*split* multiplatform console-world problems + Image Quality Debate

Or when compared side to side. Native vs Upscaled, it's like watching a DVD vs Blu-Ray the difference is pretty apparent.

 

But that's Joker's point. Who compares the same game at different resolutions side-by-side?

Tommy McClain

 

DVD vs Bluray is more noticeable due to the terrible transfers dvd's typically have, some are seriously appalling. I did countless dvd vs blruay comparisons many years ago when I first got my PS3 20gb bluray player, and was shocked and/or aghast at how few people actually saw any appreciable difference in a/b comparisons. That's when I begrudgingly realized visually I was a 1%'er.

We also saw last gen what little difference resolution made when 360/ps3 games were compared to pc versions running the same assets/shaders at 1080p. You can search this forum to find literally hundreds if not more people saying how unimportant that bump in resolution was to final image quality. What mattered most pretty much universally was how the pixels were shaded, not how many there were. That's why so many would lambaste pc gaming as a non improvement since it for the most part early on it just offered more pixels all shaded the exact same way as 360/ps3, and hence a non improvement.

 

Now even Forbes.com is picking it up.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidth...uns-at-a-lower-native-resolution-on-xbox-one/

With regards to Blu-ray vs DVD, isn't the difference even bigger like 480p vs 1080p? This is 720p vs 1080p which isn't as big a difference visually but is a massive difference technically.

The 360/PS3 gen had differences only of 100 or less vertical pixels on cross platform games so it's not as massive as this.

 

Once again, comparing film to raster graphics is pointless.

In film you have a high resolution source that is downsampled to a xyz format.

Raster graphics is only going to be as clean as the resolution resolved to the frame buffer. Hence the sub-pixel artifact problem when in motion, no amount of post processing AA is going to fix that.

 

Either you're being intentionally obstinate or you're completely ignorant of the subject matter. Compared to previous generations these comparisons are like blind people trying to spot a forged Jackson Pollock.

 

The problem with DVDs is more about the limited MPEG2 bitrates instead of DVD native resolution. I've seen some DVDs with a good upscaling DVD player and it looks good...now if it was encoded with VC1 it would look even better and not a big difference to most people.

 

I'd rather walk barefoot on broken glass than believing all that those CEOs say, but he sounded very candid when he mentioned that in the sense that he was very confident about the capabilities of the console.

I mean, it didn't sound like their typical PR comment talking wonders about the most simple aspect of their hardware.

 

I was never obsessed with 1080p and I'm sad that all tha extra computing on the PS4 will go into just showing more pixels. This will probably the only case in multiplats, instead of tuning things for PS4, the devs will just increase resolution. That's expected from multiplats, but shadowfall could very easily provide a solid 60fps on the sp if we could have at least the option to run it that way (maybe even at 900p, you wouldn't need to go lower)

Also 2xMSAA is not as costly as 720p -> 1080p difference, is it? What about 4xMSAA? Is it better to get rid of jaggies that way instead of a res upgrade with post-process AA? The PC guys can already do such comparisons very easily.

 

I have a HD Ready TV ... if I was going for the Xbox One I wouldn't feel that I needed a new TV now. Unfortunately, I don't even have that choice, as the console isn't coming out here this year, so I'll have to make do with a PS4, and have it tease me with all this Full HD support, lol.

 

Wow ! Even COD? I mean Bf4 is a graphics powerhouse, but COD at 720p ?!

Not done at all. No matter how good ur upscaler is it can only duplicate pixels, it cannot add details to ur image in any way. A enemy made of 50 pixels will have the same 50pixels duplicated to 100 px by an upscaler, it cannot compare to animage whihc has 50pixels more of detail on that enemy for you to spot, aima dn shoot at.

I am getting a ps4, so i am safe on this one, but i am really sad DICE did not spend more time on bf4 and made it 1080p native. Even when playing bf3 on PC, everyone plays on lowest settings(to have least smoke etc blocking the view) and highest resolution possible ( keeping fps inmind) while playing mP to get the sharpest IQ and most pixels possible. At least for MP, these companies should realise that resolution matters.

 

My point is the subjective experience is the same. So when you're in a store looking at the same game on two different machines, one of which is native 1080 and the other upscaled, it will be similar to viewing a DVD vs Blu-Ray. No matter how good the upscale is it's still going to be duplicating information already present.

 

Surely this is what the realists amongst us expected.

There's no amount of 'special sauce' that's going to make up the power differential.

Ms said the games will do the talking and its got to be a case of message received.

2 big multiplatform games with big differences that only point to the power difference being as big as it appears on paper.

 

Actually one could argue that the "current" difference is in fact bigger than it appeared on paper.

I'm pretty sure nobody here ever expected 720p vs 1080p for ANY title let alone a COD title.

Anybody suggesting such a difference > 1 week ago probably would have been crucified here.

 

Yes , the difference appears bigger than the "paper difference".
I was expecting a resolution deficit , but a framerate one (BF4)?
If the ps4 version commands a framerate advantage upon the resolution advantadge , it will be really embarrassing .

 

Thank you for that one. It seems lately a lot of people think the real world is rendered in 720p or 1080p..making it difficult for them to comprehend the difference between films and RT 3D graphics.

 

I actually think everyone will be signing a different tune a year from now.

The PS3 had worse troubles at the beginning.

 

It's more difficult to compare though, with the 360 having been out a year before the PS3, but certainly there have been worse framerate differences. But it's certainly possible that had they been released at the same time, things could have looked worse for the PS3 than they already did for multiplatform titles.

 

What's fascinating is that the metrics as to what constitutes a visual difference seem to change between generations. Early on in this gen, as well documented on this forum if people want to go back and search, differences like blurry textures, lower frame rate, lower resolution, etc, between console versions were frequently deemed "not noticeable", "not a big deal" or "blown out of proportion" when comparing 360 and ps3 games. Of course don't take my word for it, people can go back and search the forum, it's all quite well documented. Games like Bioshock were a famous one, one that looked and ran so much worse on one platform compared to the other due to numerous deficiencies yet they were deemed "not noticeable". As such people back them willingly bought the lower quality version even though it was visually deficient in all sorts of ways compared to the other similar cost version, but they apparently didn't notice and/or didn't care, they had fun with it. What's *fascinating* now is that the metrics have totally changed, apparently now resolution is being touted as a deal breaker. Interesting stuff how what determines visual quality changes from gen to gen! Would be interesting to get into the mind of a gamer and determine how you can go from numerous deficiencies in texture quality, framerate, resolution, missing visual features, etc being "not a big deal" to today where just missing resolution that has to be typically measured to be noticeable being a "deal breaker". Interesting times!

Of note from that article:

Pretty much what many of us have been saying for some time now. If gamer tastes have indeed changed and resolution is now a "deal breaker", then you should really switch to pc for gaming. As the Forbes article mentions, that's where you go if graphics are important to you.

 

^Oh please. I can't think of a single system (unless we're talking odd experiments like the Virtual Boy) that got anywhere near as much shit as the PS3. Not just because of worse performance, but also because of the high asking price and the crappy online implementation.

A decade later the tables have turned. That's all there is to it really.