Which do you think is better: 1360*768 with 150% quality, or 1920*1080 with 100% quality?

[nanny_granny]

My PC can run either and tbh I'm kind of digging the lower resolution vibe. Am curious to hear what others have to say.

[SunnyC]

Depends which rendering mode you are using and if tsaa is enabled or not.

[purifiedprune]

When you're running the game at 1360x768 with 150 image quality, you're actually running at 2040x1152, not low resolution at all.

[nanny_granny]

Originally posted by boondock199:

When you're running the game at 1360x768 with 150 image quality, you're actually running at 2040x1152, not low resolution at all.

That's interesting, but then why does it look sharper at 1920*1080?

[purifiedprune]

my bad, I was kinda zonked when I typed that. what I posted there was really just in theory, I didn't mean to imply that it was the superior option
anyway, higher raw pixel count is better than the image quality setting, so to answer your question, it's cause there's more pixels at 1080 than at 768.
the image quality setting is really just another type of anti aliasing.

[SunnyC]

Originally posted by boondock199:

my bad, I was kinda zonked when I typed that. what I posted there was really just in theory, I didn't mean to imply that it was the superior option :lilimsob:
anyway, higher raw pixel count is better than the image quality setting, so to answer your question, it's cause there's more pixels at 1080 than at 768.
the image quality setting is really just another type of anti aliasing.

image quality is just resolution scale.

[Tharon]

While the game is internally renderd at 2040x1152 (150% quality) it's downscaled to 1360x768. You get a more sharper image quality but it's always a resolution of 1360x768.

1920x1080 is better because the image have a higher resolution.

Anyway, try to match the resolution of your monitor. The best quality is always attained by matching the monitor resolution, then you can add a bit of antialiasing by increasing the % quality.

[nanny_granny]

Doesn't image quality add more details to objects, textures, etc? So that you might have a more detailed world at 1360*768, if you crank up the image quality scale?

[SunnyC]

Originally posted by nanny_granny:

Doesn't image quality add more details to objects, textures, etc? So that you might have a more detailed world at 1360*768, if you crank up the image quality scale?

No. You can think of it like a console setting. Where a game claims to run at 4k, but really it is just upscaled to 4k. The output resolution is 4k but the actual pixels are not. If you want better details increase the textures, shadows and mesh settings.

If you want the game to look it's best then use these settings:
Rendering mode: normal
AA: tsaa
Resolution: whatever your native resolution is(example: 1920*1080,2560*1440)
Mesh: max
Refresh rate:144,120,160(whatever you want as long as the monitor supports it)
Texture: high 4gb (beyond that isn't noticeable unless you're really looking for it.)
Image quality:100%

Imo the game's visuals doesn't really shine at 1080p. You would really see how great it can look at 1440p or higher.

[nanny_granny]

Originally posted by Tier 3 Simpscriber:

Originally posted by nanny_granny:

Doesn't image quality add more details to objects, textures, etc? So that you might have a more detailed world at 1360*768, if you crank up the image quality scale?

No. You can think of it like a console setting. Where a game claims to run at 4k, but really it is just upscaled to 4k. The output resolution is 4k but the actual pixels are not. If you want better details increase the textures, shadows and mesh settings.

Hold up, we agree. So look, I have two options:

1) 1360*768 with slider up to 150%
2) 1920*1080 with slider up to 100%

(1) is the more detailed world, (2) lacks details but higher resolution, right?

[SunnyC]

Originally posted by nanny_granny:

Originally posted by Tier 3 Simpscriber:

No. You can think of it like a console setting. Where a game claims to run at 4k, but really it is just upscaled to 4k. The output resolution is 4k but the actual pixels are not. If you want better details increase the textures, shadows and mesh settings.

Hold up, we agree. So look, I have two options:

1) 1360*768 with slider up to 150%
2) 1920*1080 with slider up to 100%

(1) is the more detailed world, (2) lacks details but higher resolution, right?

No that's not correct. By default 1080 would have more details. I edited my previous post so follow that.

[Tharon]

Originally posted by nanny_granny:

[ns:

1) 1360*768 with slider up to 150%
2) 1920*1080 with slider up to 100%

(1) is the more detailed world, (2) lacks details but higher resolution, right?

No, (1) is a bit more sharper but less detailed, (2) more detailed but with jagged lines.

The best thing you can do is to make a screenshot of the same image with both settings and look at the differences yourself.

[nanny_granny]

Thanks for your suggestions. I'll try them out for my next playthrough.

I'm still confused about how this works, mind you. For example, I remember tinkering with certain games in the past so that they'd run smoothly, and it was always a balance between resolution and texture quality/shadows/lighting quality etc.

For example, I could get Half Life to run at 1024*768, but low texture quality. However, 800*600 would work at high texture quality. Have I misunderstood these parameters all along? It seemed to me that I could sacrifice resolution for texture quality and vice versa.

[SunnyC]

Originally posted by nanny_granny:

Thanks for your suggestions. I'll try them out for my next playthrough.

I'm still confused about how this works, mind you. For example, I remember tinkering with certain games in the past so that they'd run smoothly, and it was always a balance between resolution and texture quality/shadows/lighting quality etc.

For example, I could get Half Life to run at 1024*768, but low texture quality. However, 800*600 would work at high texture quality. Have I misunderstood these parameters all along? It seemed to me that I could sacrifice resolution for texture quality and vice versa.

In Most PC games, shadows are what really kill fps. For re2 it is mainly the rendering mode, image quality and resolution combined that hurt the performance. So for example if you ran the game at 2560*1440 but used 90% image quality the game will still look amazing, but you'll get better frames. If I changed the rendering mode to interlaced, I'd get even more frames, but at the cost of the sharpness even with tsaa turned on
Something I used to do on my gtx1060. I've just accepted my card is outdated and leave it on 1080p 100% now.

[Tharon]

The quality setting in RE2 doesn't touch texture or models. It only change the internal rendering resolution. Models and texture quality are the same.

Basically you are rendering the game at an higher resolution, then downscaling it to fit to the selected resolution. Doing this the image will be interpolated and can look sharper, but you lose details because the effective resolution is lower.

Playing on a lower resolution and raising the quality % doesn't have much sense. It's something added for people with powerful videocard that can play the game at a larger resolution than their monitor can reach.
If you can play the game fine at 1920x1080 then play with that resolution.

[Tharon]

I did this to better explain :

https://imgur.com/a/PBzl6P1

It's the same (almost) image rendered with different quality percentage.

The first on top is 2560x1440 with 100% quality
The middle image is 2560x1440 with 50% quality
The third is 2560x1440 with 200% quality

As you can see, the second image (50%) is blurrier, because is renderd at 1280x770 and then upscaled.
The third is renderd at 5120x2880 (200%) and it's a bit sharper but nothing big, because is downgraded to 2560x1440 and loses most of its details. But it has a major impact on my GPU, lowering my FPS to 20/30 instead of 60. Not worth it.

In short, play with your maximum accepted resolution, and if you can raise the other graphical options of the game. Raise the quality only if you have GPU power to spare.