Image Quality and Framebuffer Analysis for Available/release build Games *Read the first post*

Shot 5 unlike some other shots depict an extra object on the PS3 version absent from both the PC and the 360.

That is just a backpack, since the game NPCs are dynamically generated.. the game just decided to put a backpack on that guy for that time it was run.
 
Also.. if you look at the guy that has a bird picking over him on the PC shot he has the backpack, yet on the 360 and PS3 shots he does not.
 
Nice job Grandmaster, in getting those W@W shots so closely synch'ed. Very impressive job, as usual. It's interesting flipping between the three different platforms, I feel like the lighting and anti-aliasing are the biggest differences between the two consoles. There are interesting shots that show objects that aren't on one platform, but my eyes are definitely more drawn to aliasing, and harshness of lighting/shading effects that results in detail loss. I'll have a look at your blog, because I'd like to see the differences between static images vs. objects in motion.

:???: biggest? but in general or in this game? Because if is it the last sound like so strange...
 
grandmaster said:
Post updated with two more pics. Shot5 shows that PS3 has some pretty low-res textures too.
The soldier clothes are done with the good-old detail map 'texture-compression' - ie. high frequency detail (in this case, normal map repeated-noise patterns) is 'high'-resolution, while low-frequency detail (diffuse/color textures, base normal map etc.) are low-resolution.
It's pretty obvious in shots that have soldiers in closeup, across all platforms.
 
Softer yes, less jagged - no, I think the PS3 version has higher-res shadows (see the top of the tank turret in the bottom right corner on the jungle shot).

I would hardly call a jagged shadow more detailed. Hell, I'd argue the opposite.
 
I would hardly call a jagged shadow more detailed. Hell, I'd argue the opposite.

For example 1024x1024 shadowmaps without soft edges and/or jittering will look worse than 512x512 soft/jittered shadowmaps. But to low shadowmap resolution + soft edges/jittering will look bad in motion becouse you will see "steps/blocks" of the shadows whenever the shadows move.

But looking at comparision 1 they seem to have same shadowmap resolution but xbox360 has soft edges (or maybe just the angle that masks it?).

Shot 1.

360 lacking mapping/same detail on the clothes on middle guy?
PS3 lacking same intensive lighting for light source?
PC and PS3 jaggies visible on shadows?

Shot 2.

PS3 less AA and less moon glare?
PS3 lacks some vegetation/shrub on the ground to the right of the gun?

Shot 3.

PS3 more pronounced mapping detail or just "angle for the moment" situation?
PS3 more aggressive LOD for mapping/texture (ground/rock) under the tank/above the middle guys head?

Shot 4.

360 more grass, longer draw distance for grass?
PS3 and xbox different vegetation color/lighting?
PC has better LOD for bushes (left corner)?
360 more "trees" on the right side (thin "ropes" or whatever they are called)?

Shot 5

Difference in the LOD for tree at the top right corner?
360 has less (lower res) or no mapping on the shoe?
PS3 fire effect resolution lower (windows)?
PS3 less AF (middle ground textures)?

Shot 6.

360 and PS3 differences in mapping on soldiers?



Interesting and good screenshots to use for comparision.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
texture on PS3 looks shinier and sharper in most shots to me compare to 360, does it has higher AF or something. But I would say this is a very good port overall, assuming they both run the same.
 
Is the game basically running on the COD4 engine with new fire effects, or is it significantly improved ie like GoW2's UE3.5.

Because if its basically the same engine with different art, then there's not going to be major differences as COD4 had parity between 360/PS3 thanks to Infinity Wards hard work.

And has anyone confirmed the resolution/AA is the same as COD4 (600p/2AA) or have they bumped up the rez to full 720p. The slight blurriness in the console screens posted (similar to COD4) seems to indicate the former.
 
Resolution seems identical, and it's the same engine with new fire effects. The definition of parity in a broader sense is best reserved for the game tech and frame rate threads.
 
Is there something weird with the PS3 bump mapping? It looks like it's too pronounce.

[url]http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/9765/image2kx9.th.jpg[/IMG]


i noticed that too, its similar to the prominent normal mapping on the PS3 version of Fallout 3.

Unfortunately, in COD5 it doesn't look as realistic as the 360's less pronounced mapping. Especially looking at these screens:

Mod Edit: A gentle reminder that whether or not something looks good/better is not the focus of discussion. -AlS

PS3http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/7339/cod5ps3004lf3.jpg
360http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/2250/cod5360004om9.jpg
Look at the back of the soldier

PS3http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/383/codps3006rx4.jpg
360http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/6815/cod360006gi9.jpg
The boot and lower leg of the dead soldier in the foreground. This pic also seems to show that the 360 has slightly better (perhaps through implementation) AA, notice the slightly more complete tree branches, next to the burning building in the top right of the screen. Though it could be just LOD or a one off thing
 
Ouch, the difference between either console version and PC is immense. I checked the game resolution lists but couldn't find it, does anyone know if CoD:WaW is still using a lower native resolution? And if so, which one? The quality degradation is quite pronounced here.
 
Eurogamer has a good comparision posted confirms that both versions are 600p with AA enabled.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=308281&page=1

it confirms that at certain scenes the PS3 drops environmental details (such as vines) to maintain framerate (the 360 version runs smoother than the PS3 by 10-20%).

And confirms that the PS3 has shiner/more pronounced normal maps (i wonder why? extra space due to Blu-ray?, the 360 has more memory for textures so its interesting).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NXE in 720p again :cry:
old dashboard was in 720p because little firmware (16MB) but now with a 128MB budget i hoped a 1080p NXE
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NXE in 720p again :cry:
old dashboard was in 720p because little firmware (16MB) but now with a 128MB budget i hoped a 1080p NXE

Are they using any AA for the avatars? I have to admit some puzzlement as to why they don't use vector graphics for the 2D items at the very least (unless that's not the issue; I haven't had time to grab NXE).
 
NXE in 720p again :cry:
old dashboard was in 720p because little firmware (16MB) but now with a 128MB budget i hoped a 1080p NXE

I have to admit that I do not understand the sad smiley context. I think it looks great on my 1080p set.

From a technical perspective, would it be becuase all of the content that is displayed compared to the blades system.
 
I have to admit that I do not understand the sad smiley context. I think it looks great on my 1080p set.

From a technical perspective, would it be becuase all of the content that is displayed compared to the blades system.

a 1080p GUI in a Full HD TV it's 1:1 mapping and it's faaar better and legible, 720p it's ridiculous for a 2008/2009 GUI
 
a 1080p GUI in a Full HD TV it's 1:1 mapping and it's faaar better and legible, 720p it's ridiculous for a 2008/2009 GUI

I agree, seeing as the 360 can display up to 1080p, surely this should be an option with the GUI. It must be down to the actual space the gfx's take up thats dictated that it should be 720p.

Like someone said earlier though, surely they could have made the majority of gfx as vector thus reducing the space required and then it could be made on the fly.
 
Back
Top