If you are a console gamer, does 1080P really matter?

  • 109 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Chutebox
#51 Edited by Chutebox (43474 posts) -

Um, hell yes it matters.

Avatar image for kellykelly
#52 Posted by KellyKelly (386 posts) -

Wow the damage control if off the charts

Avatar image for Cranler
#53 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

Sitting far away is fine for watching tv but playing games is a whole different story. I hate playing anymore than 4 ft away from my 46" when playing console games.

Sitting 8-10 ft away kills immersion and is a disadvantage in mp.

Avatar image for Tqricardinho
#55 Posted by Tqricardinho (477 posts) -

Yes it does.

Avatar image for Krelian-co
#56 Posted by Krelian-co (13274 posts) -

@lowe0 said:

@Krelian-co said:

@lowe0 said:

@Krelian-co said:

@lowe0 said:

@Krelian-co said:

@StormyJoe said:

@SexyJazzCat said:

After you've actually experienced 1080p, yes, it does matter.

Yes. I have a 60" Sharp Quattron TV. 1080p for my Blu-Ray player. However, I switched it to 720p, and I didn't see a difference when watching Avatar or Iron Man 2. At least, I didn't see a difference from sitting on my sofa.

You should read the links in the OT...

this is why i avoid explaining things in sw and instead i go for the you are an idiot reply.

The image is not the same, therefore it does not apply what you talk about, a 720p image is different than a 1080p, what you are talking about is what the eye can see when THE SAME object is at different distances, a 1080p image is quite different than a 720p because it has almost double the pixels on screen, each pixel has been processed by the pc/console giving a crisp image with better quality, so it will give a better image at every distance you are from the screen.

ANY MORE BS YOU WANT TO MAKE UP TO EXCUSE THAT IN 2020 YOU WILL BE STILL PLAYING AT 720P AND 30 FPS?

LOL... you have no idea what you're talking about, and it shows. Snellen charts are designed so that they're made up of the smallest discernible details at a fixed distance, not different distances as you just stated. I hate to go with the pithy "get your eyes checked" argument, but seriously, go get your eyes checked, so that while you're there, you can get a good look at that chart on the wall.

Or better yet, break out a spreadsheet and do the math yourself. Humans can resolve details that subtend one minute of arc. For the size and seating distance of your TV (for example, mine's a 55" at 10'), how many minutes of arc are subtended by a single 1080p pixel? Don't take my word for it, do the math.

your ignorance and bias is showing, the charts are made to measure the visual capacity someone has, it only half applies to this because you are ignoring the other half which is the fact that a 720p is already a blurred image compared to a 1080p, they are different images and one is already more crisp and clear than the other, anyway keep telling yourself that people cant see difference between 1080p and 720p if it helps you sleep at night, while we who according to you have eagle vision will play at 1080p and enjoy a crisp better quality.

By all means, please explain how the sub-minute details you're describing are going to be resolved by the eye.

Now, if I feel like it, I can see 1080p just fine. Know how? I go into the other room where my display is much closer to my eye, and then I can see individual pixels. Face it, seating distance absolutely matters. It's a hard-and-fast limit of our eyes. All the hemming and hawing you choose to do for the rest of this thread isn't changing the math.

(This is the part where someone usually suggests that we should move our couches closer to our TVs. That's great if you have a dedicated space for gaming, but for a shared living room, it's not gonna happen.)

keep telling yourself that champ, hope you sleep okay. It squite obvious that you cant see the differences between 1080p and 720p in a game (LOL) even though one has almost twice the visual fidelity than the other.

I love how all you can do is repeat yourself and hope the bad man with the numbers goes away.

numbers? what numbers, all i see is a failure who is making bs, saying the difference between 1080p and 720p isn't noticeable (that alone makes you a joke) and then proceed to use the snellen charts as "proof" when the snellen charts use a static image just at different distances (which i already explained why is wrong to use it in gaming quality)

so yeah lets use some numbers

1080p = 2.073.600 pixels

720p = 921.600 pixels

OBVIOUSLY having twice the number of pixels and visual fidelity is not noticeable, NOT AT ALL.

go to sleep, failure, enjoy your 720p

Avatar image for kellykelly
#57 Edited by KellyKelly (386 posts) -

This is a terrible attempt at trying to make the X1 look good lol
Why can't Lems just accept that they will have inferior looking games?

Avatar image for Krelian-co
#58 Edited by Krelian-co (13274 posts) -

@kellykelly said:

This is a terrible attempt at trying to make the X1 look good lol

Why can't Lems just accept that they will have inferior looking games?

i know it is so sad lems making so much bs when all you have to do is sit on a pc and soon on a glorious ps4 to see that 1080p does make a difference. Oh well, you know what they say about ignorance.

Avatar image for JamDev
#59 Posted by JamDev (992 posts) -

It does matter, how much depends on the size of your screen and how close you sit. It matters more on PC (assuming a desktop setup), when you are 2ft away from the screen anything less than 1080p looks pretty ugly.

Not sure how noticeable the difference will be between upscaled 900p and full 1080p at a standard TV viewing distance, but I suspect that a lot of devs will be happy with that compromise if it means they can do a little more on screen.

There will always be an element of compromise on fixed hardware, some devs will prioritize detail and effects over frame rate and IQ, same would be true even if the next gen consoles were packing Titan level graphics hardware.

Avatar image for SpiderLuke
#60 Edited by SpiderLuke (718 posts) -

No

Avatar image for lowe0
#61 Posted by lowe0 (13692 posts) -

@Krelian-co said:

@lowe0 said:

@Krelian-co said:

@lowe0 said:

@Krelian-co said:

@lowe0 said:

@Krelian-co said:

@StormyJoe said:

@SexyJazzCat said:

After you've actually experienced 1080p, yes, it does matter.

Yes. I have a 60" Sharp Quattron TV. 1080p for my Blu-Ray player. However, I switched it to 720p, and I didn't see a difference when watching Avatar or Iron Man 2. At least, I didn't see a difference from sitting on my sofa.

You should read the links in the OT...

this is why i avoid explaining things in sw and instead i go for the you are an idiot reply.

The image is not the same, therefore it does not apply what you talk about, a 720p image is different than a 1080p, what you are talking about is what the eye can see when THE SAME object is at different distances, a 1080p image is quite different than a 720p because it has almost double the pixels on screen, each pixel has been processed by the pc/console giving a crisp image with better quality, so it will give a better image at every distance you are from the screen.

ANY MORE BS YOU WANT TO MAKE UP TO EXCUSE THAT IN 2020 YOU WILL BE STILL PLAYING AT 720P AND 30 FPS?

LOL... you have no idea what you're talking about, and it shows. Snellen charts are designed so that they're made up of the smallest discernible details at a fixed distance, not different distances as you just stated. I hate to go with the pithy "get your eyes checked" argument, but seriously, go get your eyes checked, so that while you're there, you can get a good look at that chart on the wall.

Or better yet, break out a spreadsheet and do the math yourself. Humans can resolve details that subtend one minute of arc. For the size and seating distance of your TV (for example, mine's a 55" at 10'), how many minutes of arc are subtended by a single 1080p pixel? Don't take my word for it, do the math.

your ignorance and bias is showing, the charts are made to measure the visual capacity someone has, it only half applies to this because you are ignoring the other half which is the fact that a 720p is already a blurred image compared to a 1080p, they are different images and one is already more crisp and clear than the other, anyway keep telling yourself that people cant see difference between 1080p and 720p if it helps you sleep at night, while we who according to you have eagle vision will play at 1080p and enjoy a crisp better quality.

By all means, please explain how the sub-minute details you're describing are going to be resolved by the eye.

Now, if I feel like it, I can see 1080p just fine. Know how? I go into the other room where my display is much closer to my eye, and then I can see individual pixels. Face it, seating distance absolutely matters. It's a hard-and-fast limit of our eyes. All the hemming and hawing you choose to do for the rest of this thread isn't changing the math.

(This is the part where someone usually suggests that we should move our couches closer to our TVs. That's great if you have a dedicated space for gaming, but for a shared living room, it's not gonna happen.)

keep telling yourself that champ, hope you sleep okay. It squite obvious that you cant see the differences between 1080p and 720p in a game (LOL) even though one has almost twice the visual fidelity than the other.

I love how all you can do is repeat yourself and hope the bad man with the numbers goes away.

numbers? what numbers, all i see is a failure who is making bs, saying the difference between 1080p and 720p isn't noticeable (that alone makes you a joke) and then proceed to use the snellen charts as "proof" when the snellen charts use a static image just at different distances (which i already explained why is wrong to use it in gaming quality)

so yeah lets use some numbers

1080p = 2.073.600 pixels

720p = 921.600 pixels

OBVIOUSLY having twice the number of pixels and visual fidelity is not noticeable, NOT AT ALL.

go to sleep, failure, enjoy your 720p

LOL. Please explain how a Snellen chart involves, direct quote here, "different distances". It's a flat piece of cardboard! Does the optometrist move the wall in between readings? The chair? No? So much for that hypothesis.

Avatar image for Krelian-co
#62 Posted by Krelian-co (13274 posts) -

@lowe0 said:

@Krelian-co said:

@lowe0 said:

@Krelian-co said:

@lowe0 said:

@Krelian-co said:

@lowe0 said:

@Krelian-co said:

@StormyJoe said:

@SexyJazzCat said:

After you've actually experienced 1080p, yes, it does matter.

Yes. I have a 60" Sharp Quattron TV. 1080p for my Blu-Ray player. However, I switched it to 720p, and I didn't see a difference when watching Avatar or Iron Man 2. At least, I didn't see a difference from sitting on my sofa.

You should read the links in the OT...

this is why i avoid explaining things in sw and instead i go for the you are an idiot reply.

The image is not the same, therefore it does not apply what you talk about, a 720p image is different than a 1080p, what you are talking about is what the eye can see when THE SAME object is at different distances, a 1080p image is quite different than a 720p because it has almost double the pixels on screen, each pixel has been processed by the pc/console giving a crisp image with better quality, so it will give a better image at every distance you are from the screen.

ANY MORE BS YOU WANT TO MAKE UP TO EXCUSE THAT IN 2020 YOU WILL BE STILL PLAYING AT 720P AND 30 FPS?

LOL... you have no idea what you're talking about, and it shows. Snellen charts are designed so that they're made up of the smallest discernible details at a fixed distance, not different distances as you just stated. I hate to go with the pithy "get your eyes checked" argument, but seriously, go get your eyes checked, so that while you're there, you can get a good look at that chart on the wall.

Or better yet, break out a spreadsheet and do the math yourself. Humans can resolve details that subtend one minute of arc. For the size and seating distance of your TV (for example, mine's a 55" at 10'), how many minutes of arc are subtended by a single 1080p pixel? Don't take my word for it, do the math.

your ignorance and bias is showing, the charts are made to measure the visual capacity someone has, it only half applies to this because you are ignoring the other half which is the fact that a 720p is already a blurred image compared to a 1080p, they are different images and one is already more crisp and clear than the other, anyway keep telling yourself that people cant see difference between 1080p and 720p if it helps you sleep at night, while we who according to you have eagle vision will play at 1080p and enjoy a crisp better quality.

By all means, please explain how the sub-minute details you're describing are going to be resolved by the eye.

Now, if I feel like it, I can see 1080p just fine. Know how? I go into the other room where my display is much closer to my eye, and then I can see individual pixels. Face it, seating distance absolutely matters. It's a hard-and-fast limit of our eyes. All the hemming and hawing you choose to do for the rest of this thread isn't changing the math.

(This is the part where someone usually suggests that we should move our couches closer to our TVs. That's great if you have a dedicated space for gaming, but for a shared living room, it's not gonna happen.)

keep telling yourself that champ, hope you sleep okay. It squite obvious that you cant see the differences between 1080p and 720p in a game (LOL) even though one has almost twice the visual fidelity than the other.

I love how all you can do is repeat yourself and hope the bad man with the numbers goes away.

numbers? what numbers, all i see is a failure who is making bs, saying the difference between 1080p and 720p isn't noticeable (that alone makes you a joke) and then proceed to use the snellen charts as "proof" when the snellen charts use a static image just at different distances (which i already explained why is wrong to use it in gaming quality)

so yeah lets use some numbers

1080p = 2.073.600 pixels

720p = 921.600 pixels

OBVIOUSLY having twice the number of pixels and visual fidelity is not noticeable, NOT AT ALL.

go to sleep, failure, enjoy your 720p

LOL. Please explain how a Snellen chart involves, direct quote here, "different distances". It's a flat piece of cardboard! Does the optometrist move the wall in between readings? The chair? No? So much for that hypothesis.

grasping at straws son, keep telling yourself over double the pixels on screen dont matter. Yeah the snellen chart obviously take the hd resolutions and pixels of the image into an account, you are an idiot, keep playing 720p until 2025 and telling yourself 1080p is some myth like the boogie man.

Avatar image for lowe0
#63 Edited by lowe0 (13692 posts) -

This is hilarious. Seriously, you have absolutely no counter argument. It's a ton of fun to watch.

Anyway, I take it you realized that the letters on a flat piece of cardboard actually aren't moving any farther away. They're just made up of progressively finer details. Y'know, like progressively smaller pixels.

Avatar image for tdkmillsy
#64 Posted by tdkmillsy (2745 posts) -

This argument has been going on for years in the TV market. I remember buying a 720p TV which had a far better picture than most 1080p's at the time. Yet everyone said 1080p had to be better. There have been resolution differences between both Sony and MS consoles in the last 2 generations usually with the Xbox being better. Yet now PS4 is better its so important.

The fact of the matter a lot of people will not notice the difference simply because their TV is not big enough or they are not sat close enough.

Wouldn't you rather a developer have more going and a decent frame rate than a higher resolution. If you believe the hype the standard resolution of Xbox One will be 900p up scaled to 1080p. If you took you fanboy hats off for a moment you would realise you will be hard pressed to tell the difference in the standard living room. Lower than PS4 yes, but by enough to really make any difference NO.

Avatar image for tagyhag
#65 Posted by tagyhag (15874 posts) -

If you've been content with mediocrity this last gen, you will still be content with mediocrity this new gen.

Until one sees the light, they have no qualm staying in the dark.

Avatar image for SKaREO
#66 Posted by SKaREO (3161 posts) -

I quit PC gaming because there's nothing fun to play on it. GTA 5 was enough reason to make the switch. I could care less about the graphics, it's all about the games.

Avatar image for musicalmac
#67 Posted by musicalmac (24897 posts) -

Truthfully I don't think I understand the question.

Avatar image for bezza2011
#68 Edited by bezza2011 (2729 posts) -

The fact is standard HDTV's are pretty much 1080p now the future is 4k/8k.

The last 6/7years we have been playing games at mostly 720p, in natural progression, I feel as tho the next step in consoles is to have 1080p 60fps as standard, which i honestly believe in the next 3years once dev's hae found short cuts and whatever we will be able to reach these heights, as if you take the early ps3/xbox360 games to what we have now that is a massive leap, i mean take saints row 2 as an example and then look at gta5 (only because it's the newest game out) the difference is incredible.

frame rate needs to be over 30fps, and it needs to be consistent throughout, next gen has to be, smooth, as this is the next step if we can't have that then why are we even going next gen, but i believe we'll see the true power in 3 years time.

and please stop with the silly pc remarks, if you had 1080p so long ago then you must of paid over the odd's to get a system powerful enough to do it, not a 399/499 console. to get 1080p at 60fps or more you'd of had to spent at least 1000. so come back when you have a system which matches what these consoles will be able to do, for the same money. i rest my case

Avatar image for APiranhaAteMyVa
#69 Edited by APiranhaAteMyVa (3914 posts) -

I haven't done any legit comparisons, so I really don't know. I would like to test with a bluray movie with 720p and 1080p versions on one disc with a comparable bitrate/quality ratio for the respected resolution. I don't think that exist unfortunately. With that test two identical calibrated TVs side by side would be an excellent judge too, as then you can measure seating distance and everything.

I really don't know, people say iTunes and MP3 sites are awful because they are vastly inferior to CD. But when doing a blind ABX test switching between the two, bias is removed and surprisingly low bitrates can often be achieved without a person telling a difference.

I guess the real question isn't does 1080 matter as both consoles support 1080 and even 4k up to 24fps. The real question is does the hardware difference matter to games. That will be found out in the future, with the Wii it mattered as it missed out on most of the third party multiplats, will that be the same case with One. Highly doubtful, but will third parties make use of the hardware difference in a none DF need to count the pixels and zoom in 150% on a piece of carpet to tell the difference way? Who knows

Also kind of funny how the focus of PC gamers is 1080 and how they have been next gen for years, but they fail to address the lossy stereo audio and highly compressed video cutscenes PC games have. PS4/ONE 7.1 + Bluray movie bitrate quality cutscenes.

Avatar image for Cyberdot
#70 Posted by Cyberdot (3928 posts) -

1080p with anti-aliasing makes a huge difference compared with the resolution and the lack of AA in consoles.

The image quality is superb. Pleasing on the eye, so I'll take 1080p any day of my life.

Avatar image for clyde46
#71 Posted by clyde46 (49050 posts) -

Stop living in 2007 please.

Avatar image for blackace
#72 Posted by blackace (23576 posts) -

@StormyJoe said:

@Krelian-co said:

HAHAHAH

that early damage control

lems cant still get over the fact that they will be doing sub 1080p for the next 10 years when it has been a standard in pc for like 7-8 years already.

Enjoy still playing at 720 p in 2020 (disgusting) maybe 900p if you are lucky xD

Did you READ the links?

Of course he didn't read it. He's a bias trolling cow. They don't read any articles that will prove them wrong. lol!!

Avatar image for Krelian-co
#73 Edited by Krelian-co (13274 posts) -

@lowe0 said:

This is hilarious. Seriously, you have absolutely no counter argument. It's a ton of fun to watch.

Anyway, I take it you realized that the letters on a flat piece of cardboard actually aren't moving any farther away. They're just made up of progressively finer details. Y'know, like progressively smaller pixels.

quite funny actually to see you desperate to prove something everyone knows is not true (lol at saying there is no noticeable difference between 1080p and 720p you are a joke) and using a visual test exam with static images as "proof" hahaha, keep telling yourself that, enjoy that 720p and 30 fps untill 2025 xD

Avatar image for lowe0
#74 Posted by lowe0 (13692 posts) -

@Krelian-co said:

@lowe0 said:

This is hilarious. Seriously, you have absolutely no counter argument. It's a ton of fun to watch.

Anyway, I take it you realized that the letters on a flat piece of cardboard actually aren't moving any farther away. They're just made up of progressively finer details. Y'know, like progressively smaller pixels.

quite funny actually to see you desperate to prove something everyone knows is not true (lol at saying there is no noticeable difference between 1080p and 720p you are a joke) and using a visual test exam with static images as "proof" hahaha, keep telling yourself that, enjoy that 720p and 30 fps untill 2025 xD

Let's see... my argument is based on a principle that's been applied for a century and a half. Yours is based on... actually, near as I can tell, yours isn't based on anything at all.

Avatar image for wis3boi
#75 Posted by wis3boi (32507 posts) -

@lowe0 said:

@Krelian-co said:

@lowe0 said:

This is hilarious. Seriously, you have absolutely no counter argument. It's a ton of fun to watch.

Anyway, I take it you realized that the letters on a flat piece of cardboard actually aren't moving any farther away. They're just made up of progressively finer details. Y'know, like progressively smaller pixels.

quite funny actually to see you desperate to prove something everyone knows is not true (lol at saying there is no noticeable difference between 1080p and 720p you are a joke) and using a visual test exam with static images as "proof" hahaha, keep telling yourself that, enjoy that 720p and 30 fps untill 2025 xD

Let's see... my argument is based on a principle that's been applied for a century and a half. Yours is based on... actually, near as I can tell, yours isn't based on anything at all.

Stop apologizing for low standards and ancient technology

Avatar image for Gue1
#76 Edited by Gue1 (12171 posts) -

@tdkmillsy said:

This argument has been going on for years in the TV market. I remember buying a 720p TV which had a far better picture than most 1080p's at the time. Yet everyone said 1080p had to be better. There have been resolution differences between both Sony and MS consoles in the last 2 generations usually with the Xbox being better. Yet now PS4 is better its so important.

The fact of the matter a lot of people will not notice the difference simply because their TV is not big enough or they are not sat close enough.

Wouldn't you rather a developer have more going and a decent frame rate than a higher resolution. If you believe the hype the standard resolution of Xbox One will be 900p up scaled to 1080p. If you took you fanboy hats off for a moment you would realise you will be hard pressed to tell the difference in the standard living room. Lower than PS4 yes, but by enough to really make any difference NO.

right now I have a cheap Samsung 720p TV that looks much better than my old but more expensive 1080p Samsung just because of better contrast and less judder. Games look better, movies look better, when I connect my PC to it looks better too.

People argue so much about resolution while failing to realize that contrast is much more important! And not just the contrast but the image latency too. You might have an 8k TV/monitor but if it has lots of judder then that makes the resolution irrelevant. It's gonna hurt your eyes. And judder is random... You might buy a really expensive TV or a cheap one and either one of them might suffer from it more than the other. That's why choosing a TV these days is so hard compared to the CRT days.

Avatar image for Jankarcop
#77 Posted by Jankarcop (11056 posts) -

Another generation of PC looking way better!

Avatar image for killzowned24
#78 Edited by killzowned24 (7345 posts) -

@Gue1 said:

@tdkmillsy said:

This argument has been going on for years in the TV market. I remember buying a 720p TV which had a far better picture than most 1080p's at the time. Yet everyone said 1080p had to be better. There have been resolution differences between both Sony and MS consoles in the last 2 generations usually with the Xbox being better. Yet now PS4 is better its so important.

The fact of the matter a lot of people will not notice the difference simply because their TV is not big enough or they are not sat close enough.

Wouldn't you rather a developer have more going and a decent frame rate than a higher resolution. If you believe the hype the standard resolution of Xbox One will be 900p up scaled to 1080p. If you took you fanboy hats off for a moment you would realise you will be hard pressed to tell the difference in the standard living room. Lower than PS4 yes, but by enough to really make any difference NO.

right now I have a cheap Samsung 720p TV that looks much better than my old but more expensive 1080p Samsung just because of better contrast and less judder. Games look better, movies look better, when I connect my PC to it looks better too.

People argue so much about resolution while failing to realize that contrast is much more important! And not just the contrast but the image latency too. You might have an 8k TV/monitor but if it has lots of judder then that makes the resolution irrelevant. It's gonna hurt your eyes. And judder is random... You might buy a really expensive TV or a cheap one and either one of them might suffer from it more than the other. That's why choosing a TV these days is so hard compared to the CRT days.

People realize it,but it has nothing to do with the consoles.

Avatar image for Cherokee_Jack
#79 Edited by Cherokee_Jack (32198 posts) -

Who sits 10 feet away.

If I sit 8 feet away from my 42" TV and try to play a 720p game, I can't see shit on the UI. Not to mention it takes me out of the game because more of my vision is taken up by the surrounding room than the screen.

Avatar image for I_can_haz
#80 Posted by I_can_haz (6511 posts) -

Man, the lemming damage control is too damn high!

Avatar image for AmazonTreeBoa
#81 Edited by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

Yes it is very important to me. I am saving up soon to buy a nice 1080p TV.

Avatar image for Krelian-co
#82 Posted by Krelian-co (13274 posts) -

@lowe0 said:

@Krelian-co said:

@lowe0 said:

This is hilarious. Seriously, you have absolutely no counter argument. It's a ton of fun to watch.

Anyway, I take it you realized that the letters on a flat piece of cardboard actually aren't moving any farther away. They're just made up of progressively finer details. Y'know, like progressively smaller pixels.

quite funny actually to see you desperate to prove something everyone knows is not true (lol at saying there is no noticeable difference between 1080p and 720p you are a joke) and using a visual test exam with static images as "proof" hahaha, keep telling yourself that, enjoy that 720p and 30 fps untill 2025 xD

Let's see... my argument is based on a principle that's been applied for a century and a half. Yours is based on... actually, near as I can tell, yours isn't based on anything at all.

a principle that test the vision of a person based on large letters in a wall, totally aplicable to watching images on motion and in displays that have more than twice (YES TWICE) the pixel being processed on the screen.

Grasping as straws son, keep up that denial, hope you can sleep at night its obvious this hurts you.

Avatar image for lowe0
#83 Posted by lowe0 (13692 posts) -

@Krelian-co said:

@lowe0 said:

@Krelian-co said:

@lowe0 said:

This is hilarious. Seriously, you have absolutely no counter argument. It's a ton of fun to watch.

Anyway, I take it you realized that the letters on a flat piece of cardboard actually aren't moving any farther away. They're just made up of progressively finer details. Y'know, like progressively smaller pixels.

quite funny actually to see you desperate to prove something everyone knows is not true (lol at saying there is no noticeable difference between 1080p and 720p you are a joke) and using a visual test exam with static images as "proof" hahaha, keep telling yourself that, enjoy that 720p and 30 fps untill 2025 xD

Let's see... my argument is based on a principle that's been applied for a century and a half. Yours is based on... actually, near as I can tell, yours isn't based on anything at all.

a principle that test the vision of a person based on large letters in a wall, totally aplicable to watching images on motion and in displays that have more than twice (YES TWICE) the pixel being processed on the screen.

Grasping as straws son, keep up that denial, hope you can sleep at night its obvious this hurts you.

The letters are 5 arcminutes wide. That's large?

Avatar image for Krelian-co
#84 Posted by Krelian-co (13274 posts) -

@lowe0 said:

@Krelian-co said:

@lowe0 said:

@Krelian-co said:

@lowe0 said:

This is hilarious. Seriously, you have absolutely no counter argument. It's a ton of fun to watch.

Anyway, I take it you realized that the letters on a flat piece of cardboard actually aren't moving any farther away. They're just made up of progressively finer details. Y'know, like progressively smaller pixels.

quite funny actually to see you desperate to prove something everyone knows is not true (lol at saying there is no noticeable difference between 1080p and 720p you are a joke) and using a visual test exam with static images as "proof" hahaha, keep telling yourself that, enjoy that 720p and 30 fps untill 2025 xD

Let's see... my argument is based on a principle that's been applied for a century and a half. Yours is based on... actually, near as I can tell, yours isn't based on anything at all.

a principle that test the vision of a person based on large letters in a wall, totally aplicable to watching images on motion and in displays that have more than twice (YES TWICE) the pixel being processed on the screen.

Grasping as straws son, keep up that denial, hope you can sleep at night its obvious this hurts you.

The letters are 5 arcminutes wide. That's large?

i guess you have noithing else to say, bs debunked, idiot owned, thanks you very much people, i will keep doing my best to continue this community service of making idiots look like what they are.

Avatar image for lowe0
#85 Edited by lowe0 (13692 posts) -

@Krelian-co said:

@lowe0 said:

@Krelian-co said:

@lowe0 said:

@Krelian-co said:

@lowe0 said:

This is hilarious. Seriously, you have absolutely no counter argument. It's a ton of fun to watch.

Anyway, I take it you realized that the letters on a flat piece of cardboard actually aren't moving any farther away. They're just made up of progressively finer details. Y'know, like progressively smaller pixels.

quite funny actually to see you desperate to prove something everyone knows is not true (lol at saying there is no noticeable difference between 1080p and 720p you are a joke) and using a visual test exam with static images as "proof" hahaha, keep telling yourself that, enjoy that 720p and 30 fps untill 2025 xD

Let's see... my argument is based on a principle that's been applied for a century and a half. Yours is based on... actually, near as I can tell, yours isn't based on anything at all.

a principle that test the vision of a person based on large letters in a wall, totally aplicable to watching images on motion and in displays that have more than twice (YES TWICE) the pixel being processed on the screen.

Grasping as straws son, keep up that denial, hope you can sleep at night its obvious this hurts you.

The letters are 5 arcminutes wide. That's large?

i guess you have noithing else to say, bs debunked, idiot owned, thanks you very much people, i will keep doing my best to continue this community service of making idiots look like what they are.

No, really... you're saying 5 arcminutes (1/12 degrees of arc) is large?

Avatar image for EducatingU_PCMR
#86 Edited by EducatingU_PCMR (1568 posts) -

@Krelian-co said:

HAHAHAH

that early damage control

lems cant still get over the fact that they will be doing sub 1080p for the next 10 years when it has been a standard in pc for like 7-8 years already.

Enjoy still playing at 720 p in 2020 (disgusting) maybe 900p if you are lucky xD

Avatar image for StormyJoe
#87 Posted by StormyJoe (7611 posts) -

Nice to know the cows are being cows. None of the "hell yes it matters" people read either article, and just assumed this was a "defending XB1" thread for having some launch games sub 1080p -even though, there are PS4 games ALSO BELOW 1080p, but apparently cow brains cannot process that...

Avatar image for deactivated-57d773fff2ce4
#88 Edited by deactivated-57d773fff2ce4 (1670 posts) -

If you just want a show-off game like Killzone Shadow Fall... they can look impressive. But in the grand scheme of things addictive gameplay and stories still are much much higher on the list... not that games should fall behind that standard as resolution is only one aspect of the graphics. I can't stand those shiny graphics in Dragon Age and that's too bad.

Avatar image for soulitane
#89 Posted by soulitane (15087 posts) -

It's odd, because if you asked a lot of the people touting 1080p if it was needed a year or two ago, they'd answer it wasn't because of the distance that they sit from the TV. This is a fair point since the further back you sit, the lower the resolution you need (this fully depends on TV size though). However, it's odd since apparently 1080p is the be all and end all now and anything lower is blasphemy. My view is, that it isn't needed but I'd much rather that it was 1080p, though I doubt the vast majority of people will actually notice a difference depending on their set up.

Avatar image for raging_user
#90 Posted by raging_user (467 posts) -

the console is not my primary choice of play

but when im playing on a 40 inch display i want to get the most out of it

Avatar image for ZombieKiller7
#91 Posted by ZombieKiller7 (6365 posts) -

I find 720p less enjoyable but if the game is great then I don't mind.

The gold standard is 1080p @ 60fps

Avatar image for M8ingSeezun
#92 Posted by M8ingSeezun (2173 posts) -

Not really. I have a 42" Panasonic Viera Plasma at 720p, nothing particularly special. And I have my PS3 and PS2 plugged in. BR movies and Games look fine to me. Although a 1080p TV would obviously look better.

But overall, most of the games don't even output at a steady 720p 60fps, so my gaming experience hasn't really been hindered at all.

Even if I get a PS4 at some point next year, I'll very likely keep my trusty 720p Plasma.

Avatar image for glez13
#93 Posted by glez13 (9793 posts) -

@Krelian-co said:

numbers? what numbers, all i see is a failure who is making bs, saying the difference between 1080p and 720p isn't noticeable (that alone makes you a joke) and then proceed to use the snellen charts as "proof" when the snellen charts use a static image just at different distances (which i already explained why is wrong to use it in gaming quality)

so yeah lets use some numbers

1080p = 2.073.600 pixels

720p = 921.600 pixels

OBVIOUSLY having twice the number of pixels and visual fidelity is not noticeable, NOT AT ALL.

go to sleep, failure, enjoy your 720p

That double number of pixels can only be noticeable depending of the viewing distance and size of the screen.

Snellen charts should use the same distance(usually 20 feet or 6 meters) for calculating purposes and they have text that differs in size but that is special in the way it is printed putting much emphasis on the distribution of lines that form the letters. So basically it's the same thing as with the resolution of a display since:

1. You have a seating distance.

2. You have a size (in one case letter in another display)

3. You have an element you have to discern( in one case line in another pixels)

The fact that one is a single image and the other a series of images that slightly differ one from another should not interfere on the whole process.

Avatar image for Heil68
#94 Posted by Heil68 (57942 posts) -

Higher resolution is always better.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#95 Edited by Wasdie (53500 posts) -

You will notice a difference between upscaled 720p and native 1080p on even the best of displays at normal viewing distance. It may be a subtle change, but it's going to be noticeable.

In general 1080p is preferred. However it's quite demanding. 720p upscaled through a good upscaler can look pretty good to the point it's not a huge deal. Native 1080p rendering is preferred whenever possible.

It all comes down to how you want to use your resources. When the consoles get tapped out and their maximum performance is achieved, our demand for better graphics isn't going to stop. The dev has to then choose what they want to do. They can choose to render at native 1080p at 60fps and tone down the assets, which is going to be very noticeable to the average person. They can go 1080p at 30fps and give themselves a lot more room to work with, but they'll still have to tone down the assets which is going to be noticeable. They could go 720p at 60fps with lower assets. Or they can go 720p and 30fps and increase the assets.

In general a person is going to notice higher resolution assets and better rendering (post, lighting, shading) than the difference between upscaled 720p and native 1080p. Generally a dev is going to go with upscaling and keeping the assets higher.

Avatar image for xxyetixx
#96 Posted by xxyetixx (2900 posts) -

I don't really get the resolution thing. I still watch movies in SD and DVD, games will still look better on X1 and PS4 than they do on 360 and PS3. I do know that I have a nice 52 inch Tv and I absolutely hate watching movies on it cause they just don't look like movies, it looks like a live cam tv show like soap opera like its awful.

Avatar image for Cranler
#97 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@xxyetixx said:

I don't really get the resolution thing. I still watch movies in SD and DVD, games will still look better on X1 and PS4 than they do on 360 and PS3. I do know that I have a nice 52 inch Tv and I absolutely hate watching movies on it cause they just don't look like movies, it looks like a live cam tv show like soap opera like its awful.

That soap opera effect has nothing to do with res. Turn off any setting that involves motion or smooth frame. Never thought to google it?

Avatar image for xxyetixx
#98 Edited by xxyetixx (2900 posts) -

@Cranler: No I don't really watch a lot of movies not of my free time is taken up by playing games, and watching football. All I know is my games look great while I'm playing and if games are going to look better on PS4/X1 I don't really care about the difference between 720/900/1080 it's not like my life revolves around this stuff I maybe play like 4 hours a week, maybe!!

Avatar image for Netherscourge
#99 Edited by Netherscourge (16364 posts) -

I hope there are more games like Beyond: Two Souls, Gone Home and the Stanley Parable coming out Next-Gen.

I could care less what resolution or framerate they run at.

Avatar image for aroxx_ab
#100 Posted by aroxx_ab (13236 posts) -

Yes it is the native resolution for my tv