4K gaming by the end of 2014

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] Well,take a close-up photo of someone's face,view the pic in your phone,and then view the same photo on a 1600p monitor. You will see much more on the bigger screen.call_of_duty_10

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.   

Again I have to disagree.  I used to think the opposite, but that was because smaller screen size usually meant lower resolution.  Now that is not the case.  If you mean visible further away sure you can't see the detail on a small screen further back.  However, at the distance you would normally use a tablet you can see just as much detail given the proper resolution and pixel density on a small screen as a big screen.  Like I said I have a small screen high resolution (which is better than retina) tablet that proves that for me.

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="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.   

menes777

Again I have to disagree.  I used to think the opposite, but that was because smaller screen size usually meant lower resolution.  Now that is not the case.  If you mean visible further away sure you can't see the detail on a small screen further back.  However, at the distance you would normally use a tablet you can see just as much detail given the proper resolution and pixel density on a small screen as a big screen.  Like I said I have a small screen high resolution (which is better than retina) tablet that proves that for me.

Crysis 1.

The resolution of the image is 1280x720.However,the pixel density is very high here,since it has been downscaled from 3840x2160.

Look at the nameplate on the old man's shirt.You can read the text,but it is not very clear.But in the original 4k image,you can read it very easily.(Unfortunately , I decided to delete the original screenshots from my HDD,so I cannot show you).

The game didn't even look HALF as good in the original screenshots,which were not downscaled,but since the images were bigger,I could see more details(of course,the details didn't look as good.I could see low resolution stuff).IF the game was downscaled from 8k to 4k,the screenshot would have looked just as good,but the text on his nameplate would have been visible too!

When 25TFLOPs GPUs are available,I will jump back into PC gaming,and play games at 8k resolution(downscaled to 4k).

[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.

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.

^ lol, PWNED!

I can't wait for 4k TV/Monitors to become affordable. I'd love to have a 4k monitor for PC gaming. As it stands though, single card GPUs just don't have enough juice to support a resolution that high with todays games at a playable framerate.

It'll probably be another 3-4 years before I'll have a GPU thats capable and by then 4k monitors/tvs should be a reasonable price. Hopefully.

some play games at this rez from 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NYfscyWhRE

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] You need both-high pixel density AND size. If the size of the screen is too small,and you have a detailed photo (someone's face,for example)taken with a Canon EOS 550D,you won't be able to see the pores. BUT you will be able to see them with a big screen that has a good pixel density.call_of_duty_10

Again I have to disagree.  I used to think the opposite, but that was because smaller screen size usually meant lower resolution.  Now that is not the case.  If you mean visible further away sure you can't see the detail on a small screen further back.  However, at the distance you would normally use a tablet you can see just as much detail given the proper resolution and pixel density on a small screen as a big screen.  Like I said I have a small screen high resolution (which is better than retina) tablet that proves that for me.

Crysis 1.

The resolution of the image is 1280x720.However,the pixel density is very high here,since it has been downscaled from 3840x2160.

Look at the nameplate on the old man's shirt.You can read the text,but it is not very clear.But in the original 4k image,you can read it very easily.(Unfortunately , I decided to delete the original screenshots from my HDD,so I cannot show you).

The game didn't even look HALF as good in the original screenshots,which were not downscaled,but since the images were bigger,I could see more details(of course,the details didn't look as good.I could see low resolution stuff).IF the game was downscaled from 8k to 4k,the screenshot would have looked just as good,but the text on his nameplate would have been visible too!

Not really a valid comparison, but there isn't really a way to do it on here.  Also talking apples and oranges.  I think we can both agree that high resolutions and higher pixel densities are overall better the higher they are (if they both raise at proportionate levels).  What we seem to be an impasse on is the size of the screen.  To which I have personal experience that to a point the size doesn't matter too much except for how far away that detail is visible.  Which of course can't be proved and the opposite can't either (in this medium).  Given the difference between a 50 inch 4k screen and a 10 inch 4k screen the 50 inch of course trumps the 10 inch but the detail is still visible in both.  Just the tablet you use a few inches from your face (or maybe even a foot or two) while the 50 inch you can sit over 6 feet from and clearly ready everything (unless you are short sighted or some other visual impediment).

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"]

[QUOTE="menes777"]

Again I have to disagree.  I used to think the opposite, but that was because smaller screen size usually meant lower resolution.  Now that is not the case.  If you mean visible further away sure you can't see the detail on a small screen further back.  However, at the distance you would normally use a tablet you can see just as much detail given the proper resolution and pixel density on a small screen as a big screen.  Like I said I have a small screen high resolution (which is better than retina) tablet that proves that for me.

menes777

Crysis 1.

The resolution of the image is 1280x720.However,the pixel density is very high here,since it has been downscaled from 3840x2160.

Look at the nameplate on the old man's shirt.You can read the text,but it is not very clear.But in the original 4k image,you can read it very easily.(Unfortunately , I decided to delete the original screenshots from my HDD,so I cannot show you).

The game didn't even look HALF as good in the original screenshots,which were not downscaled,but since the images were bigger,I could see more details(of course,the details didn't look as good.I could see low resolution stuff).IF the game was downscaled from 8k to 4k,the screenshot would have looked just as good,but the text on his nameplate would have been visible too!

Not really a valid comparison, but there isn't really a way to do it on here.  Also talking apples and oranges.  I think we can both agree that high resolutions and higher pixel densities are overall better the higher they are (if they both raise at proportionate levels).  What we seem to be an impasse on is the size of the screen.  To which I have personal experience that to a point the size doesn't matter too much except for how far away that detail is visible.  Which of course can't be proved and the opposite can't either (in this medium).  Given the difference between a 50 inch 4k screen and a 10 inch 4k screen the 50 inch of course trumps the 10 inch but the detail is still visible in both.  Just the tablet you use a few inches from your face (or maybe even a foot or two) while the 50 inch you can sit over 6 feet from and clearly ready everything (unless you are short sighted or some other visual impediment).

I was trying to avoid talking about the distance factor,since that will make things complicated.

But yes,we both can agree that a large screen with a very high pixel density is the best.Unfortunately,that isn't possible now.

After 4-5 years,I hope GPUs capable of 25+TFLOPs will be manufactured.3 of them in SLI would make 8k gaming possible.On a 30" screen,all games will look mindblowing.THAT is when PC will completely destroy consoles.

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] Hmm,let me illustrate with an image.

 

Crysis 1.

The resolution of the image is 1280x720.However,the pixel density is very high here,since it has been downscaled from 3840x2160.

Look at the nameplate on the old man's shirt.You can read the text,but it is not very clear.But in the original 4k image,you can read it very easily.(Unfortunately , I decided to delete the original screenshots from my HDD,so I cannot show you).

The game didn't even look HALF as good in the original screenshots,which were not downscaled,but since the images were bigger,I could see more details(of course,the details didn't look as good.I could see low resolution stuff).IF the game was downscaled from 8k to 4k,the screenshot would have looked just as good,but the text on his nameplate would have been visible too!

call_of_duty_10

Not really a valid comparison, but there isn't really a way to do it on here.  Also talking apples and oranges.  I think we can both agree that high resolutions and higher pixel densities are overall better the higher they are (if they both raise at proportionate levels).  What we seem to be an impasse on is the size of the screen.  To which I have personal experience that to a point the size doesn't matter too much except for how far away that detail is visible.  Which of course can't be proved and the opposite can't either (in this medium).  Given the difference between a 50 inch 4k screen and a 10 inch 4k screen the 50 inch of course trumps the 10 inch but the detail is still visible in both.  Just the tablet you use a few inches from your face (or maybe even a foot or two) while the 50 inch you can sit over 6 feet from and clearly ready everything (unless you are short sighted or some other visual impediment).

I was trying to avoid talking about the distance factor,since that will make things complicated.

But yes,we both can agree that a large screen with a very high pixel density is the best.Unfortunately,that isn't possible now.

After 4-5 years,I hope GPUs capable of 25+TFLOPs will be manufactured.3 of them in SLI would make 8k gaming possible.On a 30" screen,all games will look mindblowing.THAT is when PC will completely destroy consoles.

Agreed, when PC's when that level it's game over for consoles, at least in terms of competition for FX.

I think to me, the overreaching point is that with console this next gen is pretty much going to be stuck with 1080p for most of it's games (a few exceptions of course).  While with PC I am going to get quicker access to it and with mods I might be able to enjoy some of the other games at those higher resolutions too.

I would like to see some 4k displays in the 22 to 30 inch range for under $1000.  Then I might consider it.  Of course I would have to upgrade my GPU again, and that isn't happening until 2015.  

By changing the size of the image you aren't just scaling, you are also throwing informaiton away. On a display which was actually 4K but the same size, you'd be able to discern more detail, though with continuing diminishign returns as you went smaller.

You can game at 4k on PC right now but good luck getting a monitor or screen that supports it at a consumer price. Also funding a PC that can maintain 4k at a reasonable framerate

seanmcloughlin

2560x1440 and 2560x1600 is where consoles should aim for, they are barely enough for 1080p with X1 and PS4 already, 4K will be almost impossible for at least 2-3 gens yet on a console. Unless Sony and MS wack prices through the roof for hardware funding.

No way in hell. Even the most powerful PC cannot game in 4K. If I were to put a timeline on when 4K gaming would be possible, probably around 2017-2018. Consoles will not be able to game in 4K till after 2020, based on how far they are behind PC.

Sorry for possible double post, but let me go into something with 4K: Memory.

Right now, Blu-ray is the standard for Movies and Games (Games on consoles at least). The biggest Blu-ray sold on the market is 50 Gigs (100 Gigs exist, but are not sold with movies or games). You can fit a HD movie onto a 50 Gig Blu-ray disk quite easily.

How much space do we need with 4K video/games? Here's an example:

Although there's no set standard for 4K video content yet, we've already got some idea as to how big 4K video files will be. During a recent hands-on with the Sony VW1000ES upcoming 4k projector, we managed to find out that an uncompressed 4k version of the trailer for The Amazing Spiderman takes up a whopping 500GB of hard disk space.

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/home-entertainment/1290532/how-much-hard-disk-space-you-will-need-for-4k-video-files

500 Gigs, just for a movie trailer (that's uncompressed video).

Lets take a look at gaming for a moment. 4K gaming is simply not upconverting the signal from 1080P to 4K. For real 4K gaming, the game's textures, plus other effects, need to be rendered in 4K by the hardware, which no computer in the world can do at this moment. As we've seen with 4K movies, the amount of space needed for a 4K gaming would be astronomical. Not only that, your hardware will need to move those huge textures at the same speeds we do now with normal textures, which no hardware is capable of.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

You can game at 4k on PC right now but good luck getting a monitor or screen that supports it at a consumer price. Also funding a PC that can maintain 4k at a reasonable framerate

AMD655

2560x1440 and 2560x1600 is where consoles should aim for, they are barely enough for 1080p with X1 and PS4 already, 4K will be almost impossible for at least 2-3 gens yet on a console. Unless Sony and MS wack prices through the roof for hardware funding.

For real 4K gaming, the game's textures, plus other effects, need to be rendered in 4K by the hardware, which no computer in the world can do at this moment. As we've seen with 4K movies, the amount of space needed for a 4K gaming would be astronomical.

dream431ca

That's raw video data. It can still be compressed into another format. Also, we've seen PC games running higher than 3840x2160, so not sure what you're going on about. 4k textures aren't a requirement.

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]

For real 4K gaming, the game's textures, plus other effects, need to be rendered in 4K by the hardware, which no computer in the world can do at this moment. As we've seen with 4K movies, the amount of space needed for a 4K gaming would be astronomical.

ChubbyGuy40

That's raw video data. It can still be compressed into another format. Also, we've seen PC games running higher than 3840x2160, so not sure what you're going on about. 4k textures aren't a requirement.

They might not be a requirement, but I'm talking about native resolution, not upscaled resolutions.

Sorry for possible double post, but let me go into something with 4K: Memory.

Right now, Blu-ray is the standard for Movies and Games (Games on consoles at least). The biggest Blu-ray sold on the market is 50 Gigs (100 Gigs exist, but are not sold with movies or games). You can fit a HD movie onto a 50 Gig Blu-ray disk quite easily.

How much space do we need with 4K video/games? Here's an example:

Although there's no set standard for 4K video content yet, we've already got some idea as to how big 4K video files will be. During a recent hands-on with the Sony VW1000ES upcoming 4k projector, we managed to find out that an uncompressed 4k version of the trailer for The Amazing Spiderman takes up a whopping 500GB of hard disk space.

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/home-entertainment/1290532/how-much-hard-disk-space-you-will-need-for-4k-video-files

500 Gigs, just for a movie trailer (that's uncompressed video).

Lets take a look at gaming for a moment. 4K gaming is simply not upconverting the signal from 1080P to 4K. For real 4K gaming, the game's textures, plus other effects, need to be rendered in 4K by the hardware, which no computer in the world can do at this moment. As we've seen with 4K movies, the amount of space needed for a 4K gaming would be astronomical. Not only that, your hardware will need to move those huge textures at the same speeds we do now with normal textures, which no hardware is capable of.

dream431ca

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] History will repeat itself.call_of_duty_10

How so. This Gen Xbox was specced to match a high end PC. Next gen consoles are specced to match a mid range PC

I'd say the 8800gt was closer to 3x the power of the 360.

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]

Sorry for possible double post, but let me go into something with 4K: Memory.

Right now, Blu-ray is the standard for Movies and Games (Games on consoles at least). The biggest Blu-ray sold on the market is 50 Gigs (100 Gigs exist, but are not sold with movies or games). You can fit a HD movie onto a 50 Gig Blu-ray disk quite easily.

How much space do we need with 4K video/games? Here's an example:

Although there's no set standard for 4K video content yet, we've already got some idea as to how big 4K video files will be. During a recent hands-on with the Sony VW1000ES upcoming 4k projector, we managed to find out that an uncompressed 4k version of the trailer for The Amazing Spiderman takes up a whopping 500GB of hard disk space.

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/home-entertainment/1290532/how-much-hard-disk-space-you-will-need-for-4k-video-files

500 Gigs, just for a movie trailer (that's uncompressed video).

Lets take a look at gaming for a moment. 4K gaming is simply not upconverting the signal from 1080P to 4K. For real 4K gaming, the game's textures, plus other effects, need to be rendered in 4K by the hardware, which no computer in the world can do at this moment. As we've seen with 4K movies, the amount of space needed for a 4K gaming would be astronomical. Not only that, your hardware will need to move those huge textures at the same speeds we do now with normal textures, which no hardware is capable of.

AMD655

I believe you. What i'm referring to is native 4K gaming, meaning that, everything is specifically designed for 4K resolutions (textures, video, etc.) You are upscaling your games to that resolutions, but that does not make it real native 4K gaming.

[QUOTE="AMD655"][QUOTE="dream431ca"]

Sorry for possible double post, but let me go into something with 4K: Memory.

Right now, Blu-ray is the standard for Movies and Games (Games on consoles at least). The biggest Blu-ray sold on the market is 50 Gigs (100 Gigs exist, but are not sold with movies or games). You can fit a HD movie onto a 50 Gig Blu-ray disk quite easily.

How much space do we need with 4K video/games? Here's an example:

Although there's no set standard for 4K video content yet, we've already got some idea as to how big 4K video files will be. During a recent hands-on with the Sony VW1000ES upcoming 4k projector, we managed to find out that an uncompressed 4k version of the trailer for The Amazing Spiderman takes up a whopping 500GB of hard disk space.

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/home-entertainment/1290532/how-much-hard-disk-space-you-will-need-for-4k-video-files

500 Gigs, just for a movie trailer (that's uncompressed video).

Lets take a look at gaming for a moment. 4K gaming is simply not upconverting the signal from 1080P to 4K. For real 4K gaming, the game's textures, plus other effects, need to be rendered in 4K by the hardware, which no computer in the world can do at this moment. As we've seen with 4K movies, the amount of space needed for a 4K gaming would be astronomical. Not only that, your hardware will need to move those huge textures at the same speeds we do now with normal textures, which no hardware is capable of.

dream431ca

I believe you. What i'm referring to is native 4K gaming, meaning that, everything is specifically designed for 4K resolutions (textures, video, etc.) You are upscaling your games to that resolutions, but that does not make it real native 4K gaming.

Playing any game at 4k res is 4k native. The game just will not have sharp enough textures to scale that far. Look at the right corner on all my images, it shows native resolution.

PC's are not consoles, a PC will run the game natively at the chosen resolution.

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]

[QUOTE="AMD655"] This is not as simple as you just stated. I can play many games at 3180x1780 with no problems, 8GB system Ram (DDR3 1600mhz) and GTX 480 GPU with 1536MB dedicated Vram. Now this is fine with games such as UTIII or DX9/10 games, textures also stop scaling after a certain resolution is reached. To do this with a console, the hardware would NEED to be as fast as a high specc'd PC, which just will not happen due to price, they would also need to be heavily memory savvy. The only other option is huge storage mediums for games. SSD storage medium is a possibility, but with the cost currently, it is many years away from being a reality. Here are the 3180x1780 images: (not quite 4K but way more pixels than 1920x1080) These are on my Steam account, and are not faked. http://steamcommunity.com/id/mike655/screenshots/AMD655

I believe you. What i'm referring to is native 4K gaming, meaning that, everything is specifically designed for 4K resolutions (textures, video, etc.) You are upscaling your games to that resolutions, but that does not make it real native 4K gaming.

Playing any game at 4k res is 4k native. The game just will not have sharp enough textures to scale that far. Look at the right corner on all my images, it shows native resolution.

PC's are not consoles, a PC will run the game natively at the chosen resolution.

Bingo. It's not 4K gaming because the game is not built around 4K, even though your resolution is at or near 4K resolution. Real 4K gaming is a very long way off.

[QUOTE="AMD655"]

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]

I believe you. What i'm referring to is native 4K gaming, meaning that, everything is specifically designed for 4K resolutions (textures, video, etc.) You are upscaling your games to that resolutions, but that does not make it real native 4K gaming.

dream431ca

Playing any game at 4k res is 4k native. The game just will not have sharp enough textures to scale that far. Look at the right corner on all my images, it shows native resolution.

PC's are not consoles, a PC will run the game natively at the chosen resolution.

Bingo. It's not 4K gaming because the game is not built around 4K, even though your resolution is at or near 4K resolution. Real 4K gaming is a very long way off.

4k gaming already exists.

As for that BS about size, a game cannot be compared with an uncompressed video. Uncompressed SD is 10GB+ per hour, that's why we have compression. A game is not a film and high res textures are not gonna need 500GB of space.

They might not be a requirement, but I'm talking about native resolution, not upscaled resolutions.

dream431ca

I know the difference between the two. Playing PC games at 4k res is not upscaling. It's rendering at 4k resolution and downscaling to whatever resolution your monitor is. The hardest/most expensive part of playing 4k is getting a 4k monitor, so for now we have to deal with downscaling.

We're way past running games at 4k resolution (lol consoles will never know) but there are more to visuals than just resolution.

4k would be a pain even if you have a 50 intch tv you would have to sit only 1 meter away to get the full benefit. You would need to get a massive tv just to sit a few meters away from it. I don't know about you but i dont got room for a 84 intch tv nor do i want to see 1 meter away from a big tv.

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

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

4K is awesome but right now the frames are just completely destroyed even with 4 Titans so we'll see what happens. My enthusiastic goal of this new gen is to reach 60-120fps in most games at 1440p.tagyhag

Same :)

This is what i am doing:

http://uk.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29419536/building-new-pc.-enthusiast

[QUOTE="tagyhag"] My enthusiastic goal of this new gen is to reach 60-120fps in most games at 1440p.mitu123

For me as well...

[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.

>being this misinformed

No idea on how clear 4k is in person, but I've been downsampling from 2880x1620 and honestly don't notice much of a difference over 1080p.

Downsampling on a 1080p screen will only rid of aliased edges more, you will still be limited to 1920x1080 no matter what res you try above 1080p.

No idea on how clear 4k is in person, but I've been downsampling from 2880x1620 and honestly don't notice much of a difference over 1080p.

ReadingRainbow4

[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.

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.

[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.

dreman999

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.

have you actually seen a 4k tv or monitor? There is quite a difference in picture especially when you get away from 24" monitors and start going 27 and 30". Also this nothing like blu ray vs Dvd. This is just resolution and technology progressing . What you expect to stick at 1080p forever ? Smartphones already are moving ahead in terms of technological advancements over Tv and monitor technology. Here you can understand the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 5" screen and you think you wont notice the difference between 4K and 1080p ?

[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.

dreman999

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.

[QUOTE="dreman999"][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.

adamosmaki

[QUOTE="dreman999"][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.

mitu123

wouldn't it like completely remove jaggies?

[QUOTE="dreman999"][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.

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="dreman999"] 2 very different things. DVD has obvious advantages over vhs. 4K doesn't when compared to 1080p. It like dvd vs blu ray all over again were a 3 party, streaming video, won over. dreman999

[QUOTE="dreman999"][QUOTE="mitu123"]Are you serious?

mitu123