[Allegedly Leaked]Battlefield 4 Sticks 720P/60 FPS on Next-Gen Consoles
- Thread starter Bigduo209
- Start date
Not that I disagree with your general point but cgi films are rendered in much higher resolution than 1080p natively. Of they were initially rendered at 480p you'd certainly know about it. And on the other side of the equation, compare a cgi movie on a tv running at 480p and 1080p. The film looks vastly better in HD.
Ike Turner
Veteran
Nope. Most of WETA's CG in Avatar was rendered at 1080P.
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=6496211&postcount=54
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=878563
Billy Idol
Legend
What has this argument to do with actual real time graphics? You are comparing something that is realtime with something that is not? What is your point? Of course cgi offline does look/should look better than real time gameplay. It is always the same weird argument, which in my opinion just does not fit to the actual discussion topic.
Show me a game in 1080p medium settings and a game in 720p and very high settings (or something like this) on a PC...than lets decide. And in this case I would agree with Scott and Robert that it depends on the actual game and on-screen situation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy Idol
Legend
How did you actually test it? How far away do you sit? How big is your screen? How is your eyesight?
Last edited by a moderator:
djskribbles
Legend
How good 720p looks on a display depends on the scaler and screen size or viewing distance. 720p can look good on a 1080p display if the scaler is good and the display isn't bigger than say, 60-65" at normal viewing distances.
Last edited by a moderator:
(((interference)))
Veteran
I really hope these new machines have good upscalers, would love to see something like fractal based upscaling or NNEDI3.
I'm interested to see why DICE couldn't manage 1080p60 since BF3 could definitely run on PS4 at very high if not ultimate settings at 1080p60
They must have really made a lot of improvements to the engine.
Do you guys think this new dynamic weather system will be the culprit?
I'm interested to see why DICE couldn't manage 1080p60 since BF3 could definitely run on PS4 at very high if not ultimate settings at 1080p60
They must have really made a lot of improvements to the engine.
Do you guys think this new dynamic weather system will be the culprit?
The point is that they have a long way to go in image quality without lower resolution being a major drawback. If they could hit DVD quality at 480p, but only pong level graphics at 1080 would you still be cheering for your check box number?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
They have whatever multicore optimizations were put in place for the consoles. Crysis 3 for example uses up to 8 cores, possibly more. The last GTA used up to 3 cores (or was it more?), IIRC.
I'm not sure about BF3. IIRC, DICE pushed compute shaders heavily in BF3 on PC to reduce the reliance on a user's CPU. The more CUs you have, the better it'll run. Hence, it's even less likely that the console version on PS4 would be able to outperform significantly the PC version using similar hardware.
Regards,
SB
Silent_Buddha
Legend
The bolded part there is where everything goes wrong for your comparison. Sure, if your screen is close enough that you can resolve individual pixels you'll be able to notice the difference. There is no way I'd play a 1200p game upscaled to 1600p on my 30" monitor because it's so close I can see the difference.
The important thing here is that this will be on a console. Which uses a TV. Which is generally located multiple meters away from the viewer/game player. My 55" HDTV is 3-4 meters away from my typical viewing seat.
To put that into perspective. If I had a 1080p 24" PC monitor on my desk at my typical 2 feet viewing distance, to resolve the same amount of detail on my TV at typical viewing distances, it would have be using a screen over 100" or I'd have to move the TV uncomfortably close to my couch.
To put it into more perspective. Recommended TV viewing distance for a 24" TV would be between 1-3 meters away. Your PC monitor is much MUCH closer to you than any TV manufacturer or calibrator would recommend. Hence it's much easier to see the differences between 720p and 1080p.
Long story short. I'd never upscale a game on my PC monitor because it is so close. On my TV, however? I run ALL PC games at 720p instead of 1080p. There is no discernible difference unless you were to put it side by side with another TV. I've done numerous blind tests with friends and family, and even those who absolutely, positively, without a doubt declared that there was no way they could mistake 720p for 1080p... Yeah, they couldn't tell the difference either as long as I didn't have game Text on the screen.
Hence, when PC gaming on my HDTV, I set resolution to 720p and crank up the rendering detail and AA. And end up with a far better looking game in general than if I had to run it at 1080p.
Regards,
SB
Billy Idol
Legend
I know what you guys are trying say, don't get me wrong, and I really appreciate that you try to explain it to me so often
But again, your explanation is to extreme in my opinion and that is what I try to explain to you. The difference of needed computing resources to get 720 or 1080 is imo not that large that one version of the game would look like 'pong' and the other like 'avatar'. So how much increase in 'detail' can you expect when avoiding 1080p? We don't know, as it depends on the actual game. E.g. I certainly hope that we are CPU bound on new consoles for the new BF due to all the nice destruction physics and that resolution will not define the performance
PS
lease stop it with this checkbox bs, boooringSenjutsuSage
Newcomer
I couldn't agree any more. Well said. The problem I think is that just because some might feel 1080p looks better, and there are certainly circumstances where it does, the larger point is being missed. The point is does it look so much better than 720p that 720p becomes unacceptable.
A lot of people may feel this is the case because they often see 720p vs 1080p with respect to PC gaming, where even if you do raise the resolution, you can still have the same exact game with all the same settings and bells and whistles even at the higher resolution. And in such a situation of course 1080p will seem like the superior option every single time. But there also lies the problem.
We aren't talking about a comparison between the exact same game with all the same bells and whistles vs the exact same game, bells and whistles fully intact, just at the higher resolution of 1080p with the same rock solid performance. When it comes to console development, a developers absolute best at a targeted 720p will simply not be possible at 1080p.
And it is under those circumstances that 720p beats 1080p.
720p isn't antiquated the way standard def may have been when the 360 and ps3 launched. Just because a developer is able to make an amazing looking and playing game at a native 1080p on these consoles, it won't mean that the game couldn't have been even more impressive at 720p with the kind of power that these consoles possess.
So 720p vs 1080p on the pc vs a targeted 720p vs a targeted 1080p on consoles are two different discussions.
Billy Idol
Legend
I have my PC connected to my TV. I still sit rather close to it (1meter), which is certainly part of the reason the difference is so obvious for me. As I said, I also tested this, but in every game up to now that I cannot max out, I did choose resolution over quality of other effects instead of going route 720. To each his own I guess, it also depends on the game one compares.
The recommended viewing distances you state are really large for me. In fact I think that 24'' is like a monitor and I would choose half a meter distance, maybe closer. Of course, if you guys really sit across the hall while playing, than it is obvious that you don't see a difference when changing resolution, but than why even border with 720p...just go all COD or lower.
SenjutsuSage
Newcomer
On a powerful enough PC, 1080p wins everytime. On a console, a targeted 720p by developers will beat out a targeted 1080p, because that game at 720p will simply not be possible at 1080p.
It isn't just about bells and whistles, although 720p on a console will certainly have more than 1080p, but it's also performance and gameplay enhancements, too. These two consoles can do 1080p, but I still think it's too soon for it to be the absolutely standard for the two of them. The generation after Durango and the PS4 will be the right time to make 1080p the new standard. I believe you're throwing away too much on these consoles in order to target 1080p.
It isn't just about bells and whistles, although 720p on a console will certainly have more than 1080p, but it's also performance and gameplay enhancements, too. These two consoles can do 1080p, but I still think it's too soon for it to be the absolutely standard for the two of them. The generation after Durango and the PS4 will be the right time to make 1080p the new standard. I believe you're throwing away too much on these consoles in order to target 1080p.
I know what you guys are trying say, don't get me wrong, and I really appreciate that you try to explain it to me so often
But again, your explanation is to extreme in my opinion and that is what I try to explain to you. The difference of needed computing resources to get 720 or 1080 is imo not that large that one version of the game would look like 'pong' and the other like 'avatar'. So how much increase in 'detail' can you expect when avoiding 1080p? We don't know, as it depends on the actual game. E.g. I certainly hope that we are CPU bound on new consoles for the new BF due to all the nice destruction physics and that resolution will not define the performance
PS
It's not BS. You're complaining about a game reportedly being 720P AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. Why? Because you have it stuck in your head that the bigger number is better. It's ridiculous.
Many great looking games sacrificed resolution for effects this gen, the same will be true next gen. If you don't like the game, don't buy it. But bashing it because they missed your checkbox feature before you've seen it is silly.
I'd actually say that it's pretty easy to tell with one thing and one thing only: text. I wish modern games would kind of do what Durango will implement with display planes. Render the HUD/text at maximum resolution on one display plane, and the draw 3D environment in a separate display plane at an adjustable resolution with some AA and composite the two together. The eye is pretty forgiving with upscaling 3D rendered assets, but 2D pixelated art desperately wants to be at a 1:1 pixel ratio.
First sorry I if I reply to you only now.
Now, I din't say that begin 720p 60fps it's is the main reason to go for KZ:SF.
I will go for KZ not just for the higher resolution, there are many other reason I didn't mention.
I am not saying that BF 4 is bad, I din't play nor see it so I can't really tell, and surely BF & KZ are two different animals, but higher resolution is an important factor nonetheless FOR ME.
BF 4 is cross-gen so maybe they decided that it was easier to develop the console versions with 720p in mid.
I don't think that sticking to 720p it's due to PS4 and Xbox being inadequate for 1080p 30fps
Last edited by a moderator:
Fair enough but likely with huge amounts of AA (most likely supersampling) which make the resolution appear higher than it is. Plus the point still stands anyway. Cgi movies cant be taken as evidence that lower dvd res is as good as 1080p since the movies are rendered in more than dvd res originally and indeed look better when viewed in 1080p compared with SD.
