1080p vs 900p vs 720p Screenshot Comparison

@MonsieurX said:

@bloodlust_101 said:

@FreedomFreeLife said:

@MonsieurX said:

@FreedomFreeLife said:

@_Matt_ said:

@glez13 said:

@GTSaiyanjin2 said:

@_Matt_ said:

Why are all those images 1600x900?

Aaaand comparison already ruined.

you have to open the image on a new tab... all of them are really downscaled and look the same if you dont open and see them in a new tab.

Actually all of them are upscaled to 1080p when you open them full size. That's also why you get that kind of color dithering effect on the lower resolution ones.

They are... but upscaled from 1600x900 which means the original 1080 image has lost a lot of details in the process from being downscaled to upscaled...

Those pictures were all in original size, and then upscaled to 1080(LIKE ALL CONSOLE GAMES ARE).

Pointless comparison then

Using upscaled 1080p images LOL

Because all console games are upscaled from 720p, 900p and 1080p to 1080p. EVERY SINGLE GAME

Heard it here first people - 1080p gets upscaled to 1080p!

the 1080p to 1080p upscaling algorithm is most complex

pixel with coordinates x, y; your new coordinates are x, y.

Always best to choose still shots while representing clarity... especially dark pictures.

Games are in motion while they play... the higher the resolution the better it looks, that is just the way it works.

The comparison is not very good, since they all three images have been resized to 720p by Gamespot. It's much easier to compare the difference in resolution when you upscale a lower resolution to the higher resolution. For example, here's the relative difference of an image rendered in different resolutions (click open to examine):

my plastic is better than your plastic

You all are wasting time with this bull when all of yall don't have the same tv lol Your APEX LCD at full 1080 looks the same as my SAMSUNG PLASMA at 1080p? NO! I will take a game that's at 900p or 1920x800p that has SMAA+TX1 or 4xMSAA over 1080p and poor or no AA any day of the week the resolution stuff is stupid.

my milkshake brings all the boys to the yard

@GhoX said:

The comparison is not very good, since they all three images have been resized to 720p by Gamespot. It's much easier to compare the difference in resolution when you upscale a lower resolution to the higher resolution. For example, here's the relative difference of an image rendered in different resolutions (click open to examine):

That's not a good comparison for resolution since the lower ones get degraded because of the upscaling, more like a comparison of the effects of upscaling. If you want to compare resolutions it has to be native vs native.

More pixels = better picture quality, fact. No way around it. Now is pixel resolution the most important factor for games or movies? No and no. Things like textures, shaders, dynamic lighting, tessellation etc matter more for games and ANSI contrast ratio, deep black levels, and colour accuracy matter more for movies, but it doesn't change the fact that resolution is a significant factor and 900p has a lot less pixels than 1080p.

What movie is in your sig?

Next you'll be telling us FXAA looks better than MSAA. Stop being delusional.

"No thanks, I don't want the camera with 40 megapixels, I'll take the one with 20, there's no difference anyway"

See how stupid this argument sounds? More pixels = more detail + cleaner image.

Yep first thing I did. When the Batman covers most of my HDTV (as he does in gameplay), res becomes very important. If I played my games in the tiny image boxes I see on this forum, res wouldn't matter as much :P

I must have poor vision because I see a very little difference between them.

NO NO NO! In terms of cameras more megapixels means more noise/grain to the images if the image sensor doesn't get larger (requires a new format of lenses some times). For image quality - spreading your megapixels too dense on a sensor is not always the best method.

Besides - unless you are shooting billboards 16-20mp is more than enough for even pros.

what's the point in a criticism like that?

he never mentioned maintaining image sensor size or anything. for all we know he might have assumed the same density of image sensor, which would mean that more megapixels results in a larger sensor.

bobbetybob - i got your point.

I know :(

bobbetybob - i got your point too.

Lol, no problem. I probably should have said 20 and 10 instead of 40 and 20, you're right.

Why do people keep making these threads?? 4k > 1080p > 900p > 720p. Lower resolutions may be ok to some people, but everyone can see the difference.

I am guessing they all look different in motion, because I can not spot a difference

All those sceenshots are the same res, hahahahaha

I know the year has only just started, but thread of the year !

Calling it.

Do you know the term blind fanboyism ? You can even show them the difference so they see it with their own eyes and they would still call it BS.

• Stage 1: Hype
• Stage 2: Praise
• Stage 3: Denial
• Stage 4: Anger
• Stage 5: Total recall

Slowly we are reaching the 3rd stage of a console generation... Happening sooner than I would have betted on as it usually takes a year or two.

I often reduce my resolution 1 notch on PC when (and if) i have frame rate issues, usually down from 1440p to 1080p and if the issue persists, i'll turn off the AA next. I agree with you though, no games this gen shoudl be under 900p 30fps. If its 900p, it should have rock solid 30fps at minimum with no dips. preferable 900p/60fps or 1080p/30fps if it can't do full 1080p/60fps but bare minimum 900p/30fps.

With me having a 720p tv, the FPS is actually more important than the resolution. I lvoe silky smooth gameplay.

OP is a fucking idiot I'm sorry.

If you can't tell the difference between 2,073,600 pixels and 921,600 pixels there's either something wrong with your eyes, your brain or you need to go back to pre-school to learn how to count.

@Wasdie:

Absolutely. I find it funny how many people get so wound up about this though.

Once again, a lem has completely missed the point.

Its not WHAT that is important.

Its WHY that is important.

WHY is the X1 failing to achieve parity with the PS4 on multiplats?

Most people know the answer already, but it still gets overlooked here on SW.

The X1 is quantitatively inferior hardware. The only thing that the X1 achieves parity with on the PS4 is CPU power. GPU and RAM tilts in the PS4's favor. There's absolutely no way around this. This will become more and more important as time goes on, and we leave cross-generational titles behind.

Lol love the Lemmings logic this gen

Lems: 720p and 900p don't matter there's no difference!! Plus Forza and Kinect Sports is 1080P but it's not needed!!!

@glez13 said:

@GhoX said:

The comparison is not very good, since they all three images have been resized to 720p by Gamespot. It's much easier to compare the difference in resolution when you upscale a lower resolution to the higher resolution. For example, here's the relative difference of an image rendered in different resolutions (click open to examine):

That's not a good comparison for resolution since the lower ones get degraded because of the upscaling, more like a comparison of the effects of upscaling. If you want to compare resolutions it has to be native vs native.

Isn't that exactly the point? Most people don't have a 900p screen.

Lower resolution than the native fo the panel just looks bad and blurry, and introduces upscaling artifacts. But there's also more detial in the higher resolution screen.

The question is what if a game on both X1 and PS4 is running at 720p, on which console you'd think the game could run better (performance + details)?

TC is gonna have a tough time this gen. He wakes up every day knowing he will have to be in full DC mode 24/7, knowing that the majority of his games will be 720p and he has to lie to himself continually trying to justify his purchase of a more expensive, inferior machine.

You can never tell the difference with with such small pics. Blow them up to actual size and 720p would start to get hazy and lose detail.

Yeah its called playing games in the real world, not just going by some what some random on the internet says is real.

That's the beauty of the internet though, any moron can just post some images and say whatever they want to go along with it without actually providing links or real proof about what they are talking about.

@gameofthering said:

I decided to try it just now on my PC at 1080P & 720P.

There is a noticeable difference while in game, but looking at these screens makes it hard to tell much of a difference.

you cannot compare a native 720 res image to a native 1080p image, you MUST "upscale" AKA stretch the image to match the 1080p image size, THEN COMPARE THEM

otherwise your just looking at a small 720 image compared to a large 1080p image, if you came over my house and changed my graphical settings to all my games to 1600x900 without telling me, the moment i look at the menu screen i would know something was changed, simple things like texts do not look crisp at all

Can lems get any more desperate? At this point you'd probably think a 720p image would look the same as a 4k image if you sit further back enough lol.

Great job OP. Excellent post!

I also submit to the school of thought that having the same exact game rendered with a substantially lower pixel count looks identical. Resolution and image quality have no correlation. Only some fact-believing idiot would think otherwise, but you and I know better.

BF4 comparison. All taken at 1080p, using the upscaler to modify the internal resolution.

Everything Ultra with no AA whatsoever so people can see the effect of resolution over aliasing.

Open in new tabs.

4K:

1440p:

1080p:

900p:

720p:

@EducatingU_PCMR: The difference is very noticeable. Everyone who claims they can't see it, needs to take their fanboy goggles off.

lmao, lemmings. Those 720p shots were upscaled in Photoshop. Upscalers in consoles and TVs and very different.

Here's a better example.