Nintendo missing the resolution mark again.

#171SoaringDivePosted 10/7/2012 2:48:55 PM
GloryChaos posted...
Emerald_Melios posted...
MetroidJunkie posted...
So Sony, once again, pushes a format that people don't really want but that Sony will no doubt convince them they want. Reminds me of Bluray. =)


That was the single worst design decision they made for the PS3. Not only did it lead to an unacceptable launch price, but it seemed superfluous considering the Wii and Xbox 360 did fine using DVD-ROM capacity discs.


PS3 launch price was mostly thanks to the PS2 emulation chip. That's why PS3's after the price drop couldn't play any PS2 disks.


PS2 emulation chip was about $30.

The reasons why PS3's after couldn't use them, was because they were planning on HD collections, as well as wanted to increase sales of PS3 software (people were buying old PS2 games). You can't sell all those PS2 ports if it plays PS2 games.
---
Level up your life, every single day.
3DS: 2148-8150-1379 | Steam:SoaringDive | PSN:SoarDive
#172L0L_FAQPosted 10/7/2012 11:42:24 PM
God Damnit, ChromeFAQs broke again >:(

Sorry in advance, I won't be able to properly quote, so I'll just italicize and bold your quoted comments:

Ahh, here we go, now we can work with your own numbers to show how you're being misleading. So, you state that 6.75 times the resolution equates to around 4 times the amount of information needs that needs to be updated. That's roughly a 1.7x increase in bandwidth-to-pixel ratio...that's not far from 2x, is it? Doubling the bitrate means you can increase the resolution by 3.375 times, while an increase of 2.5x the bitrate means you could go OVER 4 times the resolution. So were your numbers pulled out of your ass too?

Combine this with the fact that only video data would need to be increased as the resolution is raised (audio and other data would stay the same size, as you acknowledged), and again we come to the conclusion that a 4x increase in resolution is more than possible at acceptable quality within the confines of a 50GB disc. Thank you for proving my point.


That 4x figure was more a function of me thinking about how the Vita is 4x the resolution of the PSP. Never mind, I meant 6x. I guess those were kind of UNINTENTIONALLY pulled out of my ass; I meant 6x. However, I'm still surprise you're not sourcing your calculations on, well, anything. I've already provided links proving that fitting a 4K film onto a Bluray without obvious quality loss is an issue that is yet to be resolved, but let me throw more at you, since we're literally just try to out-spitball each other.
---
http://i.imgur.com/vpXc3.png http://i.imgur.com/lljy5.jpg
"L0L_FAQ is one of the reasons I even read the forums any more" - CJayC
#173L0L_FAQPosted 10/7/2012 11:45:22 PM
http://www.techradar.com/news/television/tv/why-4k-isnt-ready-to-replace-hd-1065703

How to get 4k to homes?
However, no devices capable of playing native 4K sources currently exist for the home market.
The problem with delivery is the sheer size of 4K's datastream; the infrastructure simply does not exist.
The Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI) specifications, which are used by Hollywood, use a maximum of 250 Mbits/sec for a JPEG2000 compressed 4K image, though this is set to double to 500 Mbits/sec in the next five years or so.
"In DCI terms, at the highest bitrate of 250 Mbit/sec, a two-hour 4k film would be 225GB for the image only, excluding audio or sub pictures," says Oliver Pasch, Head of European Digital Cinema Sales at Sony Professional.
"However, most films today are compressed at variable bit rates, so in reality, a standard DCP (Digital Cinema Package) used for distribution to cinemas would be smaller, but to what extent would depend on the content of the film."
At a recent Sony event in Tokyo, TechRadar was shown a trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man in 4K using the Sony VPL-VW1000ES projector. The two and a half minute uncompressed trailer weighed in at 500GB.
Pasch underlines the fact that there is a tendency to compress as much as possible to reduce file sizes, and that it's likely to increase; studios and distributors are considering sending 4K films to cinemas via satellite rather than on physical hard disks.

How about getting a 4K movie onto a Blu-ray disc?

Actually getting a 4K film onto a Blu-ray disc would be a huge challenge. We asked Sony's Pasch to tell us how many Blu-ray discs it would take to watch a three-hour Lord of the Rings film in 4K?
"On the basis that three hours of 4K video takes up 3.16TB, this would be 212 standard 25GB Blu-rays although the quality of image and amount of Blu-rays used all comes down to the amount of compression applied."
"Blu-ray has the capability to go beyond what is can do today," says Foster at Futuresource. "Physically it can support up to eight layers the original specification allowed for 200GB! Whether anyone will want to make one of those is a different story, but it shouldn't be difficult to go to four layers, though even that would require a new player; the electronics in a BD player simply couldn't handle a current BD disc with a 4K resolution."
We asked official industry body the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) about 4K.
"There is currently no activity within the BDA to bring 4K into the Blu-ray specs," Victor Matsuda, chairman of the BDA promotions committee, told us.
"That said, I think there is room for it if 4K displays begin to build some momentum in the market and consumer interest in content as always, the most important driver becomes apparent. Until then, I think HD-to-4k up-conversion will be the most likely application we'll see from player and TV companies."


Here's another one for why the TVs themselves should catch on. And you again seem to be conveniently ignoring the other points of my post, i.e. people need to first buy 4K TVs, channels need to support 4K and films need to be able to release in 4K, or it won't be ready for another 6 years or so. And I stand by that figure; I'm not saying it'll never come, it's just not going to come soon enough to be pertinent to the Wii U

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/

It's just facts; we're not going to see 4K enter the home market till the Wii U starts plateuing in sales anyway (if at all, I just mean mean it gets the tail end of it's lifecycle).
---
http://i.imgur.com/vpXc3.png http://i.imgur.com/lljy5.jpg
"L0L_FAQ is one of the reasons I even read the forums any more" - CJayC
#174L0L_FAQPosted 10/7/2012 11:45:31 PM
TV format 4K would be 3840x2160 (or less, depending on aspect ratio). What 4K films are you expecting to see in a 4:3 aspect ratio??? I'm going to be courteous and assume you meant 4096x3072.

Yes, I did mean 4096, it was a typo. I'm just getting used to the numpad, the IT guy at my office said that I could type numbers a lot faster, but it's upside down and I haven't gotten a feel for it yet. NUMBERS.

From: Solis | Posted: 10/6/2012 6:07:26 PM | #144
Now, here's a confusing statement. You say the DVD Forum felt HD-DVD was adequate, then you say it had compression problems? So you're saying they were WRONG to think that HD-DVD was good enough as an HD format then?


Honestly, yes I do. what I'm saying is that space IS a big issue when it comes to HD video and clearly, HD-DVD didn't provide enough space to match Bluray's quality, but they also clearly thought DVD9s weren't enough space. You just asked me a question, you didn't address the point.

And Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and countless others clearly thought less than 10GB is needed for 1080p movies, so what? You seem to grossly exaggerate just how much bitrate is needed for a "good" quality 1080p video (let alone 4K).


Since when? Maybe if you aren't concerned for actual image quality and can take compression artefacts with a smile, you'll be fine with 1080p video at ~8 gigs.

How could you be talking about HD video formats and not know about the PiP feature? Have you never used or even heard of the developer commentary video option in HD-DVD/Blu-ray movies?

Oh wow, they actually include bonus content like that? I've never checked it out, honestly. I know OF PiP, but I mostly use it to just watch out for whether the commercials are gone from another channel. I don't see why me not remembering bonus content is worthy of just your incredulous and not addressing the points I actually make during the entire post, when most of your post has been pointing out typographical errors and posing rhetorical questions.
---
http://i.imgur.com/vpXc3.png http://i.imgur.com/lljy5.jpg
"L0L_FAQ is one of the reasons I even read the forums any more" - CJayC
#175L0L_FAQPosted 10/8/2012 1:48:28 AM
yessssssssss, <blockquote> tags work manually.
---
http://i.imgur.com/vpXc3.png http://i.imgur.com/lljy5.jpg
"L0L_FAQ is one of the reasons I even read the forums any more" - CJayC
#176darkqueenhelbaPosted 10/8/2012 2:03:44 AM
I hope people understand the large futility of 4k resolution. There's already equipment that's able to go beyond 4k. Why would the average consumer care?
---
My response to trolls; GET A JOB!!!
#177GencoilPosted 10/8/2012 2:11:38 AM
darkqueenhelba posted...
I hope people understand the large futility of 4k resolution. There's already equipment that's able to go beyond 4k. Why would the average consumer care?


Because apparently some people like to believe that everyone will own a 60-70 inch TV in the near future.
---
www.klustr.net || http://passid.ca/recoil || Xbox LIVE: Nitesoul || PSN: Gencoil
#178DarkZV2BetaPosted 10/8/2012 10:21:01 AM
Because obviously, everyone sits 10 feet or more away from their TV and has borderline 20-20 vision, rite?
---
Also, lolz@SATA drives. You see, they make these things called "heat," which kills consoles.
-darkjedilink
#179SolisPosted 10/8/2012 6:30:44 PM
L0L_FAQ posted...
That 4x figure was more a function of me thinking about how the Vita is 4x the resolution of the PSP. Never mind, I meant 6x. I guess those were kind of UNINTENTIONALLY pulled out of my ass; I meant 6x. However, I'm still surprise you're not sourcing your calculations on, well, anything. I've already provided links proving that fitting a 4K film onto a Bluray without obvious quality loss is an issue that is yet to be resolved, but let me throw more at you, since we're literally just try to out-spitball each other.

Well, going by that link, even getting 1080p video down to 25GB seems like an impossible task since 3 hours of uncompressed 1080p video would be around 800GB (and that's before you include audio data). DCI stats obviously don't apply to home video playback, what Blu-ray player would use JPEG2000 compression for movies? And for that matter, going by their own requirements, a 2 hour 1080p video would require over 56GB of space even BEFORE audio and other data, which wouldn't fit on a current Blu-ray either.

Regardless, in a worst case scenario where we are to assume that you need 4 times as much space for a 4K movie (which you wouldn't because audio tracks and supplementary data wouldn't be increased), they can just use BDXL discs as you linked to earlier, which offer 4-5 times more space than the 25GB baseline you gave for 1080p. Even the 4x read speed wouldn't be much of a limitation, since that would be a maximum bitrate of 144mbps (3 times current Blu-ray standards, and again audio and PiP data wouldn't be increased, so available bandwidth to video would be over 3 times). No matter how you slice it, a video at 4x the resolution and 2x the bitrate or more is STILL going to look better than current 1080p Blu-ray standards, and that's possible on current Blu-ray discs.


Here's another one for why the TVs themselves should catch on. And you again seem to be conveniently ignoring the other points of my post, i.e. people need to first buy 4K TVs, channels need to support 4K and films need to be able to release in 4K, or it won't be ready for another 6 years or so. And I stand by that figure; I'm not saying it'll never come, it's just not going to come soon enough to be pertinent to the Wii U

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/

It's just facts; we're not going to see 4K enter the home market till the Wii U starts plateuing in sales anyway (if at all, I just mean mean it gets the tail end of it's lifecycle).

But I never suggested that it was necessary for the Wii U. My point throughout this thread has been that it's inclusion would be an added benefit for games and content that could utilize it, and that there's no real downside to simply supporting the format. Just like 3D or 1080p has been for this generation of consoles (didn't consumer class 1080p sets only come out right around the time that the Xbox 360 released? And obviously 3D wasn't even considered at the start of this generation). Not to mention home consoles supporting the feature would only help 4K HDTV adoption.


Since when? Maybe if you aren't concerned for actual image quality and can take compression artefacts with a smile, you'll be fine with 1080p video at ~8 gigs.

And it would be up to the Blu-ray Disc Association to determine space requirements of a 4K Blu-ray. It doesn't matter what you or I think, the point I was making is that it's a physical possibility for 4K video to fit on a current Blu-ray disc even using existing compression standards.
---
"Walking tanks must exist somewhere for there to be such attention to detail like this in mech sim." - IGN Steel Battalion review
#180darkjedilinkPosted 10/8/2012 7:25:08 PM
Gencoil posted...
darkqueenhelba posted...
I hope people understand the large futility of 4k resolution. There's already equipment that's able to go beyond 4k. Why would the average consumer care?


Because apparently some people like to believe that everyone will own a 60-70 inch TV in the near future.


To be fair, outside of price, I don't see a valid reason NOT to have a TV that big.
---
Gaming is like a pair of boobs - Sony and Microsoft fight over whos boobs look more realistic, while Nintendo is about having fun with them - Walkiethrougie