The Order: 1886 16:9 1080p vs 2.40:1 1920×800 Video and Screenshot Comparison: Pixel Count vs Art

The reveal that The Order: 1886 will most probably be rendered in 1920x800 resolution at a 2.40:1 aspect ratio seem to have bunched quite a few sets of underwear, with people rioting because the game is unlikely to touch the "magical" 1080p, and because of the black bands that many see as a waste of screen estate.

This video and screenshot comparison aims to highlight the pro and cons of Ready at Dawn's artistic choice.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
TomShoe1759d ago (Edited 1759d ago )

Before anyone gets carried away crying "800p!" Read the story and take a look at the the number of pixels each resolution is rendering.

1920 x 800 = 1,536,000 pixels

1440×900 = 1.296,000 pixels

So cinematic 800p > normal 900p. Weird, right?

OT: I like it, it really feels like you're actually watching a movie as while you're playing an awesome game. The cinematic feel really adds to the dramatic and suspenseful tone Ready at Dawn was aiming for.

abzdine1759d ago (Edited 1759d ago )

The Order has it ALL!
This is the first game of [email protected] on PS4! Future looks bright.
I really like the envelope style, brings back the nostalgia from the past.

ZodTheRipper1759d ago

This will end this discussion once and for all :P

I think RaD should just do what they think is right for their game.

Saigon1759d ago

Man...some are not going to happy to read this; either way RD itself proved why this was the right choice. There is a better aspect ratio when playing the game in this format. Good choice RD.

Boody-Bandit1759d ago (Edited 1759d ago )

I'm looking forward to trying this game using this format. It will be different and that's what I'm looking for in this new generation. Usually I play my games on a 46 or 55" displays. I will just take this game into my theater and play it on my 120" screen since they are using a cinematic view.

Either way I can't wait to play this game. It looks incredible.

ManyFishToFry1759d ago

I'm not sure why they want to go this route for a videogame. A director for a movie will use various formats because they want a wide panoramic view which does create an art form on screen. But you have to remember that directors are thinking of the audience in the theater where the screen is naturally wide. On home screens I don't think that transfers very well for videogames. People want all the real estate they can get to create that immersion. I fear the black bars will take away from that.

UltimateMaster1759d ago

It would be cool if we had options from which to choose from.
Bu 1080p would probably be the best option.

alexkoepp1759d ago

Whomever made these comparisons chose to chop of the sides of 1920x800, rather than draw in the 280p worth of pixels to make a full 1080p frame. You can tell because there character model gets bigger, instead of remaining the same size. Make the game fullscreen. Movies are already stupid with black bars on top and bottom, the gaming industry should not follow suit. I'm sorry, id play the game fullscreen but if you are going to put in some stupid aspect ratio gimmick, I'm not interested in playing your game.

scott1821759d ago

I thought they were gonna show gameplay of this soon?!?

thejigisup1759d ago (Edited 1759d ago )

@alexkoepp no one choose to chop anything. If you have a tv or a pc try this experiment on you monitor and just change the aspect ratio a few times and answer me this, who is chopping anything? You don't know what you're talking about. Please educate yourself before commenting.

sobekflakmonkey1759d ago

resolution scale (basically lowest to greatest):


Just for your guys' info; 1920x800 is impressive considering how good The Order is looking.

ProjectVulcan1758d ago

Not sure about your maths there sobekflakmonkey...

1600 x 1200 and 1680 x 1050

They are both higher resolutions with more pixels than 1920 x 800 BTW.

1600 x 1200 is actually not far off 1920 x 1080 in terms of size. It is just a different screen ratio.


1280 x 1024 is also larger than a couple of the resolutions you posted above it.

yellowgerbil1758d ago

You have no idea what you are talking about.
Movie aspect Ratios and "bars" are there because TV's have chosen to make a aspect ratio the STANDARD, there is no standard though. Certain movies are greatly enhanced by being in a very wide aspect ratio. It allows for great cinematic shots that a square just can't do justice. If you are old enough to remember pre HD tvs you will remember how boring the composition was due to the awful cropping. Though I highly doubt you're old enough based on you ignorant opinion

TheGreatAndPowerful1758d ago (Edited 1758d ago )

Dat wide viewing angle.

sonypsnow1758d ago

Playstation Now can do 4k resolution.

ShinMaster1758d ago

Wider viewing angle
And the game's resolution output is still 1080p.

Full screen looks cut up in comparison. I have a lot of Bluray movies that are wider than 16:9, just like The Order game.

EeJLP-1758d ago (Edited 1758d ago )

A lot of you (above and below this comment) have no business talking about resolution and aspect ratios, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Lnds500 in the comments section of the dualshockers article is correct. Read Lnds500's comments.

Giuseppe Nelva (the article's author) is not showing the difference between 1920x800 and 1920x1080, he has shown a comparison of 1920x800 and 1422x800 (upscaled to 1920x1080).

Giuseppe Nelva cut the sides (498 horizontal pixels) off of the original 1920x800 pictures, resulting in a 1422x800 image that he then upscaled to 1920x800.

A correct comparison would not have cut the sides and stretched the resulting image. The correct comparison would be to show the extra viewable space within the black bars, above and below the original 1920x800 image.. to show the extra 280 vertical pixels.

Meaning you would still have the wider viewing angle of the original, because you can clearly see that exists as the original image. The point is, what is being essentially 'blocked' by the black bars.

You are not gaining a wider viewing angle with 1920x800, you are losing vertical data.

Another point, to people saying this is still 1080p or to ziggurcat below claiming it's "2592 x 1080". This is not 1080p and this is not 2592 x 1080; period. This is 800p (assuming it's progressively scanned) in a 2.4-1 aspect ratio.

1080p (2592x1080) in a 2.4-1 aspect ratio is 2799360 pixels.

This 800p in a 2.4-1 aspect ratio game is 1536000 pixels.

Falsely claiming it is 1080p or 2592 x 1080p is saying that Ready at Dawn is rendering 82.25% more pixels and then downscaling it to fit to 1920x800. I highly doubt this game is being made for 4k tvs and being downscaled to full/standard hdtvs.

Lastly, for disclosure, for people that like to cry when you say something they presume to be 'bad' about Sony.. I only have PS products. PS3/PS4, and a PS Vita (which I never use). Proof for those that still want to disagree instead of learn some facts about aspect ratios, etc.

I just want a good game if I decide to pick this up. If they feel 1920x800 with a more cinematic feel makes the game better, then great.. just don't around claiming 1.2 million extra pixels that don't exist.

+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 1758d ago
Blaze9291759d ago (Edited 1759d ago )

out of curiosity @TomShoe, lol, why did you choose 900p as your comparison comment? Why not 1920 x 1080? You know...what the actual article is comparing?

As for the aspect ratio, it's honestly not bad at 2.40:1 - but I've never played a game like that so it's hard to say how it'll "feel"

hkgamer1759d ago

I think he is trying to say that 800p doesnt mean less pixels then 900p.

But I guess that's not the argument at all. the argument should be, what is the better aspect ratio?

I'm not a big fan of having this super wide aspect ratio, 16:9 is good enough for me and i prefer having my screen filled. I wonder how the screen would look if played on a 4:3 screen, screen must be filled with black borders XD

Dee_911758d ago

Because Xbox one games got crap for being 900p

evs4901758d ago

Blaze929 if you read the article it clearly makes the same comparison TomShoe makes in regards to people thinking 900p is superior.

ziggurcat1758d ago (Edited 1758d ago )

the common mistake people are making in all of this is they're not considering the *aspect ratio* of the image.

The Order is being rendered at 2.40:1 aspect ratio, and being placed into a standard 16:9 aspect ratio.

If you were to view The Order in full screen, without any black bars, its resolution would be 2592 x 1080 since the game's output resolution is actually 1080p. A quote from the RaD studio head:

"But for us, the cinematic experience is in the foreground [basically focus] – presented in full HD 1080p."

So instead of just cropping the sides off of the image to fit the 1920 horizontal pixel dimension, they're scaling the image to fit the so that they're not sacrificing any of the picture plane, which results in an image size of 1920 x 800.

It's the same thing as a blu-ray movie that's viewed in widescreen on your TV. It's still 1080p despite the black bars because its native aspect ratio is not the same as consumer TVs/monitors.

The other reason why The Order isn't "800p" is because that in order for it to be considered at that resolution, it's native horizontal pixel dimension would have to be smaller than 1920 (something close to 1422 x 800 if you were to maintain a 16:9 aspect ratio). It's why Ryse is 900p - its native pixel dimensions are 1600 x 900, and native 720p games have a native pixel dimension of 1280 x 720.

We know for a fact that the game isn't being upscaled to fit 1920 x 800 because it maintains a 1:1 pixel ratio of a full 1920 x 1080 image.

assdan1758d ago

It's because a lot of xbox idiots are screaming "More powerful? That's a lower res than ryse!" because they don't understand how res works.

CERN1758d ago

Resident Evil 4 had black bars.

TomShoe1758d ago

@Blaze Hk nailed it pretty much spot on.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1758d ago
shivvy241759d ago

Yeah, the game runs at native fullHD but instead of using 1080 it uses 800, not running at 800p

CERN1758d ago

You just don't get it. Doesn't matter if it's 1920*1080 or 1920*800. The part of the image you see is still rendered in full HD. It's not 1920*800 because it's lower resolution but because 140p from the top and 140p from the bottom is covered with black bars. That's what makes a full HD Blu-ray movie.

This is Ready at Dawns first console game, this is there vision, this is there art. They have said it many times, this is a story based linear action gameplay with a cinematic experience that feels like a movie. So I don't know why so many of you are surprised about the aspect ratio. It's what they want in this game, it's what many people want. If you don't like the idea of it, then don't play it. There are millions of other games out there without any black boarders you could chooses to play. Go play them. But leave us to actually enjoy the one game that's like a movie. There are going to be many fans for this game once it comes out.

Mikey322301759d ago

I read an article where the Developers said that they could either do 1080p (Without a lot of Anti-Aliasing) OR they could do 1920x800 with (A ton of Anti-aliasing)

I much much rather have the smoother (no white line jaggies) 1920x800.

DigitalRaptor1759d ago (Edited 1758d ago )

Yep. Ready At Dawn are using 4xMSAA, which would produce an incredibly clean looking game, with very very minimal visual artefacts.

@ sinspirit

Pardon my ignorance. my definition of artifacts must be different to the norm. I meant jaggies.

sinspirit1758d ago

I would love to have the option to turn it off for traditional 1080p. If I don't like it then I'll change it back.

I wonder if they will change the black bars or aspect ratio for those running on below 1080p monitors/TV's.


Artifacts have nothing to do with anti-aliasing.

ProjectVulcan1759d ago (Edited 1759d ago )

1440 x 900 is a 16:10 screen ratio.

I'll just point out 'normal' 900p is 1600 x 900 if by 'normal' you mean the screen ratio is 16:9.

I assume that is what you meant because 16:9 is the most common widescreen ratio for TVs. 1280 x 720 and 1920 x 1080 are both true 16:9 ratio resolutions.

Therefore 1600 x 900 = 1440000 pixels. Slightly less than 1920 x 800.

Personally I would always prefer the full resolution, because it's not a movie no matter how hard it tries. It's a game. So I prefer 1920 x 1080. The more resolution the better for games IMO.

I wouldn't be too upset either way though.

zeuanimals1758d ago

I've played games at 21:9, that's similar to The Order's resolution.

It doesn't make it more like a movie, it actually makes it better IMO. The Order can't look like this because most TVs are 16:9 and it will create black bars on them but if you play it on a 21:9 monitor, no black bars.

ProjectVulcan1757d ago (Edited 1757d ago )

My view is that The Order is not a movie, it's a game. Therefore the argument about cinematic quality and style thanks to black bars is not valid in my eyes.

Black bars were never welcome when old ports in the past console eras to PAL systems left some games with them (because of the different resolutions and refresh rates NTSC and PAL systems used.) Most of the time magazines and such decried them as lazy porting, inferior localisation.

Which they were.

Those days might be gone thanks to HDTV standards but a different reason for black bars on a game can't get a different reception i.e positive in my eyes, the result is still the same.

Welshy1759d ago (Edited 1759d ago )

I personally dislike "cinematic widescreen".

It was first introduced on square 4:3 TV's (which were the norm for younger readers) to bring a a cinema like experience, but when 16:9 widescreen TV's took over, the fact that they were BUILT widescreen removed the need for those black boxes.

It's so frustrating having a widescreen flattened even more by redundant "cinematic" black bars.

Are we going to go one step further and make TV's to THAT ratio, then have black bars on those and repeat the cycle till we have super skinny, super wide 30:0.5 TV's?

It's pointless and annoying, I have a cinematic widescreen TV, do I need widescreen on my widescreen? *insert xzibit meme*

I've been super excited for The Order ever since E3 but that's my 2 cents on this ratio stuff.

hkgamer1759d ago

I feel the same way, if the devs really wanted us to have a cinematic feel with black borders than just have black borders packaged with he box so we can stick it over our Widescreen TV's to give it that feel. :P

ziggurcat1758d ago

"I have a cinematic widescreen TV, do I need widescreen on my widescreen?"

you have a widescreen TV, but you don't have a cinematic widescreen TV.

your TV is 16:9 (or 1.78:1), cinematic widescreen is 2.40:1. That's why you have widescreen on your widescreen - because the movie you're watching wasn't shot at a 1.78:1/16:9 aspect ratio.

And it's like that so that you can see everything that's intended to be on the screen.

morganfell1759d ago (Edited 1759d ago )

I have to agree with Tom. You do not notice the effect watching the videos in the players. But the minute you expand the player and go full screen, especially on a large monitor (mine is 42) or a big screen TV you get the movie theater presentation.

As it is we have less that 2 days remaining until the embargo lifts on the 18th and the media explodes.

mania5681759d ago

the problem is theres not much as games go with that resolution, people often jump to the conclusion less screen means worst, it is explained that it is better quality than 900p would be but in a smaller screen, maybe its too soon to render games with that quality knowing most people read 800p and start saying 800p is very low and the bars take the experience away.

christrules00411759d ago

There is also things like they are using more Advanced anti aliasing because of the resolution they are choosing.

Ju1759d ago

I don't even know why this is worth a discussion. 1920x800 isn't a "design decision". [email protected] said, they would go 800p if they use 4xMSAA, else it will be full HD. Those "shots" are useless because they don't account for the difference in AA in either version. "Artistic comparisons" are a waste of time.

Crazyglues1759d ago (Edited 1759d ago )

Wow what a mistake this game company is making...

Forget about Res for a second and just think about which one looks better to play... -Because that's all the gamer is going to care about, and when the picture is bigger it looks better because I can see the detail, when it's smaller in that wider aspect-ratio 2.40:1 it looks like a dam PS3 game..

Yes it has that amazing cinema look and you can see more but it does not matter because you can't see the detail.

This is a huge mistake - trust me, Most people are not playing on a 4k monitors and most gamers are not going to care about cinematic view it adds nothing to the game experience... 16:9 is fine... you don't need 2.40:1, it's a stupid waste.

The only thing that will matter in the end is that when I'm in the closer view I can see the detail on the character, when I'm further away it looks less impressive, that's all Gamers will see at the end of the day..

||.........___||............ ||

thejigisup1758d ago

Sit closer to your tv. Problem solved?

Crazyglues1758d ago (Edited 1758d ago )

Or Maybe I don't understand what we are comparing here, then?

||.........___||............ ||

Jack_Reacher1758d ago

Nice to see another person who thinks he speaks for the rest of us.

Guess what. You dont

strifeblade1758d ago

He is right and I think the same thing. It's great if they can enhance quality of the image but when.they reduce screen size how are we going to notice a better or clearer image when screen size is reduced? Becomes difficult to notice. Ppl will now have to get a larger screen or sit closer to the TV to notice the quality upgrade. Those of us with small tvs are even more screwed.

I'm no development.but why don't they go 900p upscale 1080 with 4xmsaa

gigoran1758d ago

Just go enjoy your xbone and leave us to play our superior games.

mixelon1758d ago

Ok.. That doesn't make a lick of sense. How does having a black bar at the top/bottom decrease detail, exactly? They'll obviously frame things so you can see them fine.

rainslacker1758d ago

The letterboxing effect is hardly noticeable when playing, although I suppose now since everyone is making a big deal about it, people are going to notice.

Beyond: Two Souls had letterboxing(not sure the aspect, and it was done for cinematic effect. Everything in the game is made to fit in the chosen aspect ration. Someone above said one of the resident evil games had it, never recall anyone making a fuss about it and it's the first I've heard of it.

If you have a fairly small screen, say 42" or less, then I could maybe agree with you if you sit far away from it, but above that, the picture will be plenty big. There are many movies that come out in this ration and most people don't have a problem with it.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1758d ago
Kribwalker1759d ago

It's funny how there aren't flocks of xbox fanboys in here trashing the ps4 games lack of resolution. Maybe ps4 fanboys can learn a thing or two

morganfell1759d ago (Edited 1759d ago )

You're here. All it takes is one look at your post history to realize the fact of who you are. What you posted is in reality a very poor attempt to stealth troll.

Kribwalker1759d ago

I'm not here bashing the fact that it's 800p like you guys do on every Xbox one post, I'm not here bashing it at all, I'm here saying "it's pretty nice we aren't bashing on your games like you guys like to bash on ours" that's all. It's not like it's a positive titanfall post or anything

thejigisup1758d ago

When you say 'we' do you mean xbox fanboys or do you mean gamers? And why is it funny?

morganfell1758d ago (Edited 1758d ago )

No you didn't directly attack Sony, you attacked it's supporters. Mainly because you feel hurt over the fact the X1 is nowhere near as capable a system and with every game it is being realized that Microsoft was quite deceptive in their promotion of it's capabilities.

So instead you aim your attempt at Sony supporters (instead of MS, the people with whom you should be upset) And you actually believe you are being quite sly in your methodology but it is a transparent as as glass. Everyone sees it for what it is. A poorly executed attempt to stealth troll.

All of this is machts nichts anyway as there are less than 48 hours before the NDA embargo lifts and people see The Order. All of these excuse arguments and apologist pieces over graphics not mattering will suddenly become the stuff of deserved ridicule.

aerisbueller1758d ago (Edited 1758d ago )

Game fanboys, and console fanboys have some knowledge of how graphics work. On my PC, I would personally sacrifice a little fps to get better effects, shadows, model and texture detail, etc. This is a compromise developers must do as well. Choosing what they care about more, more amazing graphics, or higher framerate. You'd have to be blind if you think that TitanFall has as much an excuse to not be higher res, and higher framerate as the Order does. Doesn't even look like the same console generation.

The power gap is big enough that it matters, period, graphically. Enough that every game journalist, gamer, reviewer, dev knows it and feels the need to mention it. It's also fun for people who enjoy this console war thing to pile on all the earned 'I told you so's built up from last year, when we pointed out that all those shaders, clock cycles, ram gigs, and Mhz would add up, and when we pointed out every step of the way what a farce MS was pulling over your eyes.

And while desperate xbox fans pretend ps4 fans are hypocrites for being excited about a game that looks this good and runs 'only' at 30fps, because it's worth it, the real hypocrisy is all the xboxers who suddenly feel like graphics don't matter. It seems they came to that realization at around the same time it became clear that ps4 was the winner in that category

scott1821758d ago (Edited 1758d ago )

Show me any exclusive X1 game using 4xMLAA at 1920x800... Ready at dawn could easily reduce the anti aliasing and make the game 1080p. You have no argument for the resolution debate here.

" there aren't flocks of xbox fanboys in here trashing the ps4 games lack of resolution"

Because they would get trashed on with all the examples of higher res on ps4 and lack of it on x1 and they know it, honestly PS4 fans have much more ammo in the argument. You think the usual xbox trolls are staying away out of the goodness of their heart?

Kribwalker1758d ago

Or it's because we are all to busy playing the titanfall beta. And as much as you like to think otherwise, Ryse has (other then the same bad guys models over and over) the best looking graphics of all the launch title games. That point has been expressed by multiple game websites and developers, not just Xbox fans. And really don't care about who has better resolutions ect, I typically buy all consoles so I can play all the exclusives I want to play. My psn is the same as my xbox gamer tag which is the same as my username here. I'm just trying to point out how rediculous it is when every positive xbox article gets lambasted by sony fanboys and every positive playstation article isn't lambasted the same way. Just stick to ps4 articles if that's what you are interested in, don't try to be a troll on every positive xbox article

morganfell1758d ago

Do you even know the meaining of the word irony?

strifeblade1758d ago

He is right. Go to a titanfall article nothing but trolls. This article- seems the xbox community can care less- no intrest in trolling becausevwe have better things

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1758d ago
mikel10151759d ago

Why would you ever want a cinematic widescreen? It just cuts off your ability to see more of the game. It's not a movie, stop trying to make it one -__-

BlackCountryBob1759d ago

It's not trying to be a movie, it's just that it is in cinemas where it is used most. A 2.35 ratio will mean that the environment and the surroundings will be on more of the screen rather than the player, ultimately it will make the scale of the world grander and more awe inspiring by makings he character smaller and thus more vulnerable.

Think Lawrence of Arabia for the effect

Jack_Reacher1758d ago

but its not your game to tell them what to do or how to make it. So. . .

why don't you stop telling people who are not listening or don't care what to do.

you might not want cinematic widescreen, some of us do.

No one is making you buy the game on its release

mixelon1758d ago

Compositionally it doesn't - it can allow for a wider horizontal field of view, which makes sense for some games. Particularly third person shooters having extra sideways space sounds great.

It could get annoying if there's a lot of vertical motion though but im guessing they've that of that!

Zhipp1759d ago

Actually, true 16:9 900p is 1600x900(1,440,000 pixels). 1440x900 has a more narrow 16:10 aspect ratio, wish afaik is only used on pc monitors. So yeah, this so called "800p" has more pixels, but the disparity isn't as big as you suggest.

SharnOfTheDEAD1759d ago

Blending Gaming with true Cinematic feel is an interesting choice. I expect this game to provide a unique experience for sure.

Sayai jin1759d ago

Don't care...this games looks awesome. It seems like every game is scrutinized these days beyond belief.

BallsEye1759d ago

I personally hate black bars even in the movies. I bought that 50 inch TV for a reason. Want the whole real estate of my screen to be used.

asyouburn1758d ago

16:9 TVs have been bullshit from the start as far as movies are concerned. Movies have been shot in 235 for way longer than 16x9 TVs have been on the market. Blame tv manufacturers

SaturdayNightBeaver1758d ago

But, do you wanna watch a movie or play a game with your full control ?

fanboysmackdown1758d ago

I'm sure glad I play games and not numbers like most of you.