You can't trust your own eyes?

  • 122 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#101 Edited by tyloss (829 posts) -

@kuu2: why are you upset?

#102 Edited by Animal-Mother (26559 posts) -

@SolidTy said:

@Animal-Mother said:

@I_can_haz said:

Damage Control.

My eyes can tell the difference between 1080p and 720p instantly. Same with 30fps and 60fps, just because lems are blind doesn't mean we all are. Go see your optometrist.

No they can't. In gaming framerate is easily tellible. You cannot tell the difference between 720P and 1080P

Yes, you can. It's especially evident in 40inch+ monitors. If the screen is tiny, say a 24inch computer monitor, you may not tell the difference, but to say you can't tell the difference at all is not true. From a computer monitor, it's probably true you couldn't tell a difference as most monitors are smaller than 32 inches. That's not the optimal distance or size. Also, the content matters. If you are taking low resolution content and trying to upscale it, you wouldn't notice either even on a 50 inch 1080p Panasonic Plasma. That's because the source material used was cheap.

This goes back to when Blu-Rays/HD-DVDs were new back in 2006. AV forums can discuss this in great length if you ever desire to learn more.

I'm a home theatre enthusiast that has spent years calibrating. There is a reason why companies manufacture and sell 720p HDTVs and 1080p HDTVs.

Here's one such link of thousands on when 1080p matters. 1080p Does Matter – Here’s When (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution)

No you can't And I spent the better half of a decade behind a camera at the beginning of the consumer HD era in film. And continue to study it.

Our eyes can't even see 4K

"The resolution of our eyes is 12 vertical lines per arc angle (one line per arcminute for 20/20 acuity) times 2. Now 28 degrees x 12 lines x 2 = 672. This means we really can't see a display component (pixel) smaller than 1/672 x image width. Our minimum resolvable element size is about 0.065", or about twice the size of the pixels of the WXGA image! Put bluntly, from 8 feet away while watching a 50 inch plasma TV, the human eye is generally incapable of reliably distinguishing any detail finer than that shown on a true 720p display!

Of course there are other factors that affect perceived image quality. The way color is handled, the latency of pixel illumination, motion artifacts and the effects of the algorithms that fit the image data to the native resolution of the display (and more importantly the SOURCE) all play a part in a qualitative assessment of the image. It‘s safe to say, however, that increasing resolution and image refresh rate alone are not enough to provide a startlingly better viewing experience in a typical flat panel or rear projection residential installation."

#103 Posted by ghostwarrior786 (3910 posts) -

@kuu2 said:

@ghostwarrior786 said:

@kuu2 said:

@ghostwarrior786 said:

@kuu2 said:

@OneLazyAsian said:

Except The Order isn't 800p...

Um.........yes, yes it is.

oh kuu haha like 100% of other lems please educate yourself. i keep telling lems but they keep spreading their misinformed bs

'The game renders an image of 1920x1080, just 280 horizontal lines are black.'

http://tay.kotaku.com/why-the-order-1886-is-1080p-and-not-800p-1518902908

Whatever mental gymnastics you have to jump through to think this won't make it true. There is absolutely no reason to have black bars at the top and bottom other than to hide the fact that the game can't be in 1080p without them. Please tell me how the black bars help the games overall atmosphere? Letterbox was introduced when 4:3 TVs were the norm, that is not the case any longer.

Did u read the article? The order is 1080p so i dont understand wat u are talking about. Black bars are added to make it more cinematic. U get a wider field of view and possibly greater emersion. Resident evil 4 had them for the same purpose, u really think ps4 cant run a nice looking game at 1080p? Lol look at killzone

Look at the comparison pic on this website, at first I hated the idea of black bars but they seem to be working for this game

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/02/16/the-order-1886-169-1080p-vs-2-401-1920x800-video-and-screenshot-comparison-pixel-count-vs-art/

That article is totally bunk. They are stretching a 2.40 screen and saying 'look what would happen if it was the 1.78' which the original screen was never designed to be. It is not 1080p at all and that article states as much (better than 800p but doesn't state 1080p).

Also using KZ is a bad example especially since the textures and LOD in that game are scaled way back in certain segments of the game plus the fog, and lens flare hide the meager draw distance. Is it a good looking game? Yep, but far from console graphics king.

Again this whole 1080p 60fps (which The Order aint by the way) is totally overblown. But if Cows are going to make a big deal of it they better damn well be sure that all their games are instead of cherry picking like they have been doing.

seriously what is wrong with u? the devs have said its in 1080p “But for us, the cinematic experience is in the foreground [basically focus] – presented in full HD 1080p. In favor of spectacular effects and the highest resolution we restrict ourselves to a fluid 30 frames per second.” http://www.vg247.com/2014/02/06/the-order-1886-to-run-at-30fps-1080p-dev-confirms/

why is killzone far from console graphic king? it looks the same as ryse. and the whole resolution difference between ps4/x1 is a big deal because ps4 runs the same game at better resolution and frame rate even though its cheaper. there is nothing wrong with not being 1080p/60fps but when your cheaper competitor is offering that it is a big deal which is why m$ is constantly damage controlling

#104 Edited by kuu2 (6971 posts) -

@kuu2 said:

@ghostwarrior786 said:

Did u read the article? The order is 1080p so i dont understand wat u are talking about. Black bars are added to make it more cinematic. U get a wider field of view and possibly greater emersion. Resident evil 4 had them for the same purpose, u really think ps4 cant run a nice looking game at 1080p? Lol look at killzone

Look at the comparison pic on this website, at first I hated the idea of black bars but they seem to be working for this game

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/02/16/the-order-1886-169-1080p-vs-2-401-1920x800-video-and-screenshot-comparison-pixel-count-vs-art/

That article is totally bunk. They are stretching a 2.40 screen and saying 'look what would happen if it was the 1.78' which the original screen was never designed to be. It is not 1080p at all and that article states as much (better than 800p but doesn't state 1080p).

Also using KZ is a bad example especially since the textures and LOD in that game are scaled way back in certain segments of the game plus the fog, and lens flare hide the meager draw distance. Is it a good looking game? Yep, but far from console graphics king.

Again this whole 1080p 60fps (which The Order aint by the way) is totally overblown. But if Cows are going to make a big deal of it they better damn well be sure that all their games are instead of cherry picking like they have been doing.

seriously what is wrong with u? the devs have said its in 1080p “But for us, the cinematic experience is in the foreground [basically focus] – presented in full HD 1080p. In favor of spectacular effects and the highest resolution we restrict ourselves to a fluid 30 frames per second.” http://www.vg247.com/2014/02/06/the-order-1886-to-run-at-30fps-1080p-dev-confirms/

why is killzone far from console graphic king? it looks the same as ryse. and the whole resolution difference between ps4/x1 is a big deal because ps4 runs the same game at better resolution and frame rate even though its cheaper. there is nothing wrong with not being 1080p/60fps but when your cheaper competitor is offering that it is a big deal which is why m$ is constantly damage controlling

Devs say a lot of things for the sake of selling games. You can't count black bars as gameplay so how can you count them as part of the games reso? The devs decision to move the character play screen to the far left is a design choice yes but so are the black bars and what they are saying is the game is more artistic this way. Why are excuses for how a game looks ok for PauperStation4 games and not for The One? MSoft has said they leave the design choices to the dev but I hear Sony Fan say the system is not capable of doing so even though Forza is 1080p 60fps? I have said before that I don't care about the reso of a game but it is typical Sony Fan that wants to be hypocrites on this site. The Order: Letterbox Format is just the latest example.

#105 Edited by ghostwarrior786 (3910 posts) -

@kuu2 said:

@ghostwarrior786 said:

@kuu2 said:

@ghostwarrior786 said:

Did u read the article? The order is 1080p so i dont understand wat u are talking about. Black bars are added to make it more cinematic. U get a wider field of view and possibly greater emersion. Resident evil 4 had them for the same purpose, u really think ps4 cant run a nice looking game at 1080p? Lol look at killzone

Look at the comparison pic on this website, at first I hated the idea of black bars but they seem to be working for this game

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/02/16/the-order-1886-169-1080p-vs-2-401-1920x800-video-and-screenshot-comparison-pixel-count-vs-art/

That article is totally bunk. They are stretching a 2.40 screen and saying 'look what would happen if it was the 1.78' which the original screen was never designed to be. It is not 1080p at all and that article states as much (better than 800p but doesn't state 1080p).

Also using KZ is a bad example especially since the textures and LOD in that game are scaled way back in certain segments of the game plus the fog, and lens flare hide the meager draw distance. Is it a good looking game? Yep, but far from console graphics king.

Again this whole 1080p 60fps (which The Order aint by the way) is totally overblown. But if Cows are going to make a big deal of it they better damn well be sure that all their games are instead of cherry picking like they have been doing.

seriously what is wrong with u? the devs have said its in 1080p “But for us, the cinematic experience is in the foreground [basically focus] – presented in full HD 1080p. In favor of spectacular effects and the highest resolution we restrict ourselves to a fluid 30 frames per second.” http://www.vg247.com/2014/02/06/the-order-1886-to-run-at-30fps-1080p-dev-confirms/

why is killzone far from console graphic king? it looks the same as ryse. and the whole resolution difference between ps4/x1 is a big deal because ps4 runs the same game at better resolution and frame rate even though its cheaper. there is nothing wrong with not being 1080p/60fps but when your cheaper competitor is offering that it is a big deal which is why m$ is constantly damage controlling

Devs say a lot of things for the sake of selling games. You can't count black bars as gameplay so how can you count them as part of the games reso? The devs decision to move the character play screen to the far left is a design choice yes but so are the black bars and what they are saying is the game is more artistic this way. Why are excuses for how a game looks ok for PauperStation4 games and not for The One? MSoft has said they leave the design choices to the dev but I hear Sony Fan say the system is not capable of doing so even though Forza is 1080p 60fps? I have said before that I don't care about the reso of a game but it is typical Sony Fan that wants to be hypocrites on this site. The Order: Letterbox Format is just the latest example.

hahahha ok im done here, u clearly dont understand. the game is being rendered in full 1080p the devs have said so, to add the black bars some pixels on top and bottom are black but that doesnt mean the game isnt 1080p.

so u think it is a design choice for tomb raider to run at 30fps while ps4 runs at much higher? or mgs5 being 1080p on ps4 while 720p or something in x1? how is that a design choice? thats inferior hardware. and lems point to forza but look at the environment for that game, it features 2d crowds for god sake so im not surprised they got 1080p/60fps.

#106 Posted by kuu2 (6971 posts) -

@kuu2 said:

@ghostwarrior786 said:

@kuu2 said:

@ghostwarrior786 said:

Did u read the article? The order is 1080p so i dont understand wat u are talking about. Black bars are added to make it more cinematic. U get a wider field of view and possibly greater emersion. Resident evil 4 had them for the same purpose, u really think ps4 cant run a nice looking game at 1080p? Lol look at killzone

Look at the comparison pic on this website, at first I hated the idea of black bars but they seem to be working for this game

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/02/16/the-order-1886-169-1080p-vs-2-401-1920x800-video-and-screenshot-comparison-pixel-count-vs-art/

That article is totally bunk. They are stretching a 2.40 screen and saying 'look what would happen if it was the 1.78' which the original screen was never designed to be. It is not 1080p at all and that article states as much (better than 800p but doesn't state 1080p).

Also using KZ is a bad example especially since the textures and LOD in that game are scaled way back in certain segments of the game plus the fog, and lens flare hide the meager draw distance. Is it a good looking game? Yep, but far from console graphics king.

Again this whole 1080p 60fps (which The Order aint by the way) is totally overblown. But if Cows are going to make a big deal of it they better damn well be sure that all their games are instead of cherry picking like they have been doing.

seriously what is wrong with u? the devs have said its in 1080p “But for us, the cinematic experience is in the foreground [basically focus] – presented in full HD 1080p. In favor of spectacular effects and the highest resolution we restrict ourselves to a fluid 30 frames per second.” http://www.vg247.com/2014/02/06/the-order-1886-to-run-at-30fps-1080p-dev-confirms/

why is killzone far from console graphic king? it looks the same as ryse. and the whole resolution difference between ps4/x1 is a big deal because ps4 runs the same game at better resolution and frame rate even though its cheaper. there is nothing wrong with not being 1080p/60fps but when your cheaper competitor is offering that it is a big deal which is why m$ is constantly damage controlling

Devs say a lot of things for the sake of selling games. You can't count black bars as gameplay so how can you count them as part of the games reso? The devs decision to move the character play screen to the far left is a design choice yes but so are the black bars and what they are saying is the game is more artistic this way. Why are excuses for how a game looks ok for PauperStation4 games and not for The One? MSoft has said they leave the design choices to the dev but I hear Sony Fan say the system is not capable of doing so even though Forza is 1080p 60fps? I have said before that I don't care about the reso of a game but it is typical Sony Fan that wants to be hypocrites on this site. The Order: Letterbox Format is just the latest example.

hahahha ok im done here, u clearly dont understand. the game is being rendered in full 1080p the devs have said so, to add the black bars some pixels on top and bottom are black but that doesnt mean the game isnt 1080p.

so u think it is a design choice for tomb raider to run at 30fps while ps4 runs at much higher? or mgs5 being 1080p on ps4 while 720p or something in x1? how is that a design choice? thats inferior hardware. and lems point to forza but look at the environment for that game, it features 2d crowds for god sake so im not surprised they got 1080p/60fps.

You can't answer my question which is ok.

In Infamous there are no people on the streets, prebaked lighting, no shadows, and fog everywhwere but you say that game looks awesome. There will always be sacrifices made for 1080p 60fps on consoles this gen but Cows will say that PS4 is so superior even though the tricks used in Infamous say different.

Sony on GhostWarrior Sony on..........

#107 Posted by RedentSC (604 posts) -

@GravityX said:

@I_can_haz said:

Damage Control.

My eyes can tell the difference between 1080p and 720p instantly. Same with 30fps and 60fps, just because lems are blind doesn't mean we all are. Go see your optometrist.

This is not constructive.

Xbox One has arguably the best looking game in Ryse, running at 900p 30fps with 1.18 tflop machine.

And on the other hand you have the Order running at 800p at 30fps on a 1.84tflop machine. Both exclusive and both not on last gen consoles.

So if you look at both games, how can you possible say the Xbox One is 30, 50 and some say 80% weaker?

Because it is 30% weaker... its in the statistics of the machines and it is not an opinion... its plain fact.

#108 Posted by ghostwarrior786 (3910 posts) -

@kuu2 said:

@ghostwarrior786 said:

@kuu2 said:

@ghostwarrior786 said:

@kuu2 said:

@ghostwarrior786 said:

Did u read the article? The order is 1080p so i dont understand wat u are talking about. Black bars are added to make it more cinematic. U get a wider field of view and possibly greater emersion. Resident evil 4 had them for the same purpose, u really think ps4 cant run a nice looking game at 1080p? Lol look at killzone

Look at the comparison pic on this website, at first I hated the idea of black bars but they seem to be working for this game

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/02/16/the-order-1886-169-1080p-vs-2-401-1920x800-video-and-screenshot-comparison-pixel-count-vs-art/

That article is totally bunk. They are stretching a 2.40 screen and saying 'look what would happen if it was the 1.78' which the original screen was never designed to be. It is not 1080p at all and that article states as much (better than 800p but doesn't state 1080p).

Also using KZ is a bad example especially since the textures and LOD in that game are scaled way back in certain segments of the game plus the fog, and lens flare hide the meager draw distance. Is it a good looking game? Yep, but far from console graphics king.

Again this whole 1080p 60fps (which The Order aint by the way) is totally overblown. But if Cows are going to make a big deal of it they better damn well be sure that all their games are instead of cherry picking like they have been doing.

seriously what is wrong with u? the devs have said its in 1080p “But for us, the cinematic experience is in the foreground [basically focus] – presented in full HD 1080p. In favor of spectacular effects and the highest resolution we restrict ourselves to a fluid 30 frames per second.” http://www.vg247.com/2014/02/06/the-order-1886-to-run-at-30fps-1080p-dev-confirms/

why is killzone far from console graphic king? it looks the same as ryse. and the whole resolution difference between ps4/x1 is a big deal because ps4 runs the same game at better resolution and frame rate even though its cheaper. there is nothing wrong with not being 1080p/60fps but when your cheaper competitor is offering that it is a big deal which is why m$ is constantly damage controlling

Devs say a lot of things for the sake of selling games. You can't count black bars as gameplay so how can you count them as part of the games reso? The devs decision to move the character play screen to the far left is a design choice yes but so are the black bars and what they are saying is the game is more artistic this way. Why are excuses for how a game looks ok for PauperStation4 games and not for The One? MSoft has said they leave the design choices to the dev but I hear Sony Fan say the system is not capable of doing so even though Forza is 1080p 60fps? I have said before that I don't care about the reso of a game but it is typical Sony Fan that wants to be hypocrites on this site. The Order: Letterbox Format is just the latest example.

hahahha ok im done here, u clearly dont understand. the game is being rendered in full 1080p the devs have said so, to add the black bars some pixels on top and bottom are black but that doesnt mean the game isnt 1080p.

so u think it is a design choice for tomb raider to run at 30fps while ps4 runs at much higher? or mgs5 being 1080p on ps4 while 720p or something in x1? how is that a design choice? thats inferior hardware. and lems point to forza but look at the environment for that game, it features 2d crowds for god sake so im not surprised they got 1080p/60fps.

You can't answer my question which is ok.

In Infamous there are no people on the streets, prebaked lighting, no shadows, and fog everywhwere but you say that game looks awesome. There will always be sacrifices made for 1080p 60fps on consoles this gen but Cows will say that PS4 is so superior even though the tricks used in Infamous say different.

Sony on GhostWarrior Sony on..........

i never said infamous looks amazing. infamous never really has had amazing graphics because its open world but it looks good for open world, if u know of a open world game that look better please name it. also its a fact ps4 is superior to x1, thats not even debatable. crytek are graphic specialist and always make great looking games but for sony naughty dog/santa monica make best looking games so im expecting their games to show the true power of ps4.

#109 Edited by cainetao11 (16917 posts) -

@GravityX: "This drives home the idea that reality is a construction of the brain. You don't passively receive the outside world, you actively construct your experience moment by moment"-------I'm a psychology student and I know of this experiment. Its one of the confounding variables studied in participant bias. I haven't been here much the last 3 days because I bought the inferior console (OMG) and it has been fvckin awesome!!! I go from cloud stored music, to the Olympics, to games with a simple word. I'm amazed at how responsive the voice commands are, after owning the 360 and Kinect. DR3 is a lot of fun, KI is and even Ryse is worth borrowing. I didn't buy it, wouldn't recommend it for purchase, but fun to play with. Look forward to getting a PS4 as well, just don't want to play games my tablet can run on it.

#110 Posted by Salt_The_Fries (8376 posts) -

@GravityX: "This drives home the idea that reality is a construction of the brain. You don't passively receive the outside world, you actively construct your experience moment by moment"-------I'm a psychology student and I know of this experiment. Its one of the confounding variables studied in participant bias. I haven't been here much the last 3 days because I bought the inferior console (OMG) and it has been fvckin awesome!!! I go from cloud stored music, to the Olympics, to games with a simple word. I'm amazed at how responsive the voice commands are, after owning the 360 and Kinect. DR3 is a lot of fun, KI is and even Ryse is worth borrowing. I didn't but it, wouldn't recommend it for purchase, but fun to play with. Look forward to getting a PS4 as well, just don't want to play games my tablet can run on it.

You're one of the very few people here that openly says good things about X1 in here. I respect and applaud you for it, because from what I can gather, there's plenty to appreciate.

#111 Posted by treedoor (7648 posts) -

I can spot framerate differences almost immediately.

But I do laugh at people who think resolution is the end all, be all of graphics discussions.

If I played Quake 3 at 1080p that wouldn't all of a sudden make it look better than every game running in 720p.

#112 Posted by cainetao11 (16917 posts) -

@Salt_The_Fries: and in a month or two, I'll probably do the same for PS4. Can't wait to be where I like being, owning both, as I have the past two gens. The X1 is a very sturdy, amazing home entertainment console, imo. The games look great, anybody in NYC, can come by my place and I'll show it to them, just PM me. DR3 is a lot of fun, and KI is, but I suck so much at fighting games, I'm losing a lot. Rise, I borrowed, and admit I did so to see how good the game looked. Its not as bad as gamespot makes it out to be, but it is a shallow hack n slash with pretty graphics. If you really believe this console isnt about games, I say you're wrong. But it is nice to not have to do any manual switching when going from hockey or True Detective to DR3. These luxuries do spoil you.

#113 Edited by bloodlust_101 (2682 posts) -

@treedoor said:

I can spot framerate differences almost immediately.

But I do laugh at people who think resolution is the end all, be all of graphics discussions.

If I played Quake 3 at 1080p that wouldn't all of a sudden make it look better than every game running in 720p.

As I play on the PC - I have ALWAYS chosen to reduce graphical quality rather than resolution - what is the benefit of slightly better models/textures if the total resolution cannot display them? The difference between 720p and 1080p is massive. And 1080p and 4k too is massive.

http://imageshack.com/a/img547/1681/cxu.gif

Open for full size. I have 2 screenshots as they appear when playing the game. 1 is on Ultra settings, 720p. The other is at high settings, 1080p. Which one looks better to you? If you note, the 720p file looks like low settings due to the blurry image quality. The only way to get around this is heavy handed sharpening - which is also taken out of the XBone scaling chip.

#114 Edited by bloodlust_101 (2682 posts) -

@MonsieurX said:

@GravityX said:

@I_can_haz said:

Damage Control.

My eyes can tell the difference between 1080p and 720p instantly. Same with 30fps and 60fps, just because lems are blind doesn't mean we all are. Go see your optometrist.

This is not constructive.

Xbox One has arguably the best looking game in Ryse, running at 900p 30fps with 1.18 tflop machine.

And on the other hand you have the Order running at 800p at 30fps on a 1.84tflop machine. Both exclusive and both not on last gen consoles.

So if you look at both games, how can you possible say the Xbox One is 30, 50 and some say 80% weaker?

Cows get bionic eyes when they become fanboys,didn't you know?

can confirm. cows can detect 180 lines difference from 900p to 1080p and call the former a blurry mess. Then they go and praise TLOU as the best looking game but its what, 720p? TLOU was all aliased and jaggies everywhere yet good looking still for a 720p game. Not sure why this gen, a game with newer tech and is far better looking and runs at higher than 720p (aka 900p) is called a blurry mess... only because cows bionic eyes won't take anything less than 1080p, thus the Order will be shit graphically according to cow logic.

I *ALWAYS* found PS3 games a blurry mess since I started playing at 1080p. *ALWAYS*

#115 Posted by kuu2 (6971 posts) -

@SolidTy said:

@Animal-Mother said:

@I_can_haz said:

Damage Control.

My eyes can tell the difference between 1080p and 720p instantly. Same with 30fps and 60fps, just because lems are blind doesn't mean we all are. Go see your optometrist.

No they can't. In gaming framerate is easily tellible. You cannot tell the difference between 720P and 1080P

Yes, you can. It's especially evident in 40inch+ monitors. If the screen is tiny, say a 24inch computer monitor, you may not tell the difference, but to say you can't tell the difference at all is not true. From a computer monitor, it's probably true you couldn't tell a difference as most monitors are smaller than 32 inches. That's not the optimal distance or size. Also, the content matters. If you are taking low resolution content and trying to upscale it, you wouldn't notice either even on a 50 inch 1080p Panasonic Plasma. That's because the source material used was cheap.

This goes back to when Blu-Rays/HD-DVDs were new back in 2006. AV forums can discuss this in great length if you ever desire to learn more.

I'm a home theatre enthusiast that has spent years calibrating. There is a reason why companies manufacture and sell 720p HDTVs and 1080p HDTVs.

Here's one such link of thousands on when 1080p matters. 1080p Does Matter – Here’s When (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution)

No you can't And I spent the better half of a decade behind a camera at the beginning of the consumer HD era in film. And continue to study it.

Our eyes can't even see 4K

"The resolution of our eyes is 12 vertical lines per arc angle (one line per arcminute for 20/20 acuity) times 2. Now 28 degrees x 12 lines x 2 = 672. This means we really can't see a display component (pixel) smaller than 1/672 x image width. Our minimum resolvable element size is about 0.065", or about twice the size of the pixels of the WXGA image! Put bluntly, from 8 feet away while watching a 50 inch plasma TV, the human eye is generally incapable of reliably distinguishing any detail finer than that shown on a true 720p display!

Of course there are other factors that affect perceived image quality. The way color is handled, the latency of pixel illumination, motion artifacts and the effects of the algorithms that fit the image data to the native resolution of the display (and more importantly the SOURCE) all play a part in a qualitative assessment of the image. It‘s safe to say, however, that increasing resolution and image refresh rate alone are not enough to provide a startlingly better viewing experience in a typical flat panel or rear projection residential installation."

AM dropping the knowledge............

#116 Edited by Motokid6 (5286 posts) -

@Motokid6 said:

Study the OP posted is totally false lies. Curiously.. i went and pored a small glass of red and another of white wine. Tried one.. rinsed with water.. tried the other. ITS NIGHT AND DAY lol. Total freakin bs study. Im not even a wine person. Ones grape the other is vinegar.. how in the hell could an EXPERT not tell this?

No it's not.

Good wine from bad wine.. no I cant tell the difference. I cant tell the difference form good scotch or bad scotch, bottom shelf Vodka, top shelf vodka.. no I cannot tell the difference. BUT I CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE BEWTEEEN WHITE WINE AND RED. Did I read the OP correctly? The experts cannot tell that the red wine they had was dyed? BULLS*** and a half.

#117 Posted by CyberLips (1821 posts) -

/thread

#118 Posted by bloodlust_101 (2682 posts) -

@Motokid6 said:

@Animal-Mother said:

@Motokid6 said:

Study the OP posted is totally false lies. Curiously.. i went and pored a small glass of red and another of white wine. Tried one.. rinsed with water.. tried the other. ITS NIGHT AND DAY lol. Total freakin bs study. Im not even a wine person. Ones grape the other is vinegar.. how in the hell could an EXPERT not tell this?

No it's not.

Good wine from bad wine.. no I cant tell the difference. I cant tell the difference form good scotch or bad scotch, bottom shelf Vodka, top shelf vodka.. no I cannot tell the difference. BUT I CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE BEWTEEEN WHITE WINE AND RED. Did I read the OP correctly? The experts cannot tell that the red wine they had was dyed? BULLS*** and a half.

Food colouring itself has a foul taste to it. I am sure a distinguished expert could tell that as easy as I could tell there is sucralose instead of sugar in my ice cream.

#119 Posted by tyloss (829 posts) -

@kuu2 said:

@ghostwarrior786 said:

@kuu2 said:

@ghostwarrior786 said:

@kuu2 said:

@ghostwarrior786 said:

Did u read the article? The order is 1080p so i dont understand wat u are talking about. Black bars are added to make it more cinematic. U get a wider field of view and possibly greater emersion. Resident evil 4 had them for the same purpose, u really think ps4 cant run a nice looking game at 1080p? Lol look at killzone

Look at the comparison pic on this website, at first I hated the idea of black bars but they seem to be working for this game

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/02/16/the-order-1886-169-1080p-vs-2-401-1920x800-video-and-screenshot-comparison-pixel-count-vs-art/

That article is totally bunk. They are stretching a 2.40 screen and saying 'look what would happen if it was the 1.78' which the original screen was never designed to be. It is not 1080p at all and that article states as much (better than 800p but doesn't state 1080p).

Also using KZ is a bad example especially since the textures and LOD in that game are scaled way back in certain segments of the game plus the fog, and lens flare hide the meager draw distance. Is it a good looking game? Yep, but far from console graphics king.

Again this whole 1080p 60fps (which The Order aint by the way) is totally overblown. But if Cows are going to make a big deal of it they better damn well be sure that all their games are instead of cherry picking like they have been doing.

seriously what is wrong with u? the devs have said its in 1080p “But for us, the cinematic experience is in the foreground [basically focus] – presented in full HD 1080p. In favor of spectacular effects and the highest resolution we restrict ourselves to a fluid 30 frames per second.” http://www.vg247.com/2014/02/06/the-order-1886-to-run-at-30fps-1080p-dev-confirms/

why is killzone far from console graphic king? it looks the same as ryse. and the whole resolution difference between ps4/x1 is a big deal because ps4 runs the same game at better resolution and frame rate even though its cheaper. there is nothing wrong with not being 1080p/60fps but when your cheaper competitor is offering that it is a big deal which is why m$ is constantly damage controlling

Devs say a lot of things for the sake of selling games. You can't count black bars as gameplay so how can you count them as part of the games reso? The devs decision to move the character play screen to the far left is a design choice yes but so are the black bars and what they are saying is the game is more artistic this way. Why are excuses for how a game looks ok for PauperStation4 games and not for The One? MSoft has said they leave the design choices to the dev but I hear Sony Fan say the system is not capable of doing so even though Forza is 1080p 60fps? I have said before that I don't care about the reso of a game but it is typical Sony Fan that wants to be hypocrites on this site. The Order: Letterbox Format is just the latest example.

hahahha ok im done here, u clearly dont understand. the game is being rendered in full 1080p the devs have said so, to add the black bars some pixels on top and bottom are black but that doesnt mean the game isnt 1080p.

so u think it is a design choice for tomb raider to run at 30fps while ps4 runs at much higher? or mgs5 being 1080p on ps4 while 720p or something in x1? how is that a design choice? thats inferior hardware. and lems point to forza but look at the environment for that game, it features 2d crowds for god sake so im not surprised they got 1080p/60fps.

You can't answer my question which is ok.

In Infamous there are no people on the streets, prebaked lighting, no shadows, and fog everywhwere but you say that game looks awesome. There will always be sacrifices made for 1080p 60fps on consoles this gen but Cows will say that PS4 is so superior even though the tricks used in Infamous say different.

Sony on GhostWarrior Sony on..........

So insecure.

#120 Posted by MirkoS77 (7180 posts) -

I saw that show too. Liked the Jello part the best.

#121 Edited by SolidTy (42492 posts) -

@kuu2 said:

@Animal-Mother said:

@SolidTy said:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/720p-vs-1080p-can-you-tell-the-difference-between-hdtv-resolutions/

Yes, you can. It's especially evident in 40inch+ monitors. If the screen is tiny, say a 24inch computer monitor, you may not tell the difference, but to say you can't tell the difference at all is not true. From a computer monitor, it's probably true you couldn't tell a difference as most monitors are smaller than 32 inches. That's not the optimal distance or size. Also, the content matters. If you are taking low resolution content and trying to upscale it, you wouldn't notice either even on a 50 inch 1080p Panasonic Plasma. That's because the source material used was cheap.

This goes back to when Blu-Rays/HD-DVDs were new back in 2006. AV forums can discuss this in great length if you ever desire to learn more.

I'm a home theatre enthusiast that has spent years calibrating. There is a reason why companies manufacture and sell 720p HDTVs and 1080p HDTVs.

Here's one such link of thousands on when 1080p matters. 1080p Does Matter – Here’s When (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution)

No you can't And I spent the better half of a decade behind a camera at the beginning of the consumer HD era in film. And continue to study it.

Our eyes can't even see 4K

"The resolution of our eyes is 12 vertical lines per arc angle (one line per arcminute for 20/20 acuity) times 2. Now 28 degrees x 12 lines x 2 = 672. This means we really can't see a display component (pixel) smaller than 1/672 x image width. Our minimum resolvable element size is about 0.065", or about twice the size of the pixels of the WXGA image! Put bluntly, from 8 feet away while watching a 50 inch plasma TV, the human eye is generally incapable of reliably distinguishing any detail finer than that shown on a true 720p display!

Of course there are other factors that affect perceived image quality. The way color is handled, the latency of pixel illumination, motion artifacts and the effects of the algorithms that fit the image data to the native resolution of the display (and more importantly the SOURCE) all play a part in a qualitative assessment of the image. It‘s safe to say, however, that increasing resolution and image refresh rate alone are not enough to provide a startlingly better viewing experience in a typical flat panel or rear projection residential installation."

AM dropping the knowledge............

Huh? I own four HDTV's and three computer monitors and I can see a MASSIVE DIFFERENCE Between 1080p and 720p. Sit closer to the HDTV. This is old information, I feel like I've been transported to 2005 again. I can see a difference in my LCD, LED, CRTs, and especially my Plasma screens.

This is just trolling with ignorance and lulz but I'll play along one more time. My god, it's like Blu-Rays and HD-DVDs are about to release again.

1080p is better, lol.

Animal is saying that we can't tell a difference between 720p and 1080p, lol. The more pixels rendered, the better the image quality will be and there is no way around that fact. 1080p is only noticeable on a 1080p display (even then 1080p display's are not equal). If you are still utilizing a 720p display there is no visual discernment of course.

I know people buy cheaper HDTVs, cheaper equipment, sit at different distances, watch DVDs or low resolution content on their screens...but there is a HUGE difference. Here's a thread with knowledge dropping in SW right now. In fact, here's a video Kojima just put out regarding MGSV 720p vs. 1080p. Those videos for the last decade on movies and games show the difference of 1080p over 720p. It shows the bologna. I can't speak to what equipment Animal uses or what eye conditions he has, but I can say this is very, very obvious at my home. It's obvious online with research, and it's obvious if you go to a Best Buy and have them do a demonstration for you.

That information was verbatim from a very old article recited, misunderstood, and refuted multiple times in SW and AV forums worldwide when Joseph D. Cornwall wrote it WAY back in 2007: (Business Development Manager, Impact Acoustics) at audioholics over at http://www.audioholics.com/hdtv-formats/1080p-and-the-acuity-of-human-vision/understanding-1080p-resolution-in-displays.html

The article is saying to sit 8 feet away(!) and then generalizes based on Joe's understanding. Right there, he's telling you to move away. Don't move away then, lol. It's a sales-pitch I heard in BestBuy back in 2006 to try and sell me a 720p cheapy HDTV.

It was written during a time when there was a HUGE push for 720p and 1080i HDTVs over the 480i/p screens. 1080p consumer models were top of the mark, but not as abundant. In 2007, this article was a big deal and helped people buy/upgrade to those 480p CRTs and venture into the 720p realm for the first time. These days, everyone can afford 1080p, but it's not always necessary as I outlined above. Even then, not all 1080p screens are equal.

There are plenty of more modern articles written like this piece from 2013 (or the link I provided already):

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/720p-vs-1080p-can-you-tell-the-difference-between-hdtv-resolutions/

720p vs. 1080p: Can You Tell The Difference Between HDTV Resolutions?

Alright, fine, let's do some optics calculations (from Neogaf)

  • A 50" screen with a 16:9 aspect ratio is about 43.579 inches (1.112m) wide by 24.513 (0.623m) tall.
  • At 1920x1080, the pixels would be 0.0227 inches (0.579mm) wide and tall. At 1280x720, they're 0.034 inches. (0.864mm)
  • The typical resolution for a human eye with 20/20 vision is about 2 arcminutes per line pair.
  • This means a feature is no longer resolvable when it's 10,801 times further away from the eye than it is tall/wide. (2 arcminutes / 360 degrees = 10801.08)
  • On a 50" display with a 1080p resolution, individual pixels can no longer be resolved if the viewer is 20.432 feet (6.228m) away from the screen. For the same display at 720p, it's 30.603 feet (9.328m).

#122 Posted by CrownKingArthur (4448 posts) -

i don't care about what scrub human physiology can detect anyway.

crownkingarthur physiology supports discerning between 59, and 60 fps. as well as detecting the difference between 2160p and 2159p at 800 yards on a 24 inch 4K monitor.

humans, lol. your visual acuity can't even surpass that of many birds cohabiting on your planet. imagine saying to one of these birds 'we humans can't tell the difference between 720p, and 1080p'. what would a bird say in response?

this:

#123 Edited by Gargus (2147 posts) -

You kind of need to give a concrete example of this in gaming :)

Nah. He can just convince himself of whatever he wants and then try to pass it off as proven fact when in reality its just an opinion. An incorrect opinion at that.