^^ yes, on a computer screen, when you are sitting 24in away from it. When I'm sitting 2m away from my tv, the resolution is less apparent, but things like lighting effects and shader quality are more apparent. The human eye has a finite resolution, which for colour is highest at the centre of the retina and drops off rapidly once past 20 degree from centre, and black and white is ok front on, highest at 20 degree from centre and then drops off more slowly as you go outward from there. Colour is also around 1/4 the res of B&W. So if my tv is 42in say, and I'm sitting 2m away from it, then the screen will take up about 28 degrees of my FOV. Now if my eye has X resolution in each dimension, then the tv screen is only taking up 28/120 degrees times X resolution, or a lot less than your total resolution of your eye.

So a 14% reduction in resolution in that situation will become unnoticeable very quickly. Its still 14%, but the eye's ability to discern the difference, especially once the image is scaled to a HD res, will be negligible. Lighting and shading however, won't be.

I meant that for SHMUPGurus.

NNN2004, you bought the game twice? 2k must love you! Was the difference solely resolution, or was there just a difference?

I haven't played Bioshock on PS3 (have it on PC) so yeah, I'm not saying there isn't a difference, just that resolution alone will physically be difficult to tell. Doesn't stop there being a difference due to a wide range of different issues (it is difficult to design a graphics engine on two very different architectures and end up with the exact same output, it takes more than just a recompile). Thats why game developers settle for games have similar image quality, even if the games look slightly different.

yet PC's run higher resolutions at smaller screen sizes...and people still see the difference somehow

Hmmm, thanks for the university degree type of response, but I think (not sure) your missing one point: What about HDMI and the many different thingies called 480, 720 and 1080? I understand that it's negligible on even an SD TV, but I've been playing my 360 on a new plasma TV here at the college residence and without HDMI, and I can clearly see jaggies and all that. I guess up-scaling is important or something, but then I'm not quite sure how this all works. :/

And yeah, sorry TheTruthHurts!...!

Yeah sorry, got a little uni preachy there. The reason the picture quality is better over HDMI than over I'm assuming component is due to a number of things, one there is no digital - analogue - digital conversion of the signal which adds noise and artifacts, second HDMI cables are typically better shielded than most component cables, and third HDMI is digital with 8b/10b encoding with error correction, so a low amount of data corruption can get corrected before display.

Component attenuates as the frequency increases, thus transmitting high resolution images over it results in the high frequency component (the fine detail) attenuating out more than the lower frequency components (the lower detail). Thats why a lot of TV's don't support 1080p over component, and why the jaggies are more prominent, because the higher frequency detail is lost over the signal. If you want to know more, look it up.

PS3 also has 512MB, it's just separated to 256MB GDD3 RAM (used by GPU) and 256MB XDR DRAM.

They look exactly the same on both consoles ,,,,,I have played it on both consoles.

even X-paly(a 360 biased TV show) said it looks exactly the same.

watch the video review if you like:
http://www.g4tv.com/xplay/reviews/1852/BioShock_PS3.html

fricken rip off artist!!! i want my pixels!! ill take cash if you cant get me the missing pixels :D

one more thing ,,,lool at your source,,,, the guy even admits that he doesn't know how to do it properly but he thinks the demo runs at 1200 by 675.

Those are the 2 key words .

you just made this thread to say : hey look people i will incorrectly inform you to bash PS3 in future arguments,,,lool you're sad