-
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.
Res Analysis Thread
- Thread starter MazingerDUDE
- Start date
MazingerDUDE
Member
Twig said:
There're people who care about couple of dead pixels on their handheld device.
When you spend thousands of $$$ on HD TV, it's obvious that you don't want to spend same money on a TV with say 10% less pixels.
Unlike the PC gamers who change their res setting depending on what game they play, console gamers are accustomed to the standard 720P running res, which could make them especially more sensitive to sub HD image. And I devote this thread for them. How about you go mind on your own business?
.
.
.
Windom Earle
Member
Twig said:
Well, duh.Y2Kev said:
But I also compared both side by side (maybe not as in depth as Mazinger does, just limited to both units connected to same brand TVs; next to each other), which is only how I noticed some of the loss. (excluding the movies which were the thing that suffered the most in the process).
All I'm saying is that is not like the 360 version looked really blurry and low res upscaled to 1080p (which is the idea some seem to get, or how some say it looks blurry based on what they remember), again maybe because of the text and icons looking sharp, since if the text was also at a low res it may have looked blurry when upscaled (since it seems it was the only thing that managed to make it intact to the 360).
Like how some people have the tendency to take a native picture of a game (1280 x 720), resize it to the "low res" (1024 x 576), then resize it to the "high res"(back to 1280 x 720), to "give an idea about how it may look on your TV". A few did with FFXIII back then, but it doesn't work like that. Also forgetting (or not knowing) that the text/menu/HUD/etc. were actually 720p, like the PS3 version; which is why I said that maybe because of that the game is not as easy to notice the lower-res, unlike some others when the HUD is also at a low res.
Haunted
Member
Holy shit @ the resolution for Kane and Lynch 2.
I fucking hated the IQ in the demo I played, but chalked it up to IO going overboard with the post-processing filters to achieve that strange reality-TV/digicam look with the visible video artifacts and shit. Looks like the sub-HD resolution does its part to make the game look as bad as it does.
I fucking hated the IQ in the demo I played, but chalked it up to IO going overboard with the post-processing filters to achieve that strange reality-TV/digicam look with the visible video artifacts and shit. Looks like the sub-HD resolution does its part to make the game look as bad as it does.
Doubt it. The majority are 720p. While there are some above that, there are more (I suspect many more) that are below.danwarb said:
Well, it'll get interesting if we include PSN and Live games, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intent of the original statement.DonMigs85 said:
MazingerDUDE
Member
miladesn said:
The most intriguing. Where did you get this?
I usually don't take requests, since there're just too many clueless people asking with off screen shots, bullshots etc, after all I do pixel counting for fun, and I'm just sharing my findings here at gaf.
4:5 pixel ratio for the horizontal lines which sums up to 1024 x 720 running res with no AA.
I suspect this is the PS3 version, is that right? (RSX has broken scaler, however it's still capable of horizontal scaling with no cost.)
.
.
.
These are from PlatinumGames blog, straight from Mikami himself! No clue which version it is.MazingerDUDE said:
http://platinumgames.com/2010/07/29/a-different-kind-of-game/
Man, that Kane&Lynch resolution is... astonishing.
Just for reference, PAL SDTV has 625 lines per frame, of which 576 are visible (at 500 to 720 pixels per line, depending on source and aspect ratio).
That's just all kinds of sad.
Just for reference, PAL SDTV has 625 lines per frame, of which 576 are visible (at 500 to 720 pixels per line, depending on source and aspect ratio).
That's just all kinds of sad.
MazingerDUDE
Member
CTLance said:
Don't forget that Kane & Lynch 2 runs at 60hz just like the COD games running sub HD (600P) at 60.
.
.
MazingerDUDE
Member
OK, here's more formal version of res analysis on Vanquish.
At this point, it is not know which version this is.
.
.
.
At this point, it is not know which version this is.
.
.
.
manzo
Member
Very interesting regarding Bamco's games. Hokuto no Ken had a higher resolution on PS3 and same with Naruto UNS 2.
We now know for sure which platform is the lead for Bamco these days.
Edit: Thanks for the comparisons MazingerDUDE. I'm really interested in the resolution comparisons as a multiplat owner.
We now know for sure which platform is the lead for Bamco these days.
Edit: Thanks for the comparisons MazingerDUDE. I'm really interested in the resolution comparisons as a multiplat owner.
MazingerDUDE
Member
manzo said:Very interesting regarding Bamco's games. Hokuto no Ken had a higher resolution on PS3 and same with Naruto UNS 2.
We now know for sure which platform is the lead for Bamco these days.
Actually, Hokuto Musou runs at the same 720P res with no AA on both systems and is a Koei game (dynasty warriors!), however, there's added blur filter on the 360 version which degrades its overall image clarity. My guess is that, since the game has so much prerecorded videos (with crystal clear IQ at whopping 60hz!!), the 360 version had to get its video data compressed a lot more (and is 30hz only) due to the DVD space limit resulting a blurrier IQ, and I think they just made the game blurrier by adding blur filter to match the video quality.
.
.
.
MazingerDUDE
Member
manzo said:Ooh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the insight! I was prepared to get the PS3 version when it comes out here, but now I can play with my preferred controller.
Hukuto Musou is an excellent game with surprisingly good visuals you can easily spend over 100 hours with! If you're a fan of the comic book, it will bring back all the memories and there're added insights to the characters which make the game all the more interesting! I'd surely recommend it to any action game fans out there. (I am a hardcore action game fan myself playing MNM on Ninja Gaiden, and beat the GOW series in the highest difficulty setting
).
.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Can I request some analysis on Metro 2033 on the 360 please ?
Nuclear Muffin
Banned
Just in case some people here haven't read it, this is the original Beyond 3D thread which lists resolutions for a large number of PS3/360 games (this is where the pixel counters started from!)
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241
Oh and I had a feeling that Vanquish was sub HD the moment I saw that screenshot (terrible image quality)
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241
Oh and I had a feeling that Vanquish was sub HD the moment I saw that screenshot (terrible image quality)
brain_stew
Member
fernoca said:
Actually, its precisely like that. I've tried a bunch of ~576p 360 games and they all look like a blurry mess. We're talking damn near halving the resolution here, of course the results are going to be completely shitty.
Edit: Those are some nasty looking Vanquish shots, ouch.
Windom Earle
Member
fernoca said:
Isn't this ALWAYS the case with sub hud games?
Sub HD only becomes a bigger problem when we approach Alan Wake territory resolutions. That game is borderline hideous during daytime.
ULTROS!
People seem to like me because I am polite and I am rarely late. I like to eat ice cream and I really enjoy a nice pair of slacks.
miladesn said:
I got it from here though: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241
Alan Wake = 960x540 (4xAA)
Forbidden Siren = 1024x512 (4xAA)
Star Ocean 4: The Last Hope PS3 = 1024x720 (2xAA, in field), ~930x512 (2xAA, in battle)
Star Ocean 4: The Last Hope 360 = 1248x702 (2xAA + edge blur/DOF, in field), ~936x512 (no AA, in battle)
WickedLaharl
Member
i don't think anything has topped star ocean 4 although alan wake came close :lol
anyways thanks for the thread and your work.
UNS2 has online, doesn't it?
anyways thanks for the thread and your work.
UNS2 has online, doesn't it?
For what it's worth, seeing all these console games in low resolutions doesn't really bother me. If anything, I'm usually glad in the cases where the lower resolutions help the framerate. There are definitely some games that run in a lower res in the name of effects over IQ that fail to pull it off, though.
I didn't even notice Kane and Lynch 2 was sub-hd. I was impressed at the frame-rate and thought it looked really good. I wish every game could have GOW3's image quality, but I prefer to keep things realistic. I also prefer to keep my gaming TV at 32 inches and less than 1080p for this generation. A smaller screen with less scaling gives me good enough results.
rollingstart
Banned
I really don't mind low resolution if it really is the only way the developer could hit an acceptable frame rate. In a lot of cases it is just reaching a stable 30fps, but some games like Kane and Lynch 2 or MW2 go for 60fps. I know it is bad to say in a thread about pixel counting, but I do wish that a smooth frame rate was more the goal for a lot of developers. Even if they don't hit it, just hearing that sucker punch is aiming for 60fps in Infamous 2 is very nice.
also, I do like tech analysis of console games. You regularly see people talk about what next generation will bring or dumb crap like "art > graphics". How much this tech stuff affects your enjoyment of games is subjective but at least it shows how limiting the hardware is with all these compromises made in resolution and whatnot; just playing a multiplatform game on PC vs consoles shows how much resolution and a solid frame rate can help. The worst/best is that even with more powerful hardware, games probably still won't hit optimal performance because effort would be put on making the games look as pretty as possible until they get caught with their pants down.
also, I do like tech analysis of console games. You regularly see people talk about what next generation will bring or dumb crap like "art > graphics". How much this tech stuff affects your enjoyment of games is subjective but at least it shows how limiting the hardware is with all these compromises made in resolution and whatnot; just playing a multiplatform game on PC vs consoles shows how much resolution and a solid frame rate can help. The worst/best is that even with more powerful hardware, games probably still won't hit optimal performance because effort would be put on making the games look as pretty as possible until they get caught with their pants down.