[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]
That's because CGI movies are rendered by farms of computers, taking hours at a time to render a single scene. In other words, NOT REAL TIME. And to answer your question, yes, 1080p is absolutely needed. The difference between 720p and 1080p is night and day, for anyone who's not blind and/or trolling system wars. That's why all those CGI movies also look better in 1080p than 720p. Just like... literally everything looks better in 1080p than 720p. It's over twice as many pixels. It's not hard to understand. If the next Playstation and Xbox have ANY games that aren't being rendered in 1080p native... well that will just be beyond pathetic.
loosingENDS
But you dont asnwer my point
My point is that EVEN IF 1080p to 720p is night and day difference, the fact is that Avatar to games are 10.000 nights to 10.000.000 days difference
So, the point is that it is first a matter of closing the later difference, than the tiny 1080p to 720p (comparing, not absolute) difference, so you can actually have the best possible to show in 720p and THEN move to 1080p, if the picture is already at max quality
Otherwise why show garbage in 1080p, what is the point ? I prefer gold in 720p than garbage in 1080p
The difference of gold to garbage is far bigger than the 720p to 1080p one
And dont forget that garbage in 1080p looks 1000x more garbage than in 720p as well
I totally did answer the point. Comparing CGI movies to video games can't be done. Video games have to be rendered in real time, first and foremost. And, since they're being rendered in real time, resolution matters far more. A modern CGI movie still looks good in 720p, because it's being downscaled to that when it gets put on the disc and/or rendered to a digital video file. The original video, as it was actually rendered by the rendering farms, is a much, much higher resolution. Like, far beyond even 1080p. Also, keep in mind that, even though a modern GCI movie, looks good in 720p, it looks better in 1080p. Just like everything. It's easier to compare to regular filmed video. Notice how even an old SD movie, played from a VHS, can show more detail than a video game being rendered in an equally low resolution (like 640x480). It's because the source material is real life.
And they should be moving to 1080p sooner rather than later, because resolution is one of the biggest factors in making the core graphics look better (garbage to gold, as you might put it). They can't make 720p games look much better at this point. It would be meaningless to, because the low resolution will just hide the extra detail, as demonstrated beautifully by the Dark Souls comparison gif someone posted on the other page. Resolution has to be increased alongside the other aspects of graphics, or else it bottlenecks the potential. This can be demonstrated easily with just about any PC game, with a good range of graphics options. Medium settings and 1080p looks better than high settings and 720p. Because, at 720p, the differences between medium and high are negligible. You have to increase the resolution to see the difference in the higher settings elsewhere.
As for your last comment, that's simply not true. What you're talking about is the stretching that you see when a low resolution game is played on a high resolution display. Like how, if you plug an N64 into a modern HDTV, it looks worse than if it's plugged into an old SDTV, from its time. That's because the display resolution is being increased, but the render resolution is not. When you actually have access to change the render resolution (PC games), it is absolutely impossible for higher resolution to look worse than lower. Even if it's an old game that doesn't have that high-end core graphics like modern games, 1920x1080 looks better than 1280x720, just like 1280x1024 looks better than 1024x768, which looks better than 800x600.
Log in to comment