[Jedi2016]

You can probably get overall resolution, assuming the video is pixel-for-pixel direct feed. AA might be trickier to determine since sharpness is one of the first things to go when compressing video.

[Quaz51]

Originally Posted by Statix

Does anyone wanna take a crack at this Far Cry 2 720p footage, entitled "Console Walkthrough? There's quite a bit of visible aliasing in certain areas.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/39010.html?type=wmv

I'm think I'm measuring 960x1080, which indicates this might be the PS3 version running at 960x1080 in 1080p mode.

yes

[upnorthsox]

Originally Posted by Quaz51

yes

Yes, you want to take a crack at it?

Yes, There's quite a bit of visible aliasing? Or

Yes, it's the PS3 version running at 960x1080 in 1080p mode?

[Betanumerical]

Originally Posted by upnorthsox

Yes, you want to take a crack at it?

Yes, There's quite a bit of visible aliasing? Or

Yes, it's the PS3 version running at 960x1080 in 1080p mode?

Yes that its 960x1080 I think.

damn your correctness. damn it to hell

[grandmaster]

Originally Posted by Statix

Does anyone wanna take a crack at this Far Cry 2 720p footage, entitled "Console Walkthrough? There's quite a bit of visible aliasing in certain areas.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/39010.html?type=wmv

I'm think I'm measuring 960x1080, which indicates this might be the PS3 version running at 960x1080 in 1080p mode.

They'd have to be seriously nuts to take a 1080p video at a sub-optimal resolution then rescale to 720p, when it should have be far easier to capture at 720p to begin with.

Are we sure it's not 960x720? That's the resolution of DVCPRO-HD tape. I'm finding it a bit hard to believe they captured this at 1080p as there's only one maker of 1080p capture cards and I've not sold one to Ubisoft

I suppose there's an outside chance the original capture may be 1080i instead; both would be using 960x1080.

[Quaz51]

yes it's 960x1080

[jandlecack]

I trust Quaz on this and it would explain the rather poor and blurry quality of the shot. Or maybe that's because it was capped during motion. In any case it looks fishy for native 720p.

[Jedi2016]

Hey, Quaz, how's it going?

*cough*ForceUnleashed*cough*

'scuse me.

I know we're pretty settled on the 720p thing, but I'm curious to hear your ideas on the apparent discrepancies between the two versions.

[St0]

According to gamespots preview, PS3 farcry will have anti-aliasing. so 360 will probably be 1280x720 0xAA and PS3 1280x720 with 2xAA, or the 360 will have 2xAA and the PS3 4XAA, but i doubt it.

http://www.psu.com/Far-Cry-2-to-feat...0004674-p0.php

[Statix]

Originally Posted by St0

According to gamespots preview, PS3 farcry will have anti-aliasing. so 360 will probably be 1280x720 0xAA and PS3 1280x720 with 2xAA, or the 360 will have 2xAA and the PS3 4XAA, but i doubt it.

http://www.psu.com/Far-Cry-2-to-feat...0004674-p0.php

I think that was a serious misinterpretation on Gamespot's part. What Ubisoft probably said exactly was, "The PS3 version will have a little more aliasing (i.e., jaggies) than the XB360." The editor, probably being not very technical-minded, misinterprets that "more aliasing is better," so he wrongly writes in his article that the PS3 version will have "better aliasing."

The PS3 version having better anti-aliasing in the case of Far Cry 2 is seeming unlikely, as you can see in the PS3 footage above that there is no anti-aliasing whatsoever (although it's possible that Ubisoft simply turned off anti-aliasing in the 1080i/p mode of the PS3 version). In all of the XB360 footage I've seen, there has been at least some anti-aliasing.

[jandlecack]

By the way, how do we know that Console footage comes from the PS3 build? AFAIK there weren't any button indications. At least I couldn't spot any.

[djskribbles]

by the resolution. not many (if any) 360 games were rendered at 960x1080, but thats a pretty typical resolution used with PS3 games because of the horizontal scaler.

[obonicus]

Originally Posted by Statix

I think that was a serious misinterpretation on Gamespot's part. What Ubisoft probably said exactly was, "The PS3 version will have a little more aliasing (i.e., jaggies) than the XB360." The editor, probably being not very technical-minded, misinterprets that "more aliasing is better," so he wrongly writes in his article that the PS3 version will have "better aliasing."

Maybe, but what developer would really say it like that? 'The PS3 version will not be less worse.'

[djskribbles]

i'm not putting any stock into this article, just wait till the game is released.
regarding that screenshot posted above, it looks like theres no AA, but is it possible that at 720p, there will be AA? 960x1080 is more lines of resolution than 1280x720, and that screenshot/video is probably running in 1080p mode.

[Gitaroo]

I think they either mean that the PS3 version will have more aliasing (more jaggies), or the PS3 version will have full 2XMSAA and 360 version uses selective AA (like Mass Effect, devil may cry 4 etc) to get the most performance out of the game as possible. Ps3 can either have AA or no AA, I dont remember anyone mention any PS3 games with selective AA.

[Jedi2016]

FC2 does seem to use the same core code for all three platforms.. how easy is to "customize" each version after that, to make use of AA and such? Otherwise, I'd wager the "extra" aliasing may be the result of the resolution. I'm kind of hoping that what we see there is forced 1080p... I'd rather have full 720p than half 1080p.

[mech]

Originally Posted by grandmaster

They'd have to be seriously nuts to take a 1080p video at a sub-optimal resolution then rescale to 720p, when it should have be far easier to capture at 720p to begin with.

Are we sure it's not 960x720? That's the resolution of DVCPRO-HD tape. I'm finding it a bit hard to believe they captured this at 1080p as there's only one maker of 1080p capture cards and I've not sold one to Ubisoft

I suppose there's an outside chance the original capture may be 1080i instead; both would be using 960x1080.

What's DVCPRO-HD tape got to do with anything...?

From what I've seen previously in this thread Quaz can tell the native res even from a lower resolution video snapshot...

[Statix]

Originally Posted by grandmaster

Vegas 2 had no 1080p support at all if memory serves. Vegas 1 still has the worst 1080p support ever seen on PS3 - a colossal amount of blur. You can see it on the single comparison shot on the second row here.

I definitely think Ubisoft learned their lesson from the atrociously blurry scaling of Vegas 1; at the very least, the 960x1080 hardware-accelerated approach is a lot sharper and doesn't incur a performance penalty. And for an owner of an older, 1080i hdtv like me, having at least some 1080-output support is better than none at all (a la Vegas 2).

Originally Posted by shazam

god i hope it doesnt default at 1080p like rainbow six vegas 1. i hate having to uncheck the 1080p box before starting the game.

Do you even have a 1080p-native television? Why would you set your XMB to 1080p if your TV is 720p-native anyway?

Originally Posted by Jedi2016

I'm kind of hoping that what we see there is forced 1080p... I'd rather have full 720p than half 1080p.

You're almost 100% guaranteed to have the ability to run FC2 in traditional 1280x720 (720p), seeing as the PS3 doesn't have any hardware capable of downscaling 960x1080 to 720p.

[grandmaster]

Vegas 2 had no 1080p support at all if memory serves. Vegas 1 still has the worst 1080p support ever seen on PS3 - a colossal amount of blur. You can see it on the single comparison shot on the second row here.

[Quaz51]

Originally Posted by Statix

Do you even have a 1080p-native television? Why would you set your XMB to 1080p if your TV is 720p-native anyway?

XMB (and other XMB function, PSstore, photo viewer, music player, folding, bluray film ect...) is always 1080p natif and rescaled after for the output (SD, 720, 1080...). if his TV is 1365x768 panel or 1024x1024 or another not720p or 720p but with overscan... i think it's better to use XMB 1080p output for have just one rescale in the TV and avoid the double rescale (PS3 + TV)

[user542745831]

Originally Posted by Quaz51

XMB (and other XMB function, PSstore, photo viewer, music player, folding, bluray film ect...) is always 1080p natif and rescaled after for the output (SD, 720, 1080...). if his TV is 1365x768 panel or 1024x1024 or another not720p or 720p but with overscan... i think it's better to use XMB 1080p output for have just one rescale in the TV and avoid the double rescale (PS3 + TV)

You say, that xmb is always 1920 x 1080p. Regardless which output resolution it is set to. And that it is just downscaled to 1280 x 720p for example, if the xmb is set to 720p.

Why does the font, symbols and so on get bigger then? The lower the xmb output resolution, the bigger the font and so on. Why is that, if it is true that it is just downscaled?

This is the same way windows is behaving when changing desktop resolution. Except you are changing dpi settings.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by user542745831

Why does the font, symbols and so on get bigger then? The lower the xmb output resolution, the bigger the font and so on. Why is that, if it is true that it is just downscaled?

Perhpas they render the font larger so it'll be more legible.

[user542745831]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Perhpas they render the font larger so it'll be more legible.

1080p downscaled to 720p or below but with '1:1 hud' then, or what?

Wouldn't this be suboptimal if they could just display xmb native with same 'dpi setting' at 720p or below? The font and so on would then become larger, anyway, wouldn't it? Like in ms windows.

Is xmb really always downscaled when not set to 1080p? And the font is rendered at a different size then?

Wouldn't this be as strange from the developers as it sounds?

Anyway, is xmb even a complete 3D application? Or just at some features like photo viewer 3D slideshow or something like that?

[Shifty Geezer]

I've tidied things up a bit to remove the OT chatter. Remember this is a technical discussion, so commenting on hopes for a game's resolution is misplaced here. Just the facts, ma'am.

[shazam]

Originally Posted by Statix

I definitely think Ubisoft learned their lesson from the atrociously blurry scaling of Vegas 1; at the very least, the 960x1080 hardware-accelerated approach is a lot sharper and doesn't incur a performance penalty. And for an owner of an older, 1080i hdtv like me, having at least some 1080-output support is better than none at all (a la Vegas 2).

Do you even have a 1080p-native television? Why would you set your XMB to 1080p if your TV is 720p-native anyway?

You're almost 100% guaranteed to have the ability to run FC2 in traditional 1280x720 (720p), seeing as the PS3 doesn't have any hardware capable of downscaling 960x1080 to 720p.

clearly you've never played rb6v1. of course my tv is 1080p native. the game is 720 native and if you play it without unchecking the 1080p box in the display settings in the xmb before starting the game it will default in 1080p upscaled but the scaler is horrible and the game is a terrible blurry mess when you play in that resolution and you can barely even read the text. next time do your research before questioning people with such a snobby attitude.