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

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").


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Related Articles













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