Call of Duty 4: Modern combat trailer up
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
Betanumerical
Veteran
Someone is claiming the PS3's textures are serverly reduced and are around HALF the resolution of the 360's, could someone ask the COD4 dev on neogaf about this for me?.
EDIT: I would post up the pic but I think it would just start a flame war with no collaboration with the dev.
EDIT: I would post up the pic but I think it would just start a flame war with no collaboration with the dev.
Last edited by a moderator:
Seeing as this is B3D, I think the flame wars can be avoided. I believe these are the pics you are talking about
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showpost.php?p=10152903&postcount=242
While there is a clear difference in the upper frame (filtering or intentional added jpg compression - and where does the rainbow banding in the PS3 come from - is that really there?) there's certainly no resolution or filtering diff in the lower...lighting, sure, but not resolution or filtering that I can see.
The guy that took the pic said rainbow banding is from HDTV.
Betanumerical
Veteran
Yes they are, could someone with a neogaf account please ask the COD4 dev?, i'd like to know. Cause I remember claims that the same EVERYTHING was being used on bother platforms (textures, models, particles, etc).
So we could simply have a case where his TV sucks? Was it HDMI? 720p or 1080p?
I'm tempted to go get this just to verify that shot.
Or he could have an effective blur filter on the component out on the 360 and too much sharpness on the HDMI?
NFI, this is why I want to know.
Okay, I messed around a bit with those pictures and I can make the 360 "up close" texture look almost like the PS3 by pixelizing and then blurring a bit. Of course that trashes the far away texture completely. It's as if the LOD goes to hell on the PS3 up close or that AF is gone up close and high far away. Someone with more knowledge care to comment (all this is based on the assumption that these are valid screens at the same setting).
Betanumerical
Veteran
To me the PS3 ones look like he has the sharpness up WAY to high, and also he is comparing 1080P, wouldn't it be fairer to compare 720P native?.
Anyone who owns the game on PS3 care to comment / post pics?.
That's what I was thinking at first, but it also looks like some really bad normal map compression, perhaps a difference between using ATI2N (3Dc) on Xenos and the V8U8 format on RSX... *shrug*
Whoever did the comparison should have done 720p on both consoles using the same video hookups.
edit: nevermind... the V8U8 shouldn't give that bad of a result with proper Z-generation.
To a degree, but edge aliasing is no worse. Those two examples do seem to show significantly lower textures. That is possible. Some textures may be lower resolution to fit the smaller RAM available, yet most textures could be the same resulting in observations that the two titles are almost identical. It's worth noting that the arm and gun in the top pic are identical.
If you think about it, and they sized everything to fit PS3, there'd be a...40 ish MB
? RAM hole in XB360.woundingchaney
Regular
Depending on what one would consider "slight". The 360 memory pool is combined its reasonable to think that they could have used more rescources for vid. ram than the PS3's split architecture, this in combination with the memory drain the PS3 OS is.
Memory is one the main characteristics of displaying an image, more so than disk space.
Although this is the first I have heard of such talk. Given all the comparisons I have seen it sounds rather unlikely.
As far as the disk space ordeal, I was under the impression that this title clocked in on the 360 version at 6gig leaving approx. 1.5-2gig still left on disk or 25% free in comparison to used space (though Im not sure if this is official).
Last edited by a moderator:
ihamoitc2005
Veteran
From what I heard, because Xbox360 has no hard drive requirement, games must be able to have full performance with DVD read speed. So, what I here is, games always try to have extra compression to have all information in the outside 6.5-7GB of the disc only to keep read speed ok. This is because outside edge has faster read speed than inside.
This is what I heard from a other friend. I do not know any developers.
Also, I remember Microsoft also say that developers must use maximum compression and cache locking with using a CPU core for this purpose to get maximum graphics performance.
woundingchaney
Regular
Well thats not really my intended statement/direction. I am aware of compression usage given the scenario.
If the game clocks in at 6 gig then one would wonder how comments of "scaling back" and "disk space requirements" may not apply to the scenario when there is room enough for 25% more data above what is currently being used. Although once again Im not sure if this is an official quantity for the data on the disk.
Similar threads
