[Quaz51]

the light seem more real, maybe more complex lighting or post-process on PS3?
http://www.vertigogaming.net/PSP/GTA/gtaps31.jpg

i would like to see this scene on X360 for compar:
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/6...0007241zo6.png

[betan]

Originally Posted by Juan Panson

PS3 screenshots, quaz.

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/6...2348001sz1.png

where are those from?
The lighting looks pretty good.

Originally Posted by Arwin

those are pretty lousy shots

Enough to confirm native resolution though.

[AlStrong]

Originally Posted by Dot50Cal

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/4...0036497sh8.png
That one *may* work.

Looks....blurry.

[Bellic]

http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/b3d/devshot1.png

Not seeing any difference

[Dot50Cal]

Quaz, I cant find those area's in the game (im not very far). Heres some shots that might help.
http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/b3d/gta4/360

[Juan Panson]

here a low quality 360 screen with similar lighting conditions. grabbed it from another forum.

[MazingerDUDE]

judging by the screen captures provided, 360 version seems suffer terrible dithering




















Since both version of GTA had the same rendering res, the same level of AA, IGN review comments like 'more AA on PS3, or PS3 version smoother' are probably related to dither in 360 verison.

If that's the case, what could have caused this in 360 version?

Could it be the level of HDR? (like the limited RGB pallete of FP10 HDR commonly used in 360 games)

Actually, this is not the first time I have noticed such difference, the Burnout Paradise had 360 version to dither a bit especially for distant object like trees.

[Quaz51]

Originally Posted by betan

Enough to confirm native resolution though.

yes

[inefficient]

Originally Posted by MazingerDUDE

judging by the screen captures provided, 360 version seems suffer terrible dithering

Hmmm that is pretty grainy looking. I guess we don't know yet if that was intentional artistic direction, or if it was just some kind of side effect of the filters they are running. Sam Houser did say the 360 version had a "certain look to it".

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by Quaz51

yes

And ?

[inefficient]

Are we sure this is not a bullshot?
http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/6...2348001sz1.png

It looks very very different from the 360 version to my eyes. It looks very smooth and there is none of that posterization effect or grainy filter we see on the 360 frame grabs.

[Dot50Cal]

efficient, as far as I know that is from a video on IGN comparing the two. So I doubt its a bullshot. But I don't think its fair to compare screens off a lossy video to lossless shots off the framebuffer. Capture cards and the eventual re-encode would destroy fine dithering details like that.

[Quaz51]

Originally Posted by Rangers

And ?

it's 630p (1120x630)
regardless PS3 media look better for me, the light and atmosphere is more real (maybe HDR vs X360 MDR, post-process...), i agree with global reviews feeling but more comparison screenshots would be good
it's interesting, it shown that number of pixel isn't enough for determine better visual

[Quaz51]

Originally Posted by inefficient

Are we sure this is not a bullshot?
http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/6...2348001sz1.png

It looks very very different from the 360 version to my eyes. It looks very smooth and there is none of that posterization effect or grainy filter we see on the 360 frame grabs.

if this screenshot is bullshot then it's bullshot in 630p

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by Dot50Cal

efficient, as far as I know that is from a video on IGN comparing the two. So I doubt its a bullshot. But I don't think its fair to compare screens off a lossy video to lossless shots off the framebuffer. Capture cards and the eventual re-encode would destroy fine dithering details like that.

It's not in the review or the insider head 2 head I dont think, anybody know which IGN vid it's from?

[Dot50Cal]

Thanks Quaz, as always a nice job!

[Betanumerical]

Originally Posted by Quaz51

it's 630p (1120x630)
regardless PS3 media look better for me, the light and atmosphere is more real (maybe HDR vs X360 MDR, post-process...), i agree with global reviews feeling but more comparison screenshots would be good
it's interesting, it shown that number of pixel isn't enough for determine better visual

How much AA.?.

[Hardknock]

Originally Posted by Quaz51

it's 630p (1120x630)
regardless PS3 media look better for me, the light and atmosphere is more real (maybe HDR vs X360 MDR, post-process...), i agree with global reviews feeling but more comparison screenshots would be good
it's interesting, it shown that number of pixel isn't enough for determine better visual

Quaz have you seen shots from identical locations and time of day? Both have HDR lighting. Please don't let bias start to creep into your findings. That wouldn't be good. Great work by the way.

[Quaz51]

Originally Posted by Dot50Cal

Thanks Quaz, as always a nice job!

i know the resolution since yesterday and first IGN video grab but i don't sure that is the good moment for say it
i think it's not very pertinent in this case, for lot of people sub720p = worst version, it going to generate confusion

[Neb]

So the PS3 version is 630p... internet meltdown confirmed (NeoGAF explodes)!

Neverthless of the ss shown so far the PS3 version looks nicer IMO. Everything just blends in nicely and makes a seamless contrast between front objects and background objects.

[sevanig]

Maybe IGN capture video/images at 630p

Someone check a 360 IGN image...

[Hardknock]

Originally Posted by Quaz51

i know the resolution since yesterday and first IGN video grab but i don't sure that is the good moment for say it
i think it's not very pertinent in this case, for lot of people sub720p = worst version, it going to generate confusion

so you've known since yesterday but didn't want to say in fear of hurting the PS3 version's sales?

[Dot50Cal]

Originally Posted by sevanig

Maybe IGN capture video/images at 630p

Someone check a 360 IGN image...

Thats not how it works dude.

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by Nebula

So the PS3 version is 630p... internet meltdown confirmed (NeoGAF explodes)!

Neverthless of the ss shown so far the PS3 version looks nicer IMO. Everything just blends in nicely and makes a seamless contrast between front objects and background objects.

Then it begs the question if people are going to say they prefer the look of the PS3 version, maybe Rockstar should have downscaled 360 and added more supposed postprocessing, HDR, AA, or whatever if possible?

[Quaz51]

Originally Posted by Hardknock

Quaz have you seen shots from identical locations and time of day? Both have HDR lighting. Please don't let bias start to creep into your findings. That wouldn't be good. Great work by the way.

yes both "HDR lighting" but when i say HDR vs MDR i talk FP10 mode use on X360. for simulate HDR lighting on X360 games use generally FP10 (except Halo3 ) but FP10 isn't really HDR, it's rather MDR precision. On PS3 there is no FP10 mode then generally it's LDR or HDR (FP16 or other software method), maybe GTA PS3 use HDR (or not) that make little difference or maybe post-process, just hypotesis, anyway PS3 version look different. i would like to see screenshots in same context