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

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: there is a diff?
By Xaussie on 7/19/2010 4:13:36 PM , Rating: -1
For someone sitting a few inches in front of a monitor viewing text/windows it is a big difference. For real time video (rendered or otherwise) at normal viewing distances there is hardly any difference. The reason is that there is not enough detail in the video to justify the higher resolution. In the real world lenses are not in focus at all depths through infinity and they are rarely sharp enough to resolve the level of detail that we are used to seeing on computer screens.

This is why Blu-Ray movies look about the same as their DVD counterparts (except for the computer generated menus and titles). I am a huge monitor/resolution junkie but to me *for the material being displayed* blu-ray is a waste of time. The improvements in color gamut have been substantial on the other hand and I find movies much more enjoyable now that the televisions can display closer to the full range of color we see in the real world (note I said closer, because none yet can actually produce the full visible spectrum).

RE: there is a diff?
By hemmy on 7/19/2010 5:30:52 PM , Rating: 4
Blu Ray looks much much much much much much better than DVDs. I cringe whenever I have to watch movies in standard def now, it kills me.

RE: there is a diff?
By SPOOFE on 7/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: there is a diff?
By daniyarm on 7/19/2010 5:31:30 PM , Rating: 3
No offense, but I am a bit surprised that a "monitor/resolution junkie" thinks blu-ray is a waste of time. Blu-ray is not only movies, it's video also, try watching Planet Earth on BR vs DVD. And BR is also lossless audio. These new audio tracks would be enough to fill a whole DVD, so I wouldn't call BR a waste of anything.

Video lenses are close to an order of magnitude more expensive than professional SLR lenses that already outresolve even the best sensors on the market. The problem with video is that unlike photography it is usually used in much darker environments and lack of contrast and grain start to overtake resolution.

And image quality has nothing to do with distance (that's just our eyes not being sharp enough), but monitor quality. On my 24" NEC monitor that costs more than your average 32" HDTV the difference is night and day between DVD and BR. If they were able to produce large displays of the same quality (like in medical fields), the difference would be even more obvious.

RE: there is a diff?
By integr8d on 7/20/2010 12:37:13 AM , Rating: 2
"The problem with video is that unlike photography it is usually used in much darker environments and lack of contrast and grain start to overtake resolution."

Really? It's usually used in much darker environments?

RE: there is a diff?
By Xaussie on 7/20/2010 1:55:48 PM , Rating: 2
Most Blu-Ray movies I've seen are 48KHz/16 bit and IMHO they sound pretty ordinary compared to DVD which is 96KHz/24 bit (albeit with compression). Overall I feel that DVDs sound better than Blu-Ray discs and I was really disappointed about that because I was expecting great things from Blu-Ray (like the magic of listening to Brothers In Arms in 5.1 on SACD for example).

As for lenses I shoot with $2000+ Nikkors so I know what lenses can resolve and in most live action movies I'm not seeing anything close to that level of detail. And distance does come into it because the further away from the screen we sit the less detail we can resolve (Europeans anyway, Aboriginal Australians probably have good enough eyesight to justify 1080p at 20ft viewing distance).

A monitor is a different story because we sit right in front of it. I use a $2500 NEC 3090 Spectraview which is 2560 x 1600 and is internally calibrated. It doesn't get much better than that but it's complete overkill for watching video of any kind.

RE: there is a diff?
By JazzMang on 7/19/2010 5:56:55 PM , Rating: 2
And on what planet do Blu-rays look just like their DVD counterparts? That's a joke, right?

RE: there is a diff?
By acer905 on 7/19/2010 6:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps a planet where the person owns a 32" flat CRT instead of an LCD or Plasma? When the native input is 480, does it really matter if you up the video to 720 or 1080?

RE: there is a diff?
By SPOOFE on 7/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: there is a diff?
By AmbroseAthan on 7/19/2010 6:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
While the things you mention do greatly matter, most productions (movie and TV) people wish to see in 1080p are normally recorded on either film, or digital resolutions higher then 1080p; 2k, 3k, 4k, 5k, all are common now.

There is a very large shift occurring in Theatres to 4K projectors over the next couple of years.

I bring this up to point out these productions normally have already solved all of the issues you listed, well before HD TV existed, and are now recording at ~4x 1080p levels (4K). While they matter more then resolution, they are also non-issues for most productions.

RE: there is a diff?
By someguy123 on 7/19/2010 9:22:16 PM , Rating: 2
And all of those things retain more detail with HD video.

RE: there is a diff?
By integr8d on 7/20/2010 12:44:31 AM , Rating: 2
He didn't say 'just like'... Obviously, it's not 'just like'. He made a good point about motion resolution (which a lot of people failed to pick up on). He also made a good point color gamut (which I'd assume he meant to say color bit depth). All consumer U.S. video is output at the REC 709 color space.

After sitting in a DI suite with Joe Kane and watching upscaled DVD on a PS3 and having him acknowledge the amount of detail in a properly transferred DVD, I can tell you that DVD isn't bad.

Too often people get too wrapped up in resolution. They either forget or don't know that contrast and detail play an equally, if not more, important role than resolution. Watch Baraka upscaled through a real video processor and then watch '1080p' video off someone's handicam and tell me which looks better.

RE: there is a diff?
By Xaussie on 7/20/2010 2:04:48 PM , Rating: 2
Properly mastered DVD being a key point here. If everything I saw on DirecTV was of the calibre of something like "Horton Hears a Who" on DVD I'd have no interest in HD at all, but sadly most DVDs are not nearly that good (and it would even put some Blu-Rays to shame), and off air DirecTV can be apalling at times.

Also color bit depth has nothing to do with gamut. Perceptually we can only resolve about 6.5 bits in a normally lit environment. Bit depth is simply how many slices you divide the color space into, and too few results in banding. Gamut is how much of the color space you can display and the original LCD displays (regardless of bit depth) could only display about 72% of NTSC. Modern displays like my NEC 3090 pretty much cover all of NTSC and all of Adobe RGB (and do it while being driven by an 8 bit graphics card).

"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki