"No 1080p For PS3 Games"
- Thread starter Miksu
- Start date
TurnDragoZeroV2G
Regular
if 1080p rendering:
+100s of other totally bewildered.
I'm not sure if it was true, but supposedly the 360 version of CoD2 actually used different shaders from the PC version (more strongly emphasizing math). Prey was somewhat similar, and the effects weren't necessarily accomplished the same way (apparent, I think, even in the green tractor beam you see in either version). If both of those cases are true, it's always possible that they have different shader sets for both versions. It's a ton more to manage, but if the first case was true, it was apparently a win due to differences in GPUs.
//lack of sleep
Edit: And until I can find a quote from a developer on either game, I'll lean towards it being some weird rumor or somesuch
mckmas8808 said:
1080p is 2,073,600 pixels.
720p is 921,600 pixels.
You're not going to very easily escape the fact that you're running your pixel shaders over 2.25 times as many pixels. Now that isn't perfect, because as your triangles cover a greater number of pixels, your efficiency will generally go up (pixel batches, texture cache hits)--especially if you have really small triangles in the first place. Nevertheless, the cost is still significant and will lean heavily towards 2.25 rather than 1.
So long as you're GPU limited (shading, fillrate,....), moving from 720p to 1080p will incur non-trivial costs.
Last edited by a moderator:
It does and will. There's no way around the problem. For any game you see now at 1080p, if the same resources were used to target 720p efficiently, it'd look better per pixel. That's the way this technology works. If a 1080p game doesn't sacrifice anything in the change from 720p, then the 720p game was leaving room to spare on the hardware.
From my POV, it isn't a case so much as 1080p not hurting the games so much as we thought, but that the way the games are hurt both isn't particularly noticeable (if you can create a photoaccurate shader in 50 shader ops, who cares if 720p gives you 100 shader ops...) and/or the increase in resolution gives a sense of quality that more than makes up for the lowered work per pixel that you can apply (less pretty 60 FPS games look classier than more detailed 30 FPS games)
There's also the possibility that Cell is contributing a lot to push 1080p at up to 720p levels of detail, as it were. If so, that means far less Cell available for the other aspects of next-gen gaming. In future, when the games are more demanding and not just fancy graphics, that'd mean less available for 1080p and perhaps we'd see more prevalent sacrifices?
Why are people complaining about PS3 games aiming for 1080p. Comming from the PC space I am excited at the prospect of high resolution gaming on a console. Its like Wii fans picking at the XBOX360 for rendering at 720P. They too would argue that you could do a lot more at 480P. The fact is that image quality is significantly better at 1080P, load up a PC game and run it at 1280 by 720P and then 1920 by 1080P and say there are no benefits. The simple fact is this, if the PS3 renders at 1080P we as consumers will benefit. Displays are getting better and in a few years 1920 by 1080P will be the native resolution. Any one who knows about getting the best out of fixed resolution displays devices like LCD and Plasma is to output at their native resolution. The PS3 will do this and I believe people will notice the difference in image quality.
Just my opinion, but I find it hard to believe all the negative reaction to 1080P. People really need to play a few PCs game to see the effect of resolution increase.
I look forward to GT in 1920 by 1080P. Things in the distance are going to look mighty smooth...
Just my opinion, but I find it hard to believe all the negative reaction to 1080P. People really need to play a few PCs game to see the effect of resolution increase.
I look forward to GT in 1920 by 1080P. Things in the distance are going to look mighty smooth...
Then I guess you dont own a new TV or have never hooked it up to a PC. LCD or plasma displays are the technology used in PC monitors (well LCD is for desktop where plasma is more for large form factor presentations). The day of CRT tubes are gone (except where color production and greyscale is critical), the TVs at best buy when run through DVI / HDMI / VGA at their native resolution perform identically to PC monitors if not better. I work for a digital signage company and we have been using large form factor Plasma and LCD displays for the last 4 years. I can assure you that consumer TVs are no different from the ones you see on your PC at work. With the exception of size and the eye searing consumer image settings (contrast, color, sharpnesss) set by default.
The biggest issue is that the public are not yet educated to the benefits of driving your display at its native resolution. If you have ever had an LCD PC monitor you will understand the difference between running at the native resolution and a non native res.
If anything, PC monitors are far more forgiving with the 720P vs 1080P as the pixel size is smaller. When we are displaying on a 50inch LCD, the extra resolution will be very apparent. Remeber if you dont setup your system correctly and you done get a 1 to 1 pixel mapping between output and display then the extra resolution will not be noticable. Thankfully this was only an issue with VGA, with DVI or HDMI there is far less issues with getting the native resolution.
The biggest issue is that the public are not yet educated to the benefits of driving your display at its native resolution. If you have ever had an LCD PC monitor you will understand the difference between running at the native resolution and a non native res.
If anything, PC monitors are far more forgiving with the 720P vs 1080P as the pixel size is smaller. When we are displaying on a 50inch LCD, the extra resolution will be very apparent. Remeber if you dont setup your system correctly and you done get a 1 to 1 pixel mapping between output and display then the extra resolution will not be noticable. Thankfully this was only an issue with VGA, with DVI or HDMI there is far less issues with getting the native resolution.
That simply is not true, unless you plan to sit face to face with your television you will get very little benefit from the additional pixels, especially as the distance increases to normal sitting ranges of 8-10ft or greater from the set. You can believe what you like, i know what is right (as horrifically cocky as that sounds) and the world will still spin. Somehow i doubt Sony or Microsoft will produce the same title in 720P and 1080P without dropping or increasing any IQ to prove to their customers that the difference is minor at best, but you can do it today with material such as movies or HD-broadcast, and i'm telling ya, its not a big difference.
Trying to compare a 19-21" LCD which you sit at and view material from a distance of about 18 inches to a 37-52" TV which is viewed at much greater distances is like comparing apples to oranges. Modern LCD televisions dont downgrade in picture quality if the material is 1080P on a 720P set. Its totally different from changing a 1280x1024 native LCD to 1024x768 or something which is how i think you're viewing it. As i said, apples to oranges.
Last edited by a moderator:
I disagree and I believe the industry does or we would not be pushing for 1920 by 1080 Video formats for broadcast and movies. Also, the moment any interpolation is performed on the display (when running 720P on 1080P displays) you will notice the difference as the image will apear softened. The effect of going from 720P to 1080P in movies will be far less compared to 720P to 1080P in games. The nature of getting movies on to displays means there is a good degree of softening due to translation from native format and resolution to what is played on the screen. With games this is not true. You render at a specfic resolution and that is sent to the screen exactly as it was rendered (if using DVI or HDMI). The downside of this is also that you get exactly what u render, jaggies and all.
You may think you are right, but I still suggest you do a little homework on the effects of image scaling. If you have access to a 1080P display (which is not easy as it not mainstream yet), setup a PC to it and output a 1280 by 720P image while viewing a web page. Stand 10ft a way and look at the image. Then compare when running the display with the native 1080P image from 10ft. If at that distance you still can see no difference in clarity then you are correct for your personal usage. I on the other hand notice this immediatelty. As I said I work is digital signage and have the pleasure of using many different displays from Panny plasmas to Sharps Aquos LCDs. I'm a coder but I have also been responsible for integration on booths for Pioneer and Sharp. Trust me they would spot a non native res a mile a way. I consider myself a videophile but I dont believe I will be the only one who notices the difference in clarity.
Anyway not to get too far off point. My thoughts are this; I see displays going to 1080P (esp in LCD market). If the PS3 outputs at this we will see significant improvements in image clarity compared to a system that renders at 720P and is upscaled for 1080P displays. I also believe that on computer graphics we will notice the difference between a 720P and 1080P resolution at 10ft.
At the end of the day I applaud Sony for giving develops the choice to target 1080P
You may think you are right, but I still suggest you do a little homework on the effects of image scaling. If you have access to a 1080P display (which is not easy as it not mainstream yet), setup a PC to it and output a 1280 by 720P image while viewing a web page. Stand 10ft a way and look at the image. Then compare when running the display with the native 1080P image from 10ft. If at that distance you still can see no difference in clarity then you are correct for your personal usage. I on the other hand notice this immediatelty. As I said I work is digital signage and have the pleasure of using many different displays from Panny plasmas to Sharps Aquos LCDs. I'm a coder but I have also been responsible for integration on booths for Pioneer and Sharp. Trust me they would spot a non native res a mile a way. I consider myself a videophile but I dont believe I will be the only one who notices the difference in clarity.
Anyway not to get too far off point. My thoughts are this; I see displays going to 1080P (esp in LCD market). If the PS3 outputs at this we will see significant improvements in image clarity compared to a system that renders at 720P and is upscaled for 1080P displays. I also believe that on computer graphics we will notice the difference between a 720P and 1080P resolution at 10ft.
At the end of the day I applaud Sony for giving develops the choice to target 1080P
That would only be true if at 720p jaggies were not visible. The fact jaggies are visible proves the pixels are larger than the visual resolving power of the viewer, and that means the same sized set at the same viewing distance will look better (less jaggies yet sharper image) at a higher resolution.
Comparing TV pictures is different because of the inherent 'infinite information per pixel' effect and the faults with compression (like colour bleeding) that elliminate some degree of the improved resolution. For anyone comparing 720p and 1080p games on TVs, I really it's best to wait until you've seen 1080p games on a TV!
I don't know about Haze- although I am looking forward to that game- but someone mentioned that in the latest PSM, EA's 'SKATE' game has been confirmed to run in 1080p. the game has an open city approach and you can create your own character. it also has some kind of physics-simulation animation so that every fall in the game is unique.
but what is relivant to this discussion is that the title is yet another example of a 1080p game for PS3.
but what is relivant to this discussion is that the title is yet another example of a 1080p game for PS3.
1080p screens are here to stay, here are some predictions and numbers.
http://www.digitimes.com/displays/a20061012VL200.html
Yeah, the Sony W-series and the Sharp XD1 (i think that's the name anyway) will probably be some of the biggest things in the HDTV world this year. Full HD and very affordable (relatively speaking).
Not many moons ago this was true. Also, that's 7.5% of the LCD market, which is some percent of the HD market, which is some percent of the overall TV market. Still, it looks like 1080p will be taking off fairly quickly. Will we even seen 720p sets in a year from now?7.5% this year? Odd, not many moons ago I heard in this forum there's no 1080p TV set in the world...
mckmas8808
Legend
We keep getting promised techs that'll make HDTVs cheap enough for the masses regardless of res! Where's SED and laser TVs etc.? With them, the difference between 720p and 1080p should be all of 50 bucks, in which case we can fix onto a standard and go with that for the next 20+ years and everyone knows where they are.
The reason prices stay roughly static is that once an item is commoditzed, hardware makers push to the next big thing. So I think we're seeing the commodization of 720p displays, which is why 1080p is being pushed.
Then again, the sub-$1000 market still seems to be 720p/1080i capable CRT direct view TVs.
Laser TV? Definitely the first time I've heard about those. Is there any danger of burning your retina's and such (similar to a laser pointer)?
Similar threads
- Locked
