Jump to content

8k Gaming Computers


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 790 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

I'll bet the viewer's 512MB texture memory limit really helps there.

I'm pretty sure it actually would - it would mean the video memory wouldn't be full of oversized in-world textures so it would be available to drive the monitor pixels, which is a completely different operation.

Still doesn't change the fact that the monitor in question has more pixels than the human eye has cones (the structures it uses to form an image) - in fact, it has orders of magnitude more.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't watch the Linus video, but 20 FPS for the new Tomb Raiders is unacceptable. Also, 8K and even 4K are overkill for most games. When it's fast-paced, higher FPS is always better than more pixels.

1 hour ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

the viewer's 512MB texture memory limit

Is that really the texture memory limit in the current, official SL viewer? I know that in Firestorm the limit is 2 Gb.

And, would a higher limit really help for SL? In 8K everything's just bigger in size, not bigger in number of textures.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

I'm pretty sure it actually would - it would mean the video memory wouldn't be full of oversized in-world textures so it would be available to drive the monitor pixels, which is a completely different operation.

Still doesn't change the fact that the monitor in question has more pixels than the human eye has cones (the structures it uses to form an image) - in fact, it has orders of magnitude more.

It's a bit more complicated than cones vs. pixels. Cones (4.5-7 million, depending on who you ask), and the far more numerous rods (about 20x cones), are quite unevenly distributed about the retina. The central fovea (0.1% of our visual field) which has the highest visual acuity, contains almost all the cones and none of the rods. It takes three (four for tetrachromats like me) cones to match a display pixel (which is actually three sub pixels (red/green/blue), so it's fairer to state that our cones are equivalent to 1.5-2.3 million pixels...

...until we consider "hyperacuity". In addition to raw pixel density, our visual cortex does some pretty cool processing to improve resolution. Some of that magic is thought to involve the eye's rapid eye jiggles, called "saccades". High end digital cameras are now starting to use their image stabilization systems to mimic that jiggle, producing images with higher resolution than possible from pixel count alone. 

A display screen doesn't know where we are going to focus our attention, so it must meet or exceed the spatial resolution of the central fovea at all points if it's going to be indistinguishable from "reality". If the fovea's 1.5-2.3 million pixel equivalents occupy only 0.1% of our visual field, it would take 1.3-2.3 billion display pixels to match it. That's all theory though, and in practice we've been quite happy with far fewer pixels on our televisions. Even so, I recently saw an 8K TV right next to a 4K and, from a comfortable viewing distance, the difference was obvious to me.

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

It's a bit more complicated than cones vs. pixels. Cones (4.5-7 million, depending on who you ask), and the far more numerous rods (about 20x cones), are quite unevenly distributed about the retina. The central fovea (0.1% of our visual field) which has the highest visual acuity, contains almost all the cones and none of the rods. It takes three (four for tetrachromats like me) cones to match a display pixel (which is actually three sub pixels (red/green/blue), so it's fairer to state that our cones are equivalent to 1.5-2.3 million pixels...

...until we consider "hyperacuity". In addition to raw pixel density, our visual cortex does some pretty cool processing to improve resolution. Some of that magic is thought to involve the eye's rapid eye jiggles, called "saccades". High end digital cameras are now starting to use their image stabilization systems to mimic that jiggle, producing images with higher resolution than possible from pixel count alone. 

A display screen doesn't know where we are going to focus our attention, so it must meet or exceed the spatial resolution of the central fovea at all points if it's going to be indistinguishable from "reality". If the fovea's 1.5-2.3 million pixel equivalents occupy only 0.1% of our visual field, it would take 1.3-2.3 billion display pixels to match it. That's all theory though, and in practice we've been quite happy with far fewer pixels on out televisions. Even so, I recently saw an 8K TV right next to a 4K and, from a comfortable viewing distance, the difference was obvious to me.

And then there are the millions of poor bastages like me who have Astigmatism. :S

Odd thing is, I have better night vision than most people who have 20/20. Between the two I avoid driving at night as much as possible because those oncoming headlights blind the living *bleep* out of me. If only surplus Sherman tanks weren't so darn expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Selene Gregoire said:

And then there are the millions of poor bastages like me who have Astigmatism. :S

Odd thing is, I have better night vision than most people who have 20/20. Between the two I avoid driving at night as much as possible because those oncoming headlights blind the living *bleep* out of me. If only surplus Sherman tanks weren't so darn expensive.

I also have a li'l astigmatism, which is exacerbated by high-contrast environments, night-time being the worst. I like to watch movie credits, to see the names of the people involved. That sometimes requires me to turn up the house lights to drown out the secondary images.

I do dream of driving down the road in my tractor, pushing or lifting obstructions (like cars, bicyclists and moms pushing strollers) out of my way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, janetosilio said:

They said that about 720p vs 1080p too.

It's not a factor of said or speculated. It a fact about how our cones and rods can detect and see detail such as pixels. It is not possible. A perfectly healthy eye can see slightly over 4k if perfect in the 50% of central view. . But 80% can not even see perfect 4k with our normal field of view. The very center of the eye has the best perception in a very tiny space, then lessens greatly . Looking straight on at a monitor your finest tune of view at a screen you can completely see is only the center 1/8 of the screen in high detail. Your eyes details is 1/2 that another 1/4 from that center. and less to the outer edge of site. Many may have had similar eye tests done that you can plainly tell that. It's the way are focus works combines with rods and cones for color detail and image details. 

At this point what matters is stability and smooth frame rate at current 4k. As well as contrast, and good HDR. Detail in textures and the separations are important. 

All of it is useless in Secondlife unless they get well beyond the current limitations. 

THe 8k topic has already been well discussed and the factor and limitations of our own eyes clarified. THe higher resolution can help with extremely large displays , but face the truth, 30" and below gaming screens are useless for it, and hardly beneficial to 4k. While I do enjoy 4k, HDR gaming, I am also playing on a minimal of a 58" HDR screen. 46 and less is not even a benefit, even tho super scaling can help with some fine details. . 

Your eyes has a vary narrow view for high resolution and the large screen has to be a good distance away from you to have any benefit. 

 

Edited by anthonytorino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I also have a li'l astigmatism, which is exacerbated by high-contrast environments, night-time being the worst. I like to watch movie credits, to see the names of the people involved. That sometimes requires me to turn up the house lights to drown out the secondary images.

I do dream of driving down the road in my tractor, pushing or lifting obstructions (like cars, bicyclists and moms pushing strollers) out of my way.

There are about 5 different types of Astigmatism. Didn't need to start wearing glasses until I was in my 40s.

You crack me up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Selene Gregoire said:

There are about 5 different types of Astigmatism. Didn't need to start wearing glasses until I was in my 40s.

You crack me up.

Five or so groups is probably all that's needed to work up acceptable solutions. There are, of course, as many kinds of astigmatism as there are eyes that have it. I first started needing glasses for close-up work about 15 years ago (I'm now 49). I expected that as a result of the nearly inescapable presbyopia. One day, as I was looking at a blinky light in my lab, I noticed it looked like a comet, not a dot. Something was blocking my view, so I moved my head a bit to get a better look and it returned to being the expected dot. I quickly realized that my left eye was the culprit. I knew enough about optics (studied it and I'm am amateur astronomer) to recognize it as a cylindrical astigmatism and was able to estimate the degree of correction (angle and magnitude) needed to fix it. I went to an eye-doctor, described what I'd determined, and was roundly dismissed... until she finished the tests and confirmed my estimation. Had I known "which way is up" for astigmatism angle calculations, I could have written my own prescription.

I switched to a different eye doctor after that visit. He loves to trade book recommendations with me, and happily confirms the diagnoses I bring to him once a year. He's good enough at what he does to not feel threatened by my ability to do a little bit of what he does. He e-mails me the images of my retina from his fancy machine and I make canvas prints of the interesting ones, to hang as abstract art in my home.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2019 at 4:30 PM, Arduenn Schwartzman said:

I didn't watch the Linus video, but 20 FPS for the new Tomb Raiders is unacceptable. Also, 8K and even 4K are overkill for most games. When it's fast-paced, higher FPS is always better than more pixels.

Is that really the texture memory limit in the current, official SL viewer? I know that in Firestorm the limit is 2 Gb.

And, would a higher limit really help for SL? In 8K everything's just bigger in size, not bigger in number of textures.

 

You are misinformed . Firestorm has a limit to 1 Gb . and it blurs some images

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 790 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...