• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Digital Foundry :- Does resolution really matter?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What about 720 p to 1080 p there's many of them about this gen. Bigger than any gap of last gen.
There's not *that* many, but this is touched on in the article:

We've seen some promising results, but we're not out of the woods yet. Battlefield Hardline launches later this month with a 720p Xbox One resolution and unimpressive image quality as a result, while we suspect we'll see the same situation with Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain later on in the year, if the Fox Engine titles released to date are any indication.
 
There's not *that* many, but this is touched on in the article:

We've seen some promising results, but we're not out of the woods yet. Battlefield Hardline launches later this month with a 720p Xbox One resolution and unimpressive image quality as a result, while we suspect we'll see the same situation with Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain later on in the year, if the Fox Engine titles released to date are any indication.
There's a fair few of them though. And they look like utter shit on your TV. There's about as many as there is ps4 games missing af.
 
I'm not even going to read the article. Yes, it matters. If current gen consoles were hitting 1080p in every game, this article would not exist.
 
Well, it did matter to him before.

Here we have Leadbetter using 5 paragraphs of an article (2 updates included) trying to determine the different sub-hd solutions of a game. We can find probably a hundred articles like this one
Read the article. Its not really about resolution not being important at all.

I fear for the first 4K console gen. I could see a bunch of games very limited in scope just to hit that 4K target. People will still be complaining that assets look no better then current gen because they need to be held back to hit performance targets at the massive resolution increase.
Yup, exactly.
 
Yet visually, the difference is actually smaller unless you're pressed up against the screen.

I mean, if we are going the visual difference way, then we can argue about if people can actually see above 24FPS with their eyes (lmao by the way), but that's leading to nowhere. It's not a metric of any sort.
 
Now correct me if I'm wrong here, because I'm genuinely asking and not stating, but didn't Leadbetter sing a different tune last gen when it came to comparing the 360 and PS3?
 
I mean, if we are going the visual difference way, then we can argue about if people can actually see above 24FPS with their eyes (lmao by the way), but that's leading to nowhere. It's not a metric of any sort.
But its the only important aspect. What use is there talking about resolution if not for potential differences in visual fidelity?

But hey - go buy a 42" 4K TV and then delude yourself into thinking you're seeing a better image just because it has more pixels....
 
yes it is but we aare talking about smaller differences in resolution, like 1024x600 and 1024x720 being called out obviously in favour of the higher resolution. and then we have larger gaps here like 1600x900 and 1920x1080 not mattering.
Those smaller differences are actually perceptually greater, though. That's the point. The difference between 600p and 720p is much larger in that sense that 900p to 1080p.
 
Read the article. Its not really about resolution not being important at all.

I've read it. It's exactly about that. He talks about how a dozen things are flashy and awesome while not so long time ago resolution was one of the pillars of his analysis.
 
OH DF...

This article is terrible in so many way that I don't know where to start, it's maybe the time to stop the damage control for Microsoft, you can easily see the difference between 900p and 1080p if you know where to look at, 1080p is better, end of the story.

Sure the framerate make a bigger difference but does it make the resolution differences pointless ? surely not, more means better, that's it.
 
What current gen console generally has a lower resolution?

Isn't it the Xbox the platform with lower res games? Another coincidence?
Both have. You want resolution, play on PC. Its really simple.

Adding some kind of conspiracy theory to the debate about user awareness of resolution is just dumb. In few years all games will be sub1080p on consoles and You will be happy about that, because devs will concentrate more on pixel fidelity than count or clarity, like RaD or Crytek already did.

---
Everything on-screen has 1:1 mapping so how is it more more blurry? There is a reason it is the best looking game.
Post-processing.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=153140402&postcount=237
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=153052175&postcount=198
 
I have had a hard time taking DF seriously since this gen started. The article is laughable and embarassing, not the first, or the last time I assume.

I don't think I ever read shit like this from Leadbetter last-gen.

Of course resolution matters. Stop downplaying it just because the games on your console of choice aren't performing as good as on the competition's.
 
optimal-viewing-distance-television-graph-size.png


Edit: I bring the pwnage on a 22" monitor at 3 ft distance and suck horribly on a 40" TV that is 10ft away. Input lag on my 22" is <30ms and the 40" is <60ms.
Input lag, viewing distance, refresh/FPS, screen reflectivity, screen & input resolution... It all plays a factor in how we game. I'm probably failing to list all the factors.

Chart is bullshit
 
I would have loved to see more focus on seating distance. It is a big factor in how much the resolution difference will matter to you, if any.
Besides, I love clean image quality, so I hate the "filmic" trend of overusing filters and getting a muddy, blurry image as a result.
I would love to see a sharper image in hollywood movies as well, but for some reason movie makers hate higher frame rates.

edit:
Chart is bullshit
Why? This one seems right on the money.
1.5 picture heights for 2160p, 2 picture heights for 1440p, 3 picture heights for 1080p
 
Another reality check hopefully for the world. Resolution has never been such an issue until this generation. It's embarrassing. 1080p was available last gen for pc players but no one seemed to care. Biggest load of bollox this gen and I think games are suffering because of it

Uhm it was massive last generation according to DF, now "it doesn't matter" apparently.

It's a complete jokesite now, not worth the steam off my piss.
 
depends how close u sit to the screen, for most people it doesnt really matter.

when im gaming on my big tv downstairs x360/ps3 games look awesome but on my monitor they look terribly jaggy because im sat much closer to screen.
 
Those smaller differences are actually perceptually greater, though. That's the point. The difference between 600p and 720p is much larger in that sense that 900p to 1080p.

According to who? Based on what research? So far it's just an unproven claim being repeated as fact by someone with a long history making excuses for certain parties in the industry.
 
It doesn't bother me, in fact i can barely see a difference on my 32inch tv from my bed (where i game from).
I don't feel like i can say that on here though to be honest so i usually don't.
 
I would have loved to see more focus on seating distance. It is a big factor in how much the resolution difference will matter to you, if any.
Besides, I love clean image quality, so I hate the "filmic" trend of overusing filters and getting a muddy, blurry image as a result.
I would love to see a sharper image in hollywood movies as well, but for some reason movie makers hate higher frame rates.

edit:

Why? This one seems right on the money.
1.5 picture heights for 2160p, 2 picture heights for 1440p, 3 picture heights for 1080p

4K vs 1080p 55" from 9ft - out of 49 participants, 48 correctly identified the 4K TV
 
It doesn't bother me, in fact i can barely see a difference on my 32inch tv from my bed (where i game from).
I don't feel like i can say that on here though to be honest so i usually don't.

I usually game about 2 feet from the 46" screen in my bedroom on console and PC so I see everything(and I'll probably go blind).
 
Those smaller differences are actually perceptually greater, though. That's the point. The difference between 600p and 720p is much larger in that sense that 900p to 1080p.
I'd say more apparent than larger. The difference on pixels it's definitely more larger between 900p and 1080p. But the point it's another here. Should count less just because are less apparent? More the tech evolve and more details will be subtle. So everything will count less because people will notice less? I don't know if it's clear what I mean, but tech it's tech and opinions are opinions.
 
high resolution makes a difference but pair it with bad AA and poor lighting and a low frame rate its easily not the most import part.

high resolution with great aa , lighting, and frame rate makes a much larger impression.

dark souls 2 just at 1080 with fxaa at 30 fps is good.

dark souls 2 at 1080p DS from 4 k running at 60 fps is godly.
 
But its the only important aspect. What use is there talking about resolution if not for potential differences in visual fidelity?

But hey - go buy a 42" 4K TV and then delude yourself into thinking you're seeing a better image just because it has more pixels....

So 4K is a lie, because you can't see the difference between 1080p and 4K? lol

I fail to understand what you are tying to say, but I saw screenshots of games at 4K and 1080p and the difference is very clear to me.

And telling me to buy a 4K TV doesn't make up for a good arguement. It's not even close to become a full supported resolution, because people are still stuck with 720p TV's and monitors...
 
I've posted this opinion before and been mocked, but when I can watch movies like Finding Nemo in 480P SD (before the blu Ray was out) and they look amazing then I'm inclined to think there are other factors that weigh far more heavily into the experience than resolution. Call it image quality, frame rate, motion blur, AA or some combination thereof.

I agree. Ryse looks fantastic and is 'only' 900p. Image quality, resolution and framerate are critical factors to how good something looks. I'd say you could probably go down to 720p if you had good enough framerate and quality per pixel (AA, motion blur etc) and it would still look fantastic.

It would make for an interesting comparison if a developer made a game on xbox and PS4 and both were 720/900p, and the increased power of PS4 was used for more than simoly resolution.
 
According to who? Based on what research? So far it's just an unproven claim being repeated as fact by someone with a long history making excuses for certain parties in the industry.
What? It's plain as day to the naked eye. I'm baffled that you're even questioning it.

Compare the difference between 480p and 720p to 1080p versus 2160p. In the second case the difference is much much larger, mathematically, but in real world conditions the jump from 480p to 720p appears much greater.

Besides, in cases of 600p or what not you usually had double scaling in effect - 600p to 720p and again to 1080p by the display. That just worsens the effect in most cases.
 
dark10x said:
Those smaller differences are actually perceptually greater, though. That's the point. The difference between 600p and 720p is much larger in that sense that 900p to 1080p.
That depends on conditions you test - using modern AA algorithms on the former, the differences will perceptually not be very great either (and PP impact I believe was a big point of the article).

Viewing conditions/distances can play varying roles too though. With current display tech on VR for instance, the resolution differences are actually very easily hidden (again with the right AA) even with explicit A:B comparisons, which seems counter intuitive at first.
 
Both have. You want resolution, play on PC. Its really simple.

Adding some kind of conspiracy theory to the debate about user awareness of resolution is just dumb. In few years all games will be sub1080p on consoles and You will be happy about that, because devs will concentrate more on pixel fidelity than count or clarity, like RaD or Crytek already did.

---

Post-processing.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=153140402&postcount=237
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=153052175&postcount=198

What if you want resolution and play those games that won't ever come out in PC.
It might not be as much as those powerful PCs, but between 1080p and 900-720p, i'd pick 1080p any time of the day.

And you're just wrong assuming games will start to be sub1080p (devs that pick sub 1080p already will keep doing sub1080 and devs that pick 1080p will keep doing 1080p in most cases), last generation the resolution didn't get worse over time...
 
That depends on conditions you test - using modern AA algorithms on the former, the differences will perceptually not be very great either (and PP impact I believe was a big point of the article).

The other is screen distances. With current display tech on VR for instance, the resolution differences are actually very easily hidden (again with the right AA) even with explicit A:B comparisons, which seems counter intuitive at first.
I said as much on the last page and everyone missed it.
 
Both have. You want resolution, play on PC. Its really simple

This is the equivalent of somebody deciding between two different pizza dressings, before getting scolded by an enlightened guy (you) who intervenes to point out the existence of a more refined dish as a better alternative.
Not everybody plays on PC, and not everyone enjoys dealing with PCs instead of consoles. Plus, having a PC run a game better than a PS4 does not magically invalidate the premise of the Xbox One receiving the short end of the stick.
 
Not according to that recent survey, Playstation 4 owners had resolution as their number one priority for buying the console.

Maybe you're right.

I read that survey as not visual quality, rather power. Also, I could be wrong, but I thought it was both a PS4 and XBOX "survey."
 
Both have. You want resolution, play on PC. Its really simple.

Adding some kind of conspiracy theory to the debate about user awareness of resolution is just dumb. In few years all games will be sub1080p on consoles and You will be happy about that, because devs will concentrate more on pixel fidelity than count or clarity, like RaD or Crytek already did.

---

Post-processing.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=153140402&postcount=237
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=153052175&postcount=198
Jeez man. Conspiracies? Really? Leadbetter it's clearly an Xbox fanboy the hell you need of more to prove it? Did you have read his last articles? He changed completely the editor line in the face off compared the past. Lately every single time there is something of negative about the ps4, he was in first line for the article. Every time there is something of positive to say about the xbone he wrote something. It's quite evident for the fuck sake.
 
What if you want resolution and play those games that won't ever come out in PC.
It might not be as much as those powerful PCs, but between 1080p and 900-720p, i'd pick 1080p any time of the day.

And you're just wrong assuming games will start to be sub1080p (devs that pick sub 1080p already will keep doing sub1080 and devs that pick 1080p will keep doing 1080p in most cases), last generation the resolution didn't get worse over time...

For some they did, for others framerate just suffered. I think You would prefer 900p over 20fps, which is also what this article mentions.

What if You want disable CA or grain filter or lens flare in games that dont come out on PC? Sometimes You just dont have a choice.
-----
Jeez man. Conspiracies? Really? Leadbetter it's clearly an Xbox fanboy the hell you need of more to prove it? Did you have read his last articles? Every single time there is something of negative about the ps4 he was in first line for the article. Every time there is something of positive to say about the xbone he wrote something. It's quite evident for the fuck sake.
Yes, actually i read all articles on DF and You know what? Leadbetter's most articles on this generation were PC related.
There is no bias towards Sony/Microsoft or any company on DF, unless You want to see one and searching for some isolated comments to push Your conspiracy.

---
This is the equivalent of somebody deciding between two different pizza dressings, before getting scolded by an enlightened guy (you) who intervenes to point out the existence of a more refined dish as a better alternative.
Not everybody plays on PC, and not everyone enjoys dealing with PCs instead of consoles. Plus, having a PC run a game better than a PS4 does not magically invalidate the premise of the Xbox One receiving the short end of the stick.
Do You even have both consoles to care? And its pretty obvious since the specs came out for both consoles than PS4 will have better multiplatforms, unless something special happens, like CPU bottlenecks and really bad ports.
But that doesnt mean that 900p is bad, especially on TVs, and automatically makes game unplayable, in fact sometimes it can benefit the game, by making the fps stable, because You know what? Both consoles are weak and if sometimes devs need to push 900p over 1080p for better playability or to use better tech to make as Repi said 'pixel quality better' than so be it.

Its not black and white, it all about compromises, sometimes it is fidelity for resolution and clarity, and sometimes is fidelity over clarity.
 
I don't understand why people struggle to see how resolution differences today for something like 900p vs 1080p can be seen as less significant than last gen between 720p and sub 720p games. The perceivable difference doesn't scaled linearly with the number, unless the size of the screen also does.

If I took a 32" TV screen and divided it into 4 (so 2p) and that divide each of those into 4 (so 4p), nobody here would fail to see the staggering difference between the two. However, if I divide that same screen into 1080p and 4K, most would have no way to differentiate between the two. If I were to blow the size of that screen up so that each pixel in the 1080p screen were the same size as in the 2p example, then the 4K jump becomes equally noticeable. That's completely unrealistic however, and would certainly prevent you from being able to actually see the entire screen unless you were like a mile away from it.

So basically, within the confines of your home... yes, the resolution matters less with each increase. It's pretty fucking simple.

you can easily see the difference between 900p and 1080p if you know where to look at, 1080p is better, end of the story.

And that's the thing... "if you know where to look for it". You didn't need to know where to look for it, because it was just fucking obvious at all times. When we went from Saturns and Playtations to Dreamcasts, nobody need to know where to look for the image quality improvements. It simply slapped everyone in the face with them, whether it be the kid wanting the console, or his grandmother that's going to buy it for him. It's nothing like that today.
 
So 4K is a lie, because you can't see the difference between 1080p and 4K? lol

I fail to understand what you are tying to say, but I saw screenshots of games at 4K and 1080p and the difference is very clear to me.

And telling me to buy a 4K TV doesn't make up for a good arguement. It's not even close to become a full supported resolution, because people are still stuck with 720p TV's and monitors...
I didn't say I can't tell the difference. I've been a believer of 4k ever since I first a large 80" 4k TV on display at an expo. But the benefits become increasingly meaningless the smaller the TV or the farther you sit from it. This is something using pixel counts don't tell you. It is a useless metric to prove what is visually better.

Anybody who buys a 42" 4k TV has no idea what they're doing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom