A note for console gamers about 4k

Console peasants still think the eye can only see 30 fps. Let them live in their blissful ignorance.

That's idiotic logic.

lol

This isn't even good trolling.

Or that using a display that masks this effect is a superior solution than actually rendering the frames in the game engine. What a clown show.

1ms is atrocious? Odd because you'll be lucky to find a TV with a gaming response time of better than 12ms

https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag

It may seem counter intuitive but keep an eye for stock coming into Curry's, they still sell at MSRP.

Not saying who or what has better input lag, but I do know if you trust a manufacture who says they have 1ms response time I wouldn't trust that shit for anything. It has been proven time and time again that manufactures of monitors fudge those numbers all the time. You have to check reviews to get the honest truth on that matter.

Ok, but for the sake of this particular argument, calling an actual 12ms response time "1ms" isn't an industry wide practice.

Response time and input lag aren't the same thing though.

Why even bother talking about input lag and response times when playing at 30fps and vsync on top

And frame interpolation and motion blur. Playing a console on a TV is like sending your inputs to a device on the moon. It's comical that someone would be dumb enough to argue that consoles have less input lag than PCs.

Input lag and response times are not the same tho. Try again. Rtngs does measure response times too

Cool I’m playing Witcher 3, after that Gears 4, and Rise of Tomb Raider

are any of those HDR on PeeC?

A TV having a superior response time to a monitor is redundant with a 30 FPS input.

HDR on a vr headset is a stupid idea

You really don't want it on a screen that this close to your retina.Besides HDR is overrated.

60 FPS and beyond is where it's at.Also it's not like i can't hook up my pc to and HDR 4K OLED TV.

You're still dodging the point. What does that make the 10's of thousands of games without HDR?

OLeD Has below 1ms response time regardless of the frames per second genius

But your position is so far removed from the context of this thread.

Righto. Not sure where to go with this...

old games without hDR aren’t going to convince me to switch out my HDR Atmos GodBox for a PeeC

Join me and my HDR Atmos Box in Systemwars domination

It's a world where everything that isn't related to HDR / Atmos is entirely trivial for the sake of argument.

HDR , the new Bloom.

"OMG look at that sun and shadows!" as they dominated the entire image.

@Juub1990: that dude wasnt even a lemming before, i remeber he used to shit on xbox and suckle his ps4

Looks like he jumped ship

And this is why you're viewed as a clown. There are 7 games that support your 10,000$+ set up.

Monitors don't apply any post processing effects.

TVs/consoles automatically apply a metric shit ton of post processing effects (motion blur, frame interpolation, and vsync). There is no argument to be made about TVs having superior response time or less input lag than computer monitors. There is a reason why 30 fps looks like a slideshow on a monitor and looks "smooth" on a TV (hint: one of the two is applying post processing effects).

OLED superior response times

And more coming every month.

its Glorious

I thought it was because of the immediate clown show that every thread becomes once the terms "OLED", "HDR", or "Atmos" become the point of contention in regards to video output.

Trigger words, get triggered

Bore level trolling...

@MBirdy88: Yeah that trolling is honestly pretty lame. I get he’s kinda desperate of getting picked on but come on. He can do better than this.

Paying all that money for a few more pixels and frames. lol enjoy paying those higher prices hermits.

@xhawk27: A few more frames? Lol, try 300% more.

@m3Boarder32

So at last count (cause this is all you seem to care about at the moment).

PC has access to 24 HDR Enabled games. With another 3 on the list to be released.

https://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Special:Ask/-5B-5BCategory:Games-5D-5D-20-5B-5Bhigh_dynamic_range::true-5D-5D-20OR-20-5B-5Bhigh_dynamic_range::hackable-5D-5D/-3FDeveloped-20by/-3FPublished-20by/-3FRelease-20date/-3FAvailable-20on/-3Fhigh_dynamic_range/format%3Dtemplate/limit%3D100/template%3DFeature-2Frow/introtemplate%3DFeature-2Fintro/outrotemplate%3DFeature-2Foutro

Xbox - 8 wasn't it? (I don't have that link).

By that logic why have you bought an Xbox 1 X?

talking about lack of self awareness.

Gotta love your earlier comment:

Save a lot of money and get the X!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yea, spend £450, get a fraction of the games and features, at worse performance, paying MS prices and online...

Whoa, such a bargain!

144 Frames instead of 30 Frames is more than "a few"

You don't know what you're talking about :|

lol. No, they're just forced into every debate with no regard to the topic. Display features give you a superior image, but 30 fps is mechanically inferior to 60 fps and always will be. No developer that isn't shilling for a product is going to tell you that 30 fps isn't a mechanical limitation.

It's called an exaggeration.

But yea, actually there are reviews of games out there where people think the image looks worse, because the HDR bits sacrifice image clarity, something bloom also did.... alot of games have it tacked on still.

Cool though that like 5-10 games on the market do it properly... and there is a good set of HDR standa.... oh wait.

Sacrifice image clarity... it's supposed to bring out more detail. Sure it could be because of shit implementation, or it could be because people complaining about it don't know how to set up their equipment right. Comparing HDR to friggin' bloom when even movies/series are implementing it is just plain stupid.

You hit the nail on the head, implementation.

The rest is just pointless.

Well something clearly is wrong, because HDR is not supposed to drown out detail but bring it out + deeper/richer more realistic colors. Nothing like bloom whatsoever.

No that argument of authority is plain stupid.

Lens flare, chromatic aberration, motion blur and loads of shitty post-processing effects are ubiquitous in games. Doesn't make them good. In fact, the first thing I do is turn off all that garbage before I even start playing my games.

oh please.

think beyond "more detail" ... it does the opposite in some implementations. it can totally be compared to bloom in that sense.

It is VERY capable of drowning out images.

Those are natural effects when filmed through a camera lens, they were not invented... Game devs nabbed them because they wanted to make games more cinematic.

but a cinematic aesthetic doesn't lend itself to every game or every preference. The subjective value of these display features makes for a petty argument. They don't put the missing frames back in your 30 FPS game.

And some of these effects belong in the past, when we had garbage cameras. Now they're deliberately using them. Others such as motion blur are objectively bad for gaming. Point is, it isn't because some corporate shills decide to implement them that it's a good thing. Post-processing sucks for the most part and should stay in movies and away from games.

@MBirdy88: Yup, he could also be using an 8 bit monitor, that's gonna wash those colours right off.

I love per object motion blur, so you either love it or hate it I guess. I also love HDR in games, looks fantastic.