-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Native 1080i 360 games?
- Thread starter Blaster1X
- Start date
Docpan said:
Depends on your TV what it's scaled to. Obviously if your TV is 720p native, you'd want it outputting at 720p. Not all games are 720p native, though, as pointed out above re. PGR3 at least.
1080i I think is marginally more resolution than 720p (1920x540 vs 1280x720).
I find it VERY unlikely a developer would want to internally render an interlaced buffer.
Early PS2 games where done that way, but only because they had to be. Devs had yet to figure out adequate memory management schemes, so in order to have reasonable texturing they went with interlaced buffers. The disadvantages where several visual 'artifacts' associated with this type of rendering.
Early PS2 games where done that way, but only because they had to be. Devs had yet to figure out adequate memory management schemes, so in order to have reasonable texturing they went with interlaced buffers. The disadvantages where several visual 'artifacts' associated with this type of rendering.
rod said:
As above, it's 1920x540 - you're only rendering every second line of the frame. Rendering at 1080p (1920x1080) only to output half the resolution per frame with 1080i would be a monumental waste.
1920x1080 (1080p) = 2,073,600 pixels
1920x540 (1080i) = 1,036,800 pixels
1280x720 (720p) = 921,600 pixels
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
n/m.
Beer Monkey
Member
The boxes almost certainly are no indicator as to the native rendering mode. The boxes were totally inaccurate about everything back in the Xbox days, I don't see anything changing now.
I think some of the arcade games are 1080i rendered. PGR3 is 1024x600 and everything else looks to be 720p.
If you want to know how a game is rendered, check Blim's screenshots, which come from the framebuffer in native rendered resolution.
I think some of the arcade games are 1080i rendered. PGR3 is 1024x600 and everything else looks to be 720p.
If you want to know how a game is rendered, check Blim's screenshots, which come from the framebuffer in native rendered resolution.
Brimstone said:
uhh, what? ABC, ESPN, and Fox disagree ...
you people are as bad as the idiots on AVS who somehow think "HD-Lite" refers to 720p rather than the 1280x1080i that satellite broadcasters downconvert standard 1080i channels. 1080i gives you a higher "apparent" resolution with the relatively serious tradeoff in displaying an interlaced image. Neither one is "better" than the other.
gofreak said:
You see all the pixels, it's just interlaced. The pixels don't disapear. For decades people have been watching T.V. programs, movies, and playing video games with the interlaced standard on their sets. It works fine although progressive scan is better.
480p doesn't have twice the resolution of 480i. They're the same resolution.
1080p doesn't have twice the resolution of 1080i. They're the same resolution.
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
Right. Your point?
I'm also 95% sure that any game that claims to render in "1080i" is actually rendering to a 540p framebuffer and outputting the image as essentially line-doubled "1080i", like Gran Turismo on PS2. Rendering to an internal interlaced framebuffer would be retarded, to say the least.
Brimstone said:
for movies, you are right, as they have a starting framerate of 24fps. So two refreshes = one full movie frame.
but you have to stay at 30fps for that to be relevant. Games running at 60fps change the entire screen every 1/60. a 480p display then has twice the resolution of a 480i one (each refresh being 640x480 Vs 640x240)
Progressive isn't relevant for movies necessarily, although proper deinterlacing and holding the frames for longer can provide some image quality benefits. Its the high frame rate stuff that really stands out. Thats why broadcast sport is mentioned as an example where 720p might be better than 1080i
eventually we'll all be watching 1080p/60, and this will be ancient history. Course it might take ages to get there for TV - games will get there first.
Nerevar said:
Yeah and almost every other broadcaster targets 1080i (or some basterdized form of it). In Japan NHK is 1080i and thats one of the largest markets in the world of HDTV's. Out side of the United States which has only 3 broadcasters that support 720p, who broadcasts in 720p?
Interlaced gets the job done. I don't see people freaking out over watching games on 480i.
DaCocoBrova said:
Well, unless I'm further misunderstanding the nature of screen refresh versus framerate etc., just that for a fixed refresh rate, an interlaced signal would be presenting to the display half the information in any given period that a progressive signal would (with the implications that would have for native rendering requirement).
gofreak said:
The frames are refreshed so many times per second that you only see one image.
For fast motion progressive is better than interlaced. The tradeoff that works in interlaced favor is it takes up less bandwidth than progressive, making it more broadcast friendly.
I've compared 480i to 480p before and I had an almost impossible time telling a real signifigant difference. I'm not saying 480p isn't superior, just to my eyes it's not mindblowing improvement. Now I do notice a better image as resolutions go higher more than progressive compared to interlaced nuances. Your mileage may vary.
this is incorrect. first, 720p and 1080i typically have the same bandwidth.. around 17Mbps of available video bandwidth in an ATSC stream. Secondly, technically the 720p signal has a better bits per pixel rate because every second there are still fewer pixels in the signal than an interlaced 1080 signal.Brimstone said:
The advantages for fast motion at 720p come from lack of interlacing and slightly better compression thanks to fewer pixels at the same bitrate. That being said, on typical movement 1080i will in theory have a better looking picture thanks to a higher perceived resolution (we see the whole frame, not necessarily the individual refreshes).
all of this is moot however. none of the existing 360 games render at 1920x1080 that I am aware of. They all render at 1280x720 and then send the signal to the analog scaler to output it at the appropriate resolution and scanrate.
Brimstone said:
How is any eyeballed comparison of 480i versus 480p relevant? There are so many external factors that doing such a comparison is meaningless. If you run a video capture card and just do a line-capture of a 480i image and watch the direct output on a progressive display the result is absolutely jarring and unwatcheable (I distinctly remember watching a video feed of the MGS3 presentation that someone took from G4 in 480i and put right on the net - the interlacing on a computer monitor made it painful to watch. I had to wait for Blim to deinterlace it to actually enjoy it). The thing is that nobody ever actually sees that directly, a modern TV will deinterlace and upconvert / downconvert / sideconvert the image to the native resolution and display it that way. So in essence all you're doing is testing the internal scaler of your TV, not how good an interlaced image is compared to a progressive one.
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
I've tried both and damn sure can't tell the difference. I just use 1080i.
borghe said:
Well I should have been more clear on expressing my point. I should have worded it this way, "The tradeoff that works in interlaced favor when broadcasting at the same resolution is it takes up less bandwidth than progressive, making it more broadcast friendly".
There is no 1080p resolution broadcast standard as of yet and it may be a very long time before anyone would bother using one.
elostyle said:
You'd need to render internally at 1920x1080 unless you did field rendering (think early PS2 days) and locked your framerate to 60fps. (Which we know isn't happening on most of the 360 games out right now...)
I'm pretty sure that most everything is rendering internally at 720p and scaling up to 1080i via the built-in scaler.
snatches said:
Yes, it can, but considering the game seems fillrate bound a lot of the time (try throwing some smoke grenades) it seems like a poor decision to render at 1080i natively.
This should be easy to test (sorry, I can't do it - my TV is 1080i only) - see if performance differs in 720p vs. 1080i...
Beer Monkey
Member
snatches said:
Have BlimBlim take some screen buffer grabs and prove it.
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
'Sharp' is a great descriptor. That's exactly how CoD2 looks. More so than I would've imagined.
I love these "I have it on good authority" and "it has been confirmed" posts. shit or get off the pot. either show where it has been said they are rendering at 1920x1080 or knock it off with the posts
"I have it on good authority that borghe has a 16 inch penis"
OMGTRUE
"I have it on good authority that borghe has a 16 inch penis"
OMGTRUE