Welcome, Unregistered.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

 
Old 29-Apr-2008, 02:12   #601
Mintmaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GameBoiye View Post
What you just said proved my point. Had he checked halo's screenshots before the game was released he would have guessed wrong, and there's a possibility he's guessing wrong here too. I would have rather him waited till after the game was released so that we can all confirm it and there would be no bickering about it. Shame on Quaz for that.
No, it doesn't prove your point, because Halo was the other way around. Screenshots are never rendered at lower resolution. Ever. Even downscaling a 720p image to any size and upscaling it again won't lead you to a 630p conclusion, because the pattern would different.

He is not getting his shots just from websites:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...&postcount=501
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...&postcount=497

For you to bitch at Quaz after all the work he's done for us is utterly classless, especially when he did wait a day or two after he first figured out the 630p before posting here, probably so that he'd be more sure. If you don't like it, get out of the thread and off B3D.
Mintmaster is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 02:37   #602
Statix
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GameBoiye View Post
I'll still wait till I get more pictures of the actual game. I can do the tests myself. I wouldn't doubt there is some form up upscaling, but I'm not stupid enough to base my findings off of pictures from gaming websites.

What you just said proved my point. Had he checked halo's screenshots before the game was released he would have guessed wrong, and there's a possibility he's guessing wrong here too. I would have rather him waited till after the game was released so that we can all confirm it and there would be no bickering about it. Shame on Quaz for that.
You're really, really way off base here to criticize Quaz's methodology. The guy has no agenda, and is the most reliable pixel counter there is. He's smart enough to be able to tell what screenshots are legitimate in-game ones and which ones aren't. You are in absolutely no position to question him.
Statix is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 02:46   #603
GameBoiye
Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintmaster View Post
No, it doesn't prove your point, because Halo was the other way around. Screenshots are never rendered at lower resolution. Ever. Even downscaling a 720p image to any size and upscaling it again won't lead you to a 630p conclusion, because the pattern would different.

He is not getting his shots just from websites:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...&postcount=501
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...&postcount=497

For you to bitch at Quaz after all the work he's done for us is utterly classless, especially when he did wait a day or two after he first figured out the 630p before posting here, probably so that he'd be more sure. If you don't like it, get out of the thread and off B3D.
Just wonderying then why he couldn't wait one more do, to get his own copy before releasing "definite" proof is all I'm wondering.
GameBoiye is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 03:10   #604
Mintmaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D3B View Post
No but they are all from IGN
I didn't know that, but do you think there is some conspiracy where vertigogaming and IGN are both managed to elaborately crop out the HUD, fill in the holes, crop, upscale, put back the HUD, and do all this despite claiming the PS3 looks better in their review?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GameBoiye View Post
Just wonderying then why he couldn't wait one more do, to get his own copy before releasing "definite" proof is all I'm wondering.
Just wondering? You don't say "shame on you" if you were just wondering.

This is a forum. Someone gave Quaz a screenshot, asked what res it was rendered at, and he kindly answered. What's wrong with that? He's not publishing a friggin scientific paper. Where's your outrage at all these retard gaming sites informing millions of viewers that a blurred, lower-resolution image is "cleaner" and superior in IQ?
Mintmaster is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 04:08   #605
Pete
Moderate Nuisance
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GameBoiye View Post
Just wonderying then why he couldn't wait one more do, to get his own copy before releasing "definite" proof is all I'm wondering.
We've got like 5 pages of ppl begging him to analyze a PS3 shot and you want him to wait even longer? Why? If you suspect an agenda, it's not enough that he says he both prefers the PS3 version's look and hesitated to post the res he calculated precisely b/c ppl would focus on the raw #s rather than the end result?

I particularly enjoy you calling Quaz stupid. How about shame on you for not showing the maturity in discussing his "guesses" (as you yourself called them, as opposed to definitive conclusion) that he expects? I'm sure he's just gutted that you didn't get your money's worth from his work.

And he wouldn't have "guessed" wrongly about the Halo 3 PR shots, he would've assessed them accurately. That they were bullshots and so not representative of the shipping game wouldn't have been his fault, and your implication that his first stab at it would be his final and that he wouldn't have reassessed actual screengrabs is farce, given his efforts on these last few pages alone. This forum is meant to be mature enough to discuss the unexpected intelligently, without resorting to running in circles waving our arms over our heads.

There's no need for Quaz to spoon-feed us surprising results, nor for him to quintuple-check and source anything he posts for the good of the internets. Most of us would much prefer a forum that assumes intelligence on the part of its participants, and that's the environment we're in. Really, it's amazing that you would call him stupid and irresponsible for not assuming all of us are stupid.

Feel free to voice reasoned skepticism, but impugning Quaz's motives given his history is a bit much (and the only reason I bothered to elaborate on Mint's reply). Asking him to think of the children before he posts anything is unnecessary and insulting. We're (most of us) big kids here.
Pete is online now  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 04:16   #606
Mintmaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D3B View Post
I dont know 360 looks blurred more to me.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost...postcount=4831
You mean the depth of field?

Why don't you look at the whole gallery?
http://www.gamersyde.com/gallery_8316_en.html
There are plenty of sharp lines on the object of focus.

Also, "blurred more" compared to what? Show me the PS3 shots of similar scenes with less blur.
Mintmaster is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 04:31   #607
GameBoiye
Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete View Post
We've got like 5 pages of ppl begging him to analyze a PS3 shot and you want him to wait even longer? Why? If you suspect an agenda, it's not enough that he says he both prefers the PS3 version's look and hesitated to post the res he calculated precisely b/c ppl would focus on the raw #s rather than the end result?

I particularly enjoy you calling Quaz stupid. How about shame on you for not showing the maturity in discussing his "guesses" (as you yourself called them, as opposed to definitive conclusion) that he expects? I'm sure he's just gutted that you didn't get your money's worth from his work.

And he wouldn't have "guessed" wrongly about the Halo 3 PR shots, he would've assessed them accurately. That they were bullshots and so not representative of the shipping game wouldn't have been his fault, and your implication that his first stab at it would be his final and that he wouldn't have reassessed actual screengrabs is farce, given his efforts on these last few pages alone. This forum is meant to be mature enough to discuss the unexpected intelligently, without resorting to running in circles waving our arms over our heads.

There's no need for Quaz to spoon-feed us surprising results, nor for him to quintuple-check and source anything he posts for the good of the internets. Most of us would much prefer a forum that assumes intelligence on the part of its participants, and that's the environment we're in. Really, it's amazing that you would call him stupid and irresponsible for not assuming all of us are stupid.

Feel free to voice reasoned skepticism, but impugning Quaz's motives given his history is a bit much (and the only reason I bothered to elaborate on Mint's reply). Asking him to think of the children before he posts anything is unnecessary and insulting. We're (most of us) big kids here.
"Based on these screenshots the game looks like it runs at 630P" is all it would have taken. To definitively state that the game runs definitely at 630P without having concret pictures is what bugged me. Who knows, those pics could have been from beta version of the game that the companies got months ago. R* did say they were taking extra time to work on the PS3 version.

I have a lot of respect for him for his skills, which are greater than mine, yet all he did by posting early (by 12 hours, maybe less) is incite flame bate all over the web, with multiple websites pointing to this forum as a definitive source that the game does indeed run at 630P.

Maybe it's the way he worded it that just bugged me. Yes it's most likely true (though I counted 620P on those screenshots, but I'll admit my estimations aren't as good as his) but doesn't mean he should post it as truth without seeing a final pic of the final release of the game.

I've been a long time reader of these forums, and for some reason nothing seemed to warant me posting till this.
GameBoiye is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 04:56   #608
dabomb665m
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 71
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GameBoiye View Post
"Based on these screenshots the game looks like it runs at 630P" is all it would have taken. To definitively state that the game runs definitely at 630P without having concret pictures is what bugged me. Who knows, those pics could have been from beta version of the game that the companies got months ago. R* did say they were taking extra time to work on the PS3 version.

I have a lot of respect for him for his skills, which are greater than mine, yet all he did by posting early (by 12 hours, maybe less) is incite flame bate all over the web, with multiple websites pointing to this forum as a definitive source that the game does indeed run at 630P.

Maybe it's the way he worded it that just bugged me. Yes it's most likely true (though I counted 620P on those screenshots, but I'll admit my estimations aren't as good as his) but doesn't mean he should post it as truth without seeing a final pic of the final release of the game.

I've been a long time reader of these forums, and for some reason nothing seemed to warant me posting till this.

I'm a long time lurker as well... and your opinion on the matter is quite alright... even to the ones criticizing you. I think what really triggered them was your abrasive attitude on the matter directed towards quaz.

I think what we all want is just a small apology to quaz so we can continue to discuss this maturely as you did in this last post. Afterall, we are all entitled to disagree but making personal attacks aren't warranted.
dabomb665m is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 05:04   #609
Mintmaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by function View Post
To be fair to the "retard gaming sites" they've been waiting so long to say that the PS3 has proven itself (and validate their E3 2005 monkey dancing) that they can almost be forgiven for getting ahead of themselves.*

(*The PS3 has already proven itself, but I guess that doesn't matter when you're waiting to call a clear winner in a major head to head contest.)
I totally agree, and only Sony could have pulled it off. I'm glad they did even though they probably could have wiped XBox off the map if they skipped BR and launched a year earlier.

Nonetheless, it's amusing to see people - even professional, supposedly neutral reviewers - trying so hard to see "proof" that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360. Here we have a game that's so "obviously" built to take advantage of PS3's strengths.

Quote:
I'd be quite interested in knowing what resolution these games run at on a SD television. If people can't tell the difference between 720p and 630p (or thereabouts), I wonder how they'd feel about the difference between 630p (or thereabouts) and a PAL-esque 1024 x 576? Or what about 853 x 480 but with 4XAA and a high level of aniso (and maybe a bit of extra blurring for kicks)?
Calling 1024x576 SD-esque is a bit of a stretch. It's almost twice the resolution of 640x480, and many games ran at even lower resolution last gen.

I do agree, however, that 4xAA and 16xAF at SD res is nothing to sneeze at for image quality, particularly when compared to 720p w/o AA or AF at reduced framerate (not that this is the case for GTA, of course). I've long been a proponent of rendering at lower res - say 30% fewer pixels - to have those two enabled. AF adds so much detail, and on top of reducing aliasing AA also makes scaling better.

Anyway, it looks like reviewers could indeed see a difference between 720p and 630p. Some just thought that because this was the game that would make the PS3 shine, that version must have been the better, cleaner, intended look.

Personally, I don't think that 630p is clearly worse than 720p. Suggesting that 630p has cleaner lines and holds the visual edge, though, is laughable. Hilary Goldstein is such a tool.
Mintmaster is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 05:11   #610
GKchikan
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 18
Default

Curious is, when the gaming sites including IGN which has previously claimed the PS3 version had a better resolution start to call it as the 'lesser' one. Of course Quaz still may need more screen shots, but...
GKchikan is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 05:13   #611
dabomb665m
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 71
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintmaster View Post
Personally, I don't think that 630p is clearly worse than 720p. Suggesting that 630p has cleaner lines and holds the visual edge, though, is laughable. Hilary Goldstein is such a tool.
I'm sorry if I'm reading this wrong but... suggesting that 630p has cleaner lines and holds the visual edge [over 720p] is only laughable with all things being equal right?

We still don't know all the details at work in the PS3 build though, even quaz wants to see certain lighting conditions from the same scene compared on the two systems to see where that "better" (or more favorable to many) look comes from. Personally I don't buy the blurring from upscaling to be the source of this bias... but maybe I'm giving the reviewers/masses too much credit.

I'm 3 hours away from picking up either copy (both pre-ordered) and I STILL can't make up my mind.
dabomb665m is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 08:10   #612
-tkf-
Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,292
Default

Maybe kill all the posts here that doesn´t have anything to do with Native Resolution?

There is a "what gta4 will you buy" thread and a "technical blabla GTA4 engine" thread that is usefull. For insults and cheap shots go read the neogaf thread of doom.

I hope i can provide some photos/screenshots in a few hours of the GTA4 PS3 version so that Quaz and squash any doubts about his work.
__________________
Batteries NOT included with the XBOX One Controllers: http://techland.time.com/2013/07/29/...ore-expensive/
2nd hand market talk here: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=59311
-tkf- is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 08:17   #613
Kinan
Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2
Default

there are already good quality screens posted by dot50cal on neogaf:



Kinan is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 08:21   #614
dabomb665m
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 71
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -tkf- View Post
Maybe kill all the posts here that doesn´t have anything to do with Native Resolution?

There is a "what gta4 will you buy" thread and a "technical blabla GTA4 engine" thread that is usefull. For insults and cheap shots go read the neogaf thread of doom.

I hope i can provide some photos/screenshots in a few hours of the GTA4 PS3 version so that Quaz and squash any doubts about his work.
Yeah my bad. How do you guys usually do the screen shots? I have an 8mp canon quickshot type camera and just got my ps3 version. Anyone have any tips?
dabomb665m is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 08:44   #615
Shifty Geezer
uber-Troll!
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under my bridge
Posts: 30,534
Default

This thread is being temporarily closed until I or some other mod can sort it out. There's a lot of OT banter that's taking away from this thread as a reference point for upscaling etc. It's needs to be managed better, and the beginnings of that is to stop it growing more unwieldy especially with interested new visitors!
__________________
Shifty Geezer
...
Flashing Samsung mobile firmwares. Know anything about this? Then please advise me at -
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=1862910
Shifty Geezer is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 12:41   #616
StefanS
meandering Velosoph
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Vienna
Posts: 3,672
Default


Ok, I did my best to clean up the mess left behind by some posters and I am reopening the thread with the following terms and rules:

RULES:

A.) To the persons who think they can roam around calling people idiots and liars etc.: We won't tolerate this behaviour and we will very gladly accomodate your wishes for a break from this forums, if you continue asking for it.

Let's me make one thing very clear: This is now a zero tolerance thread and we, mods, will act accordingly.


B) This is a thread about the visual IQ of games, like resolution, AA, texture filtering.
it's not the appropriate place
* to discuss reviews
* to ask for advice on which version to get, etc.
* to voice emotional appeals

Such posts will be removed. Continued derailing or derailing attempts will also result in stricter mod actions.




That said: I'd like to take the opportunity to make a personal statement here:

I find it very disturbing and fairly ungrateful, how some posters - a few of them even being long time posters - have behaved in this thread here. Quaz51 is providing this service here for free and has done so over a considerable amount of time. He has been absolutely reliable and has never shown anything that portrays a bias. In fact, he has been addressing the issues of his analysis regarding the PS3 version of GTAIV in his first posts.
Some people definitely owe him an apology for trying to misconstrue his posts as biased.
__________________
"Anybody can be a glutton, but only a true cyclist is a bottomless pit." - Ken Kifer (R.I.P.)

"I think you'll find the improved video is a part of Sony's integration of the cutting edge Placebo technology. They've integrated it into all firmwares and this fabulous system provides all sorts of minor upgrades at very little developer cost. Great stuff!" - Shifty Geezer
StefanS is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 13:12   #617
Heinrich4
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaz51 View Post
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 thanz a lot for patience,excelent and precision information.

(at ps3 version maybe post processing filters and method AA can determinate a sensation of better graphics despite little less resolution and this is most important at all)
Heinrich4 is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 13:23   #618
GAZOman
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16
Default

I think it would be nice if someone would just add all the info into one post because the thing gets kind of confusing.

well, I have both versions at home - its GTA so I would like to have the best version anyway.

I don't need to count pixels to tell you that neither of the versions is native 720p - 360 is NOT 720p and has almost as much aliasing as halo3 did. just compare a real 720p game to the 360 version of GTA4 side by side and you could end all the speculation within a second.

if you ask me, the differences are very minor - I will look into it tonight again. one thing is for sure: the PS3 has not better AA like IGN and other reviews were implying and the framerate in general is horrible in both versions. after the dithering debate I will mostly look into that, the HDR thing and of course a deep comparison of framerates.

PS: this thread is up on eurogamer and n4g
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=134736
GAZOman is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 13:37   #619
warb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,056
Default

From those pics and the video comparison on Gamersyde, it looks as though the only real difference is in resolution. The 360 version looks a little sharper.
warb is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 13:42   #620
GAZOman
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16
Default

imo there's no difference in resolution at all between the too. these are both no 720p games - look at the aliasing (even if there's 2x) the jaggies are so big that it's impossible that any of the two is real 720p. again ppl may think the 360 has more resolution because of the absence of overscan in a scaled 1080p image on there FullHD's but if you have an "underscan" function on your set like me - its the same.
GAZOman is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 13:46   #621
Quaz51
Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: France
Posts: 916
Default

Good news, dot50cal send me very good screenshot (thanks) and finally it's 1152x640p (and no AA) exactly like Halo3, perfect Dark or Dark sector PS3
even though i has clearly identified 7/8 recurrence on many different edge and screenshot but insufficient edge lenght and bad screenshot lead astray me, sorry, it's finally 8/9 and 9/10 recurrence, it's the final result!
Quaz51 is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 13:48   #622
Betanumerical
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In the land of the drop bears
Posts: 1,498
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaz51 View Post
Good news, dot50cal send me very good screenshot (thanks) and finally it's 1152x640p (and no AA) exactly like Halo3, perfect Dark or Dark sector PS3
even though i has clearly identified 7/8 recurrence on many different edge and screenshot but insufficient edge lenght and bad screenshot lead astray me, sorry, it's finally 8/9 and 9/10 recurrence, it's the final result!
No AA?, that doesn't sound right it looked like it had plenty of AA when i played my friends copy today on my screen.
Betanumerical is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 13:51   #623
AbbA
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 96
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaz51 View Post
Good news, dot50cal send me very good screenshot (thanks) and finally it's 1152x640p (and no AA) exactly like Halo3, perfect Dark or Dark sector PS3
even though i has clearly identified 7/8 recurrence on many different edge and screenshot but insufficient edge lenght and bad screenshot lead astray me, sorry, it's finally 8/9 and 9/10 recurrence, it's the final result!
Both version or only Ps3?
__________________
----------------
AbbA is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 13:52   #624
GAZOman
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16
Default

I expected there's no real AA - its just because of the scaling and blur that we think there's AA imo.

confusing - the 360 with its hardware AA and HDR capabilties has no AA and no real HDR!?
GAZOman is offline  
Old 29-Apr-2008, 13:56   #625
GKchikan
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 18
Default

Maybe they used a good scaling method that virtually works as sorta AA, instead of that horisonal-only built-in scaler?

Besides you, more than one review has so far claimed the PS3 version has a better AA.
GKchikan is offline  

 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:28.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.