1080p and GT5(p)

[kanariya]

Hi,

I know GT5(P) runs at native 1280x1080 resolution.
By the definition, it's 1080p.

I had a debate with Forza fans that they said GT5P isn't 1080p because it's not 1920x1080.

Now that I googled the 1080p definition, both wiki and about.com stated 1080p means 1080 lines are progressively scanned. 1920 pixels width was assumed because of the common 16:9 format.

I want to know what are you guys' view on this?


http://hometheater.about.com/od/hometheaterglossary/g/1080pdef.htm

Definition: 1080p represents 1,080 lines of resolution scanned sequentially. In other words, all lines are scanned in progressively, providing the most detailed high definition video image that is currently available to consumers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p

1080p is the shorthand name for a category of HDTV video modes. The number "1080" represents 1,080 lines of vertical resolution (1080 horizontal scan lines),[1] while the letter p stands for progressive scan (meaning the image is not interlaced). 1080p can be referred to as full HD or full high definition to differentiate it from other HDTV video modes.[2] The term usually assumes a widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9, implying a horizontal resolution of 1920 pixels. This creates a frame resolution of 1920×1080, or 2,073,600 pixels in total. The frame rate in hertz can be either implied by the context or specified after the letter p (or i), such as 1080p30, meaning 30 Hz.[3]

 

[PAPPACLART]

Yes that is true.

1x1080P is still 1080P

 

[kanariya]

yea that's what I thought...

 

[G.T.Ace]

Only really depressed people need to argue that something isnt right with GT5Ps graphics/engine.

 

[drivatar]

It may be 1080p by definition, but it feels like cheating. Maybe Forza3 takes the same route and gives us 960*1080.

 

[PAPPACLART]

Only really depressed people need to argue that something isnt right with GT5Ps graphics/engine.

Typical of a Forza forum. We do have some like that here, but in most instances I think GT planet members are a little more mature IMO.

 

[kanariya]

Does anyone know what's ITU's official definition on 1080p say?

 

[kanariya]

It may be 1080p by definition, but it feels like cheating. Maybe Forza3 takes the same route and gives us 960*1080.

But Forza 3 is 720p confirmed. With 1080p support.

 

[G.T.Ace]

EDIT: Too slow.
And GT5P runs in 1920x1080 after it got scaled through the hardware.

Typical of a Forza forum. We do have some like that here, but in most instances I think GT planet members are a little more mature IMO.

No, were just fanboys.

 

[kanariya]

EDIT: Too slow.
And GT5P runs in 1920x1080 after it got scaled through the hardware.


No, were just fanboys.

True it's 1920x1080 after it got scaled.
But their arguement was 1280x1080 is not native 1080p.

I'll agree with them if they said GT5P is not Full HD. But 1080p only means 1080 lines and progressively scanned.

 

[G.T.Ace]

I was a bit sarcastic with the scaling thing.
And your last sentence discribes it perfectly. 👍

 

[ultrataco]

Think of it this way: That's 691,200* pixels worth of Gran Turismo goodness we're missing out on!

I don't have a big problem with the resolution, but it's a little bit deceiving to just say 1080p when most people assume that means 1920x1080.

My biggest issue with GT5 is the almost non-existent anti-aliasing. I really hope it's fixed for GT5.


* (1920-1280)x1080 or (1920x1080)-(1280x1080)

 

[kanariya]

There is no clear resolution standard for 1080p other than the 1080 lines and progressive scan.
People assume 1080p to be 1920x1080 because of the common 16:9 we use right now.

There are HDTVs with 2560x1080 resolution which is 21:9. By definition it is also 1080p.

 

[TeggD]

My biggest issue with GT5 is the almost non-existent anti-aliasing. I really hope it's fixed for GT5.

720p has 4xAA. Its much better than other racers.

 

[ultrataco]

720p has 4xAA. Its much better than other racers.

Maybe better than other console racers.
On my monitor (yes monitor, not tv) at 1080p, it looks like there's glitter everywhere. It's especially bad at the main menu. Part of that may be the 1280. If they could get 4x at 1080, that would be better.

I guess I'm spoiled from playing computer games at 1920x1080 with 4x or 8x AA.

While we're on the subject of displays (sort of), where's my 120hz monitor? Most TVs are 120hz now, why not monitors?

 

[kanariya]

After some research on the internet.

The general public defines 1080p as 1920x1080, which is a little off from the wiki's definition (not the most creditable source).

I'm confused.

 

[Tenacious D]

My biggest issue with GT5 is the almost non-existent anti-aliasing. I really hope it's fixed for GT5.

When you apply AA at the native resolution (1080), all you're doing is blurring the image, which in essence is reducing the resolution. I hope we can decide whether we want AA or not, since I have a 1080p Bravia..

 

[ultrataco]

When you apply AA at the native resolution (1080), all you're doing is blurring the image, which in essence is reducing the resolution. I hope we can decide whether we want AA or not, since I have a 1080p Bravia..

Blurring, yes. Reducing the resolution? Where'd you get that idea? You must not do much PC gaming. The point of AA is to reduce jagged edges. It's actually more like increasing the resolution, which is why you want more AA at lower resolutions. The higher the resolution, the less AA you need.

even at 8x, you can still some aliasing.

Aliasing is most visible on edges and diagonal lines, and even more apparent in motion. Just look closely at any car in GT5 at the main menu. If GT5P has AA at all, it's no more than 2x.

Like framerate, some people are more picky about it than others. I'm really picky about it. GT5 (and all other console games) is possibly worse for me because I'm using a large (24") computer monitor 2 ft. away from my face rather than a TV 6-10 ft. away.

edit: official screen shots don't show it, but look at an actual capture: (cropped from this 1080p capture)

edit #2: Apologies to kanariya for taking the thread off topic.

 

[RedBaron]

Yep, AA and pixel teeth on the edges of the cars, in front grills and fences are really bad in GT5. I have FullHD 46" LCD from Samsung, pixel to pixel setting without any sharpening and still it's bad.

 

[andrewz]

Guys, forget all those PR fables about unlimited PS3 power. We have to realize that it's almost three years old hardware. In comparison with PC, it's only advantage is its uniform architecture (and price of course). PC is much far away from what PS3 can do. Three years mean a lot in IT industry. But realize another thing - console gaming is supposed to work best in a living room and in front of big TV screen. In this case, you're one or two meters from the actual picture and most of the graphics glitches just fade away. But the size of the picture is still the same.

I tried to do a little test also. I took a 1920x1080 still picture and changed it to 1280x1080 (bicubic interpolation). And then again to 1920x1080. The difference in terms of sharpness was actually very marginal. And now, I'm talking about LCD screen which is thirty centimeters from my eyes. Try to imagine the result on big TV screen, which is two or four times far longer. You just can't spot the difference. Let me prove it: native 1920x1080 vs. upscaled 1920x1080 (from 1280x1080). What is the result? Bravo, PD, you just saved a lot of computing power without sacrifice! On the other hand, please don't lie to us. All the blu-ray movies say its picture is 1080p and it means 1920x1080, not less. Just be clear and do not cheat on us.

When you use a picture with thin lines, the result is much worse, but as far as I know (watching all the pictures from GT5P), HUD is displayed without scaling.

Caps were taken from www.dvdbeaver.com.

 

[WolfRacer543]

Guys, forget all those PR fables about unlimited PS3 power. We have to realize that it's almost three years old hardware. In comparison with PC, it's only advantage is its uniform architecture (and price of course). PC is much far away from what PS3 can do. Three years mean a lot in IT industry. But realize another thing - console gaming is supposed to work best in a living room and in front of big TV screen. In this case, you're one or two meters from the actual picture and most of the graphics glitches just fade away. But the size of the picture is still the same.

I tried to do a little test also. I took a 1920x1080 still picture and changed it to 1280x1080 (bicubic interpolation). And then again to 1920x1080. The difference in terms of sharpness was actually very marginal. And now, I'm talking about LCD screen which is thirty centimeters from my eyes. Try to imagine the result on big TV screen, which is two or four times far longer. You just can't spot the difference. Let me prove it: native 1920x1080 vs. upscaled 1920x1080 (from 1280x1080). What is the result? Bravo, PD, you just saved a lot of computing power without sacrifice! On the other hand, please don't lie to us. All the blu-ray movies say its picture is 1080p and it means 1920x1080, not less. Just be clear and do not cheat on us.

When you use a picture with thin lines, the result is much worse, but as far as I know (watching all the pictures from GT5P), HUD is displayed without scaling.

Real life images are less susceptable to aliasing (jaggies) and also lack of sharpness so you wont notice the difference in unless you look really really close. This is because when the camera takes the picture in the first place, it gives you softer edges that aren't as susceptable to aliasing.

Games, however, which are artifically generated, by default have hard sharp edges on everything, which are very susceptable to aliasing and general lack of sharpness due to low resolution. Some games are less susceptable to it than others, Crysis with all its filters for SSAO, HDR and such tend to be less sensitive to resolution changes. I've shown people 720p images upscaled to 1680x1050 from crysis vs pure native 1680x1050 and you have to be close to the screen to notice the difference. This is because the above mentioned filters themselves make the screen muddier and less sharp, so its less sensitive to low res.

Most racing games, however, are very sensitive to aliasing and low resolution artifacts, because by nature you want very sharp and smooth lines on the cars, as well as painted lines on the track. Just look at the car ultrataco posted from live for speed, the aliasing is extremely noticable, and is far less noticable with higher resolutions.

Cars (both interior and exterior), painted lane markers, trackside gaurd rails... these things are things you notice when running low resolution, scaled images or aliased images. Pictures from a movie or camera are far less sensitive unless you sit extremely close to your TV.

 

[Zimmerd]

These posts are way too sophisticated for me.
I just have ONE question.

I now have a hd-ready tv 720p,
will gran turismo will look better on a full hd 1080p?

 

[DJMaky]

Yes. A bit, but yes. I also have a HD Ready TV......
I tried it on a Full HD and the picture (in GT 5) is better.

 

[sif]

These posts are way too sophisticated for me.
I just have ONE question.

I now have a hd-ready tv 720p,
will gran turismo will look better on a full hd 1080p?

Well if GT5 is anything to go by, 720p will have a more stable framerate, no screen tearing and 4x anti-aliasing as opposed to 2x that you get in 1080p mode. So the trade-offs for the extra 360 lines of resolution of 1080p are more jagged edges, less smooth motion and the odd frame where the top and bottom of the picture do not match up.

For me at least, the artefacts that 1080p introduces are not worth the gain in horizontal resolution on sub-50 inch TV at a normal viewing distance. The bigger your TV is and the closer you sit to it, the more detail you can view and increased resolution becomes more visible. This is why on TV's below 45 inches, at normal viewing distances, the increased resolution of 1080p is not very noiceable. Now, if I had a projector with a 100 inch screen then 1080p mode would seem a better bet for sure.

 

[TeggD]

Obviously on a decent 1080p the full mode is better as it resolves more detail and PQ is good anyway!

But yes 720p users are hardly that gimped either! Good stuff.

 

[G.T.Ace]

This is why on TV's below 45 inches, at normal viewing distances, the increased resolution of 1080p is not very noiceable.

This is SO wrong, i have a 24" SAMSUNG monitor and the difference between 1080p and 720p games is huge, everything in 1080p looks sharper, clearer, more natural, more "open" (better field of view) and so on, but we already have a thread about this in the GT5P board.

 

[Zimmerd]

Haha But you know, I'll buy a full hd anyway,
and I'll see what it brings!

 

[sif]

This is SO wrong, i have a 24" SAMSUNG monitor and the difference between 1080p and 720p games is huge, everything in 1080p looks sharper, clearer, more natural, more "open" (better field of view) and so on, but we already have a thread about this in the GT5P board.

Notice that I was referring to normal viewing distances, ie sitting on a couch 10 feet away from the screen. Now if you have a monitor, you are sitting much closer, so of course your eyes can resolve more detail.

http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/

The above link is pretty informative and is based on sound scientific principles, ie if a person has 20/20 vision their eyes can resolve 1/60th of a degree of an arc.

 

[Tenacious D]

Blurring, yes. Reducing the resolution? Where'd you get that idea? You must not do much PC gaming.

Not really, PC games for the most part are pretty meh. I buy a game every couple of years. However, I just did build a gaming PC with a GeForce 260 GTX, and it's pretty sweet. However, I don't like playing many games in HD resolution because they practically scream their PC-ness. Sometime I will have to grab a copy of Crysis, though it really doesn't interest me that much right now, all about the PS3 for the time being.

I agree with you that it would be great if the PS3 upsampled the game or it was higher than HD, and then downsampled it to 1920x1080 resolution, but it would hardly be noticeable.

Your example is flawed though. Notice the data:

Image dimensions: 1012px × 889px

Yes, I fully understand that applying AA to an image which is at a resolution below the native resolution of the display will always improve the quality. Now, do the same thing at 1920x1080. I've asked a few people to do this with an image at native HD resolution, and so far, no one has posted anything.

 

[WolfRacer543]

Image dimensions: 1012px × 889px

Yes, I fully understand that applying AA to an image which is at a resolution below the native resolution of the display will always improve the quality. Now, do the same thing at 1920x1080. I've asked a few people to do this with an image at native HD resolution, and so far, no one has posted anything.

Its because you dont need to display a 1920x1080 image to see it. The images posted earlier comparing no AA to 8x AA are perfectly representative, because the images aren't scaled, they display at 1 dot of the image for 1 pixel on your screen. If you went and took those images and displayed them full screen, then they'd be scaled and you'd be correct, they'd no longer be respresentative.

If your screen is 1920x1080, those images should take up 53% of the horizontal space on your screen and 83% of your vertical screen space. So if he did the same comparson with 1080p images, the "jaggies" would look exactly the same, as the dot pitch would be the same, its just there would be more of them because the image is larger.

Get what I mean? Basically even though his images are 1012x889, the size of each pixel in that image is the same as if he'd done the same test using 1080p, its just there are less pixels and the image is smaller.