Neverending Upscaling/Resolutions/AA etc Thread #2 *Rules: post: #616 * [Archive] - Page 5

ErnstH

11-May-2008, 09:46

GRID demo PS3/360:
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/yoda-dip-jp/searchdiary?word=%2a%5bGame%20Compare%5d

PS3
http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/Grid/Grid_01_PS3.png
http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/Grid/Grid_03_PS3.png

360
http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/Grid/Grid_01_360.png
http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/Grid/Grid_03_360.png
These screens show some pretty large differences between the two versions. To me, the 360 looks to have more detail in it. On the first screen, look at the crowd or the fence in the background, and especially the vinyls on the cars. On the second screen, it also looks like there are some missing lines from the poles on the PS3 version. Finally, the 360 version looks to have more AA, this is very noticable on the large credit font.

But again, with regard to color balance, I like the PS3 version more.

Gitaroo

11-May-2008, 09:58

I think the crowd is randomly generated, different sets every time. And Quaz did say the 360 version use 4XAA, just wondering if the PS3 version is using QAA because there seems to be an add softness for the PS3 version.

Lucid_Dreamer

11-May-2008, 10:58

seems like the ps3 version has some kind of softness on it, could it be QAA? I also notice that some shadows are missing or doenst stand out as much as in the 360 version

see the shadow under the text
http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/Grid/Grid_01_PS3.png
http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/Grid/Grid_01_360.png

the shadows of the car and the white BMW spoiler
http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/Grid/Grid_02_360.png
http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/Grid/Grid_02_PS3.png

the shadows of the car and the white BMW spoiler
The images labeled PS3 seem more like characteristics of 360 video output (darker lines and darker colors). I'm basing this on the follow thread:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46549

From those test patterns, it seems these images are titled incorrectly (like the Gametrailers.com mistake).

Does anyone else think the test pattern output for the 360 closely resembles the darker colors in the GRID screenshots labeled PS3 above?

Quaz51

11-May-2008, 11:29

i dont' DL the X360 demo (silver) but for the PS3 demo there is a motionblur/persistence effect that blur the image, it seem not present on X360 version

Quaz51

11-May-2008, 11:34

Jesus2006

11-May-2008, 12:41

shadow seem more complexe on the PS3 (look 3D number), seem X360 shadow + another type of realtime shadowing in suplement
but i prefer the X360 version for this very good IQ

Yeah, PS3 version seems to have more shadowing going on over teh whole image (just look below the "20" or everywhere else where something is supposed to cast a shadow it's missing on 360).

However i prefer the sharper look of those two images which is 360. Although somehow it looks way blurrier than on my screen in reality, could that be some kind of capturing blurriness? (i suppose 360 are direct framebuffer grabs whereas PS3 is video cap?)

RDK

11-May-2008, 12:42

shadow seem more complexe on the PS3 (look 3D number), seem X360 shadow + another type of realtime shadowing in suplement
but i prefer the X360 version for this very good IQ

yes

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x204/RDK333/gri_d.gif

Quaz51

11-May-2008, 14:02

the shadowing seem more complexe and realist on the PS3 version

ihamoitc2005

11-May-2008, 14:07

shadow seem more complexe on the PS3 (look 3D number), seem X360 shadow + another type of realtime shadowing in suplement
but i prefer the X360 version for this very good IQ

Hello my famous friend (everyone on the internet knows who is the quaz!). What i find interesting with image comparisons is:

1) Xbox360 dynamic range looks shifted so if you think of audio equalizer it has extra bass and treble and low mid.

2) Xbox360 version has better textures for transparency like fence.

3) PS3 has better shadows. Is this because of Xbox360 tiling cos (if it is 720P)?

4) PS3 version has upscaled look (looks like lower res with AA then upscaled)

5) Xbox360 version has unusual lighting. In image with many cars, you can see parts that should be shadow have bright lighting. This maybe because of dynamic range shift to accidentally make bright what must be dark?

Many Xbox360 games have this extra treble/bass and less mid balance. I wonder what component (edram? scaler chip?) makes this happen.

6) PS3 version does not have HDR look but maybe this is because of output setting, I dont know

Am I seeing correct or wrong?

DJ12

11-May-2008, 14:08

That PS3 screenshot isn't representative of what I see on my TV, so I think it's fairly safe to assume they aren't using full range or superwhite.

There is very little difference (other than the lighting/shadows which are considerably better on PS3 - just like Dirt) to my eye between the 360 picture and what I see on my TV playing the PS3 version.

There does seem to be moments when everything is terribly blurred when the camera moves down as well as toward the car but when it settles again it's pretty clear like the 360 shot.

Shifty Geezer

11-May-2008, 14:34

There does seem to be moments when everything is terribly blurred when the camera moves down as well as toward the car but when it settles again it's pretty clear like the 360 shot.That'll be motion blur, and that could be something to consider. Even a still camera may be introducing a low-level of motion blur depending on the system they employ. Do the games in motion have the same effects in motion? That said, the PS3 does look upscaled. It also has dithered shadows whereas XB360 has blurred shadows. In fact that's complicating things. In the text objects where PS3 has extra shadowing, it's dithered, and perfectly so - not upscaled dithering. Again if you look at http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/Grid/Grid_05_PS3.png and the spoiler shadow on the car, PS3's is dithered whereas XB360's is being blurred. So these PS3 shadows are being applied after an upscaled/blurred main rendering.

DJ12

11-May-2008, 14:39

Quaz has already said both versions are 720p native.

PS3 (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1159031&postcount=928)

360 (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1158834&postcount=904)

Shifty Geezer

11-May-2008, 14:41

Are, well then. The blur is a post effect, being applied separate from the dithered shadows. Perhaps a subtle bloom, or a motion-blur difference.

DJ12

11-May-2008, 15:09

http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/Grid/Grid_05_360.png

http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/Grid/Grid_05_ps3.png

This is going off topic, so feel free to move if necessary.

The smoke is actually causing the blurring of the sign going over the track in the PS3 version, when all the other cars have gone it's crystal clear.

I have taken some pictures on my phone (so they aren't the best quality especially the last one as I was using the controller as well as taking a picture) showing the effect.

The effects were certainly better on the PS3 version of Dirt, it would be interesting to hear if Codemasters have deliberately only applied 2xAA on the PS3 version so everything else can be put up a notch.

There is bound to be something in the engine that simply does not run as well on the 360 considering the history of the engine.

(I have resized the images so ignore anything that might be improved with a 3~4x reduction in image size)

zarbaj

11-May-2008, 16:02

First post has been updated with the links in the stickied thread. :)

awesome :smile:

Quaz, how about Banjo 3 res :lol:

http://i31.tinypic.com/67saxi.jpg
http://i30.tinypic.com/2nao1gz.jpg

Rockster

11-May-2008, 16:31

awesome :smile:

Quaz, how about Banjo 3 res :lol:

http://i31.tinypic.com/67saxi.jpg
http://i30.tinypic.com/2nao1gz.jpg

I'll give it a shot. 720p 4xAA.

JaylumX

11-May-2008, 17:03

shadow seem more complexe on the PS3 (look 3D number), seem X360 shadow + another type of realtime shadowing in suplement
but i prefer the X360 version for this very good IQ

Comparing the 360 and PC versions, the shadowing in the '20' are similar. So i wonder does the shadowing method have any bearing on performance considering that the PC is more powerful?

360
http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/Grid/Grid_01_360.png

PC
http://img143.imageshack.us/my.php?image=grid720bm6.jpg

PS3
http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/Grid/Grid_01_PS3.png

Edit: Added PS3 version for comparisons

Edit Redux: PC version now captured at 720

zarbaj

11-May-2008, 17:09

I'll give it a moneyshot. 720p 4xAA.

:oops::oops::oops:

Statix

11-May-2008, 17:38

I haven't seen the XB360 version, so I don't know if it has all the fancy motion-blur and depth-of-field-blur effects the PS3 version I played has. The motion-blur is probably the biggest reason why GRID and DIRT looked so extraordinarily amazing and cinematic. It's a very slick effect. Anyone who's played these games 360 care to comment about the presence or absence of motion blur on the 360 versions?

JaylumX

11-May-2008, 17:53

There is motion blur but not sure about DOF.

joker454

11-May-2008, 19:34

http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/Grid/Grid_05_360.png

http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/Grid/Grid_05_ps3.png

The smoke is actually causing the blurring of the sign going over the track in the PS3 version, when all the other cars have gone it's crystal clear.

Your pics look eerily reminiscent of the GTA4 comparison pics, where PS3 has that blur and yellow/orange tint again. Could be a coincidence, but still I wonder if both games employ a similar upscale technique that is causing that on the PS3 build. Transparency effects (like smoke) will usually be blurrier on the PS3 version because you have to render them into smaller buffer (like 1/4 size or so) to help sustain performance.

Statix

11-May-2008, 20:00

one

11-May-2008, 20:37

Does it seem like the PS3 version might be using an ambient occlusion post-process for shadows (a la GeOW2, Crysis) that's not in the 360 version? Seems like the shadows have a little more depth and gradation in the PS3 version, which might indicate something like that.

Actually, I think I'm just looking too hard for that effect, because we never see it anywhere.You mean this one? It's from GDC08. Their previous game (DIRT) did use the previous version of PhyreEngine (PSSG) for PS3 so it's likely that they use it now. The overall blurriness of the PS3 version may be the result of DOF post effect by SPU too.

http://watch.impress.co.jp/game%2Fdocs/20080228/3de.htm

http://watch.impress.co.jp/game%2Fdocs/20080228/3de083.jpg

Cyan

11-May-2008, 20:38

I'm truely impressed with the level of knowledge from forumers, the tools grandmaster is using -awesome, btw- and Quaz's methods. Thanks for the contributions of these great forums.

Anyways people can take a break from the fast pace of the last days because the next games which are coming out soon are exclusive. I'm talking about MGS4 and Ninja Gaiden 2 :mrgreen:. Pure awesomeness.

Shifty Geezer

11-May-2008, 20:48

Your pics look eerily reminiscent of the GTA4 comparison pics, where PS3 has that blur and yellow/orange tint again. Could be a coincidence, but still I wonder if both games employ a similar upscale technique.According to Quaz51 PS3 isn't being upscaled! And the pixel perfect dithering in the additional shadows proves that. If Quaz is to be believed on the 2xMSAA as well, the blur has to be a post effect, applied before an additional shadow pass.

Looking at the images there's a couple of oddities IMO. The attached highlights areas on the rear of the car in DJ12's pics. PS3 is at the top.

Zone 3, top left, shows the additional dithered PS3 shadow. Both have the same dark spot underneath.
Zone 1 show what look like AA blocks along the light edge, more on the XB360 version, but PS3 isn't being blurred in this case. I don't know if it's AA as the blocks aren't neatly 4xMSAA, but that may be JPEG messing things up(?)
Zone 2 shows considerable softness on the PS3 versus a jaggied edge on XB360

Overall the PS3 images don't have a true white. The white of the car spoiler on PS3 is RGB(252,246,217). The overall colour-cast of the PS3 image isn't so yellow though - the pale sky just above the stands on the left is grey, whereas the XB360 version with that pale yellow applied as a multiply filter creates a yellowed sky. My explanation is a conditional filter that filters by intensity/hue, requiring a deliberate shader application. Unlike GTA4 where the softness was in part upscaling, it looks the similarities here are deliberate, with a deliberate softening and colour filter.

MazingerDUDE

11-May-2008, 20:49

300% shots again, there's some dithering going on in the PS3 shots

http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/GRID1PS3.jpg

http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/GRID1360.jpg

http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/GRID2PS3.jpg

http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/GRID2360.jpg

Ironically, it seems that, the dither effect gives PS3 version a warmer color

(quite opposite to the GTA4 :lol:)

Shifty Geezer

11-May-2008, 20:54

one

11-May-2008, 21:09

Are their any details on how the UE3 in Gears of War 2 implemented SSAO?

betan

11-May-2008, 21:58

Your pics look eerily reminiscent of the GTA4 comparison pics, where PS3 has that blur and yellow/orange tint again. Could be a coincidence, but still I wonder if both games employ a similar upscale technique that is causing that on the PS3 build.
Upscaling causing color bias? (Not that game is upscaling)
Have you seen any other example of that?
I mean it's a little weird speculation,
Maybe it's the bias of their "fake" HDR.

You mean this one? It's from GDC08. Their previous game (DIRT) did use the previous version of PhyreEngine (PSSG) for PS3 so it's likely that they use it now. The overall blurriness of the PS3 version may be the result of DOF post effect by SPU too.

http://watch.impress.co.jp/game%2Fdocs/20080228/3de083.jpg

Man I saw those slides before, I cannot believe I missed that bullet.
SPU post processing?
I wonder how exactly they are doing that since cell read rate from vram is miserably low.
RSX render on main mem? Just zbuffer? What about sync issues between RSX and CELL?

Again, the dithering is additional shadows. Outside of the shadows there's no dithering. As it's so prominent on the letters, I'm wondering if it's a technique solely for self-shadowing? The XB360 + PC letters have no localised occlusion. Actually the letters have an environment reflection on the PS3. Same with the windows, and these are dithered too. Could this be a raytracing process??? Would explain why the PC doesn't have it, which you'd expect if it was a GPU effect.

I too think that may be SSAO which could explain why PC is lacking.

Neb

11-May-2008, 23:22

If really then xbox360 and PC version might lack SSAO? = No PC buy then a small epen0r shrink.

zarbaj

11-May-2008, 23:30

I'll give it a shot. 720p 4xAA.

update...kinda:

FYI, the boat shot is originally 1280x720 on whatever the source of the shot was.
The plane one is 5120x2880.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11134393&postcount=334

DJ12

11-May-2008, 23:36

Looking at the images there's a couple of oddities IMO. The attached highlights areas on the rear of the car in DJ12's pics. PS3 is at the top.
Just to clarify I didn't take the those screen shots in the top of my post.
Overall the PS3 images don't have a true white. The white of the car spoiler on PS3 is RGB(252,246,217). The overall colour-cast of the PS3 image isn't so yellow though - the pale sky just above the stands on the left is grey, whereas the XB360 version with that pale yellow applied as a multiply filter creates a yellowed sky. My explanation is a conditional filter that filters by intensity/hue, requiring a deliberate shader application. Unlike GTA4 where the softness was in part upscaling, it looks the similarities here are deliberate, with a deliberate softening and colour filter.
Have you checked one of the images I attached to my post? I'd check myself but I have no "proper" art packages on my PC. (I did a quick test in Paint and the colour displayed by my TV is definitely not 252,246,217 it's not proper white 255,255,255 either but it's not far off)

I am seeing white to the same level as in the 360 shot I linked to, I have full range and superwhite enabled using HDMI on my PS3 and I am seeing little to no difference between the colours in both versions.

I am now convinced that full range and probably more importantly superwhite are not enabled on these PS3 shots we are using from yoda.jip.jp which is why everything has a yellowish tint to it.

edit: In fact I cannot replicate the yellow tinge on the start line of the mustang race at all, disabling the colour cross filter, full range or superwhite. Do any other PS3 owners get the yellowish look?

Galduta

11-May-2008, 23:38

If really then xbox360 and PC version might lack SSAO? = No PC buy then a small epen0r shrink.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1159770&postcount=4

<dynamic_ambient_occ enabled="true" />

12-May-2008, 00:23

Again, the dithering is additional shadows. Outside of the shadows there's no dithering. As it's so prominent on the letters, I'm wondering if it's a technique solely for self-shadowing? The XB360 + PC letters have no localised occlusion. Actually the letters have an environment reflection on the PS3. Same with the windows, and these are dithered too. Could this be a raytracing process??? Would explain why the PC doesn't have it, which you'd expect if it was a GPU effect.

Nah no raytracing, I am sure it's SSAO. Those dithering are most likely high frequency noise from sampling. Blurring should remove it.

XB360 doesn't have SSAO from those screens. I think the PC you can switch it on.

Galduta

12-May-2008, 02:00

settings in the PC version

<category name="shadows" >
<option name="off" >
<shadows enabled="false" size="1024" maskQuality="1" />
<dynamic_ambient_occ enabled="false" />
</option>
<option name="low" >
<shadows enabled="false" size="1024" maskQuality="1" />
<dynamic_ambient_occ enabled="true" />
</option>
<option name="medium" >
<shadows enabled="true" size="1024" maskQuality="1" />
<dynamic_ambient_occ enabled="true" />
</option>
<option name="high" >
<shadows enabled="true" size="2048" maskQuality="2" />
<dynamic_ambient_occ enabled="true" />PC

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/jonelo/capturas%202/GRID2008-05-1201-28-57-56.png

360 ?

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/4510/racenr4.png

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

360

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/jonelo/capturas%202/Grid_02_360.png

PC

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/jonelo/capturas%202/GRID2008-05-1201-06-28-25.png

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/jonelo/capturas%202/GRID2008-05-1116-59-20-54.png

PS3

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/jonelo/capturas%202/Grid_02_PS3.png

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/jonelo/capturas%202/GRID2008-05-1201-15-23-18.png

360

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/jonelo/capturas%202/Grid_05_360.png

PS3

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/jonelo/capturas%202/Grid_05_PS3.png

Quaz51

12-May-2008, 04:41

awesome :smile:

Quaz, how about Banjo 3 res :lol:

http://i31.tinypic.com/67saxi.jpg
http://i30.tinypic.com/2nao1gz.jpg

the first is Bullshot probably oversampled 4x4 like this (2880p native resolution):
http://images.gfx.no/467/467433/i_467433.jpg

apparently the game is 720p AAx2 (visible on screenshots and on the oversampled source of bullshots)

screenshots:
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg181/xblah/other/i_467432-1.jpg
http://images.gfx.no/467/467425/i_467425.jpg
http://images.gfx.no/467/467424/i_467424.jpg
http://images.gfx.no/467/467426/i_467426.jpg (with little upscale in 768p, VGA grab?)

Bullshots:
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg181/xblah/other/i_467431-1.jpg
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg181/xblah/other/i_467430-1.jpg (i think the source is "just" 1440p for him)
http://i31.tinypic.com/67saxi.jpg

zarbaj

12-May-2008, 04:55

Quaz, let me hug you.

Mintmaster

12-May-2008, 05:29

Those marked areas seems to be severly impacted by JPEG artefacts.I'm 100% sure that it's the quarter resolution alpha blending buffer that were seeing.

The upscaled particle buffer won't cause pixelation. The buffer will be upscaled with filtering and look smooth enough on the whole, for what's being drawn.That's what you'd expect, but for whatever reason we're not seeing it. Maybe it has something to do with needing to point sample the Z-value of the particle buffer, which is needed for compositing (unless it was rendered while z-testing against a 1/4-res z-buffer of the scene, which would cause other ugly artifacts).

Brad Grenz

12-May-2008, 06:59

Your pics look eerily reminiscent of the GTA4 comparison pics, where PS3 has that blur and yellow/orange tint again. Could be a coincidence, but still I wonder if both games employ a similar upscale technique that is causing that on the PS3 build. Transparency effects (like smoke) will usually be blurrier on the PS3 version because you have to render them into smaller buffer (like 1/4 size or so) to help sustain performance.

I think the upscaling and the blur filter on the PS3 version of GTA4 are separate issues. Crisp night shots from the PS3 seem to suggest that the blur is only applied selectively. Since it is unlikely that the game switches to a higher resolution at night I think we can conclude as much.

That said, I don't think there's any reason they couldn't still be employing a very similar full screen post processing effect.

Quaz51

12-May-2008, 19:12

the first is Bullshot probably oversampled 4x4 like this (2880p native resolution):
http://images.gfx.no/467/467433/i_467433.jpg

Bullshots:
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg181/xblah/other/i_467431-1.jpg
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg181/xblah/other/i_467430-1.jpg (i think the source is "just" 1440p for him)
http://i31.tinypic.com/67saxi.jpg

yes, i was right again :cool: :)

http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg181/xblah/other/i_467430.jpg

EDIT: no finally it seem 2880p downscaled in 1440p, all bullshot seem natively 2880p AAx2

Mintmaster

13-May-2008, 01:01

Secondly, I don't know enough about the topic of anti-aliasing to argue whether or not the screenshots I posted are Quincunx. I haven't personally devoted much time to researching the topic very much; all I know is that enough authoritative-sounding people seem to state that these ARE indeed legitimate Quincunx screens, and that I could tell the difference between the supposed 2xQ shots and the 2xAA counterparts. Thus, I deduced with enough confidence that these are probably Quincunx shots I'm looking at.Those screens (let's ignore KZ2 screenshots for now) were captured with the Quincunx setting enabled, but didn't capture the effect seen on the screen. Quaz agrees that they are not Quincunx.

It doesn't matter that you don't know much about AA. The fact is that you compared two screenshots and said:
A) Screenshot A looks almost as good as screenshot B (4xAA) and sometimes better
B) Screenshot A looks much better than 2xAA
C) 2xAA is barely worth enabling

You made these under the impression that screenshot A was Quincunx, when in fact it was 2xAA. That makes all your claims contradict each other, and that you don't have any basis whatsoever for saying Quincunx looks better than 2xAA. :wink:

Statix

13-May-2008, 01:50

Those screens (let's ignore KZ2 screenshots for now) were captured with the Quincunx setting enabled, but didn't capture the effect seen on the screen. Quaz agrees that they are not Quincunx.

It doesn't matter that you don't know much about AA. The fact is that you compared two screenshots and said:
A) Screenshot A looks almost as good as screenshot B (4xAA) and sometimes better
B) Screenshot A looks much better than 2xAA
C) 2xAA is barely worth enabling

You made these under the impression that screenshot A was Quincunx, when in fact it was 2xAA. That makes all your claims contradict each other, and that you don't have any basis whatsoever for saying Quincunx looks better than 2xAA. :wink:

Not really. Not at all, actually. The point of my posting those anti-aliasing comparison pics wasn't actually to show that 2xQ was on par with 4xAA, nor did I actually make the claim that THOSE PARTICULAR SCREENSHOTS I POSTED were "much better than 2xAA"; the ultimate point of and what I actually said with regard to those screens specifically was that the amount of "blur" that 2xQ was always accused of creating was overstated. To that end, I was MORE correct in my characterization of said screens than I originally thought. You can go back and read through my posts again, if you're that insistent/obsessed with taking a shot at me.

AlphaWolf

13-May-2008, 02:30

You called it (quincunx) 4xAA at 2x speed and then called out all the quincunx 'haters'. What exactly are we supposed to think that means?

Statix

13-May-2008, 02:40

You called it (quincunx) 4xAA at 2x speed and then called out all the quincunx 'haters'. What exactly are we supposed to think that means?

Obviously, I was referring to 2xQ in general, not the screenshots I posted specifically, and on the basis of my past experiencing using 2xQ in playing PC games. The "haters" remark was just a joke, JESUS. Made in good, clean, lighthearted fun. I had no idea some people were so fervid in their hatred for Quincunx, or any other type of anti-aliasing technique. *Shudders*

Pete

13-May-2008, 03:14

Is it just me or is this argument about preference and haters not befitting a technical thread? At this point we're just debating human tolerances of visual defects, which is OT (and probably has been since Statix's first post, now that I've reread the last ten pages). I suggest we agree to disagree, and move on before this whole tangent moves to its own thread (which it may do anyway).

bagofsuck

13-May-2008, 07:31

Its this wardevil screen really 1080p or bullshot?

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/1623/wdpreview20081080001dj8.jpg

MisterTwoTurbo

13-May-2008, 08:18

Its this wardevil screen really 1080p or bullshot?

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/1623/wdpreview20081080001dj8.jpg

I know I'm new here, but considering any screenshots that's released from the source of the developers seem to always be Bullshots. Safe bet is that's also a bullshot.

aaronspink

13-May-2008, 09:24

Its this wardevil screen really 1080p or bullshot?

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/1623/wdpreview20081080001dj8.jpg

unless the PS3 got exponentially more powerful overnight, there is no way that pic is legit. The level of AA is just not achievable in any current hardware. Though, it appears the rez/AA are the only things really fake in it, doesn't appear to be an offline render based on shadows/etc. So likely just an 8x or so AA shot.

Neb

13-May-2008, 12:10

...what I actually said with regard to those screens specifically was that the amount of "blur" that 2xQ was always accused of creating was overstated. To that end, I was MORE correct in my characterization of said screens than I originally thought.

But the difference is large there is nothing more to discuss about that. Just launch Armed Assault and switch between 2xQ and 2xAA/4xAA. The blur added will be of a great amount. The images in your comp between 4xAA and 2xQ doesn not represent how 2xQ looks at all.

Look Quincunx has its places in some games making the iamge more uniform a la' PS3 GTA4. But it comes with noticably added blurring but it can be overlooked for the gain in smooth image.

Neb

13-May-2008, 12:11

I know I'm new here, but considering any screenshots that's released from the source of the developers seem to always be Bullshots. Safe bet is that's also a bullshot.

In almost all cases thats true and that image above sure looks like a downsampled BS screenshot.

bagofsuck

13-May-2008, 14:02

Little bit off topic, can someone link me to the GTA IV gif where it shows the pop up in the ps3 version.

ihamoitc2005

13-May-2008, 15:53

unless the PS3 got exponentially more powerful overnight, there is no way that pic is legit. The level of AA is just not achievable in any current hardware. Though, it appears the rez/AA are the only things really fake in it, doesn't appear to be an offline render based on shadows/etc. So likely just an 8x or so AA shot.

I feel they render at low resolution with high AA then upscale with software to 1080P output.

Mintmaster

13-May-2008, 20:22

the ultimate point of and what I actually said with regard to those screens specifically was that the amount of "blur" that 2xQ was always accused of creating was overstated. To that end, I was MORE correct in my characterization of said screens than I originally thought.How is that? By showing shots of 2xAA and (unwittingly) labelling them as Quincunx, how are you more correct in that characterization?

The only evidence of blur presented in this thread was given my me in that paper I linked to. Nothing else is definatively Quincunx.

Not really. Not at all, actually. The point of my posting those anti-aliasing comparison pics wasn't actually to show that 2xQ was on par with 4xAA, nor did I actually make the claim that THOSE PARTICULAR SCREENSHOTS I POSTED were "much better than 2xAA";
...
You can go back and read through my posts again, if you're that insistent/obsessed with taking a shot at me.You asked for it:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1157946&postcount=823
"I'll take the slight blur (which is arguable, as I can hardly notice it) of Quincunx, as the overall end image quality improvement is great. It removes jaggies extremely well, unlike 2xAA where I don't even feel like it's worth enabling."
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1157986&postcount=831
"Take a look at this comparison between Quincunx and 4xAA in Half-Life 2. I would say 4xAA is generally better, but strangely, some parts of the Quincunx screen actually look BETTER than the 4xAA version, namely the wire holding the crate up"

You are talking about those particular screenshots. You say 2xAA is not worth enabling, then praise it later on (simply because you thought it was Quincunx). You don't think that's contradictory?

Gitaroo

14-May-2008, 00:26

these 2 shots are from the final version of the game I believe, are they still 1024X768?

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20080513/mgs27.htm

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20080513/mgs26.htm

Quaz51

14-May-2008, 01:17

these 2 shots are from the final version of the game I believe, are they still 1024X768?

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20080513/mgs27.htm

yes

Statix

14-May-2008, 02:23

But the difference is large there is nothing more to discuss about that. Just launch Armed Assault and switch between 2xQ and 2xAA/4xAA. The blur added will be of a great amount. The images in your comp between 4xAA and 2xQ doesn not represent how 2xQ looks at all.

Look Quincunx has its places in some games making the iamge more uniform a la' PS3 GTA4. But it comes with noticably added blurring but it can be overlooked for the gain in smooth image.

GTA4 doesn't use Quincunx (or any other type of AA for that matter). GTA4 uses a simple blur filter, which is MUCH worse than Quincunx, just in terms of how blurry the resultant image is. For an example of a game that uses Quincunx, look at Killzone 2 (Example (http://www.gamersyde.com/pop_image.html?G=8352&N=1)).

Statix

14-May-2008, 02:32

How is that? By showing shots of 2xAA and (unwittingly) labelling them as Quincunx, how are you more correct in that characterization?

Well, I was more correct in my cardinal point/observation about those screenshots I posted, which is that they didn't look any blurrier than 4xAA (which is true, since they're were actually 2xAA). That was really the main point of my posting those screens; NOT that they were as good as 4xAA, or that they were much better than 2xAA.

You asked for it:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1157946&postcount=823
"I'll take the slight blur (which is arguable, as I can hardly notice it) of Quincunx, as the overall end image quality improvement is great. It removes jaggies extremely well, unlike 2xAA where I don't even feel like it's worth enabling."
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1157986&postcount=831
"Take a look at this comparison between Quincunx and 4xAA in Half-Life 2. I would say 4xAA is generally better, but strangely, some parts of the Quincunx screen actually look BETTER than the 4xAA version, namely the wire holding the crate up"

You are talking about those particular screenshots. You say 2xAA is not worth enabling, then praise it later on (simply because you thought it was Quincunx). You don't think that's contradictory?

I was talking about Quincunx anti-aliasing in general, based on all my previous experiences using Quincunx, not specifically those screenshots I posted in general. Again, the only point of those screens were to show that the amount of blur Quincunx is said create was overstated. The second observation I made, about some parts of the supposed 2xQ looking BETTER than the 4xAA one, was actually true (regardless of whether or not the screenshot is true 2xQ or not); just look at the wire holding the crate up, it actually does look better in the "2xQ shot" than the 4xAA one.

Pete

14-May-2008, 02:36

Modly Advice: Following AlStrong's initiative, I've moved the rest of the Mr Deap/Xalion/et al tangent about upscaling vs. blurring to this thread (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=48084). Sorry for the inconvenience, guys. Please continue your discussion there.

Modly Warning: Statix, Mint, again, please hold up on the one-upping until we figure out where to move your tangent.

scarslasher

14-May-2008, 04:15

I can only wonder why my first post in this thread was deleted, but I'll post again. If I'm doing something wrong, please let me know. I'm new here.

The pics below are from MGS4 but are a LOT cleaner than ones posted before. ;)
One question, as usual.. 1080p or bullshot?

NOTE : Potential Spoilers in these images...
http://metalgearsolid4.net/metal-gear-solid-4/mgs4-japanevent-1.jpg
http://metalgearsolid4.net/metal-gear-solid-4/mgs4-japanevent-2.jpg
http://metalgearsolid4.net/metal-gear-solid-4/mgs4-japanevent-3.jpg

I'm not good at AA, but looks like 2xAA to me. Possibly with a blur filter.

Gitaroo

14-May-2008, 04:31

I can only wonder why my first post in this thread was deleted, but I'll post again. If I'm doing something wrong, please let me know. I'm new here.

The pics below are from MGS4 but are a LOT cleaner than ones posted before. ;)
One question, as usual.. 1080p or bullshot?

http://metalgearsolid4.net/metal-gear-solid-4/mgs4-japanevent-1.jpg
http://metalgearsolid4.net/metal-gear-solid-4/mgs4-japanevent-2.jpg
http://metalgearsolid4.net/metal-gear-solid-4/mgs4-japanevent-3.jpg

I'm not good at AA, but looks like 2xAA to me. Possibly with a blur filter.

I didnt post those because I know they are 99% guarantee bull shots.

scarslasher

14-May-2008, 05:31

I didnt post those because I know they are 99% guarantee bull shots.

How so?
I guess I don't have as sharp an eye as you guys. :sad:

rekator

14-May-2008, 06:18

I can only wonder why my first post in this thread was deleted, but I'll post again. If I'm doing something wrong, please let me know. I'm new here.

The pics below are from MGS4 but are a LOT cleaner than ones posted before. ;)
One question, as usual.. 1080p or bullshot?

http://metalgearsolid4.net/metal-gear-solid-4/mgs4-japanevent-1.jpg
http://metalgearsolid4.net/metal-gear-solid-4/mgs4-japanevent-2.jpg
http://metalgearsolid4.net/metal-gear-solid-4/mgs4-japanevent-3.jpg

I'm not good at AA, but looks like 2xAA to me. Possibly with a blur filter.

Probably cut-scene but not in real-time.

scarslasher

14-May-2008, 06:30

Probably cut-scene but not in real-time.

If you've knowledge of the MGS series, they rarely, if ever, use prerendered cutscenes. It's become an MGS trademark in a sense to keep cutscenes real-time.

Dot50Cal

14-May-2008, 07:17

I can only wonder why my first post in this thread was deleted, but I'll post again. If I'm doing something wrong, please let me know. I'm new here.

The pics below are from MGS4 but are a LOT cleaner than ones posted before. ;)
One question, as usual.. 1080p or bullshot?

*SPOILER PICS*

I'm not good at AA, but looks like 2xAA to me. Possibly with a blur filter.

Dude, spoilers! God man, is it any wonder why it was deleted? Not cool dude, not cool at all.

scarslasher

14-May-2008, 10:38

Dude, spoilers! God man, is it any wonder why it was deleted? Not cool dude, not cool at all.

You never know, though. Besides, it's in prerelease trailers. Hard to think it's a spoiler if it's a public trailer, but that's rather off-topic.

But I can't EDIT my post to say it's possibly a spoiler. :mad:

Why do they restrict new users from editing?

zarbaj

14-May-2008, 12:14

Quaz my love, interested in Ninja Gaiden 2 res via a video?

http://www.gamersyde.com/news_6480_en.html

:)

cavarr

14-May-2008, 19:18

Forza 2 - Please check this images.

First image - no patch AA ??
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/5690/847000152b107wz9.th.jpg (http://img263.imageshack.us/my.php?image=847000152b107wz9.jpg)

Patch AA ??
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/6158/847000354819fti3.th.jpg (http://img178.imageshack.us/my.php?image=847000354819fti3.jpg)
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2663/847002553f9bagf9.th.jpg (http://img210.imageshack.us/my.php?image=847002553f9bagf9.jpg)

New DLC image
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/1232/84700155b422frp3.th.jpg (http://img528.imageshack.us/my.php?image=84700155b422frp3.jpg)

Pete

15-May-2008, 03:14

I can only wonder why my first post in this thread was deleted, but I'll post again. If I'm doing something wrong, please let me know. I'm new here.
You could always, I dunno, check the FAQ (http://forum.beyond3d.com/faq.php) (top left of the the forum screen, right next to the very handy User CP--check that out, too). It should answer this and your editing question. And welcome. :)

scarslasher

15-May-2008, 03:32

You could always, I dunno, check the FAQ (http://forum.beyond3d.com/faq.php) (top left of the the forum screen, right next to the very handy User CP--check that out, too). It should answer this and your editing question. And welcome. :)

My apologies. Every forum takes some getting used to. :) I didn't know about the whole spam prevention thing when I first posted that.

Pete

15-May-2008, 03:46

No problem. And now you'll learn about our enthusiastic moderation, as I'll delete these two posts in a little while to keep this thread on-topic.

Mintmaster

15-May-2008, 05:02

Modly Warning: Statix, Mint, again, please hold up on the one-upping until we figure out where to move your tangent.Well, this is the "Neverending Upscaling/Resolutions/AA" thread, so it seems to fit well to me.

scarslasher

15-May-2008, 05:21

Seems like Too Human has no AA. Though different pics seem to give me different impressions on the AA.

http://www.gamersyde.com/news_6488_en.html

zarbaj

15-May-2008, 05:46

Seems like Too Human has no AA. Though different pics seem to give me different impressions on the AA.

http://www.gamersyde.com/news_6488_en.html

didn't they say it is 4xaa?

scarslasher

15-May-2008, 06:46

didn't they say it is 4xaa?

Strangely, yeah, but those pics don't show any signs of it save for a few that don't exactly look like gameplay. Then again, I'm not the AA expert here. ;) So don't take my word as if it's 100% true. But those pics do look rather.. jaggy.
Here's to hoping they'll fix it come August.

Chisholm

15-May-2008, 08:32

Strangely, yeah, but those pics don't show any signs of it save for a few that don't exactly look like gameplay. Then again, I'm not the AA expert here. ;) So don't take my word as if it's 100% true. But those pics do look rather.. jaggy.
Here's to hoping they'll fix it come August.

All the previous screenshots had AA on and the videos looked certainly cleaner. Maybe it's only when playing co-operative, but I find it hard to justify that. The game has been downgraded in other areas -4-player co-op-, so it might not be too far-fetched to suggest that they were running into performance issues.

AlStrong

15-May-2008, 15:00

The AA in the Too Human screenshots show up inconsistently. Some of you might note that the characters sometimes have a black outline not unlike the technique used in Crackdown... but it's as I said, inconsistent.

For example: (circled areas)

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z211/Alstrong/827_0002.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z211/Alstrong/827_0006.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z211/Alstrong/827_0007.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z211/Alstrong/827_0013.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z211/Alstrong/827_0015.jpg

It raises the question of when the screenshots were taken... which build of the game. It just reinforces the idea that people should wait until a public demo or the game is released. ;)

warb

15-May-2008, 15:11

Seems like Too Human has no AA. Though different pics seem to give me different impressions on the AA.

http://www.gamersyde.com/news_6488_en.html
Every image has some AA, but there's lots of noise.

Laa-Yosh

15-May-2008, 20:06

AlStrong

15-May-2008, 20:28

Outlines are probably a post processing / compositing problem. If you don't do the math properly, you'll get them with certain types of operations... Nao could shed some more light on this AFAIK.

hm... could it be due to the fast depth restore method ?

http://download.microsoft.com/download/f/a/a/faa7208f-1c18-48da-9b5c-c1d324bad9b1/Xbox%20360%20GPU%20Performance%20Update.zip

(Did SK stick to the deferred shading/lighting pipeline after UE3.0? :???: )

Then again it could be lazy Photoshop work as well ;):p

lbartley

16-May-2008, 00:25

Any analysis of the Overlord demo that went up on the PS3 today?

Quaz51

16-May-2008, 14:10

1280x720 no AA

Quaz51

16-May-2008, 14:21

And to be more accurate still, that should be Haze EU demo is 576p.

There's little reason (other than not wanting to create a second rendering) for FRD to put out a 576p resolution demo to the NA market when there are much more upscaling friendly resolutions in the same pixel cost range.

I'd hope you will also be looking at the NA demo as well that'll be released today.

Yes the NA demo is 1024x576 too but with this check i have seen AAx2 (not only on NA demo)
it's difficult to identify (probably because post-process, because double upscale on Full TVHD like me 576p > 720p > 1080p add blur, because lot of foliage element in alpha-coverage without AA of course, and because not visible on some element like forground helmet) but it's here
it's explain the difference between forground helmet and background and the difference between Haze and the Darkness (the Darkness is 576p but without AA and just one upscale directly in 1080p, and with very contrasted lighting)

22psi

16-May-2008, 16:56

Hey Quaz51... just wanted to take a quick second to thank you for the work you have done/are doing! Much appreciated... also that you're now quite the internet gaming resolution celebrity hehe.

Tap In

16-May-2008, 17:22

hey Quaz, thanks indeed.

also I saw in the REZ thread that Burnout: Paradise was listed for 360 but not PS3.

do you have a rez and AA level for that? thanks

Quaz51

16-May-2008, 17:52

hey Quaz, thanks indeed.

also I saw in the REZ thread that Burnout: Paradise was listed for 360 but not PS3.

do you have a rez and AA level for that? thanks

like 360

AlStrong

16-May-2008, 17:54

Updated. :)

Quaz51

16-May-2008, 18:10

Updated. :)

but not completely... :)

AlStrong

16-May-2008, 21:18

So it's definitely 2xAA with Haze? Your post did not seem clear, and I did not want to put that in the other thread until you were sure. :)

Quaz51

16-May-2008, 21:24

yes it's 2xAA, sure

Gitaroo

16-May-2008, 22:52

DOA4 = 2XAA or 4XAA? DOAX2 = no AA?

bagofsuck

17-May-2008, 00:16

Hey Quaz is this resistance 2 screen bullshot?

http://i32.tinypic.com/2m5iv.jpg

Chisholm

17-May-2008, 00:51

DOA4 = 2XAA or 4XAA? DOAX2 = no AA?

DOA4 1280x1024 no AA.

DaJuice

17-May-2008, 02:56

Jesus2006

17-May-2008, 08:53

The Resistance2 screen is definitly bullshot (super-sampling etc).

If you compare the press screens for the original game and then some actual captures, you can get a more reasonable idea of what to expect.

a press screen: http://i29.tinypic.com/2ekop6p.jpg
some captures: http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/insomniacshooter/images.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=tabs&tag=tabs;images

Imo the image is way to blurry for SSAA. Also keep in mind that the original was and is (IMO) the cleanest console game up to date (AA/AF wise.).

There won't be much of a difference between the above shot and the final game - if any.

DaJuice

17-May-2008, 09:57

Imo the image is way to blurry for SSAA.
Depends on the pixel filter used when you average the samples. Gaussian is going to look softer than Catmull-Rom.

Also keep in mind that the original was and is (IMO) the cleanest console game up to date (AA/AF wise.).
Ehhhh, I have to respectfully disagree with that...

There won't be much of a difference between the above shot and the final game - if any.
Not a chance. :)

Neb

17-May-2008, 13:11

Imo the image is way to blurry for SSAA. Also keep in mind that the original was and is (IMO) the cleanest console game up to date (AA/AF wise.).

In terms of jaggy-free and uniform image it should belong at the top but in sharness and clean textures, far far away IMO!

lbartley

17-May-2008, 13:33

Yes the NA demo is 1024x576 too but with this check i have seen AAx2 (not only on NA demo)
it's difficult to identify (probably because post-process, because double upscale on Full TVHD like me 576p > 720p > 1080p add blur, because lot of foliage element in alpha-coverage without AA of course, and because not visible on some element like forground helmet) but it's here
it's explain the difference between forground helmet and background and the difference between Haze and the Darkness (the Darkness is 576p but without AA and just one upscale directly in 1080p, and with very contrasted lighting)

Not to argue, as I'm obviously not pixel-king, but...

http://talkplaystation.com/haze-runs-at-720p/

Ubi seems to disagree with Quaz. Unless they're counting upscaled as "runs at".

Neb

17-May-2008, 13:38

Not to argue, as I'm obviously not pixel-king, but...

http://talkplaystation.com/haze-runs-at-720p/

Ubi seems to disagree with Quaz. Unless they're counting upscaled as "runs at".

Unless they say native then I dont see how they are disagreeing with Quaz. By not saying 'native' I would think one can assume it is not native 720p!

Quaz51

17-May-2008, 13:52

For a PR, a front-buffer in 720p is a 720p games :) (it's not totally false, it's just another point of view)
ask him the rendering resolution, or the back-buffer resolution for a different answer :) (or not, i'm not sure that PR know this things)

mrynk

17-May-2008, 20:28

Just want to thank Quaz51 (and the rest of you guys) for doing the great work. For me (and perhaps many others) technical parameters of games are very important factor in 'buy/not buy' decision making, because its the only thing that can be quantified objectively (not like gameplay, art design, etc.). And now a days reviews lie, fanboys are blinded, PR obviously lie.
You guys are last stand of Truth.
Keep it up.

lbartley

18-May-2008, 02:36

New Force Unleashed shots.

http://www.gamed.nl/view/40926

They look terribly blurry to me...

thambos

18-May-2008, 03:25

Dragon Ball Z: Burst Limit demos are up on XBL & PSN now.

does the cel-shading help it achieve higher res?

Shifty Geezer

18-May-2008, 10:57

For a PR, a front-buffer in 720p is a 720p games :) (it's not totally false, it's just another point of view) Also if they overly a native UI, that is 720p over an upscaled 3D rendering.

Quaz51

18-May-2008, 11:52

go back little bit on Ico case ...
the game is diplayed in 512x224p but apparently it isn't the native resolution, the game seem 512x448 native resolution and downscaled in 512x224, probably for offer a progressive scan display for all TV. the low vertical resolution is compensate by the SSAAx2 (because vertical downscaling) and the progressive scan. original choice

Hazuki Ryu

18-May-2008, 14:04

Dragon Ball Z: Burst Limit demos are up on XBL & PSN now.

does the cel-shading help it achieve higher res?

It seems 720p to me why would the cel-shading help achieve higher res?

Shifty Geezer

18-May-2008, 16:08

Hazuki Ryu

18-May-2008, 16:15

Lower pixel shading costs due to simple shading would allow for more pixels if you're shader limited. AA can be applied in a specific edge-drawing method for black outlines too, so you can render sans AA and apply it later (this is just theory, I'm not referencing the actual DBZBL game as to their methods).

I see, is there a pixel count for the demo yet? It doesn't seem like its higher than 720 p at all to me, I'm not counting though :), but its kind of strange that such a "light" game doesn't come in 1080p or something.

Shifty Geezer

18-May-2008, 16:22

Seeing as lots of "heavy" games come out in sub 720p and/or dodgy framerates/tearing, is it really that surprising ;)

deepbrown

18-May-2008, 21:24

Not to argue, as I'm obviously not pixel-king, but...

http://talkplaystation.com/haze-runs-at-720p/

Ubi seems to disagree with Quaz. Unless they're counting upscaled as "runs at".

Shouldn't ever listen to the Publisher. Listen to the developer:

http://www.ripten.com/2008/05/18/free-radical-confirms-final-haze-resolution/

We prioritise a nice smooth framerate over a different res. Personally, I don’t really buy the whole thing. People did the same with Call of Duty, they did the same with Halo, and they say with those games ‘It’s not running at true HD!’ And it’s like, I don’t care. If the game looks good and it runs smoothly, those are the important things to me.

DJ12

18-May-2008, 22:00

Well I saw it on GamerTV this morning and they missed that mark by a long stretch. Very noticeable slowdown throughout.

deepbrown

18-May-2008, 22:08

Well I saw it on GametTV this morning and they missed that mark by a long stretch. Very noticeable slowdown throughout.

No slowdown except in some of the driving...and then it's vey minimal

DJ12

18-May-2008, 22:57

Any chance of some official Quaz-firmation on the alleged resistance 2 screenshots

http://www.flickr.com/photos/playstationblog/2497984008/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/playstationblog/2497984850/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/playstationblog/2497984420/sizes/o/

The level of AA seems to be the same as the original Resitance in game to my untrained eye.

Quaz51

18-May-2008, 23:10

confirm what? it's necessary?

DJ12

18-May-2008, 23:15

Well confirm it's it's PR bullshots or plausibly in game.

I thought not until I checked some old Resistance screenshots and saw similar steps in the AA being applied.

Quaz51

18-May-2008, 23:24

yes it's bullshot

scarslasher

20-May-2008, 00:18

May I ask about native resolution and AA of this wonderful little gallery of images? :)

http://www.gamersyde.com/news_6511_en.html
LittleBigPlanet.
Looks like they got rid of the jaggies from pre-alpha. So I'm more curious about AA.

Quaz51

20-May-2008, 01:30

LBP is 1280x720 AAx2 but seem to use background in half-buffer (640x360)

zaftxx

20-May-2008, 02:34

Gitaroo

20-May-2008, 06:57

any idea on these new rambo arcade game.......

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20080516/segaam27.htm
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20080516/segaam28.htm
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20080516/segaam35.htm

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20080516/segaam.htm

pretty bad if its running on the sega lindberg

JPT

20-May-2008, 07:37

well the free radical pretty much confiredm Haze IS 576p.
Reason "they beleive in a smooth framerate then resolution"
im confused here because i v seen a number of ps3 games that look better have more going on, and are 720p.

More going on thatn 4 player online coop? Where you can play 2 player splitscreen per PS3?

Could it not just be that they needed to go that "low" to accomodate the coop, especially since the coop story is the same as the sp story, I believe.

Dominik D

20-May-2008, 08:29

More going on thatn 4 player online coop? Where you can play 2 player splitscreen per PS3?

Could it not just be that they needed to go that "low" to accomodate the coop, especially since the coop story is the same as the sp story, I believe.
Most games (e.g. PGR) seem to adjust gfx for split screen only and run on "full" when playing alone. There's no reason not to do this in Haze.

any idea on these new rambo arcade game.......
(...)http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20080516/segaam28.htm(...)
pretty bad if its running on the sega lindberg

Based on this one, vertical res is around:
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3656/rambofj6.png
768 * 8 / 15 = 409.6 which is pretty low indeed... (418p?)

Blade47167

20-May-2008, 08:44

Most games (e.g. PGR) seem to adjust gfx for split screen only and run on "full" when playing alone. There's no reason not to do this in Haze.

Thats the way GRAW2 was on the PS3.

JPT

20-May-2008, 09:02

Most games (e.g. PGR) seem to adjust gfx for split screen only and run on "full" when playing alone. There's no reason not to do this in Haze.

I have not tried coop in the Haze demo, only the sp, but does it not let you drop inn/out of coop quite seamlessly? If so then dropping the gfx and then upping it each time somebody joins or leaves might not be the best solution.

Dominik D

20-May-2008, 09:50

I have not tried coop in the Haze demo, only the sp, but does it not let you drop inn/out of coop quite seamlessly? If so then dropping the gfx and then upping it each time somebody joins or leaves might not be the best solution.
Might not be, might as well not be a viable excuse. It's mostly about dropping some polys/effects. PGR seems to have worse drawing distance and less details on tracks + different postprocessing. Most of that should be part of an engine anyway -- scenes have different amount of triangles drawn and adjusting geometry based on the feedback from the previous frame is a good way of tweaking experience. You can easily leverage it to drop fidelity for co-op. There's no reason why skilled devs like Free Radical wouldn't do it...

Quaz51

20-May-2008, 12:07

Dominik D

20-May-2008, 12:28

Could you please point to the edge you used to count pixels? I couldn't find any edge that'd give me round result. :-) Thanks in advance.

Cheezdoodles

20-May-2008, 14:09

More going on thatn 4 player online coop? Where you can play 2 player splitscreen per PS3?

Could it not just be that they needed to go that "low" to accomodate the coop, especially since the coop story is the same as the sp story, I believe.

I dont see how 4 players coop online is going to mean anything to the graphics. Its not 4 player split screen, its you playing online with 3 friends. Since the game allready have you running around with a crew, i dont see how having 3 players instead of NPC would do much to hurt the gfx performance. Sure they could theoretically cause more havoc than the NPC's would, but the game should handle that anyway.

Split screen of course is a different story, and if GRAW2 on the PS3 is anything like GRAW 2\1 on the X360, then GRAW2 has 4 player split screen and up to 16-player online coop. AND (assuming GRAW2 on the PS3 looks like GRAW2 on the X360) GRAW2 MP looks better than Haze imo.

catisfit

20-May-2008, 15:26

Most games (e.g. PGR) seem to adjust gfx for split screen only and run on "full" when playing alone. There's no reason not to do this in Haze.

Based on this one, vertical res is around:
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3656/rambofj6.png
768 * 8 / 15 = 409.6 which is pretty low indeed... (418p?)

You've counted one too many pixels on the right, your "pixel 1" is the start pixel which you should start counting from.

That particular example works out as 768 * 8 / 14 = 439.

Generally a longer edge gives a more accurate result. A 1080p TV works better than 768p. Sometimes you need to take a few tests and compare the results.

deepbrown

20-May-2008, 20:30

I dont see how 4 players coop online is going to mean anything to the graphics. Its not 4 player split screen, its you playing online with 3 friends. Since the game allready have you running around with a crew, i dont see how having 3 players instead of NPC would do much to hurt the gfx performance. Sure they could theoretically cause more havoc than the NPC's would, but the game should handle that anyway.

Split screen of course is a different story, and if GRAW2 on the PS3 is anything like GRAW 2\1 on the X360, then GRAW2 has 4 player split screen and up to 16-player online coop. AND (assuming GRAW2 on the PS3 looks like GRAW2 on the X360) GRAW2 MP looks better than Haze imo.

Warhawk looks a lot better than Haze graphically too and that has four player splitscreen.

Gitaroo

20-May-2008, 21:35

Warhawk looks a lot better than Haze graphically too and that has four player splitscreen.

maybe thats because it stream from the HDD?

DrJay24

20-May-2008, 21:55

maybe thats because it stream from the HDD?

Warhawk has a disc version and Haze has a 4GB install...

Gitaroo

20-May-2008, 21:55

Warhawk has a disc version and Haze has a 4GB install...

disc version require you to isntall and also stream from the HDD.

deepbrown

20-May-2008, 21:59

disc version require you to isntall and also stream from the HDD.

Haze employs streaming, and even texture streaming

21-May-2008, 01:22

it's rather 800x450

Hey Quaz51, can you do the Arcade VF5R too from that link.

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20080516/segaam05.htm

Is it still 1024x1024 with no AA ?

scarslasher

21-May-2008, 01:44

A new Resistance 2 gallery popped up.
They have the same overlay as the ones before, but they look a bit less conspicuous than before. Still somewhat curious what made the last set bullshots, but let's hope these are different.

http://www.gamersyde.com/news_6513_en.html

My apologies if I ask too often. ;) Must be bad having a GT regular here, eh?

AlStrong

21-May-2008, 02:00

Still somewhat curious what made the last set bullshots, but let's hope these are different.

http://www.gamersyde.com/news_6513_en.html

Simple: Zero visible polygon aliasing == "bullshot". 4xAA might be good, but it sure isn't perfect.

zaftxx

21-May-2008, 02:08

Quaz is this a bull shot from Bad company? looks like it.
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m320/zaftxx/battlefield-bad-company-20080114013.jpg

mech

21-May-2008, 03:56

Warhawk looks a lot better than Haze graphically too and that has four player splitscreen.

Warhawk also chugs like crazy in 3 or 4 player mode :)

Lucid_Dreamer

21-May-2008, 06:47

Warhawk also chugs like crazy in 3 or 4 player mode :)

I have not experienced this on my unit.

Fafalada

21-May-2008, 08:27

LBP is 1280x720 AAx2 but seem to use background in half-buffer (640x360)
LBP background is DOF blurred, if it was just lowres it'd look real nasty.
You can actually see DOF depth treshold in some videos if you watch closely.

Shifty Geezer

21-May-2008, 08:38

Quaz is this a bull shot from Bad company? looks like it.
Any game that has that high image fidelity is a PR pic. You don't need to ask anyone's advice on that, as these PR pics are obvious! No console is going to be rendering perfect images this gen. You also have to check full-size images, as shrinking the image increases fidelity at a cost to image resolution.
Warhawk also chugs like crazy in 3 or 4 player mode :smile:Framerate is lower, but not terrible. Draw distance is adjusted though with objects fading into view at closer distances. This from playing but not analyzing ;)
LBP background is DOF blurred, if it was just lowres it'd look real nasty.There were early pics I recall where there were some huge jaggies. I can't say I've noticed it in the more recent images, but I wouldn't be surprised if they saved on background rendering knowing they were going to blur it extensively. That said, Gamespot has some full grabs and the beach background has clear geometry and no upscaling.

deepbrown

21-May-2008, 11:14

Haze employs streaming, and even texture streaming

Just experienced a 5-10 second delay before textures came in :/ Well, Unchated did it (but the Uncharted "had" textures)

Quaz51

21-May-2008, 11:39

LBP background is DOF blurred, if it was just lowres it'd look real nasty.
You can actually see DOF depth treshold in some videos if you watch closely.

for DoF i think they merge one or multiple lowres blured layer with the framebuffer (in accordance with Z-buffer) like some game but on the more near DoF layer they apparently use a 640x360 blured buffer and in some rarely case they use it too near with few blur and in this case you can see the low resolution of the background (on the jungle/crocodile series)
in lot of other case the DoF is more far and the low resolution of Dof background layer is not visible
i think it's just a DoF adjustement problem, the near plan background is sometime just at the threshold of the DoF beginning without enough blur (maybe this type of DoF artifact is visible on some DoF game)

Quaz51

21-May-2008, 11:45

Hey Quaz51, can you do the Arcade VF5R too from that link.

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20080516/segaam05.htm

Is it still 1024x1024 with no AA ?

it's apparently 1280x768 no AA (for PS3 1024x1024 and 1024x768)
why not 1280x720? i don't know, maybe for compatibility with 64x64 tile, in this case you use 1280x704 (Insomniac) or 1280x768 with downscale for soften edges

bagofsuck

21-May-2008, 15:02

Quaz are this new screens of Killzone 2 bullshots ?

http://nextgen.ws/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1330

Quaz51

21-May-2008, 15:04

Neb

21-May-2008, 15:11

Quaz are this new screens of Killzone 2 bullshots ?

http://nextgen.ws/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1330

Several of them are certainly pr with exotic 'way higher than 720p' resolutions.

Hre are the images from FZ which are full-res.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11264734&postcount=4368

Quaz51

21-May-2008, 15:22

PS3 Beijing 2008 screenshot are 960x720 (surely hardware upscale) no AA and 1280x720 AAx2 on X360
another botched PS3 version just for make money (it's the same resolution that Pirates of the Caribbean)

http://www.jeuxvideo.com/news/2008/00025591-images-de-beijing-2008-les-j-o-sur-ps3-et-360.htm

oh yes i understand
it's the same difference that in Pirates of the Caribbean (X360 1280x720 AAx2 and PS3 960x720 no AA) because it's the same studio (Eurocom http://www.eurocom.co.uk/ )
Eurocom = zero progress on PS3 developement since the beginning http://playstar.cinebb.com/users/68/32/85/smiles/887849.gif

if it's the same resolution that Pirates then the higher native resolution is in 1080p mode with 768x1080 (5/2 horizontal hardware upscale), the more (or worst) anamorphic resolution that i know, incredible choice of resolution just for propose a 1080p mode

Quaz51

21-May-2008, 15:56

Several of them are certainly pr with exotic 'way higher than 720p' resolutions.

Hre are the images from FZ which are full-res.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11264734&postcount=4368

this is screenshots

http://i27.tinypic.com/2m2vo80.jpg
http://i30.tinypic.com/1zvyu9.jpg
http://i28.tinypic.com/wb5qvr.jpg
http://i29.tinypic.com/hun5z7.jpg
http://i32.tinypic.com/2ywbnyw.jpg
http://i31.tinypic.com/2rxtq1s.jpg

but it's difficult to make screenshot of a game like Killzone, it's require to disable effect like motionblur and Killzone2 without his good motionblur it's not Killzone2. it's preferable to look Killzone in video

Neb

21-May-2008, 16:04

this is screenshots

http://i27.tinypic.com/2m2vo80.jpg
http://i30.tinypic.com/1zvyu9.jpg
http://i28.tinypic.com/wb5qvr.jpg
http://i29.tinypic.com/hun5z7.jpg
http://i32.tinypic.com/2ywbnyw.jpg
http://i31.tinypic.com/2rxtq1s.jpg

Yep those seemed ingame to me to.

but it's difficult to make screenshot of a game like Killzone, it's require to disable effect like motionblur and Killzone2 without his good motionblur it's not Killzone2. it's preferable to look Killzone in video

Yeah motionblur enhances quite (goes for almost all if not al lgames) a bit but you really dont want that covering up the background detail unless the background is not desirable. Now a clear image but with object motionblur for moving units is another thing.

Statix

21-May-2008, 18:40

Quaz51

21-May-2008, 18:49

all horizontal upscale with ratio like 2/1, 3/2, 4/3, 6/5 ect... are surely hardware, it's easy to make in the display pipeline
upscale 1440x1080 (GTHD) to 1920x1080 is the same that 960x720 to 1280x720

zarbaj

21-May-2008, 21:48

how about Infinite Undiscovery (360 by Tri-Ace):

http://img9.imagevenue.com/loc875/th_98152_leonid_01_122_875lo.jpg (http://img9.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=98152_leonid_01_122_875lo.jpg)http://img218.imagevenue.com/loc598/th_98163_battle_04_122_598lo.jpg (http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=98163_battle_04_122_598lo.jpg)http://img172.imagevenue.com/loc1042/th_98164_tactics_021_122_1042lo.jpg (http://img172.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=98164_tactics_021_122_1042lo.jpg)

DaJuice

21-May-2008, 22:47

this is screenshots

http://i27.tinypic.com/2m2vo80.jpg
http://i30.tinypic.com/1zvyu9.jpg
http://i28.tinypic.com/wb5qvr.jpg
http://i29.tinypic.com/hun5z7.jpg
http://i32.tinypic.com/2ywbnyw.jpg
http://i31.tinypic.com/2rxtq1s.jpg

but it's difficult to make screenshot of a game like Killzone, it's require to disable effect like motionblur and Killzone2 without his good motionblur it's not Killzone2. it's preferable to look Killzone in video

Great image quality on those. I hope these are the actual framebuffer grabs.

AlStrong

21-May-2008, 23:10

how about Infinite Undiscovery (360 by Tri-Ace):

Bullshot...

zarbaj

21-May-2008, 23:26

i meant the resolution, but if it's impossible to determine resolution from bullshots then never mind :)

obonicus

22-May-2008, 00:28

There's an HD trailer up on GT.
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/34278.html
Does that help?

22-May-2008, 03:54

it's apparently 1280x768 no AA (for PS3 1024x1024 and 1024x768)
why not 1280x720? i don't know, maybe for compatibility with 64x64 tile, in this case you use 1280x704 (Insomniac) or 1280x768 with downscale for soften edges

I see, I think the monitor that VF5R runs on at the arcade are using the 1280x768 native. Shame they haven't added AA yet to this new iteration of the arcade version. Here hoping they do PC version eventually.

AlStrong

22-May-2008, 04:00

There's an HD trailer up on GT.
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/34278.html
Does that help?

It's difficult with any compressed video feed... Why not just wait until it's closer to release or if there's a demo?

Gitaroo

22-May-2008, 04:43

I see, I think the monitor that VF5R runs on at the arcade are using the 1280x768 native. Shame they haven't added AA yet to this new iteration of the arcade version. Here hoping they do PC version eventually.

probably the same case as most PC games with Geforce 6 (HDR + no AA), Since Lindberg use geforce 6. And I highly doubt that they will ever port it to pc like ever.

deepbrown

22-May-2008, 11:54

Question that is prob obvious, but were there any sub-HD PS3 games before horizantle scaling was made available ? :)

DrJay24

22-May-2008, 16:01

Question that is prob obvious, but were there any sub-HD PS3 games before horizantle scaling was made available ? :)

I think there were at least a few, COD3 was a launch title and it's sub 720P I think.

Nesh

22-May-2008, 16:13

Well I am still confused on the matter how does the PS3 scale the image to various resolutions? And if there is any hardware scaler?

deepbrown

22-May-2008, 16:17

Well I am still confused on the matter how does the PS3 scale the image to various resolutions? And if there is any hardware scaler?
B3d article says there is. http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/16/1

And I've read both Ana and Hana don't upscale on 360 - they are just video encoders - all upscaling on 360 is done through the GPU.

So PS3 has scaler and 360 doesn't :)

Nesh

22-May-2008, 16:22

B3d article says there is. http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/16/1

And I've read both Ana and Hana don't upscale on 360 - they are just video encoders - all upscaling on 360 is done through the GPU.

So PS3 has scaler and 360 doesn't :)

That makes me wonder though. Because the games I ve seen running on some HD TVs looked "wrong". They looked kind of pixelated and aliased. Imagine the image you get from a low res video.

I also get to hear that the 360 handles better higher resolutions on HD TVs.

edit: also the article you provided sounds more like a software method than the hardware doing the work automatically and comes at a cost

Shifty Geezer

22-May-2008, 16:24

So PS3 has scaler and 360 doesn't :)No. Revisit the old ANA/HANA article with Dave's contributions. The (H)ANA isn't scaling, but the GPU has scaling hardware. PS3's effort is simplistic - XB360 definitely has the edge in scaling hardware, which is ironic as it's using it less than PS3 is!

catisfit

22-May-2008, 16:31

So PS3 has scaler and 360 doesn't :)

It is amazing how the 360 scaler somehow evaporated... :roll:

We call it Ana. This is the scaling chip that's in the 360 ... This isn't a $1,000 scaler, but it's a good one.

It was a critical design decision; we wanted the 360 to be high-definition, not just 1080p or some other standard.

Nesh

22-May-2008, 16:31

No. Revisit the old ANA/HANA article with Dave's contributions. The (H)ANA isn't scaling, but the GPU has scaling hardware. PS3's effort is simplistic - XB360 definitely has the edge in scaling hardware, which is ironic as it's using it less than PS3 is!
And??? Help me out here! I am trying to learn :lol:

It is amazing how things have changed:Thats very ironic since Sony was aiming to make the PS3 a HD device, but omitted effective and efficient hardware scaling? They were marketing it as such.

But instead the 360 seems to do it instead.

Still....what on earth is that SCC doing in the PS3? Is it related?

deepbrown

22-May-2008, 16:35

It is amazing how the 360 scaler somehow evaporated... :roll:

Your quotes are wrong :)

Amir Majidimehr, Corporate Vice President, Microsoft Corporation, Consumer Media Technology Group, Mobile and Embedded Devices Division says this about that exact article:

"The article is wrong unfortunately. HANA/ANA are video encoders, not
scalers. You basically have a bunch of pixels in memory ready to be
displayed and you must convert it to the appropriate standard, whether it is
composite, component, etc. You need to clock the samples are the right rate
and format the signal (including modulating it for some of the output
formats) before you can hook it up to you TV/monitor."

When asking whether the Xbox 360 Elite's HANA scaling chip use the same bilinear scaling algorhythm as the old ANA chip in the original console he replied:
"Hana (or ANA) is not used for scaling in 360. Instead, the graphics processor (GPU) is used to do the scaling. I won't disclose the internals of the filter but it is not bilinear at all. It is much more sophisticated than that with far more taps. Given where the hardware is, the scaling logic is the same in both products."

catisfit

22-May-2008, 16:35

which is ironic as it's using it less than PS3 is!

Except when it's scaling everything to that 1080p resolution that no-one would need this generation :razz:

deepbrown

22-May-2008, 16:36

No. Revisit the old ANA/HANA article with Dave's contributions. The (H)ANA isn't scaling, but the GPU has scaling hardware. PS3's effort is simplistic - XB360 definitely has the edge in scaling hardware, which is ironic as it's using it less than PS3 is!

Yes I've done all that...so how am I wrong. 360 uses GPU....what does PS3 use? That B3d article says the PS3 does have a hardware scaler....?

Shifty Geezer

22-May-2008, 16:38

And??? Help me out here! I am trying to learn :lol:You mean the PS3 solution? I don't think that's ever been properly disclosed. The B3D article is as I recall a theory, looking at the limitations of the scaling exposed via the Sony libs and leading to the conclusion it's a (gimped/busted?) hardware scaler.

catisfit

22-May-2008, 16:39

Your quotes are wrong :)

They're not my quotes, they are Microsoft quotes.

Amir Majidimehr, Corporate Vice President, Microsoft Corporation, Consumer Media Technology Group, Mobile and Embedded Devices Division says this about that exact article:

So how is your quote below true?

So PS3 has scaler and 360 doesn't

BTW that job title is massive :razz:

Nesh

22-May-2008, 16:40

You mean the PS3 solution? I don't think that's ever been properly disclosed. The B3D article is as I recall a theory, looking at the limitations of the scaling exposed via the Sony libs and leading to the conclusion it's a (gimped/busted?) hardware scaler.

:lol: that surely sounds optimistic. If true what was Sony thinking?

deepbrown

22-May-2008, 16:42

They're not my quotes, they are Microsoft quotes.

So how is your quote below true?

BTW that job title is massive :razz:

Mine is more reliable because it's after your quotes and refers to those quotes directly disproving them. Ana and Hana aren't upscalers, they are video encoders. 360 upscales using GPU.

Yeah, one day we'll all have such long job titles. One day. :D

catisfit

22-May-2008, 16:49

:lol: that surely sounds optimistic. If true what was Sony thinking?

I think the idea was they wanted games to be native 720p or 1080p, instead of taking the easy option and using the hardware to upscale a lower resolution.

Didn't exactly go to plan, did it :grin:

Mine is more reliable because it's after your quotes and refers to those quotes directly disproving them. Ana and Hana aren't upscalers, they are video encoders. 360 upscales using GPU.

So the 360 has no hardware scaler, because the GPU does it :?:

deepbrown

22-May-2008, 16:52

I think the idea was they wanted games to be native 720p or 1080p, instead of taking the easy option and using the hardware to upscale a lower resolution.

Didn't exactly go to plan, did it :grin:

So the 360 has no hardware scaler, because the GPU does it :?:

Yes GPU is hardware :P No dedicated hardware scaler then! And B3d's theory is that the PS3 does have a dedicated hardware scaler which is currently gimped to only do horizantle scaling (things may change...maybe they opened it up especially for Free Radical..)

Shifty Geezer

22-May-2008, 17:09

So the 360 has no hardware scaler, because the GPU does it :?:Read this thread : XB360 hasn't got a scaling chip? (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=42164)

Gerry

22-May-2008, 17:22

Yes GPU is hardware :P No dedicated hardware scaler then! And B3d's theory is that the PS3 does have a dedicated harware scaler which is currently gimped to only do horizantle scaling (things may change...maybe they opened it up especially for Free Radical..)

There is dedicated hardware specifically for scaling, it just happens to reside in Xenos rather than ANA/HANA. The distinction shouldn't really matter to anyone.

Seriously, read the thread highlighted above.

deepbrown

22-May-2008, 17:23

Read this thread : XB360 hasn't got a scaling chip? (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=42164)
I know you're a busy now. But a summary would be great :wink:

Nesh

22-May-2008, 17:35

I think the idea was they wanted games to be native 720p or 1080p, instead of taking the easy option and using the hardware to upscale a lower resolution.

Didn't exactly go to plan, did it :grin:

If thats what happened it was a stupid decision considering the specifications of the hardware. Indeed....what on earth have they been thinking??? It makes me suspect that Sony had huge internal communication issues between departments. Its as if someone has set the goal to achieve native HD resolutions but completely omitted what the developers, or the hardware designers had to say and knew or the hardware designers omitted the game developers expectations and goals.

deepbrown

22-May-2008, 17:37

There is dedicated hardware specifically for scaling, it just happens to reside in Xenos rather than ANA/HANA. The distinction shouldn't really matter to anyone.

Seriously, read the thread highlighted above.

Got it. The last page has the goods.

Statix

22-May-2008, 19:25

The lack of a scaler in the PS3 is a detriment those who own slightly-older generation, non-720p HDTVs, like me. It also effectively precludes compatibility with VGA output at various configurable computer monitor resolutions (the XB360 allows you to hook up to any PC monitor, and set the output resolution).

I'm a little surprised and disappointed that Sony has basically done absolutely nothing to even acknowledge this lack-of-scaling problem in the last 1 and a half years, let alone offer any solutions. The least they could do is fix newer models of the PS3 by including a working scaler chip, so I would at least have some options.

AlStrong

22-May-2008, 19:32

Post 1 of the Game Resolutions thread has been updated to include these details that newbies have not followed in the past.

deepbrown

22-May-2008, 19:35

Quaz51

22-May-2008, 19:37

Question that is prob obvious, but were there any sub-HD PS3 games before horizantle scaling was made available ? :)

i don't understand the question. all the sub-720p game, except maybe 2, are software upscale

Laa-Yosh

22-May-2008, 19:39

Post 1 of the Game Resolutions thread has been updated to include these details that newbies have not followed in the past.

Can you please include a link to this post/topic in the opening post of this thread? Thanks...

AlStrong

22-May-2008, 19:46

Done :)

Clockwork

22-May-2008, 20:34

Is the SCC present on current iterations of the PS3 hardware? I always thought it was a superfluous solution intended as a stop gap until something either cheaper or efficient came along (a large portion of the SCC's functionality appears either unused or redundant)

Rangers

22-May-2008, 21:54

If thats what happened it was a stupid decision considering the specifications of the hardware. Indeed....what on earth have they been thinking??? It makes me suspect that Sony had huge internal communication issues between departments. Its as if someone has set the goal to achieve native HD resolutions but completely omitted what the developers, or the hardware designers had to say and knew or the hardware designers omitted the game developers expectations and goals.

It was probably just a bug with RSX. Nvidia hardware seems to have a lot of bugs in the past dealing with video stuff. I doubt they wanted it that way, after RSX was finished it turned out the scaling capabilities just didn't work, probably. That's always been my assumption.

Although it has horizontal hardware scaling right, so it's 50% good.

Shifty Geezer

22-May-2008, 21:57

Is the SCC present on current iterations of the PS3 hardware? 1) It was never confirmed to be SCC from what I can remember.
2) That huge chip has been replaced in the later boards.

Clockwork

22-May-2008, 22:03

1) It was never confirmed to be SCC from what I can remember.
2) That huge chip has been replaced in the later boards.

My bad, I guess I haven't been keeping track of things. I thought it had been assumed that it was the SCC and that is what handled the scaling.

Since I appear to be out of the loop I apologize for derailing things.

deepbrown

22-May-2008, 22:07

i don't understand the question. all the sub-720p game, except maybe 2, are software upscale

Sorry, I presumed there was some connection - or at least that it made scaling from sub-HD easier. Is there no connection?

MonkeyLicker

23-May-2008, 03:24

joker454

23-May-2008, 03:41

Yeah, Sony really screwed up with scaling. Considering every HDTV they make has a scaler it would seem like a pretty easy thing to get right. This is one area of hardware that should have been a home run for them.
I'm curious if they will ever get full scaling functioning or if that's even possible.

They are stuck with software vertical scaling for the life of the hardware alas (or so I've been told) :( Maybe they thought that all software would be running in 1080p and hence broken vertical scaling wouldn't be a big omission. Needless to say they chose......poorly. It's even worse given that sub 720p titles are becoming more and more common forcing software cycles to be spent on scaling. To me this lends credence to the theory that the PS3 to Sony is first and foremost a blu-ray movie player rather than a game console. Otherwise, I can't understand how you can ship a video game console without hardware scaling support.

Nesh

23-May-2008, 04:23

1) It was never confirmed to be SCC from what I can remember.
2) That huge chip has been replaced in the later boards.
By what chip for the purpose of doing what?

Nesh

23-May-2008, 04:26

To me this lends credence to the theory that the PS3 to Sony is first and foremost a blu-ray movie player rather than a game console. Otherwise, I can't understand how you can ship a video game console without hardware scaling support.

I d disagree with with that considering all their efforts to provide a full gaming experience (excluding the scaling). Their efforts in that area are just as much if not more as their competitors.

Rockster

23-May-2008, 04:58

To me this lends credence to the theory that the PS3 to Sony is first and foremost a blu-ray movie player rather than a game console. Otherwise, I can't understand how you can ship a video game console without hardware scaling support.

Or perhaps credence to the notion that the GPU was a later/changed consideration, resulting in a PC derived part which don't typically need or incorporate such scalers. No different than the solution NVidia delivered for the original XBox. From which Microsoft no doubt learned the importance of incorporating scaling functionality in future console products.

one

23-May-2008, 05:38

MonkeyLicker

23-May-2008, 07:16

It's obvious that cost reduction is more important than supporting non-720p TVs and analog VGA monitors which are rarities in storefronts even today. If you allow developers to make games with the scaler in mind, you can't remove it later.

With sub-HD PS3 games becoming more the norm, it seems like an odd omission. They allow developers to scale but force them to use valuable resources to do it with. It also affects those with 1080p tvs as well. It seems like a bad idea to rely on external hardware of variable quality to deliver your content.

one

23-May-2008, 07:56

With sub-HD PS3 games becoming more the norm, it seems like an odd omission. They allow developers to scale but force them to use valuable resources to do it with. It also affects those with 1080p tvs as well. It seems like a bad idea to rely on external hardware of variable quality to deliver your content."Force" is an odd word when a developer is given a choice between using the given resources for graphics effects or software scaling. It's also important for backward compatibility.

Shifty Geezer

23-May-2008, 08:24

This is going way off topic! The choices the manufacturers made isn't the debate here! Please refrain from those discussions here, and leave this thread for discussing the software choices developers are making regards upscaling and effects.

-tkf-

23-May-2008, 08:31

It's even worse given that sub 720p titles are becoming more and more common forcing software cycles to be spent on scaling.

The question is, how many cycles does a upscale require in reality. Is it 2% of the render time or is it more.

Still, there is only one to blame for "sub" 720p games, the developer. If he ends up with a game that cant sustain 720p he either chose poorly or he calculated from the start that the 2% hit from scaling was worth it.

Imho, the best looking games this generation (so far) was all 720p or 1080p and on the PS3.

To me this lends credence to the theory that the PS3 to Sony is first and foremost a blu-ray movie player rather than a game console.

A motion controlled Blu-Ray player with a default Harddrive for all those funny Java movies. That comment is so unlike you.

catisfit

23-May-2008, 09:12

Read this thread : XB360 hasn't got a scaling chip? (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=42164)

Thanks, that's exactly what I was driving at :wink:

function

23-May-2008, 09:20

What kind of software upscaling do PS3 games (that upscale) use?

I'm eager to know because the bilinear scaling on my GeForce 7 card (hardware, built into the chip iirc) looks very soft and not at all nice. The Xbox 360 at least uses a reasonable scaling algorithm, if the PS3 were to simply use bilinear it would be pretty horrible.

It's not whether the PS3 has to software upscale or not that should be the big issue for consumers (especially "videophiles"), IMO, it's whether the upscaling that gets done is good or poor).

What would the cost of decent upscaling be compared to bilinear if done on a fast unit like a SPU?

rapso

23-May-2008, 09:52

sir doris

23-May-2008, 10:09

AFAIK it's a very good quality upscaling for movies, a lot of videophiles" say that it's the best upscaler for DVD movies on the market. but i wouldn't expect that high quality scaling for games.

The reason for that is that DVD's and blurays are upscalled by the Cell (3SPU's?) not RSX, obviously when playing games Cell is busy running the game so can't really be used in the same time.

rapso

23-May-2008, 10:40

The reason for that is that DVD's and blurays are upscalled by the Cell (3SPU's?) not RSX, obviously when playing games Cell is busy running the game so can't really be used in the same time.
that's what i would also say.
but there are also a lot of developers who claim they're using less than 30% of the available Cell/SPU performance, wouldn't be that painful for them to add high quality scaling I guess.

DJ12

23-May-2008, 11:15

I'm sure they are using close to 100% of CELL, with 30% efficiency

deepbrown

23-May-2008, 11:29

I'm sure they are using close to 100% of CELL, with 30% efficiency

Bravo

obonicus

23-May-2008, 16:40

Do we have a resolution for Soul Calibur IV? I didn't see anything in the resolution thread.
New screenshots:

http://www.strategyinformer.com/xbox360/soulcaliburiv/screenshot-viewer.html?id=196735
[URL="http://www.strategyinformer.com/xbox360/soulcaliburiv/screenshot-viewer.html?id=196744[/URL]
http://www.strategyinformer.com/xbox360/soulcaliburiv/screenshot-viewer.html?id=196737

From here: http://www.strategyinformer.com/xbox360/soulcaliburiv/screenshots.html

Supposedly from the 360 version, and I think I see artifacts, so not bullshots?

joker454

23-May-2008, 17:01

The question is, how many cycles does a upscale require in reality. Is it 2% of the render time or is it more.

Still, there is only one to blame for "sub" 720p games, the developer. If he ends up with a game that cant sustain 720p he either chose poorly or he calculated from the start that the 2% hit from scaling was worth it.

There are fast ways to software upscale, faster than it would normally take to run the pixel shaders in the 'skipped' area. Then again it's not always about speed, sometimes you need a bit more memory. Or, you decide you can get a better look at 640p with improved shaders. There's nothing wrong with using variable resolutions. I mean seriously, why should everything be 720p? We should be free to use any resolution we want for whatever our needs may be. Not having a hardware scaler makes that harder. Given that this generation of consoles is a 'transitionary' generation from SD to HD, the manufacturers should have expected to be dealing with a variety of display types with different abilities, as well as the possibility that there wouldn't be enough machine grunt to always overcome the resolution bump from last generation.

Imho, the best looking games this generation (so far) was all 720p or 1080p and on the PS3.

I'll do the mods a favor and not reply to this one :)

A motion controlled Blu-Ray player with a default Harddrive for all those funny Java movies. That comment is so unlike you.

You're actually helping to make my point! The harddrive is required for it to be a blu-ray 2.0 compatible player. So to the movie suits that's a must have. To the gamer suits, it may have been a possible cost cut as you can still make games without it. The controller has no vibration feature. To the movie suits vibration is irrelevant, an easy skip. The gamer suits would have paid the lawsuit and shipped standard with one. Likewise with a hardware scaler. Movie suits don't care, all the HD content is at 1080p, and for regular dvd's they can devote the entire grunt of the machine to upscaling it. To the gamer suits, can you really see a bunch of graphics gurus sitting around a table and crossing "hardware scaling" off the must have list, for this generation?

AFAIK it's a very good quality upscaling for movies, a lot of videophiles" say that it's the best upscaler for DVD movies on the market. but i wouldn't expect that high quality scaling for games.

It's an exceptionally good dvd upscaler, some claim as good as the Oppo players. But then again they can devote the resources of the entire machine to just upscaling, which apparently they do because the fan sometimes kicks up a bit when playing a dvd movie.

_phil_

23-May-2008, 17:19

hey , probably it's NVIdia that screwed up....

-tkf-

23-May-2008, 17:27

You're actually helping to make my point!

Not sure what you are trying to accomplish here..?

The lack of hardware scaler was a giant minus for the PS3. I doubt the movie suits loved all the bad press from owners of shitty HDTV´s that couldnt accept the 1080p and since the PS3 didnt have a scaler it couldnt´help them. And it was a piss poor DVD player as well. I dont see how that helped the PS3 as a movie player at all.

It was software and Cell that made a difference in both cases.

1GB memory is the requirement for a 2.0 player not 40GB.

EDIT: I would still like an estimate on the price for a software upscale, and is it completely free on the 360, you should know :-)

novcze

23-May-2008, 18:11

I can't understand how you can ship a video game console without hardware scaling support.

Why is hardware scaling so important? Every TV can upscale from 720p or 576p to whatever native panel resolution is.

Consoles are not PCs so developers must know this, so natural choice of resolution is 576p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p.

I like attitude of Sony internal/exclusive developers, no sub 720p games, I really appreciate that.

joker454

23-May-2008, 19:14

It was software and Cell that made a difference in both cases.

Yes, exactly! For a console movie player, you don't need scaling in hardware since you have the entire might of the PS3 to do it for you in software. In fact, one could argue that as a movie device a software scaling solution is preferred to a hardware one on PS3 since the mass cpu power available lets them tweak a software scaling/filtering solution over the life of the machine. Which leads me back to my original point...as a movie device, no hardware scaling is no big deal since it can all be solved and/or improved over time in software. Not so as a gaming device since you obviously have way less resources to dedicate to scaling/processing.

1GB memory is the requirement for a 2.0 player not 40GB.

Bare minimum doesn't help it to be the ultimate movie device, meaning 2.0 playback, saving book marks, downloading trailers, renting downloable movies online, etc... Right now, it's current design screams movie/media friendly in every way, one reason of which is that standard and easily upgradable 40gb hdd.

hey , probably it's NVIdia that screwed up....

Maybe, but I'd have figured that Sony would have had a countermeasure for that kinda thing, legal or otherwise. I can't imagine it went down like:

NVidia: Oops, scaling doesn't work.
Sony: That's ok, here's your check.

...seems unlikely to me :)

MJP

23-May-2008, 19:17

Why is hardware scaling so important? Every TV can upscale from 720p or 576p to whatever native panel resolution is.

TV's don't scale arbitrary resolutions, they scale from a fixed set of standard input resolutions to whatever the native resolution is. You can't feed a monitor something like 1024 x 600 and expect it to happily display it (or 576p, if you're not in a PAL region). Heck, a lot of old 1080i sets won't even take 720p! This is is why the scaler is important, to allow the developer to use arbitrary backbuffer resolutions with no regard to what input the display will actually accept.

-tkf-

23-May-2008, 19:17

Yes, exactly! For a console movie player, you don't need scaling in hardware since you have the entire might of the PS3 to do it for you in software. In fact, one could argue that as a movie device a software scaling solution is preferred to a hardware one on PS3 since the mass cpu power available lets them tweak a software scaling/filtering solution over the life of the machine. Which leads me back to my original point...as a movie device, no hardware scaling is no big deal since it can all be solved and/or improved over time in software. Not so as a gaming device since you obviously have way less resources to dedicate to scaling/processing.

Bare minimum doesn't help it to be the ultimate movie device, meaning 2.0 playback, saving book marks, downloading trailers, renting downloable movies online, etc... Right now, it's current design screams movie/media friendly in every way, one reason of which is that standard and easily upgradable 40gb hdd.

Maybe, but I'd have figured that Sony would have had a countermeasure for that kinda thing, legal or otherwise. I can't imagine it went down like:

NVidia: Oops, scaling doesn't work.
Sony: That's ok, here's your check.

...seems unlikely to me :)

And they had all this planned when they didn´t include a scaler chip. Sure :-)

novcze

23-May-2008, 19:38

TV's don't scale arbitrary resolutions, they scale from a fixed set of standard input resolutions to whatever the native resolution is.

Yeah sure, thats what I saying . . . we have 480i/p, 576i/p, 720p, 1080i/p.
And developers must obbey that. On PC you can`t choose resolution outside accepted standard resolution (no need for scalers). Why should be consoles exception?

AlStrong

23-May-2008, 20:52

Do we have a resolution for Soul Calibur IV? I didn't see anything in the resolution thread.

Results are only put in the resolutions thread when there is confirmation from a demo or a screen capture from hardware using a demo or retail game.

MJP

23-May-2008, 20:55

Yeah sure, thats what I saying . . . we have 480i/p, 576i/p, 720p, 1080i/p.
And developers must obbey that. On PC you can`t choose resolution outside accepted standard resolution (no need for scalers). Why should be consoles exception?

Because on a console you can't say "well if our game doesn't run at over 20 FPS at 1280 x 720p, then get a new graphics card". If you can't hit 720p, then the next-best option would be 640 x 480.

joker454

23-May-2008, 21:39

And they had all this planned when they didn´t include a scaler chip. Sure :-)

A '10 year product' will not be left to random chance, it will be planned in nauseating detail internally at the company. I'm sure all those movie related features I mentioned were either thought of, planned for, or mentioned as "wouldn't it be cool if..." type abilities, and they would rely on software to catch up over the years. Why else for example would they include gigabit ethernet? Games certainly don't need it.

Regarding hardware scaling, we'll probably never know the true story of why it came to be what it is today. Maybe the issue was discovered part way and deemed to be not important. Maybe it was discovered too late and NVidia cut a better deal with Sony to compensate. Maybe everyone thought it worked until the first batch were made and both companies we're caught off guard when it didn't. Who knows.

novcze

23-May-2008, 21:52

Because on a console you can't say "well if our game doesn't run at over 20 FPS at 1280 x 720p, then get a new graphics card". If you can't hit 720p, then the next-best option would be 640 x 480.

why not, it's just 240 lines, much better then gimmick with upscale and you get better framerate too. :lol:

-tkf-

24-May-2008, 06:09

A '10 year product' will not be left to random chance, it will be planned in nauseating detail internally at the company.

Yet they failed to include a scaler chip.

Crossbar

24-May-2008, 08:30

They are stuck with software vertical scaling for the life of the hardware alas (or so I've been told) :( Maybe they thought that all software would be running in 1080p and hence broken vertical scaling wouldn't be a big omission. Needless to say they chose......poorly. It's even worse given that sub 720p titles are becoming more and more common forcing software cycles to be spent on scaling. To me this lends credence to the theory that the PS3 to Sony is first and foremost a blu-ray movie player rather than a game console. Otherwise, I can't understand how you can ship a video game console without hardware scaling support.

Going by Kutaragi back in 2005 you may be right:

Honda: It seems PS3 is designed and has the spec that can naturally exist in home as an AV appliance.

Kutaragi: It's of course. Because PlayStation is not a game console. I have never remarked that PlayStation is a game console. These days a display becomes fixed-pixel so there'll be more displays for home use that can output full HD in the real resolution. Thus it's natural move that it has 2 1080p outputs.
I coudln´t find the original article where I read this, but this transcript (http://cyberiapc.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t7518.html) seems credible.

Mind you that was back in the days when the PS3 still had 2 HDMI outputs, but it may give some clues why they didn´t waste die space on scaler logic.

Given that most of the PS3 games that are scaling the output are first generation games I don´t agree with people claiming it is becoming the norm. If we are looking at Sony first-party developers like Insomniac et al it is pretty obvious you can make goodlooking games without scaling. If I am assuming that games will improve in a similar way as in previous generations, within 2 years from now I would be very surprised if not the great majority of all new games are rendered at 720p or above.
By that time the scaler logic will no longer give any obvious advantages and the logic will just hang around as unused die space as the built in scalers in the TV-sets will take over the job for larger displays.

Shifty Geezer

24-May-2008, 10:31

Given that most of the PS3 games that are scaling the output are first generation games I don´t agree with people claiming it is becoming the norm. If we are looking at Sony first-party developers like Insomniac et al it is pretty obvious you can make goodlooking games without scaling.But not at 1080p! And reading this rough translation...
These days a display becomes fixed-pixel so there'll be more displays for home use that can output full HD in the real resolution
...that seems to be what Kutaragi was getting at, with real resolution of a fixed-pixel display.

Regards the collapse of thread structure, I'll spawn off a new Neverending thread when there's some more resolution/game/tech discussion.

_phil_

24-May-2008, 13:04

Maybe, but I'd have figured that Sony would have had a countermeasure for that kinda thing, legal or otherwise. I can't imagine it went down like:

NVidia: Oops, scaling doesn't work.
Sony: That's ok, here's your check.

Neither would see any interest in that story blowing out.Fact is still that there is about 0,4 % chances , that no scaler or half a scaller was part of a business plan.

DJ12

24-May-2008, 14:11

I don't know, Maybe Sony "foolishly" thought devs would make their games 720p at least with assessts their engine could manage.

When you see games like Uncharted and Gears of War on both platforms is there any justification for sub 720p games because there aren't many (if any) that look better than Gears for the 360 or Uncharted for the PS3.

Terarrim

24-May-2008, 15:56

Maybe they thought that devs would use the Cell, XDR memory (for graphics) far more than the third party devs are at the moment!

Nesh

24-May-2008, 16:47

Going by Kutaragi back in 2005 you may be right:

I coudln´t find the original article where I read this, but this transcript (http://cyberiapc.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t7518.html) seems credible.

Mind you that was back in the days when the PS3 still had 2 HDMI outputs, but it may give some clues why they didn´t waste die space on scaler logic.

Given that most of the PS3 games that are scaling the output are first generation games I don´t agree with people claiming it is becoming the norm. If we are looking at Sony first-party developers like Insomniac et al it is pretty obvious you can make goodlooking games without scaling. If I am assuming that games will improve in a similar way as in previous generations, within 2 years from now I would be very surprised if not the great majority of all new games are rendered at 720p or above.
By that time the scaler logic will no longer give any obvious advantages and the logic will just hang around as unused die space as the built in scalers in the TV-sets will take over the job for larger displays.

That doesnt suggest that the PS3 is viewed foremost as a blue ray player. Lets not forget that the Playstation platform was aimed to be an all in one entertainment device. Long before the invention of Blu Ray. Direct quote from your post "I have never remarked that PlayStation is a game console", includes the platform since its first inception not the PS3 and Kutaragi always envisioned the Playstation as the device that would sit next to every TV and offer everything in terms of digital entertainment in the future.

Gaming is viewed as important as everything else.

Hazuki Ryu

24-May-2008, 16:53

DrJay24

24-May-2008, 17:23

Gamestop has made a new comparison ps3 vs 360 what do you guys think that makes the ps3 version look blurrier than the 360 most of the time not counting on the games that run at lower resolutions than the 360 version, is it AF the scaler the color/contrast settings?

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6191251/index.html

It depends on the game I think. For Orange Box it was the Quincunx AA I think. For COD4 and some other games it was some lower res textures (less RAM, but better AF sometimes fools some folks).

Hazuki Ryu

24-May-2008, 17:36

It depends on the game I think. For Orange Box it was the Quincunx AA I think. For COD4 and some other games it was some lower res textures (less RAM, but better AF sometimes fools some folks).

Cod 4 uses lower resolution textures on the ps3? I really haven't noticed from those screens.

On Assassin's Creen the blurry textures seem result of worse AF ofcourse I can be wrong. (on the 3rd AC image really looks like its the AF)

grandmaster

24-May-2008, 18:34

chris100

24-May-2008, 19:24

Don't remember there was an analysis for Soul Calibur IV,seems to be 720p native w/4AA
?

Screenshots:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=299641

http://images.gamersyde.com/gallery/public/8528/1286_0010.jpg
http://images.gamersyde.com/gallery/public/8528/1286_0015.jpg
http://images.gamersyde.com/gallery/public/8528/1286_0007.jpg

joker454

24-May-2008, 20:26

Screenshots:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=299641

I don't know if that link helps answer the msaa question, but it sure does help answer one of the reasons women avoid the 360/ps3 and flock to the Wii.

djskribbles

24-May-2008, 21:05

From memory I recall that Orange Box is just blurred, whereas Assassin's Creed uses Quincunx and has very different contrast.

I don't think that CoD4 has massive differences. There are some higher quality textures on 360 whereas some effects on PS3 (such as the rain effect on the boat level) look better.
really? i thought it was the opposite (OB-Quincunx 2x, AC-AAx2).

as for games looking blurry on ps3 sometimes, sometimes its just a simple case of calibration (or lack-thereof). games with brightness set too high will make the game look washed out. with the correct brightness, contrast is improved and it actually makes it look sharper. gamespots shots of AC is a good example of brightness being set way too high on the ps3 side (look at the shadows). brightness is essentially the black level control btw.

other times, it may be that the ps3 version is using quincunx AA, or its blurred on purpose, or its simply slightly lower resolution.

Rangers

24-May-2008, 21:24

Gamestop has made a new comparison ps3 vs 360 what do you guys think that makes the ps3 version look blurrier than the 360 most of the time not counting on the games that run at lower resolutions than the 360 version, is it AF the scaler the color/contrast settings?

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6191251/index.html

New? June 13 2007...

Edit: well the article is dated 6/13/07 but Assassins Creed and GTA4 is in there and the comments seem to be from 5/24/08 so I guess it is new..

Jin-wu

25-May-2008, 00:22

it's bullshot, not screenshot, 5120x768 is not possible in realtime for the moment :)
but yes i no doubt that MGS4 will be in 1024x768, just wait the confirmation
I have a question concerning MGO beta resolution.
I am new at this and could be wrong, but I think you made a mistake with this one.

1024x786 is not a resolution for a 16-9 tv (widescreen tv). Are you sure you counted it in the correct way?

768/9= 85.3333, 85.333*16= 1365.333
or
1024/16= 64, 64x9= 576.

So MGO beta must either be 1024x576 or 1366x768.

However, 1024x768 is perfectly devideble by 4-3. 4-3 tv's are the non-widescreen tv's. But this cant be, because MGO beta was a 16-9 game.

Could someone clear this up for me please?

I checked this thread:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241&highlight=metal+gear+online
All of the games listed in this thread are 16-9 (all the one's I checked, didnt check all of them though), except for MGO beta. Which is strange.

deepbrown

25-May-2008, 02:06

Was it decided that Haze does indeed have 2xAA as listed here http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241 ?

Because Quaz said the demo had no AA http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1157872&postcount=812

obonicus

25-May-2008, 03:49

AlStrong

25-May-2008, 04:18

Could someone clear this up for me please?

Read up wikipedia on anamorphic widescreen. Or consider the resolution on DVDs versus film aspect ratio...

Statix

25-May-2008, 04:43

I have a question concerning MGO beta resolution.
I am new at this and could be wrong, but I think you made a mistake with this one.

1024x786 is not a resolution for a 16-9 tv (widescreen tv). Are you sure you counted it in the correct way?

768/9= 85.3333, 85.333*16= 1365.333
or
1024/16= 64, 64x9= 576.

So MGO beta must either be 1024x576 or 1366x768.

However, 1024x768 is perfectly devideble by 4-3. 4-3 tv's are the non-widescreen tv's. But this cant be, because MGO beta was a 16-9 game.

Could someone clear this up for me please?

I checked this thread:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241&highlight=metal+gear+online
All of the games listed in this thread are 16-9 (all the one's I checked, didnt check all of them though), except for MGO beta. Which is strange.

You're partly right. 1024x768 is 4:3, not 16:9. However, MGO, and presumably MGS4, takes the 1024x768 resolution and stretches/scales it to a 16:9 resolution. In other words, the engine will scale/convert the 1024x768 to either 1920x1080 or 1280x720.