Assassin creed 4 Xbox One Gameplay
- Thread starter Rezlus
- Start date
No man, we're all different it maybe cool in some circles I guess? For them this could be a big deal?
Its not a dig when its pretty obvious that the difference between 1:1 mapping at 1920x1080 and upscaling 1600x900 is going to be a blurrier game, it physically can't look as good 1920x1080 all things otherwise the same. Yeah the guy over at B3D sat done and took a crack at it (but as i said its a first look), I trust his results as he's been correct in the past nearly all the time and when he's wrong he says so.
No, less pixels doesn't equal more blur unless your reading a wall of text which isn't the case for most games in motion. The COD thread many perceived the xb1 having "sharper" textures than the ps4 version so blur wasn't mentioned once. Now that was a 720p vs 1080p not 900p vs 1080p. Look @ the stills even there is no way you could tell which is which and then put them in motion.
Law of entropy says that the game with a lower resolution cannot have more detail then the game with higher resolution given everything else the same. Upscaled games will look blurrier then there native counterparts, theres no getting around that. It can have 'sharper textures' all it wants, but its got 1/2th the information to work off.
http://beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1803609&postcount=3775
http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241 List of games that have been done in the past.
I don't understand why people still argue over this. Obviously, if you are going to upscale (you can try doing it in photoshop or any photo editing software), details are lost, & the resulting picture is a result of interpolation to get the desired resolution. You can sharpen to give a feel like its native resultion, & the end result depend very much on the source image. If you have a picture of a baby with smooth complexion, then the visual difference after conversion, will be less than, say an old man with many lines on his face.
So if the source image that you try to capture, do not need massive details, there is not much difference between an upscaled game, vs native. I think this is the reason, the difference is not as apparent in COD, which in its heart, still a current gen game, just crank up its setting for sharper textures, & give and take some visual effects.
The difference, however, will become more apparent for a true next gen game, with next gen details.
So if the source image that you try to capture, do not need massive details, there is not much difference between an upscaled game, vs native. I think this is the reason, the difference is not as apparent in COD, which in its heart, still a current gen game, just crank up its setting for sharper textures, & give and take some visual effects.
The difference, however, will become more apparent for a true next gen game, with next gen details.
For all of kb's nonsense, his posts here are legit. Let's simmer down fellas. 
If ya gotta count pixels in order to "see" 900p vs 1080p then it's not an effective use of the hardware imho. Resolution isn't the only factor in determining IQ after all. That said, you are going by some guy on B3d just guessing? Did he post the actual zoomed in image or no?
If ya gotta count pixels in order to "see" 900p vs 1080p then it's not an effective use of the hardware imho. Resolution isn't the only factor in determining IQ after all. That said, you are going by some guy on B3d just guessing? Did he post the actual zoomed in image or no?
You are assuming scaling algorithms are all the same. They aren't. We haven't seen a good side by side of CoD next gen yet, but BF4 showed pretty demonstrably that the 720p native image can absolutely look to have better IQ overall with fewer pixels. There is no 'artificial sharpening' effect on the X1 version of BF4 to make it appear higher res. You can't add pixel density, or even apparent pixel density, via a post processing effect. They are more likely adjusting the contrast via the color depth controls built into the display planes.
If X1 can display 720p games with as high IQ as BF4 is at (AA aside), that's a game changer in favor of MS's box. It can shade a lot less pixels and get 99% the same (or better) results aesthetically speaking. Dropping a PS4 game down to 720p to tease out headroom for more fx in a similar fashion would net you a blurry image when upscaled as it's scaler isn't able to do what X1's display planes can.
We all understand this but is "Blur" the accepted term to be used? Blur seems like a filter put over the image to soften it up. Sorry I'm not too into the photchopping lingo. Some of the pics for COD the xb1 version seemed sharper even on the character models. The scars on the face and hair seemed to have more depth to them. How can that be if it is greater in the blur dept?
Don't speak on what you don't understand. Entropy counts the information content, not the quality of the content. It refers to how information content is encoded but says absolutely nothing of the message itself. If the message is vague, you get nothing by decoding it even with 100% precision.
No. The image with the higher res textures will look sharper so long as there are enough pixels in the frame to adequately display said textures. Simply having higher res does NOT give you better IQ or more clarity all by itself. There has to be detail there to depict on screen otherwise you gain literally nothing.
Similarly, pixel count is only 1 aspect of IQ. You also need good hue saturation and contrast, good AF and AA, etc. Ppl cling to pixels because they are a simple metric that until X1 has been very straightforward to grasp. But once yous tart allowing devs flexibility to utilize other aspects of IQ, ones that aren't highly diminished by scale as resolution is nowadays, you can actually find way more legroom to work with in terms of discernible IQ improvements by looking elsewhere.