Is 1080p really needed in games ?

Lol, this topic is just so entertaining :Pabuabed

Here's another couple of screenshots. Alan Wake this time. One is 1080p Low, the other is 720p High....enjoy. Oh. Right-Click, View Image to see both at 1080p.

Edit:

Maybe it's just me. But, the 1080p Low looks clearer even resized at 800x450.

jun_aka_pekto

The 1080 one looks more crisp in all the details but it loses the lighting. Everything is illuminated. But the 720 one is scaled to 1080.

The 1080 one looks more crisp in all the details but it loses the lighting. Everything is illuminated. But the 720 one is scaled to 1080.

glez13

As it should be if we're going to play on a1080p display.

In this case, I'll take the clarity of the 1080p Low over the lighting of the 720p.

Edit:

I didn't realize Alan Wake still looked good on Low. I'll probably leave it on Low and keep the 20fps gain.

I never said 1080p is useless. I have a 27" 1080p monitor and all those details in the Witcher screens were still there at 720p, and this monitor is nowhere near as good at scaling as a hdtv is. If you really think console games are as blurry as that Dark Souls screen youre insane. Are you saying that my 2nd screen isnt 720p? calling me a liar?

Cranler

I'm not sure if you're a liar or just thick. I've played Dark Souls on my PS3 for about 200 hours, if I get around 1 meter of my HD-Ready (720p native) 32 inch TV it becomes apparant just how blurry this console game is at 720p. Console games get away with lower res because the TV improves IQ plus sitting farther away makes the image look better. The screens I took of default PC settings are the direct unaltered 720p images from the PC version which is a straigh port from console version. You can call me out on using SweetFX or whatever else on the 1080p images but the 720p image is the default game running upscaled to 1080p on a 24 inch monitor and IT LOOKS THAT BLURRY!

[QUOTE="Cranler"]Naysayers are saying that the better the graphics are the higher res you need to display the improvements yet here we have The Witcher 2 which is way beyond Dark Souls pathetic graphics and the advanced graphics look great at 720p.jun_aka_pekto

Those shots aren't entirely accurate. You need to have both shots at 1080p. Photobucket limits image size to 1024x576. Try imageshack with the no image resize option.

Edit:

That plus Photobucket sometimes have AA enabled that softens the look of images.

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]Naysayers are saying that the better the graphics are the higher res you need to display the improvements yet here we have The Witcher 2 which is way beyond Dark Souls pathetic graphics and the advanced graphics look great at 720p.Cranler

Those shots aren't entirely accurate. You need to have both shots at 1080p. Photobucket limits image size to 1024x576. Try imageshack with the no image resize option.

Edit:

That plus Photobucket sometimes have AA enabled that softens the look of images.

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]Naysayers are saying that the better the graphics are the higher res you need to display the improvements yet here we have The Witcher 2 which is way beyond Dark Souls pathetic graphics and the advanced graphics look great at 720p.Cranler

Those shots aren't entirely accurate. You need to have both shots at 1080p. Photobucket limits image size to 1024x576. Try imageshack with the no image resize option.

Edit:

That plus Photobucket sometimes have AA enabled that softens the look of images.

I keep no more than 42 images at all times and they're all jpegs to keep the file size small. I delete some images before uploading some more. In a week or so, I'll erase the images I'm showing here. This thread will be far back by then.

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

I never said 1080p is useless. I have a 27" 1080p monitor and all those details in the Witcher screens were still there at 720p, and this monitor is nowhere near as good at scaling as a hdtv is. If you really think console games are as blurry as that Dark Souls screen youre insane. Are you saying that my 2nd screen isnt 720p? calling me a liar?

theSADmafioso

I'm not sure if you're a liar or just thick. I've played Dark Souls on my PS3 for about 200 hours, if I get around 1 meter of my HD-Ready (720p native) 32 inch TV it becomes apparant just how blurry this console game is at 720p. Console games get away with lower res because the TV improves IQ plus sitting farther away makes the image look better. The screens I took of default PC settings are the direct unaltered 720p images from the PC version which is a straigh port from console version. You can call me out on using SweetFX or whatever else on the 1080p images but the 720p image is the default game running upscaled to 1080p on a 24 inch monitor and IT LOOKS THAT BLURRY!

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

Those shots aren't entirely accurate. You need to have both shots at 1080p. Photobucket limits image size to 1024x576. Try imageshack with the no image resize option.

Edit:

That plus Photobucket sometimes have AA enabled that softens the look of images.

jun_aka_pekto

I keep no more than 42 images at all times and they're all jpegs to keep the file size small. I delete some images before uploading some more. In a week or so, I'll erase the images I'm showing here. This thread will be far back by then.

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]Imageshack doesnt allow uploads over 5mb for free.

Cranler

I keep no more than 42 images at all times and they're all jpegs to keep the file size small. I delete some images before uploading some more. In a week or so, I'll erase the images I'm showing here. This thread will be far back by then.

Can't you convert .bmp files to.jpg at 100% (lowest compression factor)? There's still a huge decrease in file size. I do a batch convert with my graphics app. It doesn't take that long to convert a folder-ful of them.

Edit:

That or pony up $37 for the full version.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

I keep no more than 42 images at all times and they're all jpegs to keep the file size small. I delete some images before uploading some more. In a week or so, I'll erase the images I'm showing here. This thread will be far back by then.

jun_aka_pekto

Can't you convert .bmp files to.jpg at 100% (lowest compression factor)? There's still a huge decrease in file size. I do a batch convert with my graphics app. It doesn't take that long to convert a folder-ful of them.

Edit:

That or pony up $37 for the full version.

Hope someday we get near CG and 1080P. Next generation will add much better lighting, framerate and effects. Sadly I am think most PS4 and Xbox 720 games will still be in 720P.

I hear ya OP.

I don't have a problem with 1080p but I personally think 720p is fine too and if it meant we could get games at solid 60fps all the time I'd be happy to stick with 720p.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="faizan_faizan"] Who the HECK is talking about Nvidia any way? GTA IV had no aa option so the community did it instead http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,696084/GTA-4-test-Supersampling-Anti-aliasing-with-ENB-Series-Mod-plus-graphics-cards-benchmarks/Reviews/ 2009.faizan_faizan

still harping about the slight color change while ignoring the vast quantities of revealed detail from a simple resolution change. Oi vey

wis3boi

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]Imageshack doesnt allow uploads over 5mb for free.

Cranler

I keep no more than 42 images at all times and they're all jpegs to keep the file size small. I delete some images before uploading some more. In a week or so, I'll erase the images I'm showing here. This thread will be far back by then.

Use minus for image hosting. Mitu told me about it, and I use it almost exclusively now, at least for game screenshots. It's totally free (didn't even have to give them an email, actually), and there's no upload size limit (or if there is, it's extremely large). I've got loads of 1080p lossless PNG images on there now, like 10-15 mb each. Plus the layout of the site is way better than photobucket or imageshack.

[QUOTE="magicalclick"] graphics >>> resolution.chunkowookie

What's with all the people in this thread not understanding that increasing resolution is a huge part of enhancing graphics? They're not exclusive of each other. Advancing graphical assets without increasing resolution has made games look better up to this point, but it's seeing diminishing returns extremely quickly. Resolution has to be increased ALONG WITH enhancing assets, or else the assets are just going to waste. This is undeniably proven by the plethora of current gen games that already have assets with detail that is completely invisible at 720p, and becomes visible at 1080p or more. Why don't people get that? Why pile more detail into assets without increasing resolution, when assets are already too detailed to be seen at less than 1080p, and have been for years?

Willful ignorance runs rampant on the internet. That's just the way it is.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

still harping about the slight color change while ignoring the vast quantities of revealed detail from a simple resolution change. Oi vey

the_bi99man

[QUOTE="chunkowookie"]

[QUOTE="magicalclick"] graphics >>> resolution.the_bi99man

What's with all the people in this thread not understanding that increasing resolution is a huge part of enhancing graphics? They're not exclusive of each other. Advancing graphical assets without increasing resolution has made games look better up to this point, but it's seeing diminishing returns extremely quickly. Resolution has to be increased ALONG WITH enhancing assets, or else the assets are just going to waste. This is undeniably proven by the plethora of current gen games that already have assets with detail that is completely invisible at 720p, and becomes visible at 1080p or more. Why don't people get that? Why pile more detail into assets without increasing resolution, when assets are already too detailed to be seen at less than 1080p, and have been for years?

Willful ignorance runs rampant on the internet. That's just the way it is.

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] I'm talking about upload size not storage limit. Fraps only allows bmp for free users. Cranler

Can't you convert .bmp files to.jpg at 100% (lowest compression factor)? There's still a huge decrease in file size. I do a batch convert with my graphics app. It doesn't take that long to convert a folder-ful of them.

Edit:

That or pony up $37 for the full version.

Well, the $37 also removes the 30-second limit for capturing videos which is why I bought it in the first place. The ability to capture in jpg format is merely the frosting on the cake. In any case, Converting isn't a problem and like that guy said, Minus is a better option than either Phtobucket or Imageshack.

Edit: The full version also removes the watermark when capturing video.

When I read your screen name the "bi "and "man" really stand out. grasping at straws? 720p does not take away that much detail, I tested in a few games earlier today. Cranler

Immature sexual preference jokes? Nice. Good to know you admit that you're grasping at straws. 720p does not take away that much detail?

Yes it does. This is undeniable fact. Your ignoring it doesn't change that. If you're okay with less detail, that's fine. No one is trying to tell you not to enjoy your games. But resolution is much much more important than the anti-PC fanboys and trolls in this thread claim. That is fact.

Oh and by the way, I do play the majority of my games in 720p. I'm currently gaming on a 4 year old laptop, while I save up to get a new desktop. I still enjoy the games. Doesn't mean I don't see the absolutely massive difference in image quality when I bump them up to 1080p. It's just that currently, with the hardware I'm using, it's not worth the loss in framerate.

Your the one who uses a name that implies bisexuality. I tried Witcher 2, Crysis and BF 3 and none of them come anywhere close to losing that much detail. And thats on a monitor which doesnt scale well at all.

Cranler

Yeah, the 9's couldn't possibly be meant to represent G's. You're the one reading far too much into it, and resorting to elementary school status insults, since you've fallen flat on your face with every possible "argument". Oh yeah, and I've also tried those same games, testing resolutions. And they lose a bunch of detail. Just because you claim not to see it, doesn't make it not true. Dropping resolution drops detail. This is a fact of how game rendering and displays work. It's the entire reason that HDTVs exist in the first place. Enjoy your fantasy. I'm done with you.

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]When I read your screen name the "bi "and "man" really stand out. grasping at straws? 720p does not take away that much detail, I tested in a few games earlier today. Cranler

Immature sexual preference jokes? Nice. Good to know you admit that you're grasping at straws. 720p does not take away that much detail?

Yes it does. This is undeniable fact. Your ignoring it doesn't change that. If you're okay with less detail, that's fine. No one is trying to tell you not to enjoy your games. But resolution is much much more important than the anti-PC fanboys and trolls in this thread claim. That is fact.

Oh and by the way, I do play the majority of my games in 720p. I'm currently gaming on a 4 year old laptop, while I save up to get a new desktop. I still enjoy the games. Doesn't mean I don't see the absolutely massive difference in image quality when I bump them up to 1080p. It's just that currently, with the hardware I'm using, it's not worth the loss in framerate.

Your the one who uses a name that implies bisexuality.

Cranler

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

Your the one who uses a name that implies bisexuality.

lowe0

That's an open admittance that the argument is lost. He's a fvcking idiot, plain and simple, and I'm done responding to his trolling.

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="Cranler"]

Your the one who uses a name that implies bisexuality.

the_bi99man

That's an open admittance that the argument is lost. He's a fvcking idiot, plain and simple, and I'm done responding to his trolling.

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

Immature sexual preference jokes? Nice. Good to know you admit that you're grasping at straws. 720p does not take away that much detail?

Yes it does. This is undeniable fact. Your ignoring it doesn't change that. If you're okay with less detail, that's fine. No one is trying to tell you not to enjoy your games. But resolution is much much more important than the anti-PC fanboys and trolls in this thread claim. That is fact.

Oh and by the way, I do play the majority of my games in 720p. I'm currently gaming on a 4 year old laptop, while I save up to get a new desktop. I still enjoy the games. Doesn't mean I don't see the absolutely massive difference in image quality when I bump them up to 1080p. It's just that currently, with the hardware I'm using, it's not worth the loss in framerate.

04dcarraher

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] Attack the argument, not the poster.Cranler

That's an open admittance that the argument is lost. He's a fvcking idiot, plain and simple, and I'm done responding to his trolling.

Might have been because you were displaying ignorance. Either way, resorting to childish sexual preference insults (unfounded or otherwise), as you did with him, is universally known to be an admittance of defeat in any debate. It's like, dude A says, "you're wrong, for these reasons... yada yada yada...", and dude B says, "yeah, well you're g@y". The debate moderator is gonna call that a victory for Dude A, every time.

If you think Cod is that blurry on console then youve obviously never played any Cod's on console. Youre the one whos doing it wrong, this thread is about next gen and 720p vs 1080p not sub 720p res anyway. 53 pages and some people still dont understand what the thread is about. Cranler

Whether it's next gen or not, the point of this thread has been, since the very beginning, that some people are claiming resolution doesn't matter as much as increasing asset detail. This has been disproven, so many times, and to such great effect, it's not even funny anymore.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

That's an open admittance that the argument is lost. He's a fvcking idiot, plain and simple, and I'm done responding to his trolling.

chunkowookie

Might have been because you were displaying ignorance. Either way, resorting to childish sexual preference insults (unfounded or otherwise), as you did with him, is universally known to be an admittance of defeat in any debate. It's like, dude A says, "you're wrong, for these reasons... yada yada yada...", and dude B says, "yeah, well you're g@y". The debate moderator is gonna call that a victory for Dude A, every time.

[QUOTE="Cranler"]If you think Cod is that blurry on console then youve obviously never played any Cod's on console. Youre the one whos doing it wrong, this thread is about next gen and 720p vs 1080p not sub 720p res anyway. 53 pages and some people still dont understand what the thread is about. chunkowookie

Whether it's next gen or not, the point of this thread has been, since the very beginning, that some people are claiming resolution doesn't matter as much as increasing asset detail. This has been disproven, so many times, and to such great effect, it's not even funny anymore.

[QUOTE="chunkowookie"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]If you think Cod is that blurry on console then youve obviously never played any Cod's on console. Youre the one whos doing it wrong, this thread is about next gen and 720p vs 1080p not sub 720p res anyway. 53 pages and some people still dont understand what the thread is about. Cranler

Whether it's next gen or not, the point of this thread has been, since the very beginning, that some people are claiming resolution doesn't matter as much as increasing asset detail. This has been disproven, so many times, and to such great effect, it's not even funny anymore.

1: There have been several other comparisons shown in this thread (even others using Dark Souls) besides the one with the color correction, which also show the improvement of detail.

2: Color correction doesn't add detail, so that one gif is still a valid comparison. The detail revealed is coming from the resolution increase, not the color.

3: I'm not saying resolution is all that matters. It has to go hand in hand with other improvements. Devs drop resolution in favor of other improvements, particularly in console games, for a couple reasons. One: Aside from increased detail, the next biggest improvement of increasing resolution is the softening of jagged edges, and jagged edges are admittedly less noticeable when viewed from farther away, like on a couch across the room from a tv. Two: considering that the jagged edges are less noticeable in this context, many devs feel that gamers would prefer to have more particles and other effects, rather than smoother edges and more detail, if forced to choose one over the other.

The key phrase there is, "if forced to choose one over the other". If the hardware allowed for it (like with PCs and, hopefully, the next round of consoles), they wouldn't have to choose. You can have both, and it does wonders for making games look better.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="Cranler"] Your the one who uses a name that implies bisexuality. I tried Witcher 2, Crysis and BF 3 and none of them come anywhere close to losing that much detail. And thats on a monitor which doesnt scale well at all.Cranler

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="Cranler"] If you think Cod is that blurry on console then youve obviously never played any Cod's on console. Youre the one whos doing it wrong, this thread is about next gen and 720p vs 1080p not sub 720p res anyway. 53 pages and some people still dont understand what the thread is about. Cranler

The reason IW dropped resolution is because they had to sacrifice something to achieve the 60 FPS goal. Because if they kept the resolution at 720 the texture quality and other effects would have been toned down to save resources. Fact is that the more detail and effects you put into the assets you need the resolution to go higher to allow those assets to be displayed correctly. Which is why games being render below 720 and being upscaled to 1080 look awful. When you render something at 720 and upscale to 1080 the effect isnt as detrimental to ruining the image being displayed. However you still lose detail and clarity. and when 4k becomes a new standard a 720 native resolution on a 4k screen will look as bad a a 1024x600 as it does on a 1080 screen.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] And you did it wrong , Console games do not always render at 1280x720, look at CoD at 1024x600 or even dark souls at 1024x720, then upscale it to 1080 you will see the problem with it. taking a native 1280x720 image to a 1080 screen isnt as bad. Thats your problem.04dcarraher

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] :lol: your such a tool 04dcarraher

The reason IW dropped resolution is because they had to sacrifice something to achieve the 60 FPS goal. Because if they kept the resolution at 720 the texture quality and other effects would have been toned down to save resources. Fact is that the more detail and effects you put into the assets you need the resolution to go higher to allow those assets to be displayed correctly. Which is why games being render below 720 and being upscaled to 1080 look awful. When you render something at 720 and upscale to 1080 the effect isnt as detrimental to ruining the image being displayed. However you still lose detail and clarity. and when 4k becomes a new standard a 720 native resolution on a 4k screen will look as bad a a 1024x600 as it does on a 1080 screen.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="chunkowookie"]

Whether it's next gen or not, the point of this thread has been, since the very beginning, that some people are claiming resolution doesn't matter as much as increasing asset detail. This has been disproven, so many times, and to such great effect, it's not even funny anymore.

chunkowookie

1: There have been several other comparisons shown in this thread (even others using Dark Souls) besides the one with the color correction, which also show the improvement of detail.

2: Color correction doesn't add detail, so that one gif is still a valid comparison. The detail revealed is coming from the resolution increase, not the color.

3: I'm not saying resolution is all that matters. It has to go hand in hand with other improvements. Devs drop resolution in favor of other improvements, particularly in console games, for a couple reasons. One: Aside from increased detail, the next biggest improvement of increasing resolution is the softening of jagged edges, and jagged edges are admittedly less noticeable when viewed from farther away, like on a couch across the room from a tv. Two: considering that the jagged edges are less noticeable in this context, many devs feel that gamers would prefer to have more particles and other effects, rather than smoother edges and more detail, if forced to choose one over the other.

The key phrase there is, "if forced to choose one over the other". If the hardware allowed for it (like with PCs and, hopefully, the next round of consoles), they wouldn't have to choose. You can have both, and it does wonders for making games look better.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] Quite a generic insult from someone whom Ive never given cause to call me names. Dont want to address why IW dropped res on Cod or the fact that most posters in this thread have no clue what the thread is even about?Cranler

The reason IW dropped resolution is because they had to sacrifice something to achieve the 60 FPS goal. Because if they kept the resolution at 720 the texture quality and other effects would have been toned down to save resources. Fact is that the more detail and effects you put into the assets you need the resolution to go higher to allow those assets to be displayed correctly. Which is why games being render below 720 and being upscaled to 1080 look awful. When you render something at 720 and upscale to 1080 the effect isnt as detrimental to ruining the image being displayed. However you still lose detail and clarity. and when 4k becomes a new standard a 720 native resolution on a 4k screen will look as bad a a 1024x600 as it does on a 1080 screen.

Please.... stop posting nonsense, you obviously have no idea whats going on. Dropping resolution is meant to speed up the framereate after adding effects. For example with dante's inferno the developer had two options keep resolution at 720 use better graphics but only be at 30 fps or lower the graphics quality to keep the 60 fps standard at 720. IW did it differently they sacrificed resolution to keep the both aspects as best as they could keep it. however taking a hit with detail and clarity.

I played the PS3 version. It doesn't look anywhere near that atrocious. You did something wrong.

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Trolls dont deserve mercy!

The reason IW dropped resolution is because they had to sacrifice something to achieve the 60 FPS goal. Because if they kept the resolution at 720 the texture quality and other effects would have been toned down to save resources. Fact is that the more detail and effects you put into the assets you need the resolution to go higher to allow those assets to be displayed correctly. Which is why games being render below 720 and being upscaled to 1080 look awful. When you render something at 720 and upscale to 1080 the effect isnt as detrimental to ruining the image being displayed. However you still lose detail and clarity. and when 4k becomes a new standard a 720 native resolution on a 4k screen will look as bad a a 1024x600 as it does on a 1080 screen.

04dcarraher

Please.... stop posting nonsense, you obviously have no idea whats going on. Dropping resolution is meant to speed up the framereate after adding effects. For example with dante's inferno the developer had two options keep resolution at 720 use better graphics but only be at 30 fps or lower the graphics quality to keep the 60 fps standard at 720. IW did it differently they sacrificed resolution to keep the both aspects as best as they could keep it. however taking a hit with detail and clarity.

Direct feed of Dark Souls.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] Nope, Cod 2 was 60fps and 720p. They dropped res to improve the shadows and lighting among other things in Cod 4. You pbviously have never played Cod on console because while it doesnt look great it doesnt look awful either and theres no blurrines like Dark Souls

Cranler

Please.... stop posting nonsense, you obviously have no idea whats going on. Dropping resolution is meant to speed up the framereate after adding effects. For example with dante's inferno the developer had two options keep resolution at 720 use better graphics but only be at 30 fps or lower the graphics quality to keep the 60 fps standard at 720. IW did it differently they sacrificed resolution to keep the both aspects as best as they could keep it. however taking a hit with detail and clarity.

The whole point of this thread is 1080 isnt need and pc vs console proves its needed, why dont you go away