By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
curl-6 on 22 November 2020
Conina said:
curl-6 said:

It is zoomed in, I am looking at Kirby's images in full screen right now, and compared to your images the character is more than twice as big on screen in the latter.

Not, it is NOT zoomed in. If you display kirbys 4K-screenshots on a 4K-display in fullscreen, the character is the same size.

If you display kirbys 4K-screenshots on a 1080p-display in fullscreen, it is downscaled at first to fit on the lower res screen!

To evaluate the screenshot in native resolution, you have to click on the picture again (mouse curser should have a small plus when hovering over the picture).

When I view in a new tab then go to click on it as you suggest, the mouse icon literally turns into a magnifying glass with a + in it. When I do as you say and click, the picture is zoomed in and my screen only shows a close-up portion of it, not the entire image.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 22 November 2020

Around the Network
DonFerrari on 22 November 2020
curl-6 said:
DroidKnight said:

Going up to 4K resolution, TVs does allow you to move in closer to take advantage of the better resolution which does give an edge in competitive gaming and adds to immersion in watching movies or playing games.  I wouldn't say 4 1/2 feet away on the 55" TV is having your eyeballs too close to the screen.

That sounds a little too close for comfort for me personally.

I sit 3 meters back from my 47" TV.

I sit 2m away from 65" and think the TV could still be quite bigger and I could sit quite closer to it. For my place a 85" would be ideal.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 22 November 2020
curl-6 said:
Conina said:

It's not zoomed in. It is a 1:1 picture-excerpt of Kirby007's 4K-original files to fit into the 972 pixl with usable for forum postings. Not upscaled, not downscaled.

For all the people here who are to lazy to open the pictures in a new tab and just scroll down in the thread to form their opinion.

Although, there are probably even a few people who browse the forum with their old phone or 3DS browser with even more downscaled pictures.

It is zoomed in, I am looking at Kirby's images in full screen right now, and compared to your images the character is more than twice as big on screen in the latter.

Full screen and full size?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 22 November 2020
curl-6 said:
Conina said:

Not, it is NOT zoomed in. If you display kirbys 4K-screenshots on a 4K-display in fullscreen, the character is the same size.

If you display kirbys 4K-screenshots on a 1080p-display in fullscreen, it is downscaled at first to fit on the lower res screen!

To evaluate the screenshot in native resolution, you have to click on the picture again (mouse curser should have a small plus when hovering over the picture).

When I view in a new tab then go to click on it as you suggest, the mouse icon literally turns into a magnifying glass with a + in it. When I do as you say and click, the picture is zoomed in and my screen only shows a close-up portion of it, not the entire image.

Nope it isn't zoomed in, that + is just because it recognizes that the source have more pixels than your monitor can show, so the first show is using a "fit the screen" size, which is zoomed out. When you click the + it show how it would look if you were looking on a proper resolution display. So you basically are switching things.

You are not zooming in the image, you just had it zoomed out from start



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

curl-6 on 22 November 2020
DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

When I view in a new tab then go to click on it as you suggest, the mouse icon literally turns into a magnifying glass with a + in it. When I do as you say and click, the picture is zoomed in and my screen only shows a close-up portion of it, not the entire image.

Nope it isn't zoomed in, that + is just because it recognizes that the source have more pixels than your monitor can show, so the first show is using a "fit the screen" size, which is zoomed out. When you click the + it show how it would look if you were looking on a proper resolution display. So you basically are switching things.

You are not zooming in the image, you just had it zoomed out from start

If it fills my screen, then it is full size, neither zoomed in nor out.

When I look at 720p content on this same screen, at screen-filling size, it looks nowhere near as pixelated as the pic in question.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 22 November 2020

Around the Network
Chazore on 22 November 2020
JRPGfan said:

between the top most picture (HQ) and the lowest one?

Yes. There is clearly a differnce.

However World of Warcraft is so old, the textures so muddy.... and the artsyle is that cartoony low quality thingy.
Its honesty not a huge differnce between them (imo).

Basically WoW is ugly... reguardless of what resolution you run it at.

Kirby took those shots in a vanilla WoW zone, current WoW has really nice looking zones thanks to it's art Dept.

The old zones are well over 15yrs old, and tbh, it's one of the longest running MMO's, so I expected those old zones to age, but they aged somewhat well over 15+yrs. 

The new expansion features multiple zones with varying flora/colour palleted choices, which really bring each zone to life and give them their own vibes. 

Old WoW zones don't look as beautiful to me as they once were 15yrs back, but the new zones definitely do.

Last edited by Chazore - on 22 November 2020

Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Conina on 23 November 2020
curl-6 said:
Conina said:

Not, it is NOT zoomed in. If you display kirbys 4K-screenshots on a 4K-display in fullscreen, the character is the same size.

If you display kirbys 4K-screenshots on a 1080p-display in fullscreen, it is downscaled at first to fit on the lower res screen!

To evaluate the screenshot in native resolution, you have to click on the picture again (mouse curser should have a small plus when hovering over the picture).

When I view in a new tab then go to click on it as you suggest, the mouse icon literally turns into a magnifying glass with a + in it. When I do as you say and click, the picture is zoomed in and my screen only shows a close-up portion of it, not the entire image.

If you are judging 4K pictures or 4K-videos downscaled to 1080p or less (instead of looking at them in their native resolution)... it is like saying "the Ferrari stuck in traffic behind me ain't faster than my car". 



curl-6 on 23 November 2020
Conina said:
curl-6 said:

When I view in a new tab then go to click on it as you suggest, the mouse icon literally turns into a magnifying glass with a + in it. When I do as you say and click, the picture is zoomed in and my screen only shows a close-up portion of it, not the entire image.

If you are judging 4K pictures or 4K-videos downscaled to 1080p or less (instead of looking at them in their native resolution)... it is like saying "the Ferrari stuck in traffic behind me ain't faster than my car". 

I don't have a 4K screen to view the 4K images natively on.

I've seen them in electronics stores though, and it the leap over 1080p doesn't look night-and-day to me.



DonFerrari on 23 November 2020
curl-6 said:
DonFerrari said:

Nope it isn't zoomed in, that + is just because it recognizes that the source have more pixels than your monitor can show, so the first show is using a "fit the screen" size, which is zoomed out. When you click the + it show how it would look if you were looking on a proper resolution display. So you basically are switching things.

You are not zooming in the image, you just had it zoomed out from start

If it fills my screen, then it is full size, neither zoomed in nor out.

When I look at 720p content on this same screen, at screen-filling size, it looks nowhere near as pixelated as the pic in question.

Stop being stubborn man.

A 720p monitor showing a 720p picture will be natural size when using full screen.

If you use the same 720p monitor to show a 4k picture it will crush everything to downsample so you will lose to much detail that you may not see a diference against that same other 720p image, but if you allow you to show a 1:1 (or as you insist in call zoom in) then you'll see a lot of difference.

But if you prefer to look at a better comparison, pick up a 4k monitor and look both pictures, the 4k image will fill the whole screen, the 720p will only cover 1/9 of the screen (then yes if you ask it to do full screen you'll have a zoom in) and it will look terrible, but you wouldn't game using 1/9 of the screen so that how a 720p image shows on a 4k screen.

And of course you haven't really seem a big leap in 4k screens in store, most of the time they aren't even showing 4k content.

You are basically doing confirmation bias, putting yourself in situations that you can't see a difference and saying the ones that you can see the difference are wrong, when it is actually the opposite. The ones you see the difference are the right way to compare.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

JRPGfan on 23 November 2020
SvennoJ said:

I still have an old test from last gen, can you tell which is 540p upscaled and which 1080p native, should be easy

TBH when viewed here without opening up the picture in a full screen (the tiny shrunk vgc) picture frame, its hard to notice a differnce.
As soon as you open the pic up, and look at it in full side, its very apparent.

about the WoW pictures.
I didnt even bother opening them up (full size, full screen).
Even on the lower shrunk down size in vgc forum, you can still tell theres a differnce.