Still, I believe the future is not either on prettier pixels or better pixels. The future is VR!
Disagree. The future is AR.
More pixels or prettier pixels?
- Thread starter OCASM
- Start date
Disagree. The future is AR.
I'll take more clarity. I'm not going to say I wouldn't prefer real life graphics though.
It's just, every morning I wake up and can't see shit without my glasses. That's real life, just blurry AF.
I feel we are 'ok' with lower resolution because resolution has only been getting better over time. For me once you see 20/20 you're not going to accept a prescription of less accuracy.
I think the best thing is to just move forward with this increase in both resolution and prettiness, as opposed to bombing one over the other. You ultimately need both, as this is how we actually see, anything less than that is just a video
It's just, every morning I wake up and can't see shit without my glasses. That's real life, just blurry AF.
I feel we are 'ok' with lower resolution because resolution has only been getting better over time. For me once you see 20/20 you're not going to accept a prescription of less accuracy.
I think the best thing is to just move forward with this increase in both resolution and prettiness, as opposed to bombing one over the other. You ultimately need both, as this is how we actually see, anything less than that is just a video
I will.
I find correct vision uncomfortably sharp and my eyes/brain reject and quickly adapt to focus less with new glasses. I'll request a slightly weaker prescription to prevent this damage. In this life you can never assume what seems best for you is what seems best for everyone else!
That third image is full of noise. Very lacking in clarity.
Disagree. The future is AR.
AR in the context of gaming looks even less fleshed out than VR...and that's saying something.
I think of one big secrets of why video games have been successful is it's a form of interactive entertain minus physical exertion. It's basically hits of dopamine requiring almost no physical effort. When I look at some of more involved motion controls and in some cases where you are literally walking around... I just think "well good luck trying to popularise this"...at least in terms of gaming.
hehe that's just an adjustment period I think! you wouldn't take glasses with less prescription right!?I will.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. If I get glasses with a prescription for 20/20, my eyes will adjust to something less within a few weeks, and then my eyesight is deteriorated a little - my eyes become worse with and without the specs. If I take glasses with a lower prescription, my eyes will stay the same. So I'll get tested, get a prescription for perfect vision, then request a bit be knocked off to give me imperfect vision which is my natural state and my eyes won't drop a level in natural vision. My eyes/brain reject perfect visual clarity and will naturally adjust away from it.
oh. so if you went from 350 -> 400, you'd ask for like 375
That makes sense, it's still an increase from 350, just not the whole way.
I'm thinking you wouldn't request 300
which game is that? The difference is substantial,that's why I prefer more pixels. Both 1080p and 4k as long as they are native -in game and using a native screen- look very good in my eyes.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
1440p is my sweet spot and it has been since I bought a PC last May. I just can't see any difference above 1440p on 50" 4K TV at 6-7ft distance. I know DF said Pro was blurrier at 1440p(ish) in BF2 than XOX and I believe it, but at what distance do you have to be at to see it? I can't see any difference between 1440p and 2160p and I have a PC than can push 4K better than both consoles. It's wasted outputting 4K, which is why it's set to never output more than 1440p. Cooler, quieter or just 'better' pixels.
Throw resolution in there is resource to spare, otherwise, better pixels. Longer draw distances, better shadows, more dynamic light source, better shaders.
Cut back on the compromises than people can see, rather than resolution that many can't.
Yes.
I don't think it was blurry because of resolution but because of textures, lacking the extra memory the onex has.
texture quality and AF go a super long way in detailing the picture. Man hoping to see only 16xAF and super duper high quality textures for next gen.
this non 16xAF and blurry texture bit has to go; if it's too much HDD pressure or something to pull it off, then they'll need to have the GPU create them somehow.
this non 16xAF and blurry texture bit has to go; if it's too much HDD pressure or something to pull it off, then they'll need to have the GPU create them somehow.
Increased resolution and increased graphical fidelity have been going hand in hand for decades, how this is suddenly an issue I have no idea (I do, but whatever) . Better graphical fidelity and better resolution is the correct answer and that’s how the videogames’ industry will continue to operate.
Because at some point there'll be a threshold where it's pointless. 320x240 to 640x480 is an upgrade worth doing. 32,000 x 24,000 to 64,000 x 48,000 isn't because that's beyond our ability to see. Audio quality has mostly stuck at 16 bit 44 kHz because beyond that is a whole lot more storage for very little audio improvement. And if one were to argue, "sure but now we have 192 kHz and 256 kHz, let's keep going all the way up to 4,096 kHz because everything's improving," one would be arguing for stupid waste as beyond x kHz it's impossible to hear the difference.
Rather than just increasing a number ad nauseum, some are open to discussing realistic end-points and balances. Considering a lot of video content is encoded at less than 4:4:4 colour reproduction, 1080p RGB from a console is even in some aspects as high fidelity as 4k video - that compromise of video being one made where the costs to storage outweigh the benefits of fidelity due to what the eye can see.
To reach that point we must at least achieve native 4k in every title. Until then there’s much room for improvement in clarity and crispness in games. 4k doesn’t compare with 1080p rgb or 1440p or checkerboard 4k . I am actually surprised seeing people actually contemplating this in such a tech oriented forum. When I bought my 4k tv and first tried my PS4 pro on it the difference between higher resolution to downsampled 1080p was so huge that I couldn’t believe it, having been reading how they are “the same” on various forums. Never mind actually comparing a native 4k game like gears 4 to non-native games.
4K native is about the point where I can accept as becoming the diminishing point on resolution until power is overwhelming and we see additional draw distance tech.
But often enough, DOF will take that value away.
We could use better lighting and shadows from this point on. That's going to be taxing at 4K.
But often enough, DOF will take that value away.
We could use better lighting and shadows from this point on. That's going to be taxing at 4K.
From memory, vision doesnt work that way.
and you might wanna aim at higher than 20/20 unless you're retired eg I have 20/15 with glasses on and Im in my 40s
edit: actually from a google, I would recommend wearing the correct vision, yes it might sound counter intuative, i.e. if I'm making my eye work harder its gonna improve (but then again the eye aint a muscle) http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140513-do-glasses-weaken-your-eyesight
Last edited:
Sometimes higher resolutions are counter-productive. You get to see EVERYTHING and of course that includes all the little defects that can ruin immersion. Sort of like being able to see the wires in action scenes in HD versions of films... or skin imperfections in other kinds of films...
Same reason why magazine scans and off-screen pictures sometimes look "better" than direct-feed footage. As the saying goes: "out of sight, out of mind".
Same reason why magazine scans and off-screen pictures sometimes look "better" than direct-feed footage. As the saying goes: "out of sight, out of mind".
