'1600p' - The New Standard? Consoles: Stuck with 1080p?

Maybe the screens don't look good to everyone because they aren't viewing them on a 1600p monitor?PurpleMan5000

Yeah, they are seeing a tiny chunk of what it is. Not to mention its a steam screenshot, so you lose a LOT of fidelity.

Console resolution comparison.

ehussein1379

Hmmm, that's funny. You use a full-size pc image, yet cherry pick a jpeg with obvious compression that can't even be expanded for the console comparison. There was a user here that got banned named Haberman13. He even had the same avatar as you. He used to manipulate stuff like that all the time, too.

Just because it offers it doesn't mean that developers will make good use of it on the games that you're trying to tell us we should be playing on PC.

Except consoles don't need to have higher resolutions than 1080p.

Sitting at the optimal distance, 1080p on a TV is amazingly crisp. We won't need higher resolutions than that for a long time.

theuncharted34

Can you tell the difference between a 720p and 1080p TV?

I can.

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

Console resolution comparison.

clone01

Hmmm, that's funny. You use a full-size pc image, yet cherry pick a jpeg with obvious compression that can't even be expanded for the console comparison. There was a user here that got banned named Haberman13. He even had the same avatar as you. He used to manipulate stuff like that all the time, too.

I don't know who you are referring to, but that is a screenshot I found googling "console fallout new vegas".

Looks legit to me, having seen the game on PS3.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

Except consoles don't need to have higher resolutions than 1080p.

Sitting at the optimal distance, 1080p on a TV is amazingly crisp. We won't need higher resolutions than that for a long time.

ehussein1379

Can you tell the difference between a 720p and 1080p TV?

I can.

Did I even mention 720p?

Which BTW, is also pretty crisp at the optimal distance.

Also, in regards to resolution, TV has "held back" resolution for a LONG TIME. You don's think that standard definition was the highest res a TV could get back in the 80s-90s do you? TVs are a mass market product and to keep them affordable for most people with high quality it is generally produced at widely acceptable resolution rates. It makes no sense to have a 1600p TV if no tv stations or movies will display the res.

TV maufacturers are thinking about ALOT more than just what resolution can be used to shut people up in SW.

I don't know who you are referring to, but that is a screenshot I found googling "console fallout new vegas".

Looks legit to me, having seen the game on PS3.

ehussein1379

I have a sneaking suspicion you do...on topic, here's a 360 image that wasn't cherry picked to look atrocious: http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/14341976/fallout-new-vegas/images/fallout-new-vegas-20100813104759246.html

Does PC offer higher resolution? Of course. But at least try to be somewhat objective about your comparisons.

[QUOTE="IronBass"]luckily the new gen isn't coming anytime soon.Remmib

Luckily?

Only a console gamer would be happy about the fact that gaming isn't advancing, for whatever stupid reason they may have come up with.

Im buying a computer in total costing £750 in the upcoming months, i'd be rather annoyed if a new gen came around soon after that.

[QUOTE="Remmib"]

[QUOTE="IronBass"]luckily the new gen isn't coming anytime soon.firefluff3

Luckily?

Only a console gamer would be happy about the fact that gaming isn't advancing, for whatever stupid reason they may have come up with.

Im buying a computer in total costing £750 in the upcoming months, i'd be rather annoyed if a new gen came around soon after that.

Console gamers have almost roundly said "NO" to a new generation. Sony/MS are listening and will either release a slightly upgraded version (WiiU level), or just let this generation go for another ~2 years.

Either way, I wouldn't worry about it; and would rather be on PC than 'new' consoles anyway. Your new PC will dominate the WiiU, so it would likely dominate the new gen Sony/MS as well.

[QUOTE="clone01"]

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

Console resolution comparison.

ehussein1379

Hmmm, that's funny. You use a full-size pc image, yet cherry pick a jpeg with obvious compression that can't even be expanded for the console comparison. There was a user here that got banned named Haberman13. He even had the same avatar as you. He used to manipulate stuff like that all the time, too.

I don't know who you are referring to, but that is a screenshot I found googling "console fallout new vegas".

Looks legit to me, having seen the game on PS3.

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

Console resolution comparison.

clone01

Hmmm, that's funny. You use a full-size pc image, yet cherry pick a jpeg with obvious compression that can't even be expanded for the console comparison. There was a user here that got banned named Haberman13. He even had the same avatar as you. He used to manipulate stuff like that all the time, too.

Ah, that was his name! :P

Lol who cares about crappy WRPGS and shooters everybody knows they are much better on PCs

We console gamers enjoy JRPGS and hack and slash games which are usually console exclusives

Even my gtx580 would struggle at 1600p, mainly due to lack of video memory. An AMD card on the other hand would struggle not due to lack of vram, but due to lack of horsepower for that high res. And these are the most high end single gpus money can get. I would totally delve into 1600p or even higher, 3ple monitor, if I had the cash to dough out for 3gb 580s SLI. Not to mention monitor prices.

[QUOTE="clone01"]

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

Console resolution comparison.

SkyWard20

Hmmm, that's funny. You use a full-size pc image, yet cherry pick a jpeg with obvious compression that can't even be expanded for the console comparison. There was a user here that got banned named Haberman13. He even had the same avatar as you. He used to manipulate stuff like that all the time, too.

Ah, that was his name! :P

I don't know who that is. Sorry for the bad resolution, that should be at least 1.5 times what it is.

Regardless, its a bit like that picture of Jupiter being filled by Earth.

Even my gtx580 would struggle at 1600p, mainly due to lack of video memory. An AMD card on the other hand would struggle not due to lack of vram, but due to lack of horsepower for that high res. And these are the most high end single gpus money can get. I would totally delve into 1600p or even higher, 3ple monitor, if I had the cash to dough out for 3gb 580s SLI. Not to mention monitor prices.

QQabitmoar

I'm running the Witcher 2 at that resolution. No ubersampling, and shadows at medium, but everything else maxed.

Runs flawlessly.

Inspect UC2 up close, the graphics are pretty bad. Fuzzy, aliased mess. Low res textures, tons of pop-in, etc.ehussein1379

[QUOTE="QQabitmoar"]

Even my gtx580 would struggle at 1600p, mainly due to lack of video memory. An AMD card on the other hand would struggle not due to lack of vram, but due to lack of horsepower for that high res. And these are the most high end single gpus money can get. I would totally delve into 1600p or even higher, 3ple monitor, if I had the cash to dough out for 3gb 580s SLI. Not to mention monitor prices.

ehussein1379

I'm running the Witcher 2 at that resolution. No ubersampling, and shadows at medium, but everything else maxed.

Runs flawlessly.

Try Crysis 2 with DX11 or the original Crysis modded. Or metro 2033. Good thing about that res though is that you don't need that much AA because of the res.

1600P won't be a new standard even for PC gaming until the monitors that allow for such resolution are cheaper. That cheapest monitors I saw that had that resolution were around 1000USD......way too much compared to a 200-300USD 1920x1200 monitor.RyviusARC

Console resolution comparison.

ehussein1379

Looks better, 'caues the game's so damn ugly... I don't see why you're posting such ugly games to show off resolution, also, that's just a bit over half the resolution of consoles.

Inconsistancy

Yes. And the TC went out of his way to pick a lo-res, terrible screen grab.

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]I don't know who you are referring to, but that is a screenshot I found googling "console fallout new vegas".

Looks legit to me, having seen the game on PS3.

clone01

I have a sneaking suspicion you do...on topic, here's a 360 image that wasn't cherry picked to look atrocious: http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/14341976/fallout-new-vegas/images/fallout-new-vegas-20100813104759246.html

Does PC offer higher resolution? Of course. But at least try to be somewhat objective about your comparisons.

you must have never played a multiplat on pc with 1080p or higher. you wouldnt be arguing if you had

Cranler

Did you see the original Pic that the TC attempted to pass off as true console resolution? You wouldn't be arguing with me if you had. And did you miss the part of my post that said "Does PC offer higher resolution? Of course." Perhaps you shouldn't just assume things.

When I first started gaming it was at 1024x760 as the standard (320x160 for consoles of the time)

Now 10 years later I'm at 2560x1600, and am seeing more and more screenshots with that resolution.

ehussein1379

who are you kidding? 10 years ago consoles do 320x160? 10 years ago = 2001 = PS2. PS2 =640 x 448 interlaced. heck, GT4 can even run at 1080i. also, God Of War ran at 480 progressive.

also note that PS3 came out 2006. even if we saw UC2, KZ2 on 2009 and GOW3 on 2010, the PS3's from 2006 can natively run those games. if Sony came out in 2006 and showed GoW3 or UC3 running in real-time, people would've thought it was witchcraft back then. but now we're not surprised, simply because during that timespan, technology advanced. but at the same time, the PS3 did not really upgrade or anything.

[QUOTE="Remmib"]Lettuce beef cereal, most console games look like crap.IronBass

Console games look fine if you dont compare them with pc games.

Resolution is not everything, the game you posted at 1600p looks far less graphically appealing than this game which runs at 480i or this game.

tvs are only 1080p why would they make a console that only runs on monitors thats lame

[QUOTE="Cranler"]you must have never played a multiplat on pc with 1080p or higher. you wouldnt be arguing if you had

clone01

Did you see the original Pic that the TC attempted to pass off as true console resolution? You wouldn't be arguing with me if you had. And did you miss the part of my post that said "Does PC offer higher resolution? Of course." Perhaps you shouldn't just assume things.

1600p won't be the standard for a long time, not even for PC gaming. My monitor is 1080p and even from very close with my glasses on it looks great. Resolution is overrated, once you're at 1080p anything beyond that is mostly pointless.oldkingallant

Unless you want a larger screen; then to maintain the fidelity you need to increase the resolution.

Otherwise you end up like the consoles: stretching 1920x1080 over 55" lol.

Resolution is key. A 30" at '1080' would look terrible.

Trust me on this: seeing a game on a 30" monitor is a revelation.

theirs a bigger difference between console and pc than the pics he posted

Cranler

No, there is less. He posted a pic that was NOT actual console resolution. Its a compressed image designed to fit on the web.

[QUOTE="Cranler"]theirs a bigger difference between console and pc than the pics he posted

clone01

No, there is less. He posted a pic that was NOT actual console resolution. Its a compressed image designed to fit on the web.

Which to be fair: so were my pics. Steam strips out the glory to save space.

Fact is a higher resolution is key to increasing fidelity. The console pic I posted is 1/2 the size it should have been, my apologies.

[QUOTE="oldkingallant"]1600p won't be the standard for a long time, not even for PC gaming. My monitor is 1080p and even from very close with my glasses on it looks great. Resolution is overrated, once you're at 1080p anything beyond that is mostly pointless.ehussein1379

Unless you want a larger screen; then to maintain the fidelity you need to increase the resolution.

Otherwise you end up like the consoles: stretching 1920x1080 over 55" lol.

Resolution is key. A 30" at '1080' would look terrible.

Obviously a game @ 1080p on my 22" monitor is going to look better than my 46" TV. DUH.

I want a 60" TV (or monitor) that does twice that. I could care less for 2560x1600 on a 30" monitor. I don't play with a microscope or glasses, so if I'm going bigger res, I want a bigger screen. (No, I don't need a 150", haha)

Point is: 1080p stretched out looks really bad larger than 22"

Move back all you want, the image is still terrible, only your eyes can't detect how bad it is (unless you accidentally move closer than ~5 ft.)

I personally value technological advancement and high fidelity for sound/video. Maybe I'm a lone wolf in that department.

1600p > 1080p by a wide margin.

30" ~2 ft away > 55" 10 ft away (to hide the poor quality)

Obviously a game @ 1080p on my 22" monitor is going to look better than my 46" TV. DUH.

I want a 60" TV (or monitor) that does twice that. I could care less for 2560x1600 on a 30" monitor. I don't play with a microscope or glasses, so if I'm going bigger res, I want a bigger screen. (No, I don't need a 150", haha)

dxmcat

[QUOTE="oldkingallant"]1600p won't be the standard for a long time, not even for PC gaming. My monitor is 1080p and even from very close with my glasses on it looks great. Resolution is overrated, once you're at 1080p anything beyond that is mostly pointless.ehussein1379

Unless you want a larger screen; then to maintain the fidelity you need to increase the resolution.

Otherwise you end up like the consoles: stretching 1920x1080 over 55" lol.

Resolution is key. A 30" at '1080' would look terrible.

Trust me on this: seeing a game on a 30" monitor is a revelation.

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

[QUOTE="oldkingallant"]1600p won't be the standard for a long time, not even for PC gaming. My monitor is 1080p and even from very close with my glasses on it looks great. Resolution is overrated, once you're at 1080p anything beyond that is mostly pointless.Inconsistancy

Unless you want a larger screen; then to maintain the fidelity you need to increase the resolution.

Otherwise you end up like the consoles: stretching 1920x1080 over 55" lol.

Resolution is key. A 30" at '1080' would look terrible.

Trust me on this: seeing a game on a 30" monitor is a revelation.

"Plenty fine" - for you.

There are plenty of people on this board who are fine with letting technology simply stop advancing. Maybe you fall into that category?

Why would I want to look at a game up closer than normal? Who cares if a console game looks crappy when I'm 6 inches away. I NEVER play 6 inches away. You only buy a 55 inch screen if you have a big room, anyway. I sit about five feet away from my screen when I game, and that's considered close to the TV. The PS3 looks as good as any PC game from that distance.hoogiewumpus

I can sit outside of my house to watch an SD Star Trek - because "it looks good as HD from that distance".

Point is: 1080p stretched out looks really bad larger than 22"

Move back all you want, the image is still terrible, only your eyes can't detect how bad it is (unless you accidentally move closer than ~5 ft.)

I personally value technological advancement and high fidelity for sound/video. Maybe I'm a lone wolf in that department.

1600p > 1080p by a wide margin.

30" ~2 ft away > 55" 10 ft away (to hide the poor quality)

ehussein1379

[QUOTE="hoogiewumpus"]Why would I want to look at a game up closer than normal? Who cares if a console game looks crappy when I'm 6 inches away. I NEVER play 6 inches away. You only buy a 55 inch screen if you have a big room, anyway. I sit about five feet away from my screen when I game, and that's considered close to the TV. The PS3 looks as good as any PC game from that distance.ehussein1379

I can sit outside of my house to watch an SD Star Trek - because "it looks good as HD from that distance".

[QUOTE="hoogiewumpus"][QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

I can sit outside of my house to watch an SD Star Trek - because "it looks good as HD from that distance".

ehussein1379

Your point was that adding distance between you and the screen lets it "look as good as any PC game".

So, I'm suggesting the exact same thing you are.

Point is: 1080p stretched out looks really bad larger than 22"

Move back all you want, the image is still terrible, only your eyes can't detect how bad it is (unless you accidentally move closer than ~5 ft.)

I personally value technological advancement and high fidelity for sound/video. Maybe I'm a lone wolf in that department.

1600p > 1080p by a wide margin.

30" ~2 ft away > 55" 10 ft away (to hide the poor quality)

ehussein1379

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

Point is: 1080p stretched out looks really bad larger than 22"

Move back all you want, the image is still terrible, only your eyes can't detect how bad it is (unless you accidentally move closer than ~5 ft.)

I personally value technological advancement and high fidelity for sound/video. Maybe I'm a lone wolf in that department.

1600p > 1080p by a wide margin.

30" ~2 ft away > 55" 10 ft away (to hide the poor quality)

oldkingallant

One word: detail

Look at ME2 on console from 10' away. Then look at it 2' away at 1600p. Different game, one is detailed and full featured graphically; the other is a mess of low resolution and muddy objects.

[QUOTE="hoogiewumpus"][QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

I can sit outside of my house to watch an SD Star Trek - because "it looks good as HD from that distance".

ehussein1379

Your point was that adding distance between you and the screen lets it "look as good as any PC game".

So, I'm suggesting the exact same thing you are.