backtop

Gadgets Sony's Phil Harrison on 1080p, Blu-ray
Marcus Yam (Blog) - September 27, 2006 8:37 PM
Print 44 comment(s) - last by xphile.. on Oct 2 at 6:28 AM
PlayStation 3 Blu-ray movie playback a free feature

GamePro managed to get five questions and answers out of SCEA’s Phil Harrison regarding, of course, the PlayStation 3. The two hot questions of the day dealt with 1080p and the Blu-ray drive.

 

While Sony is quite happy to boast that “PlayStation 3 is the only format that can do full HD, true HD,” Harrison admits that “some games actually look better at 720p depending on the style of the game, depending on the pixel rendering or pixel shading that's been adopted.”

 

On the ever-present question regarding price, Harrison was asked what effect the Blu-ray drive has on the cost of PlayStation 3. Harrison explains that the decision to include Blu-ray was solely for the sake of game developers, and not for playing movies. So in that regard, the machine’s ability to play Blu-ray movies should be thought of as free. Citing launch title Resistance requiring 20GB of disc space, games several years from now could be utilizing the full 50GB capacity of the medium.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Resistance
By splines on 9/27/2006 10:43:57 PM , Rating: 4
This 'citing' of Resistance is great PR material, but not actually worth a damn.

Resistance is being released worldwide on one BD, meaning all localisation (PAL/NTSC, etc), all languages, all FMV formats and associated 'special features'. This means the actual game, if released as per the usual model, probably fits on a DVD9.

I've heard '40 levels at 300mb/piece' as well. Unless they're needlessly using the same terrain and texture data over and over again instead of using resource files, then sure, you might get some large-sized levels. Level data in of itself isn't particularly large in comparison to the models, textures and sound that are used in concert with it.

In short, none of this is a convincing argument for the storage BD provides.

And further, my ass it wasn't about being a movie player first.




RE: Resistance
By MrDiSante on 9/27/2006 10:53:30 PM , Rating: 2
And the day the RSX can output games at 1080P at good quality settings is the day my Conroe goes above 90 (celsius) on idle.


RE: Resistance
By Hemipower on 9/28/2006 12:52:07 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
And the day the RSX can output games at 1080P at good quality


i can play 1080p games on my 61" with an ati x800 and an amd 3800 and 1 gig of 2-2-2-5 ram. if rsx is two 7800 is sli than it can easily do that.


RE: Resistance
By Vertigo101 on 9/28/2006 1:26:52 AM , Rating: 2
What games at what quality? I highly doubt you're going to be running Unreal 2k7 at max detail with AA and AF at 1920x1080 with either that card or that processor.

I have an x850 GTO, and it'd great but not that great.


RE: Resistance
By Hemipower on 9/28/2006 1:47:37 AM , Rating: 1
I have actually played brother in arms at that resolution on a 6600gt video card and an athlon xp2200. I have also played it maxed out on my current system. I play all my games at 1680x1050 which is the native of my dell monitor, but occasionally ill play them at 1080p. heroes omam5, bia, bia eib, SWeaw, bfmeII at 1360x1024, Rise of legends, i have company of heroes but have not tried it at 1080p just to name a few.

There is nothing quite like playing a 1080p game on a 61" screen and an ascend acoustics surround sound with a hsu subwoofer.


RE: Resistance
By jkostans on 9/28/2006 7:39:04 AM , Rating: 2
You must love slideshows, my 6800 ultra has trouble (keeping 60fps) at 1280x1024 in most games with no AA and no aniso.


RE: Resistance
By FITCamaro on 9/28/2006 7:45:11 AM , Rating: 2
Once again, but at what quality settings. Theres no way you're going to be playing games released in the last year at 1920x1080 on either an x800 or a 6600GT with high detail levels. Especially not with an Athlon XP. Sure if you turn the details down to low and go for straight resolution you can do it. Or don't mind the game running at 20 fps.

Bottom line is that very few games on the PS3 will be able to run at 1080p and still have all the details they would have had at 720p. The RSX is nothing but a 7800GTX core but crippled by only having 8 (instead of 16) ROPs and a 128-bit memory bus (instead of 256). It only having a 128-bit memory bus will have a huge impact. Its not equivalent to two 7800s in SLI. Stop reading The Inquirer.

And its doubtful many of you have a 1080p capable TV thats large enough to where it starts to make a difference between 1080p and 720p. If its under 50", with how far you sit from a TV (typically 8-12 feet), its not a huge difference. Now sure if you sit 2 feet from the TV then you might notice.

And 1080i can be turned into 1080p. You just need the hardware to do it in real time.


RE: Resistance
By EclipsedAurora on 9/28/2006 11:11:56 AM , Rating: 2
I believe that's not anything wrong to say RSX is more powerful than 2 6800 running in SLI. Infact the 1st one who raise is claim was nVidia's CEO in E3 2005!

One think u have probably forgotton, or may be missed when u read the technical data from Sony or nVidia.

The RSX is possible to do "TurboCache" like operation to Cell's XDR, which effectively doubled the the avaliable bandwidth.

Notice that the XDR in PS3 is offering even more bandwidth than the 128bit GDDR VRAM. In addition, the XDR-Turbocache thing is backed up by the incredible Rambus FlexIO bus which offer 10 times more bandwidth than PCIEx16, and a double as well compare with IBM's bus used to link between share memory and ATI GPU inside 360.

If you really understand video technology, u'll know that i to p convertion in video processing cost a lot of problem. THat's why people spend several thousand of dollars just for a scaler box to do such a job.

I doubt if u are really can't notice any difference between 1080i/p and 720i/p. Please has a look on latest Full HD 1080 plasma/LCD before drawing into such questionable conclusion.


RE: Resistance
By Chillin1248 on 9/28/2006 12:08:10 PM , Rating: 4
Hey, you again!

Well to simply sum up your post, you just copy and pasted a Sony PDF statement about the PS3. If you bothered to read the person who you are responding to above you, you would notice that he said 2X 7800s in SLI and not 2X 6800s in SLI.

------
Chillin


RE: Resistance
By Hemipower on 9/28/2006 12:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yea the quality is not max but i assure you its not slideshow nor the lowest quality. 1080p is not that much more than the 1680x1050 which i do play on high settings so I can usually put it to run at medium, medium-high. If you dont have a 1080p tv to test it than why do you talk. First get a tv and than run the game see what happens.

And sony did say their graphics is two geforce in sli. If im not wrong he said it has two7800 or it could have been 2 6800 i cant remember right now.


RE: Resistance
By PrinceGaz on 9/28/2006 2:02:46 PM , Rating: 3
I seem to remember reading a Sony or nVidia quote about the PS3 graphics being about twice as fast as the fastest nVidia graphics card. However the fastest nVidia card then was the 6800 Ultra. I think it's safe to say the PS3 graphics performance is roughly the same level as a single 7800GTX/7900GT, certainly not two of them in SLI.

A single 7900GT is a very nice card, but it isn't powerful enough to maintain a smooth 60fps, or even 30fps in more demanding areas, at 1080p-like resolutions in the latest graphically-advanced titles at high-quality settings. The closest resolutions to 1080p in terms of number of pixels are 1600x1200 (7% less) and 1920x1200 (11% more).

Therefore the vast majority of future games will natively only be able to support 720p and the output must be up-converted if necessary to 1080p (losing quality as a result). That or run at reduced quality settings when 1080p is chosen, which is not a very desirable option.


RE: Resistance
By gramboh on 9/28/2006 2:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares how much bandwidth there is if the GPU can't fill it? PCI-e 16x is more than even a GF 7950GX2 can use.


RE: Resistance
By Wolfpup on 9/30/2006 12:43:52 AM , Rating: 2
Are you sure about RSX only having 8 ROPS? I thought that would be one solid advantage PS3 had over 360, since 360 only has 8 ROPS-basically double the fill rate on PS3.

Just read the Wikipedia entry on RSX, and it says too that there's only 8 ROPS, but dosen't source it. Weird that they'd drop it...I mean aside from the different interface, it should just be a standard 7800GTX, so I don't know why they'd have the ROPS.

Anyway, even with 16ROPs (if that's what it turns out to have), there's no way most games would be able to look as good at 1080p...although I bet we'll get some crazy coders who do stuff in assembler and somehow get great results :)


RE: Resistance
By GhandiInstinct on 9/28/06, Rating: -1
RE: Resistance
By splines on 9/28/2006 12:43:53 AM , Rating: 3
They've mentioned the way it's being released several times in interviews.

This comment system sucks. All I ever see is 'Oops!'


RE: Resistance
By xphile on 10/2/2006 6:28:00 AM , Rating: 2
Couldnt agree more.

"the decision to include Blu-ray was solely for the sake of game developers, and not for playing movies" The same game developers complaing about how hard it is to code for the cell core, or would that be the the ones so disillusioned by Sonys horrifically late and incompleted development kits Sony reportedly had to pay them to stick with their projects?

"So in that regard, the machine’s ability to play Blu-ray movies should be thought of as free" You all just remember that as you sit down with your beer and pop corn and watch that Bluray movie in full cruddy high res mpeg2 glory on your FREE $600 Bluray player.

"Citing launch title Resistance requiring 20GB of disc space, games several years from now could be utilizing the full 50GB capacity of the medium." Yes-sir-eee 47.5 gb of hi-res movie cut scenes, 2.25 gb of hi res motion captured animations and almost 250mb of gameplay code. I bet you all just CANT WAIT!!



Jerky framerate at 1080p. Console won't keep up.
By Jackyl on 9/28/2006 1:30:23 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
“PlayStation 3 is the only format that can do full HD, true HD,” Harrison admits that “some games actually look better at 720p depending on the style of the game, depending on the pixel rendering or pixel shading that's been adopted.”


This is absurd. The higher resolution, the better any game will look, as long as the textures are high quality and made for the higher resolution.

In other words, "The Playstation 3 has trouble keeping the framerate and animations decent, when playing at 1080p. It is jerky at 1080p just like a lot of XBOX 360 games are at 720p"




By MrCoyote on 9/28/2006 1:32:44 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. No console game should be released, if it has framerate issues, stuttering, or sluggish performance. I definitely won't buy such a game. I demand smooth performance and fast load times on consoles.



By m666guy on 9/28/2006 8:01:57 AM , Rating: 2
Funny i own a 360 and dont recall jerky framerates but meh. Any game that is done in 1080p will have to have really low quality graphic effects to keep a decent framerate.


RE: Jerky framerate at 1080p. Console won't keep up.
By Loc13 on 9/28/2006 9:04:24 AM , Rating: 2
If you own Oblivion 360, doesn't your game get jerky and takes VERY long load time when switching scenes? I believe that is a widespread issue. The game is not playable at all when you're toward the end. PC users don't have that problem though.


By Vertigo101 on 9/28/2006 11:09:44 AM , Rating: 2
I sailed through Oblivion on my 360 with only 2 random crashes, a feat that few PC players can claim.


By Hemipower on 9/28/2006 12:07:27 PM , Rating: 1
Ive built many a system and have hardly had any crashes, especially during just gaming. I have both the premium and core, and besides the loud fan which is like 5 times louder than my pc, i had the premium brake and returned for a new one. Xbox live account recovery is awesome, i still lost my achievments. I have also had random freezes and if i go 3 hours playing with no crashes on the 360 i am surprised.

As far as screen frames being jerky, I have seen it on some games and it is minimal, oblivian was one with heavy frame and glitch problems. Not on the pc with its patches and mods.


By Biggie on 9/28/2006 10:48:09 AM , Rating: 2
I bet a lot of people will just play their PS3 at 720P, choosing better frame rate over higher resolution. Both the PS3 and 360 will be quickly eclipsed by highend PC hardware. The issue for most consumers is at what cost.


more sony bullshit
By ttnuagadam on 9/27/2006 11:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
thats pretty lame, because i havent seen a single PC game that looked shittier at a higher resolution. sounds like some total bullshit to trick the ignorant sony fanboys out there.




RE: more sony bullshit
By squeezee on 9/28/2006 12:30:46 AM , Rating: 2
When you increase the resolution on your PC the performance doesn't magically increase either.

What he's adressing is simply the fact that games which render at 1080P will likely use less complex shaders or visual effects than ones at 720P. You certainly don't get those extra 1.15 Million pixels for free.


RE: more sony bullshit
By Hemipower on 9/28/2006 12:48:51 AM , Rating: 1
Its more likely that he is trying to sound humble and appeal to some of the microsoft fanboys who "don't need 1080p" or who "don't need an extra 40gb harddrive" or who "don't need built in wifi".

It's funny how people all of sudden don't need extra things once they have already spent their money on something with less features. Like if you buy a corvette with 350hp today and next year they come out with 500hp and then you here the i don't need this or that. it's actually happened to me a couple of times in my pubescent years. lol.


RE: more sony bullshit
By Hakuryu on 9/28/2006 1:05:00 AM , Rating: 2
It's more like the people who already own a DVD player and other gadgets feeling screwed by having to pay for something on a console that will last them 3-5 years before they need a new(er) one.

What would be the cost of a Playstation 3 if it ONLY played games? Alot less, barring the price of us having to pay to try to get Betamax... er BlueRay in the mainstream.


RE: more sony bullshit
By dreddly on 9/28/2006 1:30:38 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not a huge sony fan and have only ownned and xbox but haven't seen a killer app that would make me buy a 360 and I think the key is next generation.

The PS3 will only be next gen if it has larger disc storage, 1080p, HDMI. Frankly if all my future devices are going to require larger capacity (and DVD's barely cut it now in the PC world) highdef inputs and future comptibility I think sony is doing that. A serious reason holding me back from ever going to the 360 is lack of true highdef outputs. I think the production issues and the cost have hurt sony, but they are the only true next gen console on the horizon.


RE: more sony bullshit
By Hydrofirex on 9/28/06, Rating: -1
RE: more sony bullshit
By 05SilverGT on 9/28/2006 1:25:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think what you mean to say is your waiting for full digital outputs on the XBox360. Component and VGA can do HD in analog mode which is still full HD. Sure there might minor quality issues but it's not make or break for most people.


lol
By Scabies on 9/27/2006 10:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
some games actually look better at 720p depending on ...

yeah, Fox News HD: Geraldo might look "better" in HD, but he's still damn ugly

Translation: Higher definition cant help some things




RE: lol
By clementlim on 9/28/2006 2:48:30 AM , Rating: 2
Squeezee previously posted:

quote:
What he's adressing is simply the fact that games which render at 1080P will likely use less complex shaders or visual effects than ones at 720P. You certainly don't get those extra 1.15 Million pixels for free.


Yes, basic common sense. What Sony meant was that when you shift into higher resolution, the rendering machine will have to lower the details to maintain the FPS you get. Also, sometime companies develop their cinematics or whatever cut-ins in lower resolution to save cost or time (or whatever reasons they have). When you display a lower resolution cinematic in a higher resolution, it'll get pixelated...That's why it looks better in lower resolution...


RE: lol
By Chillin1248 on 9/28/2006 4:24:37 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Also, sometime companies develop their cinematics or whatever cut-ins in lower resolution to save cost or time (or whatever reasons they have). When you display a lower resolution cinematic in a higher resolution, it'll get pixelated...


True, take Rome: Total War for example. The opening cinematic is displayed at I believe a 640X480 resolution, however I believe the reason for this is so that people with lower resolution displays or run the game at 640X460 would be able to see it, not that it will get cut off. My guess is they didn't have the time or bother to set the cinematic to adjust to desktop resolution, or maybe they just were not able to.

-------
Chillin


...
By threefcata on 9/27/2006 10:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
so are we gonna switch between 720p and 1080p on TV??




RE: ...
By bunnyfubbles on 9/27/2006 10:46:42 PM , Rating: 2
yes


RE: ...
By Mudvillager on 9/28/2006 5:39:32 AM , Rating: 2
Hopefully because it makes a lot of difference going from 921 600 to 2 073 600 pixels!


Okay I'm tired off all the crap...
By 05SilverGT on 9/28/2006 1:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
I’m and owner of a Xbox360, PS2, and Gamecube so I’m not a fan of any one company. Every post I read people seem to forget that these are consoles and keep trying to compare them to a PC. I understand Sony wants to make the PS3 out to be PC light but in the end it’s a console. Both the Xbox360 and the PS3 with the graphics hardware they have should be able to run games at 1080P. The main focus of these machines are to play games and there is only one hardware configuration you have to code for. With a PC and it’s general purpose functionality all the horsepower of the machine is not taken advantage of no matter how great your rig is.

Within the second year of each of these machines developers should start to get a good grasp on what the machines can do and suck as much power out as possible. It looks like both systems can pretty much display that same level of graphics. Sure on the 360 at some point games will be multi-DVD. Microsoft might even start a dual release with HD-DVD and DVD versions of games. If they can do CD and DVD versions on PC why not have two options on 360.

Let’s all stop arguing and look at the fact we have two powerful consoles to choose from. Get the one that has the games you like the most and be happy. If you have baller status by them both and a Wii! :)




RE: Okay I'm tired off all the crap...
By djtodd on 9/28/2006 4:01:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by them both and a Wii! :)


I'll buy a ps3 to go with my 360, but no thank you to the Wii :)

Maybe for my nephew.


RE: Okay I'm tired off all the crap...
By Rollomite on 9/28/2006 5:07:49 PM , Rating: 1
So you're not a fanboy....just another one of the mis-informed masses that still believes that like Trix, the Nintendo Wii is for kids. Wake up and smell the defective blu ray diodes.


By OxBow on 9/28/2006 5:27:45 PM , Rating: 1
I agree. I'm tired of people comparing these consoles to PCs. They should have learned in third grade you can't compare apples and oranges. Apples and Oranges are both fruit, Consoles and PCs can both play games, thats where the comparison ends.

I own a PC, a Gamecube, a PS2 and a 360 and am looking forward to getting a PS3. I've been playing video games since pong and will continue to play them with my kids and grandkids. The PS3 is a powerfull console, but it's also a gamble for Sony. I hope it turns out to be a long term success for them because I've enjoyed the games on their systems.

I enjoy playing games and as time goes by I am always amazed by how much more interesting they get. All of these consoles (and even the PC) will continue to add to this evolution for all our benefit.

Why don't you try to look on the bright side once in a while. It's not like this is a life and death issue for any of us and the point of all of this in the end is to have fun. Be open to new things, who knows, you just might like it.


better at 720p?????????? ummmm...
By 8steve8 on 9/28/2006 8:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
1080p will always look better than 720p assuming:

equal framerates
equal quality settings
both being displayed on a display at native resolution w/o scaling.

that said , almost no one owns displays actually capable of displaying true 1080p... in the US there are a small handful of very expensive tv's and 24"+ lcd monitors with enough resolution... and of the few with enough pixels... many cannot accept 1080p inputs....

but other than that mess...





better at 720p?????????? ummmm...
By 8steve8 on 9/28/2006 8:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
1080p will always look better than 720p assuming:

equal framerates
equal quality settings
both being displayed on a display at native resolution w/o scaling.

that said , almost no one owns displays actually capable of displaying true 1080p... in the US there are a small handful of very expensive tv's and 24"+ lcd monitors with enough resolution... and of the few with enough pixels... many cannot accept 1080p inputs....

but other than that mess...





"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki