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 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.

"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes
Related Articles

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