2013 High-Res PC Screenshot Thread of Let the JPEG Die Already

Believe you me: I've met so many gaming aficionados that detest bloom, ambient occlusion, and depth of field... calling them unrealistic. Which is all fine and dandy: you like what you like, but come on -- unrealistic?

 
I have nothing against DOF itself but what i do hate is if you have no controll wether its on or off .

perfect example: Sleeping dogs .
 
private400 said:
alanwake2013-06-2019-vwuy8.png
Click to expand...

Top draw.
 
 
9103448293_c96d8bd3cd_o.png



Hue Hue Hue...








So, I'm playing this game at 4K AND 2xSS, I get about 40-55 FPS. Here's a crop of the Raw BMP that I Enlarged by 100%.


ibePCiqcadBCPT.png



I can also play Tomb Raider like this with anywhere from 15-20 in cutscenes, to 30 in gameplay, which, when using a controller, is perfectly acceptable. (This is with TressFX on, btw.)((I'm also wondering if I can play in 3d at a resolution like this?))


My point is, to those of you planning on upgrading to the 700 or 800 series or the equivalent AMD series, you're in for an amazing treat. The best part is that this is done through the driver, as in my TV doesn't support downsampling from 4K with my older 580, but with the 780, I can easily go 4k, and the only issue I have is with some menus. This issue seems to also be due to the drivers, so I'm hoping future drivers fix that as well.
 
Confidence Man said:
Skyrim
io1QbFkQ49SLU.png
Click to expand...
Great shot. I love that armor.

Alo81 said:
Also, if it doesn't bug others I don't think you need to do it, but personally, I would appreciate if you could resize the images to at most 1920 width, but that might just be me being picky.

Having to scroll all the way over because an image breaks the tables is kind of butts.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about the sizing. They are great shots but I'm missing the impact when I can only see half of the image and have to scroll over. Although, it did force me to download a couple of them to view properly and I now have one as my current background!

9077220692_09266df621_o_d.jpg

Lonely Trenches

9105655622_0a01a68edf_o_d.jpg

Rounding the corner.
 
neoenigma said:
There ya go :P

If the only thing next-gen really improved upon was texture resolution, I think I'd be happy with that. Sadly, I think we'll get better everything else and textures will remain shitty. Guess well see...
Click to expand...

well, at the very least, the guys at Quantic Dream (Heavy Rain, Beyond: Two Souls, Indigo Prephecy) are well aware of the texture resolutions needed for next gen. They noted as much during their E3 press demos. Said something about it being very important for 1080p gameplay to have actual HD textures instead of the blurry mess we've had to deal with current gen.
 
9102358442_ee00c55198_o.jpg


Finally have manual control over the time of day. I think I'm set for the new DLC next week :)

WHOA NEOGAF LOOKS DIFFERENT WTF

Looks like Midhras shouldn't have to worry about his screenshots causing the site to stretch. They're scaled to fit now.
 
Wooh! Also, if you click an image, it will scale to 1, and stay there until you click it again. you can do this with multiple pictures as well.
 
Yeah, the images are scaled to horizontal resolution now.

And I'd actually prefer all of you posting non-downscaled screenshots because that's closer to how a game looks on your monitor.
 
dr_rus said:
Yeah, the images are scaled to horizontal resolution now.

And I'd actually prefer all of you posting non-downscaled screenshots because that's closer to how a game looks on your monitor.
Click to expand...

lol, most sites won't let you post an image that is 23.7-ish MB, not to mention downloading such things every time you check the thread. Even as a PNG the same image is around 7 MB, 2-3 times the size of a 1080p PNG. Also, if one feels the need, I think it'd be much more preferable to simply provide a link to the Raw, uncompressed, unedited file.
 
Guys, please scale your images down before posting, don't forget about those load times!

Also, I assume that downsampling through your image editing program will look better than auto-downsampling.
 
neoenigma said:
Just so we're clear.... you want me to post THESE right in the thread?
Click to expand...
Yes. Why not? Thinking about loading times in a thread that says "let the JPEG die already" got old a couple of years ago. (I myself actually prefer 99% quality JPEG of original resolution but that's just me.) Downscaling ruins original screenshots quality. And I never had any problems with images stretching wider then my display horizontally - and this is fixed in the new design. This is a thread about hi-res screenshots after all.
 
dr_rus said:
Yes. Why not? Thinking about loading times in a thread that says "let the JPEG die already" got old a couple of years ago. (I myself actually prefer 99% quality JPEG of original resolution but that's just me.) Downscaling ruins original screenshots quality. And I never had any problems with images stretching wider then my display horizontally - and this is fixed in the new design. This is a thread about hi-res screenshots after all.
Click to expand...

The issue is that with images that large, the amount of time you will be loading will double, or even triple, as will the amount of data you'd be downloading. It's not about JPEGs, it's about convenience. Also, relying on the auto-resize of the website is not a great idea. I don't know if you are aware, but it doesn't do such a great job of keeping the quality up. I'll still be clicking on images to see them more clearly.
 
Spazznid said:
The issue is that with images that large, the amount of time you will be loading will double, or even triple, as will the amount of data you'd be downloading. It's not about JPEGs, it's about convenience. Also, relying on the auto-resize of the website is not a great idea. I don't know if you are aware, but it doesn't do such a great job of keeping the quality up. I'll still be clicking on images to see them more clearly.
Click to expand...
So? This thread is about original screenshots in original resolution. If traffic matters to you - don't open it. I'll gladly wait while this thread is loading and go read a couple of other threads.

2560x1600 JPEGs of 99% load much faster than 1920x1080 PNGs and the difference in perceived image quality between the two is minimal. That's something to consider if we're talking about loading speeds.

I'm aware that JS resize ruins quality but it fixes the "problem" of horizontal scroll (I don't see that as a problem in this thread hence the quotes) and you have an ability to get a full size screenshot.

Basically - the less you're doing with a screenshot after it's taken - the better in my opinion. Offline downscaling in some image editing software means that you're showing us a bullshot and not a screenshot. In that sense even a crop from a screenshot is a better option.

So I say - go with a full size. Make them JPEGs if it's loading times you're worried about. But don't downscale.
 
dr_rus said:
So? This thread is about original screenshots in original resolution. If traffic matters to you - don't open it. I'll gladly wait while this thread is loading and go read a couple of other threads.

2560x1600 JPEGs of 99% load much faster than 1920x1080 PNGs and the difference in perceived image quality between the two is minimal. That's something to consider if we're talking about loading speeds.

I'm aware that JS resize ruins quality but it fixes the "problem" of horizontal scroll (I don't see that as a problem in this thread hence the quotes) and you have an ability to get a full size screenshot.

Basically - the less you're doing with a screenshot after it's taken - the better in my opinion. Offline downscaling in some image editing software means that you're showing us a bullshot and not a screenshot. In that sense even a crop from a screenshot is a better option.

So I say - go with a full size. Make them JPEGs if it's loading times you're worried about. But don't downscale.
Click to expand...

EDIT: Also, load times are half of the issue when you have to consider bandwidth.
I think that point is moot. If you want to see how it looks when I play it, then you wouldn't look at the full size image. The image that I see when playing at 4K is downscaled to my 1080p TV, and there's Aliasing where my TV can't display the pixels and it's smoothened due to the Pixel density. I doubt too many people in this thread have 4K displays, so even then, they couldn't possibly see the image exactly how I play it. The closest they could get is to either re-size it themselves to the size of their screen, which introduces modifications. Or they could downsample it with a method that introduces the least amount of modification, to the size of my screen.

Also, this is the screenshot thread, not the gameplay thread. If you all wanted to see how I played the game, why no outcry for a HUD?
 
dr_rus said:
So? This thread is about original screenshots in original resolution. If traffic matters to you - don't open it. I'll gladly wait while this thread is loading and go read a couple of other threads.

2560x1600 JPEGs of 99% load much faster than 1920x1080 PNGs and the difference in perceived image quality between the two is minimal. That's something to consider if we're talking about loading speeds.

I'm aware that JS resize ruins quality but it fixes the "problem" of horizontal scroll (I don't see that as a problem in this thread hence the quotes) and you have an ability to get a full size screenshot.

Basically - the less you're doing with a screenshot after it's taken - the better in my opinion. Offline downscaling in some image editing software means that you're showing us a bullshot and not a screenshot. In that sense even a crop from a screenshot is a better option.

So I say - go with a full size. Make them JPEGs if it's loading times you're worried about. But don't downscale.
Click to expand...

This thread isn't about original screenshots in original resolutions, it's about high resolution screenshots. I don't believe those to be one and the same.

Yes, those JPEGs will probably load quicker, but not everyone is going to upload as JPEGs, and in the act of converting a PNG to a JPEG, it's a simple step to just resize it for convenience of people. For both bandwidth, and to be most conveniently viewed. On top of that, it would be absolute hell to enforce a "Only full quality JPEGs rule" and people would just post PNGs anyway. When people do post full quality JPEGs it's a nice treat, but I don't expect it to ever become the norm.

JS resize doesn't fix that problem, because it's a subpar method of resizing and when viewing the shrunk down version the quality isn't the same as if it were just properly resized.

If full sized images are what you're lusting for, then just ask the person for the original image if it's something you're really desperate for and those who do always want to share their full sized image can just post a link to it.
 
Alo81 said:
This thread isn't about original screenshots in original resolutions, it's about high resolution screenshots. I don't believe those to be one and the same.

Yes, those JPEGs will probably load quicker, but not everyone is going to upload as JPEGs, and in the act of converting a PNG to a JPEG, it's a simple step to just resize it for convenience of people. For both bandwidth, and to be most conveniently viewed. On top of that, it would be absolute hell to enforce a "Only full quality JPEGs rule" and people would just post PNGs anyway. When people do post full quality JPEGs it's a nice treat, but I don't expect it to ever become the norm.

JS resize doesn't fix that problem, because it's a subpar method of resizing and when viewing the shrunk down version the quality isn't the same as if it were just properly resized.

If full sized images are what you're lusting for, then just ask the person for the original image if it's something you're really desperate for and those who do always want to share their full sized image can just post a link to it.
Click to expand...

New Avatar to match the new site? We need to create a club.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
2025 PC Screenshot Thread of No Compromises | "Can't see fake frames on screenshots"
|OT|  2 3 4 5
225
16K
LeefenChen replied
Behold the worst videogame screenshot of all time (courtesy of Black Ops 6)
2 3
126
130
Rran replied
2025 | Console Screenshot thread - making PCs seem overkill
2 3 4 5 6
285
15K
Thick Thighs Save Lives replied
The Last of Us Part II - PC Version | Review Thread
Community Platform 
21
1K
Denton replied
Do you think PC gaming is restoring the feeling of the Arcade
2
59
245
Killer8 replied
Top Bottom