The Neverending Upscale Discussion Thread * Summary=#457 [Archive] - Page 3

Quaz51

01-Oct-2007, 17:28

Quaz, I've just for the first time played the same thing on my PS3 and my 360, and I am intrigued - could you check FIFA08 for me? There's a demo for both available now, and I'm interested because they look so very different. First of all, the PS3 version looks decidedly better during gameplay, but then has a choppy framerate and ugly lighting in replay mode. The 360 version is very different in terms of lighting, not nearly as nice, though in replay mode things are a little bit better.

There seem to be big differences between the two, both in gameplay and replay modes, and I'd like to know where they come from precisely. It may be upscaling for the 360, but my eye is not really skilled enough to say for sure and I don't have 1:1 pixel mapping (Samsung LE32N71). Right now I'm using Component for 360 and HDMI for PS3, and typically Component looks really good so far with the 360 so no complaints coming from there (Bioshock looks great, and the dashboard colors are perfect).

EDIT: And the intro screen where you just play by yourself against a goalie seems to be different again, possibly the same as on the PS3 but with AA 2x. Or something. Well, I'd like to have the expert's opinion on this one for sure. ;)

Fifa is 720p AA 2x on X360 and 720p no AA on PS3

Jesus2006

01-Oct-2007, 17:44

thats surprising to me. sharpness looked good and i saw minimal aliasing. for 560p and no aa, it looked pretty good. thats pretty pathetic that they only managed 20-30fps with 560p and no aa. does this game use the UE3?

Very surprising, i even thought it had AA because jaggies are hardly visible but tha might as well be due to the contrast and dark setting.

Btw. what resolution is 560p? Is the PS3 even capable of outputting something like that?

@Fifa: To me it looks that is has some AA applied also on PS3, but not on all objects (like players).

kyleb

01-Oct-2007, 17:52

"560p" means 560 progressive lines of resolution. The PS3 doesn't output that, it upscales it and outputs it at a standard resolution.

Neb

01-Oct-2007, 17:53

Very surprising, i even thought it had AA because jaggies are hardly visible but tha might as well be due to the contrast and dark setting.

Btw. what resolution is 560p? Is the PS3 even capable of outputting something like that?

@Fifa: To me it looks that is has some AA applied also on PS3, but not on all objects (like players).

Lower resolution adds bluriness, bluriness helps in hiding jaggies at the same time as it makes everything look blurrier. Depends on the LCD used to.

Jesus2006

01-Oct-2007, 17:55

"560p" means 560 progressive lines of resolution. The PS3 doesn't output that, it upscales it and outputs it at a standard resolution.

I know that p is progressive, but i'd like to know the X resolution :) And how does the PS3 scale without a real (only vertical?) scaler, in software?

Quaz51

01-Oct-2007, 18:01

I know that p is progressive, but i'd like to know the X resolution :) And how does the PS3 scale without a real (only vertical?) scaler, in software?

yes

Mintmaster

01-Oct-2007, 18:01

@Fifa: To me it looks that is has some AA applied also on PS3, but not on all objects (like players).FYI, there's no such thing as applying AA to only some objects in the same 3D scene. Chances are that you're seeing alpha blending or post process blur.

What can be done, though, is overlaying one scene on another. An FPS could render the gun in a seperate buffer with more AA and composite it afterwards. I've never seen it done, though.

StefanS

01-Oct-2007, 18:03

I know that p is progressive, but i'd like to know the X resolution :) And how does the PS3 scale without a real (only vertical?) scaler, in software?

Since the aspect is 16:9. 560/9*16=995.5555 I suspect it's ~996 or maybe 1000.

Quaz51

01-Oct-2007, 18:13

Since the aspect is 16:9. 560/9*16=995.5555 I suspect it's ~996 or maybe 1000.

yes, for vertical it's more simple, it's 9/7 upscale (560p), but for horizontal it's more difficulte because it's not a simple ratio, i find betwen 990 and 995 , i think it's 995 or 996 for relative isomorphique resolution

Jedi2016

02-Oct-2007, 06:09

Shifty Geezer

02-Oct-2007, 08:38

If you get a shallow enough angle, the length of the steps will clearly show their height.

Swrdmstr

02-Oct-2007, 13:38

Hi guys!

Is it possible to have a short list of some games upscaled on each console?
A little recap ;)

I apologize for my english, I'm Italian :wink:

-tkf-

02-Oct-2007, 13:55

Hi guys!

Is it possible to have a short list of some games upscaled on each console?
A little recap ;)

I apologize for my english, I'm Italian :wink:

Allready done earlier in the thread. (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1072127&postcount=457)

Swrdmstr

02-Oct-2007, 14:04

oh... sorry...

thank you very much :wink:

Todd33

02-Oct-2007, 18:10

Any word on the two versions of DiRT? Ignoring the frame rate and contrast, the AA and res look different.

Quaz51

02-Oct-2007, 18:14

Out of curiosity, how hard is it to figure native resolution of a game that uses AA? Wouldn't the AA eliminate (or at least reduce) the aliasing steps used to count pixel width? Seems it would make a job a bit harder.

with more than AA 4x (or big blur effect) yes it's very hard or impossible, but in current case, no

silentbob343

04-Oct-2007, 13:27

Jericho demo is 720p without AA on the X360 and... 560p without AA for the PS3 , another bad conversion make with feet :)
480p next-gen games soon?

Sounds like a poor port. Hopefully the final version will be better as many demos are based on older builds and problems are resolved or reduced in the final build, i.e. HS, R&C, Skate, and Uncharted.

I see you have tested many demos, what full games have you been able to examine?

hey69

04-Oct-2007, 14:41

to test full games cost money you know..

assen

04-Oct-2007, 15:07

Sounds like a poor port. Hopefully the final version will be better as many demos are based on older builds and problems are resolved or reduced in the final build, i.e. HS, R&C, Skate, and Uncharted.

I see you have tested many demos, what full games have you been able to examine?

I see you have even tested full games which are not already out?

djskribbles

04-Oct-2007, 15:13

assen

04-Oct-2007, 15:30

I agree about the "demos are from older builds" part, but I refuse to blindly trust that all issues in the demos are guaranteed to be fixed in the final builds.

Arwin

04-Oct-2007, 15:32

i dunno about Drake, but it was previously announced that the R&C demo was from the E3 build and was to be released Oct. 4th; it was later announced that it has been pushed back to Oct. 11th with an updated build. but he is right in that some demos are of older builds. some more examples of this would be MotorStorm and GRAW2.

Apparently the PS3 F1 game demo was also quite different from the final version. I still have to try that game sometime. Apparently the motion sensing steering is quite good also now with firmware 1.92

Todd33

04-Oct-2007, 15:46

I agree about the "demos are from older builds" part, but I refuse to blindly trust that all issues in the demos are guaranteed to be fixed in the final builds.

True, I've never heard of an instance of the resolution or AA changing, just the frame rate. The R&C demo disk from Gamestop is from April and lacks many optimization that will be in the final game, so says the dev from their podcast.

22psi

04-Oct-2007, 16:24

Maybe the next gen consoles will deliver HD as a baseline.

Rockster

04-Oct-2007, 17:16

Anyone get the native framebuffer size of PGR4 yet?

AlStrong

04-Oct-2007, 18:04

Probably have to wait for the demo for Quaz to check it out.

Dr Evil

04-Oct-2007, 21:04

True, I've never heard of an instance of the resolution or AA changing, just the frame rate. The R&C demo disk from Gamestop is from April and lacks many optimization that will be in the final game, so says the dev from their podcast.

I think they turned the AA on for the retail release of Forza, whereas it doesn't seem to have any in the demo.

Quaz51

04-Oct-2007, 21:36

I think they turned the AA on for the retail release of Forza, whereas it doesn't seem to have any in the demo.

there is AA 2x in the demo

sionyboy

04-Oct-2007, 22:27

http://images.gamersyde.com/misc/pgr4aa.jpg

I believe that is a framebuffer grab, courtesy of Gamesyde.

AlStrong

05-Oct-2007, 02:15

If that's a direct grab, they certainly have got some nice texture filtering and AA. :cool:

silentbob343

05-Oct-2007, 10:07

I see you have even tested full games which are not already out?
I wish ;)....just going off of those who have tested and played various build as well as video and still captures.

The filtering and AA in Uncharted seems to have gotten better in recent screens. I also heard the final version of skate has better frame rate, AA, and filtering compared to the demo. In R&C it seems to manly be an fps improvement.

I agree about the "demos are from older builds" part, but I refuse to blindly trust that all issues in the demos are guaranteed to be fixed in the final builds.
That's very wise and you are correct issues usually aren't completely fixed. HS was much improved in terms of frame rate and tearing, but it wasnâ€™t perfect.

Resolution probably won't change, but AA and AF levels can and do. I'm just hoping that Jericho improves with further development. Wasnâ€™t attacking Quaz and simply was wonder what full games he has tested.

Dr Evil

05-Oct-2007, 12:36

there is AA 2x in the demo

Is it only 2x in the final release aswell? because it looked smoother to me.

edit:
I bet they have updated the demo after its initial release, because I'm quite sure that it didn't have any AA, when it first came up on the marketplace.

Gnix

06-Oct-2007, 04:12

I heard that Gears of War ended up doing 2x AA on 360 even though Epic said that wouldn't do any AA.

Quaz, can you confirm?

ihamoitc2005

06-Oct-2007, 05:00

If that's a direct grab, they certainly have got some nice texture filtering and AA. :cool:

I also feel that picture has good AA/AF. It also has ugly graphics! It does not look like upscale though.

Versatil

06-Oct-2007, 05:19

I heard that Gears of War ended up doing 2x AA on 360 even though Epic said that wouldn't do any AA.

Quaz, can you confirm?
There's no AA at all; 1280x720, no AF and of course no AA.

kyleb

06-Oct-2007, 08:36

Gears does something that at least looks like 2xMSAA on some static objects, I don't recall exactly where but someone posted some shots of it on this forum a while back, and it does some sort of selective edge bluring as well. It also looks like it is using some sort of AF to avoid exessive blurring in the distance, though it also shows some rather nasty crawling mipmap transitions on some textures.

AlStrong

06-Oct-2007, 16:12

I don't recall exactly where but someone posted some shots of it on this forum a while back

A search of Mmmkay's posts will lead one to the post in question. :)

Cyan

06-Oct-2007, 22:11

Quaz, first of all, thanks for sharing. Your information, hard work and your spirit is much appreciated in here.

Any word on Call of Juarez, my favourite game of the X360? I'm almost sure it's rendered at 720p plus MSAAx2, but I don't have a good eye for these things.

Quaz51

07-Oct-2007, 01:26

Cyan

08-Oct-2007, 01:50

it's (demo) 720p no AA but 60fps
Thanks m8. I didn't notice jaggies and if I did they weren't as noticeable as in Halo 3 because of the native resolution, I guess.

I had never heard about CoJ framerate. All I realized is that the game is so gorgeous and it runs smooth as silk but that was it.

Thanks for clarifying things a bit for me, I added the info you provided to my CoJ thread in the Console Games section.

Dave Glue

08-Oct-2007, 16:57

it's (demo) 720p no AA but 60fps
Not the demo I just played. Definitely 30fps.

Edit: Just played it again, my memory was faulty. It's not 60, but it appears over 30 in the brief playing time - there's no framerate lock and no vsync so there's quite a bit of tearing. I didn't play it that long though, just got into the town, so there are parts where it might maintain 60fps.

Quaz51

08-Oct-2007, 20:53

Not the demo I just played. Definitely 30fps.

Edit: Just played it again, my memory was faulty. It's not 60, but it appears over 30 in the brief playing time - there's no framerate lock and no vsync so there's quite a bit of tearing. I didn't play it that long though, just got into the town, so there are parts where it might maintain 60fps.

I don't remembered that (and it's more difficult to feel the framerate on LCD display) but yes the demo have no Vsync indeed
it's look like Bioshock framerate when desactivate the Vsynch, perhaps little more fluid, it's relatively stable for a no lock framerate, i think that fluctuate between 40-50fps

Quaz51

09-Oct-2007, 18:45

X360 Conan demo = 576p no AA :(

Todd33

09-Oct-2007, 18:48

X360 Conan demo > 576p no AA :(

I assume ">" is not "greater than" but more like an arrow?

Quaz51: Any word on the two DiRT demos?

Quaz51

09-Oct-2007, 18:58

I assume ">" is not "greater than" but more like an arrow?

Quaz51: Any word on the two DiRT demos?

yes just an arrow (i rectify)

Dirt it's 720p on the two platform, i don't talk 720p games

Shifty Geezer

09-Oct-2007, 19:02

Quaz51

09-Oct-2007, 19:12

Conan is SD (ED) TV only? Without any AA? This brings me back to the pet peeve of no decent IQ enhancement for SDTV users, but rendering at SDTV res without IQ enhancements and giving HDTV the same content is plain smelly! I'm guessing this is a limit of the demo for some bizarre reason. 576p no AA violates MS's TRC.

it's 1024x576, it's not very different that 1024x600 for PGR or Tomb raider or 1040x585 for tony hawk, there are some game which "violate" MS' TRC (Halo3 :) )
but why no AA? i don't know (there are blur effect or persistence effect with precedent frame but i see no MSAA)

Todd33

09-Oct-2007, 19:20

What engine is it, maybe it's UT which doesn't support MSAA?

Quaz51: Thanks for the DiRT info, I wasn't sure if it was 720P on both.

Quaz51

09-Oct-2007, 19:27

PGR4 = 720p MSAA 2x

they found the "tiling" button :) (it's 50% more pixel than PGR3)

MJP

09-Oct-2007, 19:29

What engine is it, maybe it's UT which doesn't support MSAA?

I think Nihilistic did it themselves...I've seen no mention of them licensing any engines.

wco81

09-Oct-2007, 23:09

Ooh but didn't people think resolution was overrated and they wanted to see all these shaders and effects on a 480p game?

So does Conan have all these effects that higher resolution games don't have?

Versatil

09-Oct-2007, 23:38

PGR4 = 720p MSAA 2x

they found the "tiling" button :) (it's 50% more pixel than PGR3)
I expected less. Cool, much better than PGR3 then :smile: .

Acert93

09-Oct-2007, 23:40

PGR4 = 720p MSAA 2x

they found the "tiling" button :) (it's 50% more pixel than PGR3)

I am no KyleB or Mmmkay, but that was my guess. But I was too chicken to say so :lol:

deepbrown

18-Oct-2007, 00:29

http://www.ripten.com/2007/10/16/ratchet-and-clank-hd-pixelation-issue-insomniac-responds/

Beyond3d gets a mention about 704p and Ratchet

Dot50Cal

18-Oct-2007, 03:30

For anyone who wants to count the pixels on ratchet:
http://www.dot50cal.the-horror.com/b3d/ratchet/res/

Use those.

betan

18-Oct-2007, 08:45

For anyone who wants to count the pixels on ratchet:
http://www.dot50cal.the-horror.com/b3d/ratchet/res/

Use those.

Do you have any shots with jagged vertical outline edges that don't have foggy background?

Dot50Cal

18-Oct-2007, 10:19

Qroach already confirmed the vertical res a while back, im not sure if that post is still around since the forum went back about a week when the SQL DB died.

I can get you some shots though if you must, just let me know.

Shifty Geezer

18-Oct-2007, 10:53

betan

18-Oct-2007, 11:17

Qroach already confirmed the vertical res a while back, im not sure if that post is still around since the forum went back about a week when the SQL DB died.

Yeah but it's easier to use jagged vertical edges to verify horizontal resolution

I can get you some shots though if you must, just let me know.
That would be nice. It's not often we find someone with a capture card. ;)

I don't think it's upscaled in any axis though. At least it doesn't look like in your shots, besides the heavily jagged the edges with foggy background. Unfortunately for the rest of the vertical edges it's really hard to analyze stepping because of the low contrast or some postprocessing effect like edge blur, But I did adjust the color levels and contrast for one such edge, and I'm almost positive it's not upscaled. That said, it would be better if the edge didn't require any post processing.

Dot50Cal

18-Oct-2007, 13:52

The nature of your grabs is brought into question once again, with reports of fuzziness being apparently localised to certain display devices. Most folk are reporting crisp graphics, a la the Gamespot images which are native 1280x704 images and show no fuzziness. For whatever reason, I don't think we can say your captures are truly indicative of the nature of the game's rendering. We need some more samples and a follow-up from the devs on their investigations.

And again, I point you to a shot from the same capture card:
http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/b3d/071003-2017320812-1280x720.png

Blim uses the same card, Though I believe he still uses a converter to transform component to D-Terminal (What the card accepts). I use the consoles official D-Terminal cable to cut out any interference that is added.

This is the best I can do, all the other edges have a very smooth transition and its very difficult to notice any aliasing.

http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/b3d/ratchet/res/071018-0635490562-1280x720.png

Shifty Geezer

18-Oct-2007, 17:20

I'm not saying your capture card is producing dodgy results, but that the captures aren't at the moment proven to be an accurate representation of the rendering. If TVs can screw up the image, as Insomniac are suggesting, could a capture also get messed about somehow? I don't know, and wouldn't have thought so, but your findings are very different to others reports, and if there isn't a consensus I'd rather have more information.

As I mentioned elsewhere, the artefacts look far more like a blur than an upscale, which doesn't make any sense. If Insomniac are upscaling, why is it such a mess? Thus IMO before setting people to count pixels, we ought to nail down exactly what is nature of the image is, and why there's such a discrepancy in reports.

nAo

18-Oct-2007, 18:58

They're not upscaling, even Resistance was rendering at 1280x704 IIRC

Shifty Geezer

18-Oct-2007, 22:11

That's what we're hearing, and it makes sense. But then what explains Dot50Cal's grabs? Why is the rendering being output, or captured, or displayed, so poorly?

How do they handle SDTV res? Do they render at normal res and downscale, or render small? Could this be a setting fault, with the rendering at SD resolution and being stretched up to 720p? It's also worth noting that at least one of the Gamespot images has this blurry look.

kyleb

19-Oct-2007, 00:41

They look resampled, probaby by the capture card.

aldo

19-Oct-2007, 03:05

This is the best I can do, all the other edges have a very smooth transition and its very difficult to notice any aliasing.

http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/b3d/ratchet/res/071018-0635490562-1280x720.pngBased on the linked image, I was able to determine 20 defined steps at 20 pixels high which brings the vertical res in at 720.

You can trust me on this as I was the first one to determine that Halo 3 was coming in at 640 (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1045367&postcount=56). (One had been off by just a few pixels. :wink: )

-aldo

AlStrong

19-Oct-2007, 03:30

Well, you've determined is 1:1 pixel:step. They can render 704 viewable/game pixels and add 8 pixel-high black bars to the top and bottom with the output still being 720p.

It is just like HD movies that are "1080p" but have massive black bars - the visible frame has fewer than 1080 pixels vertically, but you're still getting the 1:1 pixel:step i.e. no scaling to get 1080 pixels in height.

PARANOiA

19-Oct-2007, 05:36

They're not upscaling, even Resistance was rendering at 1280x704 IIRC
But why are they doing that? To simply render less pixels because the machine can't do it smoothly at 720p?

AlStrong

19-Oct-2007, 06:23

Many TVs overscan incoming signals, in effect, a zooming in, so the space that they aren't rendering isn't seen.

PARANOiA

19-Oct-2007, 06:43

Many TVs overscan incoming signals, in effect, a zooming in, so the space that they aren't rendering isn't seen.
I didn't think that was the case for HD - that's why 1:1 pixel mapping is a desired feature. And if so.. why not chop 16 pixels off of the sides, too?

Interesting stuff.

Edit: possibly I'm assuming "HD" means LCD and plasma tech - I appreciate this would be the case for CRT tubes which have trouble outputting a square image.

Shifty Geezer

19-Oct-2007, 11:23

_phil_ mentioned 1280x704 fits perfectly tiles of 64x64. I don't recall what these tiles were used for, rendering or post processing or what, but it's a sound explanation.

liolio

19-Oct-2007, 12:40

Polygons rejection?

betan

19-Oct-2007, 13:52

I personally don't find 704p issue interesting at all.
The game is not upscaled but I'm curious about how they implemented the fog such that parts of background buildings inside the fog are so jagged.

Also at the right camera angle foreground geometry outline edges start to have gray (fog color) lines prematurely as if it's a postprocessing effect (but not blur) or foreground and background rendered separate. Same thing doesn't happen to flying cars (which have great edge quality).

ps: Dot50Cal's capture card seems to be working fine, as all those jagged buildings are also visible in game if you know how to look.

Dot50Cal

19-Oct-2007, 15:58

Maybe the far away buildings are part of a small skybox built below the level and projected like Source engine games are doing? Perhaps it conflicts with their AA a bit?

nAo

19-Oct-2007, 18:32

I haven't seen the game but for what you guys are saying I wonder if they're doing some clever composition trick..

_phil_

19-Oct-2007, 23:14

Polygons rejection?
yes.

Mintmaster

20-Oct-2007, 03:00

Based on the linked image, I was able to determine 20 defined steps at 20 pixels high which brings the vertical res in at 720.And you have 8 pixels of black bars on both ends.

The screenshots show a slightly lower resolution horizontally (maybe 1024?), but it could be the capture card not sampling at a high enough frequency.

Dot50Cal, can you show us a screenshot of a known 720p game w/o AA, like Gears, and find a near-vertical edge? That XBox screenshot you posted doesn't really tell us how good the capture quality is. Antialiased text scales pretty well.

In any case, I don't think it's a big deal. Lack of AA is affecting the edges more than upscaling.

a la the Gamespot images which are native 1280x704Heh, well we all remember Halo and the released screen grabs, right?

Dot50Cal

20-Oct-2007, 05:14

My 360 red ringed a few days ago, so I cant provide any 360 shots :( But Ill see what PSN demo's I can get that have no AA.

Gears does have AA though, and it seems Heavenly Sword does too, this might be hard without the 360.

Though I do have some shots from Halo 3, if you are trying to determine the cards vertical scaling capabilities then it would probably work.

http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/b3d/halo3/
Open Dir. Though I believe these might have slight artifacts due to capturing them rather than direct screenshots of raw gameplay, so ignore them if you find them.

Edit: Is the Sigma demo 720p? Heres a shot from that:
http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/b3d/071019-2125480921-1280x720.png

Jeff Chen

20-Oct-2007, 12:07

Gran Turismo 5 Prologue Demo is out. 1440*1080 still, no AA, sigh...

iceberg187

20-Oct-2007, 12:40

Gran Turismo 5 Prologue Demo is out. 1440*1080 still, no AA, sigh...

Most assumed it was this, based on GTHD

sionyboy

20-Oct-2007, 14:00

Gran Turismo 5 Prologue Demo is out. 1440*1080 still, no AA, sigh...

Is this confirmed, anyone done the necessary testing?

Dot50Cal

20-Oct-2007, 14:02

Looks like it has AA to me. Im not sure if these shots will help in the step counting, as the 1920x1080 shots are 1080i (my card does 1080p at 960x1080) but I thought they would help.

http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/b3d/gt5pdemo

Mmmkay

20-Oct-2007, 14:31

I took this quick snap last night whilst playing in 1080p:
http://xs220.xs.to/xs220/07426/gt5p1080.jpg.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs220&d=07426&f=gt5p1080.jpg)

Same place in 720p:
http://xs220.xs.to/xs220/07426/gt5p720.jpg.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs220&d=07426&f=gt5p720.jpg)

Quaz51

20-Oct-2007, 15:36

GT5 prologue demo is 1280x1080p (yamauchi know than in car game the vertical resolution is the most important for the visibility) but with MSAA 2x now ! it's a very good Compromise
they also very Improved the display of grills and electric wires and aliasing problems (compare electric wires in GT-HD and in this demo, it's big big gap), the texture filtering is very clean and the HDR ligthing is awesome! all this in 60fps with 16 photorealistics cars, it's Impressive!

the show room and the pit/garage is full 1920x1080 no AA

Quaz51

20-Oct-2007, 15:51

they improved the 720p mode too, it's MSAA 4x now :shock:

deepbrown

20-Oct-2007, 17:17

they improved the 720p mode too, it's MSAA 4x now :shock:

Are you sure? lol

Dot50Cal

20-Oct-2007, 17:23

Quickly Quaz! His Neogaf street cred (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8300445&postcount=1012) is on the line!!1

deepbrown

20-Oct-2007, 17:26

Quickly Quaz! His Neogaf street cred (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8300445&postcount=1012) is on the line!!1

;) I don't have street cred lol True I did say it as if I was certain, but I trust Quaz. Hasn't let us down so far. And when I look at that 720p screenshot I also see 4xMSAA. Meh.

Dot50Cal

20-Oct-2007, 17:27

I'm just messing with ya :D

deepbrown

20-Oct-2007, 17:51

I'm just messing with ya :D

What do you think about the aliasing? Some people seem to be annoyed by it. I'm guessing it's much harder to do AA for close objects that have straight lines.

How does it fair with PGR4?

Shifty Geezer

20-Oct-2007, 18:10

Could it be HDR? AA averages samples, but where samples are of a highly contrasting amount, the average could still be beyond the bright limit after tone-mapping. eg. If you have one sample white 1.0 and another black 0.0, the average sample would be grey 0.5, adding to AA. Whereas if you're bright spot is of intensity 5.0 in HDR, the average would be 2.5, and if you tone-map that image to 2.0 being the white limit, the averaged sample will be 'overexposed' and rendered white, contributing nothing to AA.

Betanumerical

20-Oct-2007, 18:11

they improved the 720p mode too, it's MSAA 4x now :shock:

You sure?. I've got a 60" 720P tv, and run it in 720P and the game looks pretty jagged to me.

Quaz51

20-Oct-2007, 18:13

Quaz51

20-Oct-2007, 18:15

You sure?. I've got a 60" 720P tv, and run it in 720P and the game looks pretty jagged to me.

sure for me

deepbrown

20-Oct-2007, 18:17

for me GT5 prologue is more clean than all other cars game like PGR3, Forza2, PGR4... (2x PGR4 framerate, 2x PGR4 MSAA, 2x PGR4 nb cars, better filtering, photorealistic lighting...) replay with this others demo for compare
the visual comfort and the visibility is awesome in this GT5 prologue

Wait. 720p 4xMSAA in replays only, or gameplay?

Because I've come to realise that F1 on PS3 is the cleanest racing game with it's 4xAA (and HDR :P)...I mean that's almost buttery smooth.

nAo

20-Oct-2007, 18:20

F1 has HDR..

deepbrown

20-Oct-2007, 18:24

F1 has HDR..

Oh ok...pretty spectacular then. One of the few games to do 4xAA and HDR along with Heavenly Sword. They had an impressive engine then.

Betanumerical

20-Oct-2007, 18:25

sure for me

do you mindposting a in game screenshot? or is 4xAA during replay?. Cause Ise gets lotsa jaggies might be my tv settings though.

Quaz51

20-Oct-2007, 18:25

wco81

20-Oct-2007, 18:26

So are the people who did F1 working on anything else? Isn't Sony's exclusive license for F1 running out?

Quaz51

20-Oct-2007, 18:28

Wait. 720p 4xMSAA in replays only, or gameplay?

Because I've come to realise that F1 on PS3 is the cleanest racing game with it's 4xAA (and HDR :P)...I mean that's almost buttery smooth.

i talk only in game situation

F1 is AA 2x, too blured and 30fps, GT5 prologue visual is very more cleaner and pleasant

deepbrown

20-Oct-2007, 18:30

i talk only in game situation

F1 is AA 2x, too blured and 30fps, GT5 prologue visual is very more cleaner and pleasant for me

f1 is 2xAA now? Woah...How I get misinformed about f1!

Quaz51

20-Oct-2007, 18:42

f1 is 2xAA now? Woah...How I get misinformed about f1!

yes, 720p 2x (it's not bad, they are lot of game with no AA or sub-720p) but with blur effect

deepbrown

20-Oct-2007, 18:47

yes, 720p 2x (it's not bad, they are lot of game with no AA or sub-720p) but with blur effect
Ah ok...their GFX are pretty amazing.

So a mixture of cleaness and harsh HDR makes GT's jaggies look a bit worse?

nAo

20-Oct-2007, 18:50

Many games have problems with AA and HDR cause tone mapping is performed on the MSAAAed back buffer after it has been resolved to a regular/not multisampled back buffer.
The correct way to do it is to resolve a MSAAed tone mapped back buffer, but this approach is generally slower cause tone mapping has to be applied on 2X or 4X pixels.
Games that don't apply a tone mapping operator as a post processing filter (HL2 for instance) don't have this issue.

Laa-Yosh

20-Oct-2007, 18:51

So are the people who did F1 working on anything else? Isn't Sony's exclusive license for F1 running out?

Some of them were relocated to other projects as I've heard...

Quaz51

20-Oct-2007, 19:06

i looked PS3 VF5 IGN screenshot and i aproximatively find 1024x1024 too, like on X360, very anamorphic resolution...

before forum bug i found another sub-720p game
NCAA Football 08 : 1024x600 (AA 2x) (07 version is 720p no AA)

i finish to test all the X360 and PS3 demo

_phil_

20-Oct-2007, 19:17

Some of them were relocated to other projects as I've heard...

A lot f them are on the next gen W-O.
Most are very happy to stop with realistic driving game and have fun and freedom wit W-O next.

Bon boulot ,upsi ;) .

Quaz51

20-Oct-2007, 19:26

What do you think about the aliasing? Some people seem to be annoyed by it. I'm guessing it's much harder to do AA for close objects that have straight lines.

How does it fair with PGR4?

this type of race game are always lot of aliasing, The context of these games is conducive to that
Forza2 have honorable MSAA 2x with 720p but many people say this game have unbearable jaggies (PGR3 et PGR4 has MSAA 2x too), even with MSAA 4x and good filtering it's never enough...

Quaz51

20-Oct-2007, 19:40

but no jaggie is easy, very very lot of blur and the jaggies disappear... but details too, transform HD game in SD game, it's not good. we want very sharp/detailed image and clean, not just clean
GT5 prologue is very sharp/detailed and relatively clean for this type of game

Rangers

21-Oct-2007, 03:25

Is there tearing in GT5 prologue demo? And how does this relate to 60/30 FPS? Is the tearing because of >30 but <60 framerate?

I downloaded a blimblim video of the game and thought I noticed some tearing.

Betanumerical

21-Oct-2007, 06:30

I was just playing through the GT:5P demo and there are times in it when the game looks smooth as (ie minimal if any jaggies) and there are times when the game look more jagged then anything I have played. Hell even the windscreen wipers look perfect at times, I hope they fix this issue.

Its really werid at the pitstop before the race, the drivers and the people around the car are perfectly AA'd not a single line out of place yet he car in places has jaggies everywhere.

nAo

21-Oct-2007, 06:49

Maybe they drop AA when the game is about to take more than a frame to render the whole image

Jedi2016

21-Oct-2007, 06:49

The biggest thing I've noticed is the disparity in the quality of the shadow maps. They're especially noticable on the Daihatsu. When the sun is shining through the windshield onto the dashboard, the shadows of the steering wheel and console are among the ugliest I've ever seen. It's less of a problem on the other cars. The Daihatsu also shows the worst shadow mapping on the outside of the car. When you're coming up behind another car when you're racing (they're all Daihatsus), you can see this odd flickering and moving on the back of the car in front of you.. it's the jaggy shadow map crawling on the back of the car, appears to be only a few pixels deep. It clears up as you get closer, but it's still very aliased. I think this is what some people are seeing as "jaggy mess", is in fact only extremely low-res shadow maps.

Considering how it seems more of a problem on that car than any other, I'm going to assume that's it's merely a sign of a work-in-progress, something that will be fixed up by the time Prologue, and GT5 proper, are released.

Interesting about the resolution. While I'm not surprised that it's not 1920 (given that GTHD was only 1440), I am a bit surprised that it's not at least 1440 itself. Although the MSAA does appear to alleviate this somewhat, as the game overall doesn't appear as jaggy as GTHD does. As nAo said up above, there's also the HDR+AA issue that leaves some jaggies apparently untouched by the AA. It's something I fight with in CGI as well whenever there's a sharp contrast between light and dark from HDR illumination or reflection.. it's a very hard line for LW to smooth.

All in all, though, I think the game looks fantastic. I'll post some more thoughts in the regular GT5 thread.

Quaz51

21-Oct-2007, 15:45

Arwin

21-Oct-2007, 16:12

Maybe they drop AA when the game is about to take more than a frame to render the whole image

The pitstop is a completely different rendering engine from the rest of the game. Apparently this is where they attempt to do raycasting or some other form of rasterising/raytracing hybrid, including depth of field and so on.

sevanig

21-Oct-2007, 18:18

i heard the pit was the same as the replays, 30 fps with more effects...

Quaz51

21-Oct-2007, 22:38

compare the texture filtering on the floor in the Forza2 demo (for exemple in the gravel area in the first bend) and in GT5 prologue demo, the difference is awesome :shock:
GT5 prologue texture filtering is perfect, it's very important for IQ and visibility

Betanumerical

22-Oct-2007, 07:40

there are no AA in pitstop 1080p, just full HD

Oh okay, I was running it at 720P so does it scale or do 2xAA on pitstop?.

Also do you mind getting a 1080P in game shot up please?, I swear something is wrong in 720P mode resulting in more alising, maybe its the HDR thing mentioned, but wouldn't this effect the 1080P mode to?.

EDIT: The issue I'am talking about is the inconsistent AA at moments the AA would be literally perfect, at then a moment later (for example) the windscreen wipers would become a mess with jagged lines all over it.

Jedi2016

22-Oct-2007, 08:47

The issue I'am talking about is the inconsistent AA at moments the AA would be literally perfect, at then a moment later (for example) the windscreen wipers would become a mess with jagged lines all over it.
Are you sure you're not just seeing the shadow maps? Those are horrid in this build. I'm starting to think a lot of the "jaggy mess" that people are complaining about are actually just the shadow maps and not the cars. The AA itself seems pretty consistant to me. Definitely less jaggy than GTHD was.

Betanumerical

22-Oct-2007, 09:37

Are you sure you're not just seeing the shadow maps? Those are horrid in this build. I'm starting to think a lot of the "jaggy mess" that people are complaining about are actually just the shadow maps and not the cars. The AA itself seems pretty consistant to me. Definitely less jaggy than GTHD was.

No its not, I'm sorry for the shitty IQ of this picture, but I feel it shows the problem.

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/5651/difrenceve8.jpg

Bottom one is PERFECT, top one is very jagged, it is much more noticeable on the full size pics.

I will post up the bigger pics (1600x1200 each) if you cant see the difference in those.

jlippo

22-Oct-2007, 10:21

No its not, I'm sorry for the shitty IQ of this picture, but I feel it shows the problem.

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/5651/difrenceve8.jpg

Bottom one is PERFECT, top one is very jagged, it is much more noticeable on the full size pics.

I will post up the bigger pics (1600x1200 each) if you cant see the difference in those.
You mean that in some angles sun actually lights the swipers and causes high contrast edge?
If this is the case, it is very hard to get good quality with thin and bright triangles with black background, especially if you are using HDR.

Betanumerical

22-Oct-2007, 10:23

You mean that in some angles sun actually lights the swipers and causes high contrast edge?
If this is the case, it is very hard to get good quality with thin and bright triangles with black background, especially if you are using HDR.

Seems you are correct. Any way to fix this?.

Shifty Geezer

22-Oct-2007, 13:35

See post 604 above.

Betanumerical

22-Oct-2007, 14:19

I really wonder how the devs to manage 4xAA with 22.4gb available while MS thank devs would need 256GB/s worse of bandwith to achieve the same effect at the same resolution?

May sound sarcastic but I really wonder 1:10 compresion ratio?

Wouldn't it be smart to assume they are using both pools of memory?, which nearly doubles the bandwidth

Making it closer to 1:5.

I've actually always wanted to ask this. Is the Xenos close enough to the HD2000 series that it has to do AA on the pixel shaders, or can it do it through the ROPS?.

deepbrown

22-Oct-2007, 14:52

I agree that the heat haze isn't great, but the problem here may be the depth of field / focus stuff, which seems to be quite rough still throughout the game (especially in the garage).

Oui. It definately feels a bit like a beta...I think it is in a way.

Dot50Cal

22-Oct-2007, 16:03

http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/b3d/gt5pdemo/Gran%20Turismo%205%20Prologue%20Demo%20(Replay%20M ode).mp4

720p Video of the replay mode. They need to fix up the heat shader imo, its a bit extreme / eratic. We also found a bug near the end of the race, look for the car to go invisible behind a fence. Its probably an optimzation since you don't normally go there during a race, but still its something that should be looked into.

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/FFDShow.htm required (get the latest ver if you have playback issues) or VLC Media Player should play it fine.

liolio

22-Oct-2007, 17:37

they improved the 720p mode too, it's MSAA 4x now :shock:

I really wonder how the devs to manage 4xAA with 22.4gb available while MS thank devs would need 256GB/s worse of bandwith to achieve the same effect at the same resolution?

May sound sarcastic but I really wonder 1:10 compresion ratio?

deepbrown

22-Oct-2007, 17:46

Arwin

22-Oct-2007, 18:03

There's a few replay things that are off. When cars go infront of your car, close the camera there's a horrible blurring that makes them look like cardboard cutouts. The heat haze in F1 is amazing...as is the rain. They need to get in touch...

I agree that the heat haze isn't great, but the problem here may be the depth of field / focus stuff, which seems to be quite rough still throughout the game (especially in the garage).

Mintmaster

23-Oct-2007, 01:43

I really wonder how the devs to manage 4xAA with 22.4gb available while MS thank devs would need 256GB/s worse of bandwith to achieve the same effect at the same resolution?Nobody says the 360 needs 256GB/s to do 720p w/ 4xAA. It just lets you do more than 22.4GB/s would when fillrate limited.

Polyphony Digital is just plain smart. They know how to make a car look good without long shaders. We already have proof of that in GT4. Increase the resolution and poly count, and I'm pretty sure GT4 looks almost as good as GT5. You just need shadow maps, a slightly better environment, and some subtle lighting effects.
I've actually always wanted to ask this. Is the Xenos close enough to the HD2000 series that it has to do AA on the pixel shaders, or can it do it through the ROPS?.Xenos has to transfer the data from the EDRAM to the main RAM when resolving the AA backbuffer, and no other rendering to EDRAM can happen at that time. In this sense it's similar to R600, as other GPU architectures can do AA resolve in parallel. However, there are important differences:

A) Xenos has to transfer pixels out of EDRAM even when AA is disabled, so there's no additional perf hit with AA.
B) R600 looks like it's broken somehow, as in-shader AA resolve shouldn't cause a big hit.
C) I think the ROPs are doing the AA resolve in Xenos.

Crossbar

24-Oct-2007, 23:06

...Xenos has to transfer the data from the EDRAM to the main RAM when resolving the AA backbuffer, and no other rendering to EDRAM can happen at that time. In this sense it's similar to R600, as other GPU architectures can do AA resolve in parallel.
....
That´s something that I have been thinking of. Would it make sense to use tiling on the RSX just to distribute bandwidth use more evenly over time?

nAo

25-Oct-2007, 00:14

That´s something that I have been thinking of. Would it make sense to use tiling on the RSX just to distribute bandwidth use more evenly over time?
What do you mean by tiling? Xenos's style tiling? I don't see how that would make RSX any faster..

Crossbar

25-Oct-2007, 08:32

What do you mean by tiling? Xenos's style tiling? I don't see how that would make RSX any faster..

Yes, I was basically thinking Xenos style tiling with 2 tiles, where one tile could be rendered complete ahead of the other one, and the resolve phase could be done in parallel while the other tile was completed.

But your answer kind of indicate there are no gains from doing this, perhaps there is no real gain from doing rendering in parallel to the resolve or is there a better way?

However, I find the tiling approach kind of appealing as it may save some memory.

almighty

25-Oct-2007, 09:27

Yes, I was basically thinking Xenos style tiling with 2 tiles, where one tile could be rendered complete ahead of the other one, and the resolve phase could be done in parallel while the other tile was completed.

But your answer kind of indicate there are no gains from doing this, perhaps there is no real gain from doing rendering in parallel to the resolve or is there a better way?

However, I find the tiling approach kind of appealing as it may save some memory.

That would work...if... RSX had EDRAM :wink:

Crossbar

25-Oct-2007, 10:15

That would work...if... RSX had EDRAM :wink:

Which part are you refering to? Saving memory?
Doesn´t that depend on how you many buffers (unresolved and resolved) and how many tiles you chose to have?

Strange

25-Oct-2007, 10:25

Simple question

Why tile if you don't have a edram that is used as a framebuffer AND too small to fit one whole frame?

Actually that question doesn't make sense. How CAN you tile if you don't have a edram that is too small to fit one whole frame?
(of course you can tile if you have an edram that is larger than a whole frame, but that would be plain stupidity)

without the prescence of an eDRAM, the idea of tiling, which is a workaround solution to the eDRAM being too small, just doesn't make any sense. It creates problems and solves none.

Crossbar

25-Oct-2007, 10:38

You obviously didn´t read my posts.

Strange

25-Oct-2007, 11:28

You obviously didn´t read my posts.

Well, from my understanding tiling is a workaround to not having enough memory on the eDRAM to be used as a framebuffer.
Therefore, they would render parts of the picture seperately onto the eDRAM and then combine them to form the final framebuffer.
RSX has one framebuffer that is large enough for practically all purposes, so I don't see a point in tiling here.

Don't forget that as opposed to eDRAM, normal RAM is comparably very bandwidth limited, and adding strain here would, I guess, bring about a performace hit that you wouldn't have to deal with otherwise.

I just don't see how a workaround would be useful when there is no problem to workaround...
as I said above, introduces more problems than problems solved, if there are any problems solved....

Crossbar

25-Oct-2007, 12:37

Every technology doesn´t necesseraly have to be used in the same way forever.

nAo (and ShootMyMonkey partly) have for example mentioned the use of small tiles (64x64which should fit within the RSX cache and it happens to match the phenomena observed in R&C) on the RSX to speed up rendering of fast simple transparent pixels.

Another benefit of tiling on Xenos is that it allows more efficient use of the available RAM, the more tiles you use the more "virtual" memory you are using.
I know it introduces other issues but it also frees up more memory for other use compared to the RSX approach, that was partly reason to my question.

The other reason for my question was that if you are bandwidth limited you really want to maximise the use of the available bandwidth maybe by distributing the bandwidth usage more evenly over time.

assen

25-Oct-2007, 13:47

Crossbar

25-Oct-2007, 14:27

You might want to tile to increase parallelism between RSX and Cell, if you e.g. do postprocessing or deferred shading on the SPUs. Hand back the first tile to the SPUs while the RSX is rasterizing the next one.

Sounds like a neat idea, perhaps the SPEs could do some of the stuff on the unresolved framebuffer as nAo suggests here (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1078669&postcount=604).

Many games have problems with AA and HDR cause tone mapping is performed on the MSAAAed back buffer after it has been resolved to a regular/not multisampled back buffer.
The correct way to do it is to resolve a MSAAed tone mapped back buffer, but this approach is generally slower cause tone mapping has to be applied on 2X or 4X pixels.
Games that don't apply a tone mapping operator as a post processing filter (HL2 for instance) don't have this issue.

AlStrong

27-Oct-2007, 04:14

Dear infinity4,
http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=12901

VGA Resolution Thingy
So we have a bunch of complaints from people using hi-res 4:3 aspect ratio VGA monitors, who find that when they choose a widescreen 1280x1080 resolution, that things stretch. Or that when they choose “normal” aspect ratio, they lose the advantage of a slightly wider field of view found in widescreen TVs. Well, sadly that’s us following the 360 output settings rather than something specific to Halo 3. We can’t override that setting in the game and we can’t guess what it is the user desires. So we have to go with the majority – which is that they desire the entire screen is filled with the correct aspect ratio and isn’t black-barred or windowed. It’s not ideal, but it is one of the drawbacks of trying to play widescreen content on a 4:3 display. So in short, sorry.

Weren't there some games that already add black bars? Condemned and Fear?

(IMHO, Frankie needs to get someone with technical knowledge to talk to the community about ...technical issues. His explanations don't make any sense, like his blurb on the rendering resolution :| )

1280*1080 isn't a selectable resolution either...

kyleb

27-Oct-2007, 06:55

Yeah, Frankie is the same guy that said the 360 would render Halo 2 at 720p, And yeah, Condemned is 16:9 letterboxed for 4:3 users. I don't see why they couldn't make make letterboxed/fullscreen an option in the game's menu.

Acert93

27-Oct-2007, 09:41

My understanding is most Xbox 360 games, when being used on a 4:3 (or 5:4) PC diplay via the VGA cables, fills the screen with a 1280x720p image with a 152 pixel high bar on the top and a 152 pixel high bar on the bottom, i.e. widescreen blackbarred or whatever you want to call it. That is preferrable. From the titles we discussed on Gamersyde, the titles that don't do this almost all tend to be titles scales from a non-720p framebuffer.

While I don't doubt that some people prefer "filling" the screen, almost every VGA cables owner I have talked to prefers the blackbared 720p image. It was the aspect ration and resolution the game was designed for.

AlStrong

27-Oct-2007, 15:37

From the titles we discussed on Gamersyde, the titles that don't do this almost all tend to be titles scales from a non-720p framebuffer.

Interesting... In a way, it makes sense because developers can render into 'weird' resolutions. Halo 3 was rendered with a pixel aspect ratio of 1.8 (1152*640), MotoGP3 was a true 5:4 (1280*1024). Since the scaler is doing its work from the framebuffer, MS may have seen fit to do a general full-screen for any of the VGA resolutions for games that aren't actually 720p. A case-by-case scenario would leave the work to the developer, and they would have to have access to the scaler's functionality. That sort of thing might not be available in the XDK.

Solution (?): With all the differently scaled resolutions, it'd be difficult to predict unless they scaled to 720p first in software and then scaled to the user-selected resolution. i.e. they can't just add black bars to the non-720p (perhaps it's more general to non-16:9 resolution) rendered pixels.

It's a two-step process, otherwise they'd be displaying the rendered resolution assuming square pixels.

unrealman

29-Oct-2007, 10:46

what is the res to Smackdown vs. Raw 2008, because i am suspect that it's 720p.

ultragpu

03-Nov-2007, 16:00

has anyone tested the res for Jericho on ps3 final game yet?

Heinrich4

04-Nov-2007, 00:29

Jericho i wanna know too,but Timeshift demo of pstore looks much more interesting (a little question of topic : both games using Unreal Engine 3.0?) in my opinion.

AlphaWolf

04-Nov-2007, 00:58

Jericho i wanna know too,but Timeshift demo of pstore looks much more interesting (a little question of topic : both games using Unreal Engine 3.0?) in my opinion.

AFAIK Saber wrote their own engine for Timeshift.

and I'm pretty sure Jericho is running the aptly named Jericho Engine.

soulchild

04-Nov-2007, 10:58

Jericho i wanna know too,but Timeshift demo of pstore looks much more interesting (a little question of topic : both games using Unreal Engine 3.0?) in my opinion.

Me too. I'm still wondering why almost all third party multiplatform games look like they're rendered at near-PAL resolution and then blown-up to HD on the ps3. For instance, compare RFOM, R&C TOD, Folklore to games like Jericho, Timeshift, The Darkness, *insert-other-multiplatform-title-here*. I know that the mentioned PS3 exclusives have AA whereas all the others don't but still the resolution of the latter ones looks waaay lower. To be honest, I'm unable to enjoy those games because they look fugly. The only 3rd party game that I came across looking decent was Sega Rally Revo (which incidentally has AA, too). I'm starting to hate HDRR just because it makes all ports to the ps3 unenjoyable due to the lack of AA :sad: Most games would be better of with AA and no HDRR because very often the HDRR looks too much like "hey look, we can do HDRR, too" and doesn't contribute to the overall experience (I'm already starting to hate those typical shiny, "wet" textures ...)

To get back on topic: Is it really "only" the lack of AA that makes most ports on the ps3 look unsatisfying? Unfortunately I haven't seen the same game on a 360 for comparison yet. If Jericho is really using UE3 than I'm completely worried about UT3 :-(

djskribbles

04-Nov-2007, 11:04

huh? i was actually surprised the resolution jericho was rendered at. review sites don't seem to notice the difference either. also, timeshift looked normal to me too. the only game that looked lower res to me was the darkness.

Hazuki Ryu

04-Nov-2007, 20:53

Jericho i wanna know too,but Timeshift demo of pstore looks much more interesting (a little question of topic : both games using Unreal Engine 3.0?) in my opinion.

No they are using other engines i think

About sega rally revo anyone knows native resolution ?

Heinrich4

05-Nov-2007, 14:09

No they are using other engines i think

About sega rally revo anyone knows native resolution ?

Thanx for info and i find a link with information about Jericho,they use engine called Mercury Engine.

http://www.playerzblog.com/clive-barker-jericho.html

It seensTimeshift use engine called Saber3D Engine.

http://compactiongames.about.com/od/timeshift/a/timeshift_b.htm
http://gameinfowire.com/news.asp?nid=11244

(i like much more Timeshift in graphics department)

Hardknock

06-Nov-2007, 03:50

Could someone check the PS3 version of COD4 please. A GAF poster:

JB1981
(Today, 09:00 PM)
Reply | Quote #1303
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hrrmmm .. i have my suspicions that the ps3 version might not even be running in proper hd

but i have no way of proving it. just my eyes

Betanumerical

06-Nov-2007, 05:34

Could someone check the PS3 version of COD4 please. A GAF poster:

I don't know how to count pixels or any of that, but I can tell you one thing, if 1080P mode looks like it is using the HW upscaler (in other words doesn't look like trash), then it would be 1280x720 nstive.

This is because they'd be using the hardware up scaler and a 960x1080 resolution for scaling, 960x1080 is bigger then 1280x720. Now, if only we knew it used the hardware up scaler or not :(.

wco81

06-Nov-2007, 05:42

Is there going to be a demo?

Quaz51

06-Nov-2007, 15:11

-tkf-

06-Nov-2007, 15:16

and more surprising... Oblivion X360 is 1024x600p (1280x720p on PS3)
apparently majority of game sites screenshots are cheating

Uhh, are you sure .. well yeah i know you are, that is a surprise..

betan

06-Nov-2007, 15:22

Transformers PS3 is 960x1080p

Since this is horizontal scaling resolution, game is probably native 720p on 720p output.

and more surprising... Oblivion X360 is 1024x600p (1280x720p on PS3)

Thanks for the info. Very interesting indeed. Did you check both indoors and outdoors for 360?
I remember people claiming 1xAA outdoors with 2xAA indoors. Maybe people were confused because of upscaling.

erick

06-Nov-2007, 15:25

some new not 720p resolution

Def Jam: icon PS3 is 1152x648p
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance PS3 is 1920x1080p
Transformers PS3 is 960x1080p
pirates of caribbean PS3 is 960x720p

and more surprising... Oblivion X360 is 1024x600p (1280x720p on PS3)
apparently majority of game sites screenshots are cheating

I'm sorry, but how would you expect the game sites to get the non-upscaled image, if it is done in the console and not the TV itself?

I mean the guys can only screenshot what is displayed on a screen, right?

Quaz51

06-Nov-2007, 15:38

Since this is horizontal scaling resolution, game is probably native 720p on 720p output.

yes of course

Thanks for the info. Very interesting indeed. Did you check both indoors and outdoors for 360?
I remember people claiming 1xAA outdoors with 2xAA indoors. Maybe people were confused because of upscaling.

it's 2xAA (logic, 1024x600 framebuffer is a choice for use 2xAA without tiling like PGR3 and other...), they are no distinction outdoors/indoors, maybe dynamic AA

Quaz51

06-Nov-2007, 15:44

I'm sorry, but how would you expect the game sites to get the non-upscaled image, if it is done in the console and not the TV itself?

I mean the guys can only screenshot what is displayed on a screen, right?

like Halo3, it's fake screenshot provide per game editor, or maybe an old build in 720p no AA (without tiling) became 600p 2xAA (always without tiling) for retail, it's possible

Quaz51

06-Nov-2007, 16:29

and ICO is 512x224p... less than Tekken1 with 512x240p :)

ultragpu

06-Nov-2007, 16:37

and ICO is 512x224p... less than Tekken1 with 512x240p :)
is that really low for a ps2 game? if you could, can u please do a retail version of Jericho on ps3? is the res still the same as the demo? the game looked pretty sharp to me and doesnt seemed to be something like 560p. thanks.

Hazuki Ryu

06-Nov-2007, 16:40

some new not 720p resolution

Def Jam: icon PS3 is 1152x648p
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance PS3 is 1920x1080p
Transformers PS3 is 960x1080p
pirates of caribbean PS3 is 960x720p

and more surprising... Oblivion X360 is 1024x600p (1280x720p on PS3)
apparently majority of game sites screenshots are cheating

hehe i knew it just by looking oblivion was on that resolution on the xbox someone answered me before saying it was 1280x720 now its confirmed

Confirmed that its not 720p dont missunderstand (sorry for double posting is there a way to edit posts?)

Mod Note: Merged your posts. You'll be able to edit once you achieve "Member" status.
-AlStrong

dskneo

07-Nov-2007, 11:26

cool stuff.

any news on cod4 pixel resolution ?

Quaz51

07-Nov-2007, 12:39

I'm sorry, but how would you expect the game sites to get the non-upscaled image, if it is done in the console and not the TV itself?

I mean the guys can only screenshot what is displayed on a screen, right?

sorry, I misunderstood your question previously...
yes the sites capture the image displayed on screen and it's upscaled for sub-720p game but i can see the native resolution in the upscaled screenshot and the editor's screenshots of oblivion X360 are all in native 720p without AA and not 600p AA 2x like the retail version (and like Halo3 case)
on real screenshot captured on the retail version i see native 600p resolution

Quaz51

07-Nov-2007, 14:05

VF5 PS3 is 1024x1024 native resolution for the 720p ouput (same than X360 version but without AA) but for 1080p output is 1024x768! (probably because the 1080p upscale is more penalizing) it's bad. force the 720p output for VF5 PS3

i also see that Pirates of caribbean PS3 in 1080p ouptut use 780x1080 buffer (vs 960x720 in 720p), it's the more anamorphic resolution that have ever seen ( (~2.5 pixel ratio) , the result is strange...

Hazuki Ryu

07-Nov-2007, 16:51

Sega rally revo resolution anyone?? x360 version theres a demo on live :)

Hazuki Ryu

07-Nov-2007, 19:18

Just got Cod4 for the 360 i wonder if its in 720p it looks like 640p (or something like that)

FirewalkR

07-Nov-2007, 20:30

Just got Cod4 for the 360 i wonder if its in 720p it looks like 640p (or something like that)

You guys surely realize that the future of the whole Internet is in Quaz' hands, right?

If by chance either the PS3 or 360 version is being rendered in lower-res, online society as we know it is going to collapse. :lol:

Neb

07-Nov-2007, 20:30

It's 2xAA (logic, 1024x600 framebuffer is a choice for use 2xAA without tiling like PGR3 and other...), they are no distinction outdoors/indoors, maybe dynamic AA

You shure about that becouse that is some difference from 1280*720p.

Quaz51

07-Nov-2007, 22:15

to illustrate my post

http://upsilandre.free.fr/images/harrytrick.jpg

exemple to better illustrate my theory for Harry Potter PS3 that merge two 720p MSAA buffer in one 2560x720 framebuffer and rescal for 1080p output
we see the dotted artifact on the horizontal edge exactly like on my graph simulation

http://upsilandre.free.fr/images/Potterartefact.jpg

Hazuki Ryu

08-Nov-2007, 01:37

You guys surely realize that the future of the whole Internet is in Quaz' hands, right?

If by chance either the PS3 or 360 version is being rendered in lower-res, online society as we know it is going to collapse. :lol:

It is indeed :P , i really cant tell for sure obviously but i would bet some good 50 bucks on less than 720p looks like the game is running at 60fps with no noticeble slowdowns so far

betan

08-Nov-2007, 18:29

Eurogamer has another "vs article" for a few more PS3/360 games:
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=87214&page=1

While all of those are covered here, it includes high resolution captures for those interested.

AlStrong

08-Nov-2007, 18:40

Their comparisons are pretty neat... I like that they manage to get the same view angles for both consoles. It really seems like the PS3 is getting the shaft on AA and resolution scaling. :|

betan

08-Nov-2007, 19:03

Their comparisons are pretty neat... I like that they manage to get the same view angles for both consoles. It really seems like the PS3 is getting the shaft on AA and resolution scaling. :|

Honestly, AA situation is much better than I expected given that 360 has edram. Dirt, Sega Rally are same, VF5 improvement is minimal for 7 months of development, Harry Potter is even better on PS3.

On a side note, both FIFA and PES gfx are miserable for top-down camera. I expect someone to come up with a photo-realistic looking downloadable soccer game that can put all to shame. :cool:

DJ12

08-Nov-2007, 23:47

PS3 VF his veins stick out (as they should) on the 360 they go inwards (or maybe flat textures my untechnical eye cannot tell).

What the heck is going on there?

Quaz51

08-Nov-2007, 23:56

i often see filtering problem on X360 game
anistotropic in VF5 PS3 and not for X360 version, for oblivion too, anisotropic on PS3 version (and with 50% more pixel) not for X360, PES demo with bad bilinear filtering on X360 , trilinear for PS3 version, very good aniso on GT5 prologue demo, very bad bilinear filtering on Forza2 demo ect...
strange, it's just because 24 TMU vs 16 TMU or other thing?

Betanumerical

09-Nov-2007, 00:14

Dot50Cal

09-Nov-2007, 01:38

Rangers

09-Nov-2007, 01:54

I'm pretty sure you hit the nail on the head, it does after all have 50% more TMU's then the Xenos.

It does, but dont forget that if they are used, they take away some shading power, as they do double duty as shading ALU's/TMU's in G71. Whereas Xenos TMU's are stand-alone.

Point taken though, might be the reason.

AlStrong

09-Nov-2007, 03:34

Anyone do uncharted yet? Heres a shot that should help ;)

Its the only thing I could find that was suited for line counting, sorry guys.

http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/b3d/071108-1951260500-1280x720.png

Mind getting a screenshot with a higher contrast of colours between polygon edges? It's a wee bit difficult to see the edge aliasing :p, but there does seem to be 2xMSAA.

Dot50Cal

09-Nov-2007, 05:01

Thats all I can find really, everything else is crooked. Hardly any straight edges here :(

Quaz51

09-Nov-2007, 05:28

Dot50Cal

09-Nov-2007, 06:12

Excellent. Very impressive Naughty Dog!

I have a video on Stage 6, 720p you can stream it:

http://stage6.divx.com/user/Dot50Cal/video/1831569/Uncharted-Drake's-Fortune-Demo-Walkthrough-720p

grandmaster

09-Nov-2007, 08:39

Excellent. Very impressive Naughty Dog!

I have a video on Stage 6, 720p you can stream it:

http://stage6.divx.com/user/Dot50Cal/video/1831569/Uncharted-Drake's-Fortune-Demo-Walkthrough-720p

Crikey, some pretty horrible v-lock screen tear there. Is it the DivX player, the capture or the game itself?

I'm assuming that it's the game as your Stardust capture looks sound.

By the way, the Stage6 video player is rather spendid, isn't it? Is there any other streaming player offering HD support like that?

Quaz51

09-Nov-2007, 14:25

Ready for the Big Bang? (COD4 PS3/X360)
Pixel analyze start... counting mode ON.... checking.... checking.... result coming shortly...

Quaz51

09-Nov-2007, 15:19

DJ12

09-Nov-2007, 15:24

Well they still did a better job than most.

Would be nice if they did actually do what they promised in future (ie having a PS3 and 360 team)

I know they said that this time, but with your evidence it's a little hard to believe that they started from scratch on both machines.

Quaz51

09-Nov-2007, 15:24

maybe the filtering and the framerate is better on PS3 version, to be confirmed...

betan

09-Nov-2007, 15:24

COD4 X360 = 1024x600p 2xAA again...
COD4 PS3 = 1024x600p 2xAA too...

So much for "not a 360 port" statements. :)

I would ask for texture filtering but CoD4 textures don't look very detailed in the videos.

Dave Glue

09-Nov-2007, 15:26

maybe the filtering and the framerate is better on PS3 version, to be confirmed...
Perhaps filtering, but the 360 version runs at 60fps from every review I've read.

Of course, they said the same thing about COD2....

quite

09-Nov-2007, 15:48

Quaz51, is there any way i can contact you ? like Google IM, MSN or Yahoo? please? :smile:

-=P3tRaN=-

09-Nov-2007, 15:50

hey, quite, quaz is like the new npd so you better not stalk him or else..
:P

assen

09-Nov-2007, 16:12

yes it's 60fps locked framerate for the two version of course, i rather thought to slowdown frequency...

How do you measure framerate? I'm pretty sure none of the versions is locked at 60 fps. (And no, NeoGAF posts from August don't count as proof.)

Quaz51

09-Nov-2007, 16:44

I'm almost finished with the 1st ACT. The framerate so far seems smooth, but there are a few slowdowns, so it definitely isn't "locked" at 60 fps. That said, so far the framerate seems much smoother than CoD2.

I'm playing the 360 version.

when i say "locked" i don't say "no slowdown" just 1VBL synchro (when it's possible of course...)

Statix

09-Nov-2007, 16:50

COD4 X360 = 1024x600p 2xAA again...
COD4 PS3 = 1024x600p 2xAA too...

exactly the same
it's typically a X360 resolution (1024x600 is an anamorphic resolution use strictly on X360 for full the EDRAM) use on a PS3 game, it's strange
this point than COD4 is a "X360 centric" game (the very bad compression of video point this too, or the difficulty to port the texture panel in the two PS3 memory pool)
PS3 centric game = Uncharted <3

In reality though, Uncharted isn't really, really PS3-centric. 1280x720 is not the optimal resolution for a PS3 game, at least not for 1080i/p. 960x1080 is the optimal PS3-centric resolution, because it makes use of the horizontal-only hardware upscaler.

Did you test Uncharted in 720p, or 1080i/p output?

Quaz51

09-Nov-2007, 16:52

Quaz51, is there any way i can contact you ? like Google IM, MSN or Yahoo? please? :smile:

PM...

Statix

09-Nov-2007, 17:08

I'm really kind of disheartened by all these instances of big differences in textures between 360 and PS3 multiplatform games. First, it was The Darkness, now it's COD4. 360 really pulls ahead in terms of texture resolution. I'm surprised, because isn't the PS3 supposed to have about the same amount of texture memory as the 360 (sans the ~50 megs needed for the OS)?

Not to derail this thread with texture resolution talk, of course...

Shifty Geezer

09-Nov-2007, 17:17

*Moved COD4 texture talk to COD4 thread in gaming forum*

pipo

09-Nov-2007, 19:02

I'm surprised, because isn't the PS3 supposed to have about the same amount of texture memory as the 360 (sans the ~50 megs needed for the OS)?

Well, they both have 512MB but the 360's unified VS 256/256 split for the PS3. I think you'll see that means 256MB - OS - screenbuffers most of the time for PS3.

Quaz51

09-Nov-2007, 19:08

COD2 > 720p
COD3 > 630p
COD4 > 600P
COD5 > ?

Neb

09-Nov-2007, 19:09

COD2 > 720p
COD3 > 630p
COD4 > 600P
COD5 > ?

Less than 600p or higher than 600p but at 30fps?

EDIT: How about COD5 being PC exclusive with the best of both worlds, graphics and perfomance @ 1200p 60fps? :razz:

AlphaWolf

09-Nov-2007, 19:11

cod6 for the wii confirmed

j/k

Quaz51

09-Nov-2007, 19:23

Big Bang > stars formation era > precambrian era > SD era > HD era > SD era > reprecambrian era > stars extinction era > Big Crunch

quite

09-Nov-2007, 19:38

PM...
unfortunately, this is what i get when i click on your profile :oops:
Quaz51 has no contact information.
probably junior members can't contact any other member on the board? moderators are you listening? :oops:

Statix

09-Nov-2007, 20:23

Well, they both have 512MB but the 360's unified VS 256/256 split for the PS3. I think you'll see that means 256MB - OS - screenbuffers most of the time for PS3.

But, despite the split RAM, the PS3 is supposed to be able to store and access textures from both pools, right?

zed

09-Nov-2007, 20:24

Quaz51 you should put together a page with the games listed with there resolutions + AA quality + possibly framerates (though thats more subjective).

lets keep the developers/marketers honest

could even be a way of making some cash to cover the expense of purchasing all those games

Quaz51

09-Nov-2007, 20:31

unfortunately, this is what i get when i click on your profile :oops:

probably junior members can't contact any other member on the board? moderators are you listening? :oops:

my minor email adress: upsilandre at hotmail dot com

Mod: slight adjustment, just in case.
-AlStrong

Betanumerical

09-Nov-2007, 20:49

Quaz51 could you find out what resolution COD4 is really rendering at in 1080 mode?, cause if its 960x1080 and scaled then :mad: to IW.

Quaz51

09-Nov-2007, 21:01

Quaz51 could you find out what resolution COD4 is really rendering at in 1080 mode?, cause if its 960x1080 and scaled then :mad: to IW.

I quickly checked and it's probably 1024x600 too of course

Hazuki Ryu

09-Nov-2007, 21:03

Perhaps filtering, but the 360 version runs at 60fps from every review I've read.

Of course, they said the same thing about COD2....

Cod 4 runs much better in terms of frame rate than cod 2 i have full version of the game i seems to be at 60fps all the time (or something very close to that)

Dr Evil

09-Nov-2007, 21:28

Quaz51 could you find out what resolution COD4 is really rendering at in 1080 mode?, cause if its 960x1080 and scaled then :mad: to IW.

Did you honestly thought that it was rendered at 1920x1080, even after the 720p mode was said to be 1024x600?!...

If only it were 960x1080 :lol:

Laa-Yosh

09-Nov-2007, 21:43

Considering that a very large percentage of HDTVs, both LCDs and Plasmas, have a resolution of 1366*768, most games will get upscaled anyway and there's no 1:1 pixel mapping. So if you get scaling artefacts anyway, you could as well render at a lower resolution and add AA to smooth out the unscaled image to help image quality a bit. It is true in offline rendering as well, most people won't notice the difference with high quality CGI scaled from 720p to 1080 either.

And we all knew it long ago that the fill rate increase on its own would be consumed by nextgen graphical features, so increasing the resolution to 4x at the same time is an extra burden. It also puts Sony's E3 2005 claims of 1080p in perspective.

Betanumerical

09-Nov-2007, 21:45

Did you honestly thought that it was rendered at 1920x1080, even after the 720p mode was said to be 1024x600?!...

If only it were 960x1080 :lol:

No, but I was thinking they brought everything over from the 360 version for the 720(600) reso, but might have had to redo the resolution for the 1080(960x1080) in other words, rorting all the 720P PS3 owners, but it was unlikely.

Dot50Cal

10-Nov-2007, 01:01

Crikey, some pretty horrible v-lock screen tear there. Is it the DivX player, the capture or the game itself?

I'm assuming that it's the game as your Stardust capture looks sound.

By the way, the Stage6 video player is rather spendid, isn't it? Is there any other streaming player offering HD support like that?

The game itself.

It is, though it doesnt deliver the quality I like. Thats probably unrealistic, given that it streams well.

None that I know of.

joker454

10-Nov-2007, 02:16

COD4 X360 = 1024x600p 2xAA again...
COD4 PS3 = 1024x600p 2xAA too...

Yet more proof at how irrelevant resolution is this generation when it comes to determining final image quality. From what I see this game has received accolades left right and center regarding image quality. I wonder if people will now backtrack on their statements given that its "only" 1024x600 :)

nAo

10-Nov-2007, 02:19

At least it runs at 60 fps with AA,

Hazuki Ryu

10-Nov-2007, 02:32

Yet more proof at how irrelevant resolution is this generation when it comes to determining final image quality. From what I see this game has received accolades left right and center regarding image quality. I wonder if people will now backtrack on their statements given that its "only" 1024x600 :)

The game looks great but as i posted before here i always said it was in a lower resolution than 720p, wich still sucks at least has a good excuse aka 60 fps

kyleb

10-Nov-2007, 05:45

At least it runs at 60 fps with AA, unlike other games out there that were meant to push the hw to the limits.
And the game is using something at least a little better than simple bilinear filtering as well. :razz:

22psi

10-Nov-2007, 08:07

Quaz51 could you find out what resolution COD4 is really rendering at in 1080 mode?, cause if its 960x1080 and scaled then :mad: to IW.

Would it be scaling for the PS3 version or stretching? I thought PS3 can't really scale? I am lost about this. :mad:

betan

10-Nov-2007, 08:14

Would it be scaling for the PS3 version or stretching? I thought PS3 can't really scale? I am lost about this. :mad:

What is the difference between horizontal scaling and horizontal stretching?
PS3 most likely scales through software (as does Xenos apparently).

22psi

10-Nov-2007, 08:16

What is the difference between horizontal scaling and horizontal stretching?
PS3 most likely scales through software (as does Xenos apparently).

I thought 360 had "ana" and "hana" a dedicated h/w scaler chip? I read an MS interview about it I think... if not, I am even more confused.

betan

10-Nov-2007, 08:26

I thought 360 had "ana" and "hana" a dedicated h/w scaler chip? I read an MS interview about it I think... if not, I am even more confused.

Apparently scaling is done by Xenos, Ana and Hana are transcoders.
Ars article is inaccurate.

I don't think it matters at all.

grandmaster

10-Nov-2007, 09:46

Amir Majidimehr, one of the big corporate cheeses, of Microsoft has confirmed that it's the ATI GPU that does the Xbox 360 scaling, and while he won't confirm the scaling method, it's likely to be six-tap Lanczos, which for on-the-fly scaling on a budget would be the best option in terms of retaining detail.

PS3's hardware scaler - from what I've seen of it - is indeed horizontal only but crucially the scaling method is bilinear only, which is far from optimal.

Don't get me wrong, I love my PS3. I love the fact that there's a team of people at Sony who cater for my love of tech and gadgetry with great stuff like Remote Play and Location Free. They'll never make any money from it, but they do it any way, and for pursuing that kind of ethos, I love them. But for a console touting 1080p, it's ironic that by and large, Xbox 360 owners get better performance on a 1080p set - even if there's only two 1080p-native games vs 30+ on PS3...

Heinrich4

10-Nov-2007, 13:32

COD4 X360 = 1024x600p 2xAA again...
COD4 PS3 = 1024x600p 2xAA too...

exactly the same
it's typically a X360 resolution (1024x600 is an anamorphic resolution use strictly on X360 for full the EDRAM) use on a PS3 game, it's strange
this point than COD4 is a "X360 centric" game (the very bad compression of video point this too, or the difficulty to port the texture panel in the two PS3 memory pool)
PS3 centric game = Uncharted <3

Uncharted 720P + 2*fsaa and COD4 only 2/3 HD resolution!

Thanx Quaz51 for infos and thats one of best topics videogames in general!:grin:

(but please another one...Timeshift ps3 and x360 how resolution?)

pipo

10-Nov-2007, 14:16

But, despite the split RAM, the PS3 is supposed to be able to store and access textures from both pools, right?

Sure. But that could be considered a workaround since it will cost you one way or another (e.g. performance).

In the scenario where your level almost fits in the VRAM you might be better off by using slightly smaller textures for example.

It all depends where you started from IMO.

warb

10-Nov-2007, 14:25

- even if there's only two 1080p-native games vs 30+ on PS3...
If by 1080p-native you mean 1920x1080, I don't think there are 30+ on PS3.

Quaz51

10-Nov-2007, 14:47

(but please another one...Timeshift ps3 and x360 how resolution?)

720p for both but without AA on PS3

Hazuki Ryu

10-Nov-2007, 16:49

If by 1080p-native you mean 1920x1080, I don't think there are 30+ on PS3.

I dont think he means that, more likly 960 x 1080 wick in my opinion is worse than 1280 x 720p if you look close enough it has less horizontal pixels than even 1024 x 600p, i dont think thats a good aproach specialy on widescreen where you need more horizontal than vertical resolution.

grandmaster

10-Nov-2007, 19:32

A large amount of the PSN titles are undemanding and therefore run at native 1080p. Even Q*Bert :D

30+ is maybe an exaggeration though, there's probably closer to 20+.

I would also say that some 'cheating' 1080p games such as GT5 Prologue and indeed GT HD are clearly a cut above the same game running in 720p, and were it not for the edge-examining Quaz51 I doubt many people would be able to tell...

Gitaroo

10-Nov-2007, 21:59

I notice that UE3 games on PS3 dont have AA or most likely never will. But how come when I play the timeshift demo, I never really notice it and it look pretty much the same as the 360 version. Is there something to do with the engine which doesnt require much AA?

kyleb

10-Nov-2007, 22:25

Timeshift doesn't ues UE3, but higher pologyon counts don't show alaising as much as long and straight pologon edges.

deepbrown

10-Nov-2007, 22:51

Uncharted first game with FSAA and HDR? And perhaps the best lighting we've seen (certainly the best shadows)...miracle perhaps?

Murakami

10-Nov-2007, 22:58

Uncharted first game with FSAA and HDR?
Heavenly Sword is the first, i think.

Betanumerical

10-Nov-2007, 22:59

Uncharted first game with FSAA and HDR? And perhaps the best lighting we've seen (certainly the best shadows)...miracle perhaps?

Didn't HS have 4xAA and NAO32 HDR?.

But yes I'm amazed at uncharted's shadowing, anyone know what technique they use?.

betan

10-Nov-2007, 23:09

Uncharted first game with FSAA and HDR? And perhaps the best lighting we've seen (certainly the best shadows)...miracle perhaps?

I believe MSAA is still considered FSAA, so no.

Shifty Geezer

11-Nov-2007, 00:20

Timeshift doesn't ues UE3, but higher pologyon counts don't show alaising as much as long and straight pologon edges.Number of polygons doesn't affect aliasing. I guess what you really mean is more polygons means smoother 'curves' with shorter off-horizontal and off-vertical lines meaning less noticeable jaggies.

Shifty Geezer

11-Nov-2007, 00:21

I believe MSAA is still considered FSAA, so no.MSAA is the only FSAA we're talking about at these resolutions! They're not downsampling a 2560x1440 screen for super-sampling!

betan

11-Nov-2007, 00:48

MSAA is the only FSAA we're talking about at these resolutions! They're not downsampling a 2560x1440 screen for super-sampling!

That's what you are talking about.
Based on the question I inferred
a) deepbrown didn't know/remember HS and GT5P or
b) he didn't count MSAA as FSAA

b seemed more likely.
I'm even willing to bet that's the case;).

deepbrown

11-Nov-2007, 02:52

That's what you are talking about.
Based on the question I inferred
a) deepbrown didn't know/remember HS and GT5P or
b) he didn't count MSAA as FSAA

b seemed more likely.
I'm even willing to bet that's the case;).

:wink: It was just all this talk about FSAA being "hardware anti-aliasing" and some people saying MSAA isn't "real anti-aliasing"...and HS wasn't doing real anti-aliasing... ETC that confussled me.

kyleb

11-Nov-2007, 03:32

Number of polygons doesn't affect aliasing. I guess what you really mean is more polygons means smoother 'curves' with shorter off-horizontal and off-vertical lines meaning less noticeable jaggies.
Yeah, that is what I mean.

Cyan

12-Nov-2007, 22:19

At least it runs at 60 fps with AA ...
As some developer wrote here many time ago, you should play with the strengths and weaknesses the hardware gods of every console give you, favouring the strengths and avoiding the weakness as much as possible.

Well, there are 1st party games (Halo 3?) which don't do that and in fact there is nothing "special" about them in that regard.

Tiling is nonexistant, HDR "the Bungie way" isn't that great.

In fact there is a very similar HDR effect in that masterpiece called Half Life 2 OB and it works fine (without using the eDRAM for HDR, sigh) and it doesn't have anything to envy from the fancy HDR "TBW" Bungie did prefer at the cost of resolution and unique features a 1st party game could try.

X360 has Rare at least, and Viva Pinata is a good example of this. A unique game with great AA, which uses tessellation and is severely underrated, pretty much like Perfect Dark Zero.

p.s. Just to clarify things a bit, Viva Pinata is not my favourite game of the console, I'm talking about the technology.

Hazuki Ryu

12-Nov-2007, 22:30

As some developer wrote here many time ago, you should play with the strengths and weaknesses the hardware gods of every console give you, favouring the strengths and avoiding the weakness as much as possible.

Well, there are 1st party games (Halo 3?) which don't do that and in fact there is nothing "special" about them in that regard.

Tiling is nonexistant, HDR "the Bungie way" isn't that great.

In fact there is a very similar HDR effect in that masterpiece called Half Life 2 OB and it works fine (without using the eDRAM for HDR, sigh) and it doesn't have anything to envy from the fancy HDR "TBW" Bungie did prefer at the cost of resolution and unique features a 1st party game could try.

Though their decision might not have been the best, i think they could have done better with more time, though they annouced they had more time than they had for developing halo 2 and bigger budget i dont think its enough for an epic like that to come out perfect.

Also its kind of unfair to compare a game like hl2 to halo 3 if hl2 was done right it could possible run at 60 fps on the 360 halo 3 has got to be alot more demanding on graphics than hl2.

Laa-Yosh

12-Nov-2007, 23:06

Stop talking about HDR "effect" please. Halo3 has amazing lighting that's possible because of HDR, all the bloom and exposition adjustments are secondary stuff.

Gitaroo

13-Nov-2007, 07:18

a few games uses HDR and AA on the PS3, conan for one, atleast in the cut scene. Lair, Warhawk, Uncharted, Full Auto 2, Heavenly Sword. Didn't someone here said GT5 demo has 2X MSAA also, the wires doesn't look jaggy like GTHD. Most Sony publish or first party games have them. Maybe they get all the new tools first to test out before they pass them off to third party developers. Either way Sony need to tech the third party how to do it so all the multiplatform games won't look so jaggies.

Strange

13-Nov-2007, 07:23

multiplatform I would say still comes down in the initial design of the game.

If the multiplatform was designed from the beginning to fully use both consoles, we'd have a COD4 like game which looks very very similar in both situations, each with pros and cons.

If not, then we usually get crappy ports, and the reason usually boils down to development cost, development time, etc.