By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Forget 1080p, GET 1440p!

Entroper said:
ssj12 said:
Entroper said:
ssj12 said:
fazz said:
1440p... at 15 frames per second at most. Seriously, the PS3 is not THAT powerful.

no it could do it at 30fps stable for PSN titles only... like 10fps unstable for games on Blu-ray (retail)


What is your basis for this assertion?


512MBs of ram isnt enough for much


My question is really, why do you think that any publisher would release a game running at 10fps unstable at 1440p no matter what the delivery method?


 they never would this is why I'm saying you will only see 1440p off the PSN.



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
Around the Network
Played_Out said:
BenKenobi88 said:
This is one reason I'm passing up Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. Blu-Ray's fine if you've got a PS3, and yes, these movies do look better on 1080p TVs...but you're kidding yourself if you think 1080p will be the best TV resolution in 2 or 3 years.

Then we'll get "enhanced Blu-Rays" or "Blu-Ray 2.0" for the 2000p TVs or a resolution like that...and all the 1080p Blu-Rays won't be as good as they could be.

Meh.


That is absolutely ridiculous. People need to learn that just because a technology exists, that doesn't mean it will make it to mass market any time soon. It's just like all the people that say Blu-Ray will not take off because digital downloads will become dominant within a couple of years. It's bollocks.

Take Blu-Ray and HD-DVD as an example. The blue laser technology they incorporate has been around for decades, but only now is it slowly finding favour as a consumer product.

Resolutions above 1080p will not become an industry standard within the next decade because:

1.) Owners of TVs that support 1080 (or even 720) are still in a minority and will be for several years (globally).

2.) The broadcast standard will be 1080 max.

3.) The highest res supported by optical media will be 1080p.

4.) Current games consoles can only achieve 1080p in situations where there is very little going on on screen.

5.) TVs would cost a shitload more, and nobody with a TV <50" would be able to tell the difference anyway.

@ davygee

60fps is far more important for gaming than 1440p.

@ matte.lova

CoD4 runs at 60fps on both consoles.

 

That pretty much covers it. Much boils down to source material for the given native resolution of a display. For cable TV and 99% of gaming, 1080i/720p covers it for displays in the range of 32" and below. Even with a 50+" display, you're still limited by video source.

Blu-Ray, HD DVD, the PS3 XMB user interface (native 1080p), a handful of PS3 games, a smaller handful of 360 games (Dashboard is 720p native which is why it looks softer when displayed at 1080p), and any video card with 64MB of VRAM or more, and HD camcorders.

1440p native displays make less sense from the standpoint that only computer video cards can output such resolutions. There is no optical media format at that resolution. Cable broadcasts are limited to 720p/1080i due to bandwidth restrictions. These are broadcast standards. Standards that took the better part of ten years to establish. Arguments regarding upgrading the entire national network in the span of a 2-3 years are unrealistic at best, not to say that I wouldn't mind having access to one. Moving to Japan is your best bet currently.

Yes, the PS3 can output 1440p resolutions, but seeing as how 1080p is still far from standard for games, how many people would actually spend thousands on a 1440p display that would provide next to zero benefits? So you can play downloadable arcade style games at 1440p? Seriously...

As for size/viewing distance, I'm going to say I personally notice the dot pitch limitations of 1080p even on a "small" 52" display. Of course, you need to be sitting within 5' and have 20/20 vision. And by limitations, I'm referring to being able to see pixel edges that are not visible on a 37" 1080p display unless you are within computer monitor viewing distances (arguably the only reason for a smaller 1080p display is if it's seeing double use as an extra computer display).

But as it's already been pointed out, cost is the prime factor. Even if they produce them, what is the target market? Smaller than 1080p sets (which are currently replacing 1080i/720p sets at 42" and above as the industry standard). Even smaller when considering that the only current "standard" that exists for outputting 1440p resolutions are computer video cards.

Until there is a 1440p or better broadcast standard or media standard, do not hold your breath to buy one. Even when they become available, the premium they will command will put it far out of reach of the average consumer. For TV viewing purposes, I would be surprised to see these manufactured in sizes less than 60". Long ways away yet. Just like mass market viable HD downloads.

 



ssj12 said:
Entroper said:
ssj12 said:
Entroper said:
ssj12 said:
fazz said:
1440p... at 15 frames per second at most. Seriously, the PS3 is not THAT powerful.

no it could do it at 30fps stable for PSN titles only... like 10fps unstable for games on Blu-ray (retail)


What is your basis for this assertion?


512MBs of ram isnt enough for much


My question is really, why do you think that any publisher would release a game running at 10fps unstable at 1440p no matter what the delivery method?


they never would this is why I'm saying you will only see 1440p off the PSN.


I feel like we're going in circles here.  If you can do 1440p in a PSN game, what's stopping you from doing it in a Blu-ray disc game?



This is why BR/HDTV is bunk. No reason to get excited when it's not that big a jump over SD. Just wait a couple years ....



The difference is resources. PSN games generally use static contained environments. Even with BR-D games like Virtua Tennis and NBA, the game is restricted to a static court. This is why these types of games were the first to achieve high frame rate at 1080p.

Before believing 1440p resolutions are possible for PS3 games, you should probably wait to see a fair percentage of games running at 1080p/60fps. If even 1 out of 10 releases achieve this in the near future, I'll be satisfied.

Designing games for a 1440p native render is a weak sell for 1440p displays, but not the other way around. Virtually no one will go out and buy a 60" 1440p display for several thousand dollars to play PSN games on their PS3. Even if BR-D movies are produced at 1440p resolution, it would still be a niche market for the well to do or those with muddled priorities who live on credit.

Only after 1080p becomes industry standard.



Around the Network

I feel like we're going in circles here. If you can do 1440p in a PSN game, what's stopping you from doing it in a Blu-ray disc game?

The problem isn't the format, it's the type of games usually made for them. PSN games tend to use mostly 2D or simple 3D graphics. BluRay games go whole hog at exploiting the system's power. And since BluRay games are only barely managing to run at 1080p as it is... (I'm not sure if any game has really pulled it off yet without making major sacrifices elsewhere or "stretching" the definition of 1080p).

As for 1440p coming in the near future, I think Played_Out and greenmedic have it right. Broadcasters have just begrudgingly finished upgrading their broadcast systems for 720p/1080i, and they're not going to do it again for a long, long time. TV signals are going to define the major market for HDTVs. The next generation of games consoles still won't support 1440p, except maybe as a rare muscle-flexing show by the odd developer trying to get some attention for their game.

And of course, we're still a ways off from getting even 1080p firmly established. No networks broadcast at that resolution as far as I know, and even their 720p/1080i broadcasts tend to be so compressed they look horrendous. Games consoles still aren't really pulling it off, as I mentioned above. The only things that can do it reliably are HD movie disks and PC games. Never mind 1440p -- I'll be happy if the next gen of game consoles can just manage 1080p reliably.

So get a 1080p TV today, and don't worry too much about it. There'll be some movement forward in picture quality over the next few years, of course, as LED-backlighting, OLED, and laser projection technology become more mainstream, but as far as resolution goes you're pretty much future proof right now.



Entroper said:
ssj12 said:
Entroper said:
ssj12 said:
Entroper said:
ssj12 said:
fazz said:
1440p... at 15 frames per second at most. Seriously, the PS3 is not THAT powerful.

no it could do it at 30fps stable for PSN titles only... like 10fps unstable for games on Blu-ray (retail)


What is your basis for this assertion?


512MBs of ram isnt enough for much


My question is really, why do you think that any publisher would release a game running at 10fps unstable at 1440p no matter what the delivery method?


they never would this is why I'm saying you will only see 1440p off the PSN.


I feel like we're going in circles here.  If you can do 1440p in a PSN game, what's stopping you from doing it in a Blu-ray disc game?


 because most PSN games are small and short. Even if they have decent/good graphics the environments are small. Look at High Velocity Bowling, it looks great but the most intense thing it does visually is the full 12 lane bowling ally while making your character bowl. 

Plus 50GBs for a 1440p game wouldnt be enough space, 1440p will fit snuggly in a 50GB Blu-ray disc but there is no way in heck a 20 hour game at 1440p will fit unless its a game like Hot Shots Golf where barely anything is really going one a all but it might still hit the wall of 512mbs of ram to render it all



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
ssj12 said:
Sqrl said:

1440p? pffft..4320p is the only resolution worthwhile (sarcasm)...

(click to enlarge)

Just keep in mind that with UHD (Ultra High Def or 7680x4320) there are 16 times more pixels on screen than with 1080p.

 

Also there have been crazy PC gamers playing on 2560x1600 (aka 1600p) for a while now. The of course spend insane amounts of money to play at that resolution but its doable if high resolution is what gets you going =P


your image is off as 4k+ and 5k+ resolutions should be where the Ultra High-Def Videa is, 1440p/2160p/2540p are all super HD levels.


 Actually the 2K and 4K are right.  Digital Cinema goes by vertical lines or horizontal pixels. http://www.dcimovies.com/DCI_DCinema_System_Spec_v1_1.pdf  page 23

 



Sqrl said:
halil23 said:
ssj12 said:
Entroper said:
ssj12 said:
fazz said:
1440p... at 15 frames per second at most. Seriously, the PS3 is not THAT powerful.

no it could do it at 30fps stable for PSN titles only... like 10fps unstable for games on Blu-ray (retail)


What is your basis for this assertion?


512MBs of ram isnt enough for much

But with the hard drive built in the PS3, I thiought that would be possible, no?

 


Quick computer lesson =)

The point of RAM in a computer system is that it is significantly faster than the hard drive. If the CPU or GPU were to have no ram and use the hard drive exclusively we would see a lot slower speeds from computers. The difference in speed is due to moving parts in the hard drive and no moving parts in ram. While the hard drive has to spin up and position the head to read data the ram is essentially limited by the time it takes capacitors to charge and discharge because the logic gates of the capacitor are ruled by the voltage potentials built up between the two plates of a capacitor.

RAM performance measures like CAS is measured in clock cycles which translates to between 1.5 ns and 6 ns depending on the memory used. Hard drive performance is usually measured around the 4-12ms range. The difference of course is more obvious if we convert them back to seconds.

0.0000000015 to 0.000000006 seconds per clock cycle for RAM

0.004 to 0.012 seconds for the HDD.

 

Note - timing & conversions are all from memory, they are pretty close but if they aren't dead on don't freak on me folks =P


 Thanks for the lesson dude! That +1 for you

That Panasonic TH-103PF9 is SICK!



Auron said:
PS3 is future proof!!! This proves it 360 and Wii are dead!!!!!! This is the end........

Seriously that's just unnecessary.

 LOL. I remeber when ps3 owners thought 360 couldnt do 1080p. simple software update later and wallahh! Course Microsoft will do a software download.