Forget Anti Aliasing - Where is PPI

[lehtv]

I thought the super competitive guys liked really low resolutions so pixels are bigger and thus the "hit box" is bigger too?

The hitbox isn't bigger. You can't even see the hitbox so why would that be impacted by your resolution? What you can see is the model, and no that's not bigger either it's just lower resolution.

 

[Elfear]

Wut? :hmm:

Corrupt^ over on the Steam forums explained it better than I did.

"It's not easier on low resolution because of the crosshair, it's because your margin of error is smaller.

800x600:

• 480,000 pixels in total on screen
• a head is 5 pixels large on a certain distance
• leaves 479,995 pixels for you to "miss" your shot

1680x1050:

• 1,764,000 pixels in total on screen
• the same head is 18 pixels large
• leaves 1,763,982 for you to "miss" your shot

In reality the difference isn't that huge that it will turn a bad player in an amazing one, but it'll make a good player just a bit more consistent.

If I may add, it's not just the precision needed to hit a hitbox, it also affects the recoil. The recoil is the same on all resolutions, but on a lower resolution, 4 bullets which only have 3 pixel to spread across, will spread wider on higher on a higher resolution."

Not sure if that is true but I've read it more than one place.

 

[blackened23]

The hitbox isn't bigger. You can't even see the hitbox so why would that be impacted by your resolution? What you can see is the model, and no that's not bigger either it's just lower resolution.

A lot of the hardcore CS guys use CRTs with low resolution for competetive play. Personally, I like multiplayer games but not at the expense of eye candy.

Also, I love Black Ops 2 (it is a lot of fun) but upping the resolution doesn't change the obvious: the graphics are not good. That is true whether you're at 1024x768 or 2560x1600,regardless of pixel density. Now, using a demanding game - upping the resolution would require you to remove a lot more than AA. Crysis 3 at 4k2 resolution? Yeah, I could imagine now just what a mess that would be with super low detail options and still running horribly slow.

I love higher resolution but game developers are trending toward increasing visual quality at existing resolutions, mainly 1080p. They will not design specifically for 4k or even 2560 resolution any time soon.

 

[kache]

Corrupt^ over on the Steam forums explained it better than I did.

"It's not easier on low resolution because of the crosshair, it's because your margin of error is smaller.

800x600:

• 480,000 pixels in total on screen
• a head is 5 pixels large on a certain distance
• leaves 479,995 pixels for you to "miss" your shot

1680x1050:

• 1,764,000 pixels in total on screen
• the same head is 18 pixels large
• leaves 1,763,982 for you to "miss" your shot

In reality the difference isn't that huge that it will turn a bad player in an amazing one, but it'll make a good player just a bit more consistent.

If I may add, it's not just the precision needed to hit a hitbox, it also affects the recoil. The recoil is the same on all resolutions, but on a lower resolution, 4 bullets which only have 3 pixel to spread across, will spread wider on higher on a higher resolution."

Not sure if that is true but I've read it more than one place.

Lol, that made me laugh.
Bullshit: your mouse movement is pretty much analogic, and having higher resolution allows you to see targets from far away that you would not see with a lower res.

 

[blackened23]

Lol, that made me laugh.
Bullshit: your mouse movement is pretty much analogic, and having higher resolution allows you to see targets from far away that you would not see with a lower res.

What are you talking about? Resolution does not change depth. If a target is there, it will be there regardless of resolution. It will just be much tinier at higher resolution.

Lowering resolution is a common practice for ultra competetive FPS players. You can easily google this - it is common among CS players. Further, many WoW arena players do the same.

I'm not saying I would do this, but it is definitely a "thing" among some players.

 

[BrightCandle]

Pixels are an estimate placed over the top of a continuous world. Imagine for example you fire a shot, at a particular pixel and that pixel is partially covered by a hitbox for the target. Do you assume that there is a thin line down the middle of the pixel and maybe they miss, or do you assume its a cone and it does hit because the pixel at least partially contains the target. I would assume most games use a simple line and project out so it would miss.

So in the circumstances we are talking about less pixels brings less precision but with some benefits. Larger pixels allow a player to distinguish the difference between a partial and full hitbox easier, but also loose some visibility of the same at range. Now in practice I doubt it matters much but its an interesting problem, if the pixels are bigger they are easier to move your mouse to.

 

[kache]

What are you talking about? Resolution does not change depth. If a target is there, it will be there regardless of resolution. It will just be much tinier at higher resolution.

Lowering resolution is a common practice for ultra competetive FPS players. You can easily google this - it is common among CS players. Further, many WoW arena players do the same.

I'm not saying I would do this, but it is definitely a "thing" among some players.

Unless the game actually INCREASES the FOV when resolution increases that doesn't make any sense... :ninja:

 

[lopri]

I did not read the whole thread - just responding to OP, I kind of agree. Now that I am kind of used to high PPIs of smart phones and tablets, I personally would choose higher PPI over AA everything else being equal. (totally subjective preference)

 

[BFG10K]

If a target is there, it will be there regardless of resolution. It will just be much tinier at higher resolution.

This is untrue on both counts.

3D objects are the same size regardless of the resolution; the resolution is merely the sampled representation of them.

So taking the same display and using full screen scaling, a 10cm target will be 10cm whether it’s rendered at 800x600 or 1600x1200, assuming everything else stays the same.

Also distant/small objects are indeed harder to see at lower resolutions because they’re being undersampled, so they lose detail and their ability to distinctly stand out of the background.

In the most extreme case of the above paragraph, if the target is sufficiently small (and/or at an extreme distance) and the resolution is low enough, it’s possible that’ll it’ll be undersampled to the point that it’ll completely disappear because it’ll fall in-between all available pixels.

 

[lehtv]

"It's not easier on low resolution because of the crosshair, it's because your margin of error is smaller.

You're confusing the hitbox with the player model. The hitbox isn't affected by your display resolution.

 

[Fx1]

1800p would be good enough i think to produce the effect that im talking about.

Given the distance of the monitor this would be perfect on 24"

The image would be like printed on to the glass with a laser printer. The detail you could see would be great.

the bigger the monitor then the bigger the problem though because PPI has to scale.

 

[Final8ty]

Pixels are an estimate placed over the top of a continuous world. Imagine for example you fire a shot, at a particular pixel and that pixel is partially covered by a hitbox for the target. Do you assume that there is a thin line down the middle of the pixel and maybe they miss, or do you assume its a cone and it does hit because the pixel at least partially contains the target. I would assume most games use a simple line and project out so it would miss.

So in the circumstances we are talking about less pixels brings less precision but with some benefits. Larger pixels allow a player to distinguish the difference between a partial and full hitbox easier, but also loose some visibility of the same at range. Now in practice I doubt it matters much but its an interesting problem, if the pixels are bigger they are easier to move your mouse to.

I have played CODMW at 2560x1600 and between upgrades on stand in card at 1280x800, it was far easier to put my red dot sight on a pixel at 1280x800 than at 2560x1600, there is a reason why image/paint programs have zoom pixel options because besides editing details its easier to align things up perfectly.

 

[Elfear]

Hmm. Well I might need to experiment now that the veracity of what I thought to be true (lower resolution = higher probability of hitting what you're aiming at) has come into question. I never though the tradeoff of uglier graphics for slightly higher kill ratio was worth it but I'm curious if that is even the case now.

Regardless, I hope GPU power improves quickly enough (and consumer adoption rates) that high PPI screens become a reality soon rather than later.

 

[reallyscrued]

I really hate what Apple and its marketing for the 'Retina Display' has done.

There have been more threads like this now than ever before.

 

[badb0y]

I really hate what Apple and its marketing for the 'Retina Display' has done.

There have been more threads like this now than ever before.

You can hate Apple for a lot of things but pushing display technology forward ain't one of them.

 

[f1sherman]

OP is right on the money. Particularly when it comes with AA trickery headaches.
But his math is OFF

Higher resolutions are anything but kind to frame rates, hence the usual need for AA trickery

 

[Homeles]

I really hate what Apple and its marketing for the 'Retina Display' has done.

There have been more threads like this now than ever before.

Because what the world needs more of are crappy 1366x768 TN panels.

No, what you really hate is seeing Apple innovate.

 

[Arkaign]

Because what the world needs more of are crappy 1366x768 TN panels.

No, what you really hate is seeing Apple innovate.

IBM had an IPS 22" 3840x2400 monitor in 2001. I got one a few years later, but they were hard to push at the time, and obviously gaming was impossible.

It's much the same today (as far as native resolution gaming goes).

In that way, Apple is a long way off from the first to offer high resolution displays, but definitely the leader in bringing them more to the masses.

For general use, high PPI is awesome. For gaming, it will be as well, but I think some are overoptimistic about the near-future feasibility of such. Most of the average PC gamers (hint : AT is not the average crowd by any stretch, check Steam stats for example) can't even game at 1080p with any fluidity for harder games, let alone QHD/4K. We're probably looking at 4-5 years before you will see :

High end gaming w/single GPU + $1k 27" 4K LCD that will play moderately well.

and 10+ years before an average entry-level best buy / walmart PC will play 4K at mediocre detail.

Bleeding edge, perhaps 3 years before someone with multi-GPU and a $5k+ 4K display (probably TVs before monitors, but Dell might bring out a 30" 4K display for a few thousand dollars) is moderately workable with high details and zero AA.

And of course, PPI at current "high/retina" resolutions does NOT eliminate the need for AA. You can still see jaggies on an iphone, on a 13" rMBP display, etc, unless you have terrible eyesight.

I think to truly eliminate jagginess without AA, we need something on the order of 8K @ 20" unless you have true eagle eyes.

 

[Arkaign]

Oh, and the 13" rMBP is garbage. A 650m and 2.6ghz gimped i7 is trash for gaming considering the nearly $3k price. For comparison, the 650m is considerably slower than a SINGLE ancient gimped 460SE desktop card. Pathetic.

We're talking 1366x768 with lowered details to play recent games, or 1080p with low detail. Native resolution with the 13" retina display? Hah, maybe for minesweeper.

 

[Homeles]

In that way, Apple is a long way off from the first to offer high resolution displays, but definitely the leader in bringing them more to the masses.

It still fits the definition of "innovation," but that wasn't even my point.

He's got a sadistic need for Apple to fail. Despite how ridiculous Apple (and it's not only Apple) has been over the last few years with litigation, they are not the problem. The patent system is the problem — punishing Apple is a waste of effort.

 

[Fx1]

Oh, and the 13" rMBP is garbage. A 650m and 2.6ghz gimped i7 is trash for gaming considering the nearly $3k price. For comparison, the 650m is considerably slower than a SINGLE ancient gimped 460SE desktop card. Pathetic.

We're talking 1366x768 with lowered details to play recent games, or 1080p with low detail. Native resolution with the 13" retina display? Hah, maybe for minesweeper.

You have no idea what your talking about. You really shouldnt comment on these things unless you actually know the facts here.

Firstly 13" rMBP has no dGPU. The 15" has a 650M GT.

The 650M GT runs 900mhz which is pretty quick for a dGPU in a notebook which is only a few mm thick and it runs pretty cool too.

It runs Battlefield 3 on the Medium Settings at 40-60 FPS on multiplayer maps very well at 1080p on an external. i dont think you can ask for more in a notebook as thin as that. i also think if it had newer drivers it would have even better performance.

 

[Arkaign]

It still fits the definition of "innovation," but that wasn't even my point.

He's got a sadistic need for Apple to fail. Despite how ridiculous Apple (and it's not only Apple) has been over the last few years with litigation, they are not the problem. The patent system is the problem — punishing Apple is a waste of effort.

Yeah that's neither here nor there and I agree that it's threadcrapping to bitch about Apple here. I have no opinion on them as a company, I only like or dislike their various models for legit reasons. Many of their products are awesome, others are iffy. They make a good example for good displays, they make a terrible case for high PPI gaming (other than Angry birds/etc).

 

[Arkaign]

You have no idea what your talking about. You really shouldnt comment on these things unless you ACTUALLY KNOW.

Firstly 13" rMBP has no dGPU. The 15" has a 650M GT.

The 650M GT runs 900mhz which is pretty quick for a dGPU in a notebook which is only a few mm thick and it runs pretty cool too.

It runs Battlefield 3 on the Medium Settings at 40-60 FPS on multiplayer maps very well at 1080p on an external. i dont think you can ask for me in a notebook as thin as that. i also think if it had newer drivers it would have even better performance.

Who cares? The 650M is trash for what we're talking about. 1080p at mediocre settings is pointless when you're trying to push the benefits of high PPI gaming. It defeats the entire purpose if you can't game at native resolution, and can't even do it well at 1080p.

NOBODY would seriously buy a MBP for gaming. I've used several, they're outstanding for their intended purposes, but terrible at gaming. A $500 desktop will absolutely crush it, and we're talking about 1/6th the price.

I've used the 15" with the 650, I didn't know the 13" didn't even have the 650 option, that's pretty sad honestly that the 13" is even MORE gimped.

 

[Fx1]

Who cares? The 650M is trash for what we're talking about. 1080p at mediocre settings is pointless when you're trying to push the benefits of high PPI gaming. It defeats the entire purpose if you can't game at native resolution, and can't even do it well at 1080p.

NOBODY would seriously buy a MBP for gaming. I've used several, they're outstanding for their intended purposes, but terrible at gaming. A $500 desktop will absolutely crush it, and we're talking about 1/6th the price.

I've used the 15" with the 650, I didn't know the 13" didn't even have the 650 option, that's pretty sad honestly that the 13" is even MORE gimped.

The 650M GT is the limit of what you can put into a notebook of that size. Have you see how thick gaming notebooks are?

Comparing it to a $500 desktop is stupid and totally pointless. How are you going to use the 500$ desktop anywhere other than an office?

Those macs play 90% of games on higher settings in windows. Its only BF3 and other GPU intensive games that you can't turn on the eye candy. Also the difference between High and medium in BF3 is hard to even notice.

If you are playing games on the screen included you would use 1440x900 resolution for a 2:1 pixel ratio. The 650M can handle that resolution with ease.

Any serious gamer wouldnt use a notebook full stop so this WHOLE argument is pointless.

Also lets be clear Apple is NOT pushing the benefits of high PPI for gaming.

 

[Arkaign]

Good, I agree with all of that. I have no idea why anyone would try to say that the MBP is good for gaming. It's mediocre with lowered settings at 1080p, but that defeats the idea of native res high PPI gaming.

1440x900 is amazing for 2012/2013

The funny thing is that I think we all agree that high PPI will be awesome for gaming when it becomes feasible. We also all agree that sooner will be better than later.

It's just not realistic yet for high end, let alone average and low end. The best you can do for now is a high end PC with 2560x1600 + set it back a couple of feet. Bingo. Beyond that we're waiting for 4K displays to hit the streets, then we can spend thousands on those with several bleeding edge GPUs to go with them.

Like I said, it will be wonderful, but it's still years out before it's doable even with a large budget, and perhaps a decade or more before an average PC will handle it. The next Playstation and Xbox after the new ones, maaaaybe. In all probability, they will do 4K sort of like how the X360 and PS3 do 1080p, in a tricky way that isn't true 1080p, but upscaled after being rendered at a lower resolution (most games are like this, although a handful are true 1080p albeit with kind of low poly/texture detail).