You can't force all PS3 games to upscale to 1080p/i. That's nonsense. The "unchecking 720p trick" only works for something like 2-3 games. Upscaling on the PS3 is handled by one of the cell SPE's only if the developers choose to implement it.

The only way to view PS3 games at their native resolution is by playing on a multi-synch CRT monitor that can handle 1080p. Flat screens have a fixed resolution, and you should never let the TV scale the picture. TV scalers are in general crap, and there may be controller lag as well.

And by the way, upscaling on the 360 is handled by the GPU, not the Hana chip. The quality of the scaling is every bit as good as the PS3, if not better. The 360 DVD playback software is garbage, but the scaling itself is high quality.

Force upscale to 1080p:
Call of Duty 4
Call of Duty WaW
Resistance 2
Uncharted
Mirror's Edge
Unreal Tournament III
GTAIV
Assassin's Creed

Native or 480p only:
Heavenly Sword
Resistance
Motorstorm
Dirt
Oblivion
Stranglehold
Rock Band
Guitar Hero

Based on a quick list of games I own, most newer games will output at 1080p with all the same soft image drawbacks of upscaled 1080p output on the 360. Some look worse than others at 1080p, typically dependent upon the native render resolution (below 1280x720 looks much softer/blurry). Almost every PS2 game with the full upscaler function checked looks worse than at 480p.

It's a bit more than "2-3 games" which could have been confirmed had you actually checked. Of course it's also pretty far from "all games" as well. Touché

"Flat screens have a fixed resolution, and you should never let the TV scale the picture. TV scalers are in general crap, and there may be controller lag as well."

^ I agree 100% with this.

I completly agree with you greenmedic88, a native signal will always be what it is because of the defining word 'native.' Upscaling doesnt change the fact that the signal was rendered natively at a lower resolution. Once its been upscaled the correct term for it is... 'upscaled' lol if a system upscales the image itsself and outputs that it has still upscaled a native image thus making the signal 'upscaled'

And in the case of these consoles outputting a signal with a lower horizontal pixel count they are still outputting at the termed '1080,' which like greenmedic88 said, is the standard for measuring a signal, and it makes more sence to use this vertical resolution as the definition as well.

But you've just switched your position. Now you are saying that the output is not the criteria to be used. Then you come back with a bunch of obvious details like the way a progressive scan display works to pad your post.

By the way, it's not generally assumed that a 1080p signal is a 16:9 aspect ratio. That's a direct wikipedia quote, but the ITU paper in which the HD standards were set goes the full way. Vertical resolution stopped being a defining factor alone in itself ages ago beyond being a short-hand moniker for 1920x1080 and 1280x720. Actually, both 1080p and 720p were chosen as shorthands for the full resolution because of the old analog standards naming convention so yes that's pretty much a by-the-book hold over definition.

Write a letter to the SMPTE and ask them wether 1280x1080 qualifies as 1080p or not dude, since you won't take my word for it ask the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers.

Do you understand the difference between native source resolution (render resolution or raster image output) and output display resolution? That was the whole point 480 native render to 1080p display, 1080 native render 1080p display regardless of horizontal res.

Your SMPTE reference also comes straight out of Wikipedia. "(According to some reports, a mooted 720p format (720 progressively-scanned lines) was viewed by some at the ITU as an "enhanced" television format rather than a true HDTV format,[5] and so was not included, although 1920x1080 and 1280x720p systems for a range of frame and field rates were defined by several US SMPTE standards.)"

But for your argument's sake, here's a handy chart of HD display resolutions.



Feel free to say "but the chart is wrong" or don't and just consider yourself enlightened.

he clearly does and was calling you on saying things that were under  1920x1080 - which is listed in the chart as the hdtv standard, while the others are specked out resolutions that are acsepted by groups, they are not the hdtv standard form by which true 1080p is judged and thus no games out, output natively at 1080p standard form, as recognised by ITU. in other words, yes those resolutions have 1080 in the name but are not standard recognized. 

Who said anything about the HDTV standard format?

This whole thread was about 1080p native rendered video sources.

you have to be in the 1080p standard to render at 108p natively, otherwise you just rendering at a standard that is close to but not real 1080p. which is what bitmap has been getting at.

The SMPTE reference comes from reading their journals and published papers which I heartily recommend if you are interested on the subject. They are way more interesting and accurate than wikipedia entries. Lately they've been way too focused on issues relating to digital cinema, IPTV and IT workflows but heck, that's what's hot right now.

By the way, thank you for providing that table as it proves me right. The key issue here is that you are misreading it. For starters, the table is about displays and their compatibility with the HDTV standards. As you can see, only the 1920x1080 row is marked as 1080p standard format. Both the 1024x1080 and 1280x1080 rows indicate displays with less pixels than it is required by the standard, which means the display uses a scaling process to remove detail in order to acommodate the signal to the reduced pixel count.

You won't find anywhere anything to support your position that 1280x1080 is 1080p. But hey, keep trying. If you wanna go back a few steps and try again the "well, it's the output resolution that counts" argument, well then Sonic 1 played through a scaler is Sonic 1 1080p.

@ Bitmap.

There is no point in arguing with people that argue with blatant facts. If they do not want to accept what the industry standard is then thats their problem. It only makes them look really silly. Something I learned whrn people argued against IBM's actual Cell numbers. Some people live on a completely different planet.