? Let those who can afford it pay more for a little extra eye candy if they want.

Cause that's not what people buy consoles for. They don't want to worry about their box not playing the same settings or frame rate as their friend. I know I don't want to think about that. You are probably right that the 4K talk is more related to media than gaming. This is either someone leaking some stuff about the ps5 or just some info passed along out of context about 4K media capabilities.

 

[sze5003]

They better offer some incentives for those of us that have the ps4. Problem with me is I like having new tech. Because I can afford it usually, I'll buy it. But at the same time I hate the whole methodology of it.

Xbox one will most likely follow suite. This sucks for people that have both consoles too. Now I feel like I should not have bought both of them but I got a killer deal on the Xbox anyway.