4K gaming by the end of 2014

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

4K is a complete gimmick.

There will be people trying to prove me otherwise, but to be honest 1080p is fine just as is.

I don't think Pictures can get any clearer.

LegatoSkyheart

DVD is a complete gimmick.

There will be people trying to prove me otherwise, but to be honest VHS is fine just as is.

I don't think Pictures can get any clearer.

Except VHS degrade with each playback if I remember correctly.

DVD and VHS was night and day as well.

1080p vs 4K not so much.

One was also not required to purchase a $25K Television set in order to view the quality difference between VHS and DVD either. 

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] So? In 2008,many people had 8800GTs(2x the power of a 360).Multiplats were still being made for console hardware.

menes777

that's still no evidence that history will repeat itself. Especially with news that big name multiplats like Watch dogs, BF4, Dark souls 2 are using PC as lead platforms

Publishers are shifting back towards the PC this gen for various reasons.  It will definitely be different this gen than the last.

At the end of the day, all that matters is how hard Hollywood and the electronics industry pushes 4K technology on the masses.  At its current pricepoint, it's not mass audience viable, but people were saying the exact same thing about 1080p back in 2005.

You can bet that if the electronics companies decide to go all in and move their product lines from 1080p sets to 4K, then the big studios will start putting 4K movies on the shelves.  It's going to be a domino effect from there, and one thing going for this technology that was a major pain for HD/1080p is the fact that the disc medium to do it doesn't even need to change this time.  BluRays are easy to manufacture and distribute.

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

that's still no evidence that history will repeat itself. Especially with news that big name multiplats like Watch dogs, BF4, Dark souls 2 are using PC as lead platforms

lostrib

so now you're just making more wild assumptions and speculation.  keep up the damage control

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

DVD is a complete gimmick.

There will be people trying to prove me otherwise, but to be honest VHS is fine just as is.

I don't think Pictures can get any clearer.

DarkGamer007

Except VHS degrade with each playback if I remember correctly.

DVD and VHS was night and day as well.

1080p vs 4K not so much.

One was also not required to purchase a $25K Television set in order to view the quality difference between VHS and DVD either. 

Except for they aren't $25k anymore.

here is just one example (of many, search for yourself)

http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE50UY04-50-Inch-120Hz/dp/B00BXF7I9M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373550753&sr=8-1&keywords=4k+tv

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

that's still no evidence that history will repeat itself. Especially with news that big name multiplats like Watch dogs, BF4, Dark souls 2 are using PC as lead platforms

call_of_duty_10

Publishers are shifting back towards the PC this gen for various reasons.  It will definitely be different this gen than the last.

That applies to any platform, console or PC.  But yes you are right it's speculation for right now. Although considering the trends that are happening right now, the pendulum is shifting back in favor of PC.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] So? In 2008,many people had 8800GTs(2x the power of a 360).Multiplats were still being made for console hardware.

call_of_duty_10

that's still no evidence that history will repeat itself. Especially with news that big name multiplats like Watch dogs, BF4, Dark souls 2 are using PC as lead platforms

Next gen is using pc architecture it won't be as difficult for developers to port their games from pc to console

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] Well,PC does not have fixed hardware. PC getting the status of lead platform still does not ensure that the games will utilise high end hardware. And why would the devs do that anyway?Look at crysis 1.The game was made for top-of-the-line PCs of 2007.Crytek couldn't even port it to consoles without a new engine.In these times,where 99% games are multiplat,no one wants hassles while porting to different platforms.call_of_duty_10

so now you're just making more wild assumptions and speculation.  keep up the damage control

It is not a fact though that is the reason that publishers go multiplat.  That's one example of how PC gaming was so ahead of it's console counterparts that it couldn't be done without major changes to the game.  There is more to it than just the trouble of porting games.    

At the end of the day, all that matters is how hard Hollywood and the electronics industry pushes 4K technology on the masses.  At its current pricepoint, it's not mass audience viable, but people were saying the exact same thing about 1080p back in 2005.

 

You can bet that if the electronics companies decide to go all in and move their product lines from 1080p sets to 4K, then the big studios will start putting 4K movies on the shelves.  It's going to be a domino effect from there, and one thing going for this technology that was a major pain for HD/1080p is the fact that the disc medium to do it doesn't even need to change this time.  BluRays are easy to manufacture and distribute.

Shewgenja

I don't think the comparison to 1080p television sets is quite the fair comparison. For starters, 480p had been the standard, highest televison resolution possible until HDTV's, the image difference between 720p/1080p and 480p/480i was noticable to the average consumer, and on top of that HDTV's were much lighter and small than SDTV counterparts, especially at large screen sizes, by a wide margin. The difference in television size offered another benefit to upgrading to an HDTV. Moving a 32" HDTV is a cakewalk compared to moving a 32" SDTV. I doubt the average consumer will notice the difference between 1080p and 4k to the point that they feel the need to upgrade, hell even Blu-Ray hasn't taken over DVD yet, despite the massive audio and video quality increase, what makes you think people will be willing to re-buy content the re-bought on DVD, then re-bought on Blu-Ray, so they can view a movie in 4k opposed to 1080p? I doubt many people would be willing to do that except for either incredibly wealthy people, or videophiles. Eventually 4k will likely succeed our current setups, but it will take much longer than the standard HDTV took.

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

that's still no evidence that history will repeat itself. Especially with news that big name multiplats like Watch dogs, BF4, Dark souls 2 are using PC as lead platforms

DarthRamms

Next gen is using pc architecture it won't be as difficult for developers to port their games from pc to console

[QUOTE="Shewgenja"]

At the end of the day, all that matters is how hard Hollywood and the electronics industry pushes 4K technology on the masses.  At its current pricepoint, it's not mass audience viable, but people were saying the exact same thing about 1080p back in 2005.

 

You can bet that if the electronics companies decide to go all in and move their product lines from 1080p sets to 4K, then the big studios will start putting 4K movies on the shelves.  It's going to be a domino effect from there, and one thing going for this technology that was a major pain for HD/1080p is the fact that the disc medium to do it doesn't even need to change this time.  BluRays are easy to manufacture and distribute.

DarkGamer007

I don't think the comparison to 1080p television sets is quite the fair comparison. For starters, 480p had been the standard, highest televison resolution possible until HDTV's, the image difference between 720p/1080p and 480p/480i was noticable to the average consumer, and on top of that HDTV's were much lighter and small than SDTV counterparts, especially at large screen sizes, by a wide margin. The difference in television size offered another benefit to upgrading to an HDTV. Moving a 32" HDTV is a cakewalk compared to moving a 32" SDTV. I doubt the average consumer will notice the difference between 1080p and 4k to the point that they feel the need to upgrade, hell even Blu-Ray hasn't taken over DVD yet, despite the massive audio and video quality increase, what makes you think people will be willing to re-buy content the re-bought on DVD, then re-bought on Blu-Ray, so they can view a movie in 4k opposed to 1080p? I doubt many people would be willing to do that except for either incredibly wealthy people, or videophiles. Eventually 4k will likely succeed our current setups, but it will take much longer than the standard HDTV took.

[QUOTE="DarthRamms"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] Well,PC does not have fixed hardware. PC getting the status of lead platform still does not ensure that the games will utilise high end hardware. And why would the devs do that anyway?Look at crysis 1.The game was made for top-of-the-line PCs of 2007.Crytek couldn't even port it to consoles without a new engine.In these times,where 99% games are multiplat,no one wants hassles while porting to different platforms.call_of_duty_10

Next gen is using pc architecture it won't be as difficult for developers to port their games from pc to console

lol Xbone with his 1.2tflops :lol:silversix_

and yet MS has said they will have 4K gaming and Sony has said they wont LOL   DEALWITHIT

[QUOTE="silversix_"]lol Xbone with his 1.2tflops :lol:XBOunity

and yet MS has said they will have 4K gaming and Sony has said they wont LOL   DEALWITHIT

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="DarthRamms"]

 

Next gen is using pc architecture it won't be as difficult for developers to port their games from pc to consoleclyde46

The if-else condition ladder in their codes will be huge.

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] Considering that GPUs capable of 15+ TFLOPs will be available in 2015,the difference between consoles and high end PCs will be gigantic. Devs will have to make 10 presets in graphics settings to accommodate the full spectrum of hardware available,from consoles to NVIDIA 8xx cards. THAT will require a lot of money.Far cheaper for pubs to just make games with console graphics the 'medium' and some upgrades for PC's high/ultra settings.

call_of_duty_10

Actually no it's really not that hard, at least not for what you are thinking of.

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="clyde46"] It doesn't cost a lot of implement sliders for graphic options. What is this, 1992?clyde46

I wouldn't go that far.  :P

So playing my volta at 1080 res... :P

With a 120 Hz monitor.

Screw 4K.

Eh, I'd probably go for 1080p120 over 2160p ~30.

psymon100

LOL... just what I posted... Hell to the yeah bro!

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] Considering that GPUs capable of 15+ TFLOPs will be available in 2015,the difference between consoles and high end PCs will be gigantic. Devs will have to make 10 presets in graphics settings to accommodate the full spectrum of hardware available,from consoles to NVIDIA 8xx cards. THAT will require a lot of money.Far cheaper for pubs to just make games with console graphics the 'medium' and some upgrades for PC's high/ultra settings.

call_of_duty_10

The if-else condition ladder in their codes will be huge.

Oh wow, I see your addition.  Just looking at If-Else statements?  Must have a little programming but not enough to know that you can do branching with something other than if-else.  If they do it that way they must not have been business long or will be very much longer.

[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]

[QUOTE="Shewgenja"]

At the end of the day, all that matters is how hard Hollywood and the electronics industry pushes 4K technology on the masses.  At its current pricepoint, it's not mass audience viable, but people were saying the exact same thing about 1080p back in 2005.

 

You can bet that if the electronics companies decide to go all in and move their product lines from 1080p sets to 4K, then the big studios will start putting 4K movies on the shelves.  It's going to be a domino effect from there, and one thing going for this technology that was a major pain for HD/1080p is the fact that the disc medium to do it doesn't even need to change this time.  BluRays are easy to manufacture and distribute.

clyde46

I don't think the comparison to 1080p television sets is quite the fair comparison. For starters, 480p had been the standard, highest televison resolution possible until HDTV's, the image difference between 720p/1080p and 480p/480i was noticable to the average consumer, and on top of that HDTV's were much lighter and small than SDTV counterparts, especially at large screen sizes, by a wide margin. The difference in television size offered another benefit to upgrading to an HDTV. Moving a 32" HDTV is a cakewalk compared to moving a 32" SDTV. I doubt the average consumer will notice the difference between 1080p and 4k to the point that they feel the need to upgrade, hell even Blu-Ray hasn't taken over DVD yet, despite the massive audio and video quality increase, what makes you think people will be willing to re-buy content the re-bought on DVD, then re-bought on Blu-Ray, so they can view a movie in 4k opposed to 1080p? I doubt many people would be willing to do that except for either incredibly wealthy people, or videophiles. Eventually 4k will likely succeed our current setups, but it will take much longer than the standard HDTV took.

I did consider that in my post, unless there is a typo and you meant to say something else?

Useless gimmick, reminds me of 3D lol. I have no need for anything higher than 1080p and i'm not blowing my money on an overpriced 4k tv.

[QUOTE="XBOunity"]

[QUOTE="silversix_"]lol Xbone with his 1.2tflops :lol:clyde46

and yet MS has said they will have 4K gaming and Sony has said they wont LOL   DEALWITHIT

a little better than that, im sure you can get some 360 games at that resolution, but yeah most games will be limited, so much so that Sony has said that they will not offer gaming in 4k.    I guess im upgrading my PC again?  F*CK  and a new TV  F*CK

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] It doesn't cost a lot of implement sliders for graphic options. What is this, 1992?menes777

The if-else condition ladder in their codes will be huge.

Oh wow, I see your addition.  Just looking at If-Else statements?  Must have a little programming but not enough to know that you can do branching with something other than if-else.  If they do it that way they must not have been business long or will be very much longer.

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]

I don't think the comparison to 1080p television sets is quite the fair comparison. For starters, 480p had been the standard, highest televison resolution possible until HDTV's, the image difference between 720p/1080p and 480p/480i was noticable to the average consumer, and on top of that HDTV's were much lighter and small than SDTV counterparts, especially at large screen sizes, by a wide margin. The difference in television size offered another benefit to upgrading to an HDTV. Moving a 32" HDTV is a cakewalk compared to moving a 32" SDTV. I doubt the average consumer will notice the difference between 1080p and 4k to the point that they feel the need to upgrade, hell even Blu-Ray hasn't taken over DVD yet, despite the massive audio and video quality increase, what makes you think people will be willing to re-buy content the re-bought on DVD, then re-bought on Blu-Ray, so they can view a movie in 4k opposed to 1080p? I doubt many people would be willing to do that except for either incredibly wealthy people, or videophiles. Eventually 4k will likely succeed our current setups, but it will take much longer than the standard HDTV took.

DarkGamer007

I did consider that in my post, unless there is a typo and you meant to say something else?

One thing you didn't consider in your post was this.  PC gamers have been doing 1080p gaming for a significantly longer time period than console gamers have.  The point?  PC gamers always drive the higher resolutions and will continue to do so.  Even if the movie and console industry are stuck at what amounts to the last gen for PC gamers.  PC will be doing 4K just like it was doing 1080p (and greater) when consoles were doing 480p.  

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="XBOunity"]

and yet MS has said they will have 4K gaming and Sony has said they wont LOL   DEALWITHIT

XBOunity

a little better than that, im sure you can get some 360 games at that resolution, but yeah most games will be limited, so much so that Sony has said that they will not offer gaming in 4k.    I guess im upgrading my PC again?  F*CK  and a new TV  F*CK

[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] Wrong, 576i says hi. Also, you have to consider that people were moving from huge ass CRT's to nice and slim plasma's and LCD TV's.menes777

I did consider that in my post, unless there is a typo and you meant to say something else?

One thing you didn't consider in your post was this.  PC gamers have been doing 1080p gaming for a significantly longer time period than console gamers have.  The point?  PC gamers always drive the higher resolutions and will continue to do so.  Even if the movie and console industry are stuck at what amounts to the last gen for PC gamers.  PC will be doing 4K just like it was doing 1080p (and greater) when consoles were doing 480p.  

That 16 Tera flop gpu will cost a minimum of $1000.Not to mention the rediculously expensive 4k tvs.

So that means you need to spend at least $4-5K in order to play at 4K res.

[QUOTE="XBOunity"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] Unless you want to be playing 2D side scrollers in 4K. clyde46

a little better than that, im sure you can get some 360 games at that resolution, but yeah most games will be limited, so much so that Sony has said that they will not offer gaming in 4k.    I guess im upgrading my PC again?  F*CK  and a new TV  F*CK

agreed, maybe ghost and ghouls but ill take it

4K displays are coming down in price, quick. Already, 30+ inch 4K monitors can be had for under $4,000 and Tv's for under $1,000. Sure there are some caveats. The cheaper models right now have a 30hz limit on 4K resolution for example. But in 2 years we'll see better quality 4K displays, cheaper.

In the meantime, PC GPU's will be powerful enough to run "next gen" games at those huge resolutions, or at more standard resolutions (1080p, 1440p, 1600p) with better lighting, more object detail, longer view disances, and mroe AI running in the game. PRetty much as has been the case this generation. 

It is exaclty those options - improved lighting, object detail, larger view distances, larger fields of view, more AI, that are the easiest for developers to implement on PC vs consoles. It;'s literally simply telling the engine to do a littl more of what's it's already doing.

What we might not see on PC, for a while, at least, or perhaps in a handful of PC exclusives/developers that are willign to put the extra effort in (like CD project red and their realistic wolf fur) is things like superior physics effects on PC vs console, as that would take more time to develop.

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]

I did consider that in my post, unless there is a typo and you meant to say something else?

clyde46

One thing you didn't consider in your post was this.  PC gamers have been doing 1080p gaming for a significantly longer time period than console gamers have.  The point?  PC gamers always drive the higher resolutions and will continue to do so.  Even if the movie and console industry are stuck at what amounts to the last gen for PC gamers.  PC will be doing 4K just like it was doing 1080p (and greater) when consoles were doing 480p.  

From a certain POV that is true, yet PC still pushes the envelope on resolutions.  

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="menes777"]

One thing you didn't consider in your post was this.  PC gamers have been doing 1080p gaming for a significantly longer time period than console gamers have.  The point?  PC gamers always drive the higher resolutions and will continue to do so.  Even if the movie and console industry are stuck at what amounts to the last gen for PC gamers.  PC will be doing 4K just like it was doing 1080p (and greater) when consoles were doing 480p.  

menes777

From a certain POV that is true, yet PC still pushes the envelope on resolutions.  

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

And how many games will take full advantage of those GPUs before 2017?

call_of_duty_10

already told my wife im getting a 4K TV in 2 years, should be around 1500 by then for a 50 inch

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]

I did consider that in my post, unless there is a typo and you meant to say something else?

clyde46

One thing you didn't consider in your post was this.  PC gamers have been doing 1080p gaming for a significantly longer time period than console gamers have.  The point?  PC gamers always drive the higher resolutions and will continue to do so.  Even if the movie and console industry are stuck at what amounts to the last gen for PC gamers.  PC will be doing 4K just like it was doing 1080p (and greater) when consoles were doing 480p.  

[QUOTE="adamosmaki"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] None. The only way to justify your purchase will be by jacking up the resolution,which will do nothing to improve the graphics as the assets will be made for ps4 hardware.call_of_duty_10

this reminds me of the whole 720p vs 1080p argument when alot of fanboys didnt see any advantages. On top of jacking up resolution which is a decent advantage in its self those gpu's will be usefull to play demanding games at 60fps ( quite sure the likes of future Metro,Arma,Battlefield,Witcher,Total War and maybe others will take advantage of those gpu's ) as well as play some games with demanding mods ( such as skyrim ) without frame drops.

Even if a game doesnt utilize that gpu 100% it will still be better than a gpu that will be running at 100% all the time in the respect of lower temps and lower power consumption. 

Try to play Quake 1 or CS 1.6 in 480p, then try to play it in 1080p, even though the assets were made for tiny resolutions, it still looks WAY better in 1080p and above, thus your point is invalid.

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="PAL360"]

And how many games will take full advantage of those GPUs before 2017?

Cranler

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] Not true. PC gamers do not dictate the resolutions. The TV industry does. clyde46

From a certain POV that is true, yet PC still pushes the envelope on resolutions.  

True, but you are talking about different industry than gaming.  4k TV's and monitors are dropping in price pretty rapidly and PC will be in a much better place to take advantage of that.  If your point is that 4k won't be adopted for quite awhile I agree.  However my point is that PC has always pushed the higher resolutions and will continue to do so.  Will there be many games at 4k?  Probably not or not as many as pc gamers would hope for.  It's like when people were so excited about consoles doing 1080p.  PC gamers were sitting back and saying "so, we had that in that in the mid to late 90's".

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] Not true. PC gamers do not dictate the resolutions. The TV industry does. clyde46

From a certain POV that is true, yet PC still pushes the envelope on resolutions.  

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="adamosmaki"]

this reminds me of the whole 720p vs 1080p argument when alot of fanboys didnt see any advantages. On top of jacking up resolution which is a decent advantage in its self those gpu's will be usefull to play demanding games at 60fps ( quite sure the likes of future Metro,Arma,Battlefield,Witcher,Total War and maybe others will take advantage of those gpu's ) as well as play some games with demanding mods ( such as skyrim ) without frame drops.

Even if a game doesnt utilize that gpu 100% it will still be better than a gpu that will be running at 100% all the time in the respect of lower temps and lower power consumption. 

SchnabbleTab

Try to play a Quake 1 or CS 1.6 in 480p, then try to play it in 1080p, even though the assets were made for tiny resolutions, it still looks WAY better in 1080p and above, thus your point is invalid.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] None. The only way to justify your purchase will be by jacking up the resolution,which will do nothing to improve the graphics as the assets will be made for ps4 hardware.call_of_duty_10

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="Cranler"] So what do you consider to be the highest res that will show a benefit? Do you consider 1080p to be overkill for current multiplats? I replay many old games at 1080p and they certainly do look better than lower res. I'm talking about games like Deus Ex and Quake 3. Most gamers were running 800x600 res back when those games were released. Cranler

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] I consider 1600p to be overkill for most games released before 2011. 4k will probably be too much for next gen games...Unless devs make games for those 15 TFLOPs GPUs.In that case,games will benefit from resolutions which are a bit above 4k.call_of_duty_10

I have to disagree here. I have a Nexus 10 which has a resolution of 2560 x 1600 (10 inch screen) and the detail is clearly visible.  Now sure on the S4 (which only has 1080 x 1920, 1920 x 1080 in landscape) you won't be able to see the detail because the resolution isn't there.

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="Cranler"]Sounds quite arbitrary since the average multiplat didnt suddenly get much improved graphics in 2011. You should also inform all the tablet and smartphone manufacturers that they are using resolutions way beyond overkill:roll:

menes777

I have to disagree here. I have a Nexus 10 which has a resolution of 2560 x 1600 (10 inch screen) and the detail is clearly visible.  Now sure on the S4 (which only has 1080 x 1920, 1920 x 1080 in landscape) you won't be able to see the detail because the resolution isn't there.

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] I consider 1600p to be overkill for most games released before 2011. 4k will probably be too much for next gen games...Unless devs make games for those 15 TFLOPs GPUs.In that case,games will benefit from resolutions which are a bit above 4k.call_of_duty_10

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] Uhh,yes,devs started putting extra effort into PC versions in 2011.Before that,most games were ports or had very small improvements over console versions. BF3,Crysis 2 with mods/patch,Modded Skyrim,Sleeping Dogs etc.These games had noticeably better assets in the PC version. As far as phones are considered,the high resolution is for a high pixel density,in order to avoid aliasing and to get a very sharp image.You cannot see details on such a small screen though.View a 4k photo on a galaxy S4,and you won't be able to see the zits and pores on someone's skin.Connect the camera to a 4k TV,and you will see plenty of details. 4k TVs and monitors do not have such a high pixel density,though.You won't get the sam sharpness on them.call_of_duty_10

I have to disagree here. I have a Nexus 10 which has a resolution of 2560 x 1600 (10 inch screen) and the detail is clearly visible.  Now sure on the S4 (which only has 1080 x 1920, 1920 x 1080 in landscape) you won't be able to see the detail because the resolution isn't there.

There are a number of factors there.  What resolution was the photo taken at?  What is the pixel density that it is being viewed at? Sure on a phone you won't see much detail because the resolution is so low.  The highest res you can get on a phone is still 1920 x 1080.  In other words its not the size of the screen (that's not what she said) that counts, it's the resolution.   

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="Cranler"]Sounds quite arbitrary since the average multiplat didnt suddenly get much improved graphics in 2011. You should also inform all the tablet and smartphone manufacturers that they are using resolutions way beyond overkill:roll:Cranler

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="menes777"]

I have to disagree here. I have a Nexus 10 which has a resolution of 2560 x 1600 (10 inch screen) and the detail is clearly visible.  Now sure on the S4 (which only has 1080 x 1920, 1920 x 1080 in landscape) you won't be able to see the detail because the resolution isn't there.

menes777

There are a number of factors there.  What resolution was the photo taken at?  What is the pixel density that it is being viewed at? Sure on a phone you won't see much detail because the resolution is so low.  The highest res you can get on a phone is still 1920 x 1080.  In other words its not the size of the screen (that's not what she said) that counts, it's the resolution.