IS 1080p worth its?

thedigblackbick said:
Never knew that. The more you know I guess.
I personally don't see any viewing difference between 720p and 1080p unless it's a game designed for Full HD (Like the Wind Waker HD). Even then, it's minute differences (extra sharpness on rocks, etc). I also don't have a 1080p monitor so I don't get the full experiences watching videos unless it's on my TV :3


But how many can the human eye see in one frame is the real question. Saying this proves that there is a difference, but it doesn't for go whether or not all the pixels are accounted for by the human eye.
Click to expand...
The human eye can see much much much more.
Also in terms of FPS.
 
I would like to record all my Gameplay in 1080p but my laptop is not able to handle it so all mine are done in 720p with the best quality setting on my Elgato footage seems to come out ok
 
uberdanger said:
The human eye can see much much much more.
Also in terms of FPS.
Click to expand...
Well, that's sorta undetermined haha. The eye has rods and cones that see in analog and pixels are a digital format. Theoretically, analog has not limit; but, I'm going off on a tangent :3
FPS I think it stops at 60, but some say 30, I'm not positive but I also don't notice a difference unless the game starts hit around 40 (If it's locked at 60 FPS).

I don't know the difference between 720 and 1080, but I do see a difference between 720 and 1440. That's why I REALLY want a 4K monitor/tv.
 
thedigblackbick said:
Well, that's sorta undetermined haha. The eye has rods and cones that see in analog and pixels are a digital format. Theoretically, analog has not limit; but, I'm going off on a tangent :3
FPS I think it stops at 60, but some say 30, I'm not positive but I also don't notice a difference unless the game starts hit around 40 (If it's locked at 60 FPS).

I don't know the difference between 720 and 1080, but I do see a difference between 720 and 1440. That's why I REALLY want a 4K monitor/tv.
Click to expand...
Ok first of, no that's not "undecided" it's scientifically proven
Second of all, 1440p isn't 4k, it's 2k.[DOUBLEPOST=1388526925,1388526883][/DOUBLEPOST]
CramBoom said:
Personally, I find 720p doesn't cut it anymore. If you can post in 1080p, do it. If not, 720p is fine.



@uberdanger 1440p, I would have made it 2160p but my computer can't handle it.
Click to expand...
If it wasn't recorded in 2160p, then the quality won't be better from rendering it like that.
I'll render every video like that when I get my new computer, just to send a message.
 
uberdanger said:
Ok first of, no that's not "undecided" it's scientifically proven
Second of all, 1440p isn't 4k, it's 2k.[DOUBLEPOST=1388526925,1388526883][/DOUBLEPOST]
If it wasn't recorded in 2160p, then the quality won't be better from rendering it like that.
I'll render every video like that when I get my new computer, just to send a message.
Click to expand...
Read up.
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/human-eye/index.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100910045507AA0Pzo9
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081104040157AAPLMFg
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080525030603AATx7CP

Theoretically it could be infinite, some say 576 megapixels like the article.

Some have different ideas like this video and the Yahoo Answers

Yahoo answers isn't the best source, but I doubt you would like to read a long ahhh article. They all say the same thing though. I also learned it in biology class my freshman year :3.

Oh, I thought 1440 p = 4K. Guess not. Regardless, 1440p would look better on a 4K monitor than a 1080p monitor, at least I would think so.
 
Last edited:
thedigblackbick said:
Read up.
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/human-eye/index.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100910045507AA0Pzo9
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081104040157AAPLMFg
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080525030603AATx7CP

Theoretically it could be infinite, some say 576 megapixels like the article.

Some have different ideas like this video and the Yahoo Answers

Yahoo answers isn't the best source, but I doubt you would like to read a long ahhh article. They all say the same thing though. I also learned it in biology class my freshman year :3.

Oh, I thought 1440 p = 4K. Guess not. Regardless, 1440p would look better on a 4K monitor than a 1080p monitor, at least I would think so.
Click to expand...
You can't tell the difference on a 1080p monitor, because THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
You're stretching more pixels onto the same amount of pixels, making it roughly the same quality.
2160p would look absolutely stunning on a 4k monitor.
and 1440p would look great on a 2k monitor.
they both look sub-par on a 1080p monitor.

Our brain processes so much information every second, and no 60fps is not the highest, I can easily tell the difference between 120fps and 80fps.

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html
can you really not see the difference between 30 and 60? and do you truly not believe your eyes can see past 60?

And we don't have a definite number on what our eyes can see, however it IS scientifically proven that our eyes can easily see past 4k, and easily see past 60fps.
"reading up" on yahoo answers won't change anything.

If you truly can't find it yourself by googling, I'd be happy to find proof that you can see past 60fps and 4k
not just that, the entire industry is moving towards it, more higher resolution screens are being developed, and cheaper than ever before. Even movies which have always been rendered and shown in 25fps on tv and I believe up to 30fps in cinemas, are now being made in higher quality. Take for example The Hobbit, it was 48fps, and it looked absolutely fantastic, what you'd expect from a movie in this day and age.

The entire reason we are stuck in 1080p, is because that's the resolution everyone has, once 1440p becomes the norm, everything will become available in 1440p. The same goes for 2160p when that time comes.

Running games are amazing when they're above 60fps, and even if you can tell the difference when you look for it, you don't truly notice it when gaming. It's still very useful for editing, if you wanna do slowmotion without twixtor and so on. It also makes encoding for Youtube videos much smoother, even though Youtube only supports 30fps on 1080p videos atm. Youtube will soon support up towards 60fps, and it already does in 4k I believe.

On a side note this is why next gen consoles won't last many years, because they don't support 1440p natively, they only upscale games to that. Once it becomes the norm, and everyone understands it, There will be no incentive, if you want living room gaming why not get a steam box?

Very side note though, not really relevant.
 
Just so you know, if your eyes where like a camera it would record around 50gbs worth of footage a second! :)
 
uberdanger said:
You can't tell the difference on a 1080p monitor, because THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
You're stretching more pixels onto the same amount of pixels, making it roughly the same quality.
2160p would look absolutely stunning on a 4k monitor.
and 1440p would look great on a 2k monitor.
they both look sub-par on a 1080p monitor.

Our brain processes so much information every second, and no 60fps is not the highest, I can easily tell the difference between 120fps and 80fps.

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html
can you really not see the difference between 30 and 60? and do you truly not believe your eyes can see past 60?

And we don't have a definite number on what our eyes can see, however it IS scientifically proven that our eyes can easily see past 4k, and easily see past 60fps.
"reading up" on yahoo answers won't change anything.

If you truly can't find it yourself by googling, I'd be happy to find proof that you can see past 60fps and 4k
not just that, the entire industry is moving towards it, more higher resolution screens are being developed, and cheaper than ever before. Even movies which have always been rendered and shown in 25fps on tv and I believe up to 30fps in cinemas, are now being made in higher quality. Take for example The Hobbit, it was 48fps, and it looked absolutely fantastic, what you'd expect from a movie in this day and age.

The entire reason we are stuck in 1080p, is because that's the resolution everyone has, once 1440p becomes the norm, everything will become available in 1440p. The same goes for 2160p when that time comes.

Running games are amazing when they're above 60fps, and even if you can tell the difference when you look for it, you don't truly notice it when gaming. It's still very useful for editing, if you wanna do slowmotion without twixtor and so on. It also makes encoding for Youtube videos much smoother, even though Youtube only supports 30fps on 1080p videos atm. Youtube will soon support up towards 60fps, and it already does in 4k I believe.

On a side note this is why next gen consoles won't last many years, because they don't support 1440p natively, they only upscale games to that. Once it becomes the norm, and everyone understands it, There will be no incentive, if you want living room gaming why not get a steam box?

Very side note though, not really relevant.
Click to expand...
I didn't really elaborate on the FPS thing, my fault. Some games like cap at 30 FPS and I'm pretty sure it depends on the geographic region too. That's what I meant by 30 v 60 FPS. The falling cube thing really did help though, I can definitely see a difference between 15 30 and 60.

I believe the fact that you probably game on a daily basis (considering you have an LoL channel) gives you an advantage on this. I game probably three times a week at most and I can never tell the difference between anything unless I get huge lag spikes. In terms of settings and graphics, ultra v medium has a difference for me but ultra v high, not so much.
But like I said, your eyes are probably more accustomed that anything lower, even minutia, looks different.

I would like the link for the 60FpS/4K theory, I've looked everywhere and couldn't find one piece of information (except for the 576 megapixel thing) that shows a human eye can see a distinct difference in image quality beyond 4K because of the lack of technology to really compare analog and digital. I think it would take a while for 1440p/2whateverp to become the norm considering the price of 2k and 4K monitors.

Interesting subject actually, could consider making a video on this... --ponders---
 
thedigblackbick said:
I didn't really elaborate on the FPS thing, my fault. Some games like cap at 30 FPS and I'm pretty sure it depends on the geographic region too. That's what I meant by 30 v 60 FPS. The falling cube thing really did help though, I can definitely see a difference between 15 30 and 60.

I believe the fact that you probably game on a daily basis (considering you have an LoL channel) gives you an advantage on this. I game probably three times a week at most and I can never tell the difference between anything unless I get huge lag spikes. In terms of settings and graphics, ultra v medium has a difference for me but ultra v high, not so much.
But like I said, your eyes are probably more accustomed that anything lower, even minutia, looks different.

I would like the link for the 60FpS/4K theory, I've looked everywhere and couldn't find one piece of information (except for the 576 megapixel thing) that shows a human eye can see a distinct difference in image quality beyond 4K because of the lack of technology to really compare analog and digital. I think it would take a while for 1440p/2whateverp to become the norm considering the price of 2k and 4K monitors.

Interesting subject actually, could consider making a video on this... --ponders---
Click to expand...
Well to be fair, there are already plenty of videos on this ;P
there are several low response time 1440p monitors that are cheaper than their 1080p countpart, simply because you're not buying into the brand.
There's nothing wrong with 1080p, it looks amazing, and with good hardware it is fantastic. Though having more is even better ;P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top