Render resolutions of 6th gen consoles - PS2 couldn't render more than 224 lines? *spawn

Tekken 4 also supported Progressive. Didnt that also have 480p?

From researching it seems that Tekken 4 was the first 480p PS2 game, and the limitation to get 480p wasn't due to the PS2 hardware itself, but that the SDK didn't support 480p as an option until PS2 had been on the market for a few years.
 
There's quite a few other 480p games on PS2
Output resolution, or internal rendered resolution? We need examples and evidence of games rendering internally on a 640x480 buffer to disprove sheathx013's reference to the official documentation. Actually we only need evidence that PS2 can render above 640x448

We could also do with @sheathx013 referencing the docs with a quote and source to support their assertion.
 
Output resolution, or internal rendered resolution? We need examples and evidence of games rendering internally on a 640x480 buffer to disprove sheathx013's reference to the official documentation. Actually we only need evidence that PS2 can render above 640x448

We could also do with @sheathx013 referencing the docs with a quote and source to support their assertion.
It is both, I have the Linux PS2 kit, and the maximum output is 1024*768p 59.9999 fps, that is what my monitor told me at least and the pixels were individually lit
 
Assuming as we are that no doubt brilliant exception to the rule is not a multipass doubled scene downsampled to 640x448,
It wasn't just vertically antialiased, but antialiased in all directions, so 900 x 340 downsampling a 640x240 framebuffer.
it is still an exception to the rule. As poorly documented as the engine for Champions of Norath, Baldars Gate 1-2, and, ugh, I forget what else is, I wouldn't think Dreisbach's solution was immune to the limitation.
One exception disproves the rules. You said PS2 is incapable of anything higher than 480i and you named an official sounding document as source. The existence of one game would show that limitation doesn't actually exist.

Additionally, you haven't responded to davis.anthony's point about Linux supporting higher resolutions. How can PS2 be hard capped to 640x224 if Linux runs at 480p and even above?

Bit of my own research. Using PCSX2 and capturing an screenshot of the internal framebuffer:

1724492264700.png

910x512 interlaced. So not obviously downsampled in the y axes but you can see two steps on horizontal edges in game, so it was managed somehow. Anyway, assuming this is a capture of the internal FB (I don't really know how reliable this test is from an emulator!) it seems this is running at > 480 x 224 showing no hard limits as you've described.
 
Oops I was wrong:


Which Display Resolutions are supported ?​

  • NTSC/PAL interlaced and non-interlaced
  • DTV 480P, 720P and 1080I modes
  • VESA modes 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024 at 60/75 Hz



Maybe though (sorry I cannot edit my post it seems), this loads like a hacked display mode that would not work with regular games or something. So it could be that the limit for games internally is still far below the 1280x1024 that Linux for PS2 could use
 
Resolution back then was always a developer choice, just as it is today.

Field rendering offered a drop in IQ for the ability to more easily target and hit 60fps.

It's no different to taking a hit in IQ, and using FSR2 to hit 60fps in modern games.

The resolution argument in regard to PS2 vs DC has always been a big talking point because it's the only real area where DC had an advantage early on in PS2's release so it's always been the one thing that still gets bought up now, even though PS2 has150+ games that have a 480p mode.

However, talking about 480p has always been pointless in my eyes as the actual displays that supported it were next to none existent.

I only know of 4x CRT TV's in the UK that supported 480p (2x Toshiba, 1x Samsung and 1x Sony) and they were released years after DC was killed off. So how useful was it really? And it's not just PS2 and DC, Xbox and GC are the same, the 480p capable display were just none existent (and the ones that did above were all 16:9 and not 4:3) so it's a bit like the 40fps option some games have today, yes it's good, but useful to only a select handful of people.

So how many DC owners were using 480p and on what?

DC and PS2 came out the box with composite video, so neither would have had any real advantage over the other in terms of display.
 
The resolution argument in regard to PS2 vs DC has always been a big talking point because it's the only real area where DC had an advantage early on in PS2's release so it's always been the one thing that still gets bought up now, even though PS2 has150+ games that have a 480p mode.
is that rendering at 480p though, or outputting a lower resolution FB upscaled ot 480p?
So how many DC owners were using 480p and on what?
This discussion isn't so much about 480p games, but whether the DC might be able to render GTA at a higher resolution than PS2. Into that discussion, @sheathx013 contributed there was some sort of upper limit on the rendering resolution on the PS2 at 480i without explaining what caused that. If so, it's much more possible DC could render GTA at a higher resolution than PS2. If not true, it's an unknown.

Since there, a number of datapoints suggest there's no hard limit on PS2's internal rendering resolution, we're waiting on a technical explanation of what the limit is.

Although in the case of GTA specifically, we only need get an internal render resolution and compare that to the current port.
 
Resolution back then was always a developer choice, just as it is today.

Field rendering offered a drop in IQ for the ability to more easily target and hit 60fps.

It's no different to taking a hit in IQ, and using FSR2 to hit 60fps in modern games.

The resolution argument in regard to PS2 vs DC has always been a big talking point because it's the only real area where DC had an advantage early on in PS2's release so it's always been the one thing that still gets bought up now, even though PS2 has150+ games that have a 480p mode.

However, talking about 480p has always been pointless in my eyes as the actual displays that supported it were next to none existent.

I only know of 4x CRT TV's in the UK that supported 480p (2x Toshiba, 1x Samsung and 1x Sony) and they were released years after DC was killed off. So how useful was it really? And it's not just PS2 and DC, Xbox and GC are the same, the 480p capable display were just none existent (and the ones that did above were all 16:9 and not 4:3) so it's a bit like the 40fps option some games have today, yes it's good, but useful to only a select handful of people.

So how many DC owners were using 480p and on what?

DC and PS2 came out the box with composite video, so neither would have had any real advantage over the other in terms of display.
The good thing with the DC was that many (most?) games of I recall offered the choice between 50hz and 60Hz progressive and had cables available to connect your console directly to a PC monitor.

So it was very easy and much more practical to take advantage of the IQ on the DC than it was on the PS2
 
There was an adapter called vga box that allowed you to connect the dreamcast to computer monitors. The definition of the games improved radically, it looked incredible. I think that at that time everyone had a monitor at home and played the dreamcast like that to get 480p. I'm sorry
I can see that! 640P monitors were probably cheap or already in a house and to have better image quality than a tv must be out of this world, great that you were able to experience it.
 
I did most of my Dreamcast gaming on my Trinitron monitor via VGA. Dreamcast officially supported VGA, and VGA compatible games had an icon on the box. Many games that didn't officially support VGA in Europe (shitty PAL conversions) could be forced to run in VGA by throwing a switch on the VGA box during boot.

There were also some games that could run in Tate mode, and my first PVA monitor could pivot 90 degrees.

Finally, in PAL land 50 Hz games, being 480 lines, would automatically cover more of the screen than unoptimised 448 line pal games.

VGA was king though. Full screen full speed progressive RGB was a hell of a lot better than bordered, running-through-treacle blurry mess. DCs 60hz PAL mode through RGB SCART using the DCs outstanding video output processor was pretty awesome second though for people with TVs.

Video output quality is often overlooked by people who are just looking at performance metrics like polygons per second or the like.
 
Video output quality is often overlooked by people who are just looking at performance metrics like polygons per second or the like.
IQ also. Lower res with decent AA would likely trump a bit higher res with pixel crawl in most people's opinions. But metrics give people an immediate objective (if misguided) comparison. That's why we saw digital cameras push megapixels with no-one ever talking about lens quality and resolving power. You ended up with people buying cameras with more megapixels but worse image quality than other cameras that beefed up other aspects of the photography process.
 
Last edited:
Oops I was wrong:


Which Display Resolutions are supported ?​

  • NTSC/PAL interlaced and non-interlaced
  • DTV 480P, 720P and 1080I modes
  • VESA modes 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024 at 60/75 Hz




Well there were some resolution dc supported if you messed with the way it did it sync signals and probably write directly to framebuffer. I remember a coder even created some 75,120,240 hz mode. If they were useful I am guessing people would have used them otherwise Its probably just a gimmick to say look my monitor says the Dreamcast is doing 1440x900.
Resolutions they hacked out of the dc:
60Hz:

848x480 @ 60Hz (16:9, DMT, but using a slightly-too-short hsync)
848x480 @ 60Hz (16:9, DMT, but using a slightly-too-short hsync) - PVR 32x32
800x600 @ 60Hz (4:3, DMT, but using a slightly-too-short hsync)
800x600 @ 60Hz (4:3, DMT, but using a slightly-too-short hsync) - PVR 32x32
800x600 @ 60Hz (4:3, CVT)
800x600 @ 60Hz (4:3, CVT) - PVR 32x32
1024x768 @ 60Hz (4:3, DMT)
1024x768 @ 60Hz (4:3, DMT) - PVR 32x32
1152x864 @ 60Hz (4:3, CVT)
1152x864 @ 60Hz (4:3, CVT) - PVR 32x32
720p60 (16:9, DMT & CTA-861) - for HDTVs
720p60 (16:9, DMT & CTA-861) - for HDTVs - PVR 32x32
1280x720 (16:9, CVT) - for monitors that need this instead of HDTV 720p60
1280x720 (16:9, CVT) - for monitors that need this instead of HDTV 720p60 - PVR 32x32
1280x800 @ 60Hz (16:10, DMT & CVT)
1280x800 @ 60Hz (16:10, DMT & CVT) - PVR 32x32
1280x960 @ 60Hz (4:3, DMT) - PVR 32x32
1440x900 @ 60Hz (16:10, DMT & CVT)
1440x900 @ 60Hz (16:10, DMT & CVT) - PVR 32x32
 
It wasn't just vertically antialiased, but antialiased in all directions, so 900 x 340 downsampling a 640x240 framebuffer.

One exception disproves the rules. You said PS2 is incapable of anything higher than 480i and you named an official sounding document as source. The existence of one game would show that limitation doesn't actually exist.

Additionally, you haven't responded to davis.anthony's point about Linux supporting higher resolutions. How can PS2 be hard capped to 640x224 if Linux runs at 480p and even above?

Bit of my own research. Using PCSX2 and capturing an screenshot of the internal framebuffer:

View attachment 11927

910x512 interlaced. So not obviously downsampled in the y axes but you can see two steps on horizontal edges in game, so it was managed somehow. Anyway, assuming this is a capture of the internal FB (I don't really know how reliable this test is from an emulator!) it seems this is running at > 480 x 224 showing no hard limits as you've described.

Everything capable of outputting video has exceptions to the rule, I have seen the discussion go around in circles about how much VRAM was required for higher resolutions and the PS2 effectively not having enough. Obviously the PS2, like all systems, is capable of rendering scenes in multiple passes. I cited the only "source" I could recover from another forum. The concept presented there, and by you in another PS2 thread here, is that the PS2 can render in "tiles" thanks to its huge bandwidth in order to get a single screen at a higher resolution. That has not been explained clearly in anything I can find. If I recall the "height buffer" comment on page 13 in Sony's How Far Have We Got document is referring to this as well as the person who may have worked for Criteron.

It isn't a new concept for rendering, but the PS2 seems to be especially suited for multipass rendering. What I have not seen discussed is whether the PS2's VUs "streaming" polygons on top of polygons for multipass-like effects had to be dropped if the whole scene had to be rendered in steps for a super sampling solution. Either way, I think it is equally clear that the way the PS2 does things does not equate to how the Dreamcast, Xbox, Gamecube or PC graphics cards render. This was my main point.

Secondarily to that, I think PS2 games rendering at lower resolutions is obvious even when it upscales to a higher output resolution. When I do a search currently on the Snowblind games, the only thing I can find easily is emulators having a hard time with them. Obviously these games were rendering in a way most PS2 games do not. I am not claiming they aren't super sampled in a way, because I do not know.
 
Everything capable of outputting video has exceptions to the rule, I have seen the discussion go around in circles about how much VRAM was required for higher resolutions and the PS2 effectively not having enough. Obviously the PS2, like all systems, is capable of rendering scenes in multiple passes. I cited the only "source" I could recover from another forum. The concept presented there, and by you in another PS2 thread here, is that the PS2 can render in "tiles" thanks to its huge bandwidth in order to get a single screen at a higher resolution. That has not been explained clearly in anything I can find. If I recall the "height buffer" comment on page 13 in Sony's How Far Have We Got document is referring to this as well as the person who may have worked for Criteron.

It isn't a new concept for rendering, but the PS2 seems to be especially suited for multipass rendering. What I have not seen discussed is whether the PS2's VUs "streaming" polygons on top of polygons for multipass-like effects had to be dropped if the whole scene had to be rendered in steps for a super sampling solution. Either way, I think it is equally clear that the way the PS2 does things does not equate to how the Dreamcast, Xbox, Gamecube or PC graphics cards render. This was my main point.

Secondarily to that, I think PS2 games rendering at lower resolutions is obvious even when it upscales to a higher output resolution. When I do a search currently on the Snowblind games, the only thing I can find easily is emulators having a hard time with them. Obviously these games were rendering in a way most PS2 games do not. I am not claiming they aren't super sampled in a way, because I do not know.
You should look at this topic from a PS2 homebrew forum. They got it rendering 720p by basically gendering the screen in sections. Even used it to render 3d at 1080p.
Here:

But then by same flip of the coin according to resident sh4/pvr expert tapamn ( who also post here) the dreamcast can pretty much do the same , there just isn't much point though. Multipass rendering isn't exclusive to one machine. Maybe he can chime in to fill details on dc end?:

Another issue is that the 3D hardware doesn't seem to support heights more than 480. To work around this, you would need to render the screen in two passes, rendering the top half and the bottom have separately.

 
It isn't a new concept for rendering, but the PS2 seems to be especially suited for multipass rendering.
It was literally designed for it! Where other machines focussed on doing more in a single draw such as multitexturing, PS2 was designed to draw one simple triangle really quickly and then layer these drawn triangles to make more complex images.
What I have not seen discussed is whether the PS2's VUs "streaming" polygons on top of polygons for multipass-like effects had to be dropped if the whole scene had to be rendered in steps for a super sampling solution.
What do you mean by streaming polygons? You have a buffer and draw triangles on it. Then you draw more triangles over the top, a few times. This gives you a buffer. You combine buffers to make other buffers and present one as the screen.
Either way, I think it is equally clear that the way the PS2 does things does not equate to how the Dreamcast, Xbox, Gamecube or PC graphics cards render. This was my main point.
Indeed which is why comparing them is so interesting, versus the current snorefest consoles. However, are you saying that there isn't a particular hard limit on PS2's rendering as it appeared you were saying? Can we put that to bed, accept PS2 could produce higher resolution games somehow, and start looking in particular at GTA's res on the two machines?
When I do a search currently on the Snowblind games, the only thing I can find easily is emulators having a hard time with them. Obviously these games were rendering in a way most PS2 games do not. I am not claiming they aren't super sampled in a way, because I do not know.
I had it straight from the horse's mouth back in the day. Talking with the devs about how clean the game looked, I was told it's using 2xSSAA. That pans out with a look at the screenshots and pixel-counting techniques developed since then. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a TAA solution as there's a constant full-screen motion blur in effect.

Sadly a lot of info was still on paper press back then, so whatever people learnt isn't readily at hand from search results.
 
I am saying in my experience, the PS2 has a hard limit of 224 lines. Whether or not it can fill those with more polygons that do_not equate to 10X higher polygon models, or a higher resolution by tiling scenes, is all in the "post processing" side in my mind. Feel free to correct that.

The PS2 VUs and VRAM were fast enough to stream detail before the final frame was rendered. This did not equate to higher color higher resoltion textures or higher rendering resolution as far as I have seen.
 
Back
Top