Am I wrong, or in those example pics, does the 1080p show more of the scene? It ought to show the same amount, just in more detail. It'd be a bit odd to have a wider field of view in higher resolutions.
GT HD Premium = GT5 Prologue | GT HD Classic = GT:HD at E3
- Thread starter one
- Start date
- Status
inefficient said:
I know I am late to the show, but I was quoting his PGR3 comment, not the new bunny trail on RR. Further...
inefficient said:
I absolutely challenge the notion that resolution = IQ. I will take the CGI in I, Robot or Toy Story on 480p over any 1080p game graphics on the current consoles. Now the distinction is not quite that big, but I will say that 1080p, if resulting in lower IQ, is not a good tradeoff over 720p.
The thinking that "I have a 1080p set, so I will take the resolution over the IQ" I think is buying hook, line, and sinker for HD marketing. Using your scenario of SAME assets I absolutely agree. But if the choice is between 720p, or even 480p, with significantly more asset detail versus a more plain, washed out 1080p image... no contest.
Anyhow, my reply wasn't to the "all things equal" RR bunny trail, but the previous resolution/different game bunny trail.
But I do think it is a relevant issue--how many devs are going to support 1080p and how much IQ is going to be lost by this decision?Personally, I am hoping that some developers get the green light to really push the consoles at 480p and scale up the framebuffer. 480p is nearly 1/7th the pixels of 1080p. ~7x the work per pixel could lead to some significant rendering techniques that more than adequately offset the resolution difference.
YMMV, and some games are better at higher resolutions (e.g. RTS) as well as others really need 60fps (something 1080i and some 1080p sets may be challenged at). I am all for the "use the best tool for the job" instead of the "resolution = king". That is all I am saying. If a game looks better at 720p, I think "criticizing" it for not having 1080p is irrelevant.
inefficient
Veteran
It depends on the type of game. In a racing game like GT (hey I brought it back on topic) you are looking at pixels in the distance more often than pixels in the forground. Especially when you are actually playing the game. If you are just looking at overall IQ based on screenshots thats another thing.
For a racing game I would take 1080p over 480p with 16xAA anyday. Even if 480p with 16xAA is the one that looks more "realistic" or like something out of a DVD movie. When you actualy play it, your eyes will choose to just focus in on parts of the screen which that are far off in the distance. And this is when the higher res makes a big difference.
I can see now why they made the decision to make Lair a 1080p game too. It's the difference between being able to make out details on a dragon a hundred feet away from you or the swords on soldiers on the ground from a distance vs seeing a blurry color mass.
In the first and the last comparison the 720p pictures are slightly zoomed in the, the same 720p pictures also look a little out of focus. The guy should get a tripod.
The TV obviously has a rather poor scaler, look at the terrible vertical artifacts that it introduces to a 720p source. I wonder if 720p case is actually analog and the other digital... Actually it might just be the TV, but it is way less noticeable in the 1080p case (look at the very center of the TV). inefficient, calibrate your TV if possible.
Even better, I have gamed for a decade at HD resolutions on the PC.
Really, I cant see how you'd want 480p material after seeing 720p or even 1080p. I could understand you wanting 720p over 1080p but if a dev is talented enough to be able to do 1080p with minimal tradeoffs its gravy
So the below sub-480p images are worse than 1080p, no questions asked?
Like I said, every game is different and it depends on the tradeoff. But 7x the potential work per pixel is significant enough to consider (note: it WON'T get us TS!), but at least 1 developer has already stated they believe they could get a better IQ out of more work per pixel at 480p than a manditory 720p. Resolution isn't everything. If the cost of resolution is fidelity, especially in lighting and shadowing, it can be a bad tradeoff. YMMV depending on game and tradeoffs made.
But the point still stands, dismissing PGR3 purely on the grounds of resolution is akin to dismissing TS on DVD versus Kameo or UL because they are 720p and 1080p, respectively.
Something tells me that YOU just bought a HDTV, really. Resolution isnt all that, and we could make much more CG like graphics at 480p than you can this generation at 1080p. The consoles this generation arent really powerful enough for 1080p, its a graphical tradeof...
I could understand you wanting 720p over 1080p but if a dev is talented enough to be able to do 1080p with minimal tradeoffs its gravy
Which is pretty much impossible. There is no minimal tradeof for rendering 2x more pixels. If it runs at 1080p chances are the dev could make it look much better in 720p.
Last edited by a moderator:
Im not saying RR7 doesnt look better in 1080p than it does 720p, im just saying that resolution alone is no indication of good graphics.
inefficient
Veteran
It wasn't a a completely scientific comparison. But I think the differences are obvious enough.
The TV is a Bravia KDL-40V2500. The input is digital over HDMI for both 720p and 1080p. The camera is a 6.0MP Cannon 800 IS (SD700 in the US). The original photos were 2816x2112 and I scaled them down (Lanczos filter).
The vertical artifacts are something you only see when you photograph the screen.
I might take some more shots later if people really are not convinced the comparison is giving 720p a fair shake. I might try 720p vs 1080p on some BR content.
Acert93, Blown up on a on a 1080p screen, I'm not convinced that Toy Story image at would look better than something the xbox or ps3 could render natively at 1080p.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's strange that the artifacts are much more prominent at 720p.
Do you think that resolution is the most important factor when it comes to comparing graphics?
I can run F.E.A.R. @ 2056x1560 (or whatever it is), maxed on my PC at a decent framerate. I do not think it looks better than GoW@720p
ok guys, i have a more interesting topic for discussion...
Sony Drops Gran Turismo HD
Gran Turismo 5 on the way.
November 30, 2006 - Sony and Polyphony Digital's experiment in download-based gaming has come to an early end. Sony announced today that it has cancelled the retail release of Gran Turismo HD in favor of a full-fledged Gran Turismo 5 product.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/748/748610p1.html
Sony Drops Gran Turismo HD
Gran Turismo 5 on the way.
November 30, 2006 - Sony and Polyphony Digital's experiment in download-based gaming has come to an early end. Sony announced today that it has cancelled the retail release of Gran Turismo HD in favor of a full-fledged Gran Turismo 5 product.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/748/748610p1.html
I wonder how that comparison would look from 8+ feet away from the TV. Resolution is nice if you're within 1.5x of screen width. Start moving away and you get into diminishing returns quickly. People who love resolution talk drink too much of the marketing juice floating around.
Last edited by a moderator:
inefficient
Veteran
Conversely people who don't have an appreciation for higher resolutions don't have large screen and high resolution equipment.
Ostepop said:
It's not THE most important factor. But it is a significant factor when you have a large screen TV. You need a big TV to appreciated this.
To fully appreciated F.E.A.R. @ 2056x1560 (or whatever it is) I would probably want to see that on a 60" or larger TV that actually had that many pixels. On a screen that big the advantages of 1 to 1 pixel mapping would really shine. While GoW @ 720p on the same screen would just have it's flaws and artifacts magnified.
For what it's worth and my 2 cents to the discussion, my normal viewing distance is around 8ft (give or take) and I can notice a difference between 720p & 1080p. Its not a massive difference, but its a welcome difference that I would prefer If I had the choice (which I do). 480p on my tv doesnt look too nice, and I would definately prefer 720p/1080i/1080p over it anyday.
I would take some pictures but my (horrible) camera wouldnt do anything justice.
I think that would be the biggest factor here. If I had a much smaller tv, I would probably be fine with 480p. Where the difference is less apparent.
Anyways, I'm not really sure any of this talk is on topic with GTHD/GT5 game wise. Sounds like the same old 1080p discussion that would be in the technical forum.
Tbh, even when i run FEAR on my TV (1080p 42"), gow looks better @720p.
Stop saying that people who dont apprisiate resolution doesnt have a big screen, i got 2 1080p tv's in this house, smallest one is 42".... second one is a 50"....
Infact, if i go connect GoW to my PC monitor, (which is 2056x1560 native), even tho its not 1:1 pixel mapping, and it will be 720p, it still looks better than FEAR. (ofcourse this is IMO anyway). And no dont say thats because its not a big TV, because the fact that your sitting 30cm away from it should balance out the fact that its not as big as my 50".
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure, but I think hes saying that people with bigger screens do appreciate higher resolutions more. And people with smaller screens probably appreciate higher resolution less, which kinda makes sense.
edit: I should of said tv screens (where the viewing distance is usually greater) to be more clear.
Then again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that.
But again, I think this is off topic.
Last edited by a moderator:
inefficient
Veteran
It's all about having the optimal number of pixels per inch/cm. 1080p is the sweet spot for 40"-52" screens.
Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And some beholders don't have good eyes.
Anyway... Grand Turismo @ 1080p cool stuff!
- Status
Similar threads
- Deleted member 86764
- Games Industry