ozymandias.com — Simply put, for a 1080i/p game the console has 55% less time per pixel to render any special effects, anti-aliasing, illumination, etc. than for a 720p game.Is it really harder for a developer to make a game for 1080p as opposed to 1080i? No.Read on for more information
Oct 22, 2006 View in Crawl 4
addicted68098Oct 22, 2006
I found it funny how IGN (I think) said that games that were 1080p had slow framerates? If its 1080p it has a fast framrate.
oepapelOct 22, 2006
"ATSC spec dictates what broadcasters are going to use. So that means that manufacturers of production gear are going to follow that spec. The end result is that video content is going to follow that spec, and film is already only 24FPS. That leaves game consoles as the only probable provider of 1080p60 content."Manufacturers are not limited to the ATSC spec, even if they support it. Modern TV's and computer monitors are converging to the point that the only difference between a TV and a monitor is the presence of a decoder. And we all know that computer resolutions are already pushing 4K pixels (2560 x 1440) at (at least) 60fps. No computer monitor would think of having a refresh of less than 60fps. Dell and Apple both make one."I would like to see 1080p60 added to the ATSC spec but it might already be too late. For a broadcaster to upgrade to a HD production workflow it takes lots of money and time to retool. With the FCC deadlines for digital broadcast looming over their head most large market stations and major providers have already purchased HD Camera's, Editor, Playback servers, CG's, Switchers, ATSC encoders and transmitters. They are not going to turn all this over in a year or two for one added format to the spec."Probably. And that's why people will seek other distribution mechanisms. Broadcaster's inability to adapt could well be their downfall. Internet delivery is still in it's infancy and is still severely bandwidth limited but it has one advantage that broadcast doesn't: It can deliver exactly the resolution that best matches each customer. Having 20 options of resolution or codec for their content is something that broadcasters will never be able to provide. As for production costs related to 1080p/60, there are several production quality cameras that can do this now. Any production workflow that is HD capable should be able to handle 1080p/60 as well. These things are expensive and only a moron would not future proof their workflow. In fact, the decision today on broadcast format (720p or 1080i) can be made rather late in the workflow and it's usually a business decision based on cost, not a technical limitation. There is no way today to broadcast 1080p/60 (at least in the U.S.) but that doesn't mean the content can't be produced.There are already production studios that are 1080p/60 from front to back. They scale down in post production for distribution over the internet but they realize that a day is coming relatively quickly where all their content will be distributed in full resolution. Look at the MacBreak podcast if you don't believe me.
keiichimorisatoOct 22, 2006
We had to wait almost a decade to get HD.Then as we're slowly getting those local TV stations and other networks to begin offering their fare in HD, they're choosing 1080i so they can play the numbers game with the consumer and get their desired more useless channels for the same bandwidth as 1080p.I'm glad that ESPN made the decision to use 720p. We have LCDs and other displays that are natively progressive yet we have to put up with horrible legacy that is interlaced video.On top of that not all channels utilize MPEG4 encoding.. using MPEG2 instead and you can see those HORRIBLE macro blocks.Back to the games topic: if you have 1080p demand it! You can play Half-Life in 1600x1200 with >60fps on your computer.. why not these next-gen machines? They certainly seem to have the graphics cards to handle it.
leptonOct 22, 2006
1080i likely means 1080i/60. You would render a 1920x1080 frame every 1/30th of a second. The game machine would show one field of this in the first 1/60th, and the other field in the next 1/60th. To avoid flicker you would have two buffers, one to display the two fields while you used the other to render the next frame (and you have 1/30th of a second to do it.) In fact in all of these schemes you would double buffer.1080p likely means 1080p/60. You would render a 1920x1080 frame every 1/60th of a second.Therefore 1080p has the same resolution as 1080i, but you would have to render twice as many frames per second, placing twice the load on the processors to show double the frame rate for smoother motion. 1080i/30 is 30 frames per second, 1080p is 60.
eatingpieOct 23, 2006
"You've made several."Actually, he didn't (first post on page was correct).With 1080p (and 480p and 720p), GAMES can give you 60 *discrete* frames per second... ie they are running at 1080p/60... 60fps.MOVIES, otoh, do NOT benefit from 1080p/60, they run at 1080p/30 and just send every frame twice. It's 30fps because there are 30 discrete frames per second with 1080p film content, but each frame flashes on screen twice to maintain the 60hz refresh. Got that? :) If I flash the same picture on the screen twice, how many *discrete* frames per second is that? 1. So with movies in 1080p, you get 30fps, even though you're maintaining a 60hz refresh.Now, that raises a question. How will games be rendered? They can be cranking at a full 1080p/60 (2 unique frame every 30th of a second) or 1080p/30 (1 unique frame every 30th of a second).The article implies that the consoles are rendering at 1080p/30 and just shooting out every frame twice... giving an effective rate of 30fps.-Pie
localhOct 23, 2006
Actually, if a game is going to support 1080p60, then 1080i60 support is free (since the video encode can pull the interlaced frames from the progressive framebuffer).
mrstylzOct 23, 2006
I disagree that it won't make a difference. The games will emerse you into the game and it's environment that much more. While on the actual gameplay it may not make a ton od difference, so much anymore is about placing the user into the game.To make a real world example, compare Madden to HD football. In HD the crowd is in the background, but it's much different than the fuzzy people you get from SD. You can make out individuals and their colors. If you translate this to madden, being able to have lifelike grass, puddles of rain, realistic crowds, and a fully anatomical player it will make quite an impact.
kfconmeNov 13, 2006
I've read/seen that 720p is very close to 1080i and 1080p is on its own wave length. the 720p/1080i simply looks like a smoother, less sharp 1080p.I bought a 720p 27" Sharp Aquos for my room a year ago and it supports 1080i, yet is classified as a 720p. And even on some sites as 720p/1080i !1080p is "newer" technology and is on most of the newer Aquos line as well as many others. cramming more pixels in the screen is always nice, but it also matters on the size of the screen, and as said, the processor speed. no matter what, it looks like heck the closer to the screen you get and the bigger the screen you have is.in conclusion, 1080i and 1080p are very different, and if given the chance to see, you will notice right off the bat how sharp the image of 1080p is in comparison.
reanimationxpJul 10, 2007
a vector is basically a very high resoultion series of polygons when rendered. what you're asking would slow the game down not speed it up, because you'd essentially be scrapping a static raster image (raw data, very little processing to display it) and instead using a high-resoultion series of polygons (ton of vertexes) which then need to be rendered to be viewed as pixels on the texture (very cpu intensive compared to displaying static data as part of an image).
reanimationxpJul 10, 2007
What he was describing is not field rendering.. he was addressing the usual noob question "Why do they render every other line? Why not just half the screen?"