Forums - Nintendo Discussion - I'm sick of Nintendo's 720p games... We should have minimum 900p atleast for Switch

NATO said:
m_csquare said:
Human eyes can only see 360p dont u knw?

I know you are just trolling, but for those interested, the human eye resolves visual input at around 12960p depending on age.

i.e. 23040x12960, i.e. 12x the resolution of 1080p, 6x the resolution of 4k.

I know you are just trolling, but for those interested, the human eye resolves visual input as a function of angular resolution regardless of age.

i.e. 23,040 x 12,960, i.e. 12x the resolution of 1080p, 6x the resolution of 4K would look great on a 60" TV at 6' away but would become indistinguisahable from a 1080p 60" image at 15'.  23,040 x 12,960 on a 500' screen would look like crap no matter how close or far away you are.



Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
NATO said:

I know you are just trolling, but for those interested, the human eye resolves visual input at around 12960p depending on age.

i.e. 23040x12960, i.e. 12x the resolution of 1080p, 6x the resolution of 4k.

I know you are just trolling, but for those interested, the human eye resolves visual input as a function of angular resolution regardless of age.

i.e. 23,040 x 12,960, i.e. 12x the resolution of 1080p, 6x the resolution of 4K would look great on a 60" TV at 6' away but would become indistinguisahable from a 1080p 60" image at 15'.  23,040 x 12,960 on a 500' screen would look like crap no matter how close or far away you are.

Wrong the resolution of 12960p is a rough average based on the active surface area at the back of the eye, that deteriorates with age, nice try though.

p.s if you're going to say 12960p is wrong you might also want to edit the 23040x12960 but too..  doop de doo



NATO said:
SpokenTruth said:

I know you are just trolling, but for those interested, the human eye resolves visual input as a function of angular resolution regardless of age.

i.e. 23,040 x 12,960, i.e. 12x the resolution of 1080p, 6x the resolution of 4K would look great on a 60" TV at 6' away but would become indistinguisahable from a 1080p 60" image at 15'.  23,040 x 12,960 on a 500' screen would look like crap no matter how close or far away you are.

Wrong the resolution of 12960p is a rough average based on the active surface area at the back of the eye, that deteriorates with age, nice try though.

p.s if you're going to say 12960p is wrong you might also want to edit the 23040x12960 but too..  doop de doo

Still wrong.  That's not completely how your eyes, or physics, work.  For one, the figure you are referencing is only about a 90 degree view.  For another, it's a locked frame of reference.

The frame of reference can always be further away requiring more pixels to maintain the pixel density required for indistinguishable pixels.

Now if you were to map an image directly onto your retinas, then you would be somewhere around 800-900 megapixels to fill you entire field of vision.  But that doesn't work the same when you are talking about a display because then distance becomes a factor.



For me, even though I have a 4K TV, 720p is "HD enough". Yes, I'd prefer higher resolution but it's okay. 480p or whatever Wii was was unacceptable. I'm happy with everything Xbox 360 and higher.



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

d21lewis said:

For me, even though I have a 4K TV, 720p is "HD enough". Yes, I'd prefer higher resolution but it's okay. 480p or whatever Wii was was unacceptable. I'm happy with everything Xbox 360 and higher.

My TV is only 1080p, but I still regularly play Wii games in glorious 480p, and honestly, they look fine to me. 

Obviously it doesn't look as clean as Wii U or 360 games, but it's completely playable and doesn't significantly detract from the experience for me.



Miyamotoo said:

What good would get running 720p game on 1080p screen!? Nothing, it's basically same like running 720p game on 720p screen.


We have been over this already. I am not going to keep repeating myself. Go back over my prior posts.


Miyamotoo said:

Lol, Switch does not have "built in" upscaler that makes native 720p games runing at native 1080p, but games will built in way that will use extra power of Switch that became available in docked mode for higher resolution in TV mode. Games are built in way that will run at 720p in handheld mode and at higher resolution in docked mode, something similar like PS4 Pro is doing compared to basic PS4.

It does have an upscaler. Otherwise whilst it is docked, the Switch wouldn't be able to upscale it's games to 1080P.

Miyamotoo said:

You cant get 1080p games on Switch in portable mode because hardware would need to run at much higher clock at 1080p resolution, that basically means much worse battery life than it actually is. You do realise there is reason why Switch GPU clocks are 40% lower than those in docked mode!?

We aren't talking about running games at 1080P. Do keep up.

Miyamotoo said:

That doesn't have anything with "Nintendo decided to cheap out", it has with making best solution for product like Swith where you need to pay atention at battery life also.

Nah. Nintendo cheaped out on the screen.
They even cheaped out on the Tegra chip, but that's a discussion for another day.

Miyamotoo said:

Of Course that 720p screen is very acceptable for dedicated gaming device in 2017, and impressions of people who actually tried Switch proves that, like I wrote, all people saying that picture on Switch screen is great, very sharp and bright. For record Switch screen has similar pixel density like iPad Pro.

The iPad Pro has a higher pixel density of 264 pixels per inch.
The Switch has a pixel density of 236.87 pixels per inch.

The iPad Pro has an "okay"
2048 x 1536 on the 9.7" model and 2732 x 2048 on the 12.9" model.

iPad Pro is superior... And that is saying something considering the iPad is far from the best, but is also one of the most expensive tablets.

And that's only the resolution. Remember, Switch cheaped out and is isn't using something like OLED/AMOLED.

720P is a last century resolution, it's not okay in my tablets, it's not okay in my phone, it's not okay on my PC, it's not okay on my TV. Why would I think a Nintendo device should be the exception to the rule? News flash: It shouldn't.



---:::}}} Part of the PC Gaming Master Race. {{{:::---

Pemalite said:
Miyamotoo said:

What good would get running 720p game on 1080p screen!? Nothing, it's basically same like running 720p game on 720p screen.


We have been over this already. I am not going to keep repeating myself. Go back over my prior posts.


Miyamotoo said:

Lol, Switch does not have "built in" upscaler that makes native 720p games runing at native 1080p, but games will built in way that will use extra power of Switch that became available in docked mode for higher resolution in TV mode. Games are built in way that will run at 720p in handheld mode and at higher resolution in docked mode, something similar like PS4 Pro is doing compared to basic PS4.

It does have an upscaler. Otherwise whilst it is docked, the Switch wouldn't be able to upscale it's games to 1080P.

Miyamotoo said:

You cant get 1080p games on Switch in portable mode because hardware would need to run at much higher clock at 1080p resolution, that basically means much worse battery life than it actually is. You do realise there is reason why Switch GPU clocks are 40% lower than those in docked mode!?

We aren't talking about running games at 1080P. Do keep up.

Miyamotoo said:

That doesn't have anything with "Nintendo decided to cheap out", it has with making best solution for product like Swith where you need to pay atention at battery life also.

Nah. Nintendo cheaped out on the screen.
They even cheaped out on the Tegra chip, but that's a discussion for another day.

Miyamotoo said:

Of Course that 720p screen is very acceptable for dedicated gaming device in 2017, and impressions of people who actually tried Switch proves that, like I wrote, all people saying that picture on Switch screen is great, very sharp and bright. For record Switch screen has similar pixel density like iPad Pro.

The iPad Pro has a higher pixel density of 264 pixels per inch.
The Switch has a pixel density of 236.87 pixels per inch.

The iPad Pro has an "okay"
2048 x 1536 on the 9.7" model and 2732 x 2048 on the 12.9" model.

iPad Pro is superior... And that is saying something considering the iPad is far from the best, but is also one of the most expensive tablets.

And that's only the resolution. Remember, Switch cheaped out and is isn't using something like OLED/AMOLED.

720P is a last century resolution, it's not okay in my tablets, it's not okay in my phone, it's not okay on my PC, it's not okay on my TV. Why would I think a Nintendo device should be the exception to the rule? News flash: It shouldn't.

Agree we cant this like this all time, I also gave all answers in previus posts.

Like wrote, It doesn't have "automatic upscaler", but games will built in way that will use extra power of Switch that became available in docked mode for higher resolution in TV mode. Games are built in way that will run at 720p in handheld mode and at higher resolution in docked mode, something similar like PS4 Pro is doing compared to basic PS4.

We are talking about there is no any need for 1080p screen for dedicated gaming device if your games are 720p, thats clear fact that you keep ignore.

No they didn't cheap, its very reasonable decisions, but you can also ignore that. And they don't cheap out with Tegra chip because its actualy best suits for device like Switch.

 

Yes, because that's why I wrote similar, 264 vs 236.87, that's only 10% difference, thats nothing. 

Far more important is pixel density that just resolution, and fact is that Switch and iPad Pro have similar pixel density.

iPad Pro also doenst have AMOLED/OLED and is also using IPS, is that means Apple cheaped out also!? :D          And why would Nintendo use something like AMOLED/OLED, when that would effect on higher price of device (even Apple is not using AMOLED/OLED), and when actualy people are saying that IPS Switch screen is great!?

Like I wrote, far more important is pixel density, and 720p for dedicated gaming device where main point is just to playing games at native 720p is enuf. You can't really compare that with phones that are multi functional devices like PCs that are using for so many things outside games, they even have 2k screens but actually mobile games running at 720p. And again what would be a point of 1080p screen if games are 720p!? And we also have fact that all people who tried and all media, that games on Switch screens look great, very sharp and vibrant.

 

Not only that you have arguments without sense, but you actually totally ignoring some clear facts. Basically all your arguments come "720p screen is low for 2017." while you totaly keep ignoring all clear facts. So having all that on mind, I dont have any more attention to spend any of my time on this arguing.



Pemalite said:
Miyamotoo said:

What good would get running 720p game on 1080p screen!? Nothing, it's basically same like running 720p game on 720p screen.


We have been over this already. I am not going to keep repeating myself. Go back over my prior posts.


Miyamotoo said:

Lol, Switch does not have "built in" upscaler that makes native 720p games runing at native 1080p, but games will built in way that will use extra power of Switch that became available in docked mode for higher resolution in TV mode. Games are built in way that will run at 720p in handheld mode and at higher resolution in docked mode, something similar like PS4 Pro is doing compared to basic PS4.

It does have an upscaler. Otherwise whilst it is docked, the Switch wouldn't be able to upscale it's games to 1080P.

Miyamotoo said:

You cant get 1080p games on Switch in portable mode because hardware would need to run at much higher clock at 1080p resolution, that basically means much worse battery life than it actually is. You do realise there is reason why Switch GPU clocks are 40% lower than those in docked mode!?

We aren't talking about running games at 1080P. Do keep up.

Miyamotoo said:

That doesn't have anything with "Nintendo decided to cheap out", it has with making best solution for product like Swith where you need to pay atention at battery life also.

Nah. Nintendo cheaped out on the screen.
They even cheaped out on the Tegra chip, but that's a discussion for another day.

Miyamotoo said:

Of Course that 720p screen is very acceptable for dedicated gaming device in 2017, and impressions of people who actually tried Switch proves that, like I wrote, all people saying that picture on Switch screen is great, very sharp and bright. For record Switch screen has similar pixel density like iPad Pro.

The iPad Pro has a higher pixel density of 264 pixels per inch.
The Switch has a pixel density of 236.87 pixels per inch.

The iPad Pro has an "okay"
2048 x 1536 on the 9.7" model and 2732 x 2048 on the 12.9" model.

iPad Pro is superior... And that is saying something considering the iPad is far from the best, but is also one of the most expensive tablets.

And that's only the resolution. Remember, Switch cheaped out and is isn't using something like OLED/AMOLED.

720P is a last century resolution, it's not okay in my tablets, it's not okay in my phone, it's not okay on my PC, it's not okay on my TV. Why would I think a Nintendo device should be the exception to the rule? News flash: It shouldn't.

How much does an iPad Pro cost?



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

If the 720p games had proper anti aliasing, it would be ok I guess.
I have to say, Arms for example, seems to look nice.

Problem as always with Nintendo, you don't really know what you are buying when you buy your system on day one.

You have to wait until people are really digging to know what's under the hood, I'm going to wait, especially because I am sure other Switch devices are coming in 2018/2019, I'll get it then.

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
NATO said:

Wrong the resolution of 12960p is a rough average based on the active surface area at the back of the eye, that deteriorates with age, nice try though.

p.s if you're going to say 12960p is wrong you might also want to edit the 23040x12960 but too..  doop de doo

Still wrong.  That's not completely how your eyes, or physics, work.  For one, the figure you are referencing is only about a 90 degree view.  For another, it's a locked frame of reference.

The frame of reference can always be further away requiring more pixels to maintain the pixel density required for indistinguishable pixels.

Now if you were to map an image directly onto your retinas, then you would be somewhere around 800-900 megapixels to fill you entire field of vision.  But that doesn't work the same when you are talking about a display because then distance becomes a factor.

I think wegot some wires crossed here, I specifically said the human eye (singular) and resolves, regardless of if something is in focus or not the same amount of data is being processed and thus resolved, if something is 1 meter away or 1 inch away, the same amount of information is being processed, just in the case of 1 inch away the thing being held 1 inch away is taking up more of your field of vision, and thus the detail of that thing is higher, if it's 1 meter away your eyes resolve less of the information from it, thats a granted, but you're still resolving the rest of the scene in that field of view.

And retinal decal is a real thing that effects virtually everyone over time, that decay leads to fluctuations in the amount of light information processed, the figure of 12960p is taken from the average information the retina is processing at any given time looking directly ahead.

Obviously there is no set rule for approximate amounts because genetics play a huge part in your field of view, such as how much of your vision is taken up by your eye socket, nasal bridge, cheek, eye size, depth, spread, etc.

Regardless, if you think it's 130mpx or 800-900 for full field, we can agree to disagree, but point is, either one of those figures is a hell of a lot higher than 360p.