bananaking21 said:
Seece said:
Madword said:
Seece said:
OP looks fake, majority of games this gen have been 720p and they have looked fine, as does the Xbox launch line up. |
I think the big issue is that a static image doesnt necessarily translate to a moving image... well thats what I guess... i have no idea really...lol
|
Eh, I'd just disregard everything in the OP tbh.
|
i'd advise him to disregard you.
http://www.dualshockers.com/2013/10/10/battlefield-4-on-ps4-and-xbox-one-how-it-should-look-at-900p-and-720p-part-2-the-differences/
here is a link showing many, many examples. do you have any proof that this "looks fake" other than your bias? if you are going to call out the OP in 2 post, atleast be able to back your claims up as you certainly lost all your credibility in this thread with your previous posts.
other examples, i engourage the auther to put them in the OP.
same order -720p - 900p - 1080p
|
This post does two things for me. It contradicts yourself on the 1st page when you said the images were not zoomed in. because on the article it is clearly zoomed in parts of and overall screen shot.
Second it confirms that te res is a non issue for me. The res difference what I take from this adds more textures to minor details of a frame. Details that you need to zoom into in order to notice. So on a big TV were images are essentially "zoomed in" it would be more noticable than smaller TV's. personally I play on a 24 inch so I would not see a difference.
And most would not be able to appreciate the changes. in numbers of colors and minor calculations. the differences are HUGE on paper. as for sitting in front of a TV playing a fast pace video game. those differences are reduced to small things that you can't see but remains in the back of your head for those that care about it that much.
