Resolution obsession, yet neither can do 1080p...

You don't understand. The black bars are part of the image, its just not showing any picture information. The pixel density is exactly the same as a 16x9 1920x1080p game. Just think of The Order as a crop of a 16x9 1080p game, you get the same sharpness/detail just with a wider aspect ratio. There is no upscaling going on since 1920x800p is pixel perfect on a 16x9 1080p display.

Let's make it simple. If you were to add black bars at the top and bottom of Killzone: Shadow Fall would the sharpness/detail suddenly decrease? No it wouldn't and the visible resolution would be 1920x800p, but if you count the black bars than its 1920x1080p.


1920x1080p = 16x9 aspect ratio

1920x800p = 2.40:1 aspect ratio. This ratio/resolution is pixel to pixel perfect on a 16x9 1080p television because you are just cropping the top and bottom parts of the image. There is no upscaling required, so you won't lose any pixel density.

You don't understand. the game is render in lower rez to save performance.

Let's make it simple. I play all my games at 2560x1440 ok, if I choose I can run them in window mod at 2560x800 (same exact pixel density) and suddenly my fps increase around 80%(what a miracle, 80% fps increase without reducing the quality LOLOL), guess why this happens, because it is render at a much lower rez. So why I am not doing this to get almost double the fps? because my view in to game world will being reduce by half and that is horrible...

In fact I can set the window mod at 800x600, same exact pixel density again, you see what i am saying?

So now can you stop arguing about this? or do you what to damage control a little bit more?

@CrownKingArthur:

PS3 does it natively.

Its not rendered at a lower res. The black bars are part of the image. The game isn't 16x9, its a wider aspect ratio. You obviously don't know anything about native resolutions and their proper aspect ratios.

1920x1080p is a 16x9 aspect ratio resolution. You can't do 1920x1080p at an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. That resolution doesn't match up with the aspect ratio. The image would be stretched if you tried to do 1920x1080p with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1.

All Blu-ray movies with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 have a resolution of 1920x800p because that is the correct resolution to fit perfectly on a 16x9 1080p display without any need of upscaling. The image doesn't lose any pixel density/sharpness when compared to a movie with a 16x9 aspect ratio at 1920x1080.

Blu-ray movies whether they are 16x9, or 2.40:1 have the same pixel density. even though one has a resolution of 1920x1080 and the other 1920x800.

Turn on your PS4/XB1 and play a game with an aspect ratio of 16x9 and native 1080p resolution. Now, add black masking tape to the top and bottom of your screen until the aspect ratio is 2.40:1. Does the sharpness/pixel density change? No, because all your changing is the aspect ratio. And you know what viewable pixel count is? 1920x800p. Go do some research before acting like you know anything about resolutions/aspect ratios.

Your PC games don't have native aspect ratios of 2.40:1 so you can't compare them to The Order which uses a wider aspect ratio than 16x9.

OK, I'm going to describe this to you as if you were a kid. Let's say there is a square with a pixel density of 300ppi, now lets say you crop that square from top and bottom until you get a rectangle shape, does the ppi change? No, the only thing that changed is the aspect ratio.

Pictures as an example.

Notice the black bars at top and bottom. Those are part of the image. This movie is rendered at 1080p, but the actual visible information is 1920x800p.

The Order does the exact same thing. 1080p if you count the black bars, but visible information of 1920x800p.

YOU! LOL

Lems deserve everything they get slapped with for supporting such a loser company & saying that the advantages that MS had with the 360 were just excuses in 1,000s of threads last gen. Well if they were excuses then why the heck when Sony releases a console at the same time as MS & has far less advantages they frickin kick MS's butt all over & shove it in their face?! Lol

They also bashed Bluray when Sony came out with it & now MS is using it in the X1. Now that's ownage if there ever is any!!

Actually both can do 1080p and anybody that thinks they can't is a clueless moron. The question isn't if they can do it. The question is how low will they have to drop the rest of the specs of the game to get that 1080p. Drop the graphics enough and you can get 1080p.

Exactly my thoughts.

You're the one that doesn't seem to understand.

Yes, the pixel density is the same, but the actual number of pixels being rendered is less. There is less of the image being displayed.

If I put a windowed game up on my monitor that is only 300 x 300 resolution, the pixel density within that window is the same, but that doesn't change the fact that my graphics card's rendering load is greatly reduced.

The Order 1886 is 1920 x 800 resolution. That is 1,536,000 pixels, which is a lot less than the 2,073,600 pixels found in a native 1920 x 1080 game. It's not much more than the 1600 x 900 resolution the XB1 gets derided for in games like Thief and Ryse.

Your point would be true if The Order was a 16x9 aspect ratio game, but it isn't. This game will have the same exact sharpness/detail as a 16x9 game with a resolution of 1920x1080.

You keep forgetting that The Order is rendered at 1080p, but it has black bars on the top and the bottom giving the actual viewable parts of the image a measured resolution of 1920x800. When we get direct full res screen grabs you will see that The Order will have a resolution of 1920x1080p because that includes the Black bars in the image. The direct screen grabs will not be 1920x800 unless someone crops out the black bars. As I said before every Blu-ray movie with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 has a view able resolution of 1920x800, or 1920x1080p if you count the black bars.

Here, take this screen grab, crop out the black bars, and then see for yourself what the final resolution will be. The point I'm trying to make here is that 16x9 1920x1080p and 2.40:1 1920x800p will have the same exact sharpness/pixel density on a 16x9 1080p display.

as apposed to you cows now paying to play online? still not getting 1080p as a standard? taking trophys? getting a somewhat decent online experience? it works both ways.

They bashed blu ray because they wanted blu ray to lose... simple. why does that matter? these companies including sony rely on things from microsoft too (E.G sony vaios with windows.) ... hell even the PS4 utilizes Direct X and Mcirosoft Visual studio.

but yea.... DERP.

sorry, 'it' what exactly?

@emgesp said:

@kalipekona said:

@emgesp said:

@MK-Professor said:

@emgesp said:

@MK-Professor said:

@emgesp said:

@MK-Professor said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

@emgesp said:

@BeardMaster said:

@Dire_Weasel said:

Fact check: So far the only 900p Playstation 4 game is Battlefield 4. Everything else that's been released is 1080p.

There are rumors that the Witcher 3 might be 900p, and if true, that would be the second Playstation 4 game that runs at sub-1080p.

I'm glad I could clear that up for you, OP.

Fact check, like no ps4 games are 60fps. But when an overpriced version of tomb raider came out.. apparently anything less than 60fps is unacceptable. Ignoring the fact tomb raider is more like 45fps during actual gameplay. Shhh cows, goto sleep.

Resogun is 60fps 1080p. 99.99% of PS4 games are native 1080p, so what are you trying to prove?

ps4 doesn't have 10000 games.

so true,

ps4 right now have like 10 games(including some sport games lol), and we already know that bf4 is 900p, Witcher 3 is 900p, Order-1886 is 800p etc

Witcher 3 is aiming for 1080p. The Order is rendered in 1080p, Its just that it has a wider than 16x9 aspect ratio, so black bars are taking up some information. Same exact pixel density.

All rumors are saying that Witcher 3 will be 900p, and it make sense because it is going to be a graphically demanding game.

And Order-1886 is rendered at 800p.(saying it is rendered in 1080p, it is the same like punting the game in window mod(size 800p) on a screen 1080p, same exact pixel density, but the game is render in 800p as a result more fps). They are using black bars to reduce the rez to 800p to get more performance, it is that simple.

You don't understand. The black bars are part of the image, its just not showing any picture information. The pixel density is exactly the same as a 16x9 1920x1080p game. Just think of The Order as a crop of a 16x9 1080p game, you get the same sharpness/detail just with a wider aspect ratio. There is no upscaling going on since 1920x800p is pixel perfect on a 16x9 1080p display.

Let's make it simple. If you were to add black bars at the top and bottom of Killzone: Shadow Fall would the sharpness/detail suddenly decrease? No it wouldn't and the visible resolution would be 1920x800p, but if you count the black bars than its 1920x1080p.

1920x1080p = 16x9 aspect ratio

1920x800p = 2.40:1 aspect ratio. This ratio/resolution is pixel to pixel perfect on a 16x9 1080p television because you are just cropping the top and bottom parts of the image. There is no upscaling required, so you won't lose any pixel density.

You don't understand. the game is render in lower rez to save performance.

Let's make it simple. I play all my games at 2560x1440 ok, if I choose I can run them in window mod at 2560x800 (same exact pixel density) and suddenly my fps increase around 80%(what a miracle, 80% fps increase without reducing the quality LOLOL), guess why this happens, because it is render at a much lower rez. So why I am not doing this to get almost double the fps? because my view in to game world will being reduce by half and that is horrible...

In fact I can set the window mod at 800x600, same exact pixel density again, you see what i am saying?

So now can you stop arguing about this? or do you what to damage control a little bit more?

Its not rendered at a lower res. The black bars are part of the image. The game isn't 16x9, its a wider aspect ratio. You obviously don't know anything about native resolutions and their proper aspect ratios.

1920x1080p is a 16x9 aspect ratio resolution. You can't do 1920x1080p at an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. That resolution doesn't match up with the aspect ratio. The image would be stretched if you tried to do 1920x1080p with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1.

All Blu-ray movies with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 have a resolution of 1920x800p because that is the correct resolution to fit perfectly on a 16x9 1080p display without any need of upscaling. The image doesn't lose any pixel density/sharpness when compared to a movie with a 16x9 aspect ratio at 1920x1080.

Blu-ray movies whether they are 16x9, or 2.40:1 have the same pixel density. even though one has a resolution of 1920x1080 and the other 1920x800.

Turn on your PS4/XB1 and play a game with an aspect ratio of 16x9 and native 1080p resolution. Now, add black masking tape to the top and bottom of your screen until the aspect ratio is 2.40:1. Does the sharpness/pixel density change? No, because all your changing is the aspect ratio. And you know what viewable pixel count is? 1920x800p. Go do some research before acting like you know anything about resolutions/aspect ratios.

Your PC games don't have native aspect ratios of 2.40:1 so you can't compare them to The Order which uses a wider aspect ratio than 16x9.

OK, I'm going to describe this to you as if you were a kid. Let's say there is a square with a pixel density of 300ppi, not lets say you crop that square from top and bottom until you get a rectangle shape, does the ppi change? No, the only thing that changed is the aspect ratio.

You're the one that doesn't seem to understand.

Yes, the pixel density is the same, but the actual number of pixels being rendered is less. There is less of the image being displayed.

If I put a windowed game up on my monitor that is only 300 x 300 resolution, the pixel density within that window is the same, but that doesn't change the fact that my graphics card's rendering load is greatly reduced.

The Order 1886 is 1920 x 800 resolution. That is 1,536,000 pixels, which is a lot less than the 2,073,600 pixels found in a native 1920 x 1080 game. It's not much more than the 1600 x 900 resolution the XB1 gets derided for in games like Thief and Ryse.

Your point would be true if The Order was a 16x9 aspect ratio game, but it isn't. This game will have the same exact sharpness/detail as a 16x9 game with a resolution of 1920x1080.

You keep forgetting that The Order is rendered at 1080p, but it has black bars on the top and the bottom giving the actual viewable parts of the image a measured resolution of 1920x800. When we get direct full res screen grabs you will see that The Order will have a resolution of 1920x1080p because that includes the Black bars in the image. The direct screen grabs will not be 1920x800 unless someone crops out the black bars. As I said before every Blu-ray movie with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 has a view able resolution of 1920x800, or 1920x1080p if you count the black bars.

Here, take this screen grab crop out the black bars and see for yourself what the final resolution will be.

"This game will have the same exact sharpness/detail as a 16x9 game with a resolution of 1920x1080." - really? i'm pretty sure that two areas of 1920x140 are missing sharpness/detail and are replaced by 'black'.

"You keep forgetting that The Order is rendered at 1080p" - Proof? My conjecture is the game is rendered at 1920x800. Why would they render those two 1920x140 areas, only to cover them with black? Surely those areas were never rendered.

"you will see that The Order will have a resolution of 1920x1080p because that includes the Black bars in the image" - OK. That's right. And what value do I assign to the black bars? None whatsoever. it is quite an area of the screen reserved for 'black'. screengrabs will be 1920x1080 and the game scene within that will be 1920x800. I reward them zero for the black bars.

My point is not that the game is bad or anything, it is just flat out true that the game is not Full HD because of those black bars. I am flat out shocked by the amount of damage control regarding this.

The Order 1886 is not Full HD.

@CrownKingArthur said:

@emgesp said:

@kalipekona said:

@emgesp said:

@MK-Professor said:

@emgesp said:

@MK-Professor said:

@emgesp said:

@MK-Professor said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

@emgesp said:

@BeardMaster said:

@Dire_Weasel said:

Fact check: So far the only 900p Playstation 4 game is Battlefield 4. Everything else that's been released is 1080p.

There are rumors that the Witcher 3 might be 900p, and if true, that would be the second Playstation 4 game that runs at sub-1080p.

I'm glad I could clear that up for you, OP.

Fact check, like no ps4 games are 60fps. But when an overpriced version of tomb raider came out.. apparently anything less than 60fps is unacceptable. Ignoring the fact tomb raider is more like 45fps during actual gameplay. Shhh cows, goto sleep.

Resogun is 60fps 1080p. 99.99% of PS4 games are native 1080p, so what are you trying to prove?

ps4 doesn't have 10000 games.

so true,

ps4 right now have like 10 games(including some sport games lol), and we already know that bf4 is 900p, Witcher 3 is 900p, Order-1886 is 800p etc

Witcher 3 is aiming for 1080p. The Order is rendered in 1080p, Its just that it has a wider than 16x9 aspect ratio, so black bars are taking up some information. Same exact pixel density.

All rumors are saying that Witcher 3 will be 900p, and it make sense because it is going to be a graphically demanding game.

And Order-1886 is rendered at 800p.(saying it is rendered in 1080p, it is the same like punting the game in window mod(size 800p) on a screen 1080p, same exact pixel density, but the game is render in 800p as a result more fps). They are using black bars to reduce the rez to 800p to get more performance, it is that simple.

You don't understand. The black bars are part of the image, its just not showing any picture information. The pixel density is exactly the same as a 16x9 1920x1080p game. Just think of The Order as a crop of a 16x9 1080p game, you get the same sharpness/detail just with a wider aspect ratio. There is no upscaling going on since 1920x800p is pixel perfect on a 16x9 1080p display.

Let's make it simple. If you were to add black bars at the top and bottom of Killzone: Shadow Fall would the sharpness/detail suddenly decrease? No it wouldn't and the visible resolution would be 1920x800p, but if you count the black bars than its 1920x1080p.

1920x1080p = 16x9 aspect ratio

1920x800p = 2.40:1 aspect ratio. This ratio/resolution is pixel to pixel perfect on a 16x9 1080p television because you are just cropping the top and bottom parts of the image. There is no upscaling required, so you won't lose any pixel density.

You don't understand. the game is render in lower rez to save performance.

Let's make it simple. I play all my games at 2560x1440 ok, if I choose I can run them in window mod at 2560x800 (same exact pixel density) and suddenly my fps increase around 80%(what a miracle, 80% fps increase without reducing the quality LOLOL), guess why this happens, because it is render at a much lower rez. So why I am not doing this to get almost double the fps? because my view in to game world will being reduce by half and that is horrible...

In fact I can set the window mod at 800x600, same exact pixel density again, you see what i am saying?

So now can you stop arguing about this? or do you what to damage control a little bit more?

Its not rendered at a lower res. The black bars are part of the image. The game isn't 16x9, its a wider aspect ratio. You obviously don't know anything about native resolutions and their proper aspect ratios.

1920x1080p is a 16x9 aspect ratio resolution. You can't do 1920x1080p at an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. That resolution doesn't match up with the aspect ratio. The image would be stretched if you tried to do 1920x1080p with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1.

All Blu-ray movies with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 have a resolution of 1920x800p because that is the correct resolution to fit perfectly on a 16x9 1080p display without any need of upscaling. The image doesn't lose any pixel density/sharpness when compared to a movie with a 16x9 aspect ratio at 1920x1080.

Blu-ray movies whether they are 16x9, or 2.40:1 have the same pixel density. even though one has a resolution of 1920x1080 and the other 1920x800.

Turn on your PS4/XB1 and play a game with an aspect ratio of 16x9 and native 1080p resolution. Now, add black masking tape to the top and bottom of your screen until the aspect ratio is 2.40:1. Does the sharpness/pixel density change? No, because all your changing is the aspect ratio. And you know what viewable pixel count is? 1920x800p. Go do some research before acting like you know anything about resolutions/aspect ratios.

Your PC games don't have native aspect ratios of 2.40:1 so you can't compare them to The Order which uses a wider aspect ratio than 16x9.

OK, I'm going to describe this to you as if you were a kid. Let's say there is a square with a pixel density of 300ppi, not lets say you crop that square from top and bottom until you get a rectangle shape, does the ppi change? No, the only thing that changed is the aspect ratio.

You're the one that doesn't seem to understand.

Yes, the pixel density is the same, but the actual number of pixels being rendered is less. There is less of the image being displayed.

If I put a windowed game up on my monitor that is only 300 x 300 resolution, the pixel density within that window is the same, but that doesn't change the fact that my graphics card's rendering load is greatly reduced.

The Order 1886 is 1920 x 800 resolution. That is 1,536,000 pixels, which is a lot less than the 2,073,600 pixels found in a native 1920 x 1080 game. It's not much more than the 1600 x 900 resolution the XB1 gets derided for in games like Thief and Ryse.

Your point would be true if The Order was a 16x9 aspect ratio game, but it isn't. This game will have the same exact sharpness/detail as a 16x9 game with a resolution of 1920x1080.

You keep forgetting that The Order is rendered at 1080p, but it has black bars on the top and the bottom giving the actual viewable parts of the image a measured resolution of 1920x800. When we get direct full res screen grabs you will see that The Order will have a resolution of 1920x1080p because that includes the Black bars in the image. The direct screen grabs will not be 1920x800 unless someone crops out the black bars. As I said before every Blu-ray movie with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 has a view able resolution of 1920x800, or 1920x1080p if you count the black bars.

Here, take this screen grab crop out the black bars and see for yourself what the final resolution will be.

"This game will have the same exact sharpness/detail as a 16x9 game with a resolution of 1920x1080." - really? i'm pretty sure that two areas of 1920x140 are missing sharpness/detail and are replaced by 'black'.

"You keep forgetting that The Order is rendered at 1080p" - Proof? My conjecture is the game is rendered at 1920x800. Why would they render those two 1920x140 areas, only to cover them with black? Surely those areas were never rendered.

"you will see that The Order will have a resolution of 1920x1080p because that includes the Black bars in the image" - OK. That's right. And what value do I assign to the black bars? None whatsoever. it is quite an area of the screen reserved for 'black'. screengrabs will be 1920x1080 and the game scene within that will be 1920x800. I reward them zero for the black bars.

My point is not that the game is bad or anything, it is just flat out true that the game is not Full HD because of those black bars. I am flat out shocked by the amount of damage control regarding this.

The Order 1886 is not Full HD.

Full HD is 1920x1080p which means 16x9 aspect ratio. This game will be rendered at 1080p 16x9, but part of the image will be covered in black bars. You don't lose sharpness when you crop from top and bottom from a 16x9 1080p image. 1920x800p 2.40:1 fits natively on a 16x9 1080p set without losing any sharpness/pixel density. I don't know how else to explain it to you. Read this article for a better explanation. You guys just don't understand how stuff works. I'm doing my best to inform you. I think after reading the article below you will understand what I'm trying to explain.

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

@emgesp said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

@emgesp said:

@kalipekona said:

@emgesp said:

@MK-Professor said:

@emgesp said:

@MK-Professor said:

@emgesp said:

@MK-Professor said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

@emgesp said:

@BeardMaster said:

@Dire_Weasel said:

Fact check: So far the only 900p Playstation 4 game is Battlefield 4. Everything else that's been released is 1080p.

There are rumors that the Witcher 3 might be 900p, and if true, that would be the second Playstation 4 game that runs at sub-1080p.

I'm glad I could clear that up for you, OP.

Fact check, like no ps4 games are 60fps. But when an overpriced version of tomb raider came out.. apparently anything less than 60fps is unacceptable. Ignoring the fact tomb raider is more like 45fps during actual gameplay. Shhh cows, goto sleep.

Resogun is 60fps 1080p. 99.99% of PS4 games are native 1080p, so what are you trying to prove?

ps4 doesn't have 10000 games.

so true,

ps4 right now have like 10 games(including some sport games lol), and we already know that bf4 is 900p, Witcher 3 is 900p, Order-1886 is 800p etc

Witcher 3 is aiming for 1080p. The Order is rendered in 1080p, Its just that it has a wider than 16x9 aspect ratio, so black bars are taking up some information. Same exact pixel density.

All rumors are saying that Witcher 3 will be 900p, and it make sense because it is going to be a graphically demanding game.

And Order-1886 is rendered at 800p.(saying it is rendered in 1080p, it is the same like punting the game in window mod(size 800p) on a screen 1080p, same exact pixel density, but the game is render in 800p as a result more fps). They are using black bars to reduce the rez to 800p to get more performance, it is that simple.

You don't understand. The black bars are part of the image, its just not showing any picture information. The pixel density is exactly the same as a 16x9 1920x1080p game. Just think of The Order as a crop of a 16x9 1080p game, you get the same sharpness/detail just with a wider aspect ratio. There is no upscaling going on since 1920x800p is pixel perfect on a 16x9 1080p display.

Let's make it simple. If you were to add black bars at the top and bottom of Killzone: Shadow Fall would the sharpness/detail suddenly decrease? No it wouldn't and the visible resolution would be 1920x800p, but if you count the black bars than its 1920x1080p.

1920x1080p = 16x9 aspect ratio

1920x800p = 2.40:1 aspect ratio. This ratio/resolution is pixel to pixel perfect on a 16x9 1080p television because you are just cropping the top and bottom parts of the image. There is no upscaling required, so you won't lose any pixel density.

You don't understand. the game is render in lower rez to save performance.

Let's make it simple. I play all my games at 2560x1440 ok, if I choose I can run them in window mod at 2560x800 (same exact pixel density) and suddenly my fps increase around 80%(what a miracle, 80% fps increase without reducing the quality LOLOL), guess why this happens, because it is render at a much lower rez. So why I am not doing this to get almost double the fps? because my view in to game world will being reduce by half and that is horrible...

In fact I can set the window mod at 800x600, same exact pixel density again, you see what i am saying?

So now can you stop arguing about this? or do you what to damage control a little bit more?

Its not rendered at a lower res. The black bars are part of the image. The game isn't 16x9, its a wider aspect ratio. You obviously don't know anything about native resolutions and their proper aspect ratios.

1920x1080p is a 16x9 aspect ratio resolution. You can't do 1920x1080p at an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. That resolution doesn't match up with the aspect ratio. The image would be stretched if you tried to do 1920x1080p with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1.

All Blu-ray movies with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 have a resolution of 1920x800p because that is the correct resolution to fit perfectly on a 16x9 1080p display without any need of upscaling. The image doesn't lose any pixel density/sharpness when compared to a movie with a 16x9 aspect ratio at 1920x1080.

Blu-ray movies whether they are 16x9, or 2.40:1 have the same pixel density. even though one has a resolution of 1920x1080 and the other 1920x800.

Turn on your PS4/XB1 and play a game with an aspect ratio of 16x9 and native 1080p resolution. Now, add black masking tape to the top and bottom of your screen until the aspect ratio is 2.40:1. Does the sharpness/pixel density change? No, because all your changing is the aspect ratio. And you know what viewable pixel count is? 1920x800p. Go do some research before acting like you know anything about resolutions/aspect ratios.

Your PC games don't have native aspect ratios of 2.40:1 so you can't compare them to The Order which uses a wider aspect ratio than 16x9.

OK, I'm going to describe this to you as if you were a kid. Let's say there is a square with a pixel density of 300ppi, not lets say you crop that square from top and bottom until you get a rectangle shape, does the ppi change? No, the only thing that changed is the aspect ratio.

You're the one that doesn't seem to understand.

Yes, the pixel density is the same, but the actual number of pixels being rendered is less. There is less of the image being displayed.

If I put a windowed game up on my monitor that is only 300 x 300 resolution, the pixel density within that window is the same, but that doesn't change the fact that my graphics card's rendering load is greatly reduced.

The Order 1886 is 1920 x 800 resolution. That is 1,536,000 pixels, which is a lot less than the 2,073,600 pixels found in a native 1920 x 1080 game. It's not much more than the 1600 x 900 resolution the XB1 gets derided for in games like Thief and Ryse.

Your point would be true if The Order was a 16x9 aspect ratio game, but it isn't. This game will have the same exact sharpness/detail as a 16x9 game with a resolution of 1920x1080.

You keep forgetting that The Order is rendered at 1080p, but it has black bars on the top and the bottom giving the actual viewable parts of the image a measured resolution of 1920x800. When we get direct full res screen grabs you will see that The Order will have a resolution of 1920x1080p because that includes the Black bars in the image. The direct screen grabs will not be 1920x800 unless someone crops out the black bars. As I said before every Blu-ray movie with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 has a view able resolution of 1920x800, or 1920x1080p if you count the black bars.

Here, take this screen grab crop out the black bars and see for yourself what the final resolution will be.

"This game will have the same exact sharpness/detail as a 16x9 game with a resolution of 1920x1080." - really? i'm pretty sure that two areas of 1920x140 are missing sharpness/detail and are replaced by 'black'.

"You keep forgetting that The Order is rendered at 1080p" - Proof? My conjecture is the game is rendered at 1920x800. Why would they render those two 1920x140 areas, only to cover them with black? Surely those areas were never rendered.

"you will see that The Order will have a resolution of 1920x1080p because that includes the Black bars in the image" - OK. That's right. And what value do I assign to the black bars? None whatsoever. it is quite an area of the screen reserved for 'black'. screengrabs will be 1920x1080 and the game scene within that will be 1920x800. I reward them zero for the black bars.

My point is not that the game is bad or anything, it is just flat out true that the game is not Full HD because of those black bars. I am flat out shocked by the amount of damage control regarding this.

The Order 1886 is not Full HD.

Full HD is 1920x1080p which means 16x9 aspect ratio. This game will be rendered at 1080p 16x9, but part of the image will be covered in black bars. You don't lose sharpness when you crop from top and bottom from a 16x9 1080p image. 1920x800p 2.40:1 fits natively on a 16x9 1080p set without losing any sharpness/pixel density. I don't know how else to explain it to you. Read this article for a better explanation. You guys just don't understand how stuff works. I'm doing my best to inform you. I think after reading the article below you will understand what I'm trying to explain.

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

Carter Brownlee's explanation is flawed.

OK here is the difference. Cropping, yeah?

So prove to me please that the data existed to be cropped?

Like I said before, they will render the game scene at 1920x800, and then add black bars.

You say "part of the image will be covered in black bars". So you're making the assumption the game renders scene behind those black bars, but the black bars occlude you from seeing the graphics? Seriously, that won't be their rendering workflow - it is extremely inefficient and uses up precious resource wastefully.

It is true, that in the case of the order 1886, there is complete omission of graphics rendering from the top and bottom 140 vertical resolution lines because of their aspect ratio choice - and this means its technically incorrect to call the game Full HD.

And we pay to play online thanks to MS. Sony held out from charging as long as they could & now charge $50/yr & give a lot of free games. I have already gotten 8 free games in 3 months with PS4.

That was going to be my point. Both system can do it and both systems have it. The only difference is that PS4 has more

@CrownKingArthur said:

@emgesp said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

@emgesp said:

@kalipekona said:

@emgesp said:

@MK-Professor said:

@emgesp said:

@MK-Professor said:

@emgesp said:

@MK-Professor said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

@emgesp said:

@BeardMaster said:

@Dire_Weasel said:

Fact check: So far the only 900p Playstation 4 game is Battlefield 4. Everything else that's been released is 1080p.

There are rumors that the Witcher 3 might be 900p, and if true, that would be the second Playstation 4 game that runs at sub-1080p.

I'm glad I could clear that up for you, OP.

Fact check, like no ps4 games are 60fps. But when an overpriced version of tomb raider came out.. apparently anything less than 60fps is unacceptable. Ignoring the fact tomb raider is more like 45fps during actual gameplay. Shhh cows, goto sleep.

Resogun is 60fps 1080p. 99.99% of PS4 games are native 1080p, so what are you trying to prove?

ps4 doesn't have 10000 games.

so true,

ps4 right now have like 10 games(including some sport games lol), and we already know that bf4 is 900p, Witcher 3 is 900p, Order-1886 is 800p etc

Witcher 3 is aiming for 1080p. The Order is rendered in 1080p, Its just that it has a wider than 16x9 aspect ratio, so black bars are taking up some information. Same exact pixel density.

All rumors are saying that Witcher 3 will be 900p, and it make sense because it is going to be a graphically demanding game.

And Order-1886 is rendered at 800p.(saying it is rendered in 1080p, it is the same like punting the game in window mod(size 800p) on a screen 1080p, same exact pixel density, but the game is render in 800p as a result more fps). They are using black bars to reduce the rez to 800p to get more performance, it is that simple.

You don't understand. The black bars are part of the image, its just not showing any picture information. The pixel density is exactly the same as a 16x9 1920x1080p game. Just think of The Order as a crop of a 16x9 1080p game, you get the same sharpness/detail just with a wider aspect ratio. There is no upscaling going on since 1920x800p is pixel perfect on a 16x9 1080p display.

Let's make it simple. If you were to add black bars at the top and bottom of Killzone: Shadow Fall would the sharpness/detail suddenly decrease? No it wouldn't and the visible resolution would be 1920x800p, but if you count the black bars than its 1920x1080p.

1920x1080p = 16x9 aspect ratio

1920x800p = 2.40:1 aspect ratio. This ratio/resolution is pixel to pixel perfect on a 16x9 1080p television because you are just cropping the top and bottom parts of the image. There is no upscaling required, so you won't lose any pixel density.

You don't understand. the game is render in lower rez to save performance.

Let's make it simple. I play all my games at 2560x1440 ok, if I choose I can run them in window mod at 2560x800 (same exact pixel density) and suddenly my fps increase around 80%(what a miracle, 80% fps increase without reducing the quality LOLOL), guess why this happens, because it is render at a much lower rez. So why I am not doing this to get almost double the fps? because my view in to game world will being reduce by half and that is horrible...

In fact I can set the window mod at 800x600, same exact pixel density again, you see what i am saying?

So now can you stop arguing about this? or do you what to damage control a little bit more?

Its not rendered at a lower res. The black bars are part of the image. The game isn't 16x9, its a wider aspect ratio. You obviously don't know anything about native resolutions and their proper aspect ratios.

1920x1080p is a 16x9 aspect ratio resolution. You can't do 1920x1080p at an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. That resolution doesn't match up with the aspect ratio. The image would be stretched if you tried to do 1920x1080p with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1.

All Blu-ray movies with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 have a resolution of 1920x800p because that is the correct resolution to fit perfectly on a 16x9 1080p display without any need of upscaling. The image doesn't lose any pixel density/sharpness when compared to a movie with a 16x9 aspect ratio at 1920x1080.

Blu-ray movies whether they are 16x9, or 2.40:1 have the same pixel density. even though one has a resolution of 1920x1080 and the other 1920x800.

Turn on your PS4/XB1 and play a game with an aspect ratio of 16x9 and native 1080p resolution. Now, add black masking tape to the top and bottom of your screen until the aspect ratio is 2.40:1. Does the sharpness/pixel density change? No, because all your changing is the aspect ratio. And you know what viewable pixel count is? 1920x800p. Go do some research before acting like you know anything about resolutions/aspect ratios.

Your PC games don't have native aspect ratios of 2.40:1 so you can't compare them to The Order which uses a wider aspect ratio than 16x9.

OK, I'm going to describe this to you as if you were a kid. Let's say there is a square with a pixel density of 300ppi, not lets say you crop that square from top and bottom until you get a rectangle shape, does the ppi change? No, the only thing that changed is the aspect ratio.

You're the one that doesn't seem to understand.

Yes, the pixel density is the same, but the actual number of pixels being rendered is less. There is less of the image being displayed.

If I put a windowed game up on my monitor that is only 300 x 300 resolution, the pixel density within that window is the same, but that doesn't change the fact that my graphics card's rendering load is greatly reduced.

The Order 1886 is 1920 x 800 resolution. That is 1,536,000 pixels, which is a lot less than the 2,073,600 pixels found in a native 1920 x 1080 game. It's not much more than the 1600 x 900 resolution the XB1 gets derided for in games like Thief and Ryse.

Your point would be true if The Order was a 16x9 aspect ratio game, but it isn't. This game will have the same exact sharpness/detail as a 16x9 game with a resolution of 1920x1080.

You keep forgetting that The Order is rendered at 1080p, but it has black bars on the top and the bottom giving the actual viewable parts of the image a measured resolution of 1920x800. When we get direct full res screen grabs you will see that The Order will have a resolution of 1920x1080p because that includes the Black bars in the image. The direct screen grabs will not be 1920x800 unless someone crops out the black bars. As I said before every Blu-ray movie with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 has a view able resolution of 1920x800, or 1920x1080p if you count the black bars.

Here, take this screen grab crop out the black bars and see for yourself what the final resolution will be.

"This game will have the same exact sharpness/detail as a 16x9 game with a resolution of 1920x1080." - really? i'm pretty sure that two areas of 1920x140 are missing sharpness/detail and are replaced by 'black'.

"You keep forgetting that The Order is rendered at 1080p" - Proof? My conjecture is the game is rendered at 1920x800. Why would they render those two 1920x140 areas, only to cover them with black? Surely those areas were never rendered.

"you will see that The Order will have a resolution of 1920x1080p because that includes the Black bars in the image" - OK. That's right. And what value do I assign to the black bars? None whatsoever. it is quite an area of the screen reserved for 'black'. screengrabs will be 1920x1080 and the game scene within that will be 1920x800. I reward them zero for the black bars.

My point is not that the game is bad or anything, it is just flat out true that the game is not Full HD because of those black bars. I am flat out shocked by the amount of damage control regarding this.

The Order 1886 is not Full HD.

Full HD is 1920x1080p which means 16x9 aspect ratio. This game will be rendered at 1080p 16x9, but part of the image will be covered in black bars. You don't lose sharpness when you crop from top and bottom from a 16x9 1080p image. 1920x800p 2.40:1 fits natively on a 16x9 1080p set without losing any sharpness/pixel density. I don't know how else to explain it to you. Read this article for a better explanation. You guys just don't understand how stuff works. I'm doing my best to inform you. I think after reading the article below you will understand what I'm trying to explain.

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

Carter Brownlee's explanation is flawed.

OK here is the difference. Cropping, yeah?

So prove to me please that the data existed to be cropped?

Like I said before, they will render the game scene at 1920x800, and then add black bars.

You say "part of the image will be covered in black bars". So you're making the assumption the game renders scene behind those black bars, but the black bars occlude you from seeing the graphics? Seriously, that won't be their rendering workflow - it is extremely inefficient and uses up precious resource wastefully.

It is true, that in the case of the order 1886, there is complete omission of graphics rendering from the top and bottom 140 vertical resolution lines because of their aspect ratio choice - and this means its technically incorrect to call the game Full HD.

No, that isn't how it works because the black bars are part of the image. They aren't being added manually like you are saying. Like I said before, take that Blu-ray image I uploaded and crop out the black bars. The final resolution would be 1980x800p because the aspect ratio is 2.40:1. There is no such thing as 1920x1080p at an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. All your Blu-ray movies with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 have a display resolution of 1920x800p yet they don't look softer, or less detailed than 16x9 1920x1080p films. Because 1920x800 is a native crop of 1920x1080. You don't lose any sharpness/detail. All you get is added black bars on top and bottom.

See you are having trouble understanding this since most games have an aspect ratio of 16x9, so every difference in resolution is affecting the whole image. 1920x800p has more resolution than 1600x900p because 1600x900p is 16x9 image and 1920x800p is a native crop of a 1920x1080 16x9 image. Meaning no upscaling is going on when viewing 1920x800p material on 1920x1080p displays.

Those black bars aren't creating a less detailed image because they are in fact part of the image. Resolution is based off pixel density. 1920x800p 2.40:1 aspect ratio content has the exact same pixel density as a 16x9 image rendered at 1920x1080p.

From what I'm seeing you really don't understand crop factors and aspect ratios. The Order has an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 because the Developers wanted to give it a more cinematic look like most movies. If you ever watched a Blu-ray with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 you would notice the black bars.

Please answer these questions just so I get a better understanding of what you know.

1. Would you agree that 1920x800p is a native crop of 1920x1080 and has the same pixel density?

2. Do you understand that 1920x1080p is a native 16x9 resolution and would not work natively with wider aspect ratios? If you were to make a 2.40:1 cover the full 16x9 screen with picture information the image would be stretched vertically. Making people look too skinny and awkward looking.

lol arguing over 1920x800... so year 2000 there.

meanwhile I'll be gaming at 3440x1440 later this year on PC when these new monitors arrived.

@emgesp said:

Its not rendered at a lower res. The black bars are part of the image. The game isn't 16x9, its a wider aspect ratio. You obviously don't know anything about native resolutions and their proper aspect ratios.

1920x1080p is a 16x9 aspect ratio resolution. You can't do 1920x1080p at an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. That resolution doesn't match up with the aspect ratio. The image would be stretched if you tried to do 1920x1080p with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1.

All Blu-ray movies with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 have a resolution of 1920x800p because that is the correct resolution to fit perfectly on a 16x9 1080p display without any need of upscaling. The image doesn't lose any pixel density/sharpness when compared to a movie with a 16x9 aspect ratio at 1920x1080.

Blu-ray movies whether they are 16x9, or 2.40:1 have the same pixel density. even though one has a resolution of 1920x1080 and the other 1920x800.

Turn on your PS4/XB1 and play a game with an aspect ratio of 16x9 and native 1080p resolution. Now, add black masking tape to the top and bottom of your screen until the aspect ratio is 2.40:1. Does the sharpness/pixel density change? No, because all your changing is the aspect ratio. And you know what viewable pixel count is? 1920x800p. Go do some research before acting like you know anything about resolutions/aspect ratios.

Your PC games don't have native aspect ratios of 2.40:1 so you can't compare them to The Order which uses a wider aspect ratio than 16x9.

OK, I'm going to describe this to you as if you were a kid. Let's say there is a square with a pixel density of 300ppi, now lets say you crop that square from top and bottom until you get a rectangle shape, does the ppi change? No, the only thing that changed is the aspect ratio.

Pictures as an example.

Notice the black bars at top and bottom. Those are part of the image. This movie is rendered at 1080p, but the actual visible information is 1920x800p.

The Order does the exact same thing. 1080p if you count the black bars, but visible information of 1920x800p.

^ the above image perfectly describe your situation.

The game is rendered at 1920x800 not 1920x1080, deal with it. aspect ratio is irreverent to the argument.

PC games have all aspect ratios including 2.40:1 you don't know that 2560x1080 monitors exist? in fact in some PC games you can set what ever aspect ratio and resolution you want, even something stupid like 400x1440 or whatever.

you didn't answer my question why i don't play all my games at 2560x1080(that give much more performance) instead of 2560x1440? because it is a low rez, as result getting less information on the screen.

@MK-Professor said:

@emgesp said:

Its not rendered at a lower res. The black bars are part of the image. The game isn't 16x9, its a wider aspect ratio. You obviously don't know anything about native resolutions and their proper aspect ratios.

1920x1080p is a 16x9 aspect ratio resolution. You can't do 1920x1080p at an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. That resolution doesn't match up with the aspect ratio. The image would be stretched if you tried to do 1920x1080p with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1.

All Blu-ray movies with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 have a resolution of 1920x800p because that is the correct resolution to fit perfectly on a 16x9 1080p display without any need of upscaling. The image doesn't lose any pixel density/sharpness when compared to a movie with a 16x9 aspect ratio at 1920x1080.

Blu-ray movies whether they are 16x9, or 2.40:1 have the same pixel density. even though one has a resolution of 1920x1080 and the other 1920x800.

Turn on your PS4/XB1 and play a game with an aspect ratio of 16x9 and native 1080p resolution. Now, add black masking tape to the top and bottom of your screen until the aspect ratio is 2.40:1. Does the sharpness/pixel density change? No, because all your changing is the aspect ratio. And you know what viewable pixel count is? 1920x800p. Go do some research before acting like you know anything about resolutions/aspect ratios.

Your PC games don't have native aspect ratios of 2.40:1 so you can't compare them to The Order which uses a wider aspect ratio than 16x9.

OK, I'm going to describe this to you as if you were a kid. Let's say there is a square with a pixel density of 300ppi, now lets say you crop that square from top and bottom until you get a rectangle shape, does the ppi change? No, the only thing that changed is the aspect ratio.

Pictures as an example.

Notice the black bars at top and bottom. Those are part of the image. This movie is rendered at 1080p, but the actual visible information is 1920x800p.

The Order does the exact same thing. 1080p if you count the black bars, but visible information of 1920x800p.

^ the above image perfectly describe your situation.

The game is rendered at 1920x800 not 1920x1080, deal with it. aspect ratio is irreverent to the argument.

Your PC games have all aspect ratios including 2.40:1 you don't know that 2560x1080 monitors exist? in fact in some PC games you can set what ever aspect ratio and resolution you want, even something stupid like 400x1440 or whatever.

you didn't answer my question why i don't play all my games at 2560x1080(that give much more performance) instead of 2560x1440? because it is a low rez, as result getting less information on the screen.

I seriously give up, you don't understand how this stuff works. 1920x1080p cannot be done with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. Do you not understand this? 1920x1080p is a 16x9 format resolution. The only way you can fit a 2.40:1 aspect ratio movie/game on a 16:9 1080p set is with black bars.

So, do you think that The Order will have a softer look than 1920x1080p 16x9 images? I really need to understand where you are coming from?

Damn that MS forcing Sony to make more money how dare they!!

Are you actually serious, you think MS forced Sony to charge for online?. You actually believe that Sony never wanted to charge for online and held out on it till they could, are you fucking insane?.

@emgesp said:

@MK-Professor said:

@emgesp said:

Its not rendered at a lower res. The black bars are part of the image. The game isn't 16x9, its a wider aspect ratio. You obviously don't know anything about native resolutions and their proper aspect ratios.

1920x1080p is a 16x9 aspect ratio resolution. You can't do 1920x1080p at an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. That resolution doesn't match up with the aspect ratio. The image would be stretched if you tried to do 1920x1080p with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1.

All Blu-ray movies with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 have a resolution of 1920x800p because that is the correct resolution to fit perfectly on a 16x9 1080p display without any need of upscaling. The image doesn't lose any pixel density/sharpness when compared to a movie with a 16x9 aspect ratio at 1920x1080.

Blu-ray movies whether they are 16x9, or 2.40:1 have the same pixel density. even though one has a resolution of 1920x1080 and the other 1920x800.

Turn on your PS4/XB1 and play a game with an aspect ratio of 16x9 and native 1080p resolution. Now, add black masking tape to the top and bottom of your screen until the aspect ratio is 2.40:1. Does the sharpness/pixel density change? No, because all your changing is the aspect ratio. And you know what viewable pixel count is? 1920x800p. Go do some research before acting like you know anything about resolutions/aspect ratios.

Your PC games don't have native aspect ratios of 2.40:1 so you can't compare them to The Order which uses a wider aspect ratio than 16x9.

OK, I'm going to describe this to you as if you were a kid. Let's say there is a square with a pixel density of 300ppi, now lets say you crop that square from top and bottom until you get a rectangle shape, does the ppi change? No, the only thing that changed is the aspect ratio.

Pictures as an example.

Notice the black bars at top and bottom. Those are part of the image. This movie is rendered at 1080p, but the actual visible information is 1920x800p.

The Order does the exact same thing. 1080p if you count the black bars, but visible information of 1920x800p.

^ the above image perfectly describe your situation.

The game is rendered at 1920x800 not 1920x1080, deal with it. aspect ratio is irreverent to the argument.

Your PC games have all aspect ratios including 2.40:1 you don't know that 2560x1080 monitors exist? in fact in some PC games you can set what ever aspect ratio and resolution you want, even something stupid like 400x1440 or whatever.

you didn't answer my question why i don't play all my games at 2560x1080(that give much more performance) instead of 2560x1440? because it is a low rez, as result getting less information on the screen.

I seriously give up, you don't understand how this stuff works. 1920x1080p cannot be done with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. Do you not understand this? 1920x1080p is a 16x9 format resolution. The only way you can fit a 2.40:1 aspect ratio movie/game on a 16:9 1080p set is with black bars.

So, do you think that The Order will have a softer look than 1920x1080p 16x9 images? I really need to understand where you are coming from?

Nice more and more damage control coming from you, you know what? it is pointless, the damage have been done, everyone now know that this game is rendered at 800p and NOT in 1080p, because ps4 cant handle this game at 1080p and 30fps.

Now I am going back to play my games at 2560x50 (instead of 2560x1440) because according to you it makes no difference, it is only a different aspect ratio LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Good one.

@emgesp said:

@MK-Professor said:

@emgesp said:

Its not rendered at a lower res. The black bars are part of the image. The game isn't 16x9, its a wider aspect ratio. You obviously don't know anything about native resolutions and their proper aspect ratios.

1920x1080p is a 16x9 aspect ratio resolution. You can't do 1920x1080p at an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. That resolution doesn't match up with the aspect ratio. The image would be stretched if you tried to do 1920x1080p with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1.

All Blu-ray movies with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 have a resolution of 1920x800p because that is the correct resolution to fit perfectly on a 16x9 1080p display without any need of upscaling. The image doesn't lose any pixel density/sharpness when compared to a movie with a 16x9 aspect ratio at 1920x1080.

Blu-ray movies whether they are 16x9, or 2.40:1 have the same pixel density. even though one has a resolution of 1920x1080 and the other 1920x800.

Turn on your PS4/XB1 and play a game with an aspect ratio of 16x9 and native 1080p resolution. Now, add black masking tape to the top and bottom of your screen until the aspect ratio is 2.40:1. Does the sharpness/pixel density change? No, because all your changing is the aspect ratio. And you know what viewable pixel count is? 1920x800p. Go do some research before acting like you know anything about resolutions/aspect ratios.

Your PC games don't have native aspect ratios of 2.40:1 so you can't compare them to The Order which uses a wider aspect ratio than 16x9.

OK, I'm going to describe this to you as if you were a kid. Let's say there is a square with a pixel density of 300ppi, now lets say you crop that square from top and bottom until you get a rectangle shape, does the ppi change? No, the only thing that changed is the aspect ratio.

Pictures as an example.

Notice the black bars at top and bottom. Those are part of the image. This movie is rendered at 1080p, but the actual visible information is 1920x800p.

The Order does the exact same thing. 1080p if you count the black bars, but visible information of 1920x800p.

^ the above image perfectly describe your situation.

The game is rendered at 1920x800 not 1920x1080, deal with it. aspect ratio is irreverent to the argument.

Your PC games have all aspect ratios including 2.40:1 you don't know that 2560x1080 monitors exist? in fact in some PC games you can set what ever aspect ratio and resolution you want, even something stupid like 400x1440 or whatever.

you didn't answer my question why i don't play all my games at 2560x1080(that give much more performance) instead of 2560x1440? because it is a low rez, as result getting less information on the screen.

I seriously give up, you don't understand how this stuff works. 1920x1080p cannot be done with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. Do you not understand this? 1920x1080p is a 16x9 format resolution. The only way you can fit a 2.40:1 aspect ratio movie/game on a 16:9 1080p set is with black bars.

So, do you think that The Order will have a softer look than 1920x1080p 16x9 images? I really need to understand where you are coming from?

1080p can be done with 2.40:1 aspect ratio, that will be around 2560x1080, this is the only proper 2.40:1 aspect ratio for 1080p not your false concept.

it's not about whether or not 1920x800 will result in upscaling or not, but 1920x800 is such a cheap trick to make the game perform better, while in reality it's such a low res (1.5MP), and it's such a lower res than 4:3 1600x1200 displays found on late 90s CRT monitors lol; heck even smartphones will move to 1440p this year.

the most hilarious thing, even with such low res, the game still struggles with performance and have to be capped at 30 FPS, that and the fact that the game will be such a linear corridor shooter making it even more comical.

and no, the way real time CG rendering work, you don't render a full image only to be cropped later via post processing or something, such a thing is a complete idiocy from software engineering standpoint, instead the black bars would have been simply placed there and rendered alongside the rest of the graphics, but since it's only black then it's not in any way use hardware resources, it's like simply a blank space, or at very least only marginally use any hardware resources.

the order 1886 is a 1920x800 game period, deal with it.

here is a little demonstration for you console kiddies who don't know about the whole resolution cheating method used in the order

this is your normal 16:9 1920x1080 game screenshot

http://i.imgur.com/abIDi4T.jpg

now then this is a 2.4:1 1920x800 the same game screenshot

http://i.imgur.com/mB36exy.jpg

it's not stretched in any way on my monitor btw because modern pc GPU have full screen scaling options and some good modern pc games have good built in aspect ratio changer, but the point is, I get more FPS at 1920x800 than 1920x1080, this is the trick used in the order, they lowered down the total number of pixels to make the game perform better.

1. i will agree that the pixel density is the same if you accept that data was lost because of the crop. (note that my real position on the matter is no data was lost, a 1920x800 game scene was rendered - incidentally that's not full HD)

2. yes. in vlc media player i hit the 'a' key often'.

"the black bars are part of the image" very interesting console doctrine.

toplel. would you like me to include the black bars as part of the rendered image? thus calling the scene I view on a 16:9 full HD TV including the black bars 'full hd'.

i'm just not going to do that. i am a pc gamer. i will take every pixel, and i will assign it a color 60 times a second. no tolerance for unrendered areas of black,

and if i am in a situation where i can't render 1920x1080 full hd due to aspect ratio constraints imposed by resolutions within the game (like when I'm lazily setting up quake 3) I don't describe the rendered scene as full hd, because it contains unrendered areas that i see as black bars.

@MK-Professor said:

man, the conclusion with the black bars at the top and the bottom. just awesome.

is this image coincidentally ironic, or simply designed for defenders of the order 1886's? (not that 1920x800 needs defending - it is what it is, not full HD).

and the guy who wrote at kotaku is wrong, 2.4:1 blu ray movies are not rendered in 1920x1080, anyone who familiar with watching such movies on PC can see via MPC/VLC that the movie properties revealing the total movie resolutions are 1920x800 not 1920x1080... this mean the rendered images are at 1920x800 not 1920x1080.

i think its criminal that the guy at kotaku ... carter brownlee ... has a platform with a huge outreach for spreading misinformation.

and thanks for that. yes i definitely doubted they would hard code black into the blu ray films.

I'm curious about one thing though, how will the order 1886 look like if the ps4 hooked into 21:9 displays?

It's really depressing how long it took to explain that 'FullHD' = 1920x1080 and 1920x800 =/= 1920x1080. It's not a difficult concept. Less pixels = lower resolution

"held off as long as they could" .... bwhahaha ... oh cmon. these companies are not your friends. they didn't hold off. they more than likely had this planned a few years into the PS3's life... but realised that the community would backlash having to pay for the same product they had for free half way through its life cycle. instread, they hyped the PS4 up and rammed it in as mandatory with a new product.

how naive can you be really? if they thought they could do it they would of.

How well can the PS4 play the new SSB, Mario Kart or the next Zelda? How well can the Xbone play The Order, Uncharted, GOW? How well can the Wii U play Rome: Total War 2 or Infamous.... Your argument is asinine.

It's more cinematic with black bars and that 30 fps give it a more cinematic feel. HAHA. Both boxes are underpowered and this is coming from someone that owns one.

Fact check... BF4 runs at 60FPS, As does Resogun, Killzone MP and many many more... Hey look! a dude that knows sweet f**k all about consoles!

why are you being so condescending? beardmaster is right. and all your examples stretch the truth.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-battlefield-4-next-gen-face-off

"The PS4 version clearly struggled though, and likewise, for fully saturated 64-player Conquest Large games what we get here is a frame-rate that falls far below 60fps"

killzone's multiplayer - in this vid it drops below 50fps within ten seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlAYu_Vs-js

as for resogun, digital foundry had this to say:

"the quality of this code - which almost maintains its 1080p60 target - is exceptionally good" - so definitely the closest to 60fps, but still not a solid 60 fps according to digital foundry.

Didn't realise we were talking about locked frame rates.... regardless...

BF4 has been VASTLY improved since launch. Drops happen but very rarely these days... so its 99.9% at 60 or above

Along with all the other games i mentioned. Beardmaster states there were no games at 60... i'm sorry but i can get you a video right now showing battlefield, resogun and killzone running at 60fps.... wether they drop a frame or two is a different matter... they are still capable and for the vast majority of gameplay, DO play at 60fps ...

By your logic, when you alt tab out of Battlefield on PC and the framerate drops below 60, then PC is not capable of 60fps no?

As for why i'm being condescending? this is system wars... sorry if i hurt your delicate nature... the fix for that is to stop reading my posts... honestly dude i wont give a damn :) (nothing personal, its just this forum... no doubt you are a fine chap in RL)

@RedentSC: nice damage control. Bf4 and kzsf fail to hit the 60fps mark consistently. Let it go.

you said 60 fps and ps4 can't maintain those games at 60 fps and i provided evidence. 'a frame or two' lmao, i saw 15 dropped in a single second at one point.

your words are very nice but they're not like my hard evidence from digital foundry.

"By your logic, when you alt tab out of Battlefield on PC and the framerate drops below 60, then PC is not capable of 60fps no?"

what an interesting assumption for a console gamer to make. that when one isn't looking at the game scene, that the frame rate of the game scene is important. i reject your question based on your logic. why compare frame rate drops in a rendered scene to alt-tabbing?

my logic would be, that if i set up a pc game so that it hits 60 fps but experiences frame drops during dynamic scenes - that i would describe it honestly as such. what i wouldn't do is what i see playstation supporters do - such as say it's a solid 60 fps when it really isn't. and another thing i wouldn't do, is call black bars part of the game scene.

ps4 aims for 60 fps, but doesn't always maintain it. this is a fact, and it shouldn't butthurt anyone. like how xbone has ~66% of the GPU TF of PS4.

just because you can set the AA to 32x, doesnt mean you should, unless you are a dishonest console fanboy liar like most people on this forum

@MK-Professor said:

@emgesp said:

@MK-Professor said:

@emgesp said:

Its not rendered at a lower res. The black bars are part of the image. The game isn't 16x9, its a wider aspect ratio. You obviously don't know anything about native resolutions and their proper aspect ratios.

1920x1080p is a 16x9 aspect ratio resolution. You can't do 1920x1080p at an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. That resolution doesn't match up with the aspect ratio. The image would be stretched if you tried to do 1920x1080p with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1.

All Blu-ray movies with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 have a resolution of 1920x800p because that is the correct resolution to fit perfectly on a 16x9 1080p display without any need of upscaling. The image doesn't lose any pixel density/sharpness when compared to a movie with a 16x9 aspect ratio at 1920x1080.

Blu-ray movies whether they are 16x9, or 2.40:1 have the same pixel density. even though one has a resolution of 1920x1080 and the other 1920x800.

Turn on your PS4/XB1 and play a game with an aspect ratio of 16x9 and native 1080p resolution. Now, add black masking tape to the top and bottom of your screen until the aspect ratio is 2.40:1. Does the sharpness/pixel density change? No, because all your changing is the aspect ratio. And you know what viewable pixel count is? 1920x800p. Go do some research before acting like you know anything about resolutions/aspect ratios.

Your PC games don't have native aspect ratios of 2.40:1 so you can't compare them to The Order which uses a wider aspect ratio than 16x9.

OK, I'm going to describe this to you as if you were a kid. Let's say there is a square with a pixel density of 300ppi, now lets say you crop that square from top and bottom until you get a rectangle shape, does the ppi change? No, the only thing that changed is the aspect ratio.

Pictures as an example.

Notice the black bars at top and bottom. Those are part of the image. This movie is rendered at 1080p, but the actual visible information is 1920x800p.

The Order does the exact same thing. 1080p if you count the black bars, but visible information of 1920x800p.

^ the above image perfectly describe your situation.

The game is rendered at 1920x800 not 1920x1080, deal with it. aspect ratio is irreverent to the argument.

Your PC games have all aspect ratios including 2.40:1 you don't know that 2560x1080 monitors exist? in fact in some PC games you can set what ever aspect ratio and resolution you want, even something stupid like 400x1440 or whatever.

you didn't answer my question why i don't play all my games at 2560x1080(that give much more performance) instead of 2560x1440? because it is a low rez, as result getting less information on the screen.

I seriously give up, you don't understand how this stuff works. 1920x1080p cannot be done with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1. Do you not understand this? 1920x1080p is a 16x9 format resolution. The only way you can fit a 2.40:1 aspect ratio movie/game on a 16:9 1080p set is with black bars.

So, do you think that The Order will have a softer look than 1920x1080p 16x9 images? I really need to understand where you are coming from?

Nice more and more damage control coming from you, you know what? it is pointless, the damage have been done, everyone now know that this game is rendered at 800p and NOT in 1080p, because ps4 cant handle this game at 1080p and 30fps.

Now I am going back to play my games at 2560x50 (instead of 2560x1440) because according to you it makes no difference, it is only a different aspect ratio LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I'm going to have to step into this.

Movie's are filmed at 4:3 natively and then cropped in camera to the aspect ratio desired... meaning that you are filming it in 4:3 and but framing the scene to 21:9 or 16:9. That's how camera's work.

A game like the order is NATIVELY rendering 1920x800... Its not natively running 1920x1080 and then cropping the image, that would be a waste of resources.

MK's point is that its easier to run and he's right and your point emgesp is uninformed.

Cropping is not the same as rendering.

Sony followed MS's charging for online, just as MS followed using Bluray after Sony did. Each company can set trends & standards. What a shock I know!

Curious thread. Aren't all but 2 or 3 PS4 games out or scheduled for release 1080p?

The amount of stupidity coming from cows in this thread is depressing. When Sony drones line up at HQ to swear allegiance to Sony do they all get lobotomized in the process or something?

Your'e depressing. Just end it! LOL

This

Yes they're totally the same thing... eh hang on...

Well when you have to hide behind them all consolites have these uber gaming machines, at all other times no one buys PC games. Consolites going to consolite.

Consolites just get too caught up in numbers. Resolutions, player counts, metacritic averages.

Would be nice if they'd stop for a second, and just enjoy a game.

But first that'd require they get a game, so I guess we'll just have to continue dealing with terrible threads on System Wars.