Ars: Op-ed: Why I’m not too worked up about the next-gen console resolution wars

Ars deserves their own version of:
marcsedgebluray2cpxs.jpg


Because seriously... there is a reason why the "Editor's Choice" posts are actually the most downvoted ones.


It is heavily pointed in the comments but the chart they are using is for viewing filmed media, it really can't be used when dealing with games due to aliasing, if you want to have an idea of the difference you can try and test the difference between acuity, and hyper-acuity, hyper acuity is what makes us get really annoyed at aliasing:

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/lum_hyperacuity/

And that is without touching the fact that they are using a knowingly wrong comparison (DF's video), nor pointing out that the frame was already less stable on the Xb1 with less effects, or what it will mean moving forward.

Nor that you are paying a premium to get lesser hardware.
 
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it actually is different. On 720p and 1080p video I can't tell a difference on my 60 at those distances but if I play games on my HTPC at the same distance I can still see a difference.

I still see texture shimmering and if no AA is used I can most definitely see a difference. Granted none of these systems are going to do 720p with no AA.

This is especially true with long lines or structures (power lines, scaffolding, etc) Tomb Raider was an good example in the slums or whatever it was.
 
Revdarian said:
Nor that you are paying a premium to get lesser hardware.
Click to expand...

Or not. I actually use Kinect voice and motion controls this generation, and the second gen unit looks to be quite an improvement. additionally the HDMI in for TV functions is another bonus. I don't have a dedicated HTPC, and my current 360 performs that function perfectly for a price point I am not going to beat by putting together my own. the XBOne improves on the 360 in every way in this regard.

That is the premium I am paying for. if I really wanted bleeding edge hardware for gaming visuals, I would stick to the PC.
 
I see all over (on-the-line) are alot of Sony fanbois coming up with every excuse in the book on why in this particular example the weaker Xbox looks better. And it does. Slightly

Silly
 
This is ridiculous how anyone in their right mind could force themselves too look past huge differences in real measurable data compared too shitty compressed video screen captures :rolleyes:. I have yet to see even one raw screen shot take directly from either console to make any real comparison so instead first hand accounts and the raw data are more important here (all of which have favored the ps4). Even ignoring the increased measurable clarity there is still more visual effects being applied to the ps4 version. Denial must be setting in pretty hard by now.
 
Last edited:
Taking a look at the pixelated and up scaled UI on BF4 for One can be seen whether your face is pressed into the glass or your on the other side of the room.

Anyways, the issue with these consoles resolutions isn't about still pictures, it's about motion. In motion higher resolution games look flat out superior to lower resolution games.
 
Embarrassing. Coming from a so called tech site, just plain embarrassing.
Complete and utter disinformative, trash. I haven't been to that site in a while, but this is ridiculous.
 
It was an op-ed from the same guy who 6 weeks ago basically slammed the Vita TV calling it a failure.

If you read that article then read this one plus his other tech reviews I believe it's obvious he is upset he preordered a One and didn't pre-order a PS4 trying to justify his purchase.

He is pro Microsoft, many have posted similar articles and the comments section of this one is hilarious. They pick comments not based in reality as editor favs.

So many failures in those comments my god.
 
bigdogchris said:
Taking a look at the pixelated and up scaled UI on BF4 for One can be seen whether your face is pressed into the glass or your on the other side of the room.

Anyways, the issue with these consoles resolutions isn't about still pictures, it's about motion. In motion higher resolution games look flat out superior to lower resolution games.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly true. How good something looks is a mixture of resolution, artistic style, artistic direction, frame rate, textures, and a slew of other things. That's not even taking into account what sort of display you're using and the distance you're sitting from it.

Go to who has the games you want, don't sweat the details beyond that.
 
If I see that resolution/tv size/viewing distance graph one more time I am going to choke a bitch.
 
Last edited:
next-Jin said:
It was an op-ed from the same guy who 6 weeks ago basically slammed the Vita TV calling it a failure.
Click to expand...

Correct!

A 32%^2 upscale on a sony product = it is terrible!, a failure!

A 50%^2 upscale on the xb1 = HUGE SUCCESS!!!


Wow, such a shameless character... how the mighty have fallen...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top