MikeB said: rocketpig said: MikeB said: Omac said: I just looked it up, gt5p is 1280x1080. That's not 1080p. It is, 1080 lines progressively scanned. It's not FullHD, but a much higher resolution than 720p rendering such games on the PS3 this will be scaled up to FullHD output. You have different widescreen and square 480p (again meaning 480 lines progressively scanned) resolutions (amongst other 480p resolutions) as well. But they don't call it 480p if it's running a 4:3 pixel ratio upscaled to fit a 16:9 format, which essentially is what GT5:P is doing in "1080p". The game is horizontally scaled to fit FullHD displays, like the HDV 1080i standard uses a 1440 x 1080 resolution and is scaled up to 1920 x 1080 on 1080i or FullHD displays. For the human eye the vertical resolution is more important. Scaling algorithmic processing can enhance image quality so for example 480p content may well actually look better on a HDTV than on a 480p native display. For example Toshiba uses a simplified low en Cell-derivative to enhance the quality of DVD output on HDTVs.

Absolutely. Vert resolution is much more important. I'm not saying that GT5:P is a bad looking game... It's not. It's the best looking racer out right now. My point is that your constant use of this game as an example of 1080p console gaming is misleading and disingenuous. It's not full 16:9 1080p and using 1080i to back your case is wrong and you know better. 1080i is an interlaced format and the same rules don't apply to it.

So, your examples of 1080p are a disc-based game that isn't really 1080p and a PSN game that doesn't pack the screen full of textures.

I think that's a solid enough case to state that neither of the consoles are fully capable of running a proper 1080p game right now. I'm sure we'll see 1080p here and there this generation but it won't be the standard. 512 megs of memory makes that awfully difficult unless the game doesn't run much in the way of textures (like Super Stardust). 

Ya the next systems will have more ram to actual allow 1080p to be used properly. My PC monitor is 1280 x 1024 max. I'm using an older PC like 4 years old but able to play most games at that resolution. Even Call of duty 4 plays smoothly, but that still isn't 1080p.

MikeB said: Soleron said: The "standard" resolution for good PC gaming according to AMD's new AMD Game Ultra initiative is 1600x1200, or 1200p. They expect a Phenom 9750 and Radeon HD3850 level card to maintain more than 30fps during normal gameplay at that resolution in all PC games. Therefore, 1200p is usual for gaming PCs. IMO that would generally be overkill for most PC gamers. The average PC monitor is much smaller than the average HDTV, actaully I prefer a small 17 inch (sqaure) LCD on my desk. A big screen is much more suitable for my living room. 1024 x 768 is perfectly suitable for games on a 17 inch screen.

 The screen might be smaller, but you sit closer to it. I can't remember exact numbers off the top of my head, but the metre I sit away from my 24" screen at 1920x1200 is equivilent (in regards to what detail the eye can see) to sitting 3-4m away from a 50" screen.

@ rocketpig

Stating "proper 1080p game" is pretty subjective. Is GT5:P's 60 FPS proper or would a soild 30 FPS also be considered to be proper?

The end results are which matter the most. There will always be texture quality related sacrifices and trade-offs for top games nomatter the used resolution on the current gen consoles and PCs. If it's not the issue of feeding the required data fast enough, it can be storage space related for large games which are aiming for much graphics diversity.

rocketpig said: Absolutely. Vert resolution is much more important. I'm not saying that GT5:P is a bad looking game... It's not. It's the best looking racer out right now. My point is that your constant use of this game as an example of 1080p console gaming is misleading and disingenuous. It's not full 16:9 1080p and using 1080i to back your case is wrong and you know better. 1080i is an interlaced format and the same rules don't apply to it. So, your examples of 1080p are a disc-based game that isn't really 1080p and a PSN game that doesn't pack the screen full of textures. I think that's a solid enough case to state that neither of the consoles are fully capable of running a proper 1080p game right now. I'm sure we'll see 1080p here and there this generation but it won't be the standard. 512 megs of memory makes that awfully difficult unless the game doesn't run much in the way of textures (like Super Stardust).

I'm not exactly sure how the PS3 handles its framebuffer, but the 360s framebuffer is 10meg. Given a full 1920x1080 image is 6meg in the framebuffer, you can't double buffer the image which is going to result in flickering. Unless they have some fancy techniques to overwrite parts of the framebuffer as its being drawn to the screen (if there is a technique I'd love to read about it) I can't see any game on the 360 every rendering at full 1080p.

 Edit: Actually, the Wii uses Y1CbY2Cr to in its framebuffer (look up chroma subsampling 4:2:2), which stores 2 pixels of information in 32bits. If the 360 implemented something similar it may be possible to doublebuffer 1920x1080.

MikeB said: @ rocketpig I think that's a solid enough case to state that neither of the consoles are fully capable of running a proper 1080p game right now. Stating "proper 1080p game" is pretty subjective. Is GT5:P's 60 FPS proper or would a soild 30 FPS also be considered to be proper? The end results are which matter the most. There will always be texture quality related sacrifices and trade-offs for top games nomatter the used resolution on the current gen consoles and PCs. If it's not the issue of feeding the required data fast enough, it can be storage space related for large games which are aiming for much graphics diversity.

In a racing game, 60fps is mandatory. The cars travel too much distance down the straightaways for 30fps to work well. The extreme twitch nature of the genre also mandates a higher framerate.

Besides, we've been over it a million times now. GT5:P is not full 1080p... I refuse to accept something being called 1080p when it's being upscaled on a 1080p monitor.

Trade-offs will always be made and right now, some developers are having a hard time hitting 720p in some high-profile games, much less 1080p. I don't think that will change much as the generation matures. We'll probably see pretty much everybody focus in on 720p with the occasional developer shooting for the moon with a full 1080p game.

MikeB said: ssj12 said: next gen for consoles, 2 generations ago for pc Nah, it's not standard for all PC games at all. There are really no real standards on the PC at all. Try to run Crysis in an equivalent of 1080p on the PC on hardware from 2 generations ago.

There are lots of standards on the PC.

To be fair, a midrange card from two generations ago on the PC is exactly what the PS3 is using. It's very slow and shitty compared to a PC (the PS3, I mean is slow and shitty compared to a PC), but that's expected as the PS3 is a video game toy and no one expects it to be competitive with real computers.

 

MikeB the consoles this gen can't really use 1080p the proper way due to it's limitations. So just get over using GT5P as 1080p, because it's not. It's 1280x1080 similar to my 4 year old PC.

Katilian said: MikeB said: Soleron said: The "standard" resolution for good PC gaming according to AMD's new AMD Game Ultra initiative is 1600x1200, or 1200p. They expect a Phenom 9750 and Radeon HD3850 level card to maintain more than 30fps during normal gameplay at that resolution in all PC games. Therefore, 1200p is usual for gaming PCs. IMO that would generally be overkill for most PC gamers. The average PC monitor is much smaller than the average HDTV, actaully I prefer a small 17 inch (sqaure) LCD on my desk. A big screen is much more suitable for my living room. 1024 x 768 is perfectly suitable for games on a 17 inch screen. The screen might be smaller, but you sit closer to it. I can't remember exact numbers off the top of my head, but the metre I sit away from my 24" screen at 1920x1200 is equivilent (in regards to what detail the eye can see) to sitting 3-4m away from a 50" screen.

Yes that's also true, but even on a tech website only about 1/4 of voters of a recent poll claimed to us a PC monitor of 24 inches or bigger. I have used such bigger monitors, but IMO they won't be a pretty sight on my desk and I get a feeling I want to sit further away from the screen and desk.

I greatly prefer gaming (and for example movie watching) on the couch relatively effortlessly with a wireless Playstation controller on a big screen HDTV and most people I know seem to prefer this as well. Sitting behind a desk is something I prefer when being more productive.

TheBigFatJ said: MikeB said: ssj12 said: next gen for consoles, 2 generations ago for pc Nah, it's not standard for all PC games at all. There are really no real standards on the PC at all. Try to run Crysis in an equivalent of 1080p on the PC on hardware from 2 generations ago. There are lots of standards on the PC. To be fair, a midrange card from two generations ago on the PC is exactly what the PS3 is using. It's very slow and shitty compared to a PC (the PS3, I mean is slow and shitty compared to a PC), but that's expected as the PS3 is a video game toy and no one expects it to be competitive with real computers.

What?

Within a couple of years PS3 games will run circles around what most currently sold PCs are able to achieve by that time. Cell and Blu-Ray are going to make a long term difference.