Support NeoGAF

[Three]

The more pixels you're dealing with the less the differences matter.
900p to 1080p isn't as dramatic as 576p to 720p.

Why are we comparing 900/1080 to 576/720? Why not 720/1080 to 576/720?

What exactly is the scientific reason one would think 120%<56%.
other factors would only make this difference larger not smaller.
TV sizes doubled in the last 10 years and living room sizes have been dropping since 1975

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24171226
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12483492

I would like a logical explanation why eurogamer thinks a 120% difference is now less than a 56% difference.

 

[Synth]

What i find annoying is that in the same breath you have people like Ricahrd saying resolution doesn't matter for people who bought the PS4 for the power gap over the XB1, we have DF's own analysis of DOA5LR which has the results in direct comparison of 720p and 1080p both with no AA.

Well, if all else is equal than a higher resolution is always preferable. This is especially true when talking about 720p content (or even worse, sub-720p). I'm not sure what AA solutions are used in BF4 on XB1 for example, but it's not enough to prevent it looking horrible. DOA5 looks bad in all incarnations. It just happens to look even worse at lower resolutions. However if I could have the XB1 version dropped to 900p in exchange for some decent AA, I would take that option in a heartbeat.

 

[Jomjom]

He doesn't say it doesn't matter, though.

Yes obviously since some people here like to be 100% literal. Of course he doesn't say it doesn't matter. 1080p is going to be different from 1p. I think everyone using the term "doesnt matter" doesnt actually mean it literally. So lets all stop nitpicking on the semantics.

 

[Final Verdict]

If developers spent the processing power of today's consoles and focused it on outputting an SD image, what would games look like?

They would look like more realistic games with a blurry output, but it would also cost a lot more to make the assets to pull that off, and they would run into CPU bottlenecks...

Think of it like this...a game at 1080p can look fake (or like a game), while a movie playing on VCR (SD) will look real (well it is real actually), and that is because the movie is shot in the real world witch has 100% accurate lighting, and geometry that is fully 3-D rather than just tessellated, or projected on flat planes like in games.

The power that would be required to make a game with fully rendered 3-D models/geometry for everything, and truly accurate global lighting models like ray tracing would be immense, and a lot of the problem is that it would require more than just dropping the resolution because the CPU can quickly become a bottle neck when trying to simulate everything, and having to make draw calls for thousands of unique materials that would be required...

That is why Crytech was talking about how we are still a long ways away from photo reality despite the big leaps that have been taken in the past deckaid.
(of coarse CG movies have already reached photo reality, but that is a whole nother story as it is not realtime)

 

[Inuhanyou]

He doesn't say it doesn't matter, though.

He implies as much. Its in the title.

Well, if all else is equal than a higher resolution is always preferable. This is especially true when talking about 720p content (or even worse, sub-720p). I'm not sure what AA solutions are used in BF4 on XB1 for example, but it's not enough to prevent it looking horrible. DOA5 looks bad in all incarnations. It just happens to look even worse at lower resolutions. However if I could have the XB1 version dropped to 900p in exchange for some decent AA, I would take that option in a heartbeat.

That doesn't even really matter for AA. In most cases these days, post processing solutions basically make applying AA almost no cost even if its a basic solution like FXAA. Even SMAA1x is relatively easy to implement. All things being equal is usually going to be the case unless your looking for heavier options like MSAA.

 

[EL CUCO]

I think it's funny that some people are saying this guy didn't write the article to defend the Xbox One, when in fact the only reason why this article exists is because of a poll that says PS4 managing better resolution is a major factor over the Xbox One. (Which it doesn't say, but clearly it's how the guy perceived it)

So really anybody thinking this shit ain't about PS4 vs Xbox should really try harder.


What follows are 2000 words dedicated to defending the notion that Xbox One doesn't offer a noticeably lesser image quality experience, and how other factors are more important. Finishing off with a rather cute remark about how maybe fun is what matters.

The best part about this shit show is how "processing power" being higher on Xbox One than on Ps4 got no attention by DF. Which to be fair makes sense because:



Doesn't read like:



So I wonder why only one bit got such a knee jerk reaction out of the fanboy who wrote the article.

Many of my thoughts while reading the piece are summed up well in this post.

 

[Synth]

Why are we comparing 900/1080 to 576/720? Why not 720/1080 to 576/720?

What exactly is the scientific reason one would think 120%<56%.
other factors would only make this difference larger not less.
TV sizes doubled in the last 10 years and living room sizes have been dropping since 1975

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24171226
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12483492

I would like a logical explanation why eurogamer thinks a 120% difference is now less than a 56% difference.

There are very few games that are 720p on Xbox and 1080p on PS4. 900/1080 is by far a more common scenario, so that comparison makes more sense.

 

[Seanspeed]

He implies as much. Its in the title.

He really doesn't. I think he's questioning just how important it really is when put alongside other aspects of the visuals/performance, but he does not say or imply that resolution does not increase image quality or anything like that.

 

[kitch9]

Yes obviously since some people here like to be 100% literal. Of course he doesn't say it doesn't matter. 1080p is going to be different from 1p. I think everyone using the term "doesnt matter" doesnt actually mean it literally. So lets all stop nitpicking on the semantics.

He doesn't say that he wants Phil Spencer to come round for bro cuddles either but it's there for all to see.

 

[orochi91]

I think it's funny that some people are saying this guy didn't write the article to defend the Xbox One, when in fact the only reason why this article exists is because of a poll that says PS4 managing better resolution is a major factor over the Xbox One. (Which it doesn't say, but clearly it's how the guy perceived it)

So really anybody thinking this shit ain't about PS4 vs Xbox should really try harder.



What follows are 2000 words dedicated to defending the notion that Xbox One doesn't offer a noticeably lesser image quality experience, and how other factors are more important. Finishing off with a rather cute remark about how maybe fun is what matters.

The best part about this shit show is how "processing power" being higher on Xbox One than on Ps4 got no attention by DF. Which to be fair makes sense because:



Doesn't read like:



So I wonder why only one bit got such a knee jerk reaction out of the fanboy who wrote the article.

Great summary.

It's been a pleasure watching DF gradually nerf their own reputation since the outset of this gen.

 

[Pocky4Th3Win]

My wife couldn't tell that TLOU looked better on PS4 v PS3 so for some people I guess not.

 

[Three]

There are very few games that are 720p on Xbox and 1080p on PS4. 900/1080 is by far a more common scenario, so that comparison makes more sense.

But there are just as few ps3 games at 576p especially ones where that is the only difference (some of the ps3 games with 576 actually had better image quality) so I don't see his point.

 

[Final Verdict]

Why are we comparing 900/1080 to 576/720? Why not 720/1080 to 576/720?

What exactly is the scientific reason one would think 120%<56%.
other factors would only make this difference larger not less.
TV sizes doubled in the last 10 years and living room sizes have been dropping since 1975

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24171226
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12483492

I would like a logical explanation why eurogamer thinks a 120% difference is now less than a 56% difference.

I think it is because most X1/PS4 games that have different resolutions are 900p on X1, and 1080P on PS4.

There have been a few oddbals like CoD Ghost (launch game), MGS Ground Zero, and PES 15, but for the most part game that feature resolution differences have a 900p-1080p gap (Evolve, DAI, LotF, AC:BF, LotR:SoM, ect.) and then again there are still a lot of games that have resolution parity (Destiny, Diablo 3, Fiffa/Madden/NBA2k15, AC:U, RE: Revelations2), as well as some games that have a resolution difference that is smaller than the 900-1080 gap (Watchdogs, CodAW, & Farcry4)

 

[alexandros]

Resolution and especially framerate have always been important and continue to be important in increasing the enjoyment of gaming. This doesn't mean that a good game isn't enjoyable if it's not running at native resolution and it does not mean that a bad game will become good if you run it at 4K/60fps. But if an already good game runs at a high resolution and framerate, especially framerate since it directly affects playability, then the whole experience becomes more enjoyable. A non-native resolution is no reason to skip on a good game.

What I often find funny in these discussions is how the importance of resolution, framerate and quality levels fluctuates according to the platform the poster holds dear. For instance, I remember the recent Dying Light Face-Off thread where apparently a lot of people had extreme difficulty seeing any sort of difference between the (massively different) PC and console LOD levels. I also vividly remember a lot of people downplaying the differences between PC and console during the last gen Era because "it's still basically the same game". Oh well.

 

[Schryver]

He doesn't say that he wants Phil Spencer to come round for bro cuddles either but it's there for all to see.

lol pretty much

 

[m_shortpants]

Isn't FC4 1080p on both XB1 and PS4?

Or is it 1080pr on XB1?

If the former...well GameSpot's test had games which ran at the same resolution...but yes there is absolutely a difference between even 900 and 1080p.

 

[kitch9]

My wife couldn't tell that TLOU looked better on PS4 v PS3 so for some people I guess not.

So you set them both up at the same time for a direct comparison or you expected her to remember what it looks like when she probably didn't really give a shit in the first place?

 

[PdotMichael]

You guys are taking a joke article way too seriously.

 

[cgcg]

My wife couldn't tell that TLOU looked better on PS4 v PS3 so for some people I guess not.

New DF article: better everything does not matter according to new survey.

900p to 1080p isn't as dramatic as 576p to 720p.

Dark10x, I must say you have been drinking a little too much DF kool-aid lately. You are describing PS3 in the worst way (happened only in very few games) yet using 900p for Xbone. Why is that?

 

[Quotient]

Though the resolution disparity is 1080 v 900 now (mostly), the situation will change as devs begin to push the envelope and we may see the disparity change to 900 v 720. As a console owner i'd rather stay with the more powerful hardware.

 

[Jomjom]

You guys are taking a joke article way too seriously.

The only joke to Leadbetter is how anyone could have picked a PS4 based on resolution. The rest is serious business.

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

So it seems they value performance more than resolution, which is just their opinion, man.

All I know is that sub 1080p looks uuuuugly on a native 1080p TV.

 

[Three]

I think it is because most X1/PS4 games that have different resolutions are 900p on X1, and 1080P on PS4.

There have been a few oddbals like CoD Ghost (launch game), MGS Ground Zero, and PES 15, but for the most part game that feature resolution differences have a 900p-1080p gap (Evolve, DAI, LotF, AC:BF, LotR:SoM, ect.) and then again there are still a lot of games that have resolution parity (Destiny, Diablo 3, Fiffa/Madden/NBA2k15, AC:U, RE: Revelations2), as well as some games that have a resolution difference that is smaller than the 900-1080 gap (Watchdogs, CodAW, & Farcry4)

most 360/ps3 games that had a different resolution were not 576p vs 720p either. 640p was the ps3s 900p.

https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/list-of-rendering-resolutions.41152/

as I said some 576p even had better IQ because of better AA. 576p last gen was the 720p of this gen but one where some 576p even had advantages whereas 720p games this gen have had none.

 

[demigod]

I guess we're all blind. Lets just go back and play in 480i. Oh he should also tell TV manufacturers to stop making and selling their 1080p and 4K TVs since nobody can see the difference.

 

[KKRT00]

Does Ryse look blurry because it's 900p, or for other reasons? I've seen games that are 900p vs 1080p where overall image look just as sharp, texture quality wise of course, since the 900p image has a few more jagged edges, but it's not the Vaseline smear that we see in some of the Ryse captures. It could be their method of AA or some kind of diffuse lighting technique.

DF catpures:

Upscaling + TAA + heavy post-processing like film grain. Some levels look clearer than other, because dont use grain filter that much for example.

---

Edit: Also, this article is embarrassing. Why WOULDN'T you want better resolution?

Its really simple, because consoles have limited resources. Its game of compromises. The big 3 path of game rendering are: fidelity, framerate, resolution, like "project management triangle".
You cant have all 3 and some are more important than others depending of the content devs are creating.

 

[Seanspeed]

So you set them both up at the same time for a direct comparison or you expected her to remember what it looks like when she probably didn't really give a shit in the first place?

If a person can only tell the difference if its a side-by-side, or back-to-back comparison, then I'd say its reasonable to assume that from a visual standpoint, its not anything that's actually important to them. Of course, it might still be important to some people for peace of mind or to use it a way to feel more justified in buying whatever, but it would be hard to take somebody seriously if they said something was important to them and then they couldn't even tell the difference in a blind test.

 

[Orca]

I don't think people are calling YOU out for being biased. Unfortunately, Leadbetter is (has) ruining the site's reputation for some, and it's easier to blast DF than look at each writer separately. For what it's worth, I don't feel any general ill will towards you or the site as a whole.

Why wouldn't they call him out as being biased too?

I mean in this very thread, he said this: "Since I dislike buying games on Microsoft platforms for the most part I was pretty much forced to abandon buying console games (outside of exclusives) during the second half of last gen as PS3 iterations just couldn't cut it."

What's different about that bias?

 

[kitch9]

If a person can only tell the difference if its a side-by-side, or back-to-back comparison, then I'd say its reasonable to assume that from a visual standpoint, its not anything that's actually important to them. Of course, it might still be important to some people for peace of mind or to use it a way to feel more justified in buying whatever, but it would be hard to take somebody seriously if they said something was important to them and then they couldn't even tell the difference in a blind test.

TLOU was double the res and fps... What I was saying is the his wife probably didn't really give a shit to pay attention months ago when it came out on ps3.

 

[Pocky4Th3Win]

So you set them both up at the same time for a direct comparison or you expected her to remember what it looks like when she probably didn't really give a shit in the first place?

I played through it originally with her on PS3 and when I started playing it on PS4 she commented that it didn't look better. I then proceeded to tell her that he optician needs to get a new job and loaded the ps3 version up and switched between inputs.

She thinks I'm nuts... We go through this on the PC often when I tell her to increase her settings because the games look like shit.

 

[Synth]

But there are just as few ps3 games at 576p especially ones where that is the only difference (some of the ps3 games with 576 actually had better image quality) so I don't see his point.

Hmm, true. I would say then that your issue really should be the number being contrasted with 720p rathen than the number being contrasted with 1080p in that case. 900p makes perfect sense to use, as when a current gen owner isn't seeing 1080p, that's the most likely resolution they're dealing with.

What value would you suggest for last gen then? I'd probably go with 640p?... Which based on Halo 3 to Halo Reach, and PGR3 to PGR4 is still massively more noticeable.

Also we typically have semi-decent AA solutions as standard this gen, so the numbers tell less of a story than they tended to last gen.

Which 576p games had better IQ btw? I can't say that I've ever noticed that being the case.

 

[Anarion07]

If a person can only tell the difference if its a side-by-side, or back-to-back comparison, then I'd say its reasonable to assume that from a visual standpoint, its not anything that's actually important to them. Of course, it might still be important to some people for peace of mind or to use it a way to feel more justified in buying whatever, but it would be hard to take somebody seriously if they said something was important to them and then they couldn't even tell the difference in a blind test.

Well you don't memorize every single bit of information while playing a game.
Haven't you ever thought about a game, how great it looked to you back then, and how horrible it actually looks now, compared to what you had in your mind?

to the article itself:
I can't take this seriously. First off, talking about that "comparison video" on effin youtube...
As if anyone can see a difference in resolution there.
And the side remark about those games having better performance on Xbox.. wow.

 

[miDnIghtEr20C]

I disagree. Ryse looks very blurry just like every other 900p game. To me that looks much worse than a 1080p image without AA.

I'd get your eyes checked if Ryse looked "very blurry" to you.

@OP topic... Neilsen ratings thing that said resolution mattered most on that poll.. they also didn't have "fun factor" up there for PS4.. but did for Wii U and X1. Not sure if that's in the same article as the digital foundry article.

 

[Synth]

Why wouldn't they call him out as being biased too?

I mean in this very thread, he said this: "Since I dislike buying games on Microsoft platforms for the most part I was pretty much forced to abandon buying console games (outside of exclusives) during the second half of last gen as PS3 iterations just couldn't cut it."

What's different about that bias?

Everyone has personal preferences. Based on that quote, you should be expecting him to trash the Xbox One version of every game he covers, right? He doesn't though, because his articles aren't biased towards his personal preference.

You don't have to be a robot to do your job properly.

 

[Three]

Hmm, true. I would say then that your issue really should be the number being contrasted with 720p rathen than the number being contrasted with 1080p in that case. 900p makes perfect sense to use, as when a current gen owner isn't seeing 1080p, that's the most likely resolution they're dealing with.

What value would you suggest for last gen then? I'd probably go with 640p?... Which based on Halo 3 to Halo Reach, and PGR3 to PGR4 is still massively more noticeable.

Also we typically have semi-decent AA solutions as standard this gen, so the numbers tell less of a story than they tended to last gen.

Which 576p games had better IQ btw? I can't say that I've ever noticed that being the case.

Yes, 640p was the 900p of last gen. The difference is actually smaller. Tekken was the 576p game that had better IQ because of AA and better texture filtering.

 

[Jomjom]

If a person can only tell the difference if its a side-by-side, or back-to-back comparison, then I'd say its reasonable to assume that from a visual standpoint, its not anything that's actually important to them. Of course, it might still be important to some people for peace of mind or to use it a way to feel more justified in buying whatever, but it would be hard to take somebody seriously if they said something was important to them and then they couldn't even tell the difference in a blind test.

Huh my wife can't tell the difference between the original Halo CE and the new one in MCC. That doesn't mean the difference between the two is minimal and only "important to some people for peace of mind blah blah blah".

 

[Seanspeed]

Why wouldn't they call him out as being biased too?

I mean in this very thread, he said this: "Since I dislike buying games on Microsoft platforms for the most part I was pretty much forced to abandon buying console games (outside of exclusives) during the second half of last gen as PS3 iterations just couldn't cut it."

What's different about that bias?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

TLOU was double the res and fps... What I was saying is the his wife probably didn't really give a shit to pay attention months ago when it came out on ps3.

Ah, gotcha. Yea, over long periods of time, our memory isn't going to be very good.

Huh my wife can't tell the difference between the original Halo CE and the new one in MCC. That doesn't mean the difference between the two is minimal and only "important to some people for peace of mind blah blah blah".

To her, the difference obviously is minimal. At best. I never said that her perspective should be considered universal. :/

 

[Fafalada]

The majority of vita games aren't native resolution

Except they are.

Personally I don't actively seek to avoid subnative games and I still have less than 10 of them in a library of 100+. Then again outside of a few choice exceptions the subnative basically falls into PS2 ports and shovelware/cheap multiplatforms, so it's basically a fringe choice to begin with.

 

[Blooddimond]

Except they are.

Personally I don't actively seek to avoid subnative games and I still have less than 10 of them in a library of 100+. Then again outside of a few choice exceptions the subnative basically falls into PS2 ports and shovelware/cheap multiplatforms, so it's basically a fringe choice to begin with.

What retail releases are native res? I usually heard of those usually being sub-native so just curious.

 

[Synth]

Yes, 640p was the 900p of last gen. The difference is actually smaller. Tekken was the 576p game that had better IQ because of AA and better texture filtering.

Tekken wasn't 720p on the 360 either though, so I'm not sure what your point here is. Obviously the same res looks better with better processing... The same would be said today about 900p or 1080p where one version lacks AA.

I'll never agree with anyone that claims 640p to 720p is less noticeable than 900p to 1080p though. The difference is smaller in numbers, but without a huge jump in screen size, the resulting disparity is much clearer. Halo 3 and PGR3 were absolutely destroyed by that res.

 

[Majanew]

I prefer the games I play to be 1080p since my TV is 1080p, but I've played several sub-1080p games this gen and some have looked worse than some 1080p games, and some have looked better. Ryse being 1600x900 wasn't my issue because the game still looked great and the AA made it look very clean; it was the game's frame-rate dropping below 30 that bothered me. So I know I'll always put frame-rate above resolution. Which leads me to Forza Motorsport 5. 1080p/60fps, but it had aliasing. It didn't bother me because I thought it still looked good (disappointed with it only because it's a new gen) and the frame-rate was rock solid. Though, I do wish I could see how that game looks if the resolution was dropped to something like 1328x1080 (Halo 2 Anni) with a better AA solution. Might even have got the 3D crowds on top of it and then people could just tear the game apart because it's sub-1080p instead of "lol crowd".

So yes, I do want 1920x1080 games, but not at the cost of bad frame-rates, bad IQ, and overall graphics that aren't living up to my next-gen expectations. No matter how unrealistic they are.

 

[Paracelsus]

Until they officially get rid of aliasing yes, it'll always be more relevant than any other graphical feature.

 

[3rdamention]

Digital Foundry build their tower on little resolution differences last generation. Now this generation, they are posing the question if it really even matters? Are they seriously questioning the very foundation they built their "Face Offs" on? I dont even know why they would introduce even the thought to some of their readers minds.



This is pretty interesting to me. Whether it matters to every gamer is besides the point (and of course it doesn't matter to every gamer), it always mattered to Digital Foundry, at least in the past.

 

[Lion Heart]

If someone sees a "MASSIVE" difference between 576p and 720p (RDR), than surely they have the perception to see at least a very noticeable difference between 900p and 1080p.

You can't proclaim to have a technical eye for such disparity and then either downplay or mitigate the 40% difference in resolution at twice the pixels.

There's no way to sugar coat it, the western media is really bending over backwards to point the Xbone in a positive light.

Leadbetter is biggest culprit, admittedly, so I don't want to equate him with the rest of the media but it really seems like all these articles are with the Xbone in mind and from the Xbones perspective.

This gen being a complete role reversal I guess would lead to peoples true intentions being brought to the fore, it would be comical to see the Xbox take the technical lead next gen just to see how the media reacts.

 

[cakely]

Almost one year ago, I had been playing "Bioshock: Infinite" in Steam big picture mode on my living room TV through HDMI. It was running in 1080p. Good-looking game.

This week I noticed it it was in my PS game collection so I downloaded it and ran the first few levels on my PS3. SO walked through the room, stopped and said "what happened to that game, it looks much worse".

She was right, it did look significantly worse, to a casual observer, at first glance.

It's sort of an extreme comparison, but, sorry, resolution absolutely does matter.

 

[Synth]

Until they officially get rid of aliasing yes, it'll always be more relevant than any other graphical feature.

The thing is though, pure resolution isn't necessarily more effective at dealing with aliasing than other graphical approaches. This has been touched upon plenty of times in this thread, with games like Forza 5 and DoA5 despite being 1080p, having far more aliasing than many 900p games.

 

[Beerman462]

Regardless of how you feel about the perceived IQ difference between 900p/1080p or 640p/720p, the author's intent is obvious...

Spoiler

clicks

 

[Crayon]

I think in this case, he may have gone too far trying to please microsoft. This article should haunt df for awhile.

 

[le.phat]

I think it's funny that some people are saying this guy didn't write the article to defend the Xbox One, when in fact the only reason why this article exists is because of a poll that says PS4 managing better resolution is a major factor over the Xbox One. (Which it doesn't say, but clearly it's how the guy perceived it)

So really anybody thinking this shit ain't about PS4 vs Xbox should really try harder.



What follows are 2000 words dedicated to defending the notion that Xbox One doesn't offer a noticeably lesser image quality experience, and how other factors are more important. Finishing off with a rather cute remark about how maybe fun is what matters.

The best part about this shit show is how "processing power" being higher on Xbox One than on Ps4 got no attention by DF. Which to be fair makes sense because:



Doesn't read like:



So I wonder why only one bit got such a knee jerk reaction out of the fanboy who wrote the article.

Good post, i think it's pretty obvious why this DF article exists. Sad state, but luckily more and more sites are doing technical analysis video's and articles giving in-depth reporting without the stench of personal opinions to muck up the piece. DF was lucky they were the first, now lets just stop giving them the clicks and let them wither and croak.

 

[pixlexic]

If someone sees a "MASSIVE" difference between 576p and 720p (RDR), than surely they have the perception to see at least a very noticeable difference between 900p and 1080p.

size and perception do not scale linear.

sure you can really notice the difference between a bowling ball and a baseball but the smaller you get its not so easily noticeable. It would be harder to notice the size difference between a golf ball and pingpong ball if they were not side by side.

 

[orochi91]

Good post, i think it's pretty obvious why this DF article exists. Sad state, but luckily more and more sites are doing technical analysis video's and articles giving in-depth reporting without the stench of personal opinions to muck up the piece. DF was lucky they were the first, now lets just stop giving them the clicks and let them wither and croak.

Agreed.

Some other sites would be welcome at this point.

Who would you recommend as an alternative to DF?