Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • book12
    • By book12 21st May 17, 12:07 PM
    • 2,515Posts
    • 554Thanks
    book12
    New Xbox out by the end of the year
    • #1
    • 21st May 17, 12:07 PM
    New Xbox out by the end of the year 21st May 17 at 12:07 PM
    A new Xbox (Project Scorpio) is coming out near the end of the year. More details to be revealed at E3 on 11 June, where we will know what the console looks like, price, release and preorder date, etc...

    Rumours indicate that it will be more than £500.

    Reading some articles it disappoint me because:

    1. Most people haven't heard of the new console coming out (despite articles about the being out along time ago).
    2. People aren't interested in getting one (including people who already have a 4k tv with 'Xbox One S). They don't see or feel much difference between the One S and Scorpio when comparing the specs.
    3. Too expensive for a games console.

    Specs of the console cam be viewed here - http://www.xbox.com/en-GB/project-scorpio

    In my opinion it's a good console to buy despite the rumoured price. If buying a first games console and want an Xbox instead of Playstation, go for and wait for the Scorpio. Worth while in the long term and worth the wait. If you don't want to spend that much or want an Xbox now, go for the Xbox One S, as at the end of the day it serves the purpose that you can play games on it.

    Anyone here would want to upgrade their Xbox 360, Xbox One, or Xbox One S for the new Xbox? Anyone with Xbox One S with a 4k or HD tv, will you be upgrading to the new Xbox? Anyone buying their first game console and decide to buy an Xbox, will it be the Xbox One S or Scorpio?
    Last edited by book12; 21-05-2017 at 12:25 PM.
Page 2
    • donnajunkie
    • By donnajunkie 15th Jun 17, 6:05 PM
    • 26,748 Posts
    • 14,415 Thanks
    donnajunkie
    Could get the same effect by sitting too close to the telly and sticking a blanket over the tv & myself

    Well, not quite. But still, as you say - pricey. Especially for the content available for them right now. I think its got good potential but then so did the kinect - it just wasn't used or developed to its full potential imo. Little more than a voice remote in most cases. Even thats kind of pointless for me because half the time it doesn't understand my accent. Admittedly its better than nintendos voice recognition though.
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    I thought the issue with Kinect was if people wanted a workout they would go to the gym. I dont think people want playing games to be like a workout.
    I believe there were some vr games featured at e3.
    • donnajunkie
    • By donnajunkie 15th Jun 17, 6:07 PM
    • 26,748 Posts
    • 14,415 Thanks
    donnajunkie
    I've never owned a MS console, but I also haven't bought into the PS4 yet. I don't play games often, so PS3 has years of life left for me. The biggest annoyance now is UHD bluray, if Sony had supported them then it would be a no-brainer.

    With XBox One X supporting UHD bluray and being more powerful, means that as soon as they are cheap enough then I'll probably buy one.
    Originally posted by phillw
    I think uhd blurays have less chance of success than 3d blurays.
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 16th Jun 17, 9:23 PM
    • 15,660 Posts
    • 8,969 Thanks
    motorguy
    Like the PS4 Pro, the weak processor looks like it will hold Scorpio back as it's only had a small bump in speed compared to the GPU. This means the likes of Gears of War 4 which is getting an 'X' update to 4K for the new console is still locked at 30fps for Horde compared to 60fps on the PC and it's a very noticeable difference.
    Originally posted by Johnmcl7
    I thought the GPU capability in gaming was far more significant than the CPU capability.
    You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 16th Jun 17, 9:25 PM
    • 15,660 Posts
    • 8,969 Thanks
    motorguy
    I think uhd blurays have less chance of success than 3d blurays.
    Originally posted by donnajunkie
    I think you're wrong.

    UHD Blu Ray makes a lot of sense now that 4K TVs are becoming more mainstream, its the next evolution of resolution.

    3D hasnt and wont succeed because it involves you sitting in a pair of weird looking glasses for very little real advantage.
    You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.
    • donnajunkie
    • By donnajunkie 17th Jun 17, 12:11 AM
    • 26,748 Posts
    • 14,415 Thanks
    donnajunkie
    I think you're wrong.

    UHD Blu Ray makes a lot of sense now that 4K TVs are becoming more mainstream, its the next evolution of resolution.

    3D hasnt and wont succeed because it involves you sitting in a pair of weird looking glasses for very little real advantage.
    Originally posted by motorguy
    They charge more for 4K blurays than what they do for 3d bluray. 3d quality varies but can be good. Of what I have seen of 4K it is barely any better than 1080p. To be fair I haven't seen it in bluray form. It was on sky tv because you can get 4K movies on that.
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 17th Jun 17, 9:40 AM
    • 15,660 Posts
    • 8,969 Thanks
    motorguy
    They charge more for 4K blurays than what they do for 3d bluray. 3d quality varies but can be good. Of what I have seen of 4K it is barely any better than 1080p. To be fair I haven't seen it in bluray form. It was on sky tv because you can get 4K movies on that.
    Originally posted by donnajunkie
    The issue isnt price. Its the goofy glasses you have to wear to watch them. Until they can do away with those, 3D will never take off.

    They charge more for 4k Blurays because the discs are different and higher density. Although it shares a similar name the technology behind it is completely different - different format, different readers, different burners, different disks. A 3d Bluray movie burns on to a standard Bluray disc, a UHD Blu Ray doesnt. The price difference will drop with the economies of scale over time

    UHD Bluray works better on exceptionally large TVs, but there is still benefit on "more regular" sized TVs.

    UHD is a natural progression, just like DVD was over VHS, and like Bluray was over DVD.

    3D is just a side show novelty act.
    Last edited by motorguy; 18-06-2017 at 9:45 PM.
    You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.
    • Johnmcl7
    • By Johnmcl7 18th Jun 17, 2:01 AM
    • 2,353 Posts
    • 1,563 Thanks
    Johnmcl7
    I thought the GPU capability in gaming was far more significant than the CPU capability.
    Originally posted by motorguy
    It's a combination of both - the GPU is solely responsible for the pure eye candy like 4k resolution and AA/AF however the CPU is responsible for physics, AI and other features. This means Sony and Microsoft can significantly increase the rendering resolution with a more powerful GPU but can't increase the framerate.

    The reason you'll see the graphics card mentioned as important for gaming in PC builds is because desktop processors are generally powerful already and spending more money on them usually doesn't yield much benefit. If you look at the popular i5 (only four cores vs eight on the consoles but much more powerful than the atom-class CPU's in the consoles) it's another hundred pounds to get much the same processor but with hyperthreading, it's faster for some tasks but not really for gaming. However £100 spent on a GPU (before you get to silly levels) will usually move you up a GPU-class or more and will bring a much more noticeable improvement.
    • almillar
    • By almillar 19th Jun 17, 12:51 PM
    • 7,087 Posts
    • 2,847 Thanks
    almillar
    Of what I have seen of 4K it is barely any better than 1080p
    Something badly wrong with your eyes, or the setup, or you were too far away. If it's compressed a lot the quality certainly goes down, but that's the problem a disc solves versus streaming - less compression required. Same for 1080p BluRay, same for DVD. DVD is far better quality than normal Freeview TV usually is. Both the same system, DVD is just squashed less.

    Goto Currys or something and look at the TVs with 4K content on them.

    It was on sky tv because you can get 4K movies on that.
    You were watching on a Sky Q box, on a 4K TV?
    • donnajunkie
    • By donnajunkie 19th Jun 17, 6:00 PM
    • 26,748 Posts
    • 14,415 Thanks
    donnajunkie
    Something badly wrong with your eyes, or the setup, or you were too far away. If it's compressed a lot the quality certainly goes down, but that's the problem a disc solves versus streaming - less compression required. Same for 1080p BluRay, same for DVD. DVD is far better quality than normal Freeview TV usually is. Both the same system, DVD is just squashed less.

    Goto Currys or something and look at the TVs with 4K content on them.



    You were watching on a Sky Q box, on a 4K TV?
    Originally posted by almillar
    Yes it was on a sky q box on a 4K tv that also has HDR. I saw some of Forrest Gump and a modern film(I forget which) and it was good but it didn't really look much better than my 1080p bluray of Forrest Gump.
    • almillar
    • By almillar 20th Jun 17, 12:40 PM
    • 7,087 Posts
    • 2,847 Thanks
    almillar
    Forrest Gump won't have improved much. We need to be talking about stuff that is recorded and viewed all on 4K (and further, HDR) tech. Forrest Gump would miss out on that. You wouldn't expect Dad's Army to improve on a 4K screen, would you?!
    • donnajunkie
    • By donnajunkie 20th Jun 17, 6:38 PM
    • 26,748 Posts
    • 14,415 Thanks
    donnajunkie
    Forrest Gump won't have improved much. We need to be talking about stuff that is recorded and viewed all on 4K (and further, HDR) tech. Forrest Gump would miss out on that. You wouldn't expect Dad's Army to improve on a 4K screen, would you?!
    Originally posted by almillar
    But there's a big improvement from standard definition to bluray. Whether the blame is attached to the film or not there's still not a massively noticable difference. It's a flaw if it can only make a difference with stuff filmed in 4K.
    • almillar
    • By almillar 21st Jun 17, 12:41 PM
    • 7,087 Posts
    • 2,847 Thanks
    almillar
    But there's a big improvement from standard definition to bluray
    I know what you mean, but with standard definition, there are 500 odd lines counted top to bottom. With full HD BluRay, that's 1080. With 4K, it's 2,160. That's the real, actual difference.
    If you're talking about SD vs HD, are you telling me that, like my example above, Dad's Army looks better in HD than SD? Should it look better again in 4K? The source is only of a certain quality, and can't really get any better.
    I think you're talking about TV channels. Lots of SD TV channels look rubbish, and yes, HD ones look far better. But that's not about resolution, it's about compression. Lots of the SD channels are just squeezed far too much, making the picture rubbish.
    You should be comparing a DVD (the best of SD) against a 1080P BluRay (the best of full HD), against a 4K BluRay (the best of 4K). This will show up the limits of each technology, rather than broadcasters squishing the quality out of their own programming.
    I think that if you watch Dad's Army on a DVD as above, then watch it again on a 1080p BluRay disc, that you won't notice a difference. All of the above, of course, ignores any remastering.

    It's a flaw if it can only make a difference with stuff filmed in 4K.

    When we (the public) got HD, broadcasters/filmmakers had been making content far better than what our SD equipment could show well. Once we all got HD, we saw what we had been missing all that time, plus newer, real, HD programming.
    There has been a much smaller gap between studios having 4K equipment, and us having it in our living rooms. Therefore that wealth of material out there that you've seen an improvement in SD-HD, simply doesn't exist to notice the difference HD-4K. But there IS a difference!
    Last edited by almillar; 21-06-2017 at 12:44 PM.
    • King_Nothing
    • By King_Nothing 21st Jun 17, 1:47 PM
    • 747 Posts
    • 955 Thanks
    King_Nothing
    Haven't decided if I'm going to get one or not, my PC is already out performing my Xbox and PS4, and with a little bit more spent on it, it'll outperform the One X for a while. Still haven't even got round to getting a PS4 Pro even though I have a 4K TV, happy with the One S for the minute.
    • donnajunkie
    • By donnajunkie 21st Jun 17, 6:25 PM
    • 26,748 Posts
    • 14,415 Thanks
    donnajunkie
    I know what you mean, but with standard definition, there are 500 odd lines counted top to bottom. With full HD BluRay, that's 1080. With 4K, it's 2,160. That's the real, actual difference.
    If you're talking about SD vs HD, are you telling me that, like my example above, Dad's Army looks better in HD than SD? Should it look better again in 4K? The source is only of a certain quality, and can't really get any better.
    I think you're talking about TV channels. Lots of SD TV channels look rubbish, and yes, HD ones look far better. But that's not about resolution, it's about compression. Lots of the SD channels are just squeezed far too much, making the picture rubbish.
    You should be comparing a DVD (the best of SD) against a 1080P BluRay (the best of full HD), against a 4K BluRay (the best of 4K). This will show up the limits of each technology, rather than broadcasters squishing the quality out of their own programming.
    I think that if you watch Dad's Army on a DVD as above, then watch it again on a 1080p BluRay disc, that you won't notice a difference. All of the above, of course, ignores any remastering.

    It's a flaw if it can only make a difference with stuff filmed in 4K.

    When we (the public) got HD, broadcasters/filmmakers had been making content far better than what our SD equipment could show well. Once we all got HD, we saw what we had been missing all that time, plus newer, real, HD programming.
    There has been a much smaller gap between studios having 4K equipment, and us having it in our living rooms. Therefore that wealth of material out there that you've seen an improvement in SD-HD, simply doesn't exist to notice the difference HD-4K. But there IS a difference!
    Originally posted by almillar
    If something looks better in hd, will it look better in 4K? Well that's the claim isn't it. If it doesn't it brings us back to what I said which is I rarely see much improvement with 4K from hd. Even with modern films. It was suggested it needs to have been filmed in 4K. So what percentage of films are made in 4k? What that point suggests is it will be years before the benefit is common place enough to be worth it. And it still leaves all the great films from the past not benefiting.
    • almillar
    • By almillar 22nd Jun 17, 12:55 PM
    • 7,087 Posts
    • 2,847 Thanks
    almillar
    If something looks better in hd, will it look better in 4K? Well that's the claim isn't it
    No. The SOURCE MATERIAL is always important. If something is recorded in HD, it won't look ANY better in 4K, ignoring any so called enhancements or fancy upscaling. There are 1080 lines of information, either being spat out of a 1080 line screen, or 2,160 lines. If the TV's scaler is poor, that picture could even look worse! Exactly the same theory applies to SD on HD BTW.

    It was suggested it needs to have been filmed in 4K. So what percentage of films are made in 4k?
    I'd guess anything from the last 5 years.

    What that point suggests is it will be years before the benefit is common place enough to be worth it. And it still leaves all the great films from the past not benefiting.
    Absolutely. And the same argument was had a few years ago, when HD TVs came along, and no-one had BluRay players, there were no HD TV channels.
    You make a good point about old films, and how they mightn't benefit. If they get 'remastered' that often means going through each frame, literally 24 frames per second, of FILM, cleaning up each image, and digitising it. Like taking a photo. This has been done plenty into HD, but I'm sure that if the film (the material the movie is stored on) isn't very high quality, then remastering it into 4K instead of HD would not be very beneficial at all.
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 22nd Jun 17, 1:19 PM
    • 15,660 Posts
    • 8,969 Thanks
    motorguy
    If something looks better in hd, will it look better in 4K? Well that's the claim isn't it. If it doesn't it brings us back to what I said which is I rarely see much improvement with 4K from hd. Even with modern films. It was suggested it needs to have been filmed in 4K. So what percentage of films are made in 4k? What that point suggests is it will be years before the benefit is common place enough to be worth it. And it still leaves all the great films from the past not benefiting.
    Originally posted by donnajunkie
    Its all about the level of detail / density that it was recorded in in the first place.

    If the detail wasnt there, then 4K isnt going to magically make it be there. Theres only a certain amount of advantage you're going to be able to exploit.

    I looked at some pics taken from a digital camera maybe 15 years ago now on my laptops 3,200x1,800 resolution display. It looks "ok" but once you zoom in it becomes very grainy. Thats because the level of detail required was never there in the first place. No amount of fancy screen / laptop processing power can change that.

    If i take a photo now with my much better spec digital camera / mobile phone then it looks fantastic on the screen.

    And likewise, its going to take a much bigger screen before you're going to see the real advantage of 4K - and lets be honest, everyones expectation of screen size is increasing.

    It was said that you could only see the benefit of HD if you were running a 32 inch TV screen or bigger. Below that your eye couldnt see the extra detail anyway.

    Likewise with 4K. I would say you'd need to be looking at north of 55 inch TVs before you'll see any real advantage.

    Yes, as i've said, it will take time to become the new norm, but it IS the next step from HD, and it will become the default choice over time.
    You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 22nd Jun 17, 1:28 PM
    • 15,660 Posts
    • 8,969 Thanks
    motorguy
    If something looks better in hd, will it look better in 4K? Well that's the claim isn't it. If it doesn't it brings us back to what I said which is I rarely see much improvement with 4K from hd. Even with modern films. It was suggested it needs to have been filmed in 4K. So what percentage of films are made in 4k? What that point suggests is it will be years before the benefit is common place enough to be worth it. And it still leaves all the great films from the past not benefiting.
    Originally posted by donnajunkie
    And another point - you would have no expectation that a latest colour TV can magically make an old black and white movie (when the detail of colour wasnt added in the first place) into a colour one, so why do you have the expectation that a 4K TV will magically enhance an old low quality movie?

    Where there has been the demand, computer editing has allowed colour to be added and imperfections to be removed from old movie reels, and if there is the demand, then that will be done (where possible) to enhance old movies into a more 4K like quality.

    But you cant really criticise the technology for not enhancing old low quality stuff?
    You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.
    • donnajunkie
    • By donnajunkie 22nd Jun 17, 6:36 PM
    • 26,748 Posts
    • 14,415 Thanks
    donnajunkie
    My initial point was that I don't see much improvement with 4k. It was then assumed this is because the original source quality of what I saw isn't good and that was the reason. I acknowledge that 4k bluray may perform better as I have not seen them in action. What I have seen is a variety of films via the sky q box. Some old classics, some modern films.i am yet to think to myself, that looks better than 1080p.
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 23rd Jun 17, 9:29 AM
    • 15,660 Posts
    • 8,969 Thanks
    motorguy
    My initial point was that I don't see much improvement with 4k. It was then assumed this is because the original source quality of what I saw isn't good and that was the reason. I acknowledge that 4k bluray may perform better as I have not seen them in action. What I have seen is a variety of films via the sky q box. Some old classics, some modern films.i am yet to think to myself, that looks better than 1080p.
    Originally posted by donnajunkie
    Your initial point was that UHD had little chance of success. This was clearly based on your subjective view and limited exposure.

    Objectively, its a step forward and will become the mainstream choice over time.
    You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.
    • almillar
    • By almillar 23rd Jun 17, 1:09 PM
    • 7,087 Posts
    • 2,847 Thanks
    almillar
    My initial point was that I don't see much improvement with 4k
    It was. And my point is that, just like with 1080, which you seem to think IS worthwhile, you WON'T see an improvement with 4K, unless the source material is good enough. There is a massive improvement (4 times as many pixels) in 4K, same as with 1080 being 4x as many pixels as SD. But if the detail isn't there to fill it, you won't notice a difference. My point being that you are judging it unfairly unless you put something good through it.

    What I have seen is a variety of films via the sky q box. Some old classics, some modern films.i am yet to think to myself, that looks better than 1080p.

    I'm still not quite convinced that you're actually watching stuff in 4K. Was it a 2TB Sky Q box? Was everything set up right? Was the film downloaded in 4K?
    Last edited by almillar; 23-06-2017 at 1:11 PM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,751Posts Today

8,079Users online

Martin's Twitter