Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2015]

[Globalisateur]

Cool video, we did many blind tests like the Gamespot one back in the day and resolution was always at the bottom as far as being a recognizable metric to the average person. Anyone take the test at the end of the Gamespot video with Far Cry? The test is at the 9:50 mark. I didn't watch it in detail, I simply watched it once and made my guesses. My thoughts are that

This kind of test based on a (compressed) video will always (and forever) be flawed: You can't judge any resolution difference (as in judge which one is perceptually sharper) based on a compressed footage because:

- The compression will often get rid of the finer and low contrasted details in priority...somehow naturally more important on a native image
- The compression will automatically work best (it will enhance it even) on a naturally dark crushed or sharpened image, here the XB1 upscaled footage.

People were already fooled comparing Battlefield 4 footage during launch (people honestly thought the game looked better on XB1, "sharper"), people are still being fooled more than one year later on a Evolve comparison (Gamespot) as the compression makes the XB1 sharper and in higher resolution. The PS4 version honestly looks to me like more blurry and/or in lower resolution than the XB1 version:

But it's an illusion (literally) and works only on compressed footage because of the 2 reasons I explained. On a correctly calibrated native screen using uncompressed video, the illusions are shattered.

That article from DF is really poor and amateur.

 

[joker454]

This kind of test based on a (compressed) video will always (and forever) be flawed: You can't judge any resolution difference (as in judge which one is perceptually sharper) based on a compressed footage because:

I realize that, I was looking for other differences like draw distance, amount of stuff on screen, shadow differences, model differences, frame stutters, etc. Resolution can rarely be properly judged from a youtube video, although Gamespot does offer a link to a much higher quality version of their video for people to look at. In any case I already know that resolution matters little to most people from a crapload of real world tests we did back in the day at various companies I worked at on actual games, heck I was present for many of them and watched the results first hand. Hence I was using the youtube video to see if there were other obvious differences aside from resolution.

Ultimately I'm glad there was an article on it because people don't realize they are actually *hurting* visuals by forcing developers to push these limited boxes to render at 1920 x 1080p. You can get better visuals by dropping resolution. Maybe if people see more tests like this they will begin to realize that. What was most funny about the test was when they used the same PS4 version on all three versions and yet some people still insisted they saw a difference.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Consumers have been trained to research purchases largely on specs. 1080p is an important spec for people who mostly illiterate about modern 3D graphics. That was always going to be the case this generation BC the majority the consumers in the space aren't familiar with the names of the techniques used and in some cases are not able to even notice them.

There's a growing movement away from Resolution > everything else. Especially with the advent of 4k. Where many people are at the point where 4k (~250 PPI) is enough or more than enough. Hell, theres a significant amount of gamer's that are rebelling against 4k because it'll mean sacrifices in the graphics IQ of games.

More and more you hear people asking for either better temporal resolution (60 FPS isn't enough anymore for a realistic look, and a growing number of people are asking for 120-240 hz updates in games) or prettier pixels.

When asked most gamers on PC would prefer lower resolution combined with higher framerates and prettier pixels over raw resolution at the expense of either of those 2.

30 FPS just really isn't acceptable anymore. The lose of detail due to that low temporal resolution is just too much. Not having advanced post processing, robust anti-aliasing, high levels of anistropic filtering, excellent material shaders, etc. is just crap.

That's why I applaud any developer on console that is brave enough to say screw 1080p and deliver a significantly better looking game at a slightly lower resolution (like Ryse and The Order, even if I don't look some of the design decisions in The Order).

Regards,
SB

 

[ultragpu]

I think the phenomenon resides not at the immediate difference (quite noticeable often times) between 900p and 1080p, rather it's the player's mentality that 1080p is by default better, clearer as it's a mathematical certainty. That is, on the basis of a multiplatform game where everything else are mostly equal with a very negligent difference in framerate in the margin of 2fps perhaps. So why the hell would anyone who doesn't have a brand loyalty not get the higher res version? It's common logic. Now as many have stated, it's always best to have a 1:1 pixel mapped frame to your tv's native resolution to eliminate unflattering upscaling and other artifacts. Sure some 900p game designed for currentgen console could somewhat look better than a 1080p crossgen, low budget indie or B tier game, but when the currentgen becomes mainstreamed if not already then I could well see how a very good looking 900p game still looses in the overall visual presentation to a native 1080p game also built with the utmost care especially on a more powerful system that can afford the increased resolution. That said, 900p games no matter how good or bad they look otherwise, still are a blurry mess on anything larger than 60" and by now let's not all pretend a large portion of audiences couldn't tell the difference. It's certainly not a deal breaker for many but by human nature, logic and a few other factors that 1080p is and will be the deciding factor in a purchase and I for one is a firm believer.

 

[ultragpu]

30 FPS just really isn't acceptable anymore. The lose of detail due to that low temporal resolution is just too much. Not having advanced post processing, robust anti-aliasing, high levels of anistropic filtering, excellent material shaders, etc. is just crap.

That's why I applaud any developer on console that is brave enough to say screw 1080p and deliver a significantly better looking game at a slightly lower resolution (like Ryse and The Order, even if I don't look some of the design decisions in The Order).

Regards,
SB

First you contradict yourself, both Ryse and The Order are 30fps with Ryse even dips into low 20s at a even lower pixel count with inherited upscaling, not that both need to be 60fps tho. The Order actually is 1080p 1:1 pixel mapped only with black bars, not to mention perfectly doable in 1080p anyway just with 2xmsaa instead. So running all the pretty visuals while un upscaled in the same time is the true champ but the same can't be said for Ryse. This is what I meant earlier that if you can afford the native res with no upscaling on top of running high end visuals then it makes the whole pixel quality vs higher res argument redundant.

 

[shredenvain]

First you contradict yourself, both Ryse and The Order are 30fps with Ryse even dips into low 20s at a even lower pixel count with inherited upscaling, not that both need to be 60fps tho. The Order actually is 1080p 1:1 pixel mapped only with black bars, not to mention perfectly doable in 1080p anyway just with 2xmsaa instead. So running all the pretty visuals while un upscaled in the same time is the true champ but the same can't be said for Ryse. This is what I meant earlier that if you can afford the native res with no upscaling on top of running high end visuals then it makes the whole pixel quality vs higher res argument redundant.

That's still an opinion not a fact. You may prefer the look of a title that has 1 for 1 1080p pixel count with black bars, but not everyone does. In fact in my opinion putting blacks bars on a 3rd person shooter like the Order or evil within can cause serious playability issues. I would take 900p with good Smaa upscaled to 1080p over big black bars any day. So in your opinion the manner in which the order 1886 tackles the issue is "champ", but not everyone will agree. I would also like to say that titles running at 900p are not always a blurry mess as you put it. And there is no way a majority of people would really notice the difference between the same game running at 900p and then 1080p. A lot of console gamers don't bother to look into all the technical details of the games and systems they play. They just play the games. I really wish more games would use a dynamic resolution scaled up in only one direction when needed in order to keep a solid frame rate.

 

[ultragpu]

That's still an opinion not a fact. You may prefer the look of a title that has 1 for 1 1080p pixel count with black bars, but not everyone does. In fact in my opinion putting blacks bars on a 3rd person shooter like the Order or evil within can cause serious playability issues. I would take 900p with good Smaa upscaled to 1080p over big black bars any day. So in your opinion the manner in which the order 1886 tackles the issue is "champ", but not everyone will agree. I would also like to say that titles running at 900p are not always a blurry mess as you put it. And there is no way a majority of people would really notice the difference between the same game running at 900p and then 1080p. A lot of console gamers don't bother to look into all the technical details of the games and systems they play. They just play the games. I really wish more games would use a dynamic resolution scaled up in only one direction when needed in order to keep a solid frame rate.

You obviously haven't played The Order not to mention there's never at any point the game becomes unplayable because of the black bars. I'm not even advocating for the black bars, it's more to do with having the raw processing power to afford both 1080p and good graphics which The Order could have been if it went for post aa at 1080p. But hey personally I find the bars suiting for the course. So yeah, I know 900p with good shader AA can look good but would look even better with native res wouldn't you say? Also any 900p frame with good post AA would still look less than ideal on the now much more mainstreamed large size TVs 60"+, if you play Ryse 1080p straight after 900p then you would definitely see it, if not I recommend seeking optometrist (no offense).

 

[Globalisateur]

TO1886 may have black bars but the FOV is surprisingly good and unusual for a console game.

Maybe they could have removed the black bars, kept the solid fps, native res + 4xMSAA, but with a limited FOV? Would that be comparable?

 

[iroboto]

What is the FOV of 1886? I 'm actually curious what the default FOV is for a TPS

 

[temesgen]

You obviously haven't played The Order not to mention there's never at any point the game becomes unplayable because of the black bars. I'm not even advocating for the black bars, it's more to do with having the raw processing power to afford both 1080p and good graphics which The Order could have been if it went for post aa at 1080p. But hey personally I find the bars suiting for the course. So yeah, I know 900p with good shader AA can look good but would look even better with native res wouldn't you say? Also any 900p frame with good post AA would still look less than ideal on the now much more mainstreamed large size TVs 60"+, if you play Ryse 1080p straight after 900p then you would definitely see it, if not I recommend seeking optometrist (no offense).

The black bars allow the game to maintain proper 1080P assets and reduce the rendering over head so more effects can be used. We hear over and over how 900P to achieve similar results is brave, smart, better but here with this game we have lots of complaining....

 

[forumaccount]

well, no
It is an improvement if the details are the same, yes. But if there is another compromise for getting from x to 1080p it maybe is not the best solution (missing AF, fps-hit, ...).

No one is really in a position to evaluate the tradeoffs other than the development team. It doesn't stop people from criticizing from a place of ignorance. That's just par for the course in game development.

What we do know is this... that any image rendered at a higher resolution looks better than the same image rendered at a lower resolution, and that PS4 has a CUs/pixel advantage at 1080 over XBO at 900. Real life interferes with the math and obviously ALU is not the only bound, but if XBO is 900 then the correct expectation is that PS4 is 1080.

This isn't something to complain about... it's the reality of relative hardware power this generation. The math works out almost perfectly. But instead of just accepting it what we get is people in the same breath claiming that they can't tell the difference between 1080 and 900 and still thinking they're qualified to talk about image quality at all in any way.

 

[shredenvain]

You obviously haven't played The Order not to mention there's never at any point the game becomes unplayable because of the black bars. I'm not even advocating for the black bars, it's more to do with having the raw processing power to afford both 1080p and good graphics which The Order could have been if it went for post aa at 1080p. But hey personally I find the bars suiting for the course. So yeah, I know 900p with good shader AA can look good but would look even better with native res wouldn't you say? Also any 900p frame with good post AA would still look less than ideal on the now much more mainstreamed large size TVs 60"+, if you play Ryse 1080p straight after 900p then you would definitely see it, if not I recommend seeking optometrist (no offense).

You are right I haven't played the Order yet. I have watched several reviews on YouTube that mention going into cover can cause a great loss of environment view. One reviewer even claimed to not use cover the entire game because of this issue. I have also put several hours into the Evil Within which isn't a cover shooter, but the black bars and the closeness of the camera can cause several issues with visibility. It is just my opinion. I would rather have a title that renders in something like 1600x1080 and is upscaled in one direction only than a shooter with black bars at the top and bottom. Other game types may not be so bad in these weird aspect ratios.

 

[shredenvain]

No one is really in a position to evaluate the tradeoffs other than the development team. It doesn't stop people from criticizing from a place of ignorance. That's just par for the course in game development.

What we do know is this... that any image rendered at a higher resolution looks better than the same image rendered at a lower resolution, and that PS4 has a CUs/pixel advantage at 1080 over XBO at 900. Real life interferes with the math and obviously ALU is not the only bound, but if XBO is 900 then the correct expectation is that PS4 is 1080.

This isn't something to complain about... it's the reality of relative hardware power this generation. The math works out almost perfectly. But instead of just accepting it what we get is people in the same breath claiming that they can't tell the difference between 1080 and 900 and still thinking they're qualified to talk about image quality at all in any way.

Resolution and image quality are not the same thing. There can be titles with the exact same output resolution that don't have parity IQ wise. There are several factors that have an effect on IQ. Like texture filtering, Anti Aliasing, Texture resolution and shader and lighting quality just to name a few. So please stop judging who is qualified to talk about image quality. Your average gamer who plays to win and have fun doesn't necessarily care what a game's native res is. Not every gamer is a member of B3D or even a lurker.

 

[chris1515]

You are right I haven't played the Order yet. I have watched several reviews on YouTube that mention going into cover can cause a great loss of environment view. One reviewer even claimed to not use cover the entire game because of this issue. I have also put several hours into the Evil Within which isn't a cover shooter, but the black bars and the closeness of the camera can cause several issues with visibility. It is just my opinion. I would rather have a title that renders in something like 1600x1080 and is upscaled in one direction only than a shooter with black bars at the top and bottom. Other game types may not be so bad in these weird aspect ratios.

It is impossible to finish the game without using cover. It is just a clickbait. The GOW is good in The Order and only a problem during shooting sequence against lycans.

 

[shredenvain]

It is impossible to finish the game without using cover. It is just a clickbait. The GOW is good in The Order and only a problem during shooting sequence against lycans.

What you say may be true but I would hardly call Ign's review of The Order a click bait article.
http://m.ign.com/articles/2015/02/19/the-order-1886-review
I have nothing at all against the game. I haven't played it. I was just stating my opinion which is an extreme dislike for shooters with black bars taking up a good amount of the screen. That is why I said I would take an upscale over black bars any day of the week.

 

[chris1515]

What you say may be true but I would hardly call Ign's review of The Order a click bait article.
http://m.ign.com/articles/2015/02/19/the-order-1886-review
I have nothing at all against the game. I haven't played it. I was just stating my opinion which is an extreme dislike for shooters with black bars taking up a good amount of the screen. That is why I said I would take an upscale over black bars any day of the week.

I play with cover and the FOV is never a problem out of lycans fight where you can't use cover and the room are made to fight against a wall and the head of Galahad often block the view of the lycans. It is impossible to shoot from the hip.

With inflitration the worst gameplay part of the game.

I think if the game was on PC there would be black bar in 4K, it is a choice. The FOV is good and much better than the Evil Within. Upscale would add artifact. In this case maybe better to go with 1080p and 2xMSAA...

 

[ultragpu]

You are right I haven't played the Order yet. I have watched several reviews on YouTube that mention going into cover can cause a great loss of environment view. One reviewer even claimed to not use cover the entire game because of this issue. I have also put several hours into the Evil Within which isn't a cover shooter, but the black bars and the closeness of the camera can cause several issues with visibility. It is just my opinion. I would rather have a title that renders in something like 1600x1080 and is upscaled in one direction only than a shooter with black bars at the top and bottom. Other game types may not be so bad in these weird aspect ratios.

Maybe a good portion of players simply have superior vision or other physical abilities which allowed them finishing the game without too much difficulties having the black bars on ? Again watching it on YT is vastly different than playing it on your own with the latter allowing you to pan the camera to your own liking. But if you so want a full screen frame then don't settle for upscale one side or not, a 1080p frame with post aa or 2xmsaa (attainable for The Order) is still much better and having more pixels than 900p smaa any day.

 

[Devious]

I wouldn't call 900p a blurry mess. But it's definitely noticeable. And that is coming from someone who still plays on a 32" 1366x768 HDTV which I feel has been pretty well calibrated going by AVSForums standards. I can only imagine how much more noticeable it would be if I was playing on 42" or larger. I like the way titles such as Dying Light, Halo 2 Anniversary, Far Cry 4, and COD AW handled resolution for the XB1 by doing native vertical resolution. To my eyes it looks a lot better than 900p.

I don't have a PS4 and have never played The Order so I couldn't say if the black bars would ever bother me. But with TPS games like The Order or The Evil Within, I don't think it's a bad choice if the FOV is good enough. And I think The Order's FOV looks pretty playable to me. I would NOT like black bars for FPS like Halo or Killzone. I'd lose my mind. lol

 

[chris1515]

I think this article is not very good for multiple reasons. Far Cry 4 has better resolution and framerate on PS4 and Dark10 (John Linnerman Digital Foundry) on GAF trying to defend Richard Leadbetter on GAF said that he was talking about COD not Far Cry 4. COD Advanced Warfare was running better on Xbox One during campaign and it is the same framerate during multiplayer. CPU bound? It seems framerate is better on PS4 after patch. Is this true? I don't have the game. Dark10 said than they haven't test the game after patch. And the biggest flaw in the analysis is the assumption than the game is GPU bound and better performance can be attained by reduce the resolution on PS4 side. The only one to know are the developer...

After if it runs better or have the same performance on PS4 but better resolution and have AF, the public choose the better version. The resolution is only important on multiplatform game for exclusive game each developer choose the best compromise between resolution, effect on screen and framerate. if The Order 1886 was on PC and the developer keep the same ratio at 4K it will looking better than PS4 version without a doubt, like Ryse look better on PC...

And a better question would be is native res important or Resolution or framerate what matters?

If resolution not matter why buy a good gaming PC?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If you don't like the black bars, sit a bit closer so the vertical FOV is the same as you'd have it sans-letterboxing, and you'll get the same vertical and a little wider view...