Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

8GB is enough to do 1080p resolution. the UI i use for SD maxes out at 2048x2048. however, it takes a lot longer than 512x512 to generate: 1m40s versus 1.97s.

I'm guessing if one had access to one of those nvidia backplane rackmount devices one could generate 8k or larger resolution images.



sort by: page size:

I am able to generate a maximum resolution of 512x768 on my 11GB 1080Ti. This seems to use almost 100% of the available RAM.

Normal SDXL requires 1024x1024 output or the quality degrades significantly.

pretty neat. I heard rumors that generating image this large isn't always great since it was initially trained on 512x512. Any truth to that?

Biggest I could do without a crash with the HLKY version was 640x512.


Is there larger resolution than 1080p ?

Perhaps.

But the default 8 MB wasn't enough. 2560x1440 is 11 MB uncompressed. I run a 4K monitor now, and a 3840x2160 screenshot is nearly 25 MB.


You definitely need higher resolutions than 1024x1024.

1080p @ 32bpps is 8MB/frame. That's 7FPS max, so anything that moves a lot of pixels is totally out of the question.

Even with just Visual Studio and normal office usage, I found it very frustrating using a 1080p screen over USB. Very choppy and annoying.


Glad to hear it! Not sure I need a 5120x2880 video anyway. I’d be perfectly happy with half that resolution.

I assume higher resolutions have a larger memory footprint. Is the RAM usage still reasonable at 3840x2400?


348x200+ pixels is possible with the 48 byte wide mode.

I can generate a 768x896 pixels image on an RTX 3090, using 23.4/24GB

Using 256 color bitmap, select the 320200 resolution. 64k for one full screenbuffer. The 640480 is still useful for sprites and tiles, but I think it will mostly be used for text.

8 bit computers always have a lot of limitations. And these limitations have sparked a lot of creativity :)


I'm pretty sure it's a lenticular display, so if it's running a standard 8K panel (~33 megapixel), your effective resolution is under 1 megapixel per angle.

Computationally, generating 33 megapixels spread across 45 views is very similar to generating 33 megapixels in one view, so if your rendering pipeline can do standard 8K, you should be fine.


Not that high -- 4800 x 2848 is the max resolution.

High resolution images for High-DPI displays. Eg. 3200x1800 on a 13" screen.

This sounds really interesting, but there's a distinct lack of specifications, especially when this is targeted at the developer/early adopter community. How high is "high resolution"? Some display glasses companies (Vuzix) consider 852x480 high resolution, which differs greatly from what I'd consider an acceptable resolution for anything but old/SD TV shows. More details are needed.

1080p is not fine enough? How much information are you used to having on screen at a time? How much text, for example?

We're talking about video editing, not screen resolutions.

The step to 1080p wasn't from 1600x1200, it was from PAL/NTSC (640x400 or 720x576). It was the biggest step by far.


Pico8 is working with 128x128 pixels, so their choices are limited...

Went back to do some more tests now, and funny enough I can actually get it to make decent stuff after realizing that it just completely sucks at below 512px (I was initially running it at 128x256 to speed up generation). I guess I should stop listening to advice from morons on reddit who said that lower res + upscaling works fine. Lol.

Not sure why there's even an option to go below 512.

next

Legal | privacy