Hardware

[icycalm]

I mean with a 360 you can even hook it up to a VGA monitor and get 1024x768 or 1280x1024, and those aren't even widescreen resolutions. Games look great.

You can do that with every game? No exceptions?

It's a global setting. So yes.

As far as I know with PC games it's always software-based -- the games have some predetermined modes you can use.

You don't play PC games, do you? Sure, the modes are predetermined most of the time, but it's still all done in hardware. It would be impossible otherwise. Say you are playing Crysis. You can just about a million different resolutions. It would be completely inane if only one resolution was done in hardware and all the rest in software. The game would be unplayable in the "software" resolutions. I mean that's why people spend $500 on graphics cards.

Some games just can read what are the modes currently on your Windows/graphic card and make them available by scaling and filtering the pic, but that's it.

This is never EVER done. Like never. Not even twenty years ago.

Edit: Okay, now I got where you are coming from. I bet the only PC games you play are doujin ones, which indeed seem to work the way you say. I played Utawarerumono recently and I was dumbstruck that it only offered one resolution.

Regardless, in over twenty years of playing THOUSANDS of Western-made PC games, I've never encountered such a travesty before. Even in 2D games like Age of Empires or Baldur's Gate II, for example, increasing the resolution simply increases the viewing area, so there's absolutely no scaling and no loss of image quality whatsoever.

[Recap]

As far as I know with PC games it's always software-based -- the games have some predetermined modes you can use.

You don't play PC games, do you?

No, I don't. As if I need to tell you. Not even doujin, by the way.

Sure, the modes are predetermined most of the time, but it's still all done in hardware. It would be impossible otherwise. Say you are playing Crysis. You can just about a million different resolutions. It would be completely inane if only one resolution was done in hardware and all the rest in software.

I find what you wrote there hardly understandable. If the modes "are predetermined most of the times" how would it be impossible to have the game designed for them all? They of course aren't "about a million"...

The game would be unplayable in the "software" resolutions.

Why? People love scaling and filters!

[icycalm]

Sure, the modes are predetermined most of the time, but it's still all done in hardware. It would be impossible otherwise. Say you are playing Crysis. You can just about a million different resolutions. It would be completely inane if only one resolution was done in hardware and all the rest in software.

I find what you wrote there hardly understandable. If the modes "are predetermined most of the times" how would it be impossible to have the game designed for them all? They of course aren't "about a million"...

The games are indeed designed for them all. And yes, modern PC games pretty much allow you to select any resolution that you graphics card supports. In the past this wasn't so, probably because Direct X didn't exist. And when I say "about a million" I mean tons. Like 25, say.

The game would be unplayable in the "software" resolutions.

Why? People love scaling and filters!

It would be unplayable because it would run at like 5 frames a second. Games NEED hardware acceleration to run today, regardless of how fast your processor may be. So if Crysis only ran with hardware acceleration at some arbitrary resolution, 1600x1200 say, and all other resolutions were handled by software scaling, you would only be able to play the game at 1600x1200.

And seriously, the kind of PC gamers who buy games like Crysis on release day are the kinds of people who demand visual perfection from their games. We are talking $1,000 monitors, $500 dollar graphics cards and resolutions like 2,500x1,300 or whatever. If the games really were scaled up from something like 1024x768, or even 1600x1200, they would look like mud on a 30" monitor or on a 200" projector.

[Recap]

The games are indeed designed for them all.

So then the resolution options were software-based; what I've been saying from the beginning.

It would be unplayable because it would run at like 5 frames a second. Games NEED hardware acceleration to run today, regardless of how fast your processor may be. So if Crysis only ran with hardware acceleration at some arbitrary resolution, 1600x1200 say, and all other resolutions were handled by software scaling, you would only be able to play the game at 1600x1200.

"Software scaling"? Nobody talked here about such a thing. When I said "software-based" I meant that the game's designed for the availaible resolutions. That it's rendered at those resolutions when you select them and not just scaled [by the hardware]. And that only can happen because the devs wanted it and let you choose. That's a "software-based" option (in my context, at least), regardless the hardware usage they make (which, obviously, it's like much).

A "hardware-based" option would be one that is always present, like, say, interlaced/progressive modes in PS3 games, analog/digital output or display resolution, when it's just digitally made by the console itself.

It's an important subject for the discussion. If, as you say, the non-usual modes like 1366 x 768 in XB360 / PS3 games are rendering the graphics at those rez natively as PC games do (that is, are "software-based options"), it means the devs are already aware of the existence of those modes besides the ultrapopular 720p and 1080p, meaning that proper ports of Type-X 2's 2D games are indeed likely. But I myself am still to believe the former.

[icycalm]

So then the resolution options were software-based; what I've been saying from the beginning.

I am not arguing about terminology with you here. Software-based, hardware-based, sorcery-based, whatever.

The point is that I've never seen a 3D game "upscaled" in my entire life, and that the 360 and the PS3 output in a range of selectable resolutions, all of which look great. I've no idea what happens with 2D games though, or even with 2D menus and such in 3D games.

[Recap]

I am not arguing about terminology with you here.

Neither my intention, just wanted to be understood.

[Jedah]

[Foley-1996] James D. Foley, Andries van Dam, Steven K.Feiner, John F.Hughes, Richard L. Phillips, (1996), "Introduction to Computer Graphics", Addison-Wesley Publishing
Books, Articles, etc.

Read Chapter 5 and 6 from this book and all your questions will be answered. When we are talking about 3D polygonal Rendering engines, there's nothing that limits or needs to be taking care of, concerning viewport resolutions. In 2D games it's important because the graphics are STATIC bitmap images mapped 1:1 pixel on the regular pixel map, the viewport resolution. In 3D graphics the viewport resolution is the product of just one mathematical tranformation that creates a 2D image (2D array of pixels) from the 3D scene data. This 2D image is something our mind and perception fools us for a real 3D scene. That means 3D graphics are capable to draw in various resolutions without affecting the scene quality, perspective or detail. Of course drawing a 3D scene in 320x240 will surely look shit and pixelated even in a 15'' monitor. The fact here is that 3D games really don't have to consider the drawing resolution, only the resources ultra high resolutions require for rasterization.

[icycalm]

We both understand this. The issue between me and Recap is a very different one. The issue is whether the PS3's and 360's various resolutions are achieved through upscaling or redrawing. Recap was saying upscaling, I was saying redrawing, just as in PC games.

Your book doesn't have the answer to that question. I am saying I am 100% sure my answer is the correct one.

[Jedah]

We both understand this. The issue between me and Recap is a very different one. The issue is whether the PS3's and 360's various resolutions are achieved through upscaling or redrawing. Recap was saying upscaling, I was saying redrawing, just as in PC games.

Your book doesn't have the answer to that question. I am saying I am 100% sure my answer is the correct one.

That's what I'm saying also. The book presents the whole process in way proving that upscaling or any post rendering processing of the final image would kill the performance and be absolutely unnecessary. There no reason to scale a rendered image 60 times per second, when you can render it in higher resolution in the first place.

[icycalm]

The book explains this explicitly? That's good to know. It certainly makes sense.

(PS. No need to quote my whole post when you are posting right beneath me. It makes the page look messier...)

[Jedah]

No there's no explicit detailed answer to that, because at the time of publication it was an obvious answer, redraw not scale. Despite hardware and software evolution this axiom stands today, when we are considering performance and image quality in the equation.

[icycalm]

When you say an "obvious answer", I am not exactly sure what you mean. It is obvious if you want the best image quality, but what about efficiency? Recap is saying that he doesn't trust MS and Sony to always do what's best in terms of visual quality (indeed, they usually do the exact opposite).

Is there any sort of proof anywhere in the book that redrawing is cheaper in terms of processing power than scaling? Because I think that this may be counter-intuitive. I would expect that upscaling an already-rendered image would be cheaper in terms of processing power than redrawing it from scratch, especially if you are going, say, from something like 1024x768 to something like 1920x1080 or even higher.

[Jedah]

Performance of scaling depends on scaling algorithm. The only image scaling not requiring a relatively expensive algorithm is when the resulting image has dimensions that have the same scale factor, for example 320x240 could turn to 640x480 just by subdividing pixels to four new ones. The image quality would be the same, pixelated.

As for the subject matter, redrawing is again the answer. You cannot scale every 1/60th of a second efficiently, period. The situation is even worse when we are talking about HD resolutions. There are many post rendering effects applied, but nothing resolution changing. Maybe Recap experienced a game played at a monitor not supporting the game resolution natively, thus scaling it to fit. Maybe he was told somewhere that MS & Sony use cheap tricks or something. That could be so lame, illogical and downright stupid.

Whatever the case, scaling would output a blurry and ugly image and that's not what I've experienced so far.

[Recap]

That means 3D graphics are capable to draw in various resolutions without affecting the scene quality, perspective or detail. Of course drawing a 3D scene in 320x240 will surely look shit and pixelated even in a 15'' monitor. The fact here is that 3D games really don't have to consider the drawing resolution, only the resources ultra high resolutions require for rasterization.

That's utterly wrong and even nonsensical. 3D graphics make use of [2D] textures. [2D] textures have a design (native) resolution. As such, the more the display resolution is, the more the textures get upscaled, thereso affecting "the scene quality and detail". Drawing a 3D scene in 320 x 240 won't look "shit and pixelated" as long as you keep that as the display resolution. It's quite obvious, but you have a fantastic example with Ico, without hesitation the less "pixelated" 3D game you can find on the PS2 (not counting cell-shaded crap).

That's what I'm saying also. The book presents the whole process in way proving that upscaling or any post rendering processing of the final image would kill the performance and be absolutely unnecessary.

I guess the book just isn't explaining the process from the user's perspective. We're talking here about display media, which happens to work at set resolutions. So if you happen you get a game/system designed just for resolution A but your monitor is resolution B, scaling is indeed "absolutely necessary" [for a full-screen display].

You're not adding anything new or relevant to this discussion, really.

[icycalm]

Recap, we can do without that last comment. We are already very off-topic, especially with the clarifications I had to give you about several things that should be considered common knowledge.

Edit: And I find that the question of which process is more efficient, which Jedah brought up, is very interesting and worth exploring. So yeah, he is adding something new and relevant to this discussion thankyouverymuch.

[icycalm]

Jedah made a a very rude post which I deleted, and Recap made a semi-condescending reply (to me) which I also deleted. Why don't you guys go get some sleep, eh? Because you are obviously incapable of contributing constructively to this discussion at this point.

[Jedah]

The subject of real-time upscaling of a rendered framebuffer has bothered me for quite some time now. We were arguing and insulting each other and I feel very bad about it. So it's time to set things straight...

Recap you were right dude. I'm so sorry for insulting you and standing for some theoretical details, that got bypassed by the need to produce visual quality, regardless of resolution. See below:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_3#Graphics
http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx ... &cid=12821
http://www.ripten.com/2007/11/22/infini ... esolution/

It is more than clear that many developers choose to render the 3D scenes in lower than HD resolutions in order to achieve visual quality. The rendered result is then upscaled in real time to the required HD resolution.

The bottom line is that Recap was right and myself and icy were wrong.

That fact also brings forth the subject discussed in Icy's article about current gen consoles: http://insomnia.ac/commentary/not_powerful_enough/

[icycalm]

Yeah, this is unbelievable. I was dumbstruck when you PMed me the links. I would never have imagined they'd do such a thing, though with hindsight I guess it should have been obvious...

I wrote an article about this here, though that's not my last word on the subject. There's still a few things to clear up. Above all, a distinction must be made between non-HD games (PGR3, Halo 3, COD4, etc.) and HD games (I am assuming stuff like Gears of War and most if not all Japanese-made 3D games). Truly HD games can be viewed on a 720p display without any loss of quality, whereas non-HD games will lose quality no matter what you do.

But the last point, and the one which we were discussing here, concerns resolutions ABOVE 720p. The question here is whether ALL games are upscaled, or if only some of them -- the more hardware-intesive ones, presumably.

It's such a ridiculous issue. And woe to us when the 2D games start arriving! I'd like to see Ketsui run at 1080p!

Anyway... if anyone wants to post on this subject please start a new thread in this forum; let's leave this one for the topic of Lindbergh vs. Type X2.