Next Gen Graphic Effects Are Amazing (Xbox 360, PS3)

aaronspink said:
A more reasonable arguement is that FP10 allows HDR rending with little to no performance impact and therefore is a benefit.
Given it's the only FP format on Xenos to properly work with either AA or blending, the performance impact is immaterial.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
After having a close look at NBA live 2006, I beleive it uses HDR lighting. I bought 2k6, instead for teh gameplay, but the lighting difference between both games was remarkable.
 
nAo said:
I think people should just stop to think 'real HDR' = FP16. It's just plain wrong
64 bit floats and a Brghtside TV are the only true HD. Though at almost 1.5 kW peak power draw the future doesn't seem very environmentally friendly :cry:
 
Shifty Geezer said:
64 bit floats and a Brghtside TV are the only true HD. Though at almost 1.5 kW peak power draw the future doesn't seem very environmentally friendly :cry:

That technology is a bit young, give it time and it will get better. Definately one to keep an eye on, together with SED.
 
scooby_dooby said:
You roll eyes and then THAT is your so-called proof?

The only thing worthy of eye-rolling is your weak examples. 3 of the 5 are tech demo's, and Heavenly Sword and MGS4 have no X360 version os it speaks only to the skills of the developers not of the power of the hardware.

ALso, Gears of War, Too Human and Mass Effect all seem to have excellent lighting, the new GR: AW also is extremely good.

If you want a fair comparison stop comparing games due out in 2007 (MGS4) to games launched in 2005.

As for Xenos not performing true HDR I don't know where you're getting that from, it's been confirmed it can do FP16 HDR, and I don't see how the EDRAM is a real issue here. RSX can't even due HDR+4xAA, so why couldn't Xenos use the same apporach if it needed to? In worst case scenario it suffers from teh same limitations as RSX, in the best case it can do more...

Gotta agree with scooby here. Sorry Titanio, but your evidence is like "Ooh I think it looks better. I think it has better lighting. I think it has to be the FP16." :rolleyes:
 
PC-Engine said:
Gotta agree with scooby here. Sorry Titanio, but your evidence is like "Ooh I think it looks better. I think it has better lighting. I think it has to do with FP16." :rolleyes:

I'm saying there might be a link there. I'm asking about that, more than anything else, and no one is providing a credible argument that the precision difference won't have a noticeable impact. Only the opposite from what has been said sofar. I think this could introduce differences, be they manifested in the way I think they might be now or not, in the examples I've given. I'm certainly not the only one that has noticed a difference.

As is, we simply now know that FP10 is the HDR option on X360, FP16 on PS3. That does present a significant difference in available dynamic range. It's the first potential technical explanation of a difference I and others have noticed, so obviously people will start asking questions.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
64 bit floats and a Brghtside TV are the only true HD. Though at almost 1.5 kW peak power draw the future doesn't seem very environmentally friendly :cry:
I was not talking about displaying a HDR image, I was talking about storing a HDR image: 16bits fp per component are an overkill, you can have better range and precision using way less bits per pixel.
 
Titanio said:
I'm saying there might be a link there. I'm asking about that, more than anything else, and no one is providing a credible argument that the precision difference won't have a noticeable impact. Only the opposite from what has been said sofar. I think this could introduce differences, be they manifested in the way I think they might be now or not, in the examples I've given. I'm certainly not the only one that has noticed a difference.

As is, we simply now know that FP10 is the HDR option on X360, FP16 on PS3. That does present a significant difference in available dynamic range. It's the first potential technical explanation of a difference I and others have noticed, so obviously people will start asking questions.

Well if you're saying the potential difference is there, then you're arguing a strawman point. Sure the numbers may indicate a potential difference, but whether that potential difference is perceptible in games is entirely a different matter. Pointing to games YOU think has better lighting doesn't mean much. Others could point to Xbox360 games with similar lighting too, doesn't mean Xbox360 games are using FP16.
 
scooby_dooby said:
If you want a fair comparison stop comparing games due out in 2007 (MGS4) to games launched in 2005.
Let's bring up 360 games due out in 2007 for fair comparison :smile:

But what's the point of describing the lighting model already done in the current inferior devkit as the 2007 thing? It's not like R420 and Xenos between which an unexpected gap was found if you believe RSX is just a faster G70.
 
nAo said:
I was not talking about displaying a HDR image, I was talking about storing a HDR image: 16bits fp per component are an overkill, you can have better range and precision using way less bits per pixel.
I was being facetious ;)

Titanio : The difference between FP10 and FP16 should be in aliasing/banding of illumination where the lack of FP10's resolution by comparison causes rounding errors and such. I personally can't see there'll be that much difference between FP10 and FP16 on renderings. The greater range of FP16 seems overkill as you don't need that much brightness difference range when you're displaying to a limited TV, and with diligent art assets can get the same look with a sun that's 4x brighter than a lightbulb, as a sun that's 10,000 times brighter than a lightbulb. The quality difference in final picture between FP10 and FP16 I expect to be far les noticeable than say the difference between a 24 bit photograph and a 64,000 colour photograph. the resources saved in FP10 are much more worthwhile IMO than the likely unnoticeable quality difference.
 
ATi has been touting FP10 as a benefit, something that is just as good as FP16 but has better performance. Amazing how some people have completely flipped the scripts on that. :LOL:
 
Whats amazein is if you look at the topic in post1 and a few below it. and topic were on now.

We have gone from graphical effects to

PS3 HDR VS 360 HDR
 
Well if you're saying the potential difference is there, then you're arguing a strawman point. Sure the numbers may indicate a potential difference, but whether that potential difference is perceptible in games is entirely a different matter. Pointing to games YOU think has better lighting doesn't mean much. Others could point to Xbox360 games with similar lighting too, doesn't mean Xbox360 games are using FP16.

While a technical difference remains, it will be up to X360 games to prove it doesn't matter. Some of us do perceive a difference in the general quality of lighting seen thusfar, beit for this reason - wholly, partially - or not at all. We should get better insight on the PC side sooner, perhaps, as I imagine the differences between FP10 and FP16 implementations will become a point of debate there too..(and I'm willing to bet, assuming all else is equal and the performance is there, that FP16 will become the "quality" option).

Shifty Geezer said:
The difference between FP10 and FP16 should be in aliasing/banding of illumination where the lack of FP10's resolution by comparison causes rounding errors and such. I personally can't see there'll be that much difference between FP10 and FP16 on renderings. The greater range of FP16 seems overkill as you don't need that much brightness difference range when you're displaying to a limited TV, and with diligent art assets can get the same look with a sun that's 4x brighter than a lightbulb, as a sun that's 10,000 times brighter than a lightbulb.

That's a fair opinion, though I've seen others conversely express scepticism over this. Your latter point is probably the key - manipulating your art/data to overcome the limitations, but there may only be so far you can go with certain scenes. As I said earlier, some scenes would look fine with either range, but some things are challenging even for FP16 - thus I would imagine some more things are going to be more challenging for FP10. And there may also be multiformat repurcussions (will devs maintain two sets of art assets/data for example, or will a lead platform dictate that etc.)

Anyway, this is ultimately what it boils down to - the relative limitations of FP16 and FP10 - so any further comment from devs and the like would be useful (and we've already had one or two ;)).

Dave Baumann said:
The most obvious area of difference between the FP10 and FP16 will be with transparancies.

I was gonna ask about this earlier, but thought I might get shouted down :|
 
Last edited by a moderator:
!eVo!-X Ant UK said:
Whats amazein is if you look at the topic in post1 and a few below it. and topic were on now.

We have gone from graphical effects to

PS3 HDR VS 360 HDR

Well the discussion is still on Next-gen graphic effects, so....

cdmxena193ut.jpg


"I'll allow it!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top