Rendering in HD resolutions - worth it?

[Powderkeg]

PGRs lower interneral resolution rendering is expected, after all the first x-box upscaled. x-box could NOT render @ 720p even though games ( such as soul caliber ) were in 720p.

In the original x-box its encoder chip ( A conexant ) only has a maxinum input resolution of 1024x768, so all the x-box games that claimed to 720p + are upscaled.

And the 360 uses an entirely different GPU and an entirely different frame buffer arcitecture, so I don't see any comparison.

 

[Inane_Dork]

I think his point, which is well taken, is that even the HD in games we're used to today is not "true" HD (i.e., 1280x720). Whether he meant that as an attack on MS, Xbox or Xbox gamers, I don't know. But it is interesting to point out just exactly how many hoops the signal goes through before it gets to your eye.

 

[Fox5]

PGRs lower interneral resolution rendering is expected, after all the first x-box upscaled. x-box could NOT render @ 720p even though games ( such as soul caliber ) were in 720p.

In the original x-box its encoder chip ( A conexant ) only has a maxinum input resolution of 1024x768, so all the x-box games that claimed to 720p + are upscaled.

http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20020204/xbox-09.html

I expect many 360 games to follow suit aswel.

Soul Calibur 2 wasn't upscaled, it was bordered. I think it was only like a 1024x720 sized window.
What about Dragon's Quest doing 1920x1080 though? It definetely did look higher res than 640x480p.

 

[Magnum PI]

there is plenty ways of improving games graphics without increasing resolution..lot of room for quality increase at 480p before attaining monster inc. level..

except for split-screen games i don't see resolution being such big limiting factor for console games. as i don't intend to invest in an HD set anytime soon i hope i'm not wrong and won't be frustrated by not having HD. i guess graphic whores will be.

another thing! i don't know if games playable in HD and SD will be equaly optimized to maximize the potential of both resolution.
for a SD TV set owner maybe the wisest will be to choose the revolution, as you can be sure its game will be be enjoyable in SD

 

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

And the 360 uses an entirely different GPU and an entirely different frame buffer arcitecture, so I don't see any comparison.

Yes i understand that 360 uses a different GPU and rendering method, but doesnt the 360 also has a scaler chip inside it aswel to bump up the resolution.??? 360 could follow suit aswel.

 

[valioso]

why does everyone talk that just because a launch title is doing it a certain way, that all future games will follow suit? As developers get more confortable with the in and outs of the hardware games will look better and better, same way that happened with this gen.

 

[wco81]

Oops, wrong thread.

 

[pipo]

Well, it looks like all the 'no' voters are out of luck.

As seen on http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25474&page=7 from http://www.bizarreonline.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8837&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=195...

What's interesting here, is that I think we've all learned that Microsoft's 720P minimum requirement is an OUTPUT standard, NOT a rendering requirement.

***720P DISPLAY RESOLUTION***

I've looked closely at Microsoft's rhetoric regarding HD, and I have not once read anything about an internal rendering requirement; only HD requirements, which can now be read as "HD display requirements".

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's a really pointless standard if true. You can output 720p rendering at 320x200. That's like setting a standard for games to support a minimum frame rate of 15 fps (ummmm...). Or a standard of games needing to be written to support at least 1 player. Or a standard to have some sound effects.

'The minimum performance of XB360 is going to enable it to output to a TV' Whoopeedoo!

 

[London Geezer]

That's a really pointless standard if true. You can output 720p rendering at 320x200. That's like setting a standard for games to support a minimum frame rate of 15 fps (ummmm...). Or a standard of games needing to be written to support at least 1 player. Or a standard to have some sound effects.

'The minimum performance of XB360 is going to enable it to output to a TV' Whoopeedoo!

Well it's not exactly pointless. It makes sure that people will stick to the 720p standard which will be playable of all HDTVs. It's nothing to write home about, but i can see why it's there.

 

[pipo]

Edit - I agree with Shifty; It sounds like they've changed their minds a bit on this...

Which of course is a good thing.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

First of all: I'm not looking for flamewars, so there should be no {[PS3/Rev/X360] [can/can't] do it} type of stuff in here. Please.

It's my first poll, and Engrish is not my native language, so bear with me...

The fuzz about PGR3's supposedly lower than 720p internal rendering made me wonder. Do we really care about this?

If a lower internal resolution means more post effects, the result could be even better than rendering native HD IMHO.

So my question is: should developers be forced to render at a minimum internal HD resolution of 1280x720?

Rendering in HD is not anything new PCs have been able to render so called HD images for years it has only been recently in the console market that the harware has had the HP to render in anything above 640*480. It will still be a few more years before it is required for consoles to be able to render HD since the vast majority of TVs in use are only capable of 480i. The problem with HD is no one is willing to standardize on a set resolution thus we have anything from 480p all the way up to 1080p (not yet used). If they would have standardized on the display format, I believe things would be a lot further along in terms of HD acceptance.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Well it's not exactly pointless. It makes sure that people will stick to the 720p standard which will be playable of all HDTVs. It's nothing to write home about, but i can see why it's there.

What's the difference between rendering at 480p, upscaling and outputting 720p, and watching on an HDTV, or rendering at 480p, outputting at 480p, and watching on an HDTV that'll upscale the image?

 

[London Geezer]

What's the difference between rendering at 480p, upscaling and outputting 720p, and watching on an HDTV, or rendering at 480p, outputting at 480p, and watching on an HDTV that'll upscale the image?

Depending on the set, the TV's upscaler might be better than the X360's upscaler and vice versa.
What this method tries to address (i think...) is that everything coming out of the X360 will be at 720P so no one will ever have to worry about resolutions changes and potential compatibility issues. You know, much like when you're playing PC games and the resolution for the game itself is lower than your desktop resolution. Guess they don't want that to happen?

I don't know, i'm trying to find a reason why they would do that...

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

What's the difference between rendering at 480p, upscaling and outputting 720p, and watching on an HDTV, or rendering at 480p, outputting at 480p, and watching on an HDTV that'll upscale the image?

Everything being equal nothing however the chip in the console may or may not be better at it than the one in the TV.

 

[pipo]

The point is scaling is a dashboard feature.

It makes no sense at all.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Ah, now that's a thing. If the dashboard is rendered at 720p you wouldn't want a 480p framebuffer or you need some weird composition thing going on. Which is what I thought the idea all internal rendering was 720p and the image was scaled to output device. But then we're hearing games aren't using 720p, nor is 720p a required framebuffer size. So the dashboard is scaled or something.

Plus a 720p standardised output is daft anyway 'coz 80-90% of people don't have a TV that can receive a 720p signal.

So MS are saying they've standardized the output to a standard they won't stick to as long as they let XB360 output to SDTVs?

I think the 720p output must mean an internal minimum 720p (save for launch titles) rendering output to whatever the user chooses in their settings, and the choice of 'output' is just a misnomer. That at least makes sense.

 

[pipo]

Maybe they just require 16:9 (at > 480p) for the back-buffer? Who knows?

Lower resolutions like the rumored 1024x576 fit nicely in one tile with AA... So that would be the 'why 10MB?' sorted too.

 

[Fox5]

I'd imagine this makes a big deal to owners of 4:3 aspect ratio HDTVs. If the game is only doing 480p, they may as well stick to 480p and get a full image, rather than have the game upscale it to 720p and get a wide screen image.

 

[pipo]

It's up to the developers to support SD (4:3). PGR3 for example has native 4:3 support in addition to the mandatory 16:9.

If the game doesn't support it, the scaler will fix it according to the output set in the dashboard. The way it looks like right now (with PGR3) is that only the front-buffer has to be 1280x720 and that there are no restrictions on the back-buffer.