GTPNewsWire
Contributing Writer
- 20,179
- GTPHQ
This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:
This article was published by Kyle Patrick (@SlipZtrEm) on January 9th, 2019 in the Gran Turismo Sport category.
Sony Uses Gran Turismo Sport to Showcase Its 8K TV at CES 2019
- Thread starter GTPNewsWire
- 63 comments
- 9,048 views
- 1,683
- Houston, TX
- The_TetsuKobura
Hard to believe how back then, 480p was considered really high quality on YouTube.
- 385
- Hawkes Bay
- davidb_165
There is no practical application for 8k apart from super large screens more suited to outdoor events. I'd hardly call it a consumer product.
- 114
- Italy
GRS Gran Resolution Sport
- 139
- United Kingdom
I have not noticed an improvement for 30 years.
I think my eye sight is getting worse at the same rate tv’s get better
I think my eye sight is getting worse at the same rate tv’s get better
- 6,764
- Ontario
- SvennoJ
- SvenZ
And VR. 8K spread over 150 degrees is comparable to 864p over 30 degrees, the recommended smpte viewing angle for 1080p tv. Of course in VR you can use foveated rendering with eye tracking, no need to render full 8K as your eyes only see sharp detail in a 2 degree cone.
- 27,385
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
Not natively. The PS4 Pro doesn't even do 4K natively in most cases. We're talking 16x the resolution of a 1080P screen, or 33 million pixels.
AFAIK, there's very few companies producing 8K content right now. The Russo brothers filmed both Avengers 3 and 4 with IMAX/ARRI cameras that don't hit true 8K. Film companies are driving demand because an 8K camera can still produce better 4K content, but honestly, unless you're running a setup as big as this 98-inch Sony screen, you're not really going to notice a difference between 4K and 8K. 4K is still a hard sell for most folks — there's not a lot of content out there that's genuinely made for it — so good luck to any company trying to push for 8K to be remotely common place in the next decade.
...That said, I'm sure it's stunning to witness.
- 6,764
- Ontario
- SvennoJ
- SvenZ
Not natively. The PS4 Pro doesn't even do 4K natively in most cases. We're talking 16x the resolution of a 1080P screen, or 33 million pixels.
AFAIK, there's very few companies producing 8K content right now. The Russo brothers filmed both Avengers 3 and 4 with IMAX/ARRI cameras that don't hit true 8K. Film companies are driving demand because an 8K camera can still produce better 4K content, but honestly, unless you're running a setup as big as this 98-inch Sony screen, you're not really going to notice a difference between 4K and 8K. 4K is still a hard sell for most folks — there's not a lot of content out there that's genuinely made for it — so good luck to any company trying to push for 8K to be remotely common place in the next decade.
...That said, I'm sure it's stunning to witness.
98" is on the small side for home theater projectors. 120" to 200" screens are common. Projectors aren't great for HDR though, nor input lag.
https://www.digitalprojection.com/emea/dp-projectors/insight-laser-8k/
https://www.projectorreviews.com/review-tv/cedia-2018-digital-projection-insight-laser-8k-video/
Price available on request... Not for consumers.
This fake 8K consumer projector already costs 18k (e-shift to simulate 8K, while not supporting 8K input, only upscaling)
https://www.newsshooter.com/2018/09/11/71847/
- 196
- Croatia
There's no point playing a racing game on a TV because of input delay...I wonder what this thing's input delay is?
- 3,364
- Slovakia
- dawko-san
Wow. So I guess there are millions of people playing racing games on their TVs for no reason...
- 6,764
- Ontario
- SvennoJ
- SvenZ
As long as the input delay is constant it doesn't matter when it's 60 ms or less. Just guessing, I found NFS shift 2 with input delay of 120ms hard to play in the fast cars, as well as trying to remote play Trackmania turbo at 120ms input delay, definitely too much. I've never had a problem with 60 ms though. Current TVs are well under that in game mode, even without game mode they are under or around that.
I notice the difference in input delay when I switch tvs and drive GR.1 cars. It takes a couple laps to re-adjust my brake and turn in points, yet I'm just as fast afterwards. An extra 40 ms won't do anything for your reaction times which is about 250 ms for visual stimuli, then add the time to turn the wheel or press the brakes and the car to respond. Racing is all about situational awareness and anticipating the movements of other cars.
What does matter is screen size. The more real estate to fill your vision, the more use you have out of your natural ability to judge speed and lateral movement. VR is obviously the best as it keeps you aware of your lateral movement on the track much better than a monitor or tv can.
Now I wonder what HDMI 2.1 VRR will do to racing games. Variable frame rate, as in, display as soon as a frame is ready, sounds great on paper. No screen tearing when a game drops a few frames and smoother when there's less to render. However when a game runs at 50 to 80 fps, does that mean that you're now dealing with variable input delay? That would be very bad as I notice after switching tvs.
The difference between 50 and 80 fps is only 7.5 ms render time, so perhaps it won't matter at all. I have no clue what the difference in input lag is between my 1080p and 4K HDR tv. I know it's less on the 4K HDR as I brake and turn in too soon on that one after playing on the old 1080p set. On the old set I have to start braking sooner as I'm actually already further ahead than what I'm seeing on screen. Most noticeable at 378kph (105 m/s) braking for Mulsanne. 7.5 ms variation between 50 and 80 fps is still less than a meter at top speed, so perhaps no issue.
Anyway my 4K tv runs at 34ms input lag with HDR in game mode. No issues with that. No clue what my old 2006 Sharp Aquos 1080p tv runs at, input lag wasn't tested back then.
Last edited:
- 196
- Croatia
Uhhh...sorry, don't get me wrong, I just meant that a 5ms delay, for example, makes a massive difference from the 38ms my TV has. I switched to an older monitor which has only 5ms delay and I could feel the difference instantly, I even managed to drift around a couple corners properly in Project Cars 2 for the first time ever... It's the improvement in reaction time that counts, especially in racing (and drifting in this case).
I will always remember the input delay I had with GT6, I tried drifting with a wheel and the 38ms input delay simply made it impossible for me.
- 2,422
- Paris
- Milouse
- Milouse
It shouldn't be worse than a whole missed frame, should it? The risk is that developers take that for a don't-need-to-care-about-framerate free licence.
My PC monitor IS a TV (40" 4K, that's the best fitting size for 4k as far as i'm concerned). Travelling my mouse from it to my old 120 Hz monitor plugged as a secondary side monitor, i don't notice the difference in response time.
- 1,545
- New Zealand
- MHFanatik
Yeah, 8k is 16 times the resolution of 1080p, so to have GTS run at that res you need 16 times the power of PS4 - somewhere around 30 TFlops, which is triple or double of what PS5 will have depending on the specs.
Eye tracking rendering sounds brilliant on paper, but it's going to be a lot of fun to handle LOD-ing down things that aren't in focus - which can cause all sorts of problems in terms of image stability (do you want things popping in and out of LOD stages in the corner of your eye) and you're going to have the CPU doing heavy lifting figuring out what to render at max res vs what's a bit off, and with eye movement being so fast that's a lot of work.
Most likely yeah it'll be a more solid 4k console. 4k or something similar to the 1280x1080 (x4?) resolution that they did with GT6 on the PS3 for those hard-to-render games.
Unfortunately, of the 3 options (resolution, framerate, and hdr) we're taking the resolution route. One with the biggest performance hit and the least improvement in quality, but because it's easier to market that's what we got.
Wait a minute,can you have more than 2 people racing at rally tracks?
And the way the headlights iluminates the tokyo track
Check some of the driving missions and tests in GT Sport, I'm pretty sure they have many cars on the rally tracks. You might even be able to get 6(?) car races in arcade mode too.
Maybe the fact that consoles only supports up to 60 hertz for display plays the part?
(For those who dont know, most TV supports up to 60 hertz, while PC Monitor can do more than that, typically 144 Hertz for a high end ones. PC Gaming can reach more Hertz for obvious reasons.)
- 8
- Ireland
Input delay is more than refresh rate / frame time.
Given an instantly responsive PC, and zero transmission time from the player controller and any controllers, at worst you're going to have 16.6ms of input lag between you doing something and WHAT YOU SEE. This isn't the same as WHAT IS SIMULATED.
Simply put, if you do something a nanosecond after the previous frame is shown, you've got to wait a minimum of 16.6 milliseconds before the next frame shows something.
But let's think about all the things that have to happen:
You move the joystick > controller registering that move. Might be 1/8,000th of a second (not sure about DS4 polling rate).
Then, the controller transmits that wirelessly to the PS4, so encoding, transmission, verification+decoding the signal.
Then GT Sport takes that info, and simulated based on it. Physics simulation is done hundreds of times a second, so each of those frames at 60Hz might contain dozens of physics steps. BUT, it won't show any of that until it's done enough physics and started rendering, at which point time is 'frozen'. Not actually frozen, but the renderer takes that point in time. So there's an offset there, if that makes sense.
Now to output - through the wire to the TV. The TV then does whatever it does, and this is where the high-response rating of monitors shines. Because they're built for interactive things, this is smaller than a TV (because you never really test this on a TV do you).
I'm assuming this is what he's alluding to in that post, the TV response time part.
I'd love to get some numbers on all of these bits. Do some actual objective math on it per-system.
- 3,364
- Slovakia
- dawko-san
most don’t even know how many hertz their tv support 
- 11,660
- GTP_Orido
- 1,743
- Aussie
- Tassie_tiger
I think most OLED panels are very good.Some tv can run in PC input mode that can support more variety resolutions from VGA to 1080p/higher, and higher refresh rate 75-85Hz are common AFAIK, maybe the high end ones can even reach 100+Hz. I used my tv for pc gaming as well
My C7 is 120Hz Refresh and 0.2ms Response.
- 11,660
- GTP_Orido
0.2ms
that's insane, how is that possible on 120Hz tv ?-Edit : I think we are mixing something up here, what response you are referring to ?
- 1,743
- Aussie
- Tassie_tiger
Refresh being image change, response being pixel colour change.0.2ms
-Edit : I think we are mixing something up here, what response you are referring to ?
I think OLED, as opposed to LCD, has effectively 0ms Response.
- 11,660
- GTP_Orido
Oh, pixel response
which is more related to motion blur and juddering which I think even most OLED still have issues and they usually have the fancy interpolation to much higher Hz like 240/480 or black frame insertion to combat them.
- 1,743
- Aussie
- Tassie_tiger
Yep.Oh, pixel response
But related to refresh rates as the panel can only refresh quick if the pixels respond fast.
At least this is what I remember from researching when buying my TV 12 months ago.
A TV panel expert I am not.
