High resolution myth?

Following the climb in resolutions it has made me question the usefulness of it. I do remember the low res days of C64 with TV or pc with 320x240 or 640x480 even but after 800x600/1024x768 people dont see the pixels anymore so whats the point in having millions pixels more like 1920x1080? For one thing it will greatly tax your computer but whats the real improvement in image quality?

According to one article that did sidebyside test with 46" 1366x768 and 1920x1080 they found the difference extremely difficult to see from close range and pretty much impossible from further away:

How important is resolution?

Not as important as you might think. According to the Imaging Science Foundation, a group that consults for home-theater maufacturers and trains professional video calibrators, the most important aspect of picture quality is contrast ratio, the second most important is color saturation, and the third is color accuracy. Resolution comes in a distant fourth, despite being easily the most-talked-about HDTV spec today.

In other words, once you get to high-definition, most people are perfectly satisfied with the sharpness of the picture. All other things being equal--namely contrast and color--HDTV looks more or less spectacular on just about any high-def television regardless of its size or the HDTV signal's resolution itself. The leap from normal TV to HDTV is so big that additional leaps in resolution--from high-def to higher-def, let's say--are tiny by comparison.

Click to expand...

The truth about 1080p

In the last couple of years, there has been a big influx of HDTVs with 1080p native resolution, which typically cost a good deal more than their lower-resolution counterparts. But as we've been saying all along, once you get to high-def, the difference between resolutions becomes much more difficult to appreciate. We've done side-by-side tests between two 46-inch LCD HDTVs, one with 1366x768 resolution and the other with 1080p resolution, using the same 1080i source material, and it was extremely difficult for us to see any difference. It becomes even more difficult at smaller screen sizes or farther seating distances--say, more than 1.5 times the diagonal measurement of the screen. We've reviewed a 37-inch 1080p LCD, for example, where it was impossible to see the separation between horizontal lines at farther than 45 inches away.

We're not telling you to ignore 1080p HDTVs. They technically do deliver more detail, which can enhance the viewing experience for more eagle-eyed viewers. Also, many manufacturers build other picture-quality benefits, such as better contrast and/or color, into their 1080p HDTVs simply because those sets are the high-end models. And given the continuing march of technology, we expect more and more 1080p models to become available at lower and lower prices. Today, however, the premium for 1080p is still pretty steep, and unless you're getting a very large set, say 50 inches or more, we don't recommend basing a buying decision on whether or not the television has 1080p native resolution.

http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5137915-1.html

Click to expand...

truthfully, I'm perfectly happy at 1024x768! Between that and 1280 x 1024, that's where i like the resolution at, no more.

At really high res everything gets too far away and hard to click on, text is hard to read, the interface gets really small, it's hard to tell proportion, programs run like crap, that's the real difference to me..

is that supposed to be an improvement?

Editing graphics and stuff lke that gets way tough with higher resolutions. Ive got a dual monitor setup going, and I keep one at 1024x768 - 1280 x1024 max just so that I can flash back and forth and get a realistic view when editing graphics or doing websites or whatever.

High res is a pain in the ass, I wish the native res on newer monitors was like 1280 x 1024, I can even live with that, but this 1900 x whatever and higher bizness Im just not happy with

I have to admit that I mostly work and play at 1024x768. Well, except when I'm working at my Laptop, but then I'm usually sitting very close to the screen. But my desktop computer is running at 1024x768... everything else is really a bit small, since my monitor is quite a bit away. And when it comes to games... I don't know, you hardly see a difference with new 3D engines... most of them even look good on 800x600.

My only thing is that both of my laptops are widescreen - 1440x900 and 1920x1200. Things from 800 x 600 look funky stretched out.

I also game at 1024x768. I don't buy high-end GPU's but I can normally play most games at max detail at that res.

txa1265 said:

My only thing is that both of my laptops are widescreen - 1440x900 and 1920x1200. Things from 800 x 600 look funky stretched out.

Click to expand...

I went out of my way to get a non-widescreen monitor. My Dell XPS has one and I cant stand the way it distorts everything, making design almost impossible. Good to watch movies on that have ws format, but since I can count on one paw how many times I actually have done that, it's more annoyance than some sort of bonus.

We're coming to a point where we're being steamrolled by new technology that we I guess are supposed to want, but dont. I'm fine with XP, and standard screen, and 100 frames a second. I dont mind uber-tech (and uber-expensive) being available for those who want it, but I dont like it becoming the standard.

Yup. I've gotta agree with you, 1024 X 768 is the resolution I use too. I've tried cranking it up higher, but the improvement is only marginal and the performance hit is tremendous. Really not worth it IMHO.

It's simply a matter of screen size. An extremely high resolution like 2560x1600 will look perfectly OK and scale very well on a 24" LCD display. Things will not get small or fonts unreadable because the native resolution and the screen size go hand in hand. The perspective/ratio of pixels/inch remains the same as on a lower res display.
A lower res would look terrible on these large screens because you would begin to be able to see the actual pixels of the display and everything would start to look sort of grainy.

Next, there's the issue of HD and full HD. A lot of people watch TV and DVDs on their displays so it makes sense for some people to get a 1920x1080 (full HD) display for maximum image quality.

So, that basically explains the "uselfulness" of the higher resolutions. It's a matter of keeping screen size and image quality balanced. It's actually a must and not just useful.
I personally have a BenQ FP937S+ 19" TFT display with a native resolution of 1280x1024. I always use the native resolution as anyone with a TFT/LCD display should (meaning you should plan your purchase carefully and make sure you have the graphics card power to support the high res of a large screen if you decide to buy one) to get the best possible image quality. The only times I drop below 1280x1024 is when I'm forced to by playing an older game (like currently Icewind Dale).

If I had to question the usefulness of something though then it'd be that whole widescreen hype. It's fine for TV/DVD, of course, and I think I'd buy a widescreen display for that as well but for gaming? There are still a lot of games that do not support widescreen resolutions and widescreen also doesn't always look good. It might be cool to have for an MMORPG or an RTS but for FPS, the narrower 4:3 res certainly works better to enhance the effect of tunnel vision and fast-paced action gameplay.
This is definitely a development I do not like very much. As someone who (re)plays older games from time to time, I would much prefer if display makers would begin to strictly separate TV/DVD/office displays (16:9/16:10) from gaming displays (4:3). But that ain't gonna happen, unfortunately.

Moriendor said:

If I had to question the usefulness of something though then it'd be that whole widescreen hype. It's fine for TV/DVD, of course, and I think I'd buy a widescreen display for that as well but for gaming? There are still a lot of games that do not support widescreen resolutions and widescreen also doesn't always look good. It might be cool to have for an MMORPG or an RTS but for FPS, the narrower 4:3 res certainly works better to enhance the effect of tunnel vision and fast-paced action gameplay.
This is definitely a development I do not like very much. As someone who (re)plays older games from time to time, I would much prefer if display makers would begin to strictly separate TV/DVD/office displays (16:9/16:10) from gaming displays (4:3). But that ain't gonna happen, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, Moriendor, people play on consoles and there the games are made for this ws resolution. It depends a great deal on what you want from an FPS imo. If it is the multiplayer option, then you're correct. If you like the sp more and love to walk around to explore a bit (more of an RPG approach, I know), weel a a widescreen isn't so bad at all. I agree that for a portable the widescreen option isn't nescessary at all, but I don't mind that tv's get a higher resolution.
Personally I'd search for a laptop like xSamhainx did, but I don't need one yet.

Personally, I prefer high resolution at the cost of lower AA and AF settings. It depends on the game, of course, but my personal preference is 1600x1200 (which is my native desktop resolution as well) on my 21" LCD, which is also positioned on an arm so it's only ~20" from my face.

Some games look better to me at 1280x1024 or 1024x768 with high levels of AA, but they are the uncommon exceptions. Usually I prefer 1600x1200 even with no AA. I believe , however, that I'm pretty far in the minority with my preferences.

I suspect part of my preference is due to the fact that I do a lot of tasks, such as programming, that require a lot of screen real-estate.

Bartacus said:

On the other hand, Moriendor, people play on consoles and there the games are made for this ws resolution.

Click to expand...

True. As I said, I got nothing against widescreen for a TV. I'd get one myself if I wanted to buy a TV right now. Since you usually hook up a console to a TV, yes, you will end up playing games in widescreen which isn't a big problem since most console games support 16:9/16:10 aspect ratios.
But on the PC, I much prefer 4:3 for several reasons. The most important ones being that you are sitting closer to the screen and thus it's more natural to have a narrower viewing angle and the other reason being "old" games that do not support widescreen (or generally high) resolutions.
Let's face it. Anything that runs in a non-native resolution on an LCD display looks like crap and with black edges to the left and right of the image, it looks double crap .

Guhndahb said:

I believe , however, that I'm pretty far in the minority with my preferences.

Click to expand...

I'd say that your preference or willingness to run games in lower than the native resolution of your TFT is a bit unusual but otherwise I fully agree with your post. Anti-aliasing becomes pretty much meaningless at resolutions of 1600x1200 and above.

I know I'm a bit off topic here, but could you tell me how I check my screen's native resolution ?

Pladio said:

I know I'm a bit off topic here, but could you tell me how I check my screen's native resolution ?

Click to expand...

Yes. Grab a magnifying glass and then start counting the number of pixels on the vertical and horizontal axis of your display .

What? You wanted a serious answer? OK. Then just check your display properties (right-click on the desktop - Properties - Settings) and check your screen resolution. The highest possible resolution that you can set here is your display's native resolution.
This is only and exclusively true for TFT/LCD displays by the way. CRT monitors do not have a native resolution and can be run at lower than the optimal/recommended resolutions (optimal for a 17" is usually 1024x768 and for a 19" 1280x1024) without any additional (from down-scaling) loss in image quality.
Well, or you can go and up the res of your CRT for better image quality, of course, but this is where you will usually run into the problem of things becoming too small since game interfaces do not scale very well if there isn't enough "real estate" available on the screen. That's why the res and the screen size should always be balanced out.

Moriendor said:

It's simply a matter of screen size. An extremely high resolution like 2560x1600 will look perfectly OK and scale very well on a 24" LCD display. Things will not get small or fonts unreadable because the native resolution and the screen size go hand in hand. The perspective/ratio of pixels/inch remains the same as on a lower res display.
A lower res would look terrible on these large screens because you would begin to be able to see the actual pixels of the display and everything would start to look sort of grainy.

Click to expand...

Thats not true. Even with larger screens you have to be very close to see the pixels and noone watches large screens with their nose stuck on it. I have a 32" LCD with 1366x768 reso and I have to be like 20cm away before I start to faintly see the pixels. Beyond that its impossible. And I usually watch the screen from 50cm+ away. Thats actually somkind of health recommendation for eyes even IIRC especially with large screens.

2460x1600 is just way too much for 24" IMHO. You have to have a telescope to see those pixels. All it does is tax the gpu.

Next, there's the issue of HD and full HD. A lot of people watch TV and DVDs on their displays so it makes sense for some people to get a 1920x1080 (full HD) display for maximum image quality.

So, that basically explains the "uselfulness" of the higher resolutions. It's a matter of keeping screen size and image quality balanced. It's actually a must and not just useful.

Click to expand...

That still doesnt answer the question. If you cant see the pixels on lower res then how does the image "get better" if you add few million pixels more?

According to the article I posted they did a sidebyside test with 46" 1366x768 and 1920x1080 screens and it was extremely difficult to see the diffence from close range and even more difficult (if not impossible) from 1.5 range of the screen width.

Experts quoted in the article say that stuff like contrast, color saturation and color accuracy is much more important than superhigh resolutions.

I personally have a BenQ FP937S+ 19" TFT display with a native resolution of 1280x1024. I always use the native resolution as anyone with a TFT/LCD display should (meaning you should plan your purchase carefully and make sure you have the graphics card power to support the high res of a large screen if you decide to buy one) to get the best possible image quality. The only times I drop below 1280x1024 is when I'm forced to by playing an older game (like currently Icewind Dale).

Click to expand...

I have used my 32" LCD for year now with two resolutions 1366x768 and 1024x768. Second one is scaled but its quite good. I didnt even know about the scaling until I read about it.

If I had to question the usefulness of something though then it'd be that whole widescreen hype. It's fine for TV/DVD, of course, and I think I'd buy a widescreen display for that as well but for gaming? There are still a lot of games that do not support widescreen resolutions and widescreen also doesn't always look good. It might be cool to have for an MMORPG or an RTS but for FPS, the narrower 4:3 res certainly works better to enhance the effect of tunnel vision and fast-paced action gameplay.
This is definitely a development I do not like very much. As someone who (re)plays older games from time to time, I would much prefer if display makers would begin to strictly separate TV/DVD/office displays (16:9/16:10) from gaming displays (4:3). But that ain't gonna happen, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

I havent had any problems with games whether they support widescreen or not. More than often they do. And I play lots of FPS too.

And its not just for TV/DVD/office/gaming but reading too (pdfs/web/etc). One of the original reasons was to get a screen large enough to be able to read a full page of text from sofa 3-4 meters away.

Just one question then: If you had already made up your mind that a high resolution is unimportant (which I obviously disagree with to some extent) then why did you even bother to make this post and ask people about their opinion? Doesn't seem to me as if you are genuinely interested in other people's views but that you have already established some sort of "universal truth" for yourself that you just wanted to let others confirm for you.

Also, some of your statements are a little weird like...

I havent had any problems with games whether they support widescreen or not. More than often they do. And I play lots of FPS too.

Click to expand...

First of all and as I said, I was talking about older games. I know that most newer games support widescreen resolutions. Secondly, please define "problem". For most people, the fact (yes FACT) that the image will either get distorted or blurry or get ugly black edges if a resolution is not supported is a "problem". If inferior image quality is not a problem for you then that is a very subjective matter. I'm sure there are also people out there who enjoy riding their bike when it has a flat tire but most people don't, you know? .

Moriendor said:

Just one question then: If you had already made up your mind that a high resolution is unimportant (which I obviously disagree with to some extent) then why did you even bother to make this post and ask people about their opinion? Doesn't seem to me as if you are genuinely interested in other people's views but that you have already established some sort of "universal truth" for yourself that you just wanted to let others confirm for you.

Click to expand...

Funnily I was about to say the same about you. You basicly ignored all the evidence I laid against superhigh res in the first post and then just said that it "makes for better image" without actually explaing how it does that.

If this was a poll then I would not ask you to explain. But its not so thats why I would like som more than strong winded opinnions.

Point is I gave the article as proof. You gave nothing except your own hard opinnion. You didnt even try to back up your beliefs and you totally ignored the evidence I had against your case.

First of all and as I said, I was talking about older games. I know that most newer games support widescreen resolutions.

Click to expand...

I have played plenty of old games with the LCD (ES:arena comes to mind 1st). Never had problems really.

Secondly, please define "problem". For most people, the fact (yes FACT) that the image will either get distorted or blurry or get ugly black edges if a resolution is not supported is a "problem". If inferior image quality is not a problem for you then that is a very subjective matter. I'm sure there are also people out there who enjoy riding their bike when it has a flat tire but most people don't, you know? .

Click to expand...

Are you trying to say that scaled picture has inferior image quality? I have no disagreement there natural res is always best BUT there are big differences between the scaled resolutions and the quality of the scaling. 1024x768 is very good for this LCD. For som other LCD with som other native resolution it can be awful. It varies.

Luckily pretty much all games can be run on 1024x768/1366x768 so I never have problems really. 640x480/800x600 res games (which usually dont run on XP in the 1st place) I have always run on emulator windows (virtual PC/etc).

The "problem" you mentioned is the fact that I used the LCD just like any regular monitor for like 4-5 months before actually knowing anything about "resolution/widescreen problems" on LCD screens. The scaling (1024x768) was so good on my LCD that it fooled me to think it didnt exist at all.

zakhal said:

Funnily I was about to say the same about you. You basicly ignored all the evidence I laid against superhigh res in the first post and then just said that it "makes for better image" without actually explaing how it does that.

If this was a poll then I would not ask you to explain. But its not so thats why I would like som more than strong winded opinnions.

Point is I gave the article as proof. You gave nothing except your own hard boiled opinnion. You didnt even try to back up your beliefs and you totally ignored the evidence I had against your case. Sounds more like you are the one who doesnt want to debate about it.

Click to expand...

OK, but that is because I consider the issue a no-brainer because a higher resolution will always lead to a finer and sharper image. Even the article acknowledges this here...

We're not telling you to ignore 1080p HDTVs. They technically do deliver more detail, which can enhance the viewing experience for more eagle-eyed viewers.

Click to expand...

...and here...

But as we've been saying all along, once you get to high-def, the difference between resolutions becomes much more difficult to appreciate.

Click to expand...

Just because the differences become harder to appreciate or because you need "eagle eyes" does not mean that there are no differences in image quality . A higher resolution (assuming the same panel technology and size) will always deliver the superior image.
Whether these differences are noticeable enough to justify spending more cash on a higher res display is up to every consumer's own tastes in the end. Image quality is just as subjective as audio quality. Some people will be doing fine with a Creative or Logitech speaker set and others will demand a Teufel/Bose/Yamaha high quality set. Same with displays. You just have to look at them, compare and make your very own, individual choice. No two pairs of eyes are the same.
In theory, the display with the highest resolution should always win though.

Are you trying to say that scaled picture has inferior image quality? I have no disagreement there natural res is always best BUT there are big differences between the scaled resolutions and the quality of the scaling. 1024x768 is very good for this LCD. For som other LCD with som other native resolution it can be awful. It varies.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I was trying to say. The scaling doesn't always work very well in many cases and the image becomes blurry or distorted etc. (character faces/heads becoming too wide or squeezed etc) - I agree that the results may vary from display to display but as you said, playing at a non-native res always results in a (sometimes more noticeable, sometimes less) loss of image quality but a loss is a loss whichever way you put it .
If you have a 4:3 display (which I prefer over widescreen for gaming and only for gaming alone) then the chance of a native res being supported is much better with older games when widescreen displays didn't even exist (like for example some of the Infinity engine games that only run at 800x600 max like Icewind Dale).

I'm a little confused. If the argument is that most people don't notice the difference between various higher resolutions under normal viewing conditions, then so be it. I haven't done any studies so I can only speak for myself. And the article is obviously referring to TV conditions, which are a far cry from PC conditions. I admit while I can distinguish the difference between 1080i and 720p on my HDTV (it doesnt support 1080p), it's pretty trivial for me. At that distance my sub-par vision becomes a major factor.

However, I know for a fact that high resolutions make a significant difference to me particularly in PC gaming. I put a significant amount of time tuning each new game to my personal tastes, so I regularly try them at different resolutions before making a decision. At 1600x1200 I can still clearly see aliasing and my corrected vision is not particularly good (~20/40 on a good day). When I have the GPU power, I gladly add AA to even my 1600x1200 viewing.

Once I'm immersed in the game, most of these elements become trivial, and frankly I'm a substance over style gamer anyways. But, particularly for 1st-person games and simulators, I can appreciate the added immersiveness of good graphics tuned to my tastes.

All you guys seem to be forgetting that every game is different depending on the graphics engine used. Some games might have bad aliasing even at 1280x1024 and higher while other games do not. For instance, I hate the fact that there's no anti-aliasing in Gothic 3 because I see a lot of jaggies even at 1280x1024. I don't use AA in Oblivion at the same resolution for performance reasons, but it doesn't bother me because the edges don't jag\crawl nearly as bad in that game.

It really just comes down to each individual game being different. Some games simply need a higher resolution while others do not.

Guhndahb said:

I'm a little confused. If the argument is that most people don't notice the difference between various higher resolutions under normal viewing conditions, then so be it. I haven't done any studies so I can only speak for myself. And the article is obviously referring to TV conditions, which are a far cry from PC conditions. I admit while I can distinguish the difference between 1080i and 720p on my HDTV (it doesnt support 1080p), it's pretty trivial for me. At that distance my sub-par vision becomes a major factor.

Click to expand...

Reading the article it seems like they did the test from 2 distances: short and long. Long been over 60" away. The shorter range is most likely close to standard viewing range on PC so it should be referrable.

We've done side-by-side tests between two 46-inch LCD HDTVs, one with 1366x768 resolution and the other with 1080p resolution, using the same 1080i source material, and it was extremely difficult for us to see any difference. It becomes even more difficult at smaller screen sizes or farther seating distances--say, more than 1.5 times the diagonal measurement of the screen.

Click to expand...

Guhndahb said:

However, I know for a fact that high resolutions make a significant difference to me particularly in PC gaming. I put a significant amount of time tuning each new game to my personal tastes, so I regularly try them at different resolutions before making a decision. At 1600x1200 I can still clearly see aliasing and my corrected vision is not particularly good (~20/40 on a good day). When I have the GPU power, I gladly add AA to even my 1600x1200 viewing.

Click to expand...

Quality of AA is also dependable on the GPU. The new nvidia 8xxx series has easily the best one. Second comes the ATI 19xx and third nvidia 7xxx.

The good part about 8xxx series is that the AA doesnt just have best quality but you can use it pretty much on max without loosing much if any performance.

But of course AA can do only so much with low res. Its more useful with higher resolutions.