Support NeoGAF

[Kibbles]

2 more shots, showing split screen side-by-side comparison of the loss of resolution, notice scaling was performed in photoshop (read: better than whatever you got on your TV/scaler/receiver)

Image 1:
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/8397/600psplit1.jpg[/URL]


Image 2:
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/3964/600psplit2.jpg

Well MW isn't all blurry like that on my TV with the 360, so I couldn't give a shit. This whole resolution debate is lame. Obviously it's better on the PC. I'm just fine with the console versions, they don't look all blurry and messed up like in those pics. They look fine to me on my monitor.

Also why are we using PC screenshots to try and show what the consoles looks like? Why not use HD direct feed screenshots from the 360 version?

 

[bran]

Well MW isn't all blurry like that on my TV with the 360, so I couldn't give a shit. This whole resolution debate is lame. Obviously it's better on the PC. I'm just fine with the console versions, they don't look all blurry and messed up like in those pics. They look fine to me on my monitor.

Also why are we using PC screenshots to try and show what the consoles looks like? Why not use HD direct feed screenshots from the 360 version?

They look blurrier because they are shown side-by-side.

Those screenshots are literally 600p. They are technically exactly what's going to be on your TV (only worse because those pics are scaled with Photoshop instead of the cheap scaler in your TV).

You should care because publishers and developers misrepresent their product by putting "1080p" on the back of the box of the console versions when it's actually far from it.

I can claim that my NES Zelda isn't blurry on my TV. But then again I would just be lying to myself.

 

[sullytao]

Does anyone really, honestly care? I play COD4 on a 32inch Samsung sat closer than any health guy or warning label would recommend and I Still think it looks Gorgeous.

 

[Kibbles]

Does anyone really, honestly care? I play COD4 on a 32inch Samsung sat closer than any health guy or warning label would recommend and I Still think it looks Gorgeous.

Exactly. Also the 360 does the upscaling, not the TV. Hell I even play VGA right now.

 

[Ysiadmihi]

Does anyone really, honestly care? I play COD4 on a 32inch Samsung sat closer than any health guy or warning label would recommend and I Still think it looks Gorgeous.

Everyone in this thread cares, it's just that those who have no choice but to play it at 600p act like they don't.

I can't imagine playing a game at 600p. I find it hard to go back to 720p :lol

 

[bran]

Exactly. Also the 360 does the upscaling, not the TV. Hell I even play VGA right now.

You think the 360's realtime scaler scales better than Photoshop?

Spoiler

Hint: no

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Everyone in this thread cares, it's just that those who have no choice but to play it at 600p act like they don't.

I can't imagine playing a game at 600p. I find it hard to go back to 720p :lol

Weren't you recently playing (and complimenting) the Conduit? Your imagination must have a short memory.

 

[lowrider007]

If 600p is what it takes to get the game to run @ 60 fps then that is what I'd honestly prefer tbh, the difference between 600p and 720p is negligible anyhow.

 

[Ysiadmihi]

Weren't you recently playing (and complimenting) the Conduit? Your imagination must have a short memory.

Yup, and it looked like dog shit. That said, it's not on a system that's supposed to have HD games.

 

[Ramirez]

Wow, I remember this same stupid argument with Halo 3, who cares.

 

[Dot50Cal]

You think the 360's realtime scaler scales better than Photoshop?

Spoiler

Hint: no

360 does a straight "pixel" resize. No filters involved. So it wont look at blurry as your photos, but I'm not saying its going to look good either.

 

[Pantheon Of The Lesser]

i have a handful of sub-720p games and they don't look nearly as blurry as those images show.

did you spread vaseline on them?

 

[StuBurns]

I don't know, MGS4 looks like it's playing thru a tube of lube at times, CoD4 not so much though, it's certainly a lot sharper than MGS4 or Halo 3.

 

[Pantheon Of The Lesser]

I don't know, MGS4 looks like it's playing thru a tube of lube at times, CoD4 not so much though, it's certainly a lot sharper than MGS4 or Halo 3.

not to open a can of wroms, but i did notice, not only with MGS4 but with most games, that PS3 image is usually blurrier. is it some technique used by the programmers, some shortcoming of GPU?

it was brutal playing RE5 on my cousin's PS3 compared to my 360 version, textures and effects are much sharper on the latter.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

not to open a can of wroms, but i did notice, not only with MGS4 but with most games, that PS3 image is usually blurrier. is it some technique used by the programmers, some shortcoming of GPU?

it was brutal playing RE5 on my cousin's PS3 compared to my 360 version, textures and effects are much sharper on the latter.

blame Quincunx AA, a technique a lot of devs have been using in places of MSAA on PS3

 

[StuBurns]

not to open a can of wroms, but i did notice, not only with MGS4 but with most games, that PS3 image is usually blurrier. is it some technique used by the programmers, some shortcoming of GPU?

it was brutal playing RE5 on my cousin's PS3 compared to my 360 version, textures and effects are much sharper on the latter.

Well, RE5, which is the one you mentioned, uses Quincunx AA on PS3, and I'm not a fan of how that looks. I'm not a technical guy, so I have no idea if it's a more convenient AA method for the PS3 architecture or anything. The default output of the PS3 for games is generally softer as well, less pronounced contrast or something. Not that I'm saying that's bad, but there is a difference.

 

[Dot50Cal]

not to open a can of wroms, but i did notice, not only with MGS4 but with most games, that PS3 image is usually blurrier. is it some technique used by the programmers, some shortcoming of GPU?

it was brutal playing RE5 on my cousin's PS3 compared to my 360 version, textures and effects are much sharper on the latter.

The QAA wasn't really to blame there. RE5's textures on PS3 are all half the resolution compared to the 360. Thats what you were seeing (and perhaps the PS3's worse-off lighting in some cases). The QAA blur was VERY minimal.

http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/b3d/one.png (QAA On)
http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/b3d/two.png (QAA Off)

I'm working on a full article comparison for the final retail builds of RE5, but heres what I'm seeing:

PS3:

360:

Note the BSAA patch.

(captured via HDMI, Full range is on the PS3 and 360)

 

[StuBurns]

I don't believe every texture is half the res, all the background textures are the same, the difference is the contrast.

 

[Dot50Cal]

I don't believe every texture is half the res, all the background textures are the same, the difference is the contrast.

Trust me, most of the textures are half resolution. I've played the death out of the game the past week, and have over 60 shots from various places through the game on PS3 and 360. It may not be half on some, but its certainly lower than on the 360. Chris and Sheva are the only ones that aren't affect by this, which makes sense since they are on screen a lot. However they do have added specular mapping on the 360 which really makes them shine well (like the sweat on Josh there).

You are correct about the washed-out-ness though. I have a theory that its related to the way they achieved the lighting on the PS3. You only really see the washed out effect when theres some advanced lighting happening.

 

[StuBurns]

Trust me, most of the textures are half resolution. I've played the death out of the game the past week, and have over 60 shots from various places through the game on PS3 and 360. It may not be half on some, but its certainly lower than on the 360. Chris and Sheva are the only ones that aren't affect by this, which makes sense since they are on screen a lot. However they do have added specular mapping on the 360 which really makes them shine well (like the sweat on Josh there).

You are correct about the washed-out-ness though. I have a theory that its related to the way they achieved the lighting on the PS3. You only really see the washed out effect when theres some advanced lighting happening.

Oh I don't doubt that for a second, from what I've played of the game I've seen it. I was just saying, you said all textures, then the pictures you posted had the same texturing on the wall behind the character model.

 

[Dash Kappei]

Well, I dunno but there is a point in the 600p debate.

What I can say is that for *me* it heavily depends on a per game basis.
Obviously in a perfect world every game would be in 1080p and I'm not going to lie, sometimes the difference from standard 720p to sub-HD rez is noticeable.

Halo 3 was definitely affected by it in my experience.

COD4 on the other hand was never that blurry and muddy when rendering assets: obviously the fact that in Halo you have mainly open areas with a (beutifully) long draw distance is what makes the difference.

So 600p hopefully won't affect MW2 too much if it's any similar to MW1.
Ghostbuster for PS3 was horrible but it looked to me much worse than Cod4 on the resolution departement... I didn't go diggin' what its real rez was, I know it's sub HD because of all the complaints, so hopefully I didn't make an ass out of myself (in case Ghostbusters rez ands up > Cod4 rez).

They look blurrier because they are shown side-by-side.

Those screenshots are literally 600p. They are technically exactly what's going to be on your TV).

Nope.

(only worse because those pics are scaled with Photoshop instead of the cheap scaler in your TV).

Nope.

 

[bran]

Nope.



Nope.

lol.

nope what? that you don't know what 600p stretched to a 1080p TV looks like?

 

[DoomGyver]

lol.

nope what? that you don't know what 600p stretched to a 1080p TV looks like?

I'll call it console denial or C.D.

 

[Kibbles]

You think the 360's realtime scaler scales better than Photoshop?

Spoiler

Hint: no

Did I say that? All I'm saying is that the game looks fantastic when I'm playing it, and it looks nothing like those blurry pics you posted. Maybe it looks better in motion, I don't know. I have no explanation for it. Plus it just doesn't look as washed out. The textures are pretty low-res up close, but I'm not distracted in gameplay by any blurriness. It's smooth and crisp.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Won't care. Game is gonna rock. You all will be playing it. Nuff said.

 

[Sleeker]

Won't care. Game is gonna rock. You all will be playing it. Nuff said.

well yeah, but which one will rock the prettiest?

Spoiler

thread goes on for another 30 pages

 

[StuBurns]

Did I say that? All I'm saying is that the game looks fantastic when I'm playing it, and it looks nothing like those blurry pics you posted. Maybe it looks better in motion, I don't know. I have no explanation for it. Plus it just doesn't look as washed out. The textures are pretty low-res up close, but I'm not distracted in gameplay by any blurriness. It's smooth and crisp.

Yeah, it obviously looks better than that, because you have a TV. A direct feed and an off screen shot would show the huge difference a TV causes. However, that's also true of the PC high res version. So as much better you think it looks on 360 vs that screen, is how much better it looks on PC vs the PC screen.

 

[ZeroRay]

well yeah, but which one will rock the prettiest?

Spoiler

thread goes on for another 30 pages

You know what would be really funny? If the PS3 version runs at an even lower resolution, then this thread will be at least 150 pages.

 

[Yoshichan]

EDIT: I really didn't mean to bump this again, I thought it was on the first page. So sorry...

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

Seiken... no need to be sorry. You know you wanted to! :lol

Yup, and it looked like dog shit. That said, it's not on a system that's supposed to have HD games.

You're right. PS3 and 360 and meant to have 1080p... except 99% of the games are 720p or less!

Resolution doesn't matter if they present it properly. Halo 3 ran at 640p. COD4 ran at 600p (if im correct). There were also a cpuple of games on PS3 that ran at 640p or 680p (I think Ratchet and Clank was one of it, not sure though).

The point being: I can lose a few pixels as long as the game runs smooth.

 

[careful]

This is not to excuse the weakness of PS3/360 graphics, but you gotta keep in mind most console players sit further away from their TV than PC players from their monitor, so the lower resolution loss of detail is somewhat mitigated and less noticeable.

Past a certain distance from the screen, your eyes are not able to perceive the extra detail even if it is present:
http://carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/

 

[Pein]

Seiken... no need to be sorry. You know you wanted to! :lol



You're right. PS3 and 360 and meant to have 1080p... except 99% of the games are 720p or less!

Resolution doesn't matter if they present it properly. Halo 3 ran at 640p. COD4 ran at 600p (if im correct). There were also a cpuple of games on PS3 that ran at 640p or 680p (I think Ratchet and Clank was one of it, not sure though).

The point being: I can lose a few pixels as long as the game runs smooth.

ratchet is 720p native and 60fps

 

[charsace]

Did people really think they would make an all new engine when they have been using this one since COD1? IW propbably are working on a new engine, but most likely we won't see it until the next gen. Or maybe they will use id RAGE engine.

 

[Chinner]

just wait untill you console babbys see resident evil 5 on the pc at 1080p in dx10 mode with like 8xaa and shit holllyyy craap

 

[Pein]

Did people really think they would make an all new engine when they have been using this one since COD1? IW propbably are working on a new engine, but most likely we won't see it until the next gen. Or maybe they will use id RAGE engine.

next gen we get actual HD games!

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

ratchet is 720p native and 60fps

Yeah I know, that's why I said "im not sure". I remember reading somewhere posted in GAF where one game had 20 pixels taken from the top and bottom. I don't know which game it was but it was indeed a first-party/exclusive title.

EDIT: Yep. It was Resistance: Fall of Man, running at 1280x704 (I don't think they used the idea though and the final game is 720p).

EDIT: Digging through the "net" (GAF > Internet > GAF), R&C indeed run at 1280x704. The idea of 704 was proposed for Resistance: Fall of Man but by the time they decided to apply it, it was too late. R&C is 1280x704 centered at 720.

 

[BeeDog]

Yeah I know, that's why I said "im not sure". I remember reading somewhere posted in GAF where one game had 20 pixels taken from the top and bottom. I don't know which game it was but it was indeed a first-party/exclusive title.

EDIT: Yep. It was Resistance: Fall of Man, running at 1280x704 (I don't think they used the idea though and the final game is 720p).

EDIT: Digging through the "net" (GAF > Internet > GAF), R&C indeed run at 1280x704. The idea of 704 was proposed for Resistance: Fall of Man but by the time they decided to apply it, it was too late. R&C is 1280x704 centered at 720

Yeah, but as far as I remember, Ratchet & Clank is still "pixelmapped" in the sense that there are some very minimal black stripes (8 pixels at the top, and 8 pixels at the bottom), so no stretching occurs which leaves the rest of the image sharp. This is certainly a trade-off I would be willing to take for 60fps, since it's barely noticeable.

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

Yeah, but as far as I remember, Ratchet & Clank is still "pixelmapped" in the sense that there are some very minimal black stripes (8 pixels at the top, and 8 pixels at the bottom), so no stretching occurs which leaves the rest of the image sharp. This is certainly a trade-off I would be willing to take for 60fps, since it's barely noticeable.

That is exactly what I'm saying. I rather lose a few pixels to get 60fps!

 

[Barso]

Everytime I try my 360 games after experiencing PC games at 1900x1200 with everything max it really disappoints me.
I really do enjoy the 360 but I find it hard to buy the 360 versions of games knowing I can play them better,more people online with the mods and mostly cheaper too.
I have changed all of my preorders to PC version now. Batman arkham asylum, COD4 MW2 are PC for me now.Also I do't need to deal with the 360 hardware problems letting me down.
Plus I don't have my wife asking to use the TV when I can game on a 24inch monitor upstairs with some peace and quiet.
If sony and MS plan to use their consoles longer than usual we could even see people migrating to the PC and it's better hardware and graphics,hopefully.
The only problem is, how much longer can the PC market sustain PC gaming.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

Yeah, but as far as I remember, Ratchet & Clank is still "pixelmapped" in the sense that there are some very minimal black stripes (8 pixels at the top, and 8 pixels at the bottom), so no stretching occurs which leaves the rest of the image sharp. This is certainly a trade-off I would be willing to take for 60fps, since it's barely noticeable.

Yeah, I tink Ratchet does something like that. IIRC, they talked about how RSX better handles 64x64 grids.

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

Oh and if it makes you people better, COD:WaW and COD4 also runs at 600p.

(Semi)complete list and other info here:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

 

[-viper-]

Yeah, but as far as I remember, Ratchet & Clank is still "pixelmapped" in the sense that there are some very minimal black stripes (8 pixels at the top, and 8 pixels at the bottom), so no stretching occurs which leaves the rest of the image sharp. This is certainly a trade-off I would be willing to take for 60fps, since it's barely noticeable.

that seems like a good idea. Rather that than blurry shit to my eyes.

 

[adelante]

Wait a sec...I think there's something inherently wrong with a cod4 resolution comparison...now by default, photoshop uses a bicubic resampling method to recreate new pixels for a larger image size/resolution, hence the blur. Ok I'm no expert at this (just a graphic designer here who handles largescale prints frequently) but can someone clue me in on whether a TV scaler works in a similar way? Cos I play games on a 720p lcdtv and I can sure as hell make out each individual jagged pixel in COD4...so forgive me if I'm not entirely convinced Photoshop's image resizer, of all things, can be considered a "better scaler" when it should be painfully obvious that one of the things you get out of resampling images that way is complete loss of sharpness.

 

[sinnergy]

lol.

nope what? that you don't know what 600p stretched to a 1080p TV looks like?

If you let the X360 scale to 1080p it looks pretty good imo. (COD4)

X360 scaler isn´t half bad. But if you set the X360 to 720p at let your tv scale you could get a much worser result. This of course depends on your scaler in your tv (I have a Panasonic plasma, which also isn't bad) best is to feed it 1080p (because 1080p native tv's only display 1080p)

I was experimenting with WO Fury, which is more taxing on the PS3, I have more frametearing, so I put my PS3 in 720p mode, and let my TV scale to 1080p, well it looked more blurry.. if you set your PS3 to 1080p it looks much better. But you have tearing, to bad the PS3 doesn't have a universal method of scaling like X360.

With X360 you hardly notice it when the X360 scales your image to 1080p.

Everytime I try my 360 games after experiencing PC games at 1900x1200 with everything max it really disappoints me.
I really do enjoy the 360 but I find it hard to buy the 360 versions of games knowing I can play them better,more people online with the mods and mostly cheaper too.
I have changed all of my preorders to PC version now. Batman arkham asylum, COD4 MW2 are PC for me now.Also I do't need to deal with the 360 hardware problems letting me down.
Plus I don't have my wife asking to use the TV when I can game on a 24inch monitor upstairs with some peace and quiet.
If sony and MS plan to use their consoles longer than usual we could even see people migrating to the PC and it's better hardware and graphics,hopefully.
The only problem is, how much longer can the PC market sustain PC gaming.

Well yeah but you need a videocard alone that costs as much as a Arcade X360

And then you need RAM (4 gigs +) and a Dual or QUAD core.

But I Know what you mean I bhought all this stuff last week. And RES5 and SF4 benchmarks run SuperB.

 

[Barso]

I do miss the plug and play attitude of the 360 but party chat has killed all of the enjoyment of xbox live for me.
I used to really enjoy everyone's banter and bickering when online but now xbox live is totally silent and games like gears 2 and COD4 were there is a spectator mode, when you die you can tell your party mates where the opponents are.
When I played COD4 PC maxed settings after playing the 360 version for months, I couldn't believe the difference and how much better it was.
The clearer voicechat helps also with more maps and more people online.
I would really hate to see developers migrate to the consoles.
I bought sims3 in my local GAME store and there is no wall space for PC games anymore just 1 shelf.
It doesn't look good at the moment but I think game stores hate PC retail now because they can't take the games for trade in anymore with DRM issues.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

Well yeah but you need a videocard alone that costs as much as a Arcade X360

And then you need RAM (4 gigs +) and a Dual or QUAD core.

Wat?

My 9500 GS can run most games at max settings... And you act as if somebody doesn't already have some kind of PC. Console graphics cause PC graphics to lag behind, even though the hardware has moved leaps and bounds further.

 

[Asmodai]

My 9500 GS can run most games at max settings... And you act as if somebody doesn't already have some kind of PC. Console graphics cause PC graphics to lag behind, even though the hardware has moved leaps and bounds further.

While it's true that most of the games this gen are being made with 360 and PS3 optimization in mind and a PC port is secondary, that's not the only reason visuals aren't keeping pace with the state of the art.

For example, Blizzard and Valve games are optimized to run on as many PCs as possible, laptops, 5 year old desktops, whatever. Starcraft II isn't going to blow people away visually, despite being a PC exclusive. Neither will Diablo III, or the Old Republic, or HL2 Episode Three, etc. Blizzard could care less if graphic whores aren't happy, they're more about making their product available and well optimized to the widest audience possible.

Now the Crysis sequels are focused on consoles, there isn't going to be a straight out graphical titleholder like the original Crysis still is.

 

[-tetsuo-]

Wat?

My 9500 GS can run most games at max settings... And you act as if somebody doesn't already have some kind of PC. Console graphics cause PC graphics to lag behind, even though the hardware has moved leaps and bounds further.

What games are you running maxed out at 1920x1200 with a 9500GS?

 

[Asmodai]

What games are you running maxed out at 1920x1200 with a 9500GS?

Probably CSS or something :lol

Probably couldn't even run WoW maxed out with a decent framerate on a 9500.

 

[MWS Natural]

If you let the X360 scale to 1080p it looks pretty good imo. (COD4)

X360 scaler isn´t half bad. But if you set the X360 to 720p at let your tv scale you could get a much worser result. This of course depends on your scaler in your tv (I have a Panasonic plasma, which also isn't bad) best is to feed it 1080p (because 1080p native tv's only display 1080p)

I was experimenting with WO Fury, which is more taxing on the PS3, I have more frametearing, so I put my PS3 in 720p mode, and let my TV scale to 1080p, well it looked more blurry.. if you set your PS3 to 1080p it looks much better. But you have tearing, to bad the PS3 doesn't have a universal method of scaling like X360.

With X360 you hardly notice it when the X360 scales your image to 1080p.

I prefer setting my 360 to 720p and let the Kuro do the scaling, but I do leave my PS3 @ 1080p.

Well yeah but you need a videocard alone that costs as much as a Arcade X360

And then you need RAM (4 gigs +) and a Dual or QUAD core.

But I Know what you mean I bhought all this stuff last week. And RES5 and SF4 benchmarks run SuperB.

Yeah but you can build a decent gaming rig w/o monitor for the price of a PS3.