- 3,131
- GTP_GTPrologue5
- None
I play 1080p on a small widescreen (maybe like 20in.) and it's very crisp and clear, wouldn't complain about the clarity and reading text is superb. I do admit, Prologue looked better.
720p VS 1080p
- Thread starter chrisorris24
- 132 comments
- 21,023 views
- 2,913
- UK
- phil_75
- 1,833
- United Kingdom
- WarriusZero
My TV is a 720p but accepts a 1080p input .
I feel I get a better picture by setting the PS3 to 1080p as it seems the TV makes an additional anti aliasing.
Am I just wrong?
I feel I get a better picture by setting the PS3 to 1080p as it seems the TV makes an additional anti aliasing.
Am I just wrong?
- 1,473
- Teddy_Bear-420
when you set display on auto does it apply 1080p? then your fine. dont force you ps3/tv to do 1080p by setting it in custom.
Ok to end the speculation I tried it today, 720p on my 1080p TV, the results are horrible, the game looks like a PS2 version, just general low resolution pixelated graphics, everything looks bad. To me it doesn't play any more smoothly or better FPS at all. It completely spoils the game and now i'm glad PD made GT5 in 1080p. Images posted on these forums comparing the 2 modes in no way represent the difference, 1080p is in a different league compared to 720p. Nothing is sharper or better looking in 720p.
Disgusting.
Disgusting.
- 2,110
- Russia
- 878
- California
- Lux_Klonoa
- Lux Klonoa
Heh!They've replaced 2xAA to 2xQAA which is faster but blurs the image. Also some textures are replaced to lower quality. Obliviously there not enough RAM on console, or someone just need to finally forget about the FullHD on current gen...
To say - GTHD looks even sharper than Prologue. And runs at higher resolution (1440x1080p). GTHD also have real wheel-spin and it looks stunning in replays no matter that it's "small thing".
Meh, I don't really like the QAA at all, if that's what's really causing the blurriness. I'd rather have the 2xAA or no AA at all. I can live with the jaggies so as long as it looks as sharp as Prologue.
Or maybe my monitor just sucks in comparison to the supposedly "extremely sharp" HDTVs some of you guys have. *shrug*
And I don't have GTHD, so I wouldn't know about that. =/
- 462
On Samsungs hdtvs, and many other big brands, the real 720p native resolution of the tv itself is 1360x768, even on 720p-only sets. Doesn't matter how much the game is supposed to look in 720p, the 1080p will be much crisper and clearer if your tv has a suggested 1360x768 resolution for 720p. In 1280x720 the picture is a lot darker and blurrier than 1360x768, consoles should have an option to output 720p in 768p since hdtvs have a very cheap upscaling hardware and shouldn't be involved in scaling anything up.
Last edited:
- 2,110
- Russia
I have 42" LCD. Everything in 720p looks poor (in comparison).
- 1,214
dp... (didn't mean to copy all of the images.)
P.S I agree HDTV itself can make a big difference.
P.S I agree HDTV itself can make a big difference.
Last edited:
- 1,214
Notice the 720p pictures are smaller than the 1080p ones where both images has the same number of horizontal pixels , thus making the 720p better than they would if they were the same size as 1080p ones.720p is best.
notice how sharp everthing is at 720p
If you look close you can tell you get a little more detail looking around the corners with the 1080p image than 720p. Since I'm often look down the road when driving more vertical lines of information is helpful.
- 2,605
- Newport
- NFSCARBON1
^ Look in the top right corner and something is wrong with the 720p screen where the total time is.
- 1,055
.
- 2,563
- Upstate NY
- BWX232
Like the other guy that said that, you are both wrong. Hz has more to do with motion of the image than overall picture quality, and only in certain circumstances. Pixel response time is important too, but only sometimes. [[edit- think about it- if your screen refreshes at 120hz and the game is ony running at 60 fps (60hz), then the TV is just refreshing the same image two times every 1/60th second. You gain nothing. I'd rather have a 60hz TV with faster pixel response..]] Don't listen to 16 year old Worst Buy employee- they generally don't know what they are talking about.
To OP-- Go with native resolution. You can fine tune jaggies on 1080p mode on your LCD HDTV by adjusting the "Sharpness" level when playing GT5.
For instance on my 1080p 52" Aquos I use "-4" because that happens to be the setting out of -10 to +10 that turns the sharpness "function" completely off on my particular revision Aquos. You will find what works best for your new HDTV. Experiment with it and it will become obvious what looks best. It will also change depending on how far you sit away from your TV (and how good your eyesight is)...
Last edited:
The comparison images are wrong because they are different sizes. The 1080p and 720p images should be the same area size but containing a different number of pixels. I can't believe people have even referenced them on the forum to suggest 720p is better.
It's the same argument as saying GT5 looks better on a 20" 1080p TV rather than a 50" 1080p TV, of course the smaller image always looks better.
It's the same argument as saying GT5 looks better on a 20" 1080p TV rather than a 50" 1080p TV, of course the smaller image always looks better.
- 1,348
- ugabugaz
Let me just quote myself
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
Also, No LCD can come close to matching the quality of a Plasma set.
- 2,563
- Upstate NY
- BWX232
That is debatable and subjective. This probably isn't the place for it, but there are pluses and minuses of both and technology is marching along at an incredible pace- therefore your blanket statement is absolutely wrong. Just think about a plasma from 8 years ago compared to the best and latest LED LCD or whatever.. boom, you're statement is wrong right there. There are many different ways of measuring "quality".
edit:
You are correct- I don't think you do know what we are talking about exactly. Just because one TV looks "better" than another, it doesn't mean that the only reason why is because one is 60hz and one is 120hz. In fact it could be absolutely everything BUT the refresh rate. Actually it probably had more to do with the resolution than the refresh rate.
Last edited:
- 535
- New York
- Metfanant
- Metfanant
correct...because that is what the PS3 is capable of ourputting...
if you have a 120hz TV (real 120hz that is, not just double 60hz)...then this is what happens when you play GT5 @ 60hz...
the numbers represent frames of video
instead of
1--2--3--4--5
you get
1--1--2--2--3--3--4--4--5--5
since the screen refreshes twice as fast you see each frame twice..
You can't!
120/240/480 Hz is completely artificial. Real refresh rate of those TV's is 50/60Hz (except for 3D - 120Hz), but what they really do for you is add input lag. It's all PR crap. (at least for gamers)
not completely true...there are plenty of REAL 120hz TV's out there...what you have to be careful of is frame interpolation techniques (Samsung calls it AMP)...where instead of displaying
1--1--2--2--3--3--4--4--5--5
it tries to create its own frames instead of using repeated frames...THIS introduces lots of input lag...and when watching TV you may see what is called the "soap opera effect" where everything SEEMS just a slight bit faster than it should be...even though its not...
it also creates a real funky almost 3d effect some times when watching TV that some people love and some hate...
Heh!They've replaced 2xAA to 2xQAA which is faster but blurs the image. Also some textures are replaced to lower quality. Obliviously there not enough RAM on console, or someone just need to finally forget about the FullHD on current gen...
To say - GTHD looks even sharper than Prologue. And runs at higher resolution (1440x1080p). GTHD also have real wheel-spin and it looks stunning in replays no matter that it's "small thing".
bingo...QAA is one of the big problems here...QAA does a great job of smoothing edges...but it also blurs the ENTIRE image...
this is a side effect of the long development cycle...the use of MLAA became popular towards the end of GT5's development...much to late to implement it...
no no no...def not...hz is important...but not that important
this is way too much of a blanket statement...and both LCD and Plasma have pros and cons...
that sounds like you're seeing an upgrade mostly because its just a plain better TV...not much to do with the refresh rate...
outside of computers...there are no viewing sources that go higher than 60hz...shoot blu-ray movies SHOULD be played at 24hz because they are filmed at 24 frames per second...
- 1,348
- ugabugaz
Oh? Well, let me just put this out.
Advantages of LCD:
-Lower power consumption
-Better in bright light
Advantages of Plasma:
-Instant response time <--- No ghosting
-Miles better contrast ratio <---Picture Quality, Ding ding ding!
-Generally cheaper
There is a reason why the Pioneer Kuro series of TVs (Discontinued a few years back), are still the best looking TVs, period.
None of the above is debatable, it's fact (Except the price factor). Go to any reputable professional source and you'll see...
About the Hertz marketing BS, That's what it is really....120Hz is a way for LCD's to compensate for their slow response time and try to combat ghosting or lag.
- 2,913
- UK
- phil_75
- 535
- New York
- Metfanant
- Metfanant
you're still making too much of a blanket statement...and its not necessarily CONTRAST RATIOS that are higher on Plasmas...its BLACK LEVELS...the problem with Plasmas in this regard is that they tend to have very warm white levels...meaning their white colors can tend to look yellowish...of course the opposite is often true about LCD...and that their whites are too cool...and tend to look blueish...
The Kuro is probably still the best TV you can have...but a very good local dimming LED LCD set can offer NEARLY the same black level and better bright light performance...
120hz is NOT just a gimmick...in the sense that it makes things smoother...mostly yes...but they do offer something that youre completely glossing over and that is native 24p support...Movies are filmed at 24fps...and therefore should be displayed at such...a TV running at 120hz or 240hz does not have to perform a 3:2 pulldown of the 24fps material and can display it natively...this is a BIG DEAL and not just a marketing gimmick...older 60hz sets CANNOT do this because obviously 24 does not divide into 60 evenly...
- 1,348
- ugabugaz
I was talking exactly about Contrast Ratios, more specifically NATIVE Contrast ratios, not dynamic ones. No LCD, not matter how gimmicky, can match a Plasma in this regard. Please, show me one, I'd love to see it. LED backlit LCDs while very good are nowhere near Plasmas.
Does 96 Hz ring a bell? Most Plasmas have this option thereby avoid the 3:2 pulldown. (Edit: Forgot to mention, older Plasmas also used 48 Hz)
About colors, Yes that's well know. It's why LCDs tend to look more digital and cooler, while Plasmas warmer and more life-like. Really this one is a matter of personal preference.
Last edited:
