Resolution of GT6: Is it still Full HD?
- Thread starter skingg
- 61 comments
- 12,092 views
- 273
- Italy
That's because 1080 is the native resolution of your tv, and it has to "rescale" in order to go 720. LCD screens always perform better at their native resolution. If you were facing two 32" screens, one native @1080 and the other @720, it would be VERY hard for you to notice any difference
Zer0
(Banned)
- 1,624
That would be ridiculous.
Native 1:1 pixel 720p on a 1080p tv:
Full screen 720p on a 1080p tv:
Sitting farther from the screen would be a better option (and healty) than sit very close to see the 1:1 pixels in a small screen portion.
Anyway I don't know if people are really doubt about the actual GT6 resolution but if anyone cares the E3 reports are the same as GT5 (1080p) but with an increased antialiasing (a cleaner picture). PD is not going to step backwards in that regards.
You notice the difference. It's the same difference as the one between native 1080p and 720p upscaled to 1080p. If this difference was not noticable, why bother with 1080p at all then?
To make myself clear: the first example in Zer0's post would have the same image quality as a 1080p native image (but smaller, obviously). The second one is the well known 720p upscaled to 1080p image quality (ie, noticable less fine than a native 1080p image)
That's not what I meant. Of course native 1080p looks better than 720p upscaled but you were talking about the difference between displaying 720p output with 1:1 pixel mapping on a 1080p TV and 720p mapped to fill a full 1080p display. As I say I'd be amazed if the top image looked better than the bottom one.
No, there was no misunderstanding on my part: the quality of the top image is exactly the same as a native 1080p image (ie, 1:1 pixel mapped). If you would take a native 1080p image and you'd paste black borders of paper over your screen, you get the exact same image (size and quality-wise) as the top image (ignoring the obvious fact that the visible area would be different).
Remember, 1080p and 720p just denote resolutions (1920*1080 and 1280*720), nothing more to it.
Last edited:
- 2,884
- Near Reading, Uk
- JohnSchoonsBeard
I personally think this argument is moot because I would be incredibly surprised if PD shot themselves in the foot by downgrading graphics. I have yet to see another game on PS3 that impresses me like gt5 has and that is partly down to the higher resolution. Most games I've played on the ps3 have been in 720 and I always feel like I'm downgrading to a worse system on the rare occasions I play something else other than GT5.
Granted, on a smaller screen the difference between 720 and 1080 lines isn't so noticeable. But we have a 40 inch TV which I sit about 5 feet from. Resolution makes a big difference to me. Of course if you could choose yourself the graphical emphasis of the game using options like you can on pc's but those sort of options aren't often in console games.
Is it possible to limit the resolution of your ps3 to 720p from the xmb? Edit: yes it is. By doing so does that improve gt5 for some people who don't care about 1080 res?
Granted, on a smaller screen the difference between 720 and 1080 lines isn't so noticeable. But we have a 40 inch TV which I sit about 5 feet from. Resolution makes a big difference to me. Of course if you could choose yourself the graphical emphasis of the game using options like you can on pc's but those sort of options aren't often in console games.
Is it possible to limit the resolution of your ps3 to 720p from the xmb? Edit: yes it is. By doing so does that improve gt5 for some people who don't care about 1080 res?
Last edited:
I agree that resolution is important, but for me, 60 fps is even more important.
Yes you can, but a 1080p tv will always upscale to 1080p.
It's a 1080p image with the middle of the image being a 720p image. The middle part of the screen has exactly the same pixel quality as a native 1080p image. You somehow seem to think that a 720p image is inherently less detailed as a 1080p image, while it's only smaller. It's upscaling of a 720p image to an output that is greater than 720p that makes it less detailed. The top image in Ze0's post does not upscale, and hence the 720p image is still 1:1 pixel mapped.
I really don't know how I can explain this in more detail to you.
Last edited:
If we're talking about images, yes, but I thought it was pretty obvious those were just illustrations of the point. A 720p video output is less detailed than a 1080p video, obviously, because it has less lines of resolution.
This all stems from the point you said that IF GT6 outputted in 720p you would like the option to display it with 1:1 pixel mapping and black bars as the top photo illustrates and I said I doubt you would see any ill effects of your TV stretching that to fill your 1080p display.
dr_slump
Premium
- 7,425
- Switzerland
- the_dr_slump / GTP_dr_slump
It actually does.
You surely can compensate the pixel density by sitting farther away, but then with increasing distance there are the usual optical losses which kinda blurs the vision slightly.
Also, because 1080 isn't that much higher in pixel count per axis (in total it certainly is more drastically), the picture starts to... let's say dynamically oscillate between certain, but still big amount of, pixels. Although I must note that the middle ground is estimated and not full pixels are moving around.
Even worse, upscaling is done by using interpolation algorithms. This can increase input lag on slow TVs, but I wouldn't say it's a valid enough for games such as Gran Turismo. The main disadvantage with interpolation is that the whole system is based on estimating the middle ground between known pixels. This can cause and does cause, just in different extents, artifacts which worsen the picture.
EDIT: Here's a good link: http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/upscaled-1080P-vs-4K
EDIT2: Often the bigger the screen, the worse are the effects.
Nah, my Samsung has an option not to upscale the source material and to display it 1:1.
Last edited:
dr_slump
Premium
- 7,425
- Switzerland
- the_dr_slump / GTP_dr_slump
Kinda
If you do so the game gets rendered in 720res instead of 1080, which actually would improve performance noticeably. The problem is that PD "wastes" that performance advantage by using relatively high amounts of anti-aliasing, namely 4x MSAA.
Yeah, although it's an option like I said.
Without changing settings it happily keeps upscaling the source.
- 2,884
- Near Reading, Uk
- JohnSchoonsBeard
I wish my Sony bravia didn't upscale automatically as I'd like to be able to play Gt3 and Gt4 on it with 1:1 pixel mapping as the upscaling understandably makes it look hideous even with a decent component cable. If anyone knows of a Sony Bravia tv option to do that please let me know.
- 3,005
- CA, USA
- Sum1s2pid
It doesn't have a Full Pixel mode when you press WIDE on your remote, or does that only work with HDMI and not with component cables?
- 11,912
- Marin County
30fps with v-sync (the worst thing about GT5, graphically, to me is screen tearing) and increased visual effect fidelity I think would be a great option. Games like bioshock have the option to lock the framerate at 30fps which allows more stable visuals. I don't know why PD can't give us the same option, then improve particle effects. If the rain had twice the resolution, it would be much more convincing I bet, especially running at 30fps when you brain isn't constantly going 'this is weird this is weird this is weird' like it does at 60fps. Ever watch a movie at 60fps? It's just wrong.
I expect zero people to agree with me.
I expect zero people to agree with me.
- 2,012
Vsync is not good for racing games, nor fast paced ones or that require precise, fast, responsive inputs.
- 2,884
- Near Reading, Uk
- JohnSchoonsBeard
- 375
I hate tearing too, but don't find GT5 that bad for it personally. With 30fps, you'd be halving the interval between the visual output and thus halving your opportunity to react. V-sync would double your input lag on top of that. Effectively you now have 4 times the amount of time go by from when you see something to when your input is undertaken. That would be okay for slower cars, but supercars, a little hard, race/GT3 cars, damn hard, and Lemans/F1/hypercars, impossible. PD know what they are doing by setting out for 60fps with no vsync.
For the record, I play most non-competitive games on PC with v-sync, so I don't hate vsync... just, it's only really acceptable at 60fps and even then not for every game.
- 11,912
- Marin County
Input lag associated with V-sync is not something I knew about. I find 30fps games no more difficult to control than 60fps games though. It's not like the cars of Gran Turismo are traveling at 600mph.
- 375
Vsync induces output lag or display lag by not being able to render to the screen right away. If the image is output later, then your input is affected because you can only go off what you see when you see it.
200mp/h = 293ft/s. At 60fps, that's almost 5ft/s and at 30fps it's a whopping 10ft/s. That kind of distance traveled per frame would make high speed twitch correcting way too hard on many tracks. Vsync wouldn't change these times but would further slow your reaction because the time between input to frames being displayed would double.
200mp/h = 293ft/s. At 60fps, that's almost 5ft/s and at 30fps it's a whopping 10ft/s. That kind of distance traveled per frame would make high speed twitch correcting way too hard on many tracks. Vsync wouldn't change these times but would further slow your reaction because the time between input to frames being displayed would double.
- 11,912
- Marin County
Here's the thing for me. I'm more about the experience of a game as opposed to absolute precision. I find footage streaming at me at 30fps more immersive than 60fps. Your mind associates 60fps with 'real' and therefore anything that doesn't look visually 'real' (for instance, a pixelated shadow, a low poly circular form etc) completely disrupts your immersion. At 30fps you get the 'suspension of disbelief' effect which allows your brain to really get into the experience. At 60fps my brain just sees rendered 3d models moving about in a 3d environment, which isn't really exciting. Oh well, I know I'm the only one.
Edit: The above only applies if the 30fps is smooth (like GT5 replays with per-pixel motion blur) a choppy 30fps is absolutely atrocious. But games like NFS Shift and PGR3 look great at 30fps with good motion blurring.
Edit: The above only applies if the 30fps is smooth (like GT5 replays with per-pixel motion blur) a choppy 30fps is absolutely atrocious. But games like NFS Shift and PGR3 look great at 30fps with good motion blurring.
Last edited:
- 375
I know what you mean with 30fps feeling more artistic and less realistic. Tearing just further disrupts immersion for me. For any game where reaction times are crucial it just isn't worth it though. I also don't really find the effects of 60fps are all that detrimental to racing sims, since they are meant to be realistic before artistic.
