Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2015]

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've also read several times that 1440x1080p looks better to most people than 1600x900, and I think I agree.
Agreed, reducing blur to one dimension helps.
I wonder if it would be possible to use GBAA distance to edge information to correct the location of the edge in final resolution.
 
Not a fan of calling it '1080pr', as it implies that there aren't valid reasons for choosing a certain resolution and scaling solution.

This is a separate issue to the resolution being "too high" for certain frame rate targets.

Is there are more correct term to signify its anamorphic rather than 16:9?

1080a?

Having the magic 1080 is never going to hurt their image tho.
 
Technically, 1080p is correct going by broadcast standards. The 1080 is the vertical res - horizontal res can be anything. p means progressive scan instead of interlace. 1920x1080 needs to be differentiated as FullHD or whatever. Of course, society has adopted 1080p to mean 1920x1080 necessitating the need for some other differentiator, but that's why there isn't one at the moment.
 
Technically, 1080p is correct going by broadcast standards. The 1080 is the vertical res - horizontal res can be anything.
Not true; 1080p, 1080i and 720p are common names referring to the full broadcast standards which are specified in ATSC table 3 and the EBU specifications. The specifications mandate 1:1 pixel ratio resolutions of 1920x1080p (2,073,600 pixels per frame), 1920×1080i (1,036,800 pixels per frame) and 1280×720p (921,600 pixels per frame).

Although there is a standard for 1440×1080 (which is an anamorphic 4:3 pixel ratio) specified in standard SMPTE D11, this is for HDCAM and HDV so isn't a broadcast standard.
 
Not true; 1080p, 1080i and 720p are common names referring to the full broadcast standards which are specified in ATSC table 3 and the EBU specifications. The specifications mandate 1:1 pixel ratio resolutions of 1920x1080p (2,073,600 pixels per frame), 1920×1080i (1,036,800 pixels per frame) and 1280×720p (921,600 pixels per frame).

Although there is a standard for 1440×1080 (which is an anamorphic 4:3 pixel ratio) specified in standard SMPTE D11, this is for HDCAM and HDV so isn't a broadcast standard.
you never had a plasma tv, did you?
1080p well, yes Full HD is somehow a standard, but 1080p isn't. 1080p (like shifty wrote) is just the vertical res. the "p" stand for "progressive" so the picture is not interlaced.
But I know what you mean ;)
even though, some/many plasma tvs didn't even reach the resolutions specified as Full-HD or hd-ready had the logo on them.
 
N

Although there is a standard for 1440×1080 (which is an anamorphic 4:3 pixel ratio) specified in standard SMPTE D11, this is for HDCAM and HDV so isn't a broadcast standard.

A lot of recorded TV broadcast files from Korea and Japan that I download claims to be 1440x1080, but they seem interlaced somehow. I do not really know the full situation there...
 
We are mixing 3 different things here now.

Broadcast
Interlaced (resultion agnostic)
Physical tv panel pixel count and to a lesser extent marketing.

Tuna, lots of broadcast material is interlaced, even 1080 content, 1080i would be how you define that but again we get to the conversation about what horizontal resolution.
 
don't even know why they remaster that prototype, whole franchise were mediocre at best. Activision didn't even marketed it properly last gen doesn't look like they care much about the franchise enough to do a remaster especially with this kind of effort.
 
you never had a plasma tv, did you?
1080p well, yes Full HD is somehow a standard, but 1080p isn't. 1080p (like shifty wrote) is just the vertical res. the "p" stand for "progressive" so the picture is not interlaced.
1080p is a defined broadcast standard (BT.709). The fact that early plasma displays (I recall quite a few having a real resolution of 1024x768) couldn't fully replicate the full pixel frame information and have to scale/interpolate for the native display is neither here nor there.
 
don't even know why they remaster that prototype, whole franchise were mediocre at best. Activision didn't even marketed it properly last gen doesn't look like they care much about the franchise enough to do a remaster especially with this kind of effort.

Smells like a quick port job of the PC version and... uh... somehow make a few dollars. Somehow, alongside zero marketing.

Bizarre.
 
Smells like a quick port job of the PC version and... uh... somehow make a few dollars. Somehow, alongside zero marketing.

Bizarre.

The PC version doesn't even support gpus with more than 2 gigs of VRAM so nah, more like a port of the old console versions and a bad one at that.
 
Nothing is saying they even use more than 2GB on console either. PC port would be slightly less work given the architectures.
 
Prototype bundle is a joke. Worst performance than old gen. Only Xbox One test but I am sure PS4 is on the same boat...
It's hugely impressive to have an Xbox One game run worse than the PS3 version. That's blown my mind. Wow.
 
Why not? As a racing title, the focus is on landscape and wide objects (cars), and those would benefit more from a higher vertical resolution.
I think its more, in driving you will turning left or right thus camera rotates left/right and not up/down (standard road driving, obviously with offroad stuff going over bumps etc the vehicle will be going up/down)
if the camera is chiefly turning left/right then I believe higher verticle res will look better
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top