By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
SvennoJ on 22 February 2014
Edit Thread
FinalFantasyXIII said:
mornelithe said: Why do people keep using this argument?  I really don't understand it.  The largest HD TV I've ever owned was 47", and the difference between the Band of Brothers DVD boxset, versus the Blu Ray boxset are night and day.  And that's from 6-8 feet away.  I completely agree with the stance that resolution isn't everything, but having seen the differences in two boxsets I own on a lesser sized TV, from roughly the same distance away...just makes no sense to me.  Do you have poor eyesight?  Or have you simply not compared a DVD Boxset to a BR Boxset of the same movie/series?


You do understand your BoB DVD runs at a max resolution of 720x480 progressive? Well that was an HBO show. If it was @ 4x3 it was even lower @ 640x480 progressive, but I believe BoB is filmed in widescreen although I've never bought it personally.

You're comparing 2 different visual mediums than from what I am comparing. You're comparing CAMERA/FILM I'm speaking on 3D VIDEO GAME ENGINES.

720x480 DVD MPeg 2 (which is also a far lower bit rate, than Blu-Rays VC-1 which is what you're comparing it to) because BoB BR is a 1920x1080p VC-1 transfer.

This is what you're truley comparing.

720x480 progressive MPEG-2 @ 5MBps in 345,600 individual pixels

Versus

1920x1080 progressive VC-1 @15-30MBps in 2,073,600 individual pixels

What you're comparing is exactly 6x the pixel amount higher on (Blu-Ray BoB vs DVD) with 3-6 times more bandwidth available on Blu-Ray Disc.

I'm comparing 720p,900p,1080p that doesn't rely on a codec/camera/film. Only a 3D game engine. For example BF4 uses the Dice engine not Mpeg 2 vs VC1. So it is strictly a pixel comparisson (if all Graphics are turned up to the same exact values, resolution/framerates becomes the only difference) whereas a DVD vs Blu-Ray comparision has other factors at play in image quality example codecs used.

There's problem one. Problem 2 is I'm comparing 1280x720 to 1920x1080 . Which 1280x720 is a far greater amount of pixels than the 720x480 DVD resolution you're tossing around in this GAMING conversation.

Here we will compare the majority of games resolutions per system.

256x240 = 61,440 individual pixels (NES/Genesis)

720x480 = 345,600 individual pixels (Dreamcast or original Wii)

1280x720 = 921,600 individual pixels (PS360/some or most XB1 titles)

1920x1080 = 2,073,600individual pixels (most PS4 titles)

 

Basically here's what I'm saying a 720p game basically loses half the individual pixel count to 1080p. A 900p would loose if 1600x900 = 1,440,000 a loss of a quarter of 1080p pixel count (I'm rounding for times sake).

That is a far cry from where DVD and Blu-Ray stack up, which is an absurd comparision to what I'm giving examples of.

Now your DVD is 6x the pixel count LESS so it is a GIGANTIC difference. It is. WIi U is 2x less @ 720p and XB1 is 1.5x @ 900p, which are far less trade offs in pixel amount on the WIi U or XBOX1 than the DVD vs BR comparrison you're trying to make. Don't also forget that codecs create differences as well, but that's another subject entirely.

I just watched Akira Kurasawa's Dreams last nite on my old af DVD and it looks like shit compared to a Blu-Ray. There's no Blu-Ray of Akira Kurasawas Dreams anyways...5MBps MPEG-2 720x480p quality sucks butt on a 1080p 55 inch screen, especially when compared to a 15-30MBps VC-1 transfer @ 1920x1080p. So you're right about that point. Good thing I have some Kubrick films on Blu-Ray now though, a breath of fresh air compared to his films on DVD.

Did my comparrison help anyone understand my position?

Netflix HD supposedly 1080p (5mbps h.264), or a 1080i60 (15mbps mpeg2) tv broadcast falls far short of blu-ray's 1080p24 (15-40mbps h.264) as well, bad comparison altogether. Though I still remember people claiming upscaled dvd looking as good as blu-ray at the start of last gen... Thanks google http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=51398 blast from the past.

However you bring up an interesting comparison:

256x240 = 61,440 individual pixels (NES/Genesis)
720x480 = 345,600 individual pixels (Dreamcast or original Wii)
1280x720 = 921,600 individual pixels (PS360/some or most XB1 titles)
1920x1080 = 2,073,600individual pixels (most PS4 titles)

1920x1080 doesn't seem unreasonable, it's the smallest jump in resolution between generations so far.

You also have to take into account that CRT tvs were far less sensitive to resolution than LCD. Native resolution instantly jumps out on an LCD screen as the better option. Any scaled resolution looks soft in comparison. Last gen was a mess with HD ready tvs (600 line 1080i crt) 1366x768 plasma panels, 1280x720 lcd and 1920x1080 lcd tvs. This gen 1080p is the standard and most people have full HD by now, console games can safely target 1080p now as the default option. It's a shame to sit just below it and make a soft looking picture by upscaling instead of matching the display resolution.

It doesn't matter for PC, there is no standard display resolution. However anyone how plays on pc prefers to match the native resolution of their display(s). Hence you have a choice on PC.