backtop


Print 77 comment(s) - last by tastyratz.. on Jul 21 at 8:59 AM


  (Source: goplok.com)
Sony announces no 1080p resolution for 3D games on PS3; will leave strictly in 720p.

According to Joystiq , PlayStation 3 games in 3D will have their HD resolution capped. While demonstrating the newest version of the system at the Develop Conference,  Sony representative Simon Benson announced that games that run at 1080p resolution will be downscaled in 3D mode -- per eye -- to 720p.  

Speaking to
Joystiq, Benson stated that although the PS3 has the capability of displaying a 1080p image, a  resolution higher than 720p has been restricted because Sony contends that a higher frame rate would impact the quality of viewing.  

Blu-ray movies will retain the 1080p resolution.  Blu-rays run at 24 frames per second, but games run at 60 frames per second -- upping the resolution for games would compromise the smoothness of the frames.  While a "more cinematic game" could be equipped to handle the 1080p resolution at the cost of frames, Sony's current guidelines won't allow users to change settings, Benson said.

A true 1080p image consists of 2M individual pixels, about twice the amount shown in a 720p image. Benson added that even trained computer graphic artist could barely tell the difference between resolutions.

On the Newbies Inc. website, Benson indicated that  that online gamers with a 3D TV may have a competitive advantage over those playing on HD sets.

"It all depends on the gamers to be honest. Initially we were slightly concerned about this because we were thinking, what if it makes it twice as easy or something like that."

He also stated that 3D can have the effect of making games more accessible for inexperienced players.

"I think what’s basically going to happen is that anyone who has stereoscopic 3D televisions and, for example, is playing a driving game, I would imagine you’re likely to find that the accessibility level is higher, that people would generally perform better on their first go. But I think at the high end with the hardcore gamers you’ll still see a [3D] advantage there, potentially, but the margins will be far smaller."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What's not being said
By SSDMaster on 7/19/2010 2:54:43 PM , Rating: -1
Not enough bandwidth for 1080P? Are we talking dropped frames? Not enough processing power? If movies can do it, then it should be the same amount of bandwidth for 1080P 3D.

Considering how powerful the Cell is, this is probably just a money saving move for Sony and game designers.

quote:
A true 1080p image consists of 2M individual pixels, about twice the amount shown in a 720p image. Benson added that even trained computer graphic artist could barely tell the difference between resolutions.


HA! Pathetic. I don't think the difference is all that noteworthy, but don't play that card. Anyone with a big TV can tell the difference. 37"+ its easily discernible.




RE: What's not being said
By jnemesh on 7/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: What's not being said
By jbizzler on 7/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: What's not being said
By SSDMaster on 7/19/2010 3:47:50 PM , Rating: 1
I agree 720P with a higher frame rate than 1080P in 3D would be better... Your telling me being able to discern between 1080P and 720P is something I don't "know"?

I don't get it.


RE: What's not being said
By Xaussie on 7/19/2010 4:00:50 PM , Rating: 3
Anyone with enough training can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p but the differences are slight. I am a trained graphic artist and professional photographer and to me the differences are very subtle. Stuttering framerates on the other hand are very annoying and seriously affect my ability to play certain games.

I for one will happily take 720p if the frame rate is smooth. Ratchet and Clank is one of the best looking games out there (stunning on my 52" Samsung) and it's only 720p.


RE: What's not being said
By sviola on 7/19/2010 3:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
I think the limitation is regarding hdmi connection. If I am not wrong (and correct me if I am, please), hdmi 1.3 does not have the bandwith to move 1080p 3D, that's why they have created the hdmi 1.4 standard.


RE: What's not being said
By GuinnessKMF on 7/19/2010 3:25:00 PM , Rating: 2
Movies can be displayed at 1080p@24fps because they are temporally aliased, that is, they are 'blurred' over time. A single frame in a movie consists of all the light from 1/24th of a second blurred together, a single frame in a video game is a snapshot of the exact position of all elements at the time of rendering. Because or brains can notice these exact frames, kind of a like a flipbook, we need more frames in order for our brains to interpret them as motion. So while 1/24th looks smooth for a movie, 1/60th looks smooth for a video game.

For a 3D scene, you need to take this snapshot twice per frame (once slight shifted to the other eyes perspective) and both the hardware, and hdmi 1.3 cable are incapable of keeping up with the requirements. To say the cell processor is powerful enough is not only incorrect, but makes assumptions that developers are actually programming to properly utilize all of that power (most do just enough performance tuning to make it acceptable at the current level, and there isn't any leftover headroom to double the requirements).

Additionally movies don't have to worry about anything other than decoding what has already been recorded, they don't have to worry about all the other factors that go into a video game and could degrade performance (pathing, anti-aliasing, etc).


RE: What's not being said
By SSDMaster on 7/19/2010 3:53:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
To say the cell processor is powerful enough is not only incorrect, but makes assumptions that developers are actually programming to properly utilize all of that power


Not sure how you got that assumption, but the Cell processor is a long ways off from being fully utilized.

HDMI 1.3 vs 1.4 is just a higher quality spec. HDMI 1.0 over a very short distance could easily handle 1080P over 3D.


RE: What's not being said
By SPOOFE on 7/19/2010 4:28:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the Cell processor is a long ways off from being fully utilized.

Tell that to the boys at Naughty Dog, they seem to have a different opinion on that matter.


RE: What's not being said
By cmdrdredd on 7/19/2010 5:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tell that to the boys at Naughty Dog, they seem to have a different opinion on that matter.


What IS being used to the fullest is the SPUs in the system. Uncharted 2 used all of them up but barely touched the CELL CPU because it's harder to code a game to use the CELL. It's more simplistic for the developer to offload various tasks to the multiple SPUs.


RE: What's not being said
By SPOOFE on 7/19/2010 6:57:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What IS being used to the fullest is the SPUs in the system. Uncharted 2 used all of them up but barely touched the CELL CPU because it's harder to code a game to use the CELL.

The SPUs essentially ARE the Cell processor, as well as being the most difficult aspect to use for games. The other processing element is a derivitive of IBM's Power architecture and is not at all exotic, mysterious, or difficult to utilize. It is completely conventional.

Note: IBM's Power architecture is also the basis for the X360's CPU.

quote:
It's more simplistic for the developer to offload various tasks to the multiple SPUs.

False; what you just described is the most difficult part of coding for the Cell. Multithreading is very difficult for games; asynchronous multithreading even more so. The Power-derived "main" core of the Cell is the easiest to code for, as it is the most robust and has the most developer tools and experience behind it. The SPUs are very, very difficult.


RE: What's not being said
By SlyNine on 7/20/2010 3:03:38 AM , Rating: 2
Do you mean the SPE's, All the cell is, is one PPE and 8 SPE's, one disabled and one dedicated to OS. In fact the Cell is very weak in many things due to this design.

The Tri PowerPC "xeon" ( the same chip that is the PPU in the PS3, but 3 instead of the 1 in the PS3) is more flexible and arguable has more usable power, even though it has less theoretical power. You seem to have been duped by hype, popular myth, and marketing. Until someone is able to get that kind of performance in a GAME, the Cell for all its theoretical and fold@home performance is nothing great for gaming. It's a great science workstation for SOME types of work.

The "its harder to code games for" is a cop out, Until someone does so you don't even know if it's possible.


RE: What's not being said
By SlyNine on 7/20/2010 3:10:47 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry meant for SPOOFE


RE: What's not being said
By SlyNine on 7/20/2010 3:12:55 AM , Rating: 2
Did it again Sorry spoofe, meant for SSDMaster


RE: What's not being said
By StevoLincolnite on 7/20/2010 12:19:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not sure how you got that assumption, but the Cell processor is a long ways off from being fully utilized.


The Cell is a "Cheap" processor, it was designed so it wouldn't cost the Earth, whilst providing adequate performance.
I mean you can't expect a $1000 processor in a console can you?

The Cell used it's transistor budget well, but it's no where near the level of a 6 Core Phenom or Core i7.


RE: What's not being said
By spazmedia on 7/19/2010 3:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Movies can be displayed at 1080p@24fps because they are temporally aliased, that is, they are 'blurred' over time. A single frame in a movie consists of all the light from 1/24th of a second blurred together, a single frame in a video game is a snapshot of the exact position of all elements at the time of rendering. Because or brains can notice these exact frames, kind of a like a flipbook, we need more frames in order for our brains to interpret them as motion. So while 1/24th looks smooth for a movie, 1/60th looks smooth for a video game.

Regarding 1/24th of seconds for cinema, you are incorrect. When shooting a movie you can capture a frame at anywhere from 1/25 second (if shooting at 24FPS) to around 1/10000 of a second depending on the camera and available light. What's more you could easily simulate what you call temporal aliasing in a video game. In fact many games already do this, even for the PS3. This is one of the benefits of the Cell processor...


RE: What's not being said
By integr8d on 7/19/2010 4:44:30 PM , Rating: 2
I think you mean 1/48th of a second @24fps, 180degree shutter. With no shutter, you could capture at 1/24th, albeit with a lot of smearing (film) or blurring (imager). But who would do that?


RE: What's not being said
By SPOOFE on 7/19/2010 7:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When shooting a movie you can capture a frame at anywhere from 1/25 second (if shooting at 24FPS) to around 1/10000 of a second depending on the camera and available light.

And if you compare 1/25 of a second to 1/10000 of a second, you'd see smoother results with the former as opposed to the latter when played back at 24fps.


RE: What's not being said
By GuinnessKMF on 7/19/2010 11:49:25 PM , Rating: 2
Sure you can simulate temporal aliasing in video games, but it requires a substantial amount of processing power, it's not trivial, it's actually easier to just output 60fps than to output nicely temporal alias'd 24fps, the point is that the processing required to produce smooth 3d video games is greater than is required to output smooth 3d video. (As for the shutter speed stuff, I didn't want to have to post an entire wikipedia article to tell someone that you can't say "you can do it in movies, why can't you do it in video games").


RE: What's not being said
By FormulaRedline on 7/19/2010 3:24:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Considering how powerful the Cell is


The PS3 is four years old. The technology inside of it is probably closer to six. When is the last time you saw a gaming computer running with 256MB of RAM or a high end GPU with 256MB of memory? Those are the specs of a PS3. It's not a question of cable bandwidth, the machine just can't process or store that much information for a modern game with high polygon models and decent textures.

Asking it to run in stereo is asking for twice the graphics output. If it reduces back to 720p, then it gets over half the pixels back, making up for the difference.

And yes, I completely agree with the other posters that anyone that can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080 needs to be relegated to SD tube televisions and a Wii.


RE: What's not being said
By SSDMaster on 7/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: What's not being said
By SPOOFE on 7/19/2010 4:30:21 PM , Rating: 2
His comments seemed to focus on RAM. Can you say, "bottleneck"?


RE: What's not being said
By SlyNine on 7/20/2010 3:09:14 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, Theoretical Gflops, what happens when you apply real world code that is useful to a GAME. That performance drops below that of my CPU. My Core I7 would wipe the floor with the Cell in most apps we use today and for what it doesn't, my 5870 would continue the ass whopping in the rest.


RE: What's not being said
By gamerk2 on 7/19/2010 3:46:43 PM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind, the actual image doesn't need to be repeated twice, just the output. The problem is more a limitation of HDMI then anything else; HDMI does NOT have the bandwith for 1080p @ 120Hz


RE: What's not being said
By SSDMaster on 7/19/2010 3:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it does! They already have it...


RE: What's not being said
By Phoque on 7/19/2010 5:23:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And yes, I completely agree with the other posters that anyone that can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080 needs to be relegated to SD tube televisions and a Wii.


And I think you are an asshole, because you could'nt make the difference yourself. The difference between 1080 and 720 is only 2X.

The difference between SD and 720 is more like 3X, so you can easily discern it.

The main reason people are shocked at HD quality VS analog TV is that analog TV broadcast is 330x485 ( 6X factor compared to 720 !!! ).

http://hometheater.about.com/cs/television/a/aavid...


RE: What's not being said
By quiksilvr on 7/19/2010 3:28:06 PM , Rating: 2
Haters gotta hate.
Trollers gotta troll.

For games, its going to be 720P at 60 frames per second (x2 because its 3D)

For movies, its going to be 1080p at 24 frames per second (x2 because its 3D)

The high frame rates of games is the reason why its 720p.


RE: What's not being said
By integr8d on 7/19/2010 4:16:05 PM , Rating: 2
"Considering how powerful the Cell is..." In relation to this discussion, do you have metrics?

720p will be fine in 3D. The 3D effect tricks the mind into seeing resolution, where it is not. Your brain 'fills in the blanks' so to speak.

Add to that, most TVs don't render motion at 1080p. The Panasonic, like another poster mentioned, is one of the few exceptions. But that TV (I'm currently using one on a large budget 3D feature) suffers from horrible white balance issues in 3D. The TV overcompensates for the color shift in the glasses. So I've had to yank the handles all over the place to get it even remotely close to a REC 709 white point. Also, it seems to throw out half of its color depth in 3D. Possibly having to split it up for each eye. All in all, while not a digital cinema projector, it's not bad.

But back to the PS3. Most people won't notice the lower resolution. The material I'm viewing is 1080p, side-by-side (960x1080 left eye, 960x180 right eye). It's not at all objectionable. On a still frame, you COULD nit pick. But the brain compensates so easily. And while watching a moving 3D image, it's a complete wash.

Best not to get caught up in marketing terms. They'll do anything to 'sell you'.


RE: What's not being said
By Phoque on 7/19/2010 4:45:22 PM , Rating: 2
You don't know what you're talking about. The Cell is not suited for graphical rendering. Rendering is a job best suited for the GPU.

"Not enough processing power?"

So yes, as you asked, it is a problem of processing power, gpu processing power.

"37"+ its easily discernible."

Sigh. MAYBE for a static image you peek at a foot away from the screen. Never for anything that moves the slightest.


RE: What's not being said
By afkrotch on 7/19/2010 9:59:51 PM , Rating: 1
1080p movies at 24 hz. Games push 60 hz. Try again.


"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki