-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
MGS4 resolution scaling and frame rate question? (No spoilers)
- Thread starter SS4Rob
- Start date
BravoSuperStar
Member
commariodore64 said:
Thats a good idea. I am relying on memories from 3+ months back for my comparison. The 60fps jumps in MGS4 do annoy me though, I wish it was locked @ 30, and there is the occasional poor texture. But this really is just nitpicking....
rubso said:HD is 1280x720
MGS4 is 1024x768 (sub-HD)
NG2 is 1120x585 (sub-HD)
according to the pixel counter @ b3d.
I hope that helps.
I´m getting more confused every day with resolutions.
Is the second one (768´) the one that is taken to determine if it´s 720p or lower?
Or is the pizels count (like multiplying 1024 * 768 vs 1280 * 720) and that determines if it´s HD?
Anyway, anything looks good on my 40" hdtv after 2 years with a 19" 720 monitor
There's no standard procedure to assert the HD-i-ness of non-standard resolutions.itxaka said:I´m getting more confused every day with resolutions.
Is the second one (768´) the one that is taken to determine if it´s 720p or lower?
Or is the pizels count (like multiplying 1024 * 768 vs 1280 * 720) and that determines if it´s HD?
Anyway, anything looks good on my 40" hdtv after 2 years with a 19" 720 monitor
There's legacy SD (480i, 480p, 576i, 576p, all with arbitrary width due to their history as analog signals), there's 720p (1280x720 square pixels) and there's 1080i/1080p (1920x1080 square pixels). As for standard HD resolutions, nothing else really exists. The next official step up is 1440p.
These games simply scale whatever their internal render resolution is to produce a well-formed HD output signal.
Scaling artifacts would be much more obvious if not for the AA. E.g. check out the Haze demo for a game that is obviously upscaled.
ok, so are people rating this games graphics on the cutscenes or gameplay? because gameplay is a bit crap, and no contest what so ever for uncharted, cutscenes, maybe, i guess MGS4 has a face only a mother (crazed fan) can love or something
edit: ive watched it in 720p gamersyde videos and on a 1080p tv in dixons
edit: ive watched it in 720p gamersyde videos and on a 1080p tv in dixons
acm2000 said:
Play the game and feel it yourself in its true glory than any recorded video for game play, it is about the whole package, not just a single part of it. I am not a fan of the series and I am stunned by the presentation and immersion after playing it just a little (only up to Act II).
itxaka said:I´m getting more confused every day with resolutions.
Is the second one (768´) the one that is taken to determine if it´s 720p or lower?
Or is the pizels count (like multiplying 1024 * 768 vs 1280 * 720) and that determines if it´s HD?
Anyway, anything looks good on my 40" hdtv after 2 years with a 19" 720 monitor
If I understand correctly, the p is the vertical pixels, but with standard HDTVs 720p's assumed to be in a 16:9 aspect ratio and have 1280 horizontal pixels. What you get with some games is more vertical pixels but fewer horizontal. It gets stretched by the PS3 or the TV to look widescreen, but it's still not rendering 1280x720.
To determine if it's HD or not, you multiply the two and see the totals, I guess.
BravoSuperStar
Member
I also wouldn't put much faith in the ability of the salesmen to properly calibrate the TV, it could have been hooked up over composite cables for all we know.....
CrunchinJelly
formerly cjelly
I smell a shitstorm brewing.
Confusion Illusion
Banned
acm2000 said:
Umm, not really. The OP is asking a question about the games resolution. You're going on about how the games bores you and what not.
SuperEnemyCrab said:
erm, see below, its usually showing off bluray in 1080p blah blah please buy our over priced tvs
Firewire said:
its a big ass 1080p sony tv, which is setup playing bluray movies at 1080p to try flog them, only it has MGS4 on it atm to try flog that instead
DigitalSoul said:
i was told to play it, i was simply replying
By decent TV do you really mean magic TV ?amar212 said:
This isn't a display problem, it's an issue with the game. Even if you have a 1024x768 native display (such as many 42ʺ plasmas) it's not possible to get the PS3 outputting that resolution. The PS3 is upscaling the game whether you're running it on a 720p or 1080p display so it is always going to look soft and there will be flicker/shimmer no matter what you're playing on.
I think the problem is that people don't really understand what resolution does for a game. Halo 3 had lots of aliasing because it was lower resolution, had no anti-aliasing, and had lots of contrast and texture/shader detail.dallow_bg said:
MGS4 on the other-hand won't suffer from this to nearly the same extent as it is relatively low contrast and the colour palette tends to be fairly limited.
The problem with the resolution in MGS is that it forces the game to be upscaled which brings a lot of problems. Now, most people with flat panels are used to this anywaythere are virtually no 1280x720 displays out there now, and very few games run at 1920x1080.
If, however, you are used to playing games without scaling e.g. playing 720p games on a CRT monitor as I do, then it is very obvious when something is scaled.
The 360 can output 1024x768 if you're using a VGA lead. If MGS4 were on the 360, I could just set it to output 1024x768 and adjust the geometry on the CRT to correct the aspect ratio and enjoy a perfectly sharp rendition of the game, rather than being forced to scale it to 1080p.Diablos said:
No special technique really. As the game has to be scaled on the PS3, it might as well scale to the maximum resolution for the best image quality. It is a good thing that the PS3 will output 720p if the game is native 720p, rather than scaling everything to 1080p as the 360 does.h3ro said:
I can't believe the didn't cap the framerate either. It's bad enough that it's 30fps, but 30 jumping to 60 every so often is very jarring.
commariodore64
Member
Actually this is the thread for discussing resolution & framerate according to OP. That said - you want the 'let's be different just to be different' thread over at GameFaqs...acm2000 said:
andrewfee, thanks for the info. I didn't know about some of the stuff you mentioned and that CRTs make scaling artifacts even more pronounced. Just wanted to say that it was a great post.
I find it funny that kitch9 tries to counter your well-founded argument with an opinion.
So here's my opinion (he he)... the game looked great on my friend's 32", 720p HDTV
I find it funny that kitch9 tries to counter your well-founded argument with an opinion.
So here's my opinion (he he)... the game looked great on my friend's 32", 720p HDTV
It's not that CRTs make scaling artefacts more pronounced, it's that as a CRT owner, you're used to seeing everything as a native resolution image so edges look pin-sharp whether it's 480p, 720p or 1080p.Cdammen said:
When the image is scaled, there aren't sharp edges any more. With a flat-panel, unless you're using Blu-Ray, you are almost always sending it non-native images that have to be scaled so you're used to having a softer image regardless. If it's scaled up from 1024x768 to 1920x1080, 1280x720 to 1920x1080 or anything else, there's not going to be a huge difference in sharpness. (though it can affect other things, such as aliasing)
On the CRT you're not used to seeing scaling artefacts at all, so it's very obvious.
Cdammen said:andrewfee, thanks for the info. I didn't know about some of the stuff you mentioned and that CRTs make scaling artifacts even more pronounced. Just wanted to say that it was a great post.
I find it funny that kitch9 tries to counter your well-founded argument with an opinion.
So here's my opinion (he he)... the game looked great on my friend's 32", 720p HDTV
Well-founded argument?
The majority here who have played the game thinks it looks great....(This is gaf remember!)
Then we have a couple of guys, one who has seen the game in a shop window who thinks it looks boring, and another frantically counting pixels in screenshots as he hasn't actually got the game. Then to pad his argument he starts turning into a martyr for all the poor crt owners who might be suffering scaling artifacts.
What the fuck does it matter?
It looks sharp on my 1366x768 screen, with little alaising. I'm a gaming addict and have played a lot of games on all formats, and this game is right up there with the best looking of them.
The presentation is unmatched and ALL formats however, its slick has hell.
vpance
Member
Here's a good idea to reduce scaling for anyone without a 1:1 capable no-overscan display. I saw it mentioned by Quaz on B3D. Just adjust the overscan options in the menu and shrink the image so more of the game gets displayed on the screen. I wish more games had this option. My panel overscans like somewhere between 5 to 10%.
But wait a second...andrewfee said:
What if the 1080p TV had an option in the user menu that said something like "1:1" or "do by dot"?
For example, the new 1080p Pioneer plasmas have a "Dot By Dot" mode in the menu. Wouldn't this mean that if I feed the TV a PS3 game with a resolution of 720p or 768p, or whatever, the game will be pixel-perfeect, but will be displayed in a "box" on the screen -- you know, with black borders on the top, bottom, left and right of it??
Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding something here.
You still wouldn't be able to get a pixel-perfect image there.Shawn said:
The PS3 is rendering the game at 1024x768 internally.
The system then upscales that to 1920x1080 and sends it to your display.
There's only 1024x768 pixels worth of information there, but it's still sent as a 1920x1080 image to the screen.
If you enable a 1:1 or Dot by Dot mode on your TV, it treats it as having a 1920x1080 image, it doesn't know that it's really only a 1024x768 image being stretched out.
Even if it did know it was a 1024x768 image being stretched out, there's no way to convert it back to 1024x768 without losing image quality.
Imagine you had an image that was alternating black/white pixels. Looking at a small portion of that image, rendered at 1024x768 it would look like this:
If you rendered it at 1024x768 and scaled it to 1920x1080, the same section now looks like this due to the scaling:
Notice how it's no longer an evenly spaced black/white alternating grid, it's all been blended and stretched that's what scaling does to an image which is why it looks soft. More often than not, there is also an additional blur filter applied as well, as very fine details don't scale well and can flicker badly, further reducing the sharpness of the image.
I guess I'm wondering why TV makers cannot program their 1080p flat-panel HDTV's to be "intelligent" enough to somehow recognize lesser resolutions being sent to it and put a border around the image so that it doesn't have to be scaled or stretched, therefore making it pixel-perfect...
Do you know what I mean?
Does that make sense?
Do you know what I mean?
Does that make sense?
It's being sent 1920x1080 though, not 1024x768.Shawn said:
Very few HDTVs have a true 1:1 mapping option thoughusually it just disables overscan. Most people don't want to see a window that only fills half the screen when using 720p content.
That's why I still use CRT monitorsyou essentially get a 1:1 image no matter what resolution you send it.
Rainy Dog said:
have to disagree, as i said in my review, when the game jumps fro pm 60fps showing snake alone to 15-20 fps when 5 or more enemies are doing something, it is certainly annoying (annoying is a generous term here). the game has graphical issues, minor though they may be, face the facts
game is fantastic don't get me wrong, i own all consoles too, mg online is great the game is the top ps3 game to date for sure but that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to its issues and give it a perfect score pass, like a certain site did YET AGAIN
shoulda been locked at 30 hes right
FYI - I created this thread to discuss the technical side of the MGS4 presentation - resolution, frame rate, etc. I was simply noticing that my 1080p TV was telling me I was receiving a 1080p image, and I didn't believe (it simply doesn't look 1080p), and I wanted to see if there was a way to get a consistent higher frame rate. Everyone who has contributed something technical to the discussion, I thank you.
All of that said, the game obviously looks great regardless of what it is doing internally, especially on close ups of some of the characters on my 1080p set. But I would have preferred a native resolution, but I'll take 1024x768 anamorphic being that if they had rendered any higher there would have been more frame rate issues. I am the type who will lower resolution to get a higher frame rate, and don't mind when the game occasionally jumps to 60fps.
I used to play Quake 2 at 320x240 on my old Rendition because it was a silky 60fps, and was floored when I was able to play it with two Voodoo 2s at 1024x768! I remember saying "nope, no need to play at a higher resolution than this ever!" In fact, on my puter hooked to a CRT I keep everything at 1024x768... ironic huh?
All of that said, the game obviously looks great regardless of what it is doing internally, especially on close ups of some of the characters on my 1080p set. But I would have preferred a native resolution, but I'll take 1024x768 anamorphic being that if they had rendered any higher there would have been more frame rate issues. I am the type who will lower resolution to get a higher frame rate, and don't mind when the game occasionally jumps to 60fps.
I used to play Quake 2 at 320x240 on my old Rendition because it was a silky 60fps, and was floored when I was able to play it with two Voodoo 2s at 1024x768! I remember saying "nope, no need to play at a higher resolution than this ever!" In fact, on my puter hooked to a CRT I keep everything at 1024x768... ironic huh?
Spectral said:
I think the audio might be 1280x720, but I can't be 100% sure. I tried counting the pixels, but I have a large tuft of ear hair and mad wax build up, so the authenticity of my enumeration might be suspect. I'll do a little trimming and swabbing later and let you guys know.
Always-honest
Banned
andrewfee said:
It's like the game was out of focus. Looked awful.
dammit, i moved to this forum because i was tired of trolls...
don't play the game man and find something else to do.
Always-honest
Banned
Spectral said:
5.1 upscaled mono dude...
I don't really agree. MGS4 DOES look incredible (and becomes impressive over time), but Drake is simply doing more. The textures are much more detailed, the shadows are higher resolution, the shaders more complex, the data streaming is superior, etc etc.commariodore64 said:
Still, MGS4 has its own look. There isn't really anything else quite like it and the end result is one of the finest looking games I've ever played. It looks so much better than the media suggested it would.
MGS4 absolutely does NOT suffer from the same blurry issues as DMC4. When the game kicks up to 60 fps, it does not blur, and the normal 30 fps looks perfectly solid.
Always-honest
Banned
it's amazing. but i need to pay more attention to it in a second run.Forsete said:
brain_stew
Member
dark10x said:
I really wish they locked it at 30FPS, I can see the random spikes to 60FPS really bothering me.