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

New Thread idea: Wii games and the lack of 720p



Around the Network
MikeB said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
 

Here we go again. Still not getting detail is stored in the texelss in 3D games, not in the pixels. It's texture resolution that matters here more than screen resolution.


Of course texture resolution is of relevance just like rendering resolution, aliasing problems are however usually not noticed in textures (hand picked color contrast) but around in-game characters, on track edges, powerlines, etc.

With regard to texture quality (details), Blu-Ray and a default harddrive comes into play. More space on Blu-Ray means more and/or higher quality textures can be streamed. The harddrive can be used to store speed critical data (notice the texture popups in for example Mass Effect) or to be used as cache for the Blu-Ray drive to stream data.

Uncharted is one of the visually most impressive games this generation without any in-game load times, this is achieved by seamless streaming (game does not need to install to HD). But this is just Naughty Dog's first effort, they expect to be able to deliver dramatic improvement with future games.


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. 



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

Tell your friend to get FullHD.

1)For the BR movies...theres a definite difference at 1080p.

2)There are some games that do 1080p and more coming.

3)Most FullHD TVs have really good upscaler chips...so you get upscaled 1080p no matter what.



LordTheNightKnight said:
MikeB said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
 

Here we go again. Still not getting detail is stored in the texelss in 3D games, not in the pixels. It's texture resolution that matters here more than screen resolution.


Of course texture resolution is of relevance just like rendering resolution, aliasing problems are however usually not noticed in textures (hand picked color contrast) but around in-game characters, on track edges, powerlines, etc.

With regard to texture quality (details), Blu-Ray and a default harddrive comes into play. More space on Blu-Ray means more and/or higher quality textures can be streamed. The harddrive can be used to store speed critical data (notice the texture popups in for example Mass Effect) or to be used as cache for the Blu-Ray drive to stream data.

Uncharted is one of the visually most impressive games this generation without any in-game load times, this is achieved by seamless streaming (game does not need to install to HD). But this is just Naughty Dog's first effort, they expect to be able to deliver dramatic improvement with future games.


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.


 Blu-ray will just allow for more varied hi-res textures to be used in a game allowing for very different looking environments rather than having the same textures being re-used all the time.



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.


Regarding old TVs people often mistakenly assume the lower resolution plays part in less severe aliasing issues, this is of course a complete misunderstanding of what's the true reason. Lower rendering resolutions cause more jaggies due to larger pixels, also a lower than intented for resolution can cause pixels to unexpectedly neighbour each other (more contrast than intended).

NTSC is often jokingly referred to as "Never The Same Color", basically old TVs aren't able to output the exact color like was originally intended, thus with modern HDTVs and monitors more contrast (as intended by developers) is visible. Also the shittier the connection you use to connect your console to a screen can play part in this. You will notice far lower image quality but also experience fewer aliasing issues.

 



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

Around the Network

I find the whole lesser-resolutions-are-acceptable arguments somewhat odd.

Perhaps it's because I own a 1080p TV and can clearly see the differences? Perhaps it's because when watching DVDs or playing 720p games the upscaling is very noticable for me, yet bizarrely not for others? Perhaps it's something else? I just don't know.

What I do know is that I want 1080p for all my games, if possible. If I compare Tekken 5 Online, Locoroco Cocorecho, PixelJunk Monsters, Super Stardust HD, or any 1080p game with most retail release games, the differences are immediately apparent. Ratchet and Clank looks great, but it is not anywhere near as sharp as the aforementioned. Similarly, Uncharted is amazing, but it is clearly upscaled, and does not look anywhere near as sharp or detailed as a 1080p game would. Personally, I'd prefer all games to be in 1080p, and I can't really understand why others wouldn't.

For example: when setting your PC up, do you set it at the lowest resoultion: say, 640x480? Erm, no, it looks crap, and you hardly fit anything on the screen. Neither would you be happy with 800x600, or even 1024x768. My laptop runs at 1440x900 (I have a pretty big screen for displaying art when on the move), and I'd still prefer a slightly larger resolution if I could get it. More details, more on the screen, more space.

By comparison, 720p is typically 1280x720, and 1080p is typically 1920x1080. I know what I'd rather have displaying on my screen.

Indeed, when I play old games that run in low resolutions, such as Baldur's Gate that runs at 800x600 (if I remember correctly), it looks like crap on my monitor: the resolution is too low, details are jaggy and lost, faces are blobs, etc.

Similarly, running upscaled games from 600p, or 720p, or, indeed, anything that isn't 1080p, loses detail. And for someone with a 1080p set, I'd really rather that wasn't the case.

Fortunately, it seems that some developers are slowly figuring out the PS3 and will be producing games at the detailed resolution I'd prefer to enjoy, rather than an upscaled fuzzy-fest that, whilst being utterly playable, looks crap when compared to the alternatives.

So, sure, if you're happy with lower resolutions, then I'm glad for you. Personally, I am not, and will always prefer games to run at the best resolution for my TV. That is expressly not 600p, or 720p, it is 1080p, and I sincerely hope more games use that resolution natively in future.

However, to answer the OP: The PS3 does run games in 1080p, there just aren't many of them. Indeed, many of the PSN titles run in that resolution, as do Blu Ray movies. Thus, a 1080p display is well worth the asking price, as many titles will look sharper, and movies will look far better. Further, many developers are apparently close to making 1080p run smoothly on the PS3, so the next generation of PS3 titles will also look better on a 1080p set.

Also, much like a monitor will show more on-screen when you up the display resolution, the PS3 displays more on-screen when you up its resolution to 1080p for a 1080p TV. For example: the XMB shows more, you see more when browsing the internet, and similar.

In short: 720p sets for PS3 are not worth it if you can afford a 1080p TV, so, if you can, buy 1080p every time. I have, and I'm hugely happy with what I have.



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.



Prediction (June 12th 2017)

Permanent pricedrop for both PS4 Slim and PS4 Pro in October.

PS4 Slim $249 (October 2017)

PS4 Pro $349 (October 2017)

NJ5 said:

For many years now, PC games have had resolutions far higher than 1080p with no need for Blu-Ray at all.

You could make a 1080p game in a 1.44 MB floppy disk, though it probably wouldn't have much content (unless it was mostly procedurally generated).

 

 

Perhaps PC games have had resolutions far higher than 1080p *technically*, but you just failed to understand what a 1080p game means, which PC sure enough didn't have.

A 1080p game means a game whose native or recommended resolution is 1080p.

There aren't even 1080p monitors, whose native resolution is 1920x1080, as monitors are 16:10.

Technically, there are no 1080p PC games precisely because most monitors are 16:10 anyway, and not 16:9.

And I don't know of any monitor that is big enough to have a native resolution of 1920x1080.

Strangely enough, games on PC can have higher resolutions, but there is no way to display this resolution on monitors, you have to buy a HDTV for that.

 

And keep in mind that 1080p just means 1080 lines of resolution for every frames, the horizontal resolution can be anything (960, 1920, ...) and it will still be 1080p.

So actually, PS3 has more 1080p  games than listed here. And I think XB360 has at least one (I think it has 3, but I'm not current on the games).

 

Finally, people that say there's no difference between 720p and 1080p are laughable. Especially when these same people bash the Wii for not being HD.



LordTheNightKnight said:
MikeB said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
 

Here we go again. Still not getting detail is stored in the texelss in 3D games, not in the pixels. It's texture resolution that matters here more than screen resolution.


Of course texture resolution is of relevance just like rendering resolution, aliasing problems are however usually not noticed in textures (hand picked color contrast) but around in-game characters, on track edges, powerlines, etc.

With regard to texture quality (details), Blu-Ray and a default harddrive comes into play. More space on Blu-Ray means more and/or higher quality textures can be streamed. The harddrive can be used to store speed critical data (notice the texture popups in for example Mass Effect) or to be used as cache for the Blu-Ray drive to stream data.

Uncharted is one of the visually most impressive games this generation without any in-game load times, this is achieved by seamless streaming (game does not need to install to HD). But this is just Naughty Dog's first effort, they expect to be able to deliver dramatic improvement with future games.


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.


We are talking about a device which has very high bandwidth, so not all data needs to be in memory for levels like was for instance the case for Resistance 1 and Motorstorm, first generation PS3 games which only streamed 7.1 quality audio. Note they do still look great even while having all the data pre-loaded for each level!

This is where texture (and to lesser extend geometry) streaming comes into play. With Ratchet and Clank: Tools of Destruction Insomniac's game engine matured further into a next gen gaming engine.

To quote Insomniac:

"Ratchet & Clank on the PS3 uses texture streaming which allows us to get about 150 MB of extra VRAM in each level. This allows for much higher resolution textures than we used in Resistance, as well as more texture variety."

However that's only the beginning, expect more texture streaming as well as geometry streaming for Resistance 2.

 



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

DMeisterJ said:
shams said:
Wasn't the PS3 going to run two monitors, full 1080p - at 100fps locked? What happened to that?



Note that this *was* originally promised by Kaz, when the PS3 was first announced. And now it doesn't even have true 1080p games - and even fewer that run 1080p at 60fps (locked).

Hmm... What does this have to do with the op?

Looks like you're just taking cheap shots at Sony... though I wouldn't but that beyond you.


Well the OP is asking why we don't have 1080p PS3 games.  I don't see how shams' post was irrelevant at all, it was directly on the topic.

 

Texture streaming has been around ever since graphics cards had their own memory.  It's simply a programming technique that can be applied to any hardware that has multiple levels of storage with their own size/speed tradeoffs.