I've got a 55inch 4K and I sit about 15 feet from it... I know the difference between 1080 and 4K, and watching youtube it's easy enough to check... anytime it looks exceptionally good, I check and yeah it's 4K content.

But I think the bigger test/proof has been that my parents have the same TV and they notice when something is 4K without being prompted... they mostly watch shitty cable, so when 4K content is on from youtube or some streaming app they can tell... And yes they do have Netflix with 4K because they share my account.

Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Jul 31, 2020, 15:47:

RedEye9 wrote on Jul 31, 2020, 14:10:

Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Jul 31, 2020, 14:00:
I have a 65" 4k TV in a 120 sq/ft NYC apartment living room, where I sit 6-8ft from the screen. I can definitely tell the difference between 4K and 1080p content, although the difference is not dramatic.

My shitty 4k 40" tv does upscaling. Even a 720p video looks ok.
Playing a game at 4k on the other hand is amazeballs at nuking the jaggies. No anti aliasing needed.
Edit
Did you mean 1200 SQ ft apt, my closet is 120 SQ ft.
Next you'll tell us that it rents for $3500 a month and that was a deal.

Have you ever run into Beamer?

Nope, the living room dimensions are 10ft x 12ft = 120sqft. The total square footage of the apartment is ~350sqft. Rent is $3000/mo. and while not a jaw droppingly good deal, it is cheaper than average for a 1 bedroom apartment in Greenwich Village/SoHo. And I've not knowingly run into Beamer, but it would be unsurprising if we've passed each other on the streets, at least pre-pandemic.

Post-pandemic, I can actually rarely be found outside, because work went insane.
But, when out, it's either at the Christopher St Pier, at Banty Rooster (it closes for good on 8/22, which is a shame, because it's great New Mexico cuisine and some kind of ridiculously good plum cocktail), and that feels like about it. Oh, and Mariposa Rosa tacos, which, if you like tacos, is way the hell worth the walk.

RedEye9 wrote on Jul 31, 2020, 14:10:

Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Jul 31, 2020, 14:00:
I have a 65" 4k TV in a 120 sq/ft NYC apartment living room, where I sit 6-8ft from the screen. I can definitely tell the difference between 4K and 1080p content, although the difference is not dramatic.

My shitty 4k 40" tv does upscaling. Even a 720p video looks ok.
Playing a game at 4k on the other hand is amazeballs at nuking the jaggies. No anti aliasing needed.
Edit
Did you mean 1200 SQ ft apt, my closet is 120 SQ ft.
Next you'll tell us that it rents for $3500 a month and that was a deal.

Have you ever run into Beamer?

Nope, the living room dimensions are 10ft x 12ft = 120sqft. The total square footage of the apartment is ~350sqft. Rent is $3000/mo. and while not a jaw droppingly good deal, it is cheaper than average for a 1 bedroom apartment in Greenwich Village/SoHo. And I've not knowingly run into Beamer, but it would be unsurprising if we've passed each other on the streets, at least pre-pandemic.

Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Jul 31, 2020, 14:00:
I have a 65" 4k TV in a 120 sq/ft NYC apartment living room, where I sit 6-8ft from the screen. I can definitely tell the difference between 4K and 1080p content, although the difference is not dramatic.

My shitty 4k 40" tv does upscaling. Even a 720p video looks ok.
Playing a game at 4k on the other hand is amazeballs at nuking the jaggies. No anti aliasing needed.
Edit
Did you mean 1200 SQ ft apt, my closet is 120 SQ ft.
Next you'll tell us that it rents for $3500 a month and that was a deal.

Have you ever run into Beamer?

I have a 65" 4k TV in a 120 sq/ft NYC apartment living room, where I sit 6-8ft from the screen. I can definitely tell the difference between 4K and 1080p content, although the difference is not dramatic.

Why is everyone surprised. The good Bungie Halos always chose features, scale and performance over fidelity. It might not look as good as the most recent Sony 3rd person adventure but who cares it has co-op and the combat and pvp will be way better.

HoSpanky wrote on Jul 29, 2020, 16:12:
When Halo 4 looks significantly better than Halo 6, You have Done Something Wrong.

This is their flagship title. It's the game they plan to get people to buy new Xboxes with. Compare it to the nuclear bombs Sony dropped with their announcement and you can see why people are disappointed. Doesn't matter if it runs in 4k if it looks old; it just makes the shitty lighting stand out even more.

Compare it to HZD2 (which looks like a marginal improvement only because the first game is visually stunning already) or the new Ratchet & Clank (That was gameplay and cutscenes combined, and they've done their cutscenes in-engine for several games now), and it's just....well, background noise.

Even forget the graphics, they added a grappling hook and clambering. Not exactly stuff people playing FPS these days will get excited about, they're chasing other design trends instead of taking Halo in it's own direction. 343 has been masters of the franchise for awhile now and they've arguably done very little worthwhile with it. I don't think fans are being unreasonable by asking for a different studio to have a shot at it.

I feel like half of the people ranting here are off on tangents totally unrelated to the actual feedback from fans. Microsoft hasn't done much with their IP over the past 6 years, of course people are unhappy with their half hearted efforts.

anm8rjp wrote on Jul 29, 2020, 22:02:
I really don't understand this infatuation with 4K. … HDR on the other hand was the biggest boon in technology on 4K TVs. …

I agree. 4K is overkill unless you're sitting 2 feet from the screen. Even then, when gaming you're better off with 1080p/120 with good AA over 4K/60. However, once you've experienced HDR it's hard to go back... HDR would make classic DOOM look good. When you consider both new consoles will support ray-traced lighting, which WILL BE the next big thing, 4K support will be rare... 1080p/30 seems much more realistic. If the Xbox Series X is capable of 1080p/60 with raytracing, I'll be thrilled.

If raytracing with HDR can make a 23 year old game like Quake II look like this...
https://hothardware.com/ContentImages/NewsItem/47534/content/Quake_2.jpg
just imagine what it could do for Halo Infinite.

That's nice, but in terms of gaming and especially PC gaming, the 4K discussion is around the amount of detail being rendered in real-time, not theoretical debate over whether the average person sits close enough or is physically able to discern the difference between HD and UHD video content. Rendering your game in 4K makes a massive difference in the clarity of the image, bringing out distant details and all but eliminating the need to use approximating algorithms to smooth out jagged lines, even if you're still using a 1080p screen (where the 4:1 resolution ratio makes downscaling about as accurate as it can ever be). Plus the reality of the industry in 2020 is that even your bottom-tier $150 screen is most likely 4K anyway, so it's not even a question of saving money as that author claims was the primary intent of his advice 5+ years ago.

from 2012 review on 4K TVs and the math on viewing distance and pixels.
https://www.cnet.com/news/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/

This is from 2013, and updated article. https://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/ One thing that seems a bit dated already is that 84"+ TVs won't become mainstream. I think if people have the wall or room space, TVs will continue to get larger, even 100+ in some instances.

And an updated article from 2105. They mention that 4K is still the most hyped aspect of new TVs. "From the very beginning we've been saying that the resolution increase, by itself, wasn't enough to justify the price increase in the new Ultra HD TVs. This was because for the sizes most people buy (around 50 inches) and the distance most people sit (8 to 10 feet; about 2.5 to 3 meters), the difference in detail between 1080p and 4K is pretty much impossible to see."

I really don't understand this infatuation with 4K. If you check reviews of 4K TVs when they first arrived, you will see that most reviewers said that 4K was all hype. You have to sit too close to see a difference from 4K and 1080p. It was just a marketing gimmick. HDR on the other hand was the biggest boon in technology on 4K TVs. I wish they would make games at 1080 or 1440, and bump up the other aspects of the game. Better models, lighting, particle FX, more NPCs, more enemies on screen, etc. Watch this video and I challenge you to spot the 4K vs. 1080. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x-u8mUSFss 4K is hype. HDR is the cool thing that 4K generational tech brought to gaming, unless you have a 46" 4K sitting on a desk and you are sitting 2 feet away, then it doesn't offer much IMO as a tradeoff for what would be possible if they stuck with making the best game graphically at 1080p.

from 2012 review on 4K TVs and the math on viewing distance and pixels.
https://www.cnet.com/news/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/

This is from 2013, and updated article. https://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/ One thing that seems a bit dated already is that 84"+ TVs won't become mainstream. I think if people have the wall or room space, TVs will continue to get larger, even 100+ in some instances.

And an updated article from 2105. They mention that 4K is still the most hyped aspect of new TVs. "From the very beginning we've been saying that the resolution increase, by itself, wasn't enough to justify the price increase in the new Ultra HD TVs. This was because for the sizes most people buy (around 50 inches) and the distance most people sit (8 to 10 feet; about 2.5 to 3 meters), the difference in detail between 1080p and 4K is pretty much impossible to see."

This comment was edited on Jul 29, 2020, 22:23.

Darks wrote on Jul 29, 2020, 13:00:
I personally think people need to shut up and temper their bullshit and just be glad there are games still being made that can be played. I'm like some of you, the older I have gotten the less tolerant I have become about people and their obsessive whining bullshit over stuff thats not overly important and stop nitpicking.

Oh, like Coop in games?

Steele Johnson wrote on Jul 29, 2020, 17:55:
It's 4x more powerful than the xbox one x, the console that already supports native 4k.

No, the Xbox Series X has twice the GPU power of the Xbox One X... 12 teraflops vs 6 teraflops... making it more powerful than a RTX 2080 Super costing hundreds more.
The original Xbox One was only 1.3 teraflops, and Halo 6 was obviously designed with this as its target platform.
The raytracing patch due post launch will hopefully make a dramatic difference like it did with Minecraft.
Let's face it... it almost looks like they're using the same engine. Ha.

jdreyer wrote on Jul 29, 2020, 14:56:

Steele Johnson wrote on Jul 29, 2020, 14:01:
My only surprise (er complaint) was that it wasn't highlighting the power of the new console (which they have been hyping that it's 4x more powerful than the xbox one x). So it was like they didn't put their money where their mouth is. Like @Verno mentioned, the game's graphics look like a game that was released 5 years ago. So I was surprised that they didn't use one of their IPs to highlight the new console's capabilities. Aside from that, I couldn't give a rat's ass about the game because they all kind of play the same. Yeah, I'm the type that likes to see a series evolve in gameplay and technology. But I do know that most gamers expect the same things. The Witcher series is a perfect example of how I like to see a game evolve. The Halo series doesn't even come close to that, so that's why I stopped buying them after Halo 2.

A 4K display takes 4x the power to run, so I wasn't expecting a huge upgrade in graphics.

It's 4x more powerful than the xbox one x, the console that already supports native 4k.

jdreyer wrote on Jul 29, 2020, 14:56:

Steele Johnson wrote on Jul 29, 2020, 14:01:
My only surprise (er complaint) was that it wasn't highlighting the power of the new console (which they have been hyping that it's 4x more powerful than the xbox one x). So it was like they didn't put their money where their mouth is. Like @Verno mentioned, the game's graphics look like a game that was released 5 years ago. So I was surprised that they didn't use one of their IPs to highlight the new console's capabilities. Aside from that, I couldn't give a rat's ass about the game because they all kind of play the same. Yeah, I'm the type that likes to see a series evolve in gameplay and technology. But I do know that most gamers expect the same things. The Witcher series is a perfect example of how I like to see a game evolve. The Halo series doesn't even come close to that, so that's why I stopped buying them after Halo 2.

A 4K display takes 4x the power to run, so I wasn't expecting a huge upgrade in graphics.

The One X already does native 4K rendering... So the new one should do 8K, or highly-complex 4K that is still buttery smooth. Should.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Jul 29, 2020, 13:31:

|RaptoR| wrote on Jul 29, 2020, 12:02:
The older I get, the more I feel disconnected from the mainstream "gamers."

I am 100% there with you.

It's hard for me to understand why some people get so worked up over games, to the point of sending nasty emails or death threats to the developers. These people act as if the devs have personally insulted them or they have literally done them bodily harm. I think the last time I felt genuine anger over the development of a game was back in 2003 when the Deus Ex: Invisible War demo was released. I never sent them a nasty email; I just didn't buy the game.

Halo Infinite didn't look impressive by any means, but at least it ran at 60fps. Can't stand seeing so many console games still running at 30fps. It's a slideshow, an eye sore, and input lag is terrible compared to 60fps, let alone 144fps on my PC.

When Halo 4 looks significantly better than Halo 6, You have Done Something Wrong.

This is their flagship title. It's the game they plan to get people to buy new Xboxes with. Compare it to the nuclear bombs Sony dropped with their announcement and you can see why people are disappointed. Doesn't matter if it runs in 4k if it looks old; it just makes the shitty lighting stand out even more.

Compare it to HZD2 (which looks like a marginal improvement only because the first game is visually stunning already) or the new Ratchet & Clank (That was gameplay and cutscenes combined, and they've done their cutscenes in-engine for several games now), and it's just....well, background noise.

It was definitely ugly, but it was ugly the way Halo was ugly. I thought it was a deliberate art decision to, you know, look like Halo (instead of a new Halo game.)

Not saying it's the right decision, but I think it was very deliberate.

Steele Johnson wrote on Jul 29, 2020, 14:01:
My only surprise (er complaint) was that it wasn't highlighting the power of the new console (which they have been hyping that it's 4x more powerful than the xbox one x). So it was like they didn't put their money where their mouth is. Like @Verno mentioned, the game's graphics look like a game that was released 5 years ago. So I was surprised that they didn't use one of their IPs to highlight the new console's capabilities. Aside from that, I couldn't give a rat's ass about the game because they all kind of play the same. Yeah, I'm the type that likes to see a series evolve in gameplay and technology. But I do know that most gamers expect the same things. The Witcher series is a perfect example of how I like to see a game evolve. The Halo series doesn't even come close to that, so that's why I stopped buying them after Halo 2.

A 4K display takes 4x the power to run, so I wasn't expecting a huge upgrade in graphics.