Why do we need a high resolution/pixel count?

[mozirry]

My 640x480 television has delivered countless vivid, fluid, and deep images. It's been perfect for anything from depicting flying, driving, sports, etc. etc..


Why is it that a computer game transfered to the same resolution rate is so horrendous? Even with enabling Anti-Aliasing and Anistropic Filtering, the end result is a cramped and enclosed perspective.

I understand the pixel difference and the huge amount of retail space you get with something at, say 1600x1200, but what is keeping us from displaying a beautiful image at 640x480?

I mean, when have you sat down on your TV and said "Man, this 640x480 resolution of Lord of the Rings is awful, I really wish this was delivered at 1600x1200"

The end result meaning, the movie looks awsome at that incredibally low resolution.


Why is the same not so for video games? What is the obstacle preventing us from obtaining stunning graphics at the 640x480 level?

I mean, the resolution is capable of delivering photorealistic pictures, right?

 

[blackllotus]

Games have to do physics and graphics calculations before displaying each frame. They have to calculate how all the objects are moving and they need to render the game scene in 3D. These are all expensive calculations, so game developers must take many "shortcuts" to allow their games to run on mainstream computers. Shortcuts with graphics calculations, while generally necessary, do have a significant effect on the how the game looks (notice how lower graphics settings can make games more "blocky").

However if you're computer is top notch and a game you're running still looks crappy then it is probably due to a crappy physics or graphics engine. Nothing to do with the screen.

 

[mozirry]

The power to run games is almost purely graphical at this point. There is hardly and video game out there being bogged down by the computations of physics, mathematics (CPU load is not the primary area of concern)

What's slowing us down is producing high end graphics at high resolutions. Switch down to a low resolution and you can use any mid-range graphics card with maxed out eye-candy effects.


So...my question is, why aren't we trying to use these high powered cards to develop a more realistic image at a lower resolution?

 

[duragezic]

Well part of it has to do with the fact that you sit much further away from a TV than a computer monitor. Watching 640x480 TV through my composite input on my 2005FPW looks like crap from a normal computer viewing distance (under 2 feet), but back the chair up to 6+ ft, and it looks quite close to regular TV. Dot pitch plays a role, and I'm not sure how interlacing works with drawing the picture as well.

And text on TVs usually looks quite bad, and has to be very large to be readable.

 

[mozirry]

interesting

I'm going to play some pacific fighters at 640x480 real quick to test this out

 

[mozirry]

Interesting,

I played pacific fighters maxed at 800x600

Max forced AA and max forced AF and max graphics and it was as smooth as butter

I think if I had a 27 inch monitor it would have looked perfect, but on my 19' it was very cramped.

It was real hard to see anything in the distance, as things got severely blocky.

I like the tradeoff though of beautifuly rich and smooth graphics with a ridiculously high refresh rate.

Sometimes the higher the resolution, the more "fake" things look. That's probably because we can see more detail, but since games are all about conveying an image or an experience, why should being able to see more detail sharper be such a big deal? Why not have it a bit grainy, a bit more realistic?

Case and point, Resident Evil 4 for the gamecube. Probably one of the few games to do so much with so little. Now if we had the power of DX9 last generation cards, imagine how vivid and realistic a game like that could be at the TV resolution level

 

[msparish]

The main difference comes in what they are intended to do. Normal TVs are very blurry; however, since they are viewed from a distance and generally show images of things in motion, it works very well. Conversely, computer monitors are primarily designed to show stationary images (pictures, text, etc.). For this the more pixels the better. For example, compare text on a television to that on a computer monitor, no contest.

In addition, the extra resolution from HD makes television look much, much better. I suggest, if you can, seeing a Blu Ray movie and a standard DVD side by side (or preferentially on the same screen in split screen demonstration). I saw this at Circuit City the other day, and it is amazing to see the difference in image quality.

 

[BrownTown]

Yeah, I know after watching sports in HD it just ruins it completely when you have to watch it back on a cr@ppy normal TV. HD is so much crisper and you feel like you are right there. I think its partly jsut what you are used too. Like the previous poster said, watch HD and normal side by side and you will understand why higher resolution is better. I remeber playing quake and HL1 at 640x480 back in the day and thinking it rox, but then you go to a LAN party with someone with their uber computer and its just like holy cr@p didnt know the game could even look that good. Although if you use low res textures it can look a little fake since there are more display pixels than texture pixels mapped on nearby surfaces, so you are upsampling the textures and they look fake.

 

[rivan]

Consoles are totally at home at TV resolutions. They're ONLY for games.

Try word processing, retouching a photo or managing a bunch of files at 640x480. A soft 640x480 at that.

 

[Genx87]

Watch your TV from 12-18 inches away and tell us how that resolution looks.

 

[imported_Rat]

Originally posted by: mozirry

I mean, when have you sat down on your TV and said "Man, this 640x480 resolution of Lord of the Rings is awful, I really wish this was delivered at 1600x1200"

Apparently, everyone who purchases a HD television set.

The power to run games is almost purely graphical at this point. There is hardly and video game out there being bogged down by the computations of physics, mathematics (CPU load is not the primary area of concern)

Of course there weren't, but now complex calculations that were once prohibitive are now being implemented.

Why not have it a bit grainy, a bit more realistic?

Lots of recent games add flaws to induce realism. But things like lens flare, film grain, and HDR are expensive to calculate and were used sparingly until recent.

 

[mozirry]

I can't wait to get an HDTV