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

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS3 games and the lack of 1080p

Entroper on 22 February 2008
MikeB said:

The performance isn't that difficult to tap, it's just a different approach than most devs are used to (it requires a bit more thought). You can't expect old locomotives to do very well on modern railways, similarly the best results will be achieved with newly built engines (from scratch, a lot of work to do in one go) and those which are adapted step by step into a fully PS3 orientated game engine (like Resistance 2).

1. You don't need Blu-Ray to output 1080p rendering resolution, you can have an OS on a single diskette supporting such a resoltion. However as high definition sound and high quality textures take up a lot of space, it's certainly a hugh plus. You can have more varierty without dragging down the quality.

2. 1080p refers to 1080 lines, progressive scan.

A Full HD TV supports 1920 by 1080 pixel resolutions.


@1: I agree. The higher your output resolution, the more data you want to use to fill that resolution.

@2: This is missing the point, IMO. By your definition, 1x1080 would be 1080p, even though it would look like crap.

EDIT: I also think the difficulty of programming for the Cell is overplayed.  I've done it, it wasn't that hard, and I was still in college at the time -- surely, experienced game programmers can handle it.



http://entroper.no-ip.org

Around the Network
MikeB on 22 February 2008

@ Entroper

@2: This is missing the point, IMO. By your definition, 1x1080 would be 1080p, even though it would look like crap.


It wasn't me who decided what 1080p should refer to:

"1080p is the shorthand name for a category of display resolutions. The number "1080" represents 1,080 lines of vertical resolution"

Like it does for 480p. 704x480, 640x480, 720x480 are all used 480p standards.

Similarly HDV records in 1080i (and 720p is an allowed standard), but this not in an interlaced 1920 by 1080 pixel resolution, but 1440×1080 pixels (interlaced).



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

Daddo Splat on 23 February 2008
starcraft said:
MikeB said:
Slimebeast said:
d21lewis said:
1080p isn't really a dealbreaker, or some holy grail of picture quality. Sony made a big deal about it in the beginning because 1080p was supposed to be something that the 360 couldn't do. Really, the differences between 720p and 1080 are invisible to the average consumer.


I agree. Resolution is overrated, because people lack knowledge about graphics and what makes them look good. There are so many factors that contribute to good graphics, like the effects anti aliasing (to remove jaggies), anisotrofic filtering, colors, high dynamic lighting, nice shadows, texture quality, quality of geometry and number of polygons and probably a few more effects that I can't recall right now or ain't familiar with.

 


I don't think resolution is overrated, you are able to see more details. Like for instance when a spaceship is far away in the distance, higher resolution also helps with regard to jaggies like AA but with better detail.

You can add smart manual color selection for art to that list, you can spot jaggies because of high level of contrast between neighbouring pixels, the various AA techniques are aimed to reduce this contrast.

IMO 720p at solid 30 FPS should be minimal for the high def consoles, that's why many are surprised a high profile big budget exclusive game like Halo 3 was only running in 640p without AA (not really relevant to those playing on old TVs) while also noticeably dropping frames in parts of the game. The PS3 is able to go higher when game engines are fully matured.


 I don't recall a single frame-rate drop in the entire campaign, neither does my brother, who played it through on legendary.  So far, we don't have a single, tangible indication that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360.  Though it may be true, this doesn't bode well for your constant assertions that we will see a significant difference in capability this generation.


it was actually 540p while using aome other anthrmorphic philtering or something like that that actually doubled the res 540 +540 =1080 cross filtering or something on of the bungie guys explaned it the lag was close to loads only by the way and very seldom more frequetly with MP campaign!

no Iwas wrong here is the link it is 640p

http://www.gamespot.com/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=25949250



Daddo Splat on 23 February 2008
MikeB said:
@ Daddo Splat

I dont see a difference when I play my 360 games at 480p 720p or 1080p the effects dont change IF its upconverted from a native resolution to run that way its still looks better upconverted at 1080p then 720p.

effects in

?????? why cant the PS3 upconvertits 720p games like the 360 does!!


Your post is confusing, but I'll address this. You should notice a difference when outputting 480p or 1080p to your TV with regard to detail.

HDTVs do however have scalars, so it may not matter if the 360 upscales images or not (depending on filters or such vs the scalar chips inside your HDTV). HDTVs usually scale the 480p/720p output regardless as HD ready HDTV screens usually do not have a native 720p screen resolution.

I new I worded that wrong I meant to say the effects the picture quality is always better as the resolution goes up! one guy stated the higher the resolution the less effects! so I was responding to that! the effects in the game our the same at 480p to 1080p shadowing aa stuff like that!



Daddo Splat on 23 February 2008

games have a native resolution the PS3 runs those games mostly at 720p the 360 takes every game out and can upscale it to 1080p!
at least mine does!



Around the Network
makingmusic476 on 23 February 2008
sieanr said:
You know the phrase "a sucker is born every second"

If anything, this thread has proved it. The fact that people buy into such an obvious marketing ploy as "Full HD" is sad, especially when you see "I thought only bluray could do 1080p", or just about everything MikeB has posted.

Speaking of which, its hysterical that he brings up Mass Effect and its problems with texture streaming, yet ignores how Uncharted has the exact same problem.

 What problems does Uncharted have with texture streaming? 0_o



LordTheNightKnight on 23 February 2008
davygee said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

So what if Blu-Ray and the hard drive allow more texture room in the Roms? You still need room in the RAM to actually show them off. That is why 1080p is not feasible for most games. Resolution needs RAM to be higher. The PS3 has only 512MB.

It's not that hard to put together.


So you're saying that 512MB isn't enough to show a game in 1080p? How come PC's have been playing in higher resolutions than this for years and using less than 512MB of RAM as well. The bottom line is that the PS3 is capable of showing 1080p and I'm pretty sure the developers will find ways of storing textures and optimising the code to use less memory so that they can display in 1080p.

Anyway, there are already games out there that display in 1080p and it will be a task for the developers to come up with games that utilise this higher resolution while adhering to the evidently small amount of RAM contained in the PS3.

Only time will tell.


Not for the scale of a typical 360/PS3 game. PC games before this used 5-6th gen level graphics, which leave plenty of room for large frame buffers.

For equivalent PC games to the 360 and PS3, you need a lot more memory to run at 1080p. 



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Entroper on 23 February 2008

Frame buffers aren't that big compared to graphics memory anymore.  A 1920x1080 front, back, and Z buffer comes to a little under 25 MB, or less than 10% of 256 MB.



http://entroper.no-ip.org

TyePhoid_PAL on 23 February 2008

Virtua Fighter 5, Ninja gaiden sigma, virtua tennis, lair, RR7. Also a lot of store games. e.g tekken, stardust, pixel junk monsters, mk2. If you go in display settings and untick everything but 1080P then warhawk and uncharted both run it. My tv says 1920x1080p 60hz. 50hz is upscaled eg dvd. Not tried anything else.



Ynwa.

sieanr on 23 February 2008
makingmusic476 said:
sieanr said:
You know the phrase "a sucker is born every second"

If anything, this thread has proved it. The fact that people buy into such an obvious marketing ploy as "Full HD" is sad, especially when you see "I thought only bluray could do 1080p", or just about everything MikeB has posted.

Speaking of which, its hysterical that he brings up Mass Effect and its problems with texture streaming, yet ignores how Uncharted has the exact same problem.

 What problems does Uncharted have with texture streaming? 0_o

It has texture and model pop-in, just like Mass Effect. Of course its nowhere nearly as bad as ME, but Mikeb once insinuated that the text pop-in was hardware specific to the 360.



Leo-j said: If a dvd for a pc game holds what? Crysis at 3000p or something, why in the world cant a blu-ray disc do the same?

ssj12 said: Player specific decoders are nothing more than specialized GPUs. Gran Turismo is the trust driving simulator of them all. 

"Why do they call it the xbox 360? Because when you see it, you'll turn 360 degrees and walk away"