1080p output = standard checkbox feature by 2011 or earlier?
- Thread starter Crossbar
- Start date
I think most of us are expecting 1080p being the primary resolution next gen. Following past consoles:
N64/PS1: 320x240 (with a few 640x480 interlaced titles)
Xbox/PS2/GCN: 480i/p (a few 720p/1080i games)
Xbox 360/PS3: 720p/1080i (some 1080p games)
The logical conclusion is that 1080p would be the baseline for the 2010-12 timeframe of consoles.
N64/PS1: 320x240 (with a few 640x480 interlaced titles)
Xbox/PS2/GCN: 480i/p (a few 720p/1080i games)
Xbox 360/PS3: 720p/1080i (some 1080p games)
The logical conclusion is that 1080p would be the baseline for the 2010-12 timeframe of consoles.
That applies for the games developed today. Do you think that line will change to
- Xbox 360/PS3: 1080p (some 720p/1080i games)
I have to say that I am not all too pleased with this development. I think that there are many more things that could be of use rather than resolution upgrades. I hope they let it in the hands of developers and not force 1080p as output standard, so that they can choose to put the power to higher res or other effects that they might think are more important for their title...
Fu3lFr3nzy
Regular
Im pretty sure this was discussed at another thread in the past. Even if a X360/PS3 game was only 480p , that doesnt mean all that extra bandwith will make the game visually better than a HD game(if I read it correctly), or that the differences will be very minimal that you might aswell render the game at a HD res.
Besides, by the time the future gen consoles arrive, gpu's of those machines will be more than capable of having a game 1080p standard while still retaining a high level of visual fidelity. I'd be surprised if they still couldnt :|
1080p output will definitely be standard. 1080p rendering is a different matter entirely 
Fu3lFr3nzy
Regular
I really should learn about the real definitions of these terms
Bigus Dickus
Regular
Exactly, which is why the developer should always have discretion about the tradeoffs that work best for their engine/game. If it is a minimal hit, or looks better than pixels spent elsewhere (shader effects, or AA for examples), then rendering at a higher res would make sense. If the sacrifice is large, maybe not. Forced minimums, whether by MS/Sony or market forces, don't always allow the optimum to be delivered.
No, I don't imo.
Look at how many games are running at 60fps at 720p, and then compare the number of games with dropped frames, tearing, etc at 720p.
There are always tradeoffs, and some games do better at higher resolutions, but in general moving from 720p30 to 1080p30 means you need to devote ~2x as much performance to your bottleneck at 720p. Which means you either need to cut quality or use a new technique (and typically you target a resolution so there will be many features that need to be changed in regards to quality or technique). If you are hitting the wall on Shader, Pixel Fillrate, and Texel Fillrate you are going to have to find ways to cut these down to move up to 1080p.
So the question is: What has the best final image on screen?
Resolution is not the end all be all of graphics. Personally I would love it if the 720p baseline was even removed as a number of developers have noted they could do a lot more at a lower resolution.
IMO I would take 720p over 1080p if that ment less shadow aliasing (which takes a lot of performance to reduce). If 1080p results in more shadow aliasing (or reduction in other lighting and shadowing effects) I think it is a loss over 720p in most games (RTS and such is game dependant).
There are exceptions (e.g. a game like VT3 which is more confined), but I think the current consoles are pushed pretty hard at 720p as it is. I think most developers will try to crank out higher settings at 720p than lower settings at 1080p.
Rainbow Man
Veteran
No points for stating the obvious Kyle.
Scaled resolution isn't the same. It doesn't count and it doesn't look better.
Everybody's so ooh-aah about upscaling DVD for example. There's no point in it. It'ss till the same image.
1080P is only going to matter when people have the display devices to enjoy it. And maybe that'll happen around 2011 it 'feels' pretty right. Flatpanel technology is moving ahead faster than CRT ever was so I don't think 720P is going to remain baseline into next decade. Things will move on up.
HD movie formats and home cinema trends will see to that.
Peace.
Scaled resolution isn't the same. It doesn't count and it doesn't look better.
Everybody's so ooh-aah about upscaling DVD for example. There's no point in it. It'ss till the same image.
1080P is only going to matter when people have the display devices to enjoy it. And maybe that'll happen around 2011 it 'feels' pretty right. Flatpanel technology is moving ahead faster than CRT ever was so I don't think 720P is going to remain baseline into next decade. Things will move on up.
HD movie formats and home cinema trends will see to that.
Peace.
Not quite. DVD movies are interlaced on the disc. The upscalers 'presumably' have better deinterlacers and scalers than conventional hardware. So when you output to a progressive scan display, it should look nicer in general.
At least with the 360's scaler, your IQ won't be subject to the TV necessarily. It's no replacement for internally rendering at a higher resolution, but IMO, it's still better than letting a potentially crap TV scaler handle the job.
Crossbar asked about 1080p output, which scaling does count for, regardless of what resolution the game is rendered at. That is why games like Lost Planet have been listeding 1080p support on the back of the box, and it's why any 360 game can included the "1080p checkbox" on it's packaging as well.No points for stating the obvious Kyle.
Scaled resolution isn't the same. It doesn't count and it doesn't look better.
And that goes for games too. How much of the maket do you think understands the difference between rendering resolution and scaling?
Rainbow Man
Veteran
That's anecdotal evidence at best. Even so the quality dfference is bound to be marginal compared to source material that is high-res from the outset.
I'm pretty sure he meant graphics actually drawn at the resolution not scaled.
There'd be little point in the thread otherwise seeing as common hardware already today as you so correctly state can scale to this resolution.
For the purpose of this thread it's enough peple on ths forum understand it.
Peace.
Looks more to me like he was asking about checkbox features, where currently only a few games list support for 1080p.
And there is little point is saying "Halo 2 runs at 720p on the 360" but many people do exactly that without any understanding of rendering resolution being the same as that on the Xbox or the fact that the 360 can also upscale any game to 1080i and 1080p.
The thread is about "worldwide TV consumers", not just people on this forum.For the purpose of this thread it's enough peple on ths forum understand it.
Rainbow Man
Veteran
I still don't see why you're assuming the topic hast o be about scaling when the word isn't even mentioned in the original post.
OPeople in genrral might not know the difference and they juyst might. Or in 2011-something consoles might come out that run 1080P natively with no upscaling from 720.
There's just too many variables to just assume it has to be about scaling.
Peace.
OPeople in genrral might not know the difference and they juyst might. Or in 2011-something consoles might come out that run 1080P natively with no upscaling from 720.
There's just too many variables to just assume it has to be about scaling.
Peace.
