It wouldn't look stretched out at all and would fill the entire 16:9 screen if they did 1920x800 anamorphic, and it wouldn't tax the hardware any more than having the black bars.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Order: 1886 is rendering in 2.40:1 ratio (1920x800), will this be a trend?
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
- Status
It wouldn't look stretched out at all and would fill the entire 16:9 screen if they did 1920x800 anamorphic, and it wouldn't tax the hardware any more than having the black bars.
Obviously since it was a downloadable game, not even a fully realised £40 boxed retail ga,e which makes it more impressive. Dat resolution.
Nope. Your source isn't right.
To make an example: Take a normal 16:9 screenshot, squeeze it to 19:7 for example. Save it. Scale it to 16:9 again. The 16:7 version is the rendered version. The system will than scale that to 16:9, which makes the aspect ratio right again
1) Render the game is a faulty aspect ratio. The resolution is lower than 1080p
2) scale the image to 1080p. The aspect ratio is now perfect.
The scaling of the image is way cheaper than rendering at higher res.
I see, thanks.
That makes a lot more sense than what I was thinking.
100% guarantee it's not.
I mean I hate black bars in my Blu-ray movies. Not that it's for movie performance. Almost all HDTV's are not 2.40:1, so going this route with a game or movie is fucking stupid. Either change the theater's standard or HDTV's. I didn't buy a big HDTV just to have parts of the screen cut off.
It won't become standard I'm sure, but the artists should be free to choose how to frame their game.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
that's a vision.
There is no technical hurdle in film, you just use super 35 instead. There are technical implications with video games.
Basically, in film, it can only be an artistic decision, in games, it could be, and could be technical, or somewhere between.
captscience
Member
Man, GAF is on reactionary negativity overdrive these days!
It's clearly an artistic decision. If it was running at 720p or worse in 16:9, then we can complain about performance issues.
As it stands, I'm excited to see how the game looks. Scope ratios provide a distinct feel that I love in movies and I'm curious to see how it translates to gameplay.
It's clearly an artistic decision. If it was running at 720p or worse in 16:9, then we can complain about performance issues.
As it stands, I'm excited to see how the game looks. Scope ratios provide a distinct feel that I love in movies and I'm curious to see how it translates to gameplay.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
it would look stretched out at the theater aspect ratio they're going for. yeah?
I don't know, the "filmic experience" thing makes me believe it really is.
AuthenticM
Member
For this to be perfectly acceptable though, the game would need to be rendered in 2538x1080p instead of 1920x800. By using the later resolution, they are essentially cutting off a portion of the screen to save on performance. That's kind of a bummer.
I thought this kind of thinking went out the window after Passage came out at 100x16. Aspect ratio can absolutely be a design choice, and there's no reason it should just be limited to indies or shmups either.
You want to bet on that. If you truly believe that any first wave game is pushing the hardware to its maximum, have I got an investment opportunity for you.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
If you make it 16:9 you lose pixels, you are cutting the edges of the film
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
can you explain how it isn't an artistic choice?
There is a difference between programming a game and shooting a movie.
Because there is no benefit for the art by showing less. There is a clear benefit for performance though.
The whole point of anamorphic rendering is that you don't display the image at 1920x800 and instead show it at 1920x1080. Of course it would look distorted at 1920x800, but that is not even relevant.
Marty Chinn
Member
You would rather have your movies missing part of the picture? You can always scale the image to get rid of the bars if it bothers you that much.
My question for those that don't believe it is strictly an artistic choice (and I'm not sure myself either): most studios release bullshots of subhd games today in full HD, especially this far from release. Why not do that? I'm thinking of lots of vita games and nondirect feed Alan wake shots.
source?
Nah. Pretty sure it's an artistic choice. They either want do go for the film look that comes with the aspect ratio or they want to add more effects to the screen. Both are an artistic design choice. If the game was finished and ran like balls, they could up the frame rate by doing this. That would be a purely performance choice. This is designed from the beginning.
Senor Kami
Banned
I hope it's used like RE5 where gameplay was 16:9 but cinematics were at a movie like aspect ratio.
Beer Monkey
Member
Yeah, because every cinematographer should compose for the exact same aspect ratio.
Hell, let's go a step further. All canvases used by painters should be of the same ratio as well.
He's talking like he works at the studio, just listen to that confidence. Lol
This isn't really surprising, many of the most taxing and graphically intensive games will be 720p at the end of the next generation for both consoles.
It doesn't make sense to lower the resolution for a title unless it was due to a hardware limitation. We hardly know what they are trying to accomplish with the title for us to even determine what the bottleneck may be.
Maybe this would help?...
http://beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1113341&postcount=1
Edit: Beaten, nevermind!
It doesn't make sense to lower the resolution for a title unless it was due to a hardware limitation. We hardly know what they are trying to accomplish with the title for us to even determine what the bottleneck may be.
Maybe this would help?...
http://beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1113341&postcount=1
Edit: Beaten, nevermind!
The image quality is the same or better because of it you're just losing areas or the screen that your eyes wouldn't have really focused on anyway.
& do we have proof that it's 1920x800 & not 2560 x 1080 ?
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
they want to display at 1920x800. so anamorphic rendering is not what they want to do at all. they want the black bars rather than a scaled up 1080p image.
Sub HD games are usually still 16:9 though, and then scaled to the size of the screen, so the end result on your screen would be in the same aspect ratio as the screenshot.
Here if all the screenshots were 16:9 and then the final game was 2.40:1, people would notice immediately since they would have large black bars on their screen.
BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO
Junior Member
Why would you make a game look like shit intentionally?
TheGreyHulk
Member
that little subtle drop to 1920*800 = roughly 26% less pixels to render vs full 1080p.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
They are actually showing more, if they have common sense in how to use that aspect ratio.
RibbedHero
Member
I'm going the other way. Planning on swapping out my 2560x1440 monitor for a 2560x1600 one. 16:10 is so much better than 16:9, which in turn is that much better than 2.4:1.
captscience
Member
There is a difference, and the game director has specifically said that they're actively trying to blur those differences graphically by using "lenses" that distort, film grain, and aspect ratio.
If there's no artistic benefit, why aren't all movies shot in 16:9? Wide aspect ratios are aesthetically pleasing if you know how to use it.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
the funny thing is, some people here just like big numbers and might actually prefer a downscaled 2560 x 1080.
revolverjgw
Member
More processing power for filmic effects
The picture is already widescreen, so if you want the picture more widescreen... change the fucking standard for HDTV ratios. I can zoom in to get rid of black bars in a 2.40:1 movie and not miss shit going on because the little extra on the sides is not being cut off by much. It's not like there's a character on the side and he's now cut off because "LOL, 16x9"
I'm having a hard time thinking of ways a lower resolution would be beneficial from an artistic standpoint. Maybe they don't feel the need to release bullshots because it's not technically sub-HD?
If this is an artistic choise, I hope they do a postmortem explaining this as I find it interesting.
Well the press shots they released were 1920x800 and if they were delivering these visuals at 2560x1080, every other first party would be producing really, really embarrassing results by comparison.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
i would hold out for 4k:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=66131816&posted=1#post66131816
at 39 inches it would be like have two 4:3 monitors next to each other
While they're at it, they should lock all the button inputs to either play or pause then the transition to being a friggin movie will be complete. Unless they are going to lock the camera and not allow the player any control over what they view then this artist's intent just comes off as pretentious horseshit to me.
Film allows for different canvases to be used based on what the director is going for. I understand something like David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia being in a wider aspect ratio due to the director wanting to capture the vastness of the desert and how small the characters were in relation to it. Or something like Spiderman that had a 1.85:1 aspect ratio because Raimi wanted to emphasize the height of the buildings Spiderman is swinging through. However, for something like a game where the player has control over the scene and is interacting with it, limiting the view in any way on the prominent 1.78:1 aspect ratio of HDTVs is dumb as hell to me. This game will have to be ultimately kick ass for me to even consider it after hearing this as I see no valid reason for wanting to reduce the viewing area allowed by the now standard HDTV aspect ratio.
And this is coming from someone who used to get into verbal battles on forums with people when DVD first came out and people were complaining about the black bars so much that studios started putting out pan and scan versions of movies. I had already gotten used to dealing with different aspect ratios in home viewing by getting into laserdisc so I have no problem with director intent and the whether they want to use CinemaScope, 1.85:1, 1.78:1, or even 1.33:1. But games are different from films and I don't see the need to mimic this as the benefits exhibited by using different size canvases when filming content for passive consumption is a lot different than a medium where the player can freely move the camera and create their own framing of the scenery. It's just dumb-headed wanna be filmmaker bullshit without understanding the difference between the mediums and how to better use the unique elements allowed by games.
Well, sure, you can interept it like that and then, yeah, it's an artistic choice. But not the black bars then but the choice to have more performance for eyecandy/framerate. Insomniac did the same btw on PS3 games. For me, that's no different from choosing SUB HD resolustions and it should be a thing of the past by now. Really. We got promised 1080p in 2005 and they sell us those TVs for years now and we STILL don't get 1080p games on console and t hey compromise on the resolution? At this point, my patience is just gone, sorry. If it's not 1080p, I won't buy it.
the game looks like shit now? news to me idek 9th
It's a practice that's been with us since Pitfall! on Atari 2600 traded screen space for precious CPU cycles.
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2009/03/racing-the-beam/
- Status