As I wrote in my comment above, I suspect those 360 shots are uber-hi-res PR shots which doesn't represent actual in-game rendering properly.
Fight Night PS3 Screens
- Thread starter Darkon
- Start date
Even if the 360 shots are not in-game the PS3 screens look noticeably better as demonstrated by the little comparison above.
I'm not sure why people are getting so defensive over this. Lighting, texture and geometry are improved and I'm sure these improvements will carry forward to Fight Night 4 for both consoles.
WTF?
The only PS3 game that use's pseydo HDR is heavenly Sword, and in most case's HS's HDR is actually higher quality.The PS3 version of FNR3 will use FP16 HDR while 360 version use's the lower quality FP10 HDR.
NOTE: Apologies for a slight derailment but it had to be said, now back on topic
TurnDragoZeroV2G
Regular
What is this "true HDR" you speak of. Certainly you can offer a technical explanation for what this "true HDR" is and what separates it from "fake HDR."
FN3 overbright lighting always bothered me. It looks like ass on my 120" display as I don't appreciate white blowout and posterization that you get from it on a good display. Simply put, it makes displays look like they have shitty CR when they don't.
It's way over the top. Looks like they fixed it. Hopefully the 360 version will get a XB Live patch.
It's way over the top. Looks like they fixed it. Hopefully the 360 version will get a XB Live patch.
WTF?
The PS3 version of FNR3 will use FP16 HDR while 360 version use's the lower quality FP10 HDR.
NOTE: Apologies for a slight derailment but it had to be said, now back on topic
It is not pseudo HDR, it is just using another colorspace and use 2x less memory and memory bandwidth than FP16 HDR. I hope that a gpu maker will use in hardware the NAO32 HDR.
It is probably the best PS3 software trick for the beginning of the generation.
I don't think EA use FP16 + 4xAA because there is a problem of memory bandwidth .
Even if they had the bandwidth they still could'nt do it, Nvidia hardware cant do FP based HDR and MSAA at the same time, that was also another reason why nAo32 was created so that Heavensly Sword can run HDR and MSAA at the same time
Even if they had the bandwidth they still could'nt do it, Nvidia hardware cant do FP based HDR and MSAA at the same time, that was also another reason why nAo32 was created so that Heavensly Sword can run HDR and MSAA at the same time
Yes I forgot the limitation of Nvidia hardware with FP HDR and MSAA. Thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Even if they had the bandwidth they still could'nt do it, Nvidia hardware cant do FP based HDR and MSAA at the same time, that was also another reason why nAo32 was created so that Heavensly Sword can run HDR and MSAA at the same time
Isn't bandwidth exactly the reason why RSX (probably) can't do it?
TurnDragoZeroV2G
Regular
Perhaps. It still doesn't matter, however, since the hardware literally cannot support FP16 framebuffers with MSAA.
Isn't bandwidth exactly the reason why RSX (probably) can't do it?
It could do it, but texture's would sufer as far as im aware, although it would be great if one of the more educated members can shed some light on this?
I guess lighting is related to it, but the skin shader/texture is what sticks out for me. The side by sides are actually pretty striking in that regard. This newer version simply looks a lot more like real flesh, wheras the older models are remarkably opaque in comparison. I dont think its just a change in tone. I wonder are they using some kind of SSS approximation/hack?
What are your sources for the XB360 images are you using? To me, the IGN images suffer a lot from compression artefacts and you may not be comparing like sources think JPEGs pf JPEGs). I also think the PS3 shots have more DOF going on with a lot of the texturing not in perfect focus. If you look at the ear compared to the mouth you can see it's not sharp...
As for the HDR, I think these PS3 images are a very realistic lighting model for the arena. The high contrast XB360 shots are from environments being lit differently. You also wouldn't be getting that much contrast in real life. A quick Google image search shows the XB360 style is over the top and more dramatic than realistic
Overall I think you've made some unfair comparisons based on weak assumptions (such as 'fake' versus real HDR. Do you know for sure the PS3 version is using integer 8/16 bit per channel buffers?) and more info is needed, bur for me, artistically the PS3 version looks better, though both are good looking. We also don't know the context of the PS3 images either (replay or in game?).
Don't know about the hair issue.
The PS3 shot is from different angle, different lighting plus some of the hair is out of focus.
The hairline doesn't seem different to me when comparing the shots, but the xbox360 shot hides much of the forehead hairline because of the different angle.
In the PS3 shot the hair on the side of his head does "stand out" more from the head, but I think it could be just the angle and lighting that makes the illusion.
Really, I find it almost impossible to tell yet which one has better hair, if either. Lets wait for more shots and video.
However, the lighting in the PS3 shots does look more natural, as does the skin and the sweaty effect.
Not saying it's because of the PS3 power, more likely just a more generous developing time and honing of art.
The PS3 shot is from different angle, different lighting plus some of the hair is out of focus.
The hairline doesn't seem different to me when comparing the shots, but the xbox360 shot hides much of the forehead hairline because of the different angle.
In the PS3 shot the hair on the side of his head does "stand out" more from the head, but I think it could be just the angle and lighting that makes the illusion.
Really, I find it almost impossible to tell yet which one has better hair, if either. Lets wait for more shots and video.
However, the lighting in the PS3 shots does look more natural, as does the skin and the sweaty effect.
Not saying it's because of the PS3 power, more likely just a more generous developing time and honing of art.
"The Developers have admitted"? I would think they'd go out of their way to 'admit' that their new project has better graphics than their last...
What? Got any proof of that at all?
Also,
1. How do you know the PS3 shots aren't also promo material?
2. The 360 version looks really close to the 360 shots shown in this thread.
3. The PS3 version looks a bit better to me, the colors are less yellow (but it might have been a simple tint effect in place), but I do like HDR and overbrighting, but of course you cannot tell if HDR is present in a still image.
360 cant do FP16 so 360 FNR3 use's lower quality FP10 mode. And i really dout that PS3 FNR3 is using Interger HDR so it would be using FP16 which is higher quality HDR then what the 360 version has.
Any problems please explain
360 cant do FP16 so 360 FNR3 use's lower quality FP10 mode. And i really dout that PS3 FNR3 is using Interger HDR so it would be using FP16 which is higher quality HDR then what the 360 version has.
Any problems please explain
But the shot are AA'ed, I thought you couldn't use fp16 and AA on the PS3
360 cant do FP16 so 360 FNR3 use's lower quality FP10 mode. And i really dout that PS3 FNR3 is using Interger HDR so it would be using FP16 which is higher quality HDR then what the 360 version has.
Any problems please explain
360 can't do FP16? Does it do FP32? Got any links about that?
Also, what proof do you have the PS3 is doing FP16? Also the AA+HDR Nvidia think mentioned before me.