The Xbox One - Mini Review & Comparison to Xbox 360/PS4
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 20, 2013 8:00 AM ESTImage Quality - Xbox 360 vs. Xbox One
Before I get to the PS4 comparison, I wanted to start with some videos showcasing the improvement you can expect from launch day titles that are available on both the Xbox 360 and Xbox One. I turned to Call of Duty: Ghosts for this comparison as it’s broadly available on all platforms I’m comparing today.
Note that cross platform launch titles, particularly those available on previous generation consoles, end up being the worst examples of what’s possible on a next-generation platform. For the most part they’re optimized for the platform with the larger installed base (i.e. prior-gen hardware), and the visual uplift on new hardware isn’t as much as it could be. I’d say my subjective experience in playing a lot of the launch titles on Xbox One and PS4 mirrors this sentiment. Basic things like not having accurate/realistic cloth physics in games like CoD: Ghosts just screams port and not something that was designed specifically for these next gen systems. Just as we’ve seen in prior generations, it’s likely going to be a good 12 - 24 months before we see great examples of games on this new generation of hardware.
Now that I’ve adequately explained why this is a bad comparison, let’s get to the comparison. I’ve captured HDMI output on both consoles. They were both set to full range (0-255), however I had issues with the Xbox One respecting this setting for some reason. That combined with differences across Ghosts on both platforms left me with black levels that don’t seem equalized between the platforms. If you can ignore that, we can get to the comparison at hand.
All of these videos are encoded at 4K, with two 1080p captures placed side by side. Be sure to select the highest quality playback option YouTube offers.
The first scene is the intro to Ghosts. Here you can see clear differences in lighting, details in the characters, as well as some basic resolution/AA differences as well (Xbox 360 image sample, Xbox One image sample).
The second scene is best described as Call of Duty meets Gravity. Here the scene is going by pretty quickly so you’re going to have to pause the video to get a good feel for any differences in the platforms. What’s most apparent here though is the fact that many present day users can likely get by sticking with older hardware due to the lack of titles that are truly optimized for the Xbox One/PS4.
Now getting to scenes more representative of actual gameplay, we have Riley riding around wanting badly to drive the military vehicle. Here the differences are huge. The Xbox One features more realistic lighting, you can see texture in Riley’s fur, shadows are more detailed and there seems to be a resolution/AA advantage as well. What’s funny is that although the Xbox One appears to have a resolution advantage, the 360 appears to have less aliasing as everything is just so blurry.
Speaking of aliasing, we have our final IQ test which is really the perfect test case for high resolution/AA. Once again we see a completely different scene comparing the Xbox One to Xbox 360. Completely different lighting, much more detail in the environments as well as objects on the ground. The 360 version of Ghosts is just significantly more blurry than what you get on the One, which unfortunately makes aliasing stand out even more on the One.
Even though it’ll be a little while before we get truly optimzed next-gen titles, there’s an appreciable improvement on those games we have today for anyone upgrading from an older console. The difference may be more subtle than in previous generations, but it’s there.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
286 Comments
View All Comments
nathanddrews - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
Nice article, thanks for posting!Will you be going into any of the media streaming capabilities of the different platforms? I've heard that Sony has abandoned almost all DLNA abilities and doesn't even play 3-D Blu-ray discs? (WTF) Is Microsoft going that route as well or have they expanded their previous offerings? Being able to play MKV Blu-ray rips would be interesting...
Also, what's the deal with 4K and HDMI? As I understand it, the new consoles use HDMI 1.4a, so that means only 4K at 24Hz (30Hz max), so no one is going to be gaming at 4K, but it would allow for 4K movie downloads.
I've spent the last couple years investing heavily into PC gaming (Steam, GOG, etc.) after a long stint of mostly console gaming. A lot of my friends who used to be exclusive console gamers have also made the switch recently. They're all getting tired of being locked into proprietary systems and the lack of customization. I've hooked a bunch of them up with $100 i3/C2Q computers on Craigslist and they toss in a GTX 670 or 7950 (whatever their budget allows) and they're having a blast getting maxed (or near maxed) 1080p gaming with less money spent on hardware and games. Combined with XBMC, Netflix via any browser they prefer, it's definitely a lot easier for non-enthusiasts to get into PC gaming now (thanks big Picture Mode!). Obviously, there's still a long way to go to get the level of UI smoothness/integration of a single console, but BPM actually does a pretty good job switching between XBMC, Hyperspin, Chrome, and all that.
SunLord - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
A 4k movie is at least 100+GB and that just for one movie... No one sane is going to be downloading them or at least not more then 2 a month.nathanddrews - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
Except they aren't 100+GB. The 4K movies Sony is offering through its service are 40-60GB for the video with a couple audio tracks. You forget that most Blu-ray video files are in the 20-30GB range, only a handful even get close to 45GB. And that's using H.264, not H.265 which offers double the compression without sacrificing PQ.Don't measure other peoples' sanity based upon your own. I download multiple 15-25GB games per month via Steam without even thinking about it. 4K video downloads are happening now and will likely continue with or without your blessing. :/
3DoubleD - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
The thing is, 4k is roughly 4x the pixels as 1080p. Therefore, a 4k video the the appropriate bit-rate will be ~4x the size as the 1080p version. So yes, a 4k movie should be about 80 - 120 GB.Now the scaling won't be perfect given that we aren't requiring 4x the audio, but the audio on 1080p BRs is a small portion relative to the video.
The 60 GB 4k video will probably be an improvement over a 30 GB 1080p video, but the reality is that it is a bitrate starved version, sort of like 1080p netflix vs 1080p BR.
The thing is, what format is available to delivery full bitrate 4k? Quad layer BRs? Probably not. Digital downloads... not with internet caps. Still, I'm in no rush, my 23 TB (and growing... always growing) media server would be quickly overwhelmed either way. Also, I just bought a Panasonic TC60ST60, so I'm locking into 1080p for the next 5 years to ride out this 4k transition until TVs are big enough or I can install a projector.
nathanddrews - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
When you say "full bitrate 4k", do you even know what you're saying? RED RAW? Uncompressed you're talking many Gbps, several TBs of storage for a feature-length film. DCI 4K? Hundreds of GBs. Sony has delivered on Blu-ray quality picture quality (no visible artifacts) at 4K under 60GB, it's real and it looks excellent. Is it 4K DCI? Of course not, but Blu-ray couldn't match 2K DCI either. There are factors beyond bit rate at play.Simple arithmetic can not be used to relate bit rate to picture quality, especially when using different codecs... or even the same codec! Using the same bit rate, launch DVDs look like junk compared to modern DVDs. Blu-ray discs today far outshine most launch Blu-ray discs at the same bit rate. There's more to it than just the bit rate.
3DoubleD - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
You certainly know what I meant by "full bitrate" when I spent half my post describing what I meant. Certainly not uncompressed video, that is ridiculous.There is undoubtedly room for improvements available using the same codec to achieve more efficient encoding of BR video. I've seen significant decreases in bitrate accomplished with negligible impact to image quality with .264 encoding of BR video. That said, to this day these improvements rarely appear on production BR discs, but instead by videophile enthusiasts.
If what your saying is that all production studios (not just Sony) have gotten their act together and are more efficiently encoding BR video, then that's great news! Now when ripping BRs I don't have to re-encode the video more efficiently because they were too lazy to do it in the first place!
If this is the case, then yes, 60 GB is probably sufficient to produce artifact free UHD; however, this practice is contrary to the way BR production has been since the beginning and I'd be surprised if everyone follows suit. Yes, BR PQ/bitrate has been improving over the years, but not to the level of a 60GB feature length movie completely artifact free UHD.
Still, 60 GB is both too large for dual layer BRs and far too large for the current state of internet (with download caps). I applaud Sony for offering an option for the 4K enthusiast, but I'm still unclear as to what the long term game plan will be. I assume a combination of maintaining efficient encoding practices and H.265 will enable them to squeeze UHD content onto a double layer BR? I hope (and prefer) that viable download options appear, but that is mostly up to ISPs removing their download caps unfortunately.
Overall, it's interesting, but still far from accessible. The current extreme effort required to get UHD content and the small benefit (unless you have a massive UHD projector setup) really limits the market. I'm saying this as someone who went to seemingly extreme lengths to get HD content (720p/1080p) prior to the existence of HDDVD and BR. Of course consumers blinded by marketing will still buy 60" UHD TVs and swear they can see the difference sitting 10 - 15+ ft away, but mass adoption is certainly years away. Higher PQ display technology is far more interesting (to me).
Keshley - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
You're assuming that all 45 GB of the data is video, when usually at least half of that is audio. Audio standards haven't changed, still DTS-MA, TrueHD, etc. Typically the actual video portion of a movie is around 10GBs, so we're talking closer to the 60GB number that was mentioned above.3DoubleD - Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - link
The video portion of a BR is by far the bulk and audio is certainly not half the data. For example, Man of Steel has 21.39 GB of video and the English 7.1 DTS HD track is 5.57 GB. The entire BR is 39 GB, the remainder are a bunch of extra video features and some extra other DTS audio tracks for other languages is also included. So keeping the bitrate to pixel ratio the same, 4x scaling gives us ~85 GB. To fit within 60GB, the video portion could only be 54.5GB to leave room for DTS HD audio (english only) That would be ~64% of the bitrate/pixel for UHD compared to 1080p, assuming 4x scaling and the same codec and encoding efficiency. Perhaps in some cases you can get away with less bitrate per pixel given the shear number of pixels, but it certainly seems on the bitrate starved side to me. Even if video without noticeable artifacts is possible for a 2h20min movie (20 min of credits, so ~2h) like Man of Steel, a longer movie or a one that is more difficult to encode without artifacts (grainy, dark) would struggle.Keep in mind, that is JUST the core video/audio. We've thrown out all the other video that would normally come with a BR (which is fine by me, just give me the core video and audio and I'm happy). If they insist on keeping the extra features on a UHD BR release, they would certainly have to include them on a separate disc since even an average length movie would struggle to squeeze to fit on a 50GB disc. To fit a BR with just video and english DTS HD audio, we are talking 52% bitrate/pixel for UHD compared to 1080p. We would certainly need .265 encoding in that case.
So I would probably concede that UHD without artifacts with only 60GB is possible for shorter films or if you can get away with less bitrate/pixel due to the higher resolution. For longer films and/or difficult to encode films, I could see this going up towards 100 GB. Putting more effort into encoding efficiency and switching to .265 will certainly be important steps towards making this possible.
Kjella - Friday, November 22, 2013 - link
For what it's worth, BluRay is far beyond the sweet spot in bit rate. Take a UHD video clip, resize to 1080p and compress it to BluRay size. Now compress the UHD video to BluRay size and watch them both on a UHDTV. The UHD clip will look far better than the 1080p clip, at 1080p the codec is resolution starved. It has plenty bandwidth but not enough resolution to make an optimal encoding. The other part is that if you have a BluRay disc, it doesn't hurt to use it. Pressing the disc costs the same if the video is 40GB total instead of 30GB and it could only get slightly better, while if you're streaming video it matters. Hell, even cartoons are often 20GB when you put them on a BluRay...ydeer - Thursday, November 21, 2013 - link
I pay 29.99 for my 150/30 Mbit connection with 3 TB of traffic. My average download volume was around 450 GB over the last few months and I sit close enough to my 60" screen (which isn’t 4k - yet) to notice a difference between the two resolutions.So yes, I would absolutely buy/rent 4k movies if sony could offer them at decent nitrate. I would even buy a PS4 for that sole purpose.