[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]It is still 16:9.How do they get a resolution of such an odd number that doesn't conform to any TV standard?? :?:?
btk2k2
Â
And is upscale to 1080p so the TV will see just the 1080p signal any way.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
forza 5 is 1080p and 60 FPS, no edge where not right.Looks like Edge was right.
[quote="Edge"]One basic example we were given suggested that without optimisation for either console, a platform-agnostic development build can run at around 30FPS in 1920×1080 on PS4, but itll run at 20-something FPS in 1600×900 on Xbox One.Slashkice
Eh, even if it does ship at 900P mah guess is that if two versions were set up side by side, one at 1080P and the other at 900P and we were asked which witch is which, half of us would be wrong half the time soooo, just sayin. :P
But, but the power of the cloud and the "balanced HW"... The drivers and the dev's... We are the betterz... ESDRAM is betterz!
:lol:
That's sad... Sub 1080p game. Only on Xbox One.
the order on Ps4 is SUB 1080p, so it's not only on the XB1 is it?But, but the power of the cloud and the "balanced HW"... The drivers and the dev's... We are the betterz... ESDRAM is betterz!
:lol:
That's sad... Sub 1080p game. Only on Xbox One.
Truth_Hurts_U
the order on Ps4 is SUB 1080p, so it's not only on the XB1 is it?delta3074
Not launched yet and that would only be 1 game to Xbox Ones 2 games that are sub full HD.
What the hell is up with console gamers arguing and giving a shit about resolution all of the sudden? Does 900p take away a lot? No. 4/5 of you wouldn't be able to tell a difference. Good lord, it's like you all are 8. ShaineTheNerd
633,600 is not a small number.
[QUOTE="ShaineTheNerd"]What the hell is up with console gamers arguing and giving a shit about resolution all of the sudden? Does 900p take away a lot? No. 4/5 of you wouldn't be able to tell a difference. Good lord, it's like you all are 8. Truth_Hurts_U
633,600 is not a small number.
it's still not overwhelmingly noticeable to the human eye either dude, if it was the difference between 720 and 1080 then i could see peoples point.Still debunks your 'only on XB1' bollocks:)delta3074
And when it launches in 2014 with 1080p res. It will be true. :lol:
What the hell is up with console gamers arguing and giving a shit about resolution all of the sudden? Does 900p take away a lot? No. 4/5 of you wouldn't be able to tell a difference. Good lord, it's like you all are 8. ShaineTheNerdFor giggles , that is more of a loss in pixels than the TOTAL that Alan Wake renders .
[QUOTE="delta3074"]Still debunks your 'only on XB1' bollocks:)Truth_Hurts_U
And when it launches in 2014 with 1080p res. It will be true. :lol:
it won't, it was a design choice For the Order to be that resolution so you have the black borders at the top and bottom like a movie apparently, besides, i pretty much guarantee you will see at least one retail title that runs below native 1080p on the Ps4 besides the order.[QUOTE="ShaineTheNerd"]What the hell is up with console gamers arguing and giving a shit about resolution all of the sudden? Does 900p take away a lot? No. 4/5 of you wouldn't be able to tell a difference. Good lord, it's like you all are 8. killzowned24For giggles , that is more of a loss in pixels than the TOTAL that Alan Wake renders .which means nothing in the real world.
it's still not overwhelmingly noticeable to the human eye either dude, if it was the difference between 720 and 1080 then i could see peoples point.delta3074
Well sure most people don't notice DVD Up-scaled VSÂ Blu Ray.
Yet when you are exposed to the Blu Ray more and watch DVD you'll notice how blurry it looks.
To say over 600,000 pixels worth of image is some how meaningless because you can't see it. Doesn't make that so to people who can.
Why do you think they now have 4K TV's and soon 8K?
[QUOTE="Giancar"]It's 2013. We'd be happy with 900p half a century ago, not now.If you are that worried about resolutions, as you claim, why don't you game on a gaming rig?People care too much about resolution.
Come on, it's not sub 720. =/
I'm not hyped for the game anyways.
prokadiri
Honestly with some good post process AA, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between something rendered at 1920x1080 and something at 1600x900 upscaled to x1080.
You also don't know why they dropped it. They could have reduced resolution slightly to put in a more sophisticated AA solution, like MSAA instead of a post process filter. If you're so hung up on render resolution, get a freaking PC.
I just love how cows are claiming ownage when they are sitting on thin ice themselves. These consoles are not capable of what you think they are. If you're expecting 1080p and 60fps for every game on PS4 you are going to be pretty upset. I know Killzone MP is supposedly 1080p at 60fps (though I've never seen confirmation of the resolution), but you don't know what kind of concessions they made to acheive that.
[QUOTE="delta3074"]it's still not overwhelmingly noticeable to the human eye either dude, if it was the difference between 720 and 1080 then i could see peoples point.Truth_Hurts_U
Well sure most people don't notice DVD Up-scaled VSÂ Blu Ray.
Yet when you are exposed to the Blu Ray more and watch DVD you'll notice how blurry it looks.
To say over 600,000 pixels worth of image is some how meaningless because you can't see it. Doesn't make that so to people who can.
Why do you think they now have 4K TV's and soon 8K?
dude , there is a MASSIVE difference between DVD and Blu-Ray even when it's upscaled and , no offence, but do you look at the screen or numbers when playing game?[QUOTE="ShaineTheNerd"]What the hell is up with console gamers arguing and giving a shit about resolution all of the sudden? Does 900p take away a lot? No. 4/5 of you wouldn't be able to tell a difference. Good lord, it's like you all are 8. killzowned24For giggles , that is more of a loss in pixels than the TOTAL that Alan Wake renders . For fact, you will not tell the difference.
A console game isn't 1080p? Oh man, never saw that coming. If you want constant 1080p @60fps, get a PC.
Your post goes perfect with your picture.doesnt matter because xb1 is going in my cabinet and plugging into my plasma
ps4 is going in the other room on a smelly jittery garbage lcd
peace out dogs. gotta go get 22 inchers on the beamer
CrownKingArthur
dude , there is a MASSIVE difference between DVD and Blu-Ray even when it's upscaled and , no offence, but do you look at the screen or numbers when playing game?delta3074
Unlike you, a native display... Always looks best with 1 to 1 pixel mapping.
720 = 921,600
900 = 1,440,000
1080 = 2,073,600
[QUOTE="delta3074"]dude , there is a MASSIVE difference between DVD and Blu-Ray even when it's upscaled and , no offence, but do you look at the screen or numbers when playing game?Truth_Hurts_U
Unlike you, a native display... Always looks best with 1 to 1 pixel mapping.
720 = 921,600
900 = 1,440,000
1080 = 2,073,600
Yes , i know, which is why despite having a 1080p TV i ran all my games on my 360 in 720p, a game always looks best running at it's native resolution, upscaling above a games resolution makes it look worse imo.[QUOTE="prokadiri"][QUOTE="Giancar"]It's 2013. We'd be happy with 900p half a century ago, not now.If you are that worried about resolutions, as you claim, why don't you game on a gaming rig? I do.People care too much about resolution.
Come on, it's not sub 720. =/
I'm not hyped for the game anyways.
delta3074
so why would you be concerned about console resolutions?delta3074I have had decent PCs and while they are great a console just fits my lifestyle better now and I want the best I can get for my money. I want good looking games and good gameplay with nice consistent frame rates. The PS4 can achieve that much easier than the X1 so I am going PS4 as my main console and I will get an X1 when they come down in price and have a selection of good exclusives. In all honesty both consoles are a little underwhelming and I really wish Sony had gone with a full 20 CU part @ 1Ghz. That would have been a 2.56 TF GPU and it would have been something that could last for a good 5+ years. As it is though the X1 is even worse and is only really worth it for the exclusives, of which there is nothing that screams 'must have'.
[QUOTE="delta3074"]so why would you be concerned about console resolutions?btk2k2I have had decent PCs and while they are great a console just fits my lifestyle better now and I want the best I can get for my money. I want good looking games and good gameplay with nice consistent frame rates. The PS4 can achieve that much easier than the X1 so I am going PS4 as my main console and I will get an X1 when they come down in price and have a selection of good exclusives. In all honesty both consoles are a little underwhelming and I really wish Sony had gone with a full 20 CU part @ 1Ghz. That would have been a 2.56 TF GPU and it would have been something that could last for a good 5+ years. As it is though the X1 is even worse and is only really worth it for the exclusives, of which there is nothing that screams 'must have'.thats why i game on consoles as well, i prefer the ease of access and it fits perfectly within my lifestyle as well, Getting a Ps4 as well, it's cheaper which is a huge concern for me having family to support and the only Games that have really peaked my interest on the XB1 is Titanfall and Ryse and i can get titanfall on the 360
Honestly with some good post process AA, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between something rendered at 1920x1080 and something at 1600x900 upscaled to x1080.
You also don't know why they dropped it. They could have reduced resolution slightly to put in a more sophisticated AA solution, like MSAA instead of a post process filter. If you're so hung up on render resolution, get a freaking PC.
I just love how cows are claiming ownage when they are sitting on thin ice themselves. These consoles are not capable of what you think they are. If you're expecting 1080p and 60fps for every game on PS4 you are going to be pretty upset. I know Killzone MP is supposedly 1080p at 60fps (though I've never seen confirmation of the resolution), but you don't know what kind of concessions they made to acheive that.
lockjaw333
[QUOTE="prokadiri"][QUOTE="delta3074"]If you are that worried about resolutions, as you claim, why don't you game on a gaming rig?delta3074I do.so why would you be concerned about console resolutions? Because they're holding back the technological improvement of video gaming.
[QUOTE="prokadiri"][QUOTE="delta3074"]so why would you be concerned about console resolutions?delta3074Because they're holding back the technological improvement of video gaming.how so? the same games will appear on the PC but with higher resolutions and more post processing effects. Because a texture created for a native 720p system will not look good on a 1440p monitor. Ports run like crap while looking like crap. It's not the same to design a game for a console with 1/10 the power and then port it to PC and expect natural results. And on the other way around, you cannot design a game to take full potential of PC's architecture and then dumb it down to consoles and expect the experience to remain the same. We're not talking about a couple of processing effects and resolutions. We're talking about physics, number of models on screen, AI, things which are directly tied to gameplay. For example skyrim can't unlock vsync without models spazzing out because it was designed to run on consoles, which meant they hardcoded vsync by default.
[QUOTE="Truth_Hurts_U"][QUOTE="delta3074"]dude , there is a MASSIVE difference between DVD and Blu-Ray even when it's upscaled and , no offence, but do you look at the screen or numbers when playing game?delta3074
Unlike you, a native display... Always looks best with 1 to 1 pixel mapping.
720 = 921,600
900 = 1,440,000
1080 = 2,073,600
Yes , i know, which is why despite having a 1080p TV i ran all my games on my 360 in 720p, a game always looks best running at it's native resolution, upscaling above a games resolution makes it look worse imo.I don't mean to be that guy but...you're getting an uscaled image either way. Either you have the 360 do the upscaling, or the TV. In your case you are outputting at 720 and allowing your TV to do the upscaling to 1080. Personally, I would allow the source (the 360) to do the upscaling and feed a 1080 signal to your TV so that the TV doesn't need to do any upscaling.
Many TVs have pretty poor scalers (not saying yours does, I don't even know what TV you have), so I always default to feeding the TV a signal at its native resolution. Technically that should always be your best bet.
Yes , i know, which is why despite having a 1080p TV i ran all my games on my 360 in 720p, a game always looks best running at it's native resolution, upscaling above a games resolution makes it look worse imo.[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="Truth_Hurts_U"]
Unlike you, a native display... Always looks best with 1 to 1 pixel mapping.
720 = 921,600
900 = 1,440,000
1080 = 2,073,600
lockjaw333
I don't mean to be that guy but...you're getting an uscaled image either way. Either you have the 360 do the upscaling, or the TV. In your case you are outputting at 720 and allowing your TV to do the upscaling to 1080. Personally, I would allow the source (the 360) to do the upscaling and feed a 1080 signal to your TV so that the TV doesn't need to do any upscaling.
Many TVs have pretty poor scalers (not saying yours does, I don't even know what TV you have), so I always default to feeding the TV a signal at its native resolution. Technically that should always be your best bet.
Considering TVs are designed to upscale SD TV feeds and DVDs to suggest that TV upscaling is poor is just nonsense. There are of course shit TVs out there but Panasonic, Samsung, Sony etc are all pretty good at what they do.[QUOTE="lockjaw333"][QUOTE="delta3074"]Yes , i know, which is why despite having a 1080p TV i ran all my games on my 360 in 720p, a game always looks best running at it's native resolution, upscaling above a games resolution makes it look worse imo.btk2k2
I don't mean to be that guy but...you're getting an uscaled image either way. Either you have the 360 do the upscaling, or the TV. In your case you are outputting at 720 and allowing your TV to do the upscaling to 1080. Personally, I would allow the source (the 360) to do the upscaling and feed a 1080 signal to your TV so that the TV doesn't need to do any upscaling.
Many TVs have pretty poor scalers (not saying yours does, I don't even know what TV you have), so I always default to feeding the TV a signal at its native resolution. Technically that should always be your best bet.
Considering TVs are designed to upscale SD TV feeds and DVDs to suggest that TV upscaling is poor is just nonsense. There are of course shit TVs out there but Panasonic, Samsung, Sony etc are all pretty good at what they do.I agree that newer TVs shouldn't have a problem with upscaling. But the reality is that the quality of the scaler in many sets is not that great. Many newer TVs from the manufacturers to mentioned upscale SD very poorly.
Still my point is that feeding the TV a signal at its native resolution is always preferred.
that glitchy, that ugly looking compared to all titles made by crytek for years and can't even handle 1080p? You know Xbone isn't going anywhere with this kind of powersilversix_The PS4 is in the same, mediocre league as the Xbone. Driveclub 30 fps, BF4 PS4 sub 1080p, you know "next gen" stuff right there lol.
[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="prokadiri"] I do.prokadiriso why would you be concerned about console resolutions? Because they're holding back the technological improvement of video gaming.Lazy PC developers are holding back PC graphics. Because every PC game is designed to run on a years old, low end GPU/CPU combos also. Do you think every single PC gamer has a DX11 capable GPU capable of out performing a "next gen" console? It's stupid and whiney sounding to blame consoles for shitty PC graphics.
Because they're holding back the technological improvement of video gaming.Lazy PC developers are holding back PC graphics. Because every PC game is designed to run on a years old, low end GPU/CPU combos also. Do you think every single PC gamer has a DX11 capable GPU capable of out performing a "next gen" console? It's stupid and whiney sounding to blame consoles for shitty PC graphics. You can't design the same game for the PS4 and the gameboy color. You have to dumb EVERYTHING down so that the gameboy color can run it as well. It's the same with the PC and consoles, just the gap is smaller. Look at crysis 1 a PC exclusive and then look at Crysis 2. The design changes from its root to compensate for the consoles' limited capability. It's not whiny or stupid, it's reality.[QUOTE="prokadiri"][QUOTE="delta3074"]so why would you be concerned about console resolutions?Guy_Brohski
Why are you so upbeat about? The consoles are going to be identical in power, give or take some lighting effects and grass here and there. The only ones you have to feel sorry for is the PC master race, having to hold back its power for another decade.Lemmings owned so hard I ALMOST feel bad for them.
StrongBlackVine
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment