Is Resolution Getting Irrelevant?

[Spock]

Personally I dont see much difference between 720p, 1080P, and 4k. Not enough to justify the massive difference in file size.. or the extra heat and fan noise generated by my PC trying to run the higher resolution. Surely I'm not the only one that feels that way.

Most modern AAA games are well over 100GB these days. Thats insane.. and stupid. I remember when Crysis 2 was blowing peoples minds, and still looks better than a good amount of modern games, required disk space is a jaw dropping... 9GB. lol.

Makes me wonder if developers will ever start prioritizing convenience, disk space, and other things of that nature over the latest/greatest in graphics technology that people cant really see a worthwhile difference in.

[potato]

if you don't see the difference between 720-1080 and 4k then you should buy better eyes

[qb]

i played in 640x360 at like 4msa stretched on 1080p monitor looked fine, depends on a game in rts resolution matters more in action games i cant even keep up with 800x600 pixels as it creates more irreevant info like tree leaves confuse with other objects.

[DoomsDay]

I dont really have a clue about how modern game can cost so much disk space, I hope situation can improve for developer and users

[Republic of Lamers]

I can always spot the difference between resolutions ... 4k is way better than 2k, and ten times better than 720p.

[vkobe]

Originally posted by Spock:

Personally I dont see much difference between 720p, 1080P, and 4k. Not enough to justify the massive difference in file size.. or the extra heat and fan noise generated by my PC trying to run the higher resolution. Surely I'm not the only one that feels that way.

Most modern AAA games are well over 100GB these days. Thats insane.. and stupid. I remember when Crysis 2 was blowing peoples minds, and still looks better than a good amount of modern games, required disk space is a jaw dropping... 9GB. lol.

Makes me wonder if developers will ever start prioritizing convenience, disk space, and other things of that nature over the latest/greatest in graphics technology that people cant really see a worthwhile difference in.

some people want their wall turn into screen monitor ^_^

[Ulfrinn]

it depends on pixel density. There's a per pixel limit to what people can see. Anything over that will be unnoticeable, and stuff under it will have diminishing returns the closer you get to that point. A 24" 1080p monitor has a pixel density smaller than that limit, anything higher at that resolution will be indistinguishable. But, if you go above that resolution, at the same viewing distance, you may need to step it up to 1440p until you get up to 32" size, and 4K will have the same clarity at 48" as that 1080P monitor does at 24, there will just be 4x the viewing area.

Of course, there's a limit as to how large of a screen you can have before added size starts to become useless because it's outside of your own field of view. Obviously, a 48" monitor 28" away is well beyond that, and for many, even a 32" at that distance starts to get a bit too big. So, most people tend to stick to monitors in the 24-32" range. For that size range at PC desk distance, you will see differences in those resolutions, but they won't be game changing.

Most people you hear claim they see a big difference is either leaning their head into their monitor to get a much closer look than they'd actually use their monitors at, or are completely full of crap and have convinced themselves there's a difference because they paid for there to be one.

[Jeff]

What we need to do is stop raising the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ resolution and focus on raising the standard framerate in games to be no less than 60.

[qb]

Originally posted by Ulfrinn:

it depends on pixel density. There's a per pixel limit to what people can see. Anything over that will be unnoticeable, and stuff under it will have diminishing returns the closer you get to that point. A 24" 1080p monitor has a pixel density smaller than that limit, anything higher at that resolution will be indistinguishable. But, if you go above that resolution, at the same viewing distance, you may need to step it up to 1440p until you get up to 32" size, and 4K will have the same clarity at 48" as that 1080P monitor does at 24, there will just be 4x the viewing area.

Of course, there's a limit as to how large of a screen you can have before added size starts to become useless because it's outside of your own field of view. Obviously, a 48" monitor 28" away is well beyond that, and for many, even a 32" at that distance starts to get a bit too big. So, most people tend to stick to monitors in the 24-32" range. For that size range at PC desk distance, you will see differences in those resolutions, but they won't be game changing.

Most people you hear claim they see a big difference is either leaning their head into their monitor to get a much closer look than they'd actually use their monitors at, or are completely full of crap and have convinced themselves there's a difference because they paid for there to be one.

i think brain is limited in bandwidth to the amount of information it can rpocess, its ok for rexample to process 4k static image, whereas a fast moving 4k it cant really process. there is something like 15mb/sec or other thing like that on the input human brain can logically process.

[DoomsDay]

I think, to faithfully demonstrate a vivid virtual world, is totally not a matter of pixel density.
these texture in higher resolution, doesn't make the demonstration, any nice or convincing.

[Bassturd]

I believe it's relevant to your screen size.

If it's too high or low then the picture looks like 💩.

18" and below for 720p
24" screen for 1080p
27" screen for 1440p
28" and above for 4k.

[Jeff]

Originally posted by BassTurd:

I believe it's relevant to your screen size. If it's too high or low then the picture looks like 💩.

18" and below for 720p
24" screen for 1080p
27" screen for 1440p
28" and above for 4k.

Correct. So in the end, if you stick to these requirements, they all essentially look the same when your eyes adjust.

Personally, I hate anything bigger than 24". I want to be able to see every detail on-screen without having to move my head.

[Spock]

Originally posted by BassTurd:

I believe it's relevant to your screen size.

If it's too high or low then the picture looks like 💩.

18" and below for 720p
24" screen for 1080p
27" screen for 1440p
28" and above for 4k.

Good to know. I typically play on smaller monitors, so, perhaps thats why I dont see a worthwhile difference.

But by that, surely they're gonna have to stop at some point.. I mean, the vast majority arent going to be gaming on a 80" monitor to see that 12K resolution to justify 500GB+ of disk space for a single game. Not to mention new hardware capable of running it.

[Bassturd]

Indeed. I'm not too familiar with these 'curved monitors'. Never bought one and probably never will. I have no idea if the wider image gives you an edge up on competition or not. I'mm just going off of what I knew for the last decade.

[Ulfrinn]

Originally posted by BassTurd:

I believe it's relevant to your screen size.

If it's too high or low then the picture looks like 💩.

18" and below for 720p
24" screen for 1080p
27" screen for 1440p
28" and above for 4k.

Close, a 1440p monitor has about the same pixel density as a 24" 1080p display. 27" 1440P monitors have a lot more, unnecessarily so, I would only go for 32 if I was buying one so i can put those extra pixels to real work showing me bigger images.

[Utiviroo]

Isn't most of the bloat down to massive increase in character cosmetics/clothing in games for MTX, rather than prettier buildings/trees/vehicles etc.

Going from 1080p to 4K is 4x storage if textures also jump from 1K to 4K, so 9GB should be 36GB, the rest of that bloat has to be coming from other frivolous stuff. Other than perhaps lack of optimization and compression.