Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2011]

[kagemaru]

Umm...I have a question guys, it may be stupid but I don't get it - I watched the campaign frame-rate comparison video and saw that the 360 version introduces tearing when the frame-rate is locked at 30fps...aren't games with double buffering drop the v-sync when the engine is stressed and drops frames? how a game that runs at steady 30fps can have constant tearing at the same time? I don't think I've ever seen anything like that again.

The game drops v-sync so it doesn't drop frames.

 

[djskribbles]

Was looking forward to that.

As far as input lag, the article says the PS3 version is the same. I've only noticed a very small amount of input lag on the PS3 version... not nearly as bad as people say, and definitely not as bad as pre-patch KZ2.

 

[assurdum]

Mmm... honestly deferred light seems a bit offs on 360 more than a time (compared to ps3 version...); I don't talk only of the pixellated shaft or lensflare but the deferred light appears to have less diffuse 'range' or even in less quantity on the microsoft console in more than a scene; curiously, only to me I have noticed that until now. Honestly I would have given the 'top notch' to the ps3 version for this, althought the 360 remains excellent afterall.

 

[Ruskie]

Pixelated lens flares and faces in dark is more of an issue of HDR precision. Crytek also used FP10 right? But they described in their presentation that they got rid of pixelation.

All in all very good on all platforms. FXAA looks quite good actually, not any more blurrier than MLAA to be honest.

 

[Trejser]

Pixelated lens flares and faces in dark is more of an
All in all very good on all platforms. FXAA looks quite good actually, not any more blurrier than MLAA to be honest.

MLAA produces better resoluts than FXAA in BF3:

http://images.eurogamer.net/2011/articles//a/1/4/1/6/2/0/0/360_aa_000.bmp.jpg

http://images.eurogamer.net/2011/articles//a/1/4/1/6/2/0/0/PS3_aa_000.bmp.jpg

This is interesting becouse in DE:HR (suspected for using MLAA on PS3 and FXAA on 360) it was the other way around.

 

[assurdum]

MLAA produces better resoluts than FXAA in BF3:

http://images.eurogamer.net/2011/articles//a/1/4/1/6/2/0/0/360_aa_000.bmp.jpg

http://images.eurogamer.net/2011/articles//a/1/4/1/6/2/0/0/PS3_aa_000.bmp.jpg

This is interesting becouse in DE:HR (suspected for using MLAA on PS3 and FXAA on 360) it was the other way around.

I don't know yet why DE:HR is suspected to use MLAA on ps3 because the smooth edge has pretty clear FXAA cover effects; isn't it triangle pixels adding but evident contrast blurred jaggies what I see. It's just FXAA without subpixel detection.

 

[Kameradschaft]

The game drops v-sync so it doesn't drop frames.

Thanks for the reply, I always thought that when a game introduces tearing the frame-rate drops under 30fps like 27-29fps and that's when it drops v-sync to avoid going to 20fps or what the lowest point under 30fps is
when you have double buffering without dropping v-sync.

It looks like this question was indeed kinda embarrassing...anyway thanks again for the response.

 

[scently]

Mmm... honestly deferred light seems a bit offs on 360 more than a time (compared to ps3 version...); I don't talk only of the pixellated shaft or lensflare but the deferred light appears to have less diffuse 'range' or even in less quantity on the microsoft console in more than a scene; curiously, only to me I have noticed that until now. Honestly I would have given the 'top notch' to the ps3 version for this, althought the 360 remains excellent afterall.

If you read the article, you would notice that said pixelation only happened in a particular scene and no other. This is a game that is essentially equal on both console. If you have any specific example then show it, that is, apart from that one scene with the banding issue. Any attempt to assume superiority of one over the other is just petty IMO. The article didn't even give a recommendation because of the equality of the game.

 

[assurdum]

If you read the article, you would notice that said pixelation only happened in a particular scene and no other. This is a game that is essentially equal on both console. If you have any specific example then show it, that is, apart from that one scene with the banding issue. Any attempt to assume superiority of one over the other is just petty IMO. The article didn't even give a recommendation because of the equality of the game.

Well, I'm trying to give an opinion using also my eyes; checking the video/screen comparison I seen that not mentioned, so I was only curious. Take a look any pic with more diffuse light, compare it to the ps3 version & said me I'm wrong. The range of light it's more limited on 360 in the shaft range, where in the ps3 the light fill the screen; to me seem an interesting difference.. I haven't said 360 version is nothing of worse by the way but I give the edges on the ps3 for this particular, nothing of more.

 

[kagemaru]

Impressive how close they came to parity. Interested to know why the 360 version experiences artifacting on that one cut-scene. Are they using FP10 just for that one scene or the entire game but with additional filtering to eliminate the artifact in the lighting?

Also I prefer how tearing is handled on the PS3 version.

Mmm... honestly deferred light seems a bit offs on 360 more than a time (compared to ps3 version...); I don't talk only of the pixellated shaft or lensflare but the deferred light appears to have less diffuse 'range' or even in less quantity on the microsoft console in more than a scene; curiously, only to me I have noticed that until now. Honestly I would have given the 'top notch' to the ps3 version for this, althought the 360 remains excellent afterall.

Care to post some links that support your claims? Checked most of the screens and I don't see what you're talking about.

I don't know yet why DE:HR is suspected to use MLAA on ps3 because the smooth edge has pretty clear FXAA cover effects; isn't it triangle pixels adding but evident contrast blurred jaggies what I see. It's just FXAA without subpixel detection.

AFAIK the quality of MLAA differs from game to game, so it could very well be MLAA. Why would they bother turning off subpixel smoothing from only one version?

Edit:

Well, I'm trying to give an opinion using also my eyes

Sorry but it seems your eyes are being influences by your preferences or something.

 

[scently]

Impressive how close they came to parity. Interested to know why the 360 version experiences artifacting on that one cut-scene. Are the using FP10 just for that one scene or the entire game but with additional filtering to eliminate the artifact in the lighting?

Also I prefer how tearing is handled on the PS3 version.



Care to post some links that support your claims? Checked most of the screens and I don't see what you're talking about.



AFAIK the quality of MLAA differs from game to game, so it could very well be MLAA. Why would they bother turning off subpixel smoothing from only one version?

Edit:



Sorry but it seems your eyes are being influences by your preferences or something.

Exactly my point.

 

[Ruskie]

MLAA produces better resoluts than FXAA in BF3:

http://images.eurogamer.net/2011/articles//a/1/4/1/6/2/0/0/360_aa_000.bmp.jpg

http://images.eurogamer.net/2011/articles//a/1/4/1/6/2/0/0/PS3_aa_000.bmp.jpg

This is interesting becouse in DE:HR (suspected for using MLAA on PS3 and FXAA on 360) it was the other way around.

Yes, it does. I'm just surprised since FXAA seems to produce good results too, I don't see blurring, thats what I wanted to say

 

[assurdum]

To notice in the darkness: on the ps3 the colour of the light (sorry for the unprecise explanation) 'cover' even the dark elements of the screen; colour tone of the light seems to fill more the whole screen on the ps3, on 360 seem to have slight limited range. I suggest to check in full res. Only to me noticed that difference? I avoid to reply to some post but I want to remember someone here we aren't on neogaf, if it's possible to avoid childish personal comments will be more appreciated, thanks.

 

[AlNom]

We know the gamma on 360 is weird.

 

[assurdum]

We know the gamma on 360 is weird.

So depends only of the gamma? Ok, I want to know just that; I thought was caused to system light.

 

[Gitaroo]

AFAIK the quality of MLAA differs from game to game, so it could very well be MLAA. Why would they bother turning off subpixel smoothing from only one version?

I think Driver SF also have the same problem on PS3. Sub pixel smoothing isnt in the PS3 version. PS3 might be running a older version.

 

[assurdum]

I think Driver SF also have the same problem on PS3. Sub pixel smoothing isnt in the PS3 version. PS3 might be running a older version.

Isn't it exactly a older version imho. It's just 'lighter' from what I have understood. Or maybe it's implemented a la MLAA (so maybe for that suspected MLAA in DE?) that work only in the final buffer, if I understood right.

P.S.:
Only a thing I have missed previously:
AFAIK the quality of MLAA differs from game to game, so it could very well be MLAA. Why would they bother turning off subpixel smoothing from only one version?

Sorry what is it AFAIK ? Did you know the difference to FXAA & MLAA to cover the jaggies? It's not just only matter of 'quantity': FXAA blurry with contrast the jaggies edges, MLAA adds triangle of pixels in the aliasing lines. You could to implement FXAA a la MLAA on the ps3 to make the things more easy & faster (I suppose it's what is happened in DE imho), but if works how FXAA nvidia imho it's a FXAA filter. DE shows blend of pixels blurried, we can to notice that watching the long linear edges: indeed a regular long line we see a 'curious' wave in the jaggies.

 

[ultragpu]

Any attempt to assume superiority of one over the other is just petty IMO. The article didn't even give a recommendation because of the equality of the game.

I wouldn't bet everything on DF these days no offense to Richard Leadbetter and I still think DF produce the best and most informative comparison articles. But like all mortals we tend to miss a few things from time to time. One such as this, the bloom effect is much more similar between the PC and PS3 version with a healthy glow radius, while on 360 it's much reduced. It's also the same case with Batman AC where 360 version has this reduced bloom effect even though Richard has got it the other way around.
Anyway it's a difference and I don't know if it's due to FP10 on 360 or something else but I assume it's the lower precision lighting of 360 since both PC and PS3 have almost the same appearance.

One more thing DF have overlooked is the dynamic radiosity effect. They never mentioned if it's baked or dynamic on consoles and how they compared to the PC. And also the missing camera motion blur effect on 360 too.

 

[Gitaroo]

think even lens of truth called out the missing motion blur on 360..... thought ppl don't really trust them most of the time.

 

[(((interference)))]

It's pretty impressive that the 360 managed to keep up with the PS3 in the end - despite all the effort they put into optimising it for PS3.

I was quite surprised - I predicted that the PS3 version would have the advantage in terms of visuals with them offloading shading to the SPUs and their fully deferred setup.

And i'm happy they got rid of the annoying A2C for transparencies on the 360 for BF3.

One thing the DF article didn't touch on though was whether there was any benefit to installing the full game with the HD pack to the 360's HDD