*downscaled* Resolving Resolution

[Cyan]

So when a tree falls down in the woods and no-one's there to hear it, it doesn't actually fall down?

very good question, you caught me in fraganti there...

If you were in the woods trying to measure the tree when you find it perhaps it would be fallen, but if anyone wasn't there it would be okay. That's the solution, I'll give it to yah. Certainly I am not about to go measure.

Anyways, gaming, like any other human activity is subject to the rules contained in the universe.

I sometimes wish I could jump back -or even ahead- a few billion years to when the galaxy was very visible. I imagine that it'd the most spectacular sight.

 

[Cyan]

Somehow it's a bit "funny"/baffling how this forum is used to be known so well for it's "pixel counting activities" and threads such as:

"Neverending Upscaling/Resolutions/AA etc Thread"
"Image Quality and Framebuffer Speculations for Unreleased Games"
"Image Quality and Framebuffer Analysis for Available Games"

but as soon as someone mentions 1080p should be mandatory for next-gen console videogames, suddenly a lot of users start to whine and scream "Please no, would be such a waste!" and so on (or whatever) .

Amazing as usual, you are so quick with links... btw.

Addition and multiplication aren't the same thing. Here at Beyond3D we are like that with raw numbers and rational data, they aren't easy to put together. But as far as number go....

2*2 and 2+2 yield the same result since you are putting two two's together so 2+2+2+2 and 2*4 would be the same as well. That's how (during my student years) it was explained to me in math class so subtraction and division were the same as well.

 

[joker454]

This basically resounds to the words sebbi used, where he says true quality should be shown where/when it is needed.

That can be solved once we have 100% accurate low latency eye tracking. Once we have that then we know where the user is looking at on the screen and hence that part can be rendered full quality, and slowly degrade the quality fanning out from that point. So everything in your peripheral vision would be rendered at reduced res, approximated shaders, lower quality post implementations, more aggressive lod, etc...

If the choice is between a console that's advertised as "Full HD 1080p games" and another console that 'looks better', Joe Gamer will pick the latter (all other things being equal).

I honestly think it's a moot argument as far as what joe gamer wants. Those like me that want 1080p and 60fps did the obvious thing and switched to pc gaming ages ago. Those that didn't switch probably don't care enough about stuff like that. The diehard console only gamers will play whatever is offered to them even if it's all still 720p 30fps in the next generation. Makes no difference if better alternatives are available or if they complain on forums, they will nonetheless continue to play their consoles.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I honestly think it's a moot argument as far as what joe gamer wants. Those like me that want 1080p and 60fps did the obvious thing and switched to pc gaming ages ago. Those that didn't switch probably don't care enough about stuff like that. The diehard console only gamers will play whatever is offered to them even if it's all still 720p 30fps in the next generation. Makes no difference if better alternatives are available or if they complain on forums, they will nonetheless continue to play their consoles.

You're very cynically jumping to conclusions here. Just because console gamers haven't switched to PC yet, doesn't mean they won't if the console don't offer suitable improvement. With new console just around the corner (and being just around the corner for a couple of years now!), it doesn't make much sense to jump to PC when the consoles may offer (considerably?) better value.

I've been meaning to post a new thread about the cost of switching to PC as I consider it myself, but it actually appears to be a lot more costly than first impressions. There's a whole discussion there about what it would take Joe Consoler to become Joe Steamer. For your sentiments to be true, you'd need to believe that console gamers were unlike other consumer and totally unwilling to move to an alternative product or service even when better value. What's the reasoning behind such a view? We've even seen exactly the opposite as generation to generation, games have switched to different machines, including home consoles and PCs. If consoles don't offer a suitable experience, they'll be ditched. Resolution is just part of that experience, and if you're gaming on a <40" TV from a few metres away as a lot of people are, 720p on the next gen consoles is hardly going to be a sacrifice.

 

[user542745831]

I've been meaning to post a new thread about the cost of switching to PC as I consider it myself, but it actually appears to be a lot more costly than first impressions.

See for example:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-introducing-the-digital-foundry-pc

 

[almighty]

I've been meaning to post a new thread about the cost of switching to PC as I consider it myself, but it actually appears to be a lot more costly than first impressions.

Depends on what you want to be honest, mines at £7000 currently and £1200 of that was for the case alone.

You can get a 7950 Crossfire PC that packs an Ivy Bridge 3750k for round about £1000

You save on the games, the amount of money that STEAM has saved me over the years is amazing, £4 for GTA4? All the STALKER games for £7, All 3 Crysis games for £9, ARMA 2 for £3..

If all of those games were released on console at £40 each it would cost £320 to buy them as opposed to the £23 it cost me.

So not only are the games a heck of a lot cheaper, they look better, play better and have more content through mods.

 

[Sigfried1977]

See for example:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-introducing-the-digital-foundry-pc

Why would anyone with a serious interest in PC gaming buy that thing? Unfortunately the widely popular notion that the upfront fee for PC gaming isn't an awful lot higher than it is for console gaming only holds true as long as you are willing to buy a PC that's severely outdated already.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Depends on what you want to be honest, mines at £7000 currently and £1200 of that was for the case alone.

You save on the games, the amount of money that STEAM has saved me over the years is amazing, £4 for GTA4? All the STALKER games for £7, All 3 Crysis games for £9, ARMA 2 for £3..

If all of those games were released on console at £40 each it would cost £320 to buy them as opposed to the £23 it cost me.

So not only are the games a heck of a lot cheaper, they look better, play better and have more content through mods.

Would you mind telling us the complete price breakdown of you PC components. 7000£ sounds nuts. What are you doing with 2 six core Xeon CPUs BTW?

Old games on Steam sale vs new high price console games is a fair comparison? You can get old console games from Amazon.uk quite cheaply.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Not here, thank you. I'll start a proper thread at some point. this thread has nothing to do with PC builds other than how PC users prefer a higher resolution.

 

[tuna]

You save on the games, the amount of money that STEAM has saved me over the years is amazing, £4 for GTA4? All the STALKER games for £7, All 3 Crysis games for £9, ARMA 2 for £3..

And you can get shitloads of games included in PSPlus and you can find other games on sale etc. And you rarely "save" when you buy stuff....

 

[joker454]

For your sentiments to be true, you'd need to believe that console gamers were unlike other consumer and totally unwilling to move to an alternative product or service even when better value. What's the reasoning behind such a view?

That's not what I'm saying though. I'm saying they don't really value graphics as much as they think they do, hence why they don't care about jumping to a better option for graphics even when it's been available for years now. If there is another product they deem has greater value then sure they will jump to it, it's ultimately why I've predicted that consoles will eventually lose. But the "value" prospect won't be in graphics.

 

[egoless]

That's not what I'm saying though. I'm saying they don't really value graphics as much as they think they do, hence why they don't care about jumping to a better option for graphics even when it's been available for years now. If there is another product they deem has greater value then sure they will jump to it, it's ultimately why I've predicted that consoles will eventually lose. But the "value" prospect won't be in graphics.

As a user that always has a virtually state of the art PC and multiple consoles, graphics ARE a part of the value to me and my console play. But graphics doesn't just mean resolution. For example, graphics also means displaying properly day 1.

I wonder if the same people offended by scaling are also excited about 4k displays.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's not what I'm saying though. I'm saying they don't really value graphics as much as they think they do, hence why they don't care about jumping to a better option for graphics even when it's been available for years now. If there is another product they deem has greater value then sure they will jump to it, it's ultimately why I've predicted that consoles will eventually lose. But the "value" prospect won't be in graphics.

But graphics has been a huge factor for console gamers (in the early days, better consoles meant little more than better graphics in your shooters and platformers), so why is that no longer true? How do you gauge that console gamers no longer care?

 

[antwan]

But graphics has been a huge factor for console gamers (in the early days, better consoles meant little more than better graphics in your shooters and platformers), so why is that no longer true? How do you gauge that console gamers no longer care?

Probably because people can't be bothered to build and maintain a microsoft windows computer, just to run a handful of exclusive titles, or to run console ports after a few months but with added aa and a higher resolution or framerate?

 

[Simon F]

I'd say motion makes aliasing and other upscaling problems more noticeable. Shimmering is more noticeable than static jagged edges.

But weirdly, it can also mask other things that are visible in static images.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I was watching a DVD rip of the 1990's XMen cartoon yesterday, an SD cartoon upscaled on Media Player to 1050 vertical lines. The jaggies were at times obvious, especially when the scene was fairly static. But when moving, they became disguised very well. Strangely it's even better when you squint - why, if human eyesight is better with the eyes half closed, haven't we evolved perma-squint?

This isn't to say XMen upscaled looks as crisp as a BRD animation, and I wouldn't choose a cel shaded game at SD res over HD res, but it doesn't look anything like as ghastly as the chunky arrangement of squares that the source material should look like if just stretched across an LCD screen. I wonder if the same low res content at a far higher framerate (60 fps for an animation, 120 fps for a live action, maybe) would help conceal the jaggies further?

 

[user542745831]

I was watching a DVD rip of the 1990's XMen cartoon yesterday, an SD cartoon upscaled on Media Player to 1050 vertical lines.

Wait...

Are your statements such as the following one for example:

1080p would be better, but by a degree.

only based on experiences with a 1680x1050 display (effectively only 1680x945 at 16:9) as well?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

No. I play on a 40" 1080p Sammy as well as a 32" 1366x768 Sammy and a 1680x1050 Sammy monitor/TV. Playing on the monitor also places me much closer to the screen so it has a larger FOV over the TVs, meaning the upscaling issues are more prominent than typical 720p gaming on a 40" 1080p set.

 

[function]

I wonder if the same low res content at a far higher framerate (60 fps for an animation, 120 fps for a live action, maybe) would help conceal the jaggies further?

I'm sure it would, especially when you take into account LCD blur. Even a modern LCD with an "overdriven" panel doesn't have perfectly crisp transitions and no ghosting. Jaggies do seem more visible on plasma, at least to me, but I still prefer Plasma.

The type of upscaling makes a big difference to the impact it has too. It's possible to upscale with no loss of sharpness or detail of course, but most people wouldn't consider the tradeoffs worthwhile.

 

[joker454]

But graphics has been a huge factor for console gamers (in the early days, better consoles meant little more than better graphics in your shooters and platformers), so why is that no longer true? How do you gauge that console gamers no longer care?

Because they are happily playing on 2004 designed hardware by the millions when better graphical alternatives are available. If what you say is true and graphics are so important, then the day the new consoles are released if the pc versions of the games look better then people will ignore the consoles and go play on pc, that is if graphics really are all that important. We already know that pc will win on graphics in 2013 because graphics engines are infinitely more scalable now than they were in 2005, and there simply isn't enough wattage available on console hardware to even begin to compete with what you can graphically shove into a pc. But you and I know that won't matter one bit because to a large segment of the game playing population it's not all about graphics anymore. That a pc will beat them graphically on day one, make them look graphically bad by year three, and make them look graphically silly on year five makes zero difference. It's not like all people can even see graphical changes anyways. Look how many people still think pc games are just upscaled console games, then go through the graphical changelist offered by the companies and see all the things that people don't see on the pc versions.