EL CUCO
Member
Man all I really like the guys at GG but all I heard was Uhhh...Uhhh...Uhhh. It was driving me crazy Lol
-
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.
Guerrilla Games: Regarding Killzone Shadow Fall and 1080p
- Thread starter nbnt
- Start date
Man all I really like the guys at GG but all I heard was Uhhh...Uhhh...Uhhh. It was driving me crazy Lol
rokkerkory
Member
I half agree, shouldn't they have done this from the get go?
no because joe gamer doesn't give a shit. the only people that care are the pixel counters slash graphics first crowd
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Exactly, the fact that people didn't get mad until after they were told it wasn't true 1080p speaks volume.
"wow this game looks amazing!!!"
"not true 1080p"
"Wtf This game looks like shit, fuck next gen!"
McFadge
Member
Probably a more accurate series of events, with more dramatic reactions from either side.
Liabe Brave
Member
I must admit that there's no strict agreement on what "render" means, so disagreement is inevitable. That said, I believe my usage is better than yours for both support and clarity. In my experience, folks typically use "render" as a general term for "what videogames and Pixar do to make images", not usually as a term for any particular step in that complicated process. The method we're discussing is certainly only a very small part of what Guerrilla's game is doing. Calling only that one step "rendering", as you would do, would mean that lighting, applying AA, and many other things done by the game are not rendering. This seems to me both confusing and contrary to popular usage.
I'd rather use a more technical term for any specific step, and there's a very apposite one available. I'd say Shadow Fall is rasterizing 960x1080 pixels each frame. Now, "rasterize" is occasionally used as a general term for the whole process too. But the word is less familiar to most people, so such sloppy usage is less common. And the true meaning--calculating pixel array values from vector information--is precise enough to exclude at least some processes, making it more specific (if not quite specific enough). We can then still use "render" for the entire shebang.
So my approach is to say that Killzone rasterizes 960x1080 pixels each frame, reprojects 960x1080 pixels each frame, and renders 1920x1080 pixels each frame (by applying lighting, AA, etc. individually to all the pixels generated by the previous two steps). That seems to me a clear and robust description. If we follow your suggestion instead, we'd have to say not only that 960x1080 pixels aren't rendered, but also that lighting is not rendered; that AA is not rendered; and so forth. I don't see what's gained by introducing all that vagueness.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
My friend found a pretty good representation of this in GIF form:
Heh, that's pretty good.
I'm glad GG came out and gave an explanation even though they didn't have to.
Still, if they had to make sacrifices for the MP for FPS (Which I fully agree with). Why not go all the way and sacrifice enough to get 60fps locked?
That's all I'm wondering about at this point. The technique is rather convincing at 60fps but it doesn't hit it enough to really make the IQ drop worth it. I guess they were really pressed for time and decided too late to go for 60fps.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
My friend found a pretty good representation of this in GIF form:
It would something if GG tried to hide something but I'm sure this has been talked about to hell and back. Love me some Cosby show though.
thelastword
Banned
It was nice of GG to explain the technique in more detail, but I can't agree with some parts of their reasoning.
At this point we all know that what 1080p is, it is 1920 x 1080p, from the time you go manipulating how the final framestore is contructed by using lower resolution frames, then it is no longer 1080p. It is as simple as this.
So in this instance, Guerilla's mp is not native as it's using a base frame of 960 x 1080p for it's reprojection process. A native 1080p game will also display crisp and clear on said monitor as opposed to shadowfall's mp, Shadowfall's SP is native 1080p, nobody questioned that or called it blurry. Shadowfall's sp and mp can't both be native as the process of getting the final image is vastly different.
I don't believe it was a good point to compare effects being rendered at a lower resolution to substantiate their technique on Sf's mp for the entire frame. We are talking about effects that may not always be present on screen as opposed to making the entire image blurry through a non-native process. A process which will introduce further blurriness to these effects, unwanted jaggies and artifacts.
Interview Quote said:
At this point we all know that what 1080p is, it is 1920 x 1080p, from the time you go manipulating how the final framestore is contructed by using lower resolution frames, then it is no longer 1080p. It is as simple as this.
So in this instance, Guerilla's mp is not native as it's using a base frame of 960 x 1080p for it's reprojection process. A native 1080p game will also display crisp and clear on said monitor as opposed to shadowfall's mp, Shadowfall's SP is native 1080p, nobody questioned that or called it blurry. Shadowfall's sp and mp can't both be native as the process of getting the final image is vastly different.
I don't believe it was a good point to compare effects being rendered at a lower resolution to substantiate their technique on Sf's mp for the entire frame. We are talking about effects that may not always be present on screen as opposed to making the entire image blurry through a non-native process. A process which will introduce further blurriness to these effects, unwanted jaggies and artifacts.