View Full Version : I have seen the PS2 light!
Yes, finally PS2 is clear to me now. I know just what is wrong with PS2 graphics. It is not the lack of pixel effects or bumpmapping or even the blurred textures.....it is the picture quality!
Yes! It is the irritating picture half-res breakups which results in shimmering and jaggies. I have no idea why this is the case, even when PS2 does 640x480, why are most PS2 games lacking stable picture quality?
With a stable picture output, i am sure PS2 games will look much better, even if some of them suffer from blurred textures.
And yes, it is still present in the latest games, go check out Rygar or Shinobi and even R&C.
I feel all PS2 games should use a light blur filter, like The Bouncer. It does wonders to the picture quality.
Again check Rygar, when you summon the beast within the diskarmor, there will be this motion blurring and lo-n-behold, the whole picture looks better!
Sony, use the large framebuffer of PS2, and make it mandatory to all developers to implement a light blur filter.
iscariot
01-Jan-2003, 15:26
pure fucking genius :idea:
:oops:
Yes, finally PS2 is clear to me now. I know just what is wrong with PS2 graphics. It is not the lack of pixel effects or bumpmapping or even the blurred textures.....it is the picture quality!
Yes! It is the irritating picture half-res breakups which results in shimmering and jaggies. I have no idea why this is the case, even when PS2 does 640x480, why are most PS2 games lacking stable picture quality?
With a stable picture output, i am sure PS2 games will look much better, even if some of them suffer from blurred textures.
I'm playing the ps2 through a RGB scart and the whole quality is much better than the original cable.
pure fucking genius
Cool that you agree with me. Motion blurring does wonders for the PS2. :oops: [/img]
I'm playing the ps2 through a RGB scart and the whole quality is much better than the original cable.
I am using RGB too and i hate that harsh and flicker look of PS2 games. But when a PS2 game uses motion blur, that game look much better!
Some main image problems in my eyes:
1. Limited to interlaced output for all but a handful of games
(Secondary problem with this becomes the lack of the truly-outstanding output from VGA compatibility.)
2. Unfiltered or poorly filtered output in many games
3. Field rendering, half-height frame buffers
4. Too obvious dithering in many titles
Well the DC had better image quality than PS2 imo. But nonetheless it's clear that alot of developers are really starting to get the damn thing figured out. Just wait though 2003 will show games on the Gamecube and Xbox that the PS2 just can't compete with as far as overall clearity, textures and effects. Bump mapping, lighting and shadows etc. The first tell tell sign of the PS2's design (and age) will be the 3 versions of Splinter Cell. (OF which it's 2003 now so you'll start to see alot more on the GCN and PS2 versions now that MS agreement is ended). SC will choke the PS2 like no game before. Either that or Ubi Soft will have to strip SC down big time. One side note about SC on XB is the 'blur' line. Is it me or is it more noticable in SC than any game this generation? Not a knock. I own and love SC but the damn blur line seems just so close ahead of you in SC. Is that something to do with the UT engine or what? It'll be interesting if it's the same as the GCN and PS2 versions.
Tagrineth
01-Jan-2003, 16:46
Well the DC had better image quality than PS2 imo. But nonetheless it's clear that alot of developers are really starting to get the damn thing figured out. Just wait though 2003 will show games on the Gamecube and Xbox that the PS2 just can't compete with as far as overall clearity, textures and effects. Bump mapping, lighting and shadows etc. The first tell tell sign of the PS2's design (and age) will be the 3 versions of Splinter Cell. (OF which it's 2003 now so you'll start to see alot more on the GCN and PS2 versions now that MS agreement is ended). SC will choke the PS2 like no game before. Either that or Ubi Soft will have to strip SC down big time. One side note about SC on XB is the 'blur' line. Is it me or is it more noticable in SC than any game this generation? Not a knock. I own and love SC but the damn blur line seems just so close ahead of you in SC. Is that something to do with the UT engine or what? It'll be interesting if it's the same as the GCN and PS2 versions.
Visible MIP boundary? OUCH. No Trilinear in SC. And sounds like the LOD is way too close... damn, that's pretty awful...
You know, some of the picture instability you might be perceiving could come from most games' limited use of mip-mapping.
Fafalada
01-Jan-2003, 17:41
"Unfiltered or poorly filtered output in many games" "half-height frame buffers"
These are mostly the same thing. There were only a small handfull of titles running full height buffer without filtering, and they all came out before US launch, and probably not a single one of them was western developped either.
While on the subject though, I found it rather shocking to learn not so long ago how certain people Cannot tell the difference between filtered/non filtered outputs (until you spend 5 minutes explaining it and finger pointing the differences to them), as well as the type of image output they prefer was the last thing I'd expect. And I say shocked, because some of those people happen to work in this industry.
"Too obvious dithering in many titles"
I could see it for textures perhaps, but image dithering? :\ any examples?
I think one of the problems with PS2 aliasing, is that its pixels are "to sharp" where as xbox and GC pixels are slightly more blurry and round.
Just like for example when you run an eight bit emulator without any screenfiltering, then the games look way to sharp and blocky because the output on the old consoles was of lesser quality (maybe on purpose).
The "to sharp" problem is probably better than having the "to blurry" problem (N64), and it shouldn’t be to difficult to correct with a large back buffer and some supersampling. Then you should be still able to stay within approximately 3megs for all tree screen-buffers (z, front and back). Am I right?
There were only a small handful of titles running full height buffer without filtering, and they all came out before US launch, and probably not a single one of them was western developed either.
Then how come some newer games still have absolutely horrendous aliasing, like Virtua Fighter 4. If that games problems aren’t due to half height frame buffer, is it simply running at a lower resolution?
Well the DC had better image quality than PS2 imo.
Yes, the Dreamcast really had lovely picture quality, but as a side question: Did it really perform FSAA on all its games, or was the “soft look” due to the output circuits? It wouldn’t surprise me if it was able to do it, due to it large VRAM and PowerVR rendering, but the reason I’m asking is that once you hook the DC up to a VGA monitor aliasing become very apparent, at least in the games I’ve tried.
Fafalada
01-Jan-2003, 19:20
Then how come some newer games still have absolutely horrendous aliasing, like Virtua Fighter 4.
As I "already" said in the part of my post you quoted... "There were only a small handful of titles running full height buffer without filtering"
VF4 runs half frame back and front buffer without filter, much like most Japanese launch titles did. (R5, DOA2 etc...).
Visible MIP boundary? OUCH. No Trilinear in SC. And sounds like the LOD is way too close... damn, that's pretty awful...
I completed the game and didn't notice the MIP boundary, I'll have to put the disc in again to see what he's talking about.
I also didn't have a problem with the LOD.
All I know is it's a gorgeous game, and it's a shame you gotta use nightvision so much so you can't truly appreciate the real graphics. :)
marconelly!
01-Jan-2003, 21:20
Yes, the Dreamcast really had lovely picture quality, but as a side question: Did it really perform FSAA on all its games, or was the “soft look” due to the output circuits?
It simply used full frame buffers like all other consoles can (but on PS2 it's not used all the time) There was no FSAA going on there, at least not in the games I have for DC, and I've played them all on VGA where it was obvious.
4. Too obvious dithering in many titles
I really can't think if many games on PS2 that use 16 bit frame buffers at all, much less those that have 'too obvious' dithering or color banding :\
Personally, I love the sharper look of Rygar, or simillar games. It does use half frame buffer, but it has some kind of filtering, and looks really smooth and sharp. I prefer that to the look of R&C, for example, where everything looks a bit soft. Also, on Xbox I prefer the sharper looking games like DOA3, over those that do too much vertical filtering, making it a bit too soft. FSAA is again whole other thing, and obviously looks the best, but few games use it. What I really don't like are the games like VF4 that have obvious interlacing problems. The only game where I don't mind it is Rez, because of it's completely abstract graphics.
The first tell tell sign of the PS2's design (and age) will be the 3 versions of Splinter Cell.
How about Wreckless then? PS2 and GC versions were really inferior, but GC version was even worse framerate-wise? Actually, quite a few multi-platform games look worse on GC than they do on PS2.
SC will choke the PS2 like no game before. Either that or Ubi Soft will have to strip SC down big time.
Perhaps, but what that really tells you, when another developer is putting out the game like Silent Hill 3 that apparently has even more complex lighting/shadowing model implemented, and looks pretty damn good in just about every other aspect?
PC-Engine
01-Jan-2003, 21:33
Actually, quite a few multi-platform games look worse on GC than they do on PS2
...and vice versa :wink:
marconelly!
01-Jan-2003, 21:41
...and vice versa
Precisely, but I was just countering his point which IMO was invalid. Multiplatform games in general don't seem to be something that will make GC look vastly better than PS2 as he was suggesting.
As I "already" said in the part of my post you quoted... "There were only a small handful of titles running full height buffer without filtering"
Ops! A perfect example on that you sometimes only read what you expect. :oops:
Fafalada:
I could see it for textures perhaps, but image dithering? :\ any examples?
It's something noticeable in a lot of games exhibiting fairly monotone color schemes, from an early title like Ridge Racer V to later games like MGS2 and Baldur's Gate, to even recent good-lookers like The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Generally, looking into dark areas or out towards the horizon can reveal some 16-bit like banding at times - something I've observed noticeably less often in the Xbox games I've played.
Also, it's my fault for not being totally clear when I mentioned "image problems". I didn't mean to strictly imply properties relating to the scene, but actually any on-screen elements detracting from the overall look of the picture. So, yeah, I was blanketing the dithered look exhibited at times by some of the games' textures. The textures in a lot of the games from the early library, especially, seem to have a noticeably dithered look when replicating an image where the detail wasn't especially high, but a lot of subtle color gradients were concentrated together. Those kinds of textures seem to come out looking better in Xbox or GC games with S3TC and even Dreamcast games with VQ. I'm not sure how that could be measured, but even measuring via something like RMS can't account for how our eyes see things or why our brain likes what it likes.
marconelly!:
I really can't think if many games on PS2 that use 16 bit frame buffers at all, much less those that have 'too obvious' dithering or color banding :\
I'd speculate lots of PS2 games use 16-bit frame buffers. Whether it's obvious or not comes down to visual design.
Personally, I love the sharper look of Rygar, or simillar games. It does use half frame buffer, but it has some kind of filtering, and looks really smooth and sharp.
I as well prefer a look of smoothness and "sharpness" (or rather, clearness/clarity, to describe it more accurately), but that's not what I'm seeing from the image quality you describe. The harsher output that some people characterize as "sharper" looks messier to me, and I don't feel the extra blending step Dreamcast games (for instance) undergo for a TV makes for a softness which is characterized by being blurry. Quite the opposite - it takes away the noisy harshness and makes for a clearer look to me. And as for unfiltered VGA output (which I prefer simply for the VGA element), the shock from its "rawness" doesn't bother me in the least when it's a tradeoff (if you could call it that) for amazing image and color definition.
Of course, half-height rendering, no matter how well implemented, simply doesn't cut it for me; I'm too used to the image solidity provided by progressive scan to do without it when I shouldn't have to.
You can choose your IQ preference with the consoles that have 480p standardized games - output to a TV gives a smoother appearance if jaggies bother you, and output through VGA gives you the sharper look if you prefer that (all with the bonus of pro-scan). All half-height rendering does is limit IQ... there are no IQ advantages.
What I really don't like are the games like VF4 that have obvious interlacing problems. The only game where I don't mind it is Rez, because of it's completely abstract graphics.
Funny, but again we end up seeing this from an opposing perspective. It's precisely because Rez is so abstract and composed of so many distinctly prominent vectors/lines that an unfiltered look really kills the visual presentation. When your graphics are composed of rather formless pools of color and light, surrounded by wireframe shapes, jaggy lines from an interlace-plagued display really stand out. You don't often see abstract lines isolated so frequently in games with non-abstract art direction, so their associated jaggy problems will certainly stand out more than ever with a game like Rez.
As a fellow fan, I strongly recommend you take the opportunity sometime to see this game displayed through the richness of VGA (the rawness of this mode doesn't much resemble the interlacing problems of the PS2 version to me.) I'm not lying when I say that you'll notice visual details you never even knew were there.
I agree with Lazy8, even to the point of DC superior image! :shock:
I can live with sharp output but not sharp and messy images! :cry:
PS2 developers, motion blur all your games!
It does wonder to the picture quality!
Marc,
How can anyone actually like Rygar picture quality? It is sharp but it is by no means smooth! The messy flicker is very evident all over the whole game! :oops:
But when you summon your beast, the resulting motion blur effect makes the game MUCH smoother!
Motion blurring is the way out for PS2 hopeless image quality. :oops:
marconelly!
02-Jan-2003, 05:28
Lazy, I prefer the best looking output (progressive, antialiased) like anybody else does, but I simply don't have money for such a TV, so comparisions of interlaced output is all I'm stuck with. I only have Dreamcast attached to monitor, but that also is not without problems. 640x480 resolution is more than obvious that way, and none of the DC games I have actually have FSAA. My TV does a much better job at hiding pixels, although it can have just as good colors using component cable.
As for comparing various interlaced games, I just like them the way I described. I prefer DOA3 image, although some would argue it has more shimmering than most Xbox games. Same way I prefer the look of Rygar to R&C, for example. Sure, there are games that get it even better (just right actually) like MGS2 does, or numerous other examples.
Games with half height buffer interlacing problems to me lok more problematic if they depict scenes of nature (humans and such, as VF4 is doing) than what Rez is displaying. I've actually seen it on Dreamcast, and sure, the image looks better, but sure again, framerate is halved, and to me it hurts immersivenes even more for that particular game. Well, one can only hope for the sequel that would have best of both, although in this particular case, sequel seems to be very unlikely :\
How can anyone actually like Rygar picture quality? It is sharp but it is by no means smooth! The messy flicker is very evident all over the whole game!
Well, it might have something to do with that I'm running the console on a 20" TV with component cable. Having small pixels make picture nicer looking. Rygar looks better to me than say DMC, which is a simillar looking game which indeed has apparent flickering. Rygar has it too, but in a much less amount, and I prefer that to over-softened look.
Motion blur in Rygar is really heavy and used for as a special effect. Using that throughout the game probably would not be wise. Way out of the 'hopeless image quality' (that, I'd argue, 1% of gamers actually care about, and developers are aware of that, so they don't really bother trying) is to use full frame buffers. Many games do that, even on PS2.
Marc,
Rygar looks like a shimmering mess compared to DOA3. Only when you summon the beast and you have that motion blurring, does the image looks MUCH better.
As i said it in my previous post, Motion blur everything PS2 and it will be fine. :D
You heard that Faf? Fafracer to use high quality PS2 hardware specific motion blur! :shock:
marconelly!
02-Jan-2003, 05:47
Only when you summon the beast and you have that motion blurring, does the image looks MUCH better.
Well, that's your opinion, that I apparently don't share in Rygar's case. Although, Sly Cooper indeed looks nice with it's slight blurring.
oh no, not this again!
Go play Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance or Mortal Kombat V or even SSX for some examples of jaggies free/high image quality PS2 games.
Fafalada
02-Jan-2003, 08:22
It's something noticeable in a lot of games exhibiting fairly monotone color schemes, from an early title like Ridge Racer V to later games like MGS2 and Baldur's Gate, to even recent good-lookers like The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Generally, looking into dark areas or out towards the horizon can reveal some 16-bit like banding at times
I think you're mixing up image dithering with a bunch of other things that aren't necesserily related.
Neither MGS2 or R5 ran in 16bit to begin with(they certainly aren't dithered at any rate). BG I've only seen very little off, so I couldn't say.
Two Towers does have it apparent in parts, but again, I don't know if we're talking about the same thing. I'd note that TT appears to predominantly use 4bit textures, and coupled with low color tones which are already banding prone even in 24bit, that's probably more of what you noticed. Though the color tones they chose do work to expose screen dither matrix pattern more as well.
You heard that Faf? Fafracer to use high quality PS2 hardware specific motion blur!
Eh, no thanks, one Type-S was quite enough (no offense to Archie ;)).
marconelly!
02-Jan-2003, 08:31
LOTR:TTT is the only game that comes to mind that has visible dithering (and it's really apparent only in some parts of few levels) I could swear Baldur's Gate: DA had nothing of that problem, and MGS2 most certainly didn't, except very minor banding on some lens flares (but if we are to include such instances, there are many games on other consoles that exibit such miniscule problems like transparent surfaces in Halo for example) Point in case, MGS2 more than likely uses 24 bit buffers. If it used only 16bit, given it's color palete and contrast range, there would be banding and dithering everywhere, while mostly there's none.
Go play Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance or Mortal Kombat V or even SSX for some examples of jaggies free/high image quality PS2 games.
Yes, BGDA and SSX look good(have not seen MKDA) but they only constitute a very very small proportion of clean looking PS2 games. Even high profile PS2 games like MGS2, FFX, DMC, GT3, Kingdom Hearts all suffer from unstable picture image problems. :cry:
Blur filter is the cheap AA hack in which all PS2 games should have IMO. :!:
archie4oz
02-Jan-2003, 09:08
Eh, no thanks, one Type-S was quite enough (no offense to Archie ).
:o :oops: C'mon, over excessive motion-blur was the in thing in those early days!
With a little blur filter....ahh so beautiful. :shock:
http://ps2media.ign.com/media/previews/image/bouncer/thebouncer_18.jpg
Fafalada
02-Jan-2003, 09:17
C'mon, over excessive motion-blur was the in thing in those early days!
Which of course wouldn't have anything to do with the fact you could enable it with as little as setting two register values? ;)
At any rate, I'm rather content with our IQ as it is - although Sony still forced me to make 3 different settings for flicker filter :? ... so much for all people wanting the same thing.
Which of course wouldn't have anything to do with the fact you could enable it with as little as setting two register values?
At any rate, I'm rather content with our IQ as it is - although Sony still forced me to make 3 different settings for FF ... so much for all people wanting the same thing.
So motion blurring is easy to turn on? All the more for teh motion blur!
Send me a demo of AI and lemme be the judge for the IQ. It is for the better IMO. :D
WTF is FF? Force Feedback? Final Fantasy Impact? :oops:
zidane1strife
02-Jan-2003, 14:43
And yes, it is still present in the latest games, go check out Rygar or Shinobi and even R&C.
2 Titles from dev.s who haven't worked much on the ps2, and a game that probably uses the Jak&Daxter engine....
Then how come some newer games still have absolutely horrendous aliasing, like Virtua Fighter 4. If that games problems aren’t due to half height frame buffer, is it simply running at a lower resolution?
Wasn't that one of AM2's first games on ps2...
Motion blur everything PS2 and it will be fine.
NO!!! Vice city looks better without the filter.
Yes, BGDA and SSX look good(have not seen MKDA) but they only constitute a very very small proportion of clean looking PS2 games. Even high profile PS2 games like MGS2, FFX, DMC, GT3, Kingdom Hearts all suffer from unstable picture image problems.
Nice those titles came out when most dev.s where beginning to understand the ps2 architecture. Give it sometime and what appears in few titles will spread accross the entire library of most future titles.
Games like onimusha 3 are said to be rendered entirely in realtime and are said to approach the previous cg titles. Japanesse rpgs are to come in great quantities, and they can render even to just half of the screen(FF7 style...), most of the time they have one char on screen, can run at 30fps, and many of the battle effects are likely to be as low on h/w demand as cutscenes....(hint: IQ will ...)
I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of this gen. RR7 came with a copy of RR5 running at least internally at 120FPS with HDTV resolution, and no IQ problems...(ala RR4 with RR1 running at high rez 60fps last gen.)
chap:
WTF is FF?
Flicker filtering I presume.
Wait... he changed it in his message.
I understand they're the publisher and all, but it seems they're a little uptight about the whole "jaggiez" issue. They must have done their fair share of scouring internet messageboards!
marconelly!
02-Jan-2003, 16:50
Even high profile PS2 games like MGS2, FFX, DMC, GT3, Kingdom Hearts all suffer from unstable picture image problems
MGS2 has some of the most stable image quality I've ever seen on an interlaced TV. Really, have you even played it? FFX and KH, as far as I know are 30FPS games and have none of the flickering or interlacing problems of any kind. They do, however, exhibit some mipmapping problems.
Are you sure you are not just trolling (again)?
At any rate, I'm rather content with our IQ as it is - although Sony still forced me to make 3 different settings for flicker filter ... so much for all people wanting the same thing.
Whoa... How is that even done? Is there some kind of flicker fixer setting in the options dialog in the game? What are the differences between the three?
Peppermonkey
02-Jan-2003, 17:14
motion blur is good if used very subtlely. I honestly hate excessive motion blur.
A lot of games use motion blur. I have a feeling that The Bouncer is using something different than your average motion blurred game.
marconelly!
03-Jan-2003, 04:15
Ugh... I've finally got to play the full version of Rygar, and I see what Chap is talking about. So far, I only tried the demo of the first level and was very satisfied with how it looked. Indeed, first level in the game looks really nice, but all that goes out of the window on the second level, which has to be the single most flickering and shimmering mess I ever did see. If the rest of the game is like this, forget everything I've said about it looking better than R&C. Shame, really, as the game is actually so pretty otherwise :(
randycat99
03-Jan-2003, 04:29
It may not serve well for topical evaluations, but please do note that even quality within different levels of a single game can vary wildly. FWIW, even Turok on the PS2 had some fairly decent looking levels farther into the game, but you could never tell that just by looking at the intro levels. Dead to Rights may look merely mediocre on average, but I've found 1 or 2 levels that seemed unusually "better worked" than the rest. Same thing with Red Faction2. Maybe different developers/artists get involved on different game levels?
Fafalada
03-Jan-2003, 05:22
Marc,
Whoa... How is that even done? Is there some kind of flicker fixer setting in the options dialog in the game? What are the differences between the three?
Pretty much like in T4 options you have two settings(sharp/soft), you get three here... Not my idea mind you, I'd personally just leave it at one (highest) setting, but it's just something that was decided so... :P
On the subject of art varying across levels, it's entirely possible different stages are made by completely different artists at times, so variations are kinda to be expected (although art directors usually try to make sure they are kept to minimum).
You guys want to see some serious image quality, pop in RE0 and Metroid Prime. And speaking of transparancies..MP has some of the best I've seen on my 50" big screen.
Pretty much like in T4 options you have two settings(sharp/soft), you get three here... Not my idea mind you, I'd personally just leave it at one (highest) setting, but it's just something that was decided so... :P
What's the third setting for? Sharp/Soft/????
I am not trolling. :cry:
Go play your PS2 on a bigger TV and all the image problems are magnified. Sony just totally fucked up PS2 video out quality.
I remember ninge from GA saying the same thing too and that Sony recommend developers to use the odd 525 x 'something' resolution for their games. Which might explain the 'lowres PS2 look' :cry:
so.. the ps2 's DAC is older.. so its not as good as newer DACs on newer consoles (and dreamcast have a hardware flicker "blurer" filter )
ok ,all is in its place. :)
Fafalada
03-Jan-2003, 18:48
What's the third setting for? Sharp/Soft/????
It's basically low/med/high, medium being default, added for the certain picky people of that certain company ;)
I wouldn't really know how to describe differencies between them, it's something you'll have to see for yourself. And I know some people might actually be happy to have more options to fiddle with, but personally I'm not a big fan of that :p
marconelly!
03-Jan-2003, 19:12
I remember ninge from GA saying the same thing too and that Sony recommend developers to use the odd 525 x 'something' resolution for their games. Which might explain the 'lowres PS2 look'
It's the lack of full frame buffers and improper filtering in some games. I don't think it has to do anything with horizontal resolution being lower.
Faf - can you give us a brief description of how those three stages of flicker fixer work (I mean their inner working) Does that have something to do with 1-line and 3-line DAC filtering? I know PS2 has both but 3-line is not the default. Xbox additionally has third one, I think 5-line.
Also, can someone list few games that use some of these DAC settings?
archie4oz
03-Jan-2003, 20:12
so.. the ps2 's DAC is older.. so its not as good as newer DACs on newer consoles
Well it does offer higher scan rates (the GS has a 135MHz DAC) vs. either of the Xbox encoders (IIRC both the Conexant CX25871 and the Focus FS454 that Xbox uses both use 75MHz DACs). However those encoders I'm almost sure offer more sophisticated flicker filters (in particular the Conexant part) and they're also quite a bit more expensive (again with the Conexant part)...
Fafalada
03-Jan-2003, 21:01
Marc,
the CRT in PS2 has a 2-sample/line blend, if you want to use more samples you have to help out with the GS. That's something some games do anyhow - those using half-height front buffer typically don't use CRT for the filtering at all (and instead use downsample from higher resolution back buffers), or use it to go motion blur happy like Bouncer (which does work as some kind of flicker fixer as well).
Anyway in our case I combine the two to get higher amount of filtering, and the arrangment of samples I take is not necesserily just in lines, but no big science behind it either (there's only so much you can do with bluring anyhow :P ). And lowest setting is pretty much filter off Iirc.
marconelly!
03-Jan-2003, 21:20
the CRT in PS2 has a 2-sample/line blend, if you want to use more samples you have to help out with the GS. That's something some games do anyhow
That's interesting... Know any particular example?
I assume all the de-interlacing issues are non-existent if your game supports, and runs on the progressive scan TV? It's my understanding that your game has full front buffer, so are you going to support progressive too?
Faf,
can you explain the different settings comparing them with the IQ of other PS2 games?
ie
Low is like GT3
Med is like Burnout3
High is like Baldur's gate :)
I am sorry to inform you but Faf is under NDA.
I will see what i can get out of him for you folks. :oops:
archie4oz
05-Jan-2003, 07:09
I will see what i can get out of him for you folks.
And how's that? Pest mail?
marconelly!
05-Jan-2003, 08:23
It's all clear now! Chap is Faf's strayed son!!
I've played PS2 on a friend's 42" flatscreen CRT TV with S-video input. Looked excellent to me, the sparkling textures in Devil May Cry looked positively razor-sharp actually.
Chap, maybe time for you to simply STFU? Just a friendly suggestion, mind you... :)
*G*
Faf and i go a long way back. :P
Grall,
Have you tried playing Xbox on that TV, with progressive scan enabled? :oops:
Johnny Awesome
06-Jan-2003, 14:49
I agree. The difference in image quality between my Xbox and my friend's PS2 on my 34" CRT HDTV is pretty dramatic. The PS2 just suffers badly on high-end equipment. The difference isn't nearly as easy to see on normal 27" TVs.
marconelly!
06-Jan-2003, 17:19
There are very few games on PS2 that support progressive scan. That's the truth of it. On a HDTV - *especially* the HDTV that only supports progressive scan and does line doubling on interlaced input - Any interlaced source is going to look visibly worse - much worse actually than on a dedicated quality TV that supports only interlaced.
If the xbox need a HDTV to look better than the ps2, I would consider both consoles of equal visual quality for almost everybody ;)
I've got a critical eye for image quality deficiencies, and like I said, on 42" flatscreen with S-video AND on my old 14" (1986) Sony Trinitron with composite, the PS2 does just fine. No color bleeding, no fuzzy wavy lines in the vertical direction, etc. Very clean, very sharp, good color saturation and so on. DVD output is just beautiful! I checked with a high-bitrate title (12.25Mbit/s I think), and it was pure magic. :)
I think either you guys who have PS2 problems are plain biased, or else it's the general suckyness of NTSC that plays tricks with your eyes because you all seem to be (whiney :)) 'murricans. PAL PS2 roxxors from pure 2D IQ point of view. End of story.
*G*
Johnny Awesome
07-Jan-2003, 00:47
I think you need to open your critical eye a little more. :)
The PS2 looks wretched on any interlaced large flatscreen tv I've seen it on, including my own.
I think Wazoo's point is valid though. If you have crappy equipment, the PS2 is fine. Some of us have higher standards though and spent our money accordingly. 8)
marconelly!
07-Jan-2003, 03:30
The PS2 looks wretched on any interlaced large flatscreen tv I've seen it on, including my own.
Aren't you the proud owner of a large NON-interlaced TV? ;)
Anyways, PS2 output looks great on my 20" flat Toshiba with component cables. That TV might be cheap, but is one of the best in that screen size class and is very far from being 'crappy'. I also think PS2 generally looks much better on interlaced TVs than it does on progressive ones (except for the games that actually support progressive scan)
Johnny Awesome
07-Jan-2003, 18:13
My HDTV is 480i when hooked up to the S-Video port and 480p when hooked up via the component ports. The PS2 was hooked up for 10 days to my S-Video port with interlaced display. The image quality was a rude awakening from the Xbox image I'm used to, even when I hook up my Xbox to the same port (before I got my composite cables). :)
marconelly!
07-Jan-2003, 18:48
I guess you had some crappy PS2 games, then :\ I have PS2 on component cable and Xbox on s-video. Best looking games on both have pretty mint image quality. Maybe the small TV helps, I don't know.
I guess you had some crappy PS2 games, then :\ I have PS2 on component cable and Xbox on s-video. Best looking games on both have pretty mint image quality. Maybe the small TV helps, I don't know.
Thats bizzare, why wouldn't you have the Xbox on component to enjoy the 480p in 99% of the games, rather than the other way around?! :shock:
Fafalada
07-Jan-2003, 20:45
Low is like GT3
Med is like Burnout3
High is like Baldur's gate
There's Burnout3 already? :shock:
Anyway, I don't really feel comfortable drawing comparisons on a public board ;) And it isn't all fair, older games that didn't mipmap can't really stand too well against newer stuff, even if they use the same AA/filtering.
And type of game affects this greatly too - outdoor games with massive draw distance(like ours :lol:) are more prone to geometry aliasing in the distance, where as BGDA type of camera avoids that, but has some other issues to deal with.
Not to mention art direction can make a world of difference for IQ too.
Marc,
That's interesting... Know any particular example?
I think T4 does, the filter they have looks different from just enabling CRT blend.
And yeah, the game is running full frame. Whether progressive makes it in won't be up to me though.
marconelly!
07-Jan-2003, 21:51
Thats bizzare, why wouldn't you have the Xbox on component to enjoy the 480p in 99% of the games, rather than the other way around?!
The answer to this is very simple. I don't have a $3000 TV that supports progressive ;) As I've said earlier, all I have is a Flat 20" Toshiba with component and s-video input. I have substantially more games on PS2 than on Xbox and I play them much more often. I also use it for DVD movie playback, so it makes sense to have the better cable for it.
Low is like GT3
Med is like Burnout3
High is like Baldur's gate
There's Burnout3 already? :shock:
Of course :wink:
Anyway, I don't really feel comfortable drawing comparisons on a public board ;) And it isn't all fair, older games that didn't mipmap can't really stand too well against newer stuff, even if they use the same AA/filtering.
As you wish. I tried :)
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.