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

[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.

[QUOTE="oldkingallant"][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)

ehussein1379

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="ehussein1379"]

[QUOTE="oldkingallant"] 55" 10 feet away looks 5 times better than 30" 2 feet away. You can argue all you want but the illusion of improved resolution by moving back is linear. If you're twice as far away, it looks like twice the resolution. 1080p at 5 feet away looks like 2160p at 10 feet away. What's the harm in stepping away to make it look better, in the end it looks the same as a smaller monitor. All a smaller monitor does is allow you to get closer, a bigger monitor does the opposite. Both serve their purpose, there's no real way to say one's better than the other. For the record the PC is my main platform these days, and the fact remains that many console games don't even run at 720p.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.

If you are twice as far you see less detail. My point stands. Adding distance is a 'hack job' solution for better graphics.

Kinda like squinting.

[QUOTE="oldkingallant"][QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

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.

ehussein1379

If you are twice as far you see less detail. My point stands. Adding distance is a 'hack job' solution for better graphics.

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

[QUOTE="oldkingallant"] Not a fair comparison, ME2 on the PC looks better than ME2 on consoles to start with, regardless of resolution or distance. Now if you look at the exact same game running on a 48" monitor vs. a 24" monitor at the same resolution, the 48" monitor looks the exact same as the 24" does if you're twice as far.oldkingallant

If you are twice as far you see less detail. My point stands. Adding distance is a 'hack job' solution for better graphics.

OK, PC version from 10' away vs 2' away.

You will *perceive* more detail in the 2' away screen. Right?

So, in conclusion, if you want more detail have a higher resolution and sit closer. If you want to *perceive* less detail use a lower resolution and move back.

I'll be back to debate this more later, this is actually an interesting topic. It may essentially be nothing but PC vs. console trolling but it's actually an interesting debate when you get things like immersion involved. My argument in support of being able to sit up closer is you see less around the monitor and are therefore more immersed in the game. However sitting further back is arguably more comfortable... so there are different sides to it.

[QUOTE="IronBass"]Most console games aren't even 1080p. Which is perfectly fine, since games are looking great.Ravensmash

lol are there even tvs that do 1600 p? ya i didnt think so and if there is its probably the most expensive thing to come out since mercedes haha

[QUOTE="dxmcat"]

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)

oldkingallant

[QUOTE="oldkingallant"][QUOTE="dxmcat"]

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)

Cranler

Only if you don't have the monitor large enough. Take a 24inch monitor and compare Mass Effect 2 at 1080p and 1600p, you will likely not notice a difference; but if you take say a 55inch monitor and compare Mass Effect 3 at 1080p and 1600p you will notice a difference.

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="oldkingallant"] I think I agree with what you're saying. The only reason you'd want 1600p is to watch up close on a big screen. If 1600p is available on monitors and only 1080p is allowed on TVs, all you have to do is sit back further while watching the TV because frankly 1600 vs. 1080 on a monitor hardly looks different unless you zoom in (like TC did in the OP) and as I said backing up to the point where a 48" TV looks like the same size as a 24" produces the exact same effect.DarkGamer007

Only if you don't have the monitor large enough. Take a 24inch monitor and compare Mass Effect 2 at 1080p and 1600p, you will likely not notice a difference; but if you take say a 55inch monitor and compare Mass Effect 3 at 1080p and 1600p you will notice a difference.

my last crt monitor before going lcd had a max res of 2048x1536 and that res showed a notocable improvement over 1600x1200 and that was only a 21"

[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]if 1600p hardly looks different than 1080p wouldnt the same be true comparing 1080p and 720p?

Cranler

Only if you don't have the monitor large enough. Take a 24inch monitor and compare Mass Effect 2 at 1080p and 1600p, you will likely not notice a difference; but if you take say a 55inch monitor and compare Mass Effect 3 at 1080p and 1600p you will notice a difference.

my last crt monitor before going lcd had a max res of 2048x1536 and that res showed a notocable improvement over 1600x1200 and that was only a 21"

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

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]

Only if you don't have the monitor large enough. Take a 24inch monitor and compare Mass Effect 2 at 1080p and 1600p, you will likely not notice a difference; but if you take say a 55inch monitor and compare Mass Effect 3 at 1080p and 1600p you will notice a difference.

Mozelleple112

my last crt monitor before going lcd had a max res of 2048x1536 and that res showed a notocable improvement over 1600x1200 and that was only a 21"

[QUOTE="clone01"]

[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.

kraken2109

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.

Edit...Here's actually a pretty good comparison of all three versions.

http://www.eurogamer.net/gallery.php?game_id=11594&article_id=1295556#anchor

The PC is certainly visually superior, but not nearly as exaggerated as the TC seems to think.

[QUOTE="oldkingallant"][QUOTE="dxmcat"]

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)

Cranler

[QUOTE="IronBass"]Most console games aren't even 1080p. Which is perfectly fine, since games are looking great.Mozelleple112

EDIT: Sorry, BARELY HD and has only 2x AA?

My 1080p monitor is good enough for me.

[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.Cranler

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[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.oldkingallant

you need some work on your reading comp.

1200p was becoming the standard until the manufacturers stopped making them. my monitor from 2009 was 1200,very hard to fiind 1200p now.

[QUOTE="oldkingallant"][QUOTE="Cranler"]not sure if serious

Cranler

you need some work on your reading comp.

1200p was becoming the standard until the manufacturers stopped making them. my monitor from 2009 was 1200,very hard to find.

Possibly the best argument I've seen on SW:

If you sit farther away, the graphics look better.

i.e. if you squint, it doesn't look THAT bad on console!

Possibly the best argument I've seen on SW:If you sit farther away, the graphics look betteri.e. if you squint, it doesn't look THAT bad on console!ehussein1379

PC games don't have a standard

Sorry but the only thing still standard are SDdvds and SDtvBroadcasting. HD 720p-1080p has not even caught on with the vast majority of the worlds population. SO outside of a few thousand people that actually care...whats it matter?

Sorry but the only thing still standard are SDdvds and SDtvBroadcasting. HD 720p-1080p has not even caught on with the vast majority of the worlds population. SO outside of a few thousand people that actually care...whats it matter?

VanDammFan

[QUOTE="VanDammFan"]

Sorry but the only thing still standard are SDdvds and SDtvBroadcasting. HD 720p-1080p has not even caught on with the vast majority of the worlds population. SO outside of a few thousand people that actually care...whats it matter?

Inconsistancy

... and those 'few thousand' are all in SW.

Ergo relevant.

1600p is a wonderous sight to behold. When the 720 gets Avatar graphics (lol) it will still look muddy because its 1080p stretched on a big TV.

Until TVs break the 1080p barrier consoles will always look lackluster, in my opinion.

PS: remember when the PS2 'creators' said it would look like Toy Story?

[QUOTE="oldkingallant"][QUOTE="Cranler"]not sure if serious

Cranler

you need some work on your reading comp.

1200p was becoming the standard until the manufacturers stopped making them. my monitor from 2009 was 1200,very hard to fiind 1200p now.

Most console games aren't even 1080p. Which is perfectly fine, since games are looking great.IronBass

Depends who you ask. I can't even look at consoles technically without disgust. But I'm find with playing games from the 90s, so im no graphics whore. Just saying, they are far, far,far,far from great.

no 720p is the standard for all gameing at the moment, even PCs only enthusiasts really can have decent playable games past that, id says its close to 50/50 with 720 and 1080 on the PC. But it will stay that way just because Hardware is being scaled down for mobility and most people buy pcs around mobility now as well. I think PCs are going to end up sticking with 720/1080 as a standard target render, especially most screens are 720 to 180 unless you buy the expensive onessavagetwinkie

You're joking right? 720p is a low resolution. That's FAR from the standard pc resolution. It is a HUGE downgrade from 1080p. 1080p is basicly the minimum on PCs nowadays.

My computer from 2009 which was nothing special, handles 1080p with ease.

Hopefully 1600p picks up soon. Would love to have a monitor that puts it out.

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="oldkingallant"] Why not? They have a legitimate point. If you're using a TV you just sit further back, not 6" away. With a monitor you sit up close and get a similar effect. The truth is PC graphics are better than those on consoles so inevitably looking at a PC game on a monitor looks better than a console game on a TV, but the exact same game displayed on a 48" vs. a 24" looks exactly the same if you sit twice as far back from the 48". The argument that you see more detail is utter BS with no scientific backing. If each image contains the same number of pixels at different sizes, the amount of detail is exactly the same, Yes there's more detail at 1600p, but as I said it's detail which is hardly distinguishable to the human eye and is just a waste of power. Not to mention that at this point in time 1600p is far from being the PC standard, which is still 1080p. Not even 1200 is going to be the standard for at least a year or two.ehussein1379

you need some work on your reading comp.

1200p was becoming the standard until the manufacturers stopped making them. my monitor from 2009 was 1200,very hard to find.

Possibly the best argument I've seen on SW:

If you sit farther away, the graphics look better.

i.e. if you squint, it doesn't look THAT bad on console!

... and those 'few thousand' are all in SW.

Ergo relevant.

1600p is a wonderous sight to behold. When the 720 gets Avatar graphics (lol) it will still look muddy because its 1080p stretched on a big TV.

Until TVs break the 1080p barrier consoles will always look lackluster, in my opinion.

PS: remember when the PS2 'creators' said it would look like Toy Story?

ehussein1379

lol are there even tvs that do 1600 p? ya i didnt think so and if there is its probably the most expensive thing to come out since mercedes haha

mariokart64fan

2560x1600 monitors are exist from 2005.

and even fewer games have a 1600p setting.oldkingallant

simply every game have 2560x1600 setting even the old ones.

1080p is tooooo small a resolution.

Try using a computer for programming/photoshop etc. effectively at 1080p, its an abomination of crunched screen.

1600p is like being released from prison.

Same with gaming, 1600p has such higher quality visuals its insane. (not to mention in true resolution vs the consoles upscaled graphics)

This guy knows whats up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul7J9tvpM3E

2560 x 1600 monitors easily cost over $1000.

2560 x 1600 monitors easily cost over $1000.

dxmcat

HPZR30W - plastic wrapped heaven

Cost of entry: $950 - buy.com sale

The television industry and consumers Justmade the switch to 720p/1080i-p over the last few years, and there's still quite a bit of programming making the switch. Believe me, you aren't going to see the industry move beyond 1080p for a LONG time. You may find someone willing to make higher resoution sets, but there's going to be a dearth of content for them. Frankly, I don't think something as mainstream as consoles needs to cater to such a niche market.

Not that it matters. 1080p is plenty crisp enough to display jaw dropping graphical details. As TC hilariously showed, displaying at 1600p won't make a bad game look any better. :roll:

The Jump from SD to HD (1080p) is around 6-7x the total pixel count.

The jump from 1080 to 1600 is roughly 2x the pixel count. Yea of course it looks amazing on a 30", but how bout a 60" ?

The jump from 1080 to 4KHD (or whatever it is) is roughly 4-5x the 1080p pixel count.

Imo, the "4KHD" is a much better improvement and more noteworthy.1600p is old stuff :P

increasin the resolution more than todays 1080p its pointless just look a game with FSAA x8 at 720p and a game with no FSAA at all at 1080p witch looks better

[QUOTE="IronBass"]Most console games aren't even 1080p. Which is perfectly fine, since games are looking great.Ravensmash

720p will always be the console standard.KHAndAnime

increasin the resolution more than todays 1080p its pointless just look a game with FSAA x8 at 720p and a game with no FSAA at all at 1080p witch looks better

pagio12000

Here is a comparison of Mirrors edge 1080p 0xAA vs 720p 8xAA upscaled to 1080p:

720p 8xAA

Here is 1080p 0xAA