The Real HD DMC4 Console Comparison: Motion Blur In PS3 Version Update

by Patrick Steen on January 25, 2008 at 9:26 am

Any differences shown in screenshot comparisons can lead the uninformed to tout one version as superior to the other. This is the real Devil May Cry 4 screenshot comparison with lossless HD captures. What they show is that informed difference only cement how very alike both versions are.

Firstly, it should be said that like Gamersyde’s video comparison and the screenshots taken by the PS3forums, is that these screenshots have been captured using a Component connection.

It’s no secret that the PS3 was made to be an HDMI console, and many of its graphical features can only be used with this connection - such as Super White and RGB Full. Thus, when you plug your PS3 in with an HDMI cable, you’ll see a sharper image, fuller colours and a stronger contrast.

The following uncompressed HD screenshots were made by Dot50Cal of the Beyond3d forums, who also provided Gamersyde with the video comparison.

With that out of the way we can present to you the first HD image comparison of the Devil May Cry 4 demo, with the PS3 version first. Please click on the images to enlarge them:

There aren’t many differences between these two. You might be mistaken into thinking that the Xbox 360’s textures are of a higher resolution. This is untrue. By altering the sharpness settings for the PS3 you will be able to exactly replicate the Xbox 360 image.

The texture resolutions are the same on both consoles. The lack of RGB Full on the PS3 images, which widens the colour spectrum, also impacts the visible sharpness of the textures in these images.

By looking at these screenshots we can begin to see something odd on the PS3 version. Some sort of motion blur, which should not be mistake for lower-resolution textures. This can be seen by pausing your HDTV screen and looking at the slightly blurred image.

Further research, thanks to Quaz51 of Beyond3d Forums (the man who brought you 600p COD4), shows that the PS3 version of DMC4 has a persistence effect (blend frame + frame -1) that blurs the image. No such persistent effect is on the Xbox 360 version.

This motion blur on the PS3 version can be seen in stark realisation when looking at a moving enemy in each console version:

Quite a difference, but don’t be fooled. This is only the blur on the PS3 version, which a still capture shows off, unlike you who will be able to see the sharp textures. The Xbox 360 image is also slightly over-sharp, but this can act to make the texture resolutions look to be of a higher resolution.

It’s also significant to point out that unlike what is expressed on the PSforums, both versions have 2xAA (gets rid of “jaggies” on the edges of objects), but there are more times you’ll notice an edge without AA on the Xbox 360 than on the PS3.

Conclusion? Capcom has created a hell of a multi-platform engine, rivaling Ubisoft Montreal’s Assassin’s Creed engine, and Infinity Ward’s Call of Duty 4 engine.

There isn’t much difference between these two console versions of Devil May Cry 4, except an added motion blur effect on the PS3 version, which is either to improve AA or to give the action an even more heart pumping effect.

What’s most important is that both versions are 60fps, which will keep up with the non-stop action of this latest action title. Dan Landis gives his impressions of the demo here at Ripten.

Update: From further research it may be the case that the blurred frames on the PS3 version does indeed aid in AA, which the Xbox 360 version may not need.

Update 2: The reason there are less visible jagged edges on the PS3 version is that it smoothes them out by blending frames (what I’ve called “motion blur” here), whereas the Xbox 360 version has no need to blend frames, as it has “real” 2xAA.

It has further transpired that without the blending of frames, the PS3 would have no AA at all. This method of Anti-aliasing is not new or uncommon, but it can have disadvantages, as shown in the above still images.

Credit: Dot50Cal and Quaz51 of Beyond3d Forums.

Share This:

Tags: devil_may_cry, devil_may_cry_4, hd, lossless, video_comparison

Related Posts:

Comments »

Angry Barnacle
on January 25, 2008 9:47 am

Sounds about right. The devs have stated that they were too close to call and they know how people count pixels for differences now. All it proves by this sort of thing is how close this gen is (so far) compared to last (not that that seemed to stop the ‘inferior’ PS2 kicking ass sales wise)

Everyone should just be thankful that this is neither an exclusive nor a choppy port although I get the feel that this came from PC to both rather than PS3 to 360.
Patrick Steen
on January 25, 2008 9:49 am

You’re correct, this was made with a PC engine.

Some (IGN, Gamesradar) feel that DMC4 is suited to the Playstation controller, I think that will be the biggest difference for players.
Mr.Shenaniganz
on January 25, 2008 10:29 am

How many more multi-platform comparisons are they going to show where the lower res textures of a game are a result of “motion blur” on the PS3, why is there motion blur on the walls textures when no movement is on the screen? It’s an excuse, and a bad one at that. Motion blur is the result of not having the same res textures. Look, I believe that the PS3 can produce the same quality image as the 360….. but the reality is that they don’t utilize it and the 360 screens come out looking crisper. STOP TAKING IT PERSONALY PS3 FANS! It doesn’t look as good, but it still looks beautiful.
Tim Parsons
on January 25, 2008 10:44 am

What a load of crap about HDMI ,. Component looks Identical

“Thus, when you plug your PS3 in with an HDMI cable, you’ll see a sharper image, fuller colours and a stronger contrast”

BullS ,. NO difference at all , i’ve tested this, all these pics of Component and then pics with HDMI claiming it looks better just for that reason,. then explain to me why on my TV component looks as good as the pics online claiming to come Via HDMI while yet the inferior pics are claimed to come from Component.
Henning
on January 25, 2008 11:29 am

I don’t remember seeing a sharpness control on the PS3…
Patrick Steen
on January 25, 2008 12:42 pm

Mr Shenan - The texture resolutions in DMC4 ARE the very same, there’s no arguing about it. They weren’t the same in COD4 for example.

Now what I’m trying to do is explain the difference. I have explained it as motion blur, as this is the simplest way to describe it, but it’s not actually quite that. It’s actually more of a blending of frames.

Why Capcom do this on the PS3 version I’m not sure, but the 2xAA is slightly improved on the PS3 version, where this blending could be the cause.

Tim - I beg to differ. My wording should perhaps be interpreted as HDMI looks better when RGB Full and Super White are enabled - both of which features are not compatible with Component. The significant difference can be seen on your HDTV - and I have done research in this area in the past.
Richard
on January 25, 2008 12:53 pm

Are you for real “THE REAL HD DMC COMPARISON”? wow you are showing your true IQ
MR Steen, HOW can a true comparison be done when one console is built around the more older and inferior component connection and the other..true next jen HDMI, and call it “REAL” let me be the first to tell you I have both th 360 and *)GIG PS3.Downloaded the game , played them on my 81 series SAMSUNG LCD LED flatscreen, I know a lot of you are not able to afford such a set but if you were true so called hard core gamers , you would only play your sonsoles on equipment that toke advantage of the hardware and not sell yourself short, JUSt to get to my point yes I love my 360 but I seems to fall way short when compared head to head graphically to the PS3 especially when I look at games like COD4 -Virtua tennis-and now DMC- forget UNCHARTED which looks beter than any of these games by far, so please stop all this shit about true comparisons, it just cannot be made when comparing apples and watermellons,YEs the PS3 is more filling games wise as I am noticing time and again, what will 2009 bring? HMMMM
Rey
on January 25, 2008 1:14 pm

Comparing HDMI to Component seams to be unfair , why not compare both HDMI to HDMI and Component to Component for both systems ?
ISAF
on January 25, 2008 1:53 pm

“By altering the sharpness settings for the PS3 you will be able to exactly replicate the Xbox 360 image.”

And this means?
Tim Parsons
on January 25, 2008 2:07 pm

“HDMI looks better when RGB Full and Super White are enabled - both of which features are not compatible with Component. ”

That may possibly be true,. I havent used a HDMI cable with my PS3/TV since just b4 the settings were added ,. But regardless, the best quality videos/Pics of ever seen online of any game off a PS3 via HDMI looks the Exact same quality as mine does via Component. and Prior to those 2 settings being added HDMI and Component looked Exactly the same on mine,
Patrick Steen
on January 25, 2008 2:42 pm

- Richard: The title “The real comparison” is a reaction to the jpeg artifact ridden comparisons before this. I explained that both were component, and even gave a little description that it may look different/better when you use HDMI.

In addition, the technical information given, rather than what the uninformed see with their eyes is another reason for calling it the “real” comparison.

I’m not sure with your other comments. I’m quite happy with my IQ, but thank you for showing concern.

- Rey: Both were captured using Component, instead I describe features that are available to the PS3 when HDMI is used.

- ISAF - It is a test to see whether both versions have the same texture resolutions.

You can’t create a higher-res texture by sharpening the image, instead you will bring out the textures that are already present.

The Xbox 360 image shown here (may be different on your HDTV) appears over-sharp making the textures (to some) look higher-resolution, when you can create this over-sharp image on the PS3 version of the game by changing the sharpness settings on your HDTV.

- Tim Parsons - As the resolution and size of your HDTV increases, you will see the difference to be more pronounced when using HDMI. The sound is better, but also with RGB Full and Super White only being available to the PS3 through HDMI you can create a much wider colour range (on HDTV’s that support these settings, those that don’t will crush blacks).

I suggest you go the the AV Forums for more information on the differences between HDMI and component for the PS3.

Thanks for commenting.
Jackdoe
on January 25, 2008 2:47 pm

I believe the “blur” is actually a flicker filter. Anyone who has played FFXII will know what it is. I just hope it is optional. Anyway, great article, very well researched and non biased. There truly are no differences between the two versions so people could stop bitching and just buy the version for the only console they own. Cuz, I know a lot of the bitchers only own one of the two.
Patrick Steen
on January 25, 2008 3:02 pm

- Jack: Could you explain this flicker filter a bit more? In this demo it appears to blur two frames together which acts (as far as I can see) to increase the AA….not that significantly, but you’ll be hard pressed to find jagged edges.

Another thing to note is that in the demos at least, the cutscenes in the PS3 version aren’t locked down to 30fps like they are on the Xbox 360 version. They waver around 45-60fps on the PS3, which might only be the case in the demo.
Psycho
on January 25, 2008 3:07 pm

No one ever compares the ice monsters they look way better in the ps3 version for some reason
Jackdoe
on January 25, 2008 3:22 pm

@Patrick
Flicker filters are designed to aid in AA. It blurs the image a bit to make the flicker of jaggies less noticible, hence the term, flicker filter. FFXII was a game that used it, and many others do as well. I believe that this blur may be a flicker filter.
Patrick Steen
on January 25, 2008 3:37 pm

I believe that’s what it might be. If that’s the case, then it could be seen as an advantage or disadvantage of the PS3 version.

Better AA, but a slight blur (less pronounced while playing the game compared to looking at these screenshots which will show the blurred frames together).
Bill Rogers
on January 25, 2008 3:46 pm

Thanks for the comparison -great job on the pics, as well as explaining the differences and why. This will help the rabid fanboys from spewing more FUD on something they have no clue about.

Keep these going -I’d love to see HDMI vs HDMI -with fully optimised settings -or even HDMI vs Component.
Patrick Steen
on January 25, 2008 4:03 pm

Bill: This is still ongoing research, and I was perhaps wrong to call it “motion blur” on the PS3 version, but I think that’s enough information for many around the interweb.

Whether this blur that aids in AA is an advantage or disadvantage for the PS3 version is still under discussion.

Really though, both are so close that it doesn’t matter too much, except for the tech peeps.

What this article aims to say, is that for fans and “fanboys”, the versions are so close, and have the same high-res textures, that they just shouldn’t argue about it.

Thanks for reading.
Tim Parsons
on January 25, 2008 4:17 pm

Well personally I can’t give any credit to any comparison when the “better” image is on the 360 but yet that “better” image matches the look i’m getting on my PS3 LOL
cell
on January 25, 2008 4:31 pm

Ive personally made this comparisons my self, and Full range RGB makes e very substantial difference, you guys have to remember that HDMI is pure digital while Component is still analog. There is definitely more contrast on HDMI and less noise. To me its a difference, PS3 versions will always look better because of FULL RGB.
Relys
on January 25, 2008 5:36 pm

What a load of crap. I tested both versions, and the PS3 image was a tad muddy compared to the 360 version.

If you knew anything at all, you wouldn’t be saying HDMI > Component.
Patrick Steen
on January 25, 2008 5:40 pm

Relys: I’ve explained what you call “muddy”.

HDMI > Component for the PS3 is what I said.
hogwash
on January 25, 2008 6:41 pm

I feel like everyone else is blind. Does nobody else notice how much better the rocks behind Berial look and the detail of the textures inside of his mouth, just for starters.
hogwash
on January 25, 2008 6:42 pm

On the above comment, I am referring to the Xbox 360.
Dixxhead
on January 25, 2008 7:36 pm

Hello,

you’ve got quite a nice comparsion here and the pics used are of nice quality, even more so it wonders me how people keep saying the PS 3 Version actually has proper Anti-Aliasing. Imho there is no Anti-Aliasing whatsoever on the PS3, in fact on my HDTV (addmittedly running over HDMI) the image on the PS 3 is a lot sharper than the AAed image of the 360 (unsharpening the picture is a known side effect of AA), but also jaggier to some extent. However, thanks to this “blur”-thing you guys discovered (I looked it up, it’s with HDMI too, kind of remembers me of that GTA “blur” only that was so extreme you could see it without freezing the picture) they get hidden pretty well, but no way as well as with the 360s “real” Anti-Aliasing.

On a second note, the texture resolution: While it is true that texture resolution is equal for both versions in that specific image you pointed out(the first room you enter in the demo, with the staircase), it is not for some other major parts in the demo, for example the fight with that fire-demon. PS3s textures of the Mountains are downright horrible and pixelated in comparsion to the well structured looking 360 textures and this can’t be written off to a diffrent LOD-Bias or the Blur; it’s pixelated. Period. Sharpen that and you’ll get an even more pixelated picture.
Unfortunatly there is no picture of those stonewalls in your gallery, but even just looking at the horns of the demon in your first set of pictures should make my point clear: On PS3 pixelated lines along the horns, on 360 a smooth and straight line.

I do not want to seem like I’m bashing the PS 3 here, I actually prefer the 60fps cutscenes on the PS3 and HDR seems to look better on the PS 3 (along with shadows on the Neros face in certain cutscenes), I just wanted to point out what appears to be wrong in this article for me…

In the end it is all very similiar and I will get it for my PS 3 because of the better controls (looks at his poor finger, swollen from pressing the RB button on the 360)
hank
on January 25, 2008 7:46 pm

This is sad, why do so many so called neutral journalists and such, feel the need to rush to defend the PS3 and its inferior qualities. Clearly the 360 version looks a tiny bit better, make all the excuses you want but that is the hard truth, we dont need folks coming out of the woodwork to explain why. Do you think kids at home are going to go through all the trouble of HDMI settings or what ever else BS you come up with? (especially since the PS3 does not even come with HDMI cables) Come on people, Sony over sold the hype on the superiority of the PS3, deal with it, its their problem not yours.
Peter
on January 25, 2008 7:49 pm

how would the 360 not need any extra AA? motion blurring should be considered as an extra effect to make it look better, right? so no matter how good of an AA a game has, it would look even better with motion blur turned on, if im not mistaken. i have a great 40″ 1080p samsung LCD TV, and after playing the PS3 demo myself on my proper tv, im can see that no screens nor videos are doing the game justice. i havent seen the 360 demo “live” yet, but no matter what, i know that when i play this demo myself, it simply looks way way better than any screenshots or videos i’ve seen. thats proof to me that the game looks stunning, and that alot of people havent seen the real deal.
hank
on January 25, 2008 8:06 pm

Peter you are right, both games look awesome, but one looks a tiny bit better than the other, and i dont see why people feel the need to rush to the defense of the one that looks inferior, especially since it still looks so great. You seem perfectly happy with the PS3 version so why the need for the Sony defense force to come storming? (Not you)
Tim Parsons
on January 25, 2008 8:26 pm

it’s crap screen captures is what it really is,.no ps3 inferior and component just that whoever took those pics messed up the PS3 ones,. my PS3 over component version looks way better then those so called 360 pics. anyone that as a damn clue about adjust TV settings and stuff like that wouldnt try saying it’s because of Component lacking in qaulity compared to HDMI because that is pure simple bull..

A topic like this shouldnt even be debated over pics until those pics are legitimate,. these pics are Bogus. also as far as I can tell from playing this game it doesnt have motion blur at all on the PS3, the images are quite sharp and smooth,. how about someone who knows what their doing with a decent device gets pics then we restart this Topic. To say the pics don’t do the game justice is one heck of an understatement,. i know for a fact the PS3 version doesn’t blur like that,. and I seriously doubt the 360 version is so overly sharp that it would appear Pixelated like in those pics
Peter
on January 25, 2008 8:27 pm

i guess its because the PS3 has to live up to its hype as the most powerful console. its the most expencive one too, and the technical specs are better, so i see it natural that sony wants to defend their work when it’s being called the weaker one. if i had only seen images like these ones online, i’d definately call the 360 version the stronger one. but i know how much better the PS3 version is on a proper tv, than on these images. thats why, if i had to say which one had that tiny superiority, i’d say the PS3.
-thats if i had to choose. i cant choose the 360 version over the PS3 version when i know how good it really looks.
Patrick Steen
on January 25, 2008 8:28 pm

hank: It’s not a “defense force” I feel no need to defend anything. I’ve explained the difference, and you can see the frames blended together in the screenshot. This isn’t as obvious in motion. I haven’t concluded which one is superior, and I don’t think I need to. If anything I’ve said the way the Xbox achieves AA in DMC4 is preferable. This isn’t a forum hank, so we don’t feel the need to express any bias.

Peter: It’s not exactly what you’d know as “motion blur”.
Peter
on January 25, 2008 8:42 pm

hmm, i thought about it, and i think i get what the “blur” thing really is. however, as Tim said, its not visible in-game. it does look perfectly smooth. and i mean perfect. there really are no jaggies or anything at all, on 1080p. i cant imagine this game looking any better on the 360. not saying the 360 looks worse, i just cant imagine it looking better. i mean, what beats perfect?? -nothing does.
and of course, im not saying the game looks perfect, no games do. im saying the smoothness, the edges and all that, that has been perfected.
Patrick Steen
on January 25, 2008 8:46 pm

Tim: Firstly you’re wrong. These are accurate screen captures taken using a capture card by Dot50Cal of the Beyond3d forums, who also provides captures for Gamersyde and Neogaf.

These pictures are legitimate, and you won’t find any better captures around the web. They lack artifacts, and are taken with the most appropriate technology available. If you want to take captures of a game, this is how you do it.

I didn’t write that it was to do with component lacking in quality over HDMI. Instead, I stated that you may see a different image if you use an HDMI cable to configure your PS3 properly.

“I know for a fact the PS3 version doesn’t blur like that.” No, you don’t. I’ve explained that you may well not notice the “motion blur”. It’s there - the average eye won’t be able to see it in a moving image - what it does is blur the frames so the edges look less jagged, it could even be called a way to achieve AA. This effect is more noticeable in screenshots, than it is while you’re playing the game.

All captures were taken on default settings without any configuration through an HDTV, so the sharpness you see in the Xbox 360 image is the sharpness in the game on this console. It cannot have been added after by settings on a TV.

Of course the pictures don’t do the game justice, but I beg for you to find an HD comparison video that doesn’t have compression artifacts.

-Peter: My conclusion agrees with yours.

-Dix: This may be the case with the AA. The blur effect is not present in the cutscenes, which is why you can see that jagged edge in the first image (it’s from a cutscene).
Tim Parsons
on January 25, 2008 10:11 pm

hmmm,. well if that’s all it is that makes it look blurry in the stills is some form of motion blur unnoticeable to the human eye I can except that,… but bottom line is end result during game play the PS3 version is smooth,and clear and vibrant, and jaggy free as i could possibly imagine ,…
Aquanox
on January 26, 2008 7:51 am

Patrick Steen, are you a user in Ps3Forums? I’d like to know your nickname if you don’t mind. This article resembles something I’ve read before but I’m not sure where.

The fact is simple: Motion Blur is NOT the cause of the lack of detail in the PS3 version. There’s less detail even in slow motion scenes and it’s affecting the background where it doesn’t move?

Check this out:

http://www.xboxperu.com/foro/new/bscap0011.jpg

Here, the background doesn’t move, yet there are big differences in both versions. Also, the characters move very slowly yet you claim motion blur is what it’s doing the (bad) job. By the way, this technique is applied in both versions, but the quality can’t be appreciated when there’s motion blur in them, so I skipped those images.

As for the Antialiasing, even you captures prove that the Xbox 360 has superior AA. Just check the pictures you’ve brought here, the ones with the fire monster. The Aliasing is noticeable in the hornes whereas in the Xbox 360 version they look much smoother.

I have also read some claims of people saying the PS3 version runs smoother on cutscenes, which is pretty useless since the real deal is in gameplay and this game is butter smooth in both versions.

In conclusion, the Xbox 360 does look better but you will only notice it if you look carefully. The antialiasing might be the only noticeable difference but since this is a game where dark colors are predominant, it’s not such a big deal since the AA is more useful in colorful scenes or those in which white is predominant. Other than the Ice scenes, it’s hard to find the jaggies.

Now please everyone move on and get over this. Burnout paradise has proven the PS3 is a great platform too even for multi games, but it happens that CAPCOM has some experts in Xbox hardware working in the game and it might not take much for them to master the Playstation 3, if they haven’t already.
Dixxhead
on January 26, 2008 8:00 am

@Patrick: I see your point, I checked and there is indeed no Motion Blur on the Cutscenes in the PS 3-Version (why would they remove it from there?) But doesn’t that even support my thesis that textures are indeed a tad lower res on the PS3? Just check the mountains in the Boss-fight arena, or the horns in the first set of picture you posted (which are both from a cutscene so no motion-blur).
Patrick Steen
on January 26, 2008 8:25 am

Aqua: I do not post on the PS3forums. You do.

Read the update Aqua - blending of frames is a method used to achieve AA, which is quite effective. The Xbox 360 uses “traditional” AA.

The resolutions of the textures are the same.

PS3’s cutscnes run at 60fps, but may drop down to 30fps. The Xbox 360’s cutscenes are locked at 30fps. Which you prefer is up to you.

This article is designed to put things to rest with researched knowledge instead of conclusions met through console preferences.

Dix: On further inspection the frame blending may well also be in the cutscenes - I’m finding more screenshots of cutscnes with similar frame blending.

However, even by looking at the first screenshots - Beriel’s horns - the texture resolution is the same: the very same. There’s no difference except in contrast and sharpness.

You’ll have to capture comparison screenshots for the mountains.

Thanks for commenting both of you.
Aquanox
on January 26, 2008 8:47 pm

Patrick:

I was just wondering if you posted there because I’ve had a similar debate over there. Just wondering.

On the subject now, I’m not sure if this technique you say they’re using in the Ps3 version is actually aiding in the visual quality. It’s a well known fact that Antialiasing is a power hungry process that has been many times skipped in consoles to achieve better performance (though showing those annoying sharp edges). Fortunately for Xbox 360 owners, it seems that the Embedded EdRam is actually playing in favor of some of its games; this case being an example. What I’m saying is that this effect used in the Ps3 version is more a walkaround to Real Antialiasing, an alternative that doesn’t quite give equally positive results. Not even close.

As for the framerate in cutscenes, the PS3 version drops to 30 fps when things become busy. Aka, on scenes that demand more power. In the Xbox 360 version, it always run at 30 fps by a developing decision not for any limitation. Which one do I prefer? The one version that achieves the best visual results through all the mentioned cutscenes, with real AA and better looking textures.

Now, you say that both versions feature similary sized textures and I wonder why they look sharper on Xbox 360 even in static scenes where motion blur doesn’t play a role. The PS3 team might have managed to achieve similar results in some indoor scenes, but it’s outside where the differences are obvious, in the scenes where memory is key to achieve better results, and area where the Xbox 360 outperforms the PS3, and it shows here.

Last but not least, consoles preferences have nothing to do with the content in post at ps3forums. The conclusions aren’t biased in any way nor do they lean to any conclusion without solid proof. Having a preference doesn’t automatically prove you wrong. It’s the basis on which you build your conclusions which do and mines are still intact backed up even by your higher quality .png captures in which you can find the exact same results I’ve mentioned back then, with the only difference that you’re bringing up more technical details that explain these results but don’t have any impact on the final conclusion, except probably for indoor scenes. In the end, the fact remains that the version that overall looks better is the Xbox 360’s.

Aquanox.
DavidGX
on January 27, 2008 1:23 am

The PS3 version looks kinda cruddy compared to the 360 version. Guess I’ll be getting this on one Xbox 360.
Monarky
on January 27, 2008 6:27 am

PS3 has NO Anti-Aliasing? WTF???
He just tells U they are using 2x anti-aliasing on both versions. Get over it!

It’s a Multi-platform game playing down to the abilities of the Xbox 3fixme. I have both, but if I hadn’t gotten the 3fixme first, I wouldn’t own it. Not because the games are not good, but because the PS3 thrashes the 3fixme in the hardware department and it’s abilities.

When I say multi-platform, I mean both versions of this game having extreme popping of textures that come standard on any Xbox 3fixme game. Objects and characters looking more like decals is another wonderful feature your console of choice loves!

FYI ! PS3 is capable of ?x and I’m not here to prove that the PS3 is far supperior, when games like “Uncharted” which ran 4x anti-aliasing proved it. Oh.. yeah you don’t have both consoles so you’re still busy being a mindless fanboy, believing what M$ tells you instead of the truth!

GT-5 Prologue (a demo no less) is running 4x AA in 720p 60fps segments and 2x AA at 1080p 60fps in certain game where car models are 200,000 polygons with 16 of them on the track at once with LOD of coarse (means polygons are reduced the further away you get). But in any that’s millions of polygons at any given time! …can your box even do that, with that much action on screen? NO! GT-5 full game will be running 1080p 60fps in game with 16 cars in game! …I won’t ask cuz I know the anser. hehe

Xbox 360 version better than Xbox 3fixme? Baugh…balderdash!!! Just another multi-platform game with microscopic differences to keep you feeling good about your purchase, despite the fact your console will end up last over the years to come!

Look up “IBM Power to the People” to confirm their connection to Nvidia and G94 design (end of article). Look up, IBM Cell 45nm cache ASIC, to confirm IBM leads the World in ASIC design. Look up “NVIDIA upcoming 9600GT dailytech” for a look at World Class IBM ASIC with diagonally set silicon on substrate, just like on the RSX! They are pioneers in Low-K technology and have a Bus and cache system with SoI process, that will take 45nm Cell to new levels B3yond Tomorrow next year doubling effective cache sizes and trippling speed!

Why do you think RSX and most of Nvidia parts are now at 65nm process? Hint: SoI (silicon on insulator) not just PS3’s Cell and Super Companion chips. How do you think that GDDR3 memory is applied to the diagonally set silicon on it’s substrate. Soon even Nvidia will bring their chip design up to the standards of RSX w/memory applied to the chip substrate! LOLz

Xbox 3fixme better? That’s a laugh!!! ….if it was true, not for long and in the end it will be PS3 for the 3-Peat, while Wiimpy takes second!!!!
DavidGX
on January 27, 2008 6:30 am

“PS3 has NO Anti-Aliasing? WTF???
He just tells U they are using 2x anti-aliasing on both versions. Get over it!

It’s a Multi-platform game playing down to the abilities of the Xbox 3fixme….”

Really lost interest in what you said after that point. Come back and try again without the fanboyish nonsense.
Monarky
on January 27, 2008 6:59 am

@DavidGX
Yes the inability to read anymore than a few words is a problem with Xbox fans! LOLz

How’s that? Better? hehe
DavidGX
on January 27, 2008 7:01 am

Your fanboyism is blinding.

*puts on shades*

There we are. The LOLz really made you sound more mature, nice touch with that.

I know the writers are on strike but holy cow, at least TRY and hide it.
Dixxhead
on January 27, 2008 7:22 am

Monarky,

you obviously know to some extend what you are saying, but it is not up to debate wheter the PS 3 has the more sophisticated/powerful technology in it or not. I see that exclusive games like Ratchet and Clank or Uncharted proove its worth many times over, but right now we are comparing DMC 4 and I’m in full accordance with aquanox on this one. Besides, no matter what you say, both Systems have 512mb ram, with one crucial and one not so crucial difference: The 360 Dashboard needs around 30mb, the PS3’s XMB needs a whooping 80mb. Also, the 360 has a shared memory-system, meaning both CPU and GPU can directly access the 700mhz GDDR3 Ram (128bit), while on PS3 the RSX has it’s 700mhz GDDR3 ram for himself (256mb and 128bit aswell) and the Cell has his 3.2 Ghz (!) XDR Ram for himself [again 256mb] (although RSX can access it with some bandwidth loss). There are several other differences like the 10mb eDram on the 360-GPU and whatnot that make a difference right now (especially for Anti-Aliasing), but that is all another topic…

Let me get to the point here; I made some comparative screenshots, but unfortunatly my posts including links simply don’t show up. So sorry for trying to circumvent that “safety”-system here; just add a http:// in front of the link.

PS3: img169.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscn1608bp0.jpg

360: img402.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscn1610bs3.jpg

It is quite obvious that 360 textures are higher res here, just like Aquanox said. And it is also possible to see how the AA works better on the 360 if you carefully observe the house’s roof…

Thanks for reading.
Monarky
on January 27, 2008 10:12 am

Me a fanboy? (falls on floor laughing hysterically, gets up applies a layer of Xbot repellent that also works against flies, creeps and other devoted followers of the Xbox 3fixme (the console that’s died on me three times) loser game console)

Obviously you’re just looking at a mirror or maybe you should clean your glasses of that green slime splattered on your face! hehe

Perhaps if you learned to read and check things out more throughly, you might actually learn something before you opened your mouth. But I’m not here to waste my time joisting with you on a few fragments of your imaginative perceptions or merits of one version of a equally stupid game. Or run a tit for tat exchange of belligerent ignorance. The microscopic differences in this POS Multi-platform game aren’t even worth it to me!

Maybe I’ll drop by your home someday and we can continue this wonderful exchange! Bye!!! ;)
Monarky
on January 27, 2008 12:09 pm

@Dixxhead
I played both demos and to tell the truth I really can’t see the difference. That’s on a 65″ 1080p screen!

Also: all you have to do to get around the inability to post a link here, is become a member. Then when you post a link it’s posted immediately.

Also sorry about being harsh. There’s a difference between being a fanboy and having an opinion as you do. That I can respect, but Aquanox is the honorary president of the Xbox 360 Fan Club at PS3 forums and he doesn’t know how to be impartial!

But although you are using a decent camera on these, taking shots at the wrong time is a factor. The fact that it’s been proven that PS3 runs this game at a consistently higher frame rate (as high as 60fps) and Xbox 360 is locked at 30fps, shows these pictures definitely don’t reflect what I see right in front of my face!

For me I just get tired of all these comparisons and attempts by gamers that should be friends, arguing about the games they play. I didn’t like the Wars in the Nintendo vs Sega Wars and now it’s just gotten more viral and caustic. Wish it would end!!!

If you like the game on Xbox 360 buy it. But don’t try to tell me what I’m seeing and not seeing right in front of my face in full motion on a 65″ 1080p screen TV that upscales any signal it’s fed to that res! ;) …I know what I’m seeing and it’s not that!
DavidGX
on January 27, 2008 7:07 pm

“Me a fanboy? (falls on floor laughing hysterically, gets up applies a layer of Xbot”

Stopped reading right there. If you really think you’re coming accross as anything other than an annoying child fanboy then you’re fooling yourself. Try again, less fanboyism this time.
Patrick Steen
on January 27, 2008 9:03 pm

Anyway, while you two enjoy that discussion, I have a few things to discuss myself.

Aqua: You’re explaining things to me that don’t need explaining. I expect this is what you’ve learnt to use against those who disagree with you.

I’m aware of AA, and I’m also aware of the games that have it and the games that do and don’t use it. So far the Xbox 360’s edram has not lived up to it’s expectations, needing tiling to use it (10mb isn’t enough), where some games have had to reduce their resolution to use it.

Now, if you’re trying to say that developers may find it easier to achieve AA with the Xbox 360’s hardware, you may well be right, since learning the ins and outs of the PS3’s cell is what will give developers gains for the PS3 versions. Many developers can’t afford to do so, and if they know how to use edram and the more accessible Xbox 360 hardware they will get gains that they might not get with the PS3 (eg. Virtua Fighter 5 4xAA on 360, 0xAA on PS3)

However, claiming the PS3 is less adept at AA when a wide variety of PS3 games have AA (even 4xAA) is untrue, even when citing Edram. Eg. Gran Turismo 5 Prologue 4xAA at 720p, Heavenly Sword 4xAA, Full Auto 2 4xAA.

I have explained how they achieve 2xAA for DMC4 - the PS3 way could indeed be called a “work around”, but it is effective. The blending of frames is not visible when playing the game at 60frames per second (think at any one time 3 of these frames are being blended - that’s 0.05 seconds.) Something your eye is hardly going to notice.

Thus, the above article is meant to show that screenshots of the PS3 version are not accurate to what you see when playing the game, since a screenshot will show 3 blended frames together. Plus or minus visually? In screenshots it’s a minor, in motion it’s hardly a negative.

Cutscenes - I suggest we wait until the retail to see if they decided to lock the PS3 version down as well.

“I wonder why they look sharper on Xbox 360 even in static scenes where motion blur doesn’t play a role.” I’ve already explained this in the article. You can recreate the sharpness for the PS3 version by upping it on your HDTV. Furthermore, frame blending occurs even when static - the resultant 2xAA will still show, but it is only in very fast motion that you might see “motion blur”.

“In the end, the fact remains that the version that overall looks better is the Xbox 360’s.” I get the impression you’re holding back, so please don’t.

Dix: Like Monarky’s comments, your talk about hardware is straying off the topic and also appears to be full of hearsay.

As far as your screenshots - as well as being highly compressed jpegs - I wouldn’t say this is a texture problem, but the normal maps having a higher precision on the Xbox 360 in this case. I’d need to see an HD comparison from further back which I could zoom in on myself.

I do enjoy your comments, so keep them coming. We should be like a happy family that likes to debate. No name calling!

Patrick
Dixxhead
on January 28, 2008 8:29 am

Patrick,

you are right that my speech of Hardware was out of place, I said so myself; I just got carried away because I am very interested in those kind of things. That is also the reason why I keep posting here, as I love deabeting about these things…

However, whatever it is, the textures look great on the 360 and not so great (actually they look bad in this specific case I photographed) on the PS 3. I checked and rechecked many times, it’s not like it’s going to influence the gameplay in any way (which is superior on the PS 3 thanks to the better suited controller *imo*), but it doesn’t look quite as HD as on the 360. Unfortunatly I do not own the hardware to get HD-direct-feed shots (and I’m not gonna spend another 500+€ for my hobby ^^) out of those consoles, so the best I can offer are those screenshots made while putting the LCD into “Freeze-Picture” mode.

So, as far as it goes for me, the 360 Version IS technically superior, also for the more constant “traditional&real” AA (looks more or less the same in every scene; on PS 3 I have some scenes where there is basically no aliasing visible to me, some which equals the one of the 360 and some where there is no AA visible).
Also you say that it might be connected to higher-precision Normal-maps on 360, but isn’t that basically just another term for “higher-res” normal-maps on the 360 (of course, they might be there in the same resolution but the Shaders and whatnot are calculated in a lower res)? Or do you mean the LOD-Bias? Afaik, as soon as I get close to those walls the texture should adjust to a higher-res then, but even in-game (hard to notice, let alone make a proper pic) the textures are crisper on the 360 version in that arena…

On another note, I didn’t mention it earlier, but was curious if any of you guys noticed tearing on the 360-Version, as I have it there but not on the PS 3 (possibly due to the diffrent connection types? YUV vs. HDMI)
Patrick Steen
on January 28, 2008 9:09 am

Dix: (I must say you have an odd nickname!) The textures appear to have more pop on the 360, but generally the resolution is the same and similar results can be had on the PS3 with an upped contrast and the use of RGB Full via HDMI.

Further research is being made in this area - not because it matters, but because it’s interesting. I might have been wrong to bring this discussion to the general internet public, but I winged it.

As far as tearing - what I can say is that there are reports of texture shimmering on the 360 version, something which the frame blending on the PS3 appears to eliminate.

Unless you’re talking about vertical/horizantle tearing - that would instead be the result of a slight wavering framerate - with evidence perhaps being the locked 30fps framrate on 360 cutscenes. That is, the PS3 version may have the better framerate - which I think could obviously be attributed to the Xbox 360 rendering with real 2xAA (though frame-blending is not without its challenges to system performance.)

Thanks D.
Aquanox
on January 28, 2008 11:14 am

“Aqua: You’re explaining things to me that don’t need explaining. I expect this is what you’ve learnt to use against those who disagree with you. ”

Actually, I’m explaining things to whoever could be reading this since I’ve got the feeling that the title and content of this article can be found misleading to some people. By the way, this is not about anyone disagreeing with me; it’s about people bringing up conclusions that I find not well backed up, especially when they quote something I’ve written as a source to be disproved. =)

“I’m aware of AA, and I’m also aware of the games that have it and the games that do and don’t use it. So far the Xbox 360’s edram has not lived up to it’s expectations, needing tiling to use it (10mb isn’t enough), where some games have had to reduce their resolution to use it.

Now, if you’re trying to say that developers may find it easier to achieve AA with the Xbox 360’s hardware, you may well be right, since learning the ins and outs of the PS3’s cell is what will give developers gains for the PS3 versions. Many developers can’t afford to do so, and if they know how to use edram and the more accessible Xbox 360 hardware they will get gains that they might not get with the PS3 (eg. Virtua Fighter 5 4xAA on 360, 0xAA on PS3)”

Indeed, many developers haven’t taken full advantage of the EdRAM and/or have found problems using it. However, in this particular case (which is the one in discussion) it’s obviously being put to good use. I remember reading those 256MB allow the picture to travel more than once to be Antialiased in the EDRAM, getting rid of the limitation of those 10MB. Probably the technique being used here? I’ll have to do more research on this one though.

“However, claiming the PS3 is less adept at AA when a wide variety of PS3 games have AA (even 4xAA) is untrue, even when citing Edram. Eg. Gran Turismo 5 Prologue 4xAA at 720p, Heavenly Sword 4xAA, Full Auto 2 4xAA”

I think you’re taking this discussion in a way it isn’t meant to. This isn’t Xbox 360 theoretical power vs. Playstation 3’s. This is DMC4 Xbox 360 vs. DMC4 Playstation 3. I’m aware of the Playstation 3 power to make good exclusive games but we’re talking about a particular multiplatform game. Please don’t derail it or it will never meet an end.

“I have explained how they achieve 2xAA for DMC4 - the PS3 way could indeed be called a “work around”, but it is effective. The blending of frames is not visible when playing the game at 60frames per second (think at any one time 3 of these frames are being blended - that’s 0.05 seconds.) Something your eye is hardly going to notice.

Thus, the above article is meant to show that screenshots of the PS3 version are not accurate to what you see when playing the game, since a screenshot will show 3 blended frames together. Plus or minus visually? In screenshots it’s a minor, in motion it’s hardly a negative.”

Actually, very few things are noticeable at 60fps. If you want to judge the game when it’s in full motion then yes, they look very alike. Jaggies are usuallly not that annoying when there’s frenetic action in there and the sames goes for texture detail. I find this a convenient change of perspective for the case in discussion though. Making comparisons is about looking for differences that aren’t that obvious at first sight and while in motion it’s hard to notice them, it isn’t the case when you actually take a glance at the visuals for the sake of enjoying - or judging - them (and not move, or move slowly) I think I know where you’re comming from though. This same argument could be applied for almost every single comparison ever made in both consoles except for games like Assassin’s Creed and The Orange Box where framerate does affect negatively the PS3 version experience. Nevertheless, it’s like saying an Xvid looks the same as an original DVD in terms of picture quality just because the differences are only noticeable if you do pay attention to them and or for the trained eye (the average eye don’t even notice the difference between HD and SD in 32- screens). In one way, that’s correct, but not for the ones that make these comparisons nor for those who actually take their time to read them, like your audience here at ripten.

“Cutscenes - I suggest we wait until the retail to see if they decided to lock the PS3 version down as well.”

I don’t think having not locked down cutscenes are a problem at all. They still struggle at 30FPS in heavy loaded scenes so if they had more time, the developers should aim to improve the already mentioned details to match the Xbox 360 counterpart with locked or not locked framerate (as long as it never drops below 30fps)

“I wonder why they look sharper on Xbox 360 even in static scenes where motion blur doesn’t play a role.” I’ve already explained this in the article. You can recreate the sharpness for the PS3 version by upping it on your HDTV. Furthermore, frame blending occurs even when static - the resultant 2xAA will still show, but it is only in very fast motion that you might see “motion blur”.

This is where you lost me completely. Are you saying that you will have more detailed textures in the Playstation version if you change the sharpness settings in the Playstation 3/PS3 Version of the game? Please elaborate here because I’m not sure about what you’re saying. Keep in mind that I’m not only talking about blur in the textures but the detail in them. It could sound as the same but it’s not. Sharpening a blurred texture will not bring more detail into it, it will just make it look “cleaner”.
Monarky
on January 29, 2008 5:50 pm

There is screen tearing on X360 version vs PS3? Absolutely!!! But all that texture popping in this game is what ruins it for me on both versions. It ruins any semblance or comparison to other better developed first party games. It’s atrocious on both consoles! ….but then again Halo 3 makes the texture popping on this game look trivial! :)
Patrick Steen
on January 29, 2008 9:17 pm

Aqua: Sorry for the delayed response. Why not give yourself an avatar!

I thought your post was a long one, but it’s generally just quotes of what I said, so I’ll try my best to respond.

Actually, I thought it was your statements in your thread that were completely under discussed and lacked evidence - hence the article.

Edram and DMC4? All I can say is “perhaps”.

As for my quotation of AA’ed titles on the PS3, it was perfectly relevant since you brought it to hardware with your discussion of edram. Your point was that edram was what gave the 360 DMC4 real 2xAA, I instead said that you needn’t have edram to achieve AA, thus I quoted some examples.

Now, I also said that if you were implying that it was “easier” for a PC dev to achieve AA on the 360 that you may well be right.

I think you miss my point here. You state that the textures appear to be lower res on the PS3 version by looking at screenshots. I here state that the frame blending on the PS3 version is what makes the textures “blurred”. This is a feature (blended frames) that can be seen in screenshots.

However, you can’t in fact see this frame blending occurring in real time, except for motion blur when Nero is running very fast. Thus, the textures are clearer/sharper when playing the game, meaning the screenshots are misrepresentitave; that is, unless you are aware you are looking at two-three frames blended together in one screenshot.

“The developers should aim to improve the already mentioned details to match the Xbox 360 counterpart.” Firstly there have been no reports of the PS3 version struggling to hit 30fps in its cutscenes. It is generally 60fps, but sometimes drops to around 45fps.

If you mean real AA…perhaps, but the PS3 version has eradicated texture shimmer, and does not tear…meaning they have sharpened the graphics to meet a steady locked framerate (except in cutscenes). Nevertheless, I expect the tearing to be gone by the time we see the Xbox 360 retail version.

Finally, you said that you thought it was odd that textures on the 360 were sharper than the PS3 couterpart, even in static scenes. I stated that this is no evidence of lowere-res textures, and that by enabling rgb full, superwhite (PS3 HDMI) and upping the sharpness on your HDTV you could create a similar image - remember these shots were taken via component. However, the 360 textures do have more “pop” and are sharper - this will be in the filtering.

Thanks for responding.
Jdizzell
on January 30, 2008 12:31 am

I have both the 360, PS3 and Wii
luzifer
on May 13, 2008 12:16 pm

Bravo and thanks for an informative blog. I already have an Xbox 360 and after reading this have decided to get a ps3 as well.Wanted to get a sec box for room to room to room play. thank you , especially patrick and of course the rest as well.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The Real HD DMC4 Console Comparison: Motion Blur In PS3 Version *Update*

The Real HD DMC4 Console Comparison: Motion Blur In PS3 Version Update