The only difference there is that PS3's shot seems to show more texture detail and normal mapping farther while 360's seem to have better textures up close.
Everything else is identical minus the soldier on the 360 shot
Call of Duty 4: Modern combat trailer up
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
The only difference there is that PS3's shot seems to show more texture detail and normal mapping farther while 360's seem to have better textures up close.
Everything else is identical minus the soldier on the 360 shot
i.e. the 360 has more detailed textures for the ground and walls at those locations, yes?
Ground textures on the particular shot seem more detailed on the PS3 to me. The wall texture on the other hand looks better on the 360. The wall is close to the camera and ground is far away in the shot.
What makes you say that? Here's my measuring -
Image 1 is the original XB360 image.
Image 2 is the XB360 image downscaled to 50% (both dimensions) and upscaled to original scale - that's 1/4 the total resolution.
Image 3 is the XB360 image downscaled to 25% (both dimensions) and upscaled to original scale - that's 1/16 the total resolution.
Image 4 is a section from the PS3 image
Image 2 is clearly far more detailed and approximating the XB360 version than the PS3 effort. You can see even at 1/4 the resolution you can appreciate the bumps are real bumps. There is absolutely no way the PS3 texture size is higher than 1/4 the size of XB360's in that image. The size of the texels in image 3 are close to the size of the detailing in the PS3 image. eg. in the groove between blocks, the XB360 version at 1/16 original resolution spans 2 texels. The groove in the PS3 image shows similarly two distinct rows of texels. If you measure texels, they span about the same area. The ringed clusters of 2x3 chequered pixels are both about 15 pixels high.
On that particular shot (wall) the PS3 ground textures look better filtered, but I can't say higher resolution. The wall textures, however, are clearly crappy on the PS3 compared to the XB360. Trying to get falloutboy33 (origin of shots) to tell me where that is so I have an excuse to go buy the game and see it firsthand 
[Edit: posted concurrently with Shifty Geezer who explained the wall perfectly - but what about the ground?]
[Edit: posted concurrently with Shifty Geezer who explained the wall perfectly - but what about the ground?]
What makes you say that? Here's my measuring -
Image 1 is the original XB360 image.
Image 2 is the XB360 image downscaled to 50% (both dimensions) and upscaled to original scale - that's 1/4 the total resolution.
Image 3 is the XB360 image downscaled to 25% (both dimensions) and upscaled to original scale - that's 1/16 the total resolution.
Image 4 is a section from the PS3 image
Image 2 is clearly far more detailed and approximating the XB360 version than the PS3 effort. You can see even at 1/4 the resolution you can appreciate the bumps are real bumps. There is absolutely no way the PS3 texture size is higher than 1/4 the size of XB360's in that image. The size of the texels in image 3 are close to the size of the detailing in the PS3 image. eg. in the groove between blocks, the XB360 version at 1/16 original resolution spans 2 texels. The groove in the PS3 image shows similarly two distinct rows of texels. If you measure texels, they span about the same area. The ringed clusters of 2x3 chequered pixels are both about 15 pixels high.
The part you put in red circle in the PS3 shot also exists in the third 360 shot too. I am not sure what happened here. At the same time the gun on the PS3 image looks just as sharp as the original 360 image.
That's the point - downsample the xb360 texture to 1/4 in both dimensions (toss out all that texture data) and then upsample it back to native and it has similar appearance and artifacts to the PS3 texture.
It appears the PS3 is scaling a much lower resolution texture whereas the xb360 is using a detailed texture.
The same procedure on the ground with trash texture has a similar result. What's more it's clear that the upscaling on the PS3 isn't even using a good interpolation routine to avoid the jaggies. Bummer. Hopefully this is rare in CoD4 and not the norm.
Hmmm... that's more convincing
To those who say the ground textures are "more detailed" on the PS3: this is not detail, this is contrast - probably pushed up to compensate for the lack of resolution.
I dont know what conclusion to derive. Even at the earlier close up ground shot, the PS3 showed some more normal mapping, had less blurry looks and less flat textures yet they had a mess of jaggies and pixelation as if they are at lower resolution. It seems that the PS3 version has lower res textures up close but higher detail farther away while the 360 seems consistent. Perhaps these are the trade offs the devs have been talking about
Hmmm... that's more convincing
To those who say the ground textures are "more detailed" on the PS3: this is not detail, this is contrast - probably pushed up to compensate for the lack of resolution.
Huh? No, its blatently a higher level of detail. Its possible the PS3 version is implementing AF while the 360 isn't. It certainly has the spare texture filtering capacity. Oblivion demonstarted the same thing.
When downgrade one texture to 1/16 th resolution when a few textures downgraded to 1/4 size wouldn't be anything like as noticeable? Also there's that other pic of the really low texture on the gun.Alstrong said:
It's all so wrong that it can't be an artist's decision. Would any artist okay the choice to put that blocky texture in there, rather than exercise a more uniform texture reduction throughout the whole level?
My guess would be a separate detail map or something.
I might believe that - xb360 has larger textures while PS3 has more AF (and detail maps for some items as shifty mentions).
Is this frame grabs or of screen photos?
The texels on the X360 shot are larger than 1 pixel, so scaling the image down 50% and then resizing will not scale the actual texels to 1/4th resolution. I'm not sure if I can express it well enough in english...
You have a texel that's 2*2 pixels big. Scale the image down to 50%, your texel is 1*1 pixels. You scale the image back up, and the texel is again 2*2 pixels. There's some loss of detail, but it just makes the texture patterns a bit blurry.
You have a texel that's 1*1 pixels big. Scale down, 0.5*0.5 pixels - the texel is merged with surrounding pixels and becomes an averaged value. Scale up, you get a 2*2 pixels big texel. Detail is visibly lost.
See the difference? If the texels are big enough on the original image, then your math doesn't do what you've expected. Image compression doesn't help here either.
Regarding PS3 sharpness: whoever took the photo from a TV, he could have adjusted image processing like Sharpness filters on the device.
Though it is quite likely that X360 has no AF at all, but let's not forget that we're not looking at direct feed shots.
Though it is quite likely that X360 has no AF at all, but let's not forget that we're not looking at direct feed shots.
Well...., I don't what they were thinking there specifically, but I mean, is it an issue that affects every environment texture?
I wonder if they should have gone with regular textures rather than provide the whole quartet of normal, spec, diffuse, texture, especially in a daytime scene. What I mean is: I don't think it would be a bad trade-off .
For example, in CoD2 PC, people could get "extra quality" textures in DX7 mode with 128MB video cards, and it (IMHO) looked a lot nicer than what users got in DX9 mode with 256MB video cards despite have normal maps and such.
Particularly in daytime scenes... are people really going to notice a normal map effect or a texture that can be up to four times bigger (in memory).
You mean the one with the rainbow colours? I thought that turned out to be the user's TV causing a problem (and being 'enhanced' by the camera). I may not have seen the one you're talking about, but they all look identical to me.
Similar threads
