PSLS Editorial: Pixel Counters Must Die
An easy fix is to drop the resolution to 1138 x 640 (i.e. 640p) and simply upscale to 720p. Not only does the game run at 30 frames per second now, not a single shader or lighting effect had to be cut. Because of this, the visual drawbacks of upscaling aren’t all that bad. Some slight blurriness and aliasing compared to the original 720p output, but nothing noticeable by the average player.
But, as the charts above show, the most drastic performance benefits come from dropping the anti-aliasing level due to both computational and bandwidth requirements. Upscaling from a 4x AA image works at 640p, but does leave some subtle visual artifacts. However, dropping to resolutions significantly below 640p eliminates the benefits of anti-aliasing. And on top of this, low AA levels in conjunction with significant image upscaling leads to horrifically bad image quality. Included below is a diagram showcasing the size of all three frame buffers in respect to one another.
If faced with a drastic decision, it’s very tempting for the developer to drop the AA level of their game rather than the resolution due to the visual artifacts that arise when drastically upscaling images, as well as the huge performance benefit of going from 4x AA to 2x AA. Click on the images on Page 3 for a real world example of how upscaling can be a smart solution to achieving faster framerates, as well as what anti-aliasing does to both object edges AND texture quality.
29 Responses to “PSLS Editorial: Pixel Counters Must Die”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Way to stick up for the developers, I like this article a lot.
People who have nothing better to do need to stop scrutinizing games to the T, especially when it comes to odd resolution numbers distorting “regular” resolution numbered displays
June 30th, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Nice article. I still hate halo 3 though. =)
June 30th, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Very good! Good job, John.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Killzone 2 would be a good counter-point for good developers.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Awesome article,
ill have better feed back when i wake up (all i saw was the pixel counter and it woke me up with a flashback).i fucking detest, pixel counter. i had 3 huge tech debates in an Ars tech article, The Ars Tech forum and the playstation 3 website. They thread locked the Ars tech forum debate but ill search it and send it your way. It was about up-conversion, Ghostbusters, HDMI 1.4 and Frame rate. its funny how a website like them who claim to hold the best knowledge on anything technical related can incorrect.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Indeed a great article, I enjoyed reading it!
June 30th, 2009 at 11:44 AM
worth mentioning that your looking at stills, when animated and you add motion blur, things become less noticeable.
Also radiosity will add noise and or graininess to the final image, but it sure looks cool
Finally, animation, especially racing games have a much better “feel” running at 60 f/s
and add a level of polish to final renders that is hard to quantify.
good article, more like this please.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Holy crap… I didn’t see the other pages. Is there a way to make it more obvious? Maybe make the ellipsis clickable (the …)
June 30th, 2009 at 12:00 PM
@SolidCake,
Yes, having the framerate at 60FPS really does wonders to both the look and feel of a game. Racing games especially. Motion blur and depth of field are going to become much more commonplace as developers can (as you pointed out) use these artistic techniques to hide any AA shortcomings or upscaling artifacts. LOD (level of detail) texture and model work will probably benefit the most though.
@StalkingSilence,
Yeah, I wish we could make it a little more obvious.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:05 PM
I bash Square Enix all the time because they brag about how they can run constant (full)1080p when they don’t or they advertise that there game, when finished, will be full 1080p and its released at 720 or specs change. In that scenario they deserve negative feedback, in most people’s head 1080p is the best you can get for a home console, it is a stunning picture. To openly say your game will have X resolution, X framerate etc and when released its not available or changed you cant help but get criticized.
Games like Wipeout HD that change resolutions while in movement wont get the pixel counters attention. why? because they openly stated it. Ghostbusters got a lot of negative feed back because the game producer bragged about how the Playstation 3 version will outperform the 360. Don’t forget the PS3 was lead platform. When you make statements to the press like “the PS3 version of Ghostersbusters will have the best visuals” you are expected to perform, especially in the gaming community that has allot of fanboys. Its better to not shoot yourself in the foot before the race begins. They were an easy target by pixel counter, lens of truth, Ars tech and rabid fanboys, those types of people will sit there and take note of everything incorrect in the game. Ghostbusters isn’t off the hook that easy, especially when they had allot of screen tear. Like that video of the wall phasing in and out or the phone vanishing from the desk top when angled a certain way. Ghostbusters made the same mistake that Bungie did.
Visually the 360 version was (slightly) sharper and detailed keep in mind im pro Sony and detest the 360. This Article should read “lens of truth” must die instead of pixel counter must die. None of this would have been blown out of portion if they didn’t ignite the fuse. The differences in both are minimal the Playstation 3 version is softer looking because of that filter they used (cant remember the name). If lens of truth didn’t run it threw there pixel counter Ghostbusters would have flown under the radar.
remember, they are stills and not in movement.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:12 PM
@StalkingSilence
saw the video (lol)
Come on and rock me Amadeus, Amadeus Amadeus, Amadeus
Amadeus Amadeus, Amadeus
Amadeus Amadeus, oh oh oh Amadeus.
06/30/2009 at 2:08 PM
haha I’m never going to get those SingStar trophies…
June 30th, 2009 at 1:12 PM
nice read. have to slightly disagree. Sometime the pixal counter keep the developers honest
June 30th, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Nicely done, tbh I am also getting sick of all the comparisons.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:30 PM
I give you kudos for attempting to write an article about how a developer may possibly look to weigh resolution Vs AA Vs effects. I take away 95% of your kudos for your attempt at shock tactics with your headline title & your attempt to discredit the work being done.
Has the FACT perhaps not occurred to you that those people counting pixels and assessing other games are in fact developers – or graphics artists themselves? You think they should die?
Has it not occurred to you that there is a need for “THE TRUTH” after being promised FULL 1080p games and then not seeing those being delivered at native resolutions the majority of times? Even today when FULL 1080p is promised – it is not necessarily true 100% of the time.
It may well be that some developers feel obliged to comment on internet commentary, but that is always up to them whether they want to or not.
Pixel counters provide a useful, informative service; Something that usually no-one else cares to provide.
If you’re a developer, you may take personal kudos from your achievement at technically excelling with your game.
If you’re a fanboy, you love every chance you can get to pile humiliation on your opponent.
… and if you really don’t care about the resolution. You really won’t care enough to write, or indeed read this article.
Whichever you are… Pixel counters must die = FAIL. Your illustration of a Ferrari – doubly so.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:56 PM
shadowjin:
I couldn’t disagree more with you statements i own both systems and when a cross platform game comes out i what to know the best choice/. and as far your statement go’s (slightly) sharper on the xbox version of ghostbusters is quite an understatement the lensoftruth site review of the game is 100% accurate to later confirm eurogame did a face off and ghostbusters looks like total crap running at 540p compared to 720p 2xaa (First of all,
PS3 Ghostbusters is rendering 518,400 pixels per frame. Xbox 360 is managing 921,600, so there’s some interesting mathematics going on in that statement. Secondly, if quincunx anti-aliasing is compromising your image quality to this degree, why not try another solution? With regards the RAM situation, it’s a well-known limitation that the vast majority of cross-platform developers have (thankfully) managed to overcome. via eurogamer http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/xbox-360-vs-ps3-face-off-round-20
Im using ghostbusters as the perfect example of a cross platform game that looks like shit on the ps3. So if im going to spend $60 on a game and i owne both ps3 and xbox360 i want to know
http://g.imagehost.org/0719/Ghostbusters_PS3.jpg
http://g.imagehost.org/0029/ghostbusterxbox_360.jpg
now you tell me what version would you want
it is well known that the ps3 dosnt do well on cross platfom games so i need the pixle counters to inform me i normall buy the ps3 version but when its this bad hell no
June 30th, 2009 at 3:27 PM
@ LordVonPS3
The Lens of Truth website (is) an independent site, funded by a group of game developers and enthusiasts who enjoy gaming. Based on your post, im guessing your also aware. Lens of Truth is built on (there) spare time and they also allow user-submitted content, you could say there another Playstation lifestyle, except there not just Sony related news. Personally, i do not take this article as discredit towards there work. Its just another writers view point.
A game running at 718 instead of 720p is not a big deal but when developers say one thing and do another, like the makers of Ghostbusters who advertise 1080p and it drops to 540p. That is a huge visual drop, add screen tear, disappearing walls like i mentioned in the last post and bland graphics. They will be picked apart. The designers of Ghostbusters dug there own hole by promising full1080p, superior graphics and effects, even going on record saying that the Playstation version would have superior visuals than the 360. That last statement forced them into the spot light and made them easy prey.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Way to completely avoid the issue, John…
Regardless of pixel-count (which is meaningless to me), the PROOF is in the PUDDING! No one has accused Lens Of Truth or GameTrailers of “doctoring” the comparison photos of GHOSTBUSTERS, because the differences are EASILY verifiable with the naked eye. I do not even own a high-end large-screen HDTV… I can easily see the difference on my sub-standard 30″ ghetto HDTV. I think Atari/Terminal Reality/Sierra would be taking a bigger beating than they are getting (and rightfully deserve) if more gamers viewed the HD Ghostbusters Game trailer included on the PS3 in the bonus content section. This video was OBVIOUSLY taken from the XBox 360 or the PC version (I suspect it was the XBOX version), and is like a bucket of cold water in your face after playing the PS3 version for a little while. Don’t believe me? Try it for yourselves! If you can’t see the difference, you are either blind or viewing the video downconverted to SD.
No doubt, this is the absolutely crappiest looking game I’ve seen on the PS3 yet (it has been well-documented that Ghostbusters for the PS3 is the lowest resolution game for the console yet produced), which is – in itself – almost criminal. The PS3 is a HD platform… is it really unreasonable for consumers to expect that all titles released for the platform would conform to that standard? If not, it should be legally required for a company to label the product warning that it is SD ONLY. Furthermore, the above-named companies compounded the offense by releasing drastically different versions on all platforms, but gave NO indication on the packaging or in the advertising that these versions differed in the slightest. Finally, Terminal Reality succeeded in firmly lodging their boot into their esophagus by bragging early on that the PS3 was their “lead” version, and that it would be superior to other ports, when the reality is that the PS3 version is – by FAR – the weakest version on the market (yes, I am even considering that the PC version was completely missing any multiplayer component).
This kind of hucksterism needs to be nipped in the proverbial bud… it’s out-and-out misrepresentation and bait-and-switch tomfoolery. I sincerely hope that Terminal Reality and company are successfully sued, and that they lose a TON of money over this bullcrap. It’s unfair, unethical, and needs to stop – NOW.
06/30/2009 at 4:25 PM
The real question is that if game developers could be sued for making multiplatform games that weren’t on equal technical levels, where would we draw the line between Acceptable and ‘Criminal’?
At what native resolution, AA-level, framerate speed, draw distance, or anistropic filtering level do you tell them “Hey, this is unacceptable”?
It’s hard enough that the PS3 and 360 don’t even use the same graphics API, but to start telling developers that two completely different hardware units needed to be fed the exact same code with the exact same results is both naive and ridiculous. The point is to simply not buy a product if you feel that it’s not up to your standards. Billions of people do this every day by exercising their rights as consumers.
A lot of developers this generation learned the hard way that crappy ports lead to disappointing sales, and often on a long term basis.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:10 PM
This is my 2 cents. I’ll keep it short.
The Ghostbusters game looks a bit more, real to me from what i’ve seen on PS3. It’s more balanced and smooth. The 360 verison looks a little more poppy and videogamey (which isn’t bad but for Ghostbusters specifically it’s perferrable to me) and the PC version PWNS ALL graphically. Everyone knows the PC ports are usually the best so we can just stop comparing nearly identicle slightly graphically variable games.
I think the reason why people care about pixels, is that they care about resolution. Why do some care about resolution? Cause some want to use an HD projector and/or a HUGE t.v. and they don’t want to see some artifacting on the games.
Of course people with that much money can just buy the PS4 next gen and enjoy that with the crap ton of VRAM they’ll have with the tons of Cell Processing power.
/discussion
June 30th, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Great article, a little techy for me but not too bad , great job on this one.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:52 PM
@ hydro5135
next time ill add a back story..
it looked slightly sharper to me because i watched a friend play the game for 2min on his 360. i prioritize woman and parting over game analyzing any day. Especially when your there to pick up a friend. From what i saw, the 360 version was better. i think anyone can tell by my post i was not impressed on the playstation 3 version.
I lost interest in the PS3 version after seeing it run on another friends HDTV. The quincunx anti-aliasing was the developers excuse as to why it looked “soft”. When it looks like shit, plain and simple.
i try to keep extra detail out of article postings. Just like i posted , they made a huge mistake in bragging about the game and not delivering. Plain and simple. when i choose to not buy the PS3 version because it looks shitty, i stopped comparing.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:01 PM
@ hydro5135
incase you missed it.
i pointed out every single thing wrong with the playstation version of Ghostbusters.. that by itself shows i detest the game. instead of sniping a sentence in a post read in full.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:10 PM
@ John Draisey
the PS3 version was lead platform.
Thats why it became a hug deal on top of the visuals.
June 30th, 2009 at 6:42 PM
John writes:
“The point is to simply not buy a product if you feel that it’s not up to your standards. Billions of people do this every day by exercising their rights as consumers.”
I would agree with you 100% here, except that you are leaving out one VERY important mitigating factor… HOW is the consumer to KNOW of the difference until after they have already PAID for the product? Part of the agenda of this article seems to be to “quell” the fury of gamers who – quite rightly – have had enough of these last-minute surprises foisted upon them in exchange for their hard-earned cash (incidentally, PS3 owners have to pay an average of a 20% markup over the same PC game). The entire point of my rant against the developers is this… Put a *&^%ing DISCLAIMER on the product stating the limitations, and then we all have to shut our big fat yaps… cuz if you didn’t read the box, you have no one to blame but yourself. Simple, huh?
Now, undoubtedly I will hear some tired excuse about how telling the truth to consumers is not in the financial interest of the company… Well boo-hoo. Either the big software publishers and developers will have to make a slightly lower profit margin, or – eventually – their brand will die as consumers become familiar with such unethical marketing practices and they begin to develop the reputation that they so richly deserve.
Is honesty REALLY that much to ask for???
P.S. – One last comment… Let’s say the explanation for the differences between platforms is highly technical, and only 1 out of 10 will even begin to understand it… at least it’s still there, in black and white, and everyone is within their legal obligations, with very little “gray area”.
June 30th, 2009 at 10:51 PM
shadowjin:
No need to get defensive i merely pointed out in your reply what i needed to fully explain my point.
And you put slightly in quotes! (slightly) Personally I dont care what you have to say or what you have said. Putting you aside the point of this silly editorial is to rant on pixel counters with out sites like lens of truth or eurogamers ect counting pixels and such you wouldnt know what version of a game was better. Oh and im sick and tired of people pointing out how good uncharted and gtp5 look yeah they look great i just wish that all cross platform games had the same results. unfortunately there is only one game that looks better on the ps3 is Tomb Raider: Underworld
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/xbox-360-vs-ps3-face-off-round-17-article?page=4
the reson being is that it is using a different engine but the frame rate suffers
call of duty is a good example of a game that looks good on both BUT (slightly) better on the 360
shadowjin: this is the better usage of the word slightly. So in this instance i go with the ps3 my preferred system
June 30th, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Oh and the same thing happend to bioshock i almost bought it for the ps3 then the pixel counters said the game is using the quincunx anti-aliasing filter making ever less sharp 680p (no AA, blur filter) on the 360 1280×720 (no AA) http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241
later they released a patch to tone down the blur but sill it looked blurry
MakaiOokami: More real it is the same game using less resolution and a blur filter. By what your are saying you need to take some Vaseline to your tv for every game look more real
June 30th, 2009 at 11:38 PM
That’s seriously embarrassing for the developer.
@hydro5135
what shadowjin pointed out was that the the developer raved about how the PS3 version of Ghostbusters would outshine the others. And it failed. it doesn’t take a genius to see thats what he means. Your post, from a readers point of view does come across as taking 1 word (slightly) and playing with it to post your own view. Did you expect him to end it with “the 360 version is the best”? to him, it was slightly sharper but he still pointed out every flaw on the PS3. Your original post would hold more ground IF you had voiced your opinion without playing with someone else’s words. You also do not NEED pixel counter to show you which versions better. I don’t agree on this article just like Ericbill, LordVonPS3, shadowjin and yourself.
Terminal Reality comment on the controversy. A spokesperson for the developer went on record saying: “the PS3 version of Ghostbusters is softer due to the ‘quincunx’ antialiasing filter and the fact they render at about 75% the resolution of the 360 version. So you cannot directly compare a screen shot of one to the other unless you scale them properly. The PS3 does have less available RAM than the 360 – but they managed to squeeze 3 out of 4 textures as full size on the PS3.”
3 out of 4 ain’t bad. Work more hours!
@MakaiOokami
there having a Vaseline special in your local target. with 20% more realism.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:36 AM
I just wish Sony would do something about people with older HDTV’s. I have an older HDTV that only runs at 1080i.
When games are released at 720p only, the PS3 downscales it to 420p. From what I’ve heard the XBOX does not have this issue.
There has been numerous games I haven’t purchased for this reason alone. Sony could fix this issue with a patch, since Dev’s want to save money and time.
07/02/2009 at 12:41 PM
Actually, most games now support 1080i specifically for this reason. HDTVs are supposed to have 720p AND 1080i support, not just one or the other. So it’s not Sony’s fault if a developer makes their game in 720p only.
The last time i heard of a developer patching their game to run in 1080i is Criterion for Burnout Paradise.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Just to play devil’s advocate here, I am not putting everything off on the developer (the publisher has more to do with the packaging and marketing). In the particular case of the PS3, Sony is shooting themselves in the foot with the inherent difficulty in developing for their platform, and with their reticence to make things easier for developers to do their job. Activision has publicly announced their displeasure with Sony, and has threatened to drop PS3 support altogether if Sony does not wake up and smell the coffee.
07/02/2009 at 12:43 PM
It really depends on who you ask. Quite a few developers actually claim that the PS3 is easier to develop for than the 360, and have a lot of reasons to back up those claims.
Activision won’t drop support for Sony, since Sony is responsible for 40% of Activision’s revenue.
July 20th, 2009 at 3:20 PM
@ hydro5135
you are aware that your replies shows that my opinion struck a cord with you? just because you have 2 systems doesn’t make you less of a fanboy. If your precious 360 is that awesome and flawless as you “say” than sell the PS3 and fully support the 360. see…. you wont do that because you know the system is starting to move forward and has alot of exclusives. Do your research. not every 3rd party game is better on the 360. COD was a prime example… go ask pixel counters if you cant read pro PS3 news.