Sony Removes 8K Claim From PlayStation 5 Boxes (gamespot.com) 39
Fans have noticed that, over the last few months, Sony quietly removed any mention of 8K on the PlayStation 5 boxes. "I have been endlessly bitching since the PS5 released about that 8k Badge," writes X user @DeathlyPrice. "It is false Advertising and Sony should be sued for it." Others shared their grievances via PlayStation Lifestyle and a Reddit thread. GameSpot reports: A FAQ on Sony's official site in 2020 stated that "PS5 is compatible with 8K displays at launch, and after a future system software update will be able to output resolutions up to 8K when content is available, with supported software." But to date, the only game that offers 8K resolution on PS5 is The Touryst, which looks more like Minecraft than a game with advanced visuals.
The reality is that 8K has not been widely adopted by video game developers, or even by filmmakers at this point. There are 8K televisions on the market, but it may be quite some time, if ever, before it becomes the standard for either gaming or entertainment.
The reality is that 8K has not been widely adopted by video game developers, or even by filmmakers at this point. There are 8K televisions on the market, but it may be quite some time, if ever, before it becomes the standard for either gaming or entertainment.
Hmm (Score:3)
I am not a fan of asking difficult questions but what happens to everyone who bought a PS5 on the idea they would have functional 8K?
The functionality is there (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah by all acounts it supports 8K since it has HDMI 2.1
Even in PC gaming though I don't think anyone seriously operates at 8K, not even at 4K unless you are at the pretty high end, it's just too many pixels still.
It's nowhere near scienfitic but the Steam hardware survey shows 58% of users have 1080p as their primary monitor still
https://store.steampowered.com... [steampowered.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah by all acounts it supports 8K since it has HDMI 2.1
Note that the PS5 HDMI port is limited to 32gbps. This is because internally it's actually a Display Port 1.4 that converts to HDMI.
8K is possible uncompressed at 32gbps, but only through a combination of non-HDR bit depth, low FPS and/or low chroma subsampling.
The Touryst AFAIK originally did only run at 8K resolution internally but would still oitput 4K. Not sure whether it got patched afterwards to work differently.
Re: (Score:2)
This is because internally it's actually a Display Port 1.4 that converts to HDMI.
Fuck, that's some ass right there because DP1.4 is like you said, barely 8K capable.
It's really sad that maybe finally this year we will finally see DP2.0/2.1 becoming more common. Not that it's needed everywhere but at work we have a bunch of A6000, a like $5K video card and it only has DP1.4
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, what is the correct data rate for HDMI 2.1? That could handle a playable 8K resolution? At least 30fps? 45fps? 60fps?
Thanks.
Re:The functionality is there (Score:4, Informative)
HDMI 2.1 no longer has a clear definition, since they made all features optional and redefined it such that HDMI 2.0 devices are now valid HDMI 2.1 devices. Despite not supporting anything newer than HDMI 2.0.
The answer will differ depending on a variety of factors. Are we using chroma subsampling? Essentially all compressed video is 4:2:0, which cuts the bandwidth requirement in half. 4:2:2 is often used for devices connecting to TVs (Dolby Vision is always chroma subsampled), which reduces bandwidth requirements by a third. Are we using high bit depth? If you're using HDR, it's going to be 10bpp or 12bpp, but SDR will be 8bpp, and the bandwidth requirements change accordingly. Are we using DSC? It's an optional part of HDMI 2.1, and using DSC, almost anything is on the table, even 8K120 4:4:4 12bpp on a 40 Gbps link.
If you want it to be 8bpp, 4:4:4, completely uncompressed, the best you can do is around 8K50 with CVT-RB. Drop it to 4:2:2 and you can do 8K60 CEA-861 with 8bpp or CVT-RB with 10bpp.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The functionality is there (Score:2)
Notably only 4% of users is at 4K or above. And I imagine gamers are the most likely to have 4K.
8K is silly for a PC you are sitting on front of. Although, so is 4K. And Steam has the numbers to back it up.
Re: (Score:2)
I follow you, but . . .
It SEEMS that while the PS5 technically supports 8K, the performance at 8K is crap?
". . . the only game that offers 8K resolution on PS5 is The Touryst, which looks more like Minecraft than a game with advanced visuals."
Console games generate frames according parameters: resolution, detail level, etc.
So, if the PS5 performance at 8K was sufficient then the games would just allow the player/user to choose.
The fact that 8K is not available in a game indicates that the developers/company
Re: (Score:2)
The PS5 does not support 8K output at all (it will not output 8K to an 8K TV), and The Touryst is not an 8K game. It's a 4K game with 4x supersampling: it renders to an 8K framebuffer and then downsamples to 4K for output.
It's entirely possible that the PS5's inability to output an 8K signal is a software limitation, but from the user's standpoint, it doesn't matter where the limitation is: if they connect a PS5 to an 8K TV, it will not allow any resolutions higher than 4K.
Re: (Score:3)
Can confirm: all of the above is correct. The PS5 does not currently have the ability to output at 8K.
The console should have never been advertised as being 8K-capable. The Panasonic MN864739 HDMI encoder chip that the console uses can only drive an HDMI 2.1 connection at 32Gbps (FRL4), which is only enough bandwidth for a full quality 8K image at a bit over 30Hz. To hit 60Hz, Display Stream Compression (DSC) is needed, which the MN864739 doesn't support. So it will never be able to get to 8K in the way tha
Re: (Score:2)
They could have made the case for 8K60 with 4:2:0, that more or less fits in 32 Gbps (just barely). But it doesn't output that either.
Re:The functionality is there but Content is King (Score:2)
Compatible? It sure is. (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, anyone with a brain knows it won't be able to play games at 8k with any sort of decent framerate. They can barely do a steady 4k60.
OTOH, with the future update, it should play 8k youtube vids no problem.
Re: (Score:2)
They put an "8K" badge prominently on the front of the box, next to a "4K120" and "HDR" badge. The fine print on the front of the box says "8K, 4K, 120 Hz, and HDR content require a compatible display and supporting software."
The PS5 does not actually support 8K content since it does not allow you to set an 8K output resolution, even on an 8K TV.
Re: Compatible? It sure is. (Score:2)
But 8K specifies a minimum frame rate. If you can't hit that frame rate, you don't really support 8K.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue seems to be that 8k hasn't really taken off. There are lots of 8k TVs available in Japan, where they have 8k broadcasts, but outside of that country the demand just doesn't seem to be there. Everyone is focusing on OLED and improved colour/HDR, rather than going beyond 4k resolution.
It's a shame because it does look nice, and 8k is really good for computers too. 4k is nice but still not enough to hide the pixels entirely, and additionally OLED monitors screw up text sub-pixel anti-aliasing due to
diminishing returns (Score:2)
How big is your screen and how close do you have to sit to enjoy that 8K resolution?
Re: (Score:2)
For any games that are fast paced, it's not only unnecessary, it's unnoticed. You have to freeze frame to appreciate it at all. Beautiful reflections on the lake you pass in your rallisport game are a waste of processing power. Other than technical dick-sizing, there's just not much point. I struggle to justify 4K for the same reason.
With movies, I get it. On my 70" LG C8, the difference is clear. However, I'm not directly in charge of making sure the driver in "Fast and Furious" stays on the road. I can p
Re: (Score:2)
I did an at-home setup for a radiologist during the pandemic. She had 3x 32" 8k monitors mounted on her wall, but then she was also practically putting her nose up to them when she was evaluating whatever she was looking at.
But I suspect she needed the extra resolution more than somebody playing a video game.
Re: (Score:2)
I did an at-home setup for a radiologist during the pandemic. She had 3x 32" 8k monitors mounted on her wall, but then she was also practically putting her nose up to them when she was evaluating whatever she was looking at.
But I suspect she needed the extra resolution more than somebody playing a video game.
Sounds like a terrible computing experience. That's the reason I gave up my 4K monitor - everything was way too small and I had to scale 150% just make it usable. I'd rather not ruin my remaining decent eyesight instead of using a newer tech monitor. 1080 seems to be the sweet-spot for me. I'd need a magnifying glass for 8k lol.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a terrible computing experience. That's the reason I gave up my 4K monitor - everything was way too small and I had to scale 150% just make it usable.
4K is great for a big screen. My "monitor" is a 55-inch 4K TV. I can lay out eight A4-size pages of documentation with no overlap. Or I can have an editor, unit-under-test, and Stackoverflow all open at full size.
Re: (Score:2)
And if Bill's 55-incher sounds too big for you, I can recommend using a 43-inch 4K monitor. I use it for the desktop space for work, but it also works great when switched to my own computer. You can always play games or watch videos in smaller windowed sizes when you want. My eyes aren't perfect anymore, but the text size at 100% is fine. I sit about 1.5 to 2 feet from it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there are instances where it makes sense. I'm not sure that Playstation is one of them. You really have to be close and have decent close vision to appreciate the difference. I'd wager that most people in normal situations cannot tell the difference.
Whew (Score:2)
I mean $8k seems expensive for a Playstation. :-)
Offtopic but fun fact about 8k (Score:5, Interesting)
So you've got some DOS nerds buying 8k displays and i9s to play 30+ year old games.
Re: (Score:3)
The Game Boy had a resolution of 160x144, but the Analogue Pocket has a 1600x1440 screen so it can simulate subpixel structure.
It's crazy the amount of high-end tech needed to simulate old screens. To simulate CRTs you're gonna want 8K for subpixel simulation, HDR to simulate the hot electron beam, and 240hz to simulate ability to render scanline-at-a-time rather than screen-at-a-time. People are going to be chasing this one for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
To say nothing about response time.
Re: (Score:2)
With a 4K display using bilinear sharp scaling for the aspect ratio correction (to turn 320x200 into a 4:3 image), it's already indistinguishable. 8K doesn't improve it any. It's a 9x integer scale on the horizontal and a 10.8x scale on the vertical. The softness of that edge from that single pixel wide interpolation is invisible.
Re: (Score:2)
Early PCs of that time period (CGA and NTSC) used non-square pixels. On the Amiga, games targeting the NTSC market usually compensated for the non-square pixels, while PAL games did not. Since the Amiga was most popular in Europe, all the games I played appeared "stretched" on my NTSC monitor.
The analog CRT that came with my Amiga has a vertical adjustment that lets me choose the aspect ratio I want. Back in the day, I set it to show square pixels, so all the PAL games look correct in NTSC mode. As a bo
Re: (Score:3)
CRTs don't have pixels, they don't work like that. They have a maximum horizontal and vertical resolution, but the aspect ratio of the computer pixels can be freely set.
As for why games look off, there are a few reasons. Firstly a lot of early DOS games were played on CGA and EGA monitors, which has less horizontal resolution and thus pixel edges were not so well defined. A lot of those games looked a bit off when VGA came along and made the edges a lot sharper.
The other big issue is that the RGB dots in a
8K isn't that useful (Score:2)
For most things, 8K isn't useful but would use 4x the bandwidth of 4K. Most of the stuff I watch via streaming, if advertised as 4K, is so compressed that it's about the quality of good 1080 uncompressed.
If you're shooting a feature film, by all means shoot in 8k so you can crop as necessary, but for home use, I wouldn't want 8k unless I had a 20 ft screen or larger.
Re: (Score:2)
Do modern display connections standards still do 1 signal=1 pixel, or does HDMI/Displayport compress at all?
It's for the PS5 Pro (Score:2)
The 8K ready sticker is for the upcoming PS5 Pro console supposedly coming out in the next few months.
So yes, take it off the existing console and make it on the new one coming out to stimulate sales. After all, PS5 sales haven't exactly been stunning. Call of Duty is roughly half are on PS4 and half on PS5, and the PS5 is lagging behind the PS4 in sales at this time.
I'm sure Sony is taking 8K off and putting it on the Pro just to help goose sales a bit.
Re: (Score:1)
After all, PS5 sales haven't exactly been stunning.
As far as I can tell, the PS5 has been keeping pace with the PS4 pretty well https://www.vgchartz.com/artic... [vgchartz.com] Which is kind of amazing considering how much software is still coming out for the PS4. I'll probably upgrade for GTA6 next year, but i'm still happy with my ps4 for now.