GT7 in 4K?
- Thread starter yanfloist
- 315 comments
- 26,969 views
- 3,384
- Las Vegas
- dawko-san
- 8,712
Do you mean the game, no matter what video mode you selected, rendered at 1080i?
Only, the video doesn't show that, because, despite its being in 480p, the higher-resolution source is evident in the 1080i footage - this is primarily by way of less aliasing, be it in textures, polygon boundaries or shader effects.
Interlacing is a really strong potential candidate for 4k on a console.
- 2,130
- Porto
- JPSILVA1893
it always looked a bit more sharper to me , it wasn't a huge difference , yeah , but you can still notice.
- 1,079
- Norway
As I understand it, GT4's 1080i is simply the game rendered in 480p, stretched to 540p, then pixel-doubled and interlaced to 1080i.
I think it was done simply because early HDTVs didn't always display low-res content correctly, so if you had a TV that was giving you problems, you could try the 1080i mode to send a signal that the TV would be certain to interpret correctly.
1080p is 2.25x as many pixels per frame as 720p. Going by that, if the PS2 was able to render a true 1080i image, it should also have been able to render 720p (less visual information than 1080i), but it is not.
1080i mode shouldn't have any additional details in any given frame compared 480p. Although it could be displayed differently due to the various stretching and scaling applied to it, if you can't see a certain detail in 480p, you won't see it in 1080i.
In the video comparing the two modes, I don't see more details in the 1080i feed, but edges seem softer and thin lines smoother, but this could just be a result of 60 interlaced frames being blended to 30 progressive frames when the game is captured and uploaded to youtube.
But of course, I could be wrong.
Also, the special cables required for 1080i aren't really all that special. Component RGB cables is something anyone who cared about graphical quality should have for their PS2s
. They really do make a huge difference compare to composite cables, no matter what the resolution. The image is a lot sharper, and color bleeding is completely eliminated.
edit: then there also is the question of how big an image could actually fit in the 4 MB of VRAM the PS2 has. 1280x720 pixels with 16 bits per pixel already takes up 1.8 MB of VRAM, and this slightly is less data than what is required for a true 1080i frame. This essentially leaves the PS2 with a measly 2 MB VRAM where you need to fit all the textures and 3D models and other graphical effects.
Unless I am understanding all this resolution and bit depth stuff completely wrong.
I think it was done simply because early HDTVs didn't always display low-res content correctly, so if you had a TV that was giving you problems, you could try the 1080i mode to send a signal that the TV would be certain to interpret correctly.
1080p is 2.25x as many pixels per frame as 720p. Going by that, if the PS2 was able to render a true 1080i image, it should also have been able to render 720p (less visual information than 1080i), but it is not.
1080i mode shouldn't have any additional details in any given frame compared 480p. Although it could be displayed differently due to the various stretching and scaling applied to it, if you can't see a certain detail in 480p, you won't see it in 1080i.
In the video comparing the two modes, I don't see more details in the 1080i feed, but edges seem softer and thin lines smoother, but this could just be a result of 60 interlaced frames being blended to 30 progressive frames when the game is captured and uploaded to youtube.
But of course, I could be wrong.
Also, the special cables required for 1080i aren't really all that special. Component RGB cables is something anyone who cared about graphical quality should have for their PS2s
. They really do make a huge difference compare to composite cables, no matter what the resolution. The image is a lot sharper, and color bleeding is completely eliminated.edit: then there also is the question of how big an image could actually fit in the 4 MB of VRAM the PS2 has. 1280x720 pixels with 16 bits per pixel already takes up 1.8 MB of VRAM, and this slightly is less data than what is required for a true 1080i frame. This essentially leaves the PS2 with a measly 2 MB VRAM where you need to fit all the textures and 3D models and other graphical effects.
Unless I am understanding all this resolution and bit depth stuff completely wrong.
Last edited:
- 2,130
- Porto
- JPSILVA1893
There are rumors about it yeah , but think about it , PD will probably target 1080p 60fps with really good visuals , if the resolution is increased to 4K , the framerate might take a hit , maybe even some of the graphics.
Look at GT6 , it has a bigger resolution in comparison to GT5 but it has a bit worse framerate (it does look better tho).
Of course i could be wrong and they manage to do it since they did 1080i with the PS2 . I hope i'm wrong and we get GT7 in 4K but i doubt it a bit.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 2,130
- Porto
- JPSILVA1893
I wouldn't be out looking for 4k tvs at this point
1080p is more than enough for me anyways .
- 2,121
- Chicago
- mustang622006
One of the most noted and awarded cinematographers alive shoots his award winning IMAX productions, shown on 90 foot screens, at 2k resolution. I don't care if you have a 10 foot screen and a 30 foot viewing distance at home (which is unlikely) you do not need 4k 
A couple years ago at a trade show Sony decided to show off their top-o-the line 80inch uhd display. They invited a couple dozen professional cinematographers to view it next to a same size full hd screen. Not a single one of them could tell the difference. Needless to say, this little stunt wasn't very highly publicized...it wouldn't have done much to sell those fancy new $6000 (at the time) big screens
A couple years ago at a trade show Sony decided to show off their top-o-the line 80inch uhd display. They invited a couple dozen professional cinematographers to view it next to a same size full hd screen. Not a single one of them could tell the difference. Needless to say, this little stunt wasn't very highly publicized...it wouldn't have done much to sell those fancy new $6000 (at the time) big screens
- 1,079
- Norway
GT5 actually looks much better in 720p than GT6 does. In GT5, playing in 720p mode would give you 4x antialiasing rather than the 2x AA in 1080p mode. GT6 however, uses a different antialiasing method that looks really bad in lower res.
I'm noticing this a lot now that I run my PS3 in 720p mode constantly, because i have it hooked up to a capture card over component RGB cables. With this setup, I think GT5 looks consistently better than GT6, although when I run them in 1080p over hdmi, I think GT6 comes out slightly ahead.
- 8,712
Sticking with the PS2 briefly, because it's an interesting point of comparison. 1080i 60 Hz is 3 times the number of pixels that 480p 60Hz has, for a given aspect ratio. In reality, it's more due to the different aspect ratio. It might be interesting to note that the PS2 can actually do 1080p output...
Regardless of whether the game is rendered at one resolution, and then scaled up, or whether it's rendered directly, you still need the larger frame buffer to store the pixels before you send them to the screen. Bear in mind that process of transmitting pixels is serial.
Old school console devs used to do clever things with writing to the "screen" (buffer) just in front where it was being read from, and even wrapping the raster over the same buffer several times by spoofing memory addresses. You rarely needed the whole screen for anything back then, so it was rendered and sent out in parts. John Carmack was talking about this sort of thing for pushing more pixels into HMDs in certain situations; how the antiquated notions of e.g. blanking intervals make no sense in an era of individually addressable, rapid response picture elements in our hardware.
On top of that, the PS2 had 32 Mb of main memory (RDRAM) that could be used for "off screen" buffers. That memory had a fast interface, and the video memory itself (DRAM) had a ridiculous pixel "fill rate". That meant they could in theory "draw" a large frame (upscaled or otherwise) in several parts, well within 16 ms.
The challenge on PS4 is one of scalability. Getting the pixel count where it needs to be by reducing per-pixel cost. That effectively means undersampling certain effects, like GT6's bloom buffer. If they can use screen buffer read / write tricks to give them more time to render a frame, that'll help. If they disable the double (triple?) frame buffering, that could minimise the memory impact.
There are definitely ways to do it. PD make their own engines, and don't use a lot of middleware, so they can code, from the metal up, any solution they wish.
Regardless of whether the game is rendered at one resolution, and then scaled up, or whether it's rendered directly, you still need the larger frame buffer to store the pixels before you send them to the screen. Bear in mind that process of transmitting pixels is serial.
Old school console devs used to do clever things with writing to the "screen" (buffer) just in front where it was being read from, and even wrapping the raster over the same buffer several times by spoofing memory addresses. You rarely needed the whole screen for anything back then, so it was rendered and sent out in parts. John Carmack was talking about this sort of thing for pushing more pixels into HMDs in certain situations; how the antiquated notions of e.g. blanking intervals make no sense in an era of individually addressable, rapid response picture elements in our hardware.
On top of that, the PS2 had 32 Mb of main memory (RDRAM) that could be used for "off screen" buffers. That memory had a fast interface, and the video memory itself (DRAM) had a ridiculous pixel "fill rate". That meant they could in theory "draw" a large frame (upscaled or otherwise) in several parts, well within 16 ms.
The challenge on PS4 is one of scalability. Getting the pixel count where it needs to be by reducing per-pixel cost. That effectively means undersampling certain effects, like GT6's bloom buffer. If they can use screen buffer read / write tricks to give them more time to render a frame, that'll help. If they disable the double (triple?) frame buffering, that could minimise the memory impact.
There are definitely ways to do it. PD make their own engines, and don't use a lot of middleware, so they can code, from the metal up, any solution they wish.
Quakebass
Premium
- 1,895
- Washington
- quakebass
Certainly not GT7. But (and I have said this before), I could see a 4K option, even if it's just a special/separate mode with limited features or displayed data in GT8 later in the PS4's lifespan - quite similar to how GT4 played out on the PS2, actually. It's very likely that the PS4 and XB1 will receive 4k capabilities (probably with a focus on movies) in the inevitable "slim" models.
There may be some glitchyness in the visuals of GT5 and 6, but I think sometimes people overlook the sheer witchcraft that PD are capable of pulling off with their software. They're running 16 ridiculously high-poly and high-res cars, dynamic time, dynamic weather, a huge amount of particle effects, and now with the 6th iteration they've worked in functioning adaptive tessellation and increased the horizontal resolution, and still manage (largely) 1080p@60fps, all on 8-ish year old hardware, and on uncomfortable architecture. Some PC games struggle with those resolutions on current hardware. And then, if some of you remember, PD ran a special version of GT5 in 4k harnessing only the power of a few PS3s, which still amounts to a fraction of the power of a PS4:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...o-of-sonys-gran-turismo-at-4k-resolution-demo
The developers at PD are evil geniuses, and I have little doubt that they could pull off 4k in GT somewhere in the PS4's lifespan. And, in fact, I have little doubt that they'll be able to outdo most of the opposition's onscreen visuals in terms of on-screen content, both in fidelity and quantity.
There may be some glitchyness in the visuals of GT5 and 6, but I think sometimes people overlook the sheer witchcraft that PD are capable of pulling off with their software. They're running 16 ridiculously high-poly and high-res cars, dynamic time, dynamic weather, a huge amount of particle effects, and now with the 6th iteration they've worked in functioning adaptive tessellation and increased the horizontal resolution, and still manage (largely) 1080p@60fps, all on 8-ish year old hardware, and on uncomfortable architecture. Some PC games struggle with those resolutions on current hardware. And then, if some of you remember, PD ran a special version of GT5 in 4k harnessing only the power of a few PS3s, which still amounts to a fraction of the power of a PS4:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...o-of-sonys-gran-turismo-at-4k-resolution-demo
The developers at PD are evil geniuses, and I have little doubt that they could pull off 4k in GT somewhere in the PS4's lifespan. And, in fact, I have little doubt that they'll be able to outdo most of the opposition's onscreen visuals in terms of on-screen content, both in fidelity and quantity.
- 6,911
- United Kingdom
Interestingly enough, went to buy a 4K Ultra HD TV shortly after your postI wouldn't be out looking for 4k tvs at this point
.
- 131
Great discussion! I just had to put this topic out, as UHD/4k is the future and once you've seen it in person, you don't want to go back to 1080p. It's almost as if you're looking through a window instead of a TV screen. As of now it's okay, 1080p@60Hz is a good starting point for PD, but I know that for future generations, things will change. And knowing that PD has already experimented with 4K before, they are interested in implementing it in the future.
- 974
- GOTHEBURG
Nice,Interestingly enough, went to buy a 4K Ultra HD TV shortly after your post
i work in the business and know that soon (like 2015) you will have difficulty finding tv without 4k.
So like it or not you gonna get it. Sure 1080p tvs will be around but 4k will be in majority.
And i know i had some discussion about this in another thread some time ago, but i can se 4k on GT7 as photomode and replays and youtube upload.
- 6,911
- United Kingdom
Yep, that is what I thought will happen. TV is for my older brother, told him to wait a year and the price will come down and will support more 4K content and it turned out to be the case. HDMI 2.0 and HEVC decoding 👍.
I wouldn't be even surprised now if PD do 3840x2160 @ 60Hz gameplay. They should call it Hi-Fi Mode for nostalgia. They are probably itching to include something like that going by the PS3 tech demos they do.
- 974
- GOTHEBURG
Sure, 4k will need support with content now. If games start claiming some sort of 4k support then it will be another channel that consumers will listen to. It doesnt need to be coming soon either but just that it is coming and in the works is enough for salesmen/marketing to tell consumers its a must have if you plan to have the tv for couple of years ahead. And it works...especially if one of the biggest games says so too. But hopefully it wont be another coursemakerthing from PD if they will use 4k in marketing.
- 40,767
That, and the earlier GT5 Prologue one, are not directly comparable. In that case (and we know this based on how he described the screen tearing that it suffered from, and from how we know they did the earlier Prologue method), it was just the same kind of method that PD uses for multi-screen support but arranged differently and wired into one display. Each PS3 basically just ran GT5 in 1080p (with all of the benefits and drawbacks inherent), and they were synced to each make up one quarter of a 2160p image. The PS4 is considerably more powerful than 4 PS3s, but it is still limited when drawing an entire 4k image in ways that 4 PS3's working in tandem are not; and it's limited by the bandwidth that it can provide to the television in ways that 4 PS3s (especially 4 PS3s where we don't know exactly how they were connected to the display) are not. HDMI 1.4 tops out at 30fps, and I'm doubting Sony would be willing to fracture what will already be a very small market by redesigning the PS4 hardware in such a way when they are already 20 million sales deep now, nevermind when some GT game comes out in the future.
There may very well be some sort of tandem 4K solution if Sony or some other manufacturer makes a TV that supports splicing multiple synced image sources together (not owning a 4K TV, there may already be support for such a thing), but otherwise the most I see is a return of the multi-system-multi-screen output (only with adjustable placement) that the series has had since GT3 would be the only way we'll get 4k on the PS4.
It should also be pointed out that even that came with a performance hit. The color depth had to be lowered (though I can't remember if it was with regular Progressive Scan as well, I don't think it was) and the game starts suffering from image stuttering and screen judder more frequently than the occasional occurrences in the regular modes.
The "like it or not" mentality was also how TV manufacturers went about trying to force 3DTV sales 5 years ago. That time it turned out that the buying public had little concern for TV manufacturers' usually razor thin profit margins on regular HDTVs if it meant they had to pay quite a bit more for something they had no use for; and the gimmick value/bragging rights wasn't enough to outright replace 2DTVs like had been prophesied by all the television manufacturers.
Yeah, salesmen will wheel and deal and upsell things to people who wouldn't originally even consider, because that's what they are trained to do. 1080p sets still aren't going anywhere any time soon; and they will likewise remain the majority of what you can actively purchase long past December of this year.
Of course you wouldn't.
Last edited:
- 1,410
- London, UK
- Shirrako
4k would mean the game will not run in 60fps which is what PD is aiming for with the PS4, 1080p and 60fps just like previous GTs.
4k and 60fps is hard to achieve even on a very expensive PC so I don't think the PS4 is powerful enough to handle it with the current specs.
4k and 60fps is hard to achieve even on a very expensive PC so I don't think the PS4 is powerful enough to handle it with the current specs.
- 8,712
Exactly, HDMI 1.4 is the least of their issues. We should expect a reduction in framerate if PD do try it.
I'd still prefer a 120 Hz mode over a "4k" mode. That could be done by spoofing 3D frames at lower resolution. (Equivalent to actual stereoscopic rendering at 60 Hz at that resolution, purely in output terms).
Something for everyone.
I'd still prefer a 120 Hz mode over a "4k" mode. That could be done by spoofing 3D frames at lower resolution. (Equivalent to actual stereoscopic rendering at 60 Hz at that resolution, purely in output terms).
Something for everyone.
- 6,911
- United Kingdom
Where there's a will there's a way. There does seem a way to do this on one PS4 console and there does seem a will on PD's and Sony's part going by their tech demos.
Also do think 4K TVs will replace 1080p TVs quite quickly in terms of new TV sales. 1080p has been out for a while, I imagine it will become hard to sell 1080p TVs to people who already have them and given how low the resolution is on big screen TVs, don't see the point in keeping making them. Upscalers are really good on some of these 4K TVs so they should really phase 1080p out and get 4K TVs even cheaper.
They are already quite cheap, for a bit more than an inferior 1080p TV, you can get a decent 4K Ultra HD TV. I imagine it will soon become the case that it becomes a no-brainer for consumers looking to get a new TV. It might actually be already the case in some situations. At the shop I went to buy a 4K TV, either buy a generic brand TV with no Smart features for not much less, for similar money get a budget 1080p TV from a well known brand or get a 4K Ultra HD TV with more HDMI and USB slots, HEVC Decoding, HDMI 2.0 and really good reviews.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Aren't most 4K's 30Hz? No thanks. 👎
Similar threads
