Re: Xbox VS PS3
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Armenian_Tyrant
However, I continue to use my 360 as my primary video game console because almost all the games on the 360 are in full 1080p where most of the games on the PS3 only go up to 720p.
|
Where do you base your "info"? There are no *huge* differences with resolution (if the same game is released in both PS3 and Xbox 360, both are using very similar* graphics). Some games are actually less than 720p in "real life" (they merely use "in-game upscaling" - game can have the base resolution of e.g. "1152x640" like in "Halo 3", but after the "in-game upscaling" it´s 1280x720... Stuff like that..)
*There might be some subtle difference (with certain games), but it´s certainly not that Xbox 360 is using 1080p and PS3 is using 720p..
Like schalkt said, you have to understand the difference between the "native resolution" and "upscaling". Xbox 360 often list several resolutions at the back of the box for some reason (games - and also movies, can have only one "native resolution"). You can of course upscale that native resolution, though.
Edit: If you want to dig deeper (resolution issues), you might want to read these various "X360 vs. PS3 Face-Off" articles in Eurogamer. Sometimes Xbox 360-version do have the slight "edge" (also vice versa, I´m sure), but not sure how much these type of issues have affect to the normal gamers out there (let´s face it; games are different things than films)... E.g. (more links can be found within the articles)...
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=88461
*Call Of Duty 4 -
"Both versions are also operating at a sub-HD resolution - 1024x600 to be precise - but the scaling up to both 720p and indeed 1080p looks decent enough thanks to anti-aliasing being present on the base image."
*WWE SmackDown vs RAW 2008 -
"The Xbox 360 version runs at full 720p, albeit with a slight blur effect taking the place of proper anti-aliasing. The PS3 version runs at a lower base resolution, but seems to be using a trick similar to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, whereby the two images used to generate an anti-aliased framebuffer are combined. It's difficult to measure in this situation but whereas Potter was rendered from two base 720p images (giving a notional 2560x720 resolution which is then scaled down), WWE seems to be adopting the bare minimum by combining two 640x720 frames. The result is essentially the same as the 360 game, albeit with perceivably increased jagginess on the edges."
*Conan -
"Both versions run at sub-HD resolutions - 1024x576 upscaled to 'normal' 720p, but the visuals are heavily post-processed, combining to create its unique cartoon CG look."
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=134315
*Dark Sector -
"However, in order to keep the speed up, Digital Extremes has followed Bungie's example by running Dark Sector PS3 at a reduced, anamorphic 1152x640 resolution, which is then scaled up to native 720p - exactly like Halo 3. The Xbox 360 version on the other hand is confirmed as native HD. So, remember when Bungie said you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 'proper' HD and 640p? Now we have a real-life example comparing the two resolutions, and the difference is indeed negligible, especially so during gameplay. That said, in Dark Sector's case, the heavy post-processing work does a great job of masking the difference - certainly more than Halo 3 does."
*SEGA Superstars Tennis -
"On the plus side, both versions run at 720p with a truly solid 30 frames, and the finely anti-aliased graphics scale up very nicely to 1080p on the Xbox 360 rendition. Aside from a slightly different anti-aliasing technique (which still looks decent in this case), the PlayStation 3 version is basically identical, but there's zero support whatsoever for those with 'Full HD' 1080p displays - so in that case, quality is down to the quality of your screen's in-built scaler."
*MX vs. ATV Untamed -
"Indeed, MX vs. ATV Untamed is compromised right off the bat by running with a reduced resolution - 1024x576 to be precise, with very poor scaling used to blow up the image to 720p. All of this conspires to create an excessively rough-looking game.
Resolution is restored to the usual 720p on the 360, edges are more finely filtered, and while screen tear is still ever-present, its impact is nowhere near as bad as it is in the PS3 version."
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=128362
*Army of Two -
"The Xbox 360 version of the game runs at full-fat 720p, complete with anti-aliasing, while the AA-free PlayStation 3 version appears to run in a border, with only 1217x685 of actual resolution being displayed."
*Dynasty Warriors 6 -
"The Xbox 360 version is limited by the confines of the dual-layer DVD, resulting in sub-optimal video sequences, but with PS3, KOEI has encoded its CG video to the very highest standard. The entire 25GB single-layer Blu-ray disc has been filled up to make the cinematics as beautiful-looking as possible."
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=137829
*GTA4 -
"First things first. Xbox 360 runs at full 720p (1280x720), whereas the PlayStation 3 code takes a 20 per cent hit, being natively rendered at 1152x640 before being software-upscaled.
Both versions of the game have support for 1080i and 1080p monitors, even though the actual output is being scaled up from the base resolution (640p for PS3, 720p for Xbox 360).
Technically speaking, Xbox 360 really should be winning this contest hands-down, but bizarrely, it doesn't. There's support for proper hardware-assisted anti-aliasing, eliminating a great deal of the jagginess of the PlayStation 3 version, plus it's running at full-fat 720p. However, Rockstar has introduced a 360-specific post-processing effect that dithers just about every texture on-screen. It's an effect not present at all on the PS3 version and serves to introduce an oil-painting-like effect to the overall look of the game, particularly on background objects. Unfortunately, it also seems to actively distort the edges of detail in the textures and occasionally looks really ugly."
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=84469
*Halo3 -
"The developer confirmed the lower 1152 x 640 resolution on its website, but went on to clarify that it used two frame buffers to create its final image - an unorthodox technique used to improve dynamic lighting range."
http://www.bungie.net/News/content.a...news&cid=12821
"One item making the interwebs rounds this week was the scandalous revelation that Halo 3 runs at “640p” which isn’t even technically a resolution. However, the interweb detectives did notice that Halo 3’s vertical resolution, when captured from a frame buffer, is indeed 640 pixels. So what gives? Did we short change you 80 pixels?
Naturally it’s more complicated than that. In fact, you could argue we gave you 1280 pixels of vertical resolution, since Halo 3 uses not one, but two frame buffers – both of which render at 1152x640 pixels. The reason we chose this slightly unorthodox resolution and this very complex use of two buffers is simple enough to see – lighting. We wanted to preserve as much dynamic range as possible – so we use one for the high dynamic range and one for the low dynamic range values. Both are combined to create the finished on screen image.
This ability to display a full range of HDR, combined with our advanced lighting, material and postprocessing engine, gives our scenes, large and small, a compelling, convincing and ultimately “real” feeling, and at a steady and smooth frame rate, which in the end was far more important to us than the ability to display a few extra pixels. Making this decision simpler still is the fact that the 360 scales the
“almost-720p” image effortlessly all the way up to 1080p if you so desire.
In fact, if you do a comparison shot between the native 1152x640 image and the scaled 1280x720, it’s practically impossible to discern the difference. We would ignore it entirely were it not for the internet’s propensity for drama where none exists. In fact the reason we haven’t mentioned this before in weekly updates, is the simple fact that it would have distracted conversation away from more important aspects of the game, and given tinfoil hats some new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings."
So again, far from being a "black&white"-issue... People should definitely take this "game resolution"-thing with the grain of salt.
(and just enjoy games..
)
Note, that I can´t confirm how "accurate" and "non-biased" (Eurogamer is kinda respected site, so I guess they should be) these comparisons are. So "grain of salt" also works here.
