Is 1080p really needed in games ?

[QUOTE="psymon100"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]And your an idiot if you dont think resolution does not play a role in graphics....glez13

Don't think resolution does not play a role in graphics? So would that mean that one is an idiot if they do think resolution does play a role in graphics?

I'm sorry. Grammar is very important for me to understand exactly what you're saying.

That's why you should always try to stay classy.

It's hard to stay classy when you're the International burping champion 1975-2008 :(

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]And your an idiot if you dont think resolution does not play a role in graphics....psymon100

Don't think resolution does not play a role in graphics? So would that mean that one is an idiot if they do think resolution does play a role in graphics?

I'm sorry. Grammar is very important for me to understand exactly what you're saying.

Haha. Yeah. You ever been called a grammar nazi? I have. It bugs me, because some people really don't seem to understand how important grammar is, for written communication. To clarify, 04dcarraher's post isn't a particularly bad display (although the "your" is also incorrect), but some people just don't even form coherent sentences, and then call people grammar nazis when someone says, "I don't know what the fvck you're saying". Like, seriously people, learn to write, or give up on communicating through writing.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="Exxite"]

That gif is weird I agree. However the video shows that by upping the ingame rendering resolution more detail is revealed. Same textures just the game isn't "down" rendering them when unlocked.

If what you're on about is simply having higher resolution doesn't make games better then I agree. However I don't think for a minute from software redid their textures for the port. So it seems their artists design textures more detailed than a ps3/360 console is capable of showing; so in that case yes I think higher resolution is needed.

Suddenly making a game like halo 2 render at 1920x1080 is not going to make it much better. The textures and the game engine would have to be changed. That's only old games though. I would imagine from's artists do their artwork not much different than any other game studio.

Exxite

There is no pc version of those games. The games look better at 720p because it more closely matches the games rendering resolutiion. If the games had a rendering resolution more close to 1920x1080 then 1080p would look better.

I could load up dark souls and force it to 1080p on my ps3 and it will look worse too. All it proves though is that the ps3 sucks at scaling a lower resolution up to 1920x1080. Dark souls would look better at 1080p thugh if by setting it at 1080p it also forced the game to render at 1080p.

The reason why 720p looks better on my tv even though it is 1080p is because my tv does a better job than the ps3's image scaler.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] And your an idiot if you dont think resolution does not play a role in graphics....04dcarraher

Exactly. That's the point to all of this. Pre-resolution graphics are rapidly reaching a breaking point (and in many cases, are already there) where increasing details and effects without increasing resolution will see vastly diminshing results. Just about any game from recent years (even console games) already have assets of high enough quality, that any less than 1080p is holding them back.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] And your an idiot if you dont think resolution does not play a role in graphics....04dcarraher

[QUOTE="Exxite"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] Halo 4 and God if War 3 both look better at 720p than DS at 1080pExxite

There is no pc version of those games. The games look better at 720p because it more closely matches the games rendering resolutiion. If the games had a rendering resolution more close to 1920x1080 then 1080p would look better.

I could load up dark souls and force it to 1080p on my ps3 and it will look worse too. All it proves though is that the ps3 sucks at scaling a lower resolution up to 1920x1080. Dark souls would look better at 1080p thugh if by setting it at 1080p it also forced the game to render at 1080p.

The reason why 720p looks better on my tv even though it is 1080p is because my tv does a better job than the ps3's image scaler.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] Never said it didnt I just said its not everything. Cranler

Because the UI elements were rendered using more pixels, relative to the full resolution.

[QUOTE="psymon100"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]And your an idiot if you dont think resolution does not play a role in graphics....the_bi99man

Don't think resolution does not play a role in graphics? So would that mean that one is an idiot if they do think resolution does play a role in graphics?

I'm sorry. Grammar is very important for me to understand exactly what you're saying.

Haha. Yeah. You ever been called a grammar nazi? I have. It bugs me, because some people really don't seem to understand how important grammar is, for written communication. To clarify, 04dcarraher's post isn't a particularly bad display (although the "your" is also incorrect), but some people just don't even form coherent sentences, and then call people grammar nazis when someone says, "I don't know what the fvck you're saying". Like, seriously people, learn to write, or give up on communicating through writing.

No normally people call me much worse names than that! You're right, the 'your' was incorrect but I could see past that and understand that what's meant was 'you're'.

If I had to take a guess, "you're an idiot if you think resolution does not play a role in graphics".

If more people on the internet wrote properly (or at least made an attempt), the problem might disappear. I suppose it's easy to blend in if all the posts have lazy language. I'm no English scholar, always guilty of run-on sentences, but at least I'm understood.

At higher Resolutions jaggies are not noticeable and instead of wasting resources on AA you can use it for something else.Tessellation

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] Never said it didnt I just said its not everything. Cranler

I don't know where those images came from, but if I were to guess I bet it goes like this. Those pictures are showing the in game rendering resolution. Just like the video I posted. The screens on the left are in game rendered at 1024x768 and then the screens on the right or in game rendered at something much higher than 1024x768. I think with these screens you're confusing display resolution and game render resolution.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

The worst part is that he agreed with the Crysis 2 pics that show the exact same effect were all the details are clearly of lower quality.

Unless...

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]This is a proper representation of the difference in resglez13

Don't forget to Right-Click and View image to see the actual representation. :lol:

... :|

I just wanted to make sure the viewer knew how to view the actual image size. I used 800x450 up front to get the full image onscreen. I hate having to scroll to see the full image.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Whats the point in creating high resolution textures and use high quality assets when resolution prohibits to ability to see all the detail....

the_bi99man

Because the UI elements were rendered using more pixels, relative to the full resolution.

[QUOTE="Exxite"]

[QUOTE="Exxite"]

There is no pc version of those games. The games look better at 720p because it more closely matches the games rendering resolutiion. If the games had a rendering resolution more close to 1920x1080 then 1080p would look better.

I could load up dark souls and force it to 1080p on my ps3 and it will look worse too. All it proves though is that the ps3 sucks at scaling a lower resolution up to 1920x1080. Dark souls would look better at 1080p thugh if by setting it at 1080p it also forced the game to render at 1080p.

Cranler

The reason why 720p looks better on my tv even though it is 1080p is because my tv does a better job than the ps3's image scaler.

Those games don't exist on the pc. So that isn't a possible "saying".

No 1080p and 60FPS, no buy from me. Will switch to PC gaming.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="Exxite"]

The reason why 720p looks better on my tv even though it is 1080p is because my tv does a better job than the ps3's image scaler.

Exxite

Those games don't exist on the pc. So that isn't a possible "saying".

[QUOTE="Tessellation"]At higher Resolutions jaggies are not noticeable and instead of wasting resources on AA you can use it for something else.Cranler

depends on your rig specs..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv6e688R3aU

everything on ultra at 1080p, MSAA OFF

[QUOTE="Exxite"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] Thats not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that the graphics in Halo 4 and GOW 3 are so much better that they look better at 720 on console than DS would look at 1080 on pc.Cranler

Those games don't exist on the pc. So that isn't a possible "saying".

Na i misread what you said. Still what you said is an opinion and not fact.

Now if following through with the past if GOW 3 and Halo 4 were released on pc they would look better than their console counterpart. Thus going back to the whole yes more resolution is needed because the game dev's artists are adding more detail than the ps3/360 can currently show at decent frame rates. That assumption is based off nearly every single multiplat released for pc.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="Tessellation"]At higher Resolutions jaggies are not noticeable and instead of wasting resources on AA you can use it for something else.Tessellation

depends on your rig specs..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv6e688R3aU

everything on ultra at 1080p, MSAA OFF

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="Exxite"]

Those games don't exist on the pc. So that isn't a possible "saying".

Exxite

Na i misread what you said. Still what you said is an opinion and not fact.

Now if following through with the past if GOW 3 and Halo 4 were released on pc they would look better than their console counterpart. Thus going back to the whole yes more resolution is needed because the game dev's artists are adding more detail than the ps3/360 can currently show at decent frame rates. That assumption is based off nearly every single multiplat released for pc.

No 1080p and 60FPS, no buy from me. Will switch to PC gaming.

StrongBlackVine

[QUOTE="Tessellation"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] 1080p reduces jaggies but doesnt remove them. I need 4xaa at 1080p.Cranler

depends on your rig specs..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv6e688R3aU

everything on ultra at 1080p, MSAA OFF

I think the screen size and dot pitch more has to do with jaggies at that resolution. If you have a cheap monitor with a crappy TN lcd panel and a high dot pictch (distance from one pixel to the next) then you will notice more jagged edges and stuff. If you have a decent lcd with an IPS or VA panel with a low dot pitch you won't notice as much stuff.

Closest example I can think of is a dot matrix printer. The more dots in the same area forming the text i.e. lower dot pitch the easier the font is to read. Similar principal.

For instance I use a dell ultrasharp 2408wfp with a VA panel it has a low dot pitch and I notice very few jaggies at 1920x1200.

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] Thats is not an accurate representation of resolution. If 720p is that blurry then how did gamers ever read game menus or ammo counters in sd games? Cranler

Because the UI elements were rendered using more pixels, relative to the full resolution.

With Avatar

"For the last month or more of production those 40,000 processors were handling 7 or 8 gigabytes of data per second, running 24 hours a day. A final copy of Avatar equated to 17.28 gigabytes per minute of storage."

It could be proven on a technical level that Halo 4 and GOW 3 are more advanced. I'm talking about technical graphics not art direction. What I cant figure out is how cgi like Avatar looks better in sd than any pc game at 4k

Cranler

I'll save you the trouble. It doesn't 'look' better.

[QUOTE="Tessellation"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] 1080p reduces jaggies but doesnt remove them. I need 4xaa at 1080p.Cranler

depends on your rig specs..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv6e688R3aU

everything on ultra at 1080p, MSAA OFF

There are tons of stuff that can be improved in next gen games without increasing the resolution. Higher polygon count, higher resolution on textures and shadows, bigger levels, better physics and gameplay. I just played Tomb Raider Underworld on PC, at 1080p resolution, everything on high, and the game still looked awefull.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="Tessellation"]

depends on your rig specs..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv6e688R3aU

everything on ultra at 1080p, MSAA OFF

Tessellation

What do rigs specs have to do with that.

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

Because the UI elements were rendered using more pixels, relative to the full resolution.

04dcarraher

Rendering even one frame can take a while like this POVRAY image from its Web site:

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="Cranler"] Faces and objects simply arent blurry like that in 720p. What I'd like explained is how cgi like Avatar looks better in sd than Battlefield 3 at 4k.jun_aka_pekto

Rendering even one frame can take a while like this POVRAY image from its Web site:

[QUOTE="Tessellation"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] 1080p reduces jaggies but doesnt remove them. I need 4xaa at 1080p.Cranler

depends on your rig specs..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv6e688R3aU

everything on ultra at 1080p, MSAA OFF

I would also like to know that. The link links me to this page.

[QUOTE="Exxite"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] Why would a game need to be on the same platform to compare the graphics? Are you saying we cant conclusively say that Halo 4 looks better than the original Half Life unmodded since Halo 4 isnt on pc?Cranler

Na i misread what you said. Still what you said is an opinion and not fact.

Now if following through with the past if GOW 3 and Halo 4 were released on pc they would look better than their console counterpart. Thus going back to the whole yes more resolution is needed because the game dev's artists are adding more detail than the ps3/360 can currently show at decent frame rates. That assumption is based off nearly every single multiplat released for pc.

What are you the op? Do you really not understand?

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="Exxite"]

Na i misread what you said. Still what you said is an opinion and not fact.

Now if following through with the past if GOW 3 and Halo 4 were released on pc they would look better than their console counterpart. Thus going back to the whole yes more resolution is needed because the game dev's artists are adding more detail than the ps3/360 can currently show at decent frame rates. That assumption is based off nearly every single multiplat released for pc.

Exxite

What are you the op? Do you really not understand?

[QUOTE="Tessellation"][QUOTE="Cranler"] How exactly do rig specs affect aliasing without antialiasing enabled? Your link isnt working for me. ZombieKiller7

What do rigs specs have to do with that.

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

Because the UI elements were rendered using more pixels, relative to the full resolution.

04dcarraher

With Avatar

"For the last month or more of production those 40,000 processors were handling 7 or 8 gigabytes of data per second, running 24 hours a day. A final copy of Avatar equated to 17.28 gigabytes per minute of storage."

You dont understand my question on Avatar, let me be more detailed. The general consensus here is that 720p isnt enough to render the all details of current gen games, if that was true then why do graphics that are WAY beyond games look great in sd?

[QUOTE="StrongBlackVine"]

No 1080p and 60FPS, no buy from me. Will switch to PC gaming.

Cranler

Honestly I couldn't care less how next gen consoles affect PC gaming. If PC gamers actually bought game like console gamers do then consoles would not always be first priority.

Heck with Avatar "For the last month or more of production those 40,000 processors were handling 7 or 8 gigabytes of data per second, running 24 hours a day. A final copy of Avatar equated to 17.28 gigabytes per minute of storage."04dcarraher

It just boggles the mind. I hope I see games with realtime ray-tracing in my lifetime.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]Heck with Avatar "For the last month or more of production those 40,000 processors were handling 7 or 8 gigabytes of data per second, running 24 hours a day. A final copy of Avatar equated to 17.28 gigabytes per minute of storage."jun_aka_pekto

It just boggles the mind. I hope I see games with realtime ray-tracing in my lifetime.

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

[QUOTE="Tessellation"] i just gave an example of no needing MSAA at higher resolutions.Tessellation

What do rigs specs have to do with that.

[QUOTE="Tessellation"][QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

What do rigs specs have to do with that.

Cranler

What I cant figure out is how cgi like Avatar looks better in sd than any pc game at 4k

Cranler

Any guesses? It should be possible to come up with an explanation for this.

Obviously just upping the resolution doesn't always equal superior image quality. Quake 1 at 1280x1024 vs Quake 1 at 1920x1080, I feel they'd both look pretty similar.

It probably helps that the production of Avatar would have had a very high requirement for image quality when rendering the final cut. If anything looked sub par, they could go back and do it again. Then, you're taking this excellent source material and restricting it to an SD resolution. You're discarding some information.

Going back to Quake 1, the information wasn't there to begin with, the textures, models etc are already at a defined size, polygon count etc. So, continued increases in resolution might not improve the image quality of the final render as the artwork assets which make up that render are of an insufficient quality?

Your thoughts?

I recently played Halo 4 and the faces and objects werent blurry at all. You do realize that most use of 1080p tv's is non 1080p content right? I watch and play 720p content all the time and it look great, no blurrienss. TV scalers are VERY good.

You dont understand my question on Avatar, let me be more detailed. The general consensus here is that 720p isnt enough to render the all details of current gen games, if that was true then why do graphics that are WAY beyond games look great in sd?

Cranler

Why does Avatar, a movie shot and rendered by movie cameras with 3 x 2.2mp CCD's per camera (at 48fps) and then processed on a supercomputer, look better downscaled to SD than games running on a home computer at 1080p?

Why do TV programs filmed in 1080p, shown at native 1080p, carry so much more detail than those filmed at 720p and shown at 720p?

[QUOTE="Tessellation"][QUOTE="Cranler"] 1080p is 1080p no matter what rig you have. gtx 680 isnt going to automatically have less aliasing than an 8800gtx. Cranler

I suppose it depends on the game, but yeah jaggies are still there in 1080p. They look smaller in most cases but clearly still there.

[QUOTE="Tessellation"][QUOTE="Cranler"] 1080p is 1080p no matter what rig you have. gtx 680 isnt going to automatically have less aliasing than an 8800gtx. Cranler

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

I recently played Halo 4 and the faces and objects werent blurry at all. You do realize that most use of 1080p tv's is non 1080p content right? I watch and play 720p content all the time and it look great, no blurrienss. TV scalers are VERY good.

You dont understand my question on Avatar, let me be more detailed. The general consensus here is that 720p isnt enough to render the all details of current gen games, if that was true then why do graphics that are WAY beyond games look great in sd?

1080pOnly

Why does Avatar, a movie shot and rendered by movie cameras with 3 x 2.2mp CCD's per camera (at 48fps) and then processed on a supercomputer, look better downscaled to SD than games running on a home computer at 1080p?

Why do TV programs filmed in 1080p, shown at native 1080p, carry so much more detail than those filmed at 720p and shown at 720p?

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] Faces and objects simply arent blurry like that in 720p. What I'd like explained is how cgi like Avatar looks better in sd than Battlefield 3 at 4k.Cranler

With Avatar

"For the last month or more of production those 40,000 processors were handling 7 or 8 gigabytes of data per second, running 24 hours a day. A final copy of Avatar equated to 17.28 gigabytes per minute of storage."

You dont understand my question on Avatar, let me be more detailed. The general consensus here is that 720p isnt enough to render the all details of current gen games, if that was true then why do graphics that are WAY beyond games look great in sd?

Anyone saying Avatar looks nothing like 1080p in 720p is not beeing serious

Surly some crispness and detail is lost, but 99% of detail is still clearly seen, Avatar in 720p still look amazing and almost all detail is still there for sure

PC gamers would argue that 1080p is night and day better, because they spend a fortune to only get resolution increase over consoles, which is driving them crazy and desparate to prove the worth of the useless hardware they pay an arm and leg for and is obsolete after a few months, that is all

I would definitly prefer game graphics to spend power in order to look closer to Avatar in 720p, than get crappy graphics in 1080p

Loosingends is back. I hope this gets better.

[QUOTE="1080pOnly"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

I recently played Halo 4 and the faces and objects werent blurry at all. You do realize that most use of 1080p tv's is non 1080p content right? I watch and play 720p content all the time and it look great, no blurrienss. TV scalers are VERY good.

You dont understand my question on Avatar, let me be more detailed. The general consensus here is that 720p isnt enough to render the all details of current gen games, if that was true then why do graphics that are WAY beyond games look great in sd?

Cranler

Why does Avatar, a movie shot and rendered by movie cameras with 3 x 2.2mp CCD's per camera (at 48fps) and then processed on a supercomputer, look better downscaled to SD than games running on a home computer at 1080p?

Why do TV programs filmed in 1080p, shown at native 1080p, carry so much more detail than those filmed at 720p and shown at 720p?

I understand it completely, it's you that have missed the point. Avatar was pre-rendered, games do not have that luxury. If you render at 540p then play it back on a 1080p screen it will look bad, no matter how good your upscaler is.

720p is fine when rendered at native 720p on screens that are built for it. HDTV's have reached a size/cost ratio where they need to render at 1080p as a minimum or they lose detail during the upscale. 720p content on a 1080p screen does not look anything like as good as 1080p content on the same screen, no matter how good the scaler technology gets.

Avatar looks bad on an SD set compared to an HDTV. I'm not arguing that graphics can't improve on where they are at 720p just that the same level of graphics rendered at 1080p always looks better.

*Edit* Basically, LOD and resolution go hand in hand. You can't completely seperate them and the next-gen leap in tech won't render photo-realism at 720p, it will just add a few small bells and whistles (and they are small). Better to render at 1080 using this gens LOD imo.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] Because its a relevant analogy. Comparing 480i to 1080p is just plain stupid. Cranler

If it's relevant for you, it's relevant for anybody.

Why shouldn't DEV use 600p instead?

No your COD analogy doesn't work since we aren't talking about 600p, look it's your damn logic.

So why shouldn't lower then 720p considered if you people want CGI graphics ?

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Yes games are that blurry when they are on a 1080 screen being upscaled from 720, You dont understand the concept of pre rendered animations being rendered without any compression at 2048x1152 resolution. The reason why a pre rendered movie looks better then a game is because movies are not rendered in real time and take months to years to render them.

With Avatar

"For the last month or more of production those 40,000 processors were handling 7 or 8 gigabytes of data per second, running 24 hours a day. A final copy of Avatar equated to 17.28 gigabytes per minute of storage."

loosingENDS

You dont understand my question on Avatar, let me be more detailed. The general consensus here is that 720p isnt enough to render the all details of current gen games, if that was true then why do graphics that are WAY beyond games look great in sd?

Anyone saying Avatar looks nothing like 1080p in 720p is not beeing serious

Surly some crispness and detail is lost, but 99% of detail is still clearly seen, Avatar in 720p still look amazing and almost all detail is still there for sure

PC gamers would argue that 1080p is night and day better, because they spend a fortune to only get resolution increase over consoles, which is driving them crazy and desparate to prove the worth of the useless hardware they pay an arm and leg for and is obsolete after a few months, that is all

I would definitly prefer game graphics to spend power in order to look closer to Avatar in 720p, than get crappy graphics in 1080p

1080p monitors aren't that expensive and you don't need a top of the line graphics card to play games at that resolution. how do they become obsolete after a few months? :?