Neverending Upscaling/Resolutions/AA etc Thread #3 (Rules Post #1!)

My guess is it's their imagination. There's been no reports (that I've seen) of games having worse frame-rates on the 360 at upscaled 1080p resolution.
There's no reason it would tax the hardware. The most it would probably be is using resources already set aside like they do with the OS.
Hardware scaling just isn't very demanding, especially if you have dedicated hardware.

 

720p no AA.

 

Yep, all TVs do some image processing, which inevitably leads to increased latency. It might be more for 1080p than 1080i for one particular model.

 

1080i should have no performance differences from 1080p, as far as the game itself goes. How an HDTV handles the two displays is a different matter, but I don't think framerate is ever affected either from switching between those two video modes.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for ANA or HANA to process a 1080i output, it's going to be receiving a 1080p ready-scaled image from Xenos? I too am finding it very hard to believe that dropping from 1080p to 1080i is going to make any difference.

I've done some 720p vs 1080p captures and while I'm not sure I've got the right test clips yet, nothing I have found suggests that Xenos' scaling has any kind of performance hit. If people can suggest potential test clips, please do so in the frame rate analysis thread.

 

http://i28.tinypic.com/dym0ig.jpg

this appears to be a non touched up RE5 screenshot, strange since the other 11 "direct feed" ones were all touched up with uber AA, any sign of res and aa?

 

The reviewers comments are BS. Even if the display did additional processing it wouldn't effect the frame rate. Any video processing latency would only delay the video output and throw off synchronization with the audio.

 

To me this pic appear 1280x 720 without AA.

 

I agree.

 

What about gameplay timing, is this not something many people complained about when GHIII launched?

 

It was the 360 version. They mention on Eurogamer that as they were asked to have a console version, they chose to make a quick port from the PC to the 360 as that was by far easiest. They also claim to be fine on the PS3, but well, we've heard that before. Anyway, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions on it - the game's a long way off.

 

While I agree with you in suspecting the reviewers are imagining things...

The additional processing can be compensated by the TV by delaying the audio the same amount of time. This wouldn't hurt the framerate, but the latency, which will make the game "feel" sluggish.

 

Can someone please direct me as to how actual game resolutions can be determined?

I mean I saw this List of Game Rendering Resolutions + some info on the hardware scaling but it seems very incomplete.
get started here.

 

Two shots of PS3 version of BioShock... what do you guys think?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3143/2549133644_3ac8e7006e_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2549133702_b7c567a693_o.jpg

 

Latency, sure, but not framerate, which is what Rockster is specifically referring to. The only way framerate can change is if the 360 is rendering differently at that res.

 

it's 1280x720 no AA like X360 but little bit blurry

 

Hmm, the picture with the fire and smoke seems perhaps a bit blurry in places but... there's smoke , however, the letters on the sign in the background are pretty well defined. What do you mean blurry, exactly? Textures and/or texture filtering perhaps?

 

Looks more like a postprocessing filter to me.

 

all edge are little blured, post-process filter for reduce aliasing or bad capture

 

Any word on Lego Indy? Same as Lego SW? That was one was different per console.