No clear drawbacks were found regarding visual quality at 4k resolution.
No clear drawbacks were found regarding visual quality at 4k resolution.
I once read a random comment claiming that lower resolutions are easier because there's less detail to see (sounds outrageous?). I happened to lower res scale to 90% today as bf5 was acting up with jarring input lag after 2 hours and on the most demanding map. I found it easier on the mind, and things seemed faster. Sure it could be the faster rendering, but it was actually no longer having as much detail. See normally, there's not that much to see, and there's no point in trying to see more out of shit res. There's only just a few ''possible enemies'' to look at. Whereas with 4k, the bush at the ''other edge of the galaxy'', suddenly becomes something for your visual cortex to process. The relevant range of vision was reduced by some meters. When I dropped the res, I found myself idling between frames, sometimes staring at what were formerly clear areas of vision. Bonus: you never scope in to see in 4k (unless you'd have to in real life), why would you lower your FOV? lol I remember there was a trade-off between FOV and far sightedness. old days
The same issues apply to lower resolutions. I used to play at 24fps then 75fps, and it took years to realize how the frame rate impacts my tracking and shooting. The drop in quality was more noticeable, especially in combat situations where visibility is crucial. Seeing things clearly is always a wish, but poor vision makes it harder. Switching from 75fps to 60fps was really disappointing—I couldn't even enjoy Doom anymore!
Higher image quality usually expands the depth of field more than it sharpens details near the camera. Generally, prioritize greater resolution rather than a faster frame rate unless you're competing, then focus on speed because input delay depends on the game's network code. This approach gives you an edge by using a higher refresh rate, such as around 8ms, which can still matter.
When I hear depth of field, it brings back the settings that make things blurry, but actually, it's the opposite—objects farther away become sharper.
4k shines for close-up detail in certain titles, especially before level of detail reductions start. On platforms where this isn’t a concern, I typically opt for ultra-wide or 1440p at a high refresh rate. For those scenarios, I stick to 4k only for flight sims, space sims, building games, and modded experiences. I enhance depth of field in games with object LOD and texture pops using ENB, Reshade, or both. This approach can consume up to 50% of my frame rate, which is why a 2080i at 4k is necessary. Some games look stunning in 4k, making the extra impact minimal—Witcher 3, RDR 2, and Assassin's Creed Odyssey stand out for their visual quality. This isn’t about optimization; it’s about maintaining a balanced look. I tested AC:O at 1080p, 1440p, and 4k. Even if I could maintain over 60 frames per second in 4k, I still chose my 3440 X 1440 ultrawide.
Some games appear less sharp in 4K due to a specific issue. For the best visual quality, textures should match the sharpness of geometry, just like real-life photos. In reality, detail is endless and limited only by how much resolution the camera captures, so everything stays equally sharp. In games, however, geometry sharpness depends on render resolution while texture sharpness comes from the textures themselves. If geometry is much sharper than textures, the result looks poorer even with higher resolution.
Resolution drops rapidly when characters move away, with 4K revealing more details than the lower quality versions. Some areas appear clearer without degrading the overall experience, especially when higher resolution maintains consistent quality across the image rather than shifting art styles abruptly.