Page 1 of 5 1 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 106
  1. #1
    Dedicated Member
    rene2kx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,077
    Rep Power
    29
    Points
    13,612 (0 Banked)

    Question regarding resolution

    There's a lot of buzz regarding resolution and native 1080p/sub 1080p. The console (ps4 or x1) is sending a 1080p signal to your tv/projector regardless if the game was rendered in native 1080p or not. So if a game was rendered in 1440 x 1080 instead of the actual 1920 horizontal resolution, could you tell while playing on your tv/projector what resolution was it natively rendered in? Or do you only get to know the figures from the internetz?

  2. #2
    PSU Live Streamer
    YoungMullah88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Charlotte
    PSN ID
    xShadow__WoIf | YoungMullah88
    Posts
    14,241
    Rep Power
    112
    Points
    31,546 (1,800 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Lower resolution upscaled (ie. 720p to 1080p) will always look fuzzy. Don't know about 1440

    Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Forum Sage
    Itachi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Winterfell
    PSN ID
    iwinulose042
    Age
    20
    Posts
    8,322
    Rep Power
    82
    Points
    30,827 (151,503 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIII-2Final Fantasy XIIIFull Metal AlchemistDragon Ball ZNarutoDeath NoteNaughty DogLightningNoctisAssassins Creed EzioPS3 Slim
    Quote Originally Posted by rene2kx View Post
    There's a lot of buzz regarding resolution and native 1080p/sub 1080p. The console (ps4 or x1) is sending a 1080p signal to your tv/projector regardless if the game was rendered in native 1080p or not. So if a game was rendered in 1440 x 1080 instead of the actual 1920 horizontal resolution, could you tell while playing on your tv/projector what resolution was it natively rendered in? Or do you only get to know the figures from the internetz?
    No you wont in that case.
    I think kingdom hearts HD 1.5 Remix was running 1440x1080 (or some weird in between number) and everyone who played the game thought it was native 1080p. You can tell if the game is native or not by certain pixel counting techniques, but as far as telling from just looking at gameplay, its hard (given there isn't as big of a gap like 720p native upscaled to 1080). If its upscaled from 900P+ I think it will be hard to tell especially if you have nothing to compared it with
    Last edited by Itachi; 03-10-2014 at 04:04.

  4. #4
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,591
    Rep Power
    126
    Points
    59,249 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    1440x1080 is 4:3 so you should notice that it will either be stretcched making round tings look oval or have black bars left and right

  5. #5
    Community Manager
    Fijiandoce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pacific Isles of Doceness
    PSN ID
    Fijiandoce
    Posts
    4,426
    Rep Power
    89
    Points
    267,132 (888 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Itachi View Post
    No you wont in that case.
    I think kingdom hearts HD 1.5 Remix was running 1440x1080 and everyone who played the game thought it was native 1080p. You can tell if the game is native or not by certain pixel counting techniques, but as far as telling from just looking at gameplay, its hard (given there isn't as big of a gap like 720p native upscaled to 1080). If its upscaled from 900P+ I think it will be hard to tell especially if you have noting to compared it with
    to add to that. The scene complexity will also determine how telling an image will become. If you have a scene with many diagonally straight lines, you will see a noticeable about of jaggienes within the picture at lower resolutions. However, if you're looking at an image that is more artistic (for want of a better description) as itachi said, 900p (for example) won't show too much difference. The aforementioned aliasing problem, is usually the only way people discern the difference.... most of the time. Though that ain't a rule or anything.
    Sig courtesy of the_jim


  6. #6
    Dedicated Member
    rene2kx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,077
    Rep Power
    29
    Points
    13,612 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Itachi View Post
    No you wont in that case.
    I think kingdom hearts HD 1.5 Remix was running 1440x1080 (or some weird in between number) and everyone who played the game thought it was native 1080p. You can tell if the game is native or not by certain pixel counting techniques, but as far as telling from just looking at gameplay, its hard (given there isn't as big of a gap like 720p native upscaled to 1080). If its upscaled from 900P+ I think it will be hard to tell especially if you have nothing to compared it with
    So it means that you cannot tell and you have to know the exact rendered resolution from the internet. And still people are fighting the resolution wars and trying to one up the 'other side' for a few natively rendered horizontal or vertical scan lines. Not a single person here that played killzone sf multiplayer knew that it wasn't rendered in 1920 x 1080 frame by frame, they thought it was, until the news broke out few days back. The consoles will output a 1080p signal irrespective if it's a 960 x 1080 or 1440 x 1080 render and your tv/projector is going to say 1080p. A tv or video projector cannot natively display odd resolutions like this because such resolutions are not standard in the video realm.
    Last edited by rene2kx; 03-10-2014 at 07:27.

  7. #7
    Dedicated Member
    rene2kx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,077
    Rep Power
    29
    Points
    13,612 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fijiandoce View Post
    to add to that. The scene complexity will also determine how telling an image will become. If you have a scene with many diagonally straight lines, you will see a noticeable about of jaggienes within the picture at lower resolutions. However, if you're looking at an image that is more artistic (for want of a better description) as itachi said, 900p (for example) won't show too much difference. The aforementioned aliasing problem, is usually the only way people discern the difference.... most of the time. Though that ain't a rule or anything.
    Diagonally straight lines can show jagginess or flickering even at 1080p, depends on what all needs to be processed in the scene. And actually I have read that some developers are intentionally keeping the native framebuffer a little lower than 1920 x 1080 because it gives them more processing power for AA or MSAA. After all these consoles aren't high powered rig equivalents, there are limitations to them.

  8. #8
    Community Manager
    Fijiandoce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pacific Isles of Doceness
    PSN ID
    Fijiandoce
    Posts
    4,426
    Rep Power
    89
    Points
    267,132 (888 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by rene2kx View Post
    So it means that you cannot tell and you have to know the exact rendered resolution from the internet. And still people are fighting the resolution wars and trying to one up the 'other sides for a few natively rendered horizontal or vertical scan lines. Not a single person here that played killzone sf multiplayer knew that it wasn't rendered in 1920 x 1080 frame by frame, they thought it was, until the news broke out few days back. The consoles will output a 1080p signal irrespective if it's a 960 x 1080 or 1440 x 1080 render and your tv/projector is going to say 1080p. A tv or video projector cannot natively display odd resolutions like this because such resolutions are not standard in the video realm.
    Indeed. The Killzone thing is a perfect example of how useless the argument is.

    Though, technically, it still had 1920 horizontal pixels. With only half being 'updated' per frame, but c'est la vie.

    The differences are somewhat apparent though. 1280x720 will look considerably blurry, while 1920x1080 will look crisp. But they only really manifest when directly compared and seen in motion: MGS5, Battlefield, Ass creed etc. 720 will show higher levels of pixel creep with smaller objects and diagonal edges.

    You can tell. but if you've never seen a 1080p version of whatever you're running, you won't really know the difference.

    One argument i really don't get is the FPS thing. 30fps is perfectly fine. 1080p30 is a sufficient standard for this generation of consoles. why 1080p60 is being screamed from the rooftop is beyond me. TLoU was the best game of last gen, and it told its story at 30 frames per second. I don't see how a 60fps version could better it in any way?
    Sig courtesy of the_jim


  9. #9
    Dedicated Member
    rene2kx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,077
    Rep Power
    29
    Points
    13,612 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fijiandoce View Post
    Indeed. The Killzone thing is a perfect example of how useless the argument is.

    Though, technically, it still had 1920 horizontal pixels. With only half being 'updated' per frame, but c'est la vie.

    The differences are somewhat apparent though. 1280x720 will look considerably blurry, while 1920x1080 will look crisp. But they only really manifest when directly compared and seen in motion: MGS5, Battlefield, Ass creed etc. 720 will show higher levels of pixel creep with smaller objects and diagonal edges.

    You can tell. but if you've never seen a 1080p version of whatever you're running, you won't really know the difference.

    One argument i really don't get is the FPS thing. 30fps is perfectly fine. 1080p30 is a sufficient standard for this generation of consoles. why 1080p60 is being screamed from the rooftop is beyond me. TLoU was the best game of last gen, and it told its story at 30 frames per second. I don't see how a 60fps version could better it in any way?
    I'm not going down to 720p, scaled 720p can present some artefacts when compared to native 1080p side by side. But people are going crazy for sub 1080p renders that are only a little lower and they won't even be comparing the versions side by side when they play. Mostly from reading the plethora of comments, it has become more of a bragging rights competition and even some of those who don't have an understanding how res. works are actively involved. As to the question regarding framerate, the argument given in favor of it is that it leads to smoother motion. But i really don't think open world type games need it, because many of them that are 60fps don't present a locked framerate which varies between 30-60 and if the variation is a lot, it can lead to screen tear on some tv's (as the tv is refreshing at 60 or some multiple of 60). Besides it's a hog on the system resources. You could obviously do bigger maps, more stuff on screen at once if you are sticking to 30. A locked 1080p30 on open world games is better than a stuttering 60 fps framerate. Only racing games and sports games i feel need 1080p60, they don't have to render a lot.

  10. #10
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,279
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    105,150 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by rene2kx View Post
    Mostly from reading the plethora of comments, it has become more of a bragging rights competition and even some of those who don't have an understanding how res. works are actively involved.
    you mean sort of like you?

    I can tell the difference, some can't. i don't care.

    People didn't know about KZ because we're still early into the generation, they don't know many 1080p games (so they don't know how good it can look), we don't know how many had a good setup to notice the differences.

    KZ isn't a popular game, not many people spoke of it here. i checked out the online demo...it looked about as good as a 900p game.

    but like i said, i don't care if people can't tell the difference because i can...you go on ahead and be happy with your low res games. have fun.

    you needed a justification to own an X1, i'm giving it to you.

  11. Likes Two4DaMoney likes this post
  12. #11
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,591
    Rep Power
    126
    Points
    59,249 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    If resolution means so much to those that fight and argue, may I suggest o them to buy a PC for multiplats, that way they can have as much resolution as they can afford.

  13. #12
    Elite Sage
    Two4DaMoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    27
    Posts
    12,416
    Rep Power
    110
    Points
    14,931 (75,576 Banked)
    Items Naughty DogPS3 SlimNaughty DogUser name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Edit:screw this. nvm
    Last edited by Two4DaMoney; 03-10-2014 at 19:08.

    Destiny and Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor is all I need for the rest of the year.

  14. #13
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,279
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    105,150 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    If resolution means so much to those that fight and argue, may I suggest o them to buy a PC for multiplats, that way they can have as much resolution as they can afford.
    or they can just game on consoles that they feel is better for them. i don't care to build a PC when i have a PS4 that provides me just what i need.

  15. #14
    Super Moderator
    Admartian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    New Zealand
    PSN ID
    admartian
    Age
    27
    Posts
    13,014
    Rep Power
    128
    Points
    40,362 (0 Banked)
    Items ArsenalVitaUser name styleSteamPS3 Slim
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    I question the merit/intention of this thread.

    Leaving it for now, but if this turns out to be a crusade of sorts ('resolutions don't matter' etc) - it's getting shutdown like Michael Crabtree in the NFC Championship game.

    So, keep it civil, and please stay off the rhetoric, OP.

    #IndieStation4 and proud of it.

  16. #15
    Power Member
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    41
    Posts
    17,462
    Rep Power
    161
    Points
    159,178 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    I think the Titanfall interview at Eurogamer just answered a lot of question regarding sub 1080p and why it happens (hint it's the ESRAM size).

  17. #16
    Forum Guru
    jlippone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    37
    Posts
    3,816
    Rep Power
    85
    Points
    10,063 (0 Banked)
    In the end the only thing that matters is the perceived pixel quality and smoothness of framerate.
    High resolution is a 'easy' way to increase quality of image, but we will see more interesting methods which are aimed to get more quality within the power limit. (resolution decoupled shading, texture space shading, re-projection methods, shader antialiasing etc.)

    What matters a lot is that the image that is fed to the TV is the native resolution, which is currently 1080p for most TVs..
    'no, no one in their sane mind uses OpenGL on PS3' - Repi
    'nope, PS3 uses a wonderful low-level API called libgcm' - Repi

  18. #17
    Dedicated Member
    rene2kx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,077
    Rep Power
    29
    Points
    13,612 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    you mean sort of like you?

    I can tell the difference, some can't. i don't care.

    People didn't know about KZ because we're still early into the generation, they don't know many 1080p games (so they don't know how good it can look), we don't know how many had a good setup to notice the differences.

    KZ isn't a popular game, not many people spoke of it here. i checked out the online demo...it looked about as good as a 900p game.

    but like i said, i don't care if people can't tell the difference because i can...you go on ahead and be happy with your low res games. have fun.

    you needed a justification to own an X1, i'm giving it to you.
    Lmao dude, i have said it a number of times i don't own any next gen console. The xbox 1 isn't even launched where i'm from (asia). I haven't been involved in these resolution wars at all.

    And that wasn't even the point of the thread if you read the OP carefully before jumping to reply. What i was asking is that if a game renders at a little lower resolution than 1080p, can you tell the exact rendered resolution by looking at your screen, or do you get to know the figure from the internet? The signal being sent to your tv is still 1080p. If i show you a game screen which is scaled 1080p (from a lower resolution like 960 x 1080, 1440 x 1080 etc.), how do you ascertain the rendered resolution data from looking at the screen? The answer i gather is that people cannot, until they look up the web. And i gave an example to justify the point. Nobody here who played the killzone shadow fall multiplayer knew that it wasn't a 1920 x 1080 frame by frame render, they were under the impression it was, until the news broke out some days back. And you said killzone isn't a popular game? Debatable, but it was the biggest launch title for ps4.

    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    I think the Titanfall interview at Eurogamer just answered a lot of question regarding sub 1080p and why it happens (hint it's the ESRAM size).
    Well the 32mb esram bottleneck on the x1 is giving problems right now to many developers to store everything inside a 1920 x 1080 frame. So to keep their asset fidelity intact, down they go a little and render it lower than native 1080p(even though your console would be outputting 1080p). But i'm not in agreement that it would stay the same always. Hw is permanent, optimization is not. Eventually they will find workarounds. If you take the previous generation, ps3 in its initial years had certain multiplats that were sub 720p, unlike the 360, but in the latter years of ps3 most multiplats were able to maintain parity on the res. front with the 360.

    Quote Originally Posted by Admartian View Post
    I question the merit/intention of this thread.

    Leaving it for now, but if this turns out to be a crusade of sorts ('resolutions don't matter' etc) - it's getting shutdown like Michael Crabtree in the NFC Championship game.

    So, keep it civil, and please stay off the rhetoric, OP.
    The intention of this thread is to ask a general question about resolution, read the last part of my OP. thx.

    Use Edit button rather than triple posting - Itachi
    Last edited by Itachi; 03-11-2014 at 15:32.

  19. #18
    Valar Morghulis
    Serinous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    PSN ID
    SerinousTSE
    Posts
    10,871
    Rep Power
    94
    Points
    21,035 (0 Banked)
    Items PS3 FatVitaPS3 Slim
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by rene2kx View Post
    Well the 32mb esram bottleneck on the x1 is giving problems right now to many developers to store everything inside a 1920 x 1080 frame. So to keep their asset fidelity intact, down they go a little and render it lower than native 1080p(even though your console would be outputting 1080p). But i'm not in agreement that it would stay the same always. Hw is permanent, optimization is not. Eventually they will find workarounds. If you take the previous generation, ps3 in its initial years had certain multiplats that were sub 720p, unlike the 360, but in the latter years of ps3 most multiplats were able to maintain parity on the res. front with the 360.
    Isn't that assuming optimization on the PS4 stays the same?




  20. #19
    Dedicated Member
    rene2kx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,077
    Rep Power
    29
    Points
    13,612 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Serinous View Post
    Isn't that assuming optimization on the PS4 stays the same?
    No it is variable on ps4 too, but since i was talking there about the resolution aspect and most multiplats on ps4 are already hitting 1080p, where else does it have to go? I don't think ps4 is capable (on the games front) of resolutions beyond 1080p (like 4k).

  21. #20
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,279
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    105,150 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by jlippone View Post
    In the end the only thing that matters is the perceived pixel quality and smoothness of framerate.
    High resolution is a 'easy' way to increase quality of image, but we will see more interesting methods which are aimed to get more quality within the power limit. (resolution decoupled shading, texture space shading, re-projection methods, shader antialiasing etc.)

    What matters a lot is that the image that is fed to the TV is the native resolution, which is currently 1080p for most TVs..
    more importantly, isn't higher resolution the "best" way to improve image quality? i think that's also important to mention on top of being easy.

    Quote Originally Posted by rene2kx View Post
    No it is variable on ps4 too, but since i was talking there about the resolution aspect and most multiplats on ps4 are already hitting 1080p, where else does it have to go? I don't think ps4 is capable (on the games front) of resolutions beyond 1080p (like 4k).

    Quote Originally Posted by rene2kx View Post
    Lmao dude, i have said it a number of times i don't own any next gen console. The xbox 1 isn't even launched where i'm from (asia). I haven't been involved in these resolution wars at all.
    i guess you're waiting for X1 to come out there then. you have my blessings.

    And that wasn't even the point of the thread if you read the OP carefully before jumping to reply. What i was asking is that if a game renders at a little lower resolution than 1080p, can you tell the exact rendered resolution by looking at your screen, or do you get to know the figure from the internet?
    I can tell by looking at it. but most cannot or do not know how to be in the perfect setup for it.

    The signal being sent to your tv is still 1080p. If i show you a game screen which is scaled 1080p (from a lower resolution like 960 x 1080, 1440 x 1080 etc.), how do you ascertain the rendered resolution data from looking at the screen? The answer i gather is that people cannot, until they look up the web.
    1080p upscaled is not the same as 1080p native. also KZ's resolution wasn't technically 960 x 1080, it was actually 1080p but their method wasn't traditional. the pixels on the screen were the same but it was fuzzier when you moved because it was sort of like 1080i rather than p. i suppose a better method than 1080i but not as good as p.

    And i gave an example to justify the point. Nobody here who played the killzone shadow fall multiplayer knew that it wasn't a 1920 x 1080 frame by frame render, they were under the impression it was, until the news broke out some days back. And you said killzone isn't a popular game? Debatable, but it was the biggest launch title for ps4.
    how many people here own the game? how many times were you on the forums? do you frequent here every day? how do i know this? i see your posts every 6 months.

    also, when they said it was 1080p, people believed them. most people don't go in such details to really find out what it is. so yes, you can say that people that can't tell the difference anyway should not be boasting about it, don't make a general point that this entire resolution war is pointless because it's not. 1080p is not enough. but i'm "OK" with it right now.

    i can tell you that most people don't know that you should not have the sharpness turned up on your TVs..it should be 0. if you turn it up, it gives you the appearance that your image is sharper but it also introduces rtifacts. if you play an 1080p on your TV with the right setup, it's still not enough. especially if you have a big TV and you sit a few feet away from it. that's what i do.

    I cannot wait for 4K while you're justifying 720p/900p. but like i said, it's all about having fun and i can't blame console users for being ok with a certain amount...because we don't pay the premium, we are going for the lower cost.
    Quote Originally Posted by rene2kx View Post
    Well the 32mb esram bottleneck on the x1 is giving problems right now to many developers to store everything inside a 1920 x 1080 frame. So to keep their asset fidelity intact, down they go a little and render it lower than native 1080p(even though your console would be outputting 1080p). But i'm not in agreement that it would stay the same always. Hw is permanent, optimization is not. Eventually they will find workarounds. If you take the previous generation, ps3 in its initial years had certain multiplats that were sub 720p, unlike the 360, but in the latter years of ps3 most multiplats were able to maintain parity on the res. front with the 360.
    yeah, go ahead and try to change the frame buffer size for 1080p, good luck lol. goes to show you how much you know. nothing is going to resolve that issue. they will always need to compensate somewhere else if they want 1080p. oh and i thought this was about not caring for the resolution...not defending it

    as for PS3...smh lol...again, goes to show how much you know about anything so far you've mentioned in this thread. could you please tell me why PS3 eventually overtook 360? i'll give you a break if you give me the correct answer. otherwise, please stop talking about something you evidentally don't have much knowledge of. irony lol. Thanks in advance.

  22. #21
    Forum Guru
    jlippone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    37
    Posts
    3,816
    Rep Power
    85
    Points
    10,063 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    more importantly, isn't higher resolution the "best" way to improve image quality? i think that's also important to mention on top of being easy.
    Simply increasing resolution is easy way, but in many cases can be quite costly in performance.

    There is also diminishing returns when angular/spatial resolution of image gets to 'high enough'.
    This is especially true when we first render image in high quality and then blur the hell out most of the image. (IE. depth of field and motion blur)

    It would be wise to render areas in high quality which actually need the resolution and processing power and use less processing power on areas which will be blurred or will be otherwise less visible.

    Re-projection methods and decoupled shading will become more common as the new generation progresses as the GPUs are quite nicely programmable now and developers want to do more with the processing power they have.


    Another very important thing in terms of image quality is shader antialiasing. (just throwing more resolution doesn't improve the stability of image as much..)
    http://blog.selfshadow.com/2011/07/2...ular-showdown/

    Order 1886 does some impressive work on subject.
    http://blog.selfshadow.com/publicati...hading-course/
    'no, no one in their sane mind uses OpenGL on PS3' - Repi
    'nope, PS3 uses a wonderful low-level API called libgcm' - Repi

  23. #22
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,279
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    105,150 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by jlippone View Post
    Simply increasing resolution is easy way, but in many cases can be quite costly in performance.

    There is also diminishing returns when angular/spatial resolution of image gets to 'high enough'.
    This is especially true when we first render image in high quality and then blur the hell out most of the image. (IE. depth of field and motion blur)

    It would be wise to render areas in high quality which actually need the resolution and processing power and use less processing power on areas which will be blurred or will be otherwise less visible.

    Re-projection methods and decoupled shading will become more common as the new generation progresses as the GPUs are quite nicely programmable now and developers want to do more with the processing power they have.


    Another very important thing in terms of image quality is shader antialiasing. (just throwing more resolution doesn't improve the stability of image as much..)
    http://blog.selfshadow.com/2011/07/2...ular-showdown/

    Order 1886 does some impressive work on subject.
    http://blog.selfshadow.com/publicati...hading-course/
    are you saying that it's possible to have a different resolution for things that are closer (not blurred out due to DOF)? generally what i've seen is that DOF isn't always there...it may be in some situations but it's not constantly there. so i presume it's not a total loss to increase the resolution.

    i can certainly understand that different methods may be used to increase the perceived quality of the image rather than just going raw (to save resources as these consoles don't have plenty)...but the point is that it's essentially better to increase the resolution, otherwise we wouldn't have 4K (which is 4x 1080p). I think if small monitors are benefiting from 4K then we are so far off! are you saying we won't benefit from 4K?

    i would love to see 4K on my big screen...makes me want to get a PC.

  24. #23
    Dedicated Member
    rene2kx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,077
    Rep Power
    29
    Points
    13,612 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    more importantly, isn't higher resolution the "best" way to improve image quality? i think that's also important to mention on top of being easy.




    i guess you're waiting for X1 to come out there then. you have my blessings.

    I can tell by looking at it. but most cannot or do not know how to be in the perfect setup for it.

    1080p upscaled is not the same as 1080p native. also KZ's resolution wasn't technically 960 x 1080, it was actually 1080p but their method wasn't traditional. the pixels on the screen were the same but it was fuzzier when you moved because it was sort of like 1080i rather than p. i suppose a better method than 1080i but not as good as p.


    how many people here own the game? how many times were you on the forums? do you frequent here every day? how do i know this? i see your posts every 6 months.

    also, when they said it was 1080p, people believed them. most people don't go in such details to really find out what it is. so yes, you can say that people that can't tell the difference anyway should not be boasting about it, don't make a general point that this entire resolution war is pointless because it's not. 1080p is not enough. but i'm "OK" with it right now.

    i can tell you that most people don't know that you should not have the sharpness turned up on your TVs..it should be 0. if you turn it up, it gives you the appearance that your image is sharper but it also introduces rtifacts. if you play an 1080p on your TV with the right setup, it's still not enough. especially if you have a big TV and you sit a few feet away from it. that's what i do.

    I cannot wait for 4K while you're justifying 720p/900p. but like i said, it's all about having fun and i can't blame console users for being ok with a certain amount...because we don't pay the premium, we are going for the lower cost.
    -So you agree most cannot find out the resolution it was rendered in unless they look up the figures from the web. Right, that is what i've been alluding to right along.

    -of course native resolution is not equal to scaled resolution. that is obvious. but i have read the pdf guerrilla released on how they did the mp mortion of killzone sp (re-projection technique). it is not a 1920 x 1080 frame by frame render. it doesn't fall into the category of native. this was discussed on avs forum too.

    -there is something called reading. i followed the ps4 launch right into this year (apologies if you see my posts every 6 months lol). people were under the impression all along that killzone mp was native 1080p.

    -i'm not "justifying" or defending lower resolutions, don't know what gave you that impression. that wasn't the purpose of this thread.

  25. #24
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,279
    Rep Power
    190
    Points
    105,150 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by rene2kx View Post
    -So you agree most cannot find out the resolution it was rendered in unless they look up the figures from the web. Right, that is what i've been alluding to right along.
    right, except your implication was that it's everyone and that it is not much different. it isn't everyone and it is different. maybe you don't see it, like i said, that doesn't matter to people that can see it.

    -of course native resolution is not equal to scaled resolution. that is obvious. but i have read the pdf guerrilla released on how they did the mp mortion of killzone sp (re-projection technique). it is not a 1920 x 1080 frame by frame render. it doesn't fall into the category of native. this was discussed on avs forum too.
    you've just repeated what i said.

    -there is something called reading. i followed the ps4 launch right into this year (apologies if you see my posts every 6 months lol). people were under the impression all along that killzone mp was native 1080p.
    no, people were "told" that it was 1080p. they didn't look for it. like i said, we don't know what these people are playing their games on. for all we know some might still be playing on a small TV or a monitor.

    there haven't been enough 1080p games to really know much for most. i would wait a couple of years and you'll see people catching on. that doesn't mean that the resolution is pointless...it's not. just like 720p blu-ray is not as good as 1080p, people still think 480p is as good as a blu-ray...can't do anything about it but it doesn't change the fact that blu-ray is better-looking than a dvd.

    -i'm not "justifying" or defending lower resolutions, don't know what gave you that impression. that wasn't the purpose of this thread.
    really? what impression does this give you?
    So to keep their asset fidelity intact, down they go a little and render it lower than native 1080p(even though your console would be outputting 1080p). But i'm not in agreement that it would stay the same always. Hw is permanent, optimization is not. Eventually they will find workarounds.
    so on one hand, it doesn't matter, on the other, X1 will find a way to do everything together? that's exactly what your statements implied there. like i said, you have my blessings

  26. #25
    Dedicated Member
    rene2kx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,077
    Rep Power
    29
    Points
    13,612 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    right, except your implication was that it's everyone and that it is not much different. it isn't everyone and it is different. maybe you don't see it, like i said, that doesn't matter to people that can see it.

    you've just repeated what i said.

    no, people were "told" that it was 1080p. they didn't look for it. like i said, we don't know what these people are playing their games on. for all we know some might still be playing on a small TV or a monitor.

    there haven't been enough 1080p games to really know much for most. i would wait a couple of years and you'll see people catching on. that doesn't mean that the resolution is pointless...it's not. just like 720p blu-ray is not as good as 1080p, people still think 480p is as good as a blu-ray...can't do anything about it but it doesn't change the fact that blu-ray is better-looking than a dvd.

    really? what impression does this give you?

    so on one hand, it doesn't matter, on the other, X1 will find a way to do everything together? that's exactly what your statements implied there. like i said, you have my blessings
    So you are saying that most cannot tell it, but you can? So if a game was natively rendered in 960x1080, 1440 x 1080 etc. and the scaled 1080p image was sent to your screen, you could tell by looking at your screen the exact rendered resolution H X V? Am i getting that right? You knew about killzone's mp not being native 1080p before the news broke out, unlike most people?

    And on the last part about x1, what does workaround or optimization mean? Yes currently they are having issues hitting 1080p while keeping their asset fidelity intact, i said that already didn''t i. And the option is to render a little lower or else make some concession on the fidelity if they want native 1080p. But i do think they'll find a way eventually to do both together. There is a school of thought among many (you are from it) that they made a mistake on the esram and this is a lost cause for them forever. It's fine to carry that opinion. But i beg to differ. For certain, we'll only know about midway or so into this generation. I remember some people writing off the ps3 when there were a barrage of inferior looking versions compared to the 360 in 2006/2007 (attributing it to 'teh cell') but in the latter years, ps3 was able to maintain parity with the 360, there were even some multiplats in the last few years that actually looked bit better on the ps3. So i'm not jumping to conclusions in the x1's case, though i do feel that architecturally some more thought should have gone into the design process and if they wanted to stick with esram, a bigger pool may have served them better)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.