• 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.

PS2 games that support 1080i

Nos_G

Member
Jun 7, 2004
1,064
0
1,430
Schweet... as long as it is 1080i output, my tv wont' know the diff.

For anyone that knows, will the widescreen mode in Socom3 actually be widescreen or will it be a cropped widescreen like usual?
 

Moonwalker

Member
Mar 10, 2005
155
0
0
That would be 640x1080i. ;)
i guess his point was it's frame buffer is 540 lines and just using field rendering. It's a good hack when you think about it. But since you're using more lines you don't see the nasty jaggy steps like you did with field rendering with 240 lines.
 

Lazy8s

The ghost of Dreamcast past
Jun 7, 2004
1,897
2
0
What are the maximum resolutions supported by each console?

I think Dreamcast might be 1600x1200.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
Jun 10, 2004
59,895
2
0
Windsor, UK
but if you are using field rendering, and outputting 540 lines per 1/60 second, then that fits the description of 1080i. i.e. displaying a complete 1080 line image in 1/30 second.

I would guess the only difference is that each field making up the display will be different to give a 60fps update.
 

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
Jun 22, 2004
7,657
206
1,725
Moonwalker said:
It's a good hack when you think about it.
Well, it's the same kind of 'hack' interlaced TV broadcasts use :p

But since you're using more lines you don't see the nasty jaggy steps like you did with field rendering with 240 lines.
The interlace-stepping is reduced by blurring two fields together, which does work better when you have access to fullframe data, but HDTVs can do their own filters on interlace inputs fairly well.

Lazy8 said:
What are the maximum resolutions supported by each console?
1080i on PS2, 640x576 on GC, no idea on XBox (probably 1080).
DC I only know what libraries were limited to(480P), can't find exact HW spec for it :p
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Jun 9, 2004
51,620
2,113
2,035
www.eurogamer.net
Lazy8s said:
What are the maximum resolutions supported by each console?

I think Dreamcast might be 1600x1200.
I doubt it could possibly render at a decent speed while using a resolution that high.
 

Gattsu25

Banned
Jun 6, 2004
33,448
2
0
USA
blog.gattsu25.com
dark10x said:
I doubt it could possibly render at a decent speed while using a resolution that high.
Oh I most vehemently disagree. The Dreamcast could easily render any game in existence at 1600x1200 resolution without dropping below 60fps. You forget this, dark10x. Ignore. :b
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Jun 9, 2004
51,620
2,113
2,035
www.eurogamer.net
Gattsu25 said:
Oh I most vehemently disagree. The Dreamcast could easily render any game in existence at 1600x1200 resolution without dropping below 60fps. You forget this, dark10x. Ignore. :b
You're right. I forgot that the Dreamcast was actually more powerful than the next generation consoles currently on the horizon. It can run circles around the 360 and PS3...it's just that developers were never able to utilize it due to an early death.
 

Shogmaster

Member
Jun 11, 2004
16,437
1
0
Fafalada said:
That would be 640x1080i. ;)
Sure, it lets you display the game at 1080i, but the horizontal pixel count is missing by factor of 3!

Wanna bet? :p
Oh please...... Yeah, you can get 2D games running at 1920x1080. ;) Can you get your racing game to run at 1920x1080? :p

no idea on XBox (probably 1080).
I think there were a couple of 1080i "advanture" games (static background with 3D characters) on Xbox. I think Cyberia was one. I don't know if it was 1920x1080i, or Stretched out 640x1080i like GT4.
 

shpankey

not an idiot
Jun 6, 2004
10,640
90
1,655
Ok.
dark10x said:
You're right. I forgot that the Dreamcast was actually more powerful than the next generation consoles currently on the horizon. It can run circles around the 360 and PS3...it's just that developers were never able to utilize it due to an early death.
I thought b/c of the Dreamcast technology it wasn't bandwidth limited? Therefore wouldn't he be right? Resolution shouldn't affect it afaik. Well, memory wise, yeah... but bandwidth wise I mean.

P.S. I dunno why, but GT4's '1080i' is not very impressive at all. Not even remotely comparable to 1080i HDTV broadcasts quality, which on my TV is breathtaking.
 

Shogmaster

Member
Jun 11, 2004
16,437
1
0
shpankey said:
P.S. I dunno why, but GT4's '1080i' is not very impressive at all. Not even remotely comparable to 1080i HDTV broadcasts quality.
Because it's just 640x540 stretched out (horizontally repeating pixels 3X, vertically doubling via interlacing)?
 

pcostabel

Gold Member
Jun 9, 2004
1,396
61
1,655
56
Culver City, CA
shpankey said:
P.S. I dunno why, but GT4's '1080i' is not very impressive at all. Not even remotely comparable to 1080i HDTV broadcasts quality, which on my TV is breathtaking.
That has little to do with resolution: as already stated, GT4 is 640x1080i, which considering that most HDTV cannot resolve more than ~1000 horizontal lines, is pretty close to broadcast 1080i. The difference is the lack of antialiasing because of the field rendering.
 

KickyFast

Member
Jun 7, 2004
29
0
0
Gattsu25 said:
Oh I most vehemently disagree. The Dreamcast could easily render any game in existence at 1600x1200 resolution without dropping below 60fps. You forget this, dark10x. Ignore. :b
Dreamcast had a raw fillrate of 100 Mpixels/sec. So at 1600x1200 the max theoretical framerate the DC could run at is 100,000,000/(1600x1200) = 52 frames/sec.
 

seismologist

Banned
Jun 17, 2004
2,398
0
0
Of course broadcast HDTV is going to look better than a videogame.

When I play PC games at true 1080i, they look similar to GT4
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Jun 9, 2004
51,620
2,113
2,035
www.eurogamer.net
seismologist said:
Of course broadcast HDTV is going to look better than a videogame.

When I play PC games at true 1080i, they look similar to GT4
They shouldn't...

PC games at 720p or 1080i look VERY VERY clear and are far superior to GT4's image quality.
 

seismologist

Banned
Jun 17, 2004
2,398
0
0
dark10x said:
They shouldn't...

PC games at 720p or 1080i look VERY VERY clear and are far superior to GT4's image quality.
The image is more stable but this is more due to lack of filtering on the PS2's part. resolution looks about the same. It looks very close.
 

shpankey

not an idiot
Jun 6, 2004
10,640
90
1,655
Ok.
hell, PC games at 1024x768 looks a lot clearer to me than GT4's 1080i mode. let alone a HDTV resolution on a monitor.

Xbox games at 720p also look a lot better than GT4's 1080i. to me, something just isn't right about GT4's 1080i. to the point where even it's own 480p mode looks better in a way. again, i don't know why that is. but it is.

as an aside, GT4's bilinear filtering, especially apparent in 1080i, is horrible. bugs the fuck outta me.
 

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
Jun 22, 2004
7,657
206
1,725
ShogMaster said:
Yeah, you can get 2D games running at 1920x1080. ;)
Well just imagine the bliss of Namco releasing their museums remastered for 1080 :D

Can you get your racing game to run at 1920x1080? :p
Is running <5fps allowed? :D
In all fairness our game (and most other recent PS2 games) have too many pixel passes to run decently at 1080, even if you used 32MB version of GS.

I think there were a couple of 1080i "advanture" games (static background with 3D characters) on Xbox. I think Cyberia was one. I don't know if it was 1920x1080i, or Stretched out 640x1080i like GT4.
Well I'm certain proper 1080 can be displayed(nevermind running games for now), just dunno if that's the max resolution it can display or not.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Jun 9, 2004
51,620
2,113
2,035
www.eurogamer.net
seismologist said:
The image is more stable but this is more due to lack of filtering on the PS2's part. resolution looks about the same. It looks very close.
Man, I really don't agree. Half-Life 2 is absolutely breath taking at 720p. The clarity blew me away. There are very few traces of any sort of "stair stepping" on edges and the overall picture was just so vibrant and crisp. I much prefer playing PC games on my TV, actually (though, it's a problem if the games do not support 16:9).

The difference is rather massive. GT4's 1080i mode really does not look a whole lot sharper than 480p in some other games. XBOX 720p games also look much much clearer than GT4.
 

seismologist

Banned
Jun 17, 2004
2,398
0
0
The PC games I'm playing are much older than HL2 so maybe that's why it doesn't look much different.

HL2 in general blows away GT4 especially in texture quality so I'm sure that's part of the difference you're seeing.
 

DCX

DCX
Jun 8, 2004
23,599
1
1,705
41
Utica, NY
www.dcxgaf.com
dark10x said:
Man, I really don't agree. Half-Life 2 is absolutely breath taking at 720p. The clarity blew me away. There are very few traces of any sort of "stair stepping" on edges and the overall picture was just so vibrant and crisp. I much prefer playing PC games on my TV, actually (though, it's a problem if the games do not support 16:9).

The difference is rather massive. GT4's 1080i mode really does not look a whole lot sharper than 480p in some other games. XBOX 720p games also look much much clearer than GT4.
Yeah i play Hal-Life and Doom on my PC which is hooked up to my HDTV and the best i can do, resolution wise is 1024x768 but it looks smooth as butter. No 16:9 which is a bummer :(

DCX
 

Lazy8s

The ghost of Dreamcast past
Jun 7, 2004
1,897
2
0
Fafalada:
The interlace-stepping is reduced by blurring two fields together, which does work better when you have access to fullframe data, but HDTVs can do their own filters on interlace inputs fairly well.
The difference between native and field rendered is still quite noticeable, though, even on good HDTVs.

dark10x:
I doubt it could possibly render at a decent speed while using a resolution that high.
Higher resolutions can be useful for supersampling, yet outputting that high would require other areas of the graphics to still be scaled accordingly, of course. The situation is like using a PC graphics card at maximum resolution: framerates drop, and it's mostly useful for getting more out of running the older games.

As mentioned, DC's visible pixel draw rate per frame at 60-hz is 1,666,666 versus the 1,920,000 that 1600x1200 would require, so 52 fps would be tops on a monitor with the target on a TV being 30 fps. The hallmarks of contemporary console graphics like perspective correction and bilinear filtering which help to distinguish current generation graphics from last generation are fillrate free and would still be in effect, so high resolution games on any of the consoles would have to be simplified but would still resemble modern image quality.
You're right. I forgot that the Dreamcast was actually more powerful than the next generation consoles currently on the horizon. It can run circles around the 360 and PS3...it's just that developers were never able to utilize it due to an early death.
Recognition of the DC's hardware is not given to imply that it has some limitless power. Its design gets attention for the capabilities it could perform per die area, power consumption, heat, process size, release date, etc. The DC had to define a new generation on a low price point only two years after the N64 while even the earliest system next generation gets four years after Xbox and a high price tag to do it.

Shogmaster:
I think there were a couple of 1080i "advanture" games (static background with 3D characters) on Xbox.
The Xbox also ran a full 3D cel-shaded game with simple graphics, Dragons Lair, at 1080i.

shpankey:
I thought b/c of the Dreamcast technology it wasn't bandwidth limited? Therefore wouldn't he be right? Resolution shouldn't affect it afaik. Well, memory wise, yeah... but bandwidth wise I mean.
Right, bandwidth wouldn't be the limiting factor, and the memory space limit, which wouldn't take any extra space at all for just supersampling with a tile accelerated display list renderer, could be avoided to some extent while raising resolution by trading off image quality and room for textures. The DC's 100M-pix/sec actual fillrate would eventually be hit.
 

PanopticBlue

Member
Jun 7, 2004
987
0
1,425
The other HD games on Xbox are

Enter the Matrix
Mx Unleashed
Mx vs ATV

Enter the Matrix is similar to GT4 in that the 1080i mode sinmply doesn't look much better than 480p if at all. The two Mx games however look pretty clean, nice and high res though the graphics in those games are pretty average.
 

Taibhse

Member
Mar 5, 2005
131
0
0
Yeah man seriously, Like I loaded up GT4 the otherday and after that I threw my computer and it's X850 card out the window.

Your attempt at trolling is nice, but I think we need to intervene. In order to save you much pain later in life, I demand you go see an ophthalmologist. If everything checks out medically then It's a trip to Lenscrafters for you., you'll thank me.
 
Feb 17, 2005
7,842
137
1,570
shpankey said:
hell, PC games at 1024x768 looks a lot clearer to me than GT4's 1080i mode. let alone a HDTV resolution on a monitor.
You need a new TV, PS2, or have the set re-calibrated if that is the case. (Are you sure Velocity Scan Modulation is turned off from within the service menu?) Becuase games in 480i on a TV look cleaner than 1024x768 from a PC monitor, unless you have FSAA turned on.

You are using the true 1080i setting and not the High Scan upconversion right?

You also need to make sure each setting is calibrated to your PS2's DVD player and not to the ISF technician's.

"In an interesting exercise, we played Charlotte Gray from the new V Bravo D1 scalable DVD deck and compared the DVI input at 1080i with a component-video input at 480p. The two needed completely separate calibrations, and the DVI picture did seem just a tad cleaner. Black reproduction and grayscales were similar, but color and tint levels differed significantly." -Gamespot-

http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-1368-x-10-11-x

GT4 should look much better in 1080i(691200 pixels?) than in 480p(307200 pixels). If it doesn't you should get your set recalibrated or possibly pick up a PS2 with a better motherboard or output display unit. Preferably a version 7-10.

Xbox games won't matter much since the conexant decoder chip upconverts everything before it is sent to the TV. Newer models with Focus or Xcalibur chips can do true 1080 though. ->>> Xbox
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Jun 9, 2004
51,620
2,113
2,035
www.eurogamer.net
Becuase games in 480i on a TV look cleaner than 1024x768 from a PC monitor
Err, no. That's most certainly not true.

How on earth can a lower resolution, scaled signal blown up to a larger size look better than a fully progressive, higher resolution?