Image Quality and Framebuffer Speculations for WIP/alpha/beta/E3 games *Read the first post*
- Thread starter Farid
- Start date
Billy Idol
Legend
thanks guys for the info!
Astounding indeed that MW2 and especially FF13 has full res buffer. I wonder how the could do this in FF13: probably, because due to the slow round based gameplay, effects in this game are rather predictable, so that you can better manage additional peak loads??
Astounding indeed that MW2 and especially FF13 has full res buffer. I wonder how the could do this in FF13: probably, because due to the slow round based gameplay, effects in this game are rather predictable, so that you can better manage additional peak loads??
aside from the contrast theirs differences in shading between the two. the ps3 lacks self shadows so the scenes look brighter than its counterpart. but strangely in super mode when the lighting becomes more intense its the 360 version becomes more brighter. so overall the lighting/shading seems more dynamic on the 360 where the ps3 just seems to lack it.
GT5 is probably using some "fake" HDR, because there's no sane way they could run an FP16 buffer with 1280*1024 2xAA. So it's more likely to be some 8-bit trickery, very carefully adjusted to the lighting requirements of their settings, probably with some look-up tables or other kind of magic.
FM3 on the other hand is probably HDR, but only using the X360's FP10 format - which is probably not providing enough precision for a fully realistic llinear / gamma correct pipeline. Or it might be the way they're using tone mapping, it's not entirely clear.
Anyway, when it doesn't work, it looks a lot worse overall, although with no obvious precision errors.
The future is, without question, a fully realistic HDR pipeline with linear lighting, but current consoles don't seem to be fast enough to support this with a reasonable amount of detail at 60fps. Until that, we have some 30fps racers that look nice...
FM3 on the other hand is probably HDR, but only using the X360's FP10 format - which is probably not providing enough precision for a fully realistic llinear / gamma correct pipeline. Or it might be the way they're using tone mapping, it's not entirely clear.
Anyway, when it doesn't work, it looks a lot worse overall, although with no obvious precision errors.
The future is, without question, a fully realistic HDR pipeline with linear lighting, but current consoles don't seem to be fast enough to support this with a reasonable amount of detail at 60fps. Until that, we have some 30fps racers that look nice...
FF13's gameplay is not slow & round based and its not predictable either (atleast from the player's side), considering you can choose any party member and use their abilities (there are like dozens of elemental spells and physical attacks each with their own unique look).
They managed this to great effect on PS2, so it makes sense to carry over their technique as true HDR isn't really viable.
Internal calculations are probably more precise than what the PS2 could do, so it's probably still an improvement. But I'd like to see more games follow the footsteps of Halo and Uncharted, even if they aren't aiming for completely photorealistic styles.
I guess it was Laa-Yosh himself who once said FP10 is like HDR lighting with MDR precision.
RGBM (and variations) has been gaining favour actually (cheaper/faster). e.g. Uncharted 2, God of War 3...
Yes, RGBM is really fast to encode & decode. We are also using it on Xbox 360 to store the lighting buffer (and bloom/tonemap buffers). We used to use 11/10 bit integer buffers to store the rendering results before, but that provided only 4/8x dynamic range (ugly banding on darker colors was normal). Now we have fully gamma correct pipeline with very good looking bloom & cinematic tonemapping. RGBM is good.
Yeah, that might be another option, but I'm not sure if it's absolutely necessary for controlled situations like GT5's racing tracks. As others mentioned, they already had a good solution for GT4 that worked on the PS2 quite well... Also, RGBM and such have some pixel shader instruction costs as I recall, which might not be OK for 60 fps and higher resolutions...
Then again they could be using this solution just as well. Does PD usually release any technical information about their engines? I kinda doubt it though, because of the competition...
Then again they could be using this solution just as well. Does PD usually release any technical information about their engines? I kinda doubt it though, because of the competition...
http://graphicrants.blogspot.com/2009/04/rgbm-color-encoding.html
rgbm does look nice + whilst lower quality than logluv it will be quicker.
has anyone written an app that compares all the hdr formats so I/we can visually compare them? (shouldnt be too difficult)
rgbm does look nice + whilst lower quality than logluv it will be quicker.
has anyone written an app that compares all the hdr formats so I/we can visually compare them? (shouldnt be too difficult)
Yeah with such tight control over the camera, I'd imagine they could get away with doing some sort of tone-mapping/exposure adjustment directly in the fragment shader as they're rendering geometry (as opposed to rendering HDR values and using them for exposure calculations). An easy way to tell would be to see whether the MSAA holds up in high-contrast areas...if it does, then they're most likely tone mapping pre-resolve.
RGBM is pretty cheap compared to some of the alternatives (LogLuv, RGBE) but definitely not free. I'd imagine that at high resolution + 60fps every extra fragment shader cycle hurts. Plus there's the issue of alpha-blending with encoded formats.
seems there are subtle differences in lighting between prologue and 5. the lighting intensity seems more subdued, i know they changed the lighting directing on this track but still can draw some conclusions from it.
http://livedoor.2.blogimg.jp/ps360/imgs/d/f/dfa0a64e.png
http://livedoor.2.blogimg.jp/ps360/imgs/a/5/a57c6b38.png
http://livedoor.2.blogimg.jp/ps360/imgs/9/6/96075f6a.png
http://livedoor.2.blogimg.jp/ps360/imgs/8/1/81125288.png
source:
http://blog.livedoor.jp/ps360/archives/51644734.html
http://livedoor.2.blogimg.jp/ps360/imgs/d/f/dfa0a64e.png
http://livedoor.2.blogimg.jp/ps360/imgs/a/5/a57c6b38.png
http://livedoor.2.blogimg.jp/ps360/imgs/9/6/96075f6a.png
http://livedoor.2.blogimg.jp/ps360/imgs/8/1/81125288.png
source:
http://blog.livedoor.jp/ps360/archives/51644734.html
There also seems to be a difference on the textures quality/filtering, for example look at this shots:
GT5P:
http://livedoor.2.blogimg.jp/ps360/imgs/0/f/0ffc4269.png
GT5:
http://livedoor.2.blogimg.jp/ps360/imgs/5/9/593a1493.png
GT 5 seems more polished.
GT5P:
http://livedoor.2.blogimg.jp/ps360/imgs/0/f/0ffc4269.png
GT5:
http://livedoor.2.blogimg.jp/ps360/imgs/5/9/593a1493.png
GT 5 seems more polished.
TheWretched
Regular
The difference is quite astonishing... I haven't played Prologue in over a year, but I thought somehow when playing GT5 that in some parts Prologue looked better, texturewise^^ Nice pics.
Mass Effect 2 PS3 IGN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBRi2K10PgQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnsh-iBUiX0
You can't really tell much from these, but it does look like they've added character shadowing in the scenes with Jacob. I wonder if that applies to all character dialogue shots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBRi2K10PgQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnsh-iBUiX0
You can't really tell much from these, but it does look like they've added character shadowing in the scenes with Jacob. I wonder if that applies to all character dialogue shots.
Isn't character self-shadowing enabled by default in ME2 like in ME?
