Did most dreamcast games use super sampling?

[Fox5]

Just wondering, since dreamcast games over vga seem much sharper than progressive scan games on my gamecube, except maybe a few exceptions like super smash bros melee.

However, I'm noticed that dreamcast ports to pc, even with 6xAA and 16xAF, don't look nearly as sharp as the dreamcast versions. In addition, pc games in general at 640x480 don't look anywhere near as sharp as dreamcast games.

Hmm, too bad every card can't be a tile based renderer, as once the fillrate reduction is eliminated is seems superior to multisampling in just about every way.

 

[Sonic]

Barely any games on the Dreamcast used supersampling.

 

[Fox5]

Barely any games on the Dreamcast used supersampling.

So why are they so much sharper than current pscan games or even pc games at low res?

 

[Sonic]

PC games on a monitor in low res have annoying looking pixelization mainly because of the sharpness of the monitor. If you played those same games on a TV they would look a lot cleaner.

 

[Fox5]

PC games on a monitor in low res have annoying looking pixelization mainly because of the sharpness of the monitor. If you played those same games on a TV they would look a lot cleaner.

How come the dreamcast games on the monitor don't have the same problem though? More aggressive LOD level perhaps?

 

[Sonic]

Maybe Simon F can answer this question. I guess the Dreamcsst just has an excellent video out display.

 

[Fox5]

Maybe Simon F can answer this question. I guess the Dreamcsst just has an excellent video out display.

Could be, but the system is so old...

I know my radeon looks far far superior at 640x480-1024x768 than my geforce 3 does(and I believe my geforce 4 as well, but that's fast enough that it doesn't need low res), but it seems strange that cheap hardware commercially released in 1998 could be better.

 

[Simon F]

Barely any games on the Dreamcast used supersampling.

I don't know what the Gamecube does, but many of the DC games were rendered at 640x480 per field and then each field was downfiltered to 640x240. That might account for the relative sharpeness?

 

[London Geezer]

Barely any games on the Dreamcast used supersampling.

I don't know what the Gamecube does, but many of the DC games were rendered at 640x480 per field and then each field was downfiltered to 640x240. That might account for the relative sharpeness?

All games on current gen consoles run at that resolution, apart from the old PS2 games that used field rendering. Or do you mean something else?

 

[darkblu]

Barely any games on the Dreamcast used supersampling.

I don't know what the Gamecube does, but many of the DC games were rendered at 640x480 per field and then each field was downfiltered to 640x240. That might account for the relative sharpeness?

All games on current gen consoles run at that resolution, apart from the old PS2 games that used field rendering. Or do you mean something else?

i believe what simon meant would be equivalent to a game outputting in progressive framebuffer, which when run on interlaced would still remain progressive but the fields would be filtered-down version of a full (progressive) framebuffer, so you end up with an effective 2x vertical supersampling.. more or less.

IOW, only current-gen games that output progressive can be considered similar to what simon says (but then the hw may not necesserily downsample the fileds from the full framebuffer so you still may not get that 2x vertical supersampling ).

 

[Simon F]

Struth you guys are quick at replying. My first visit after 3 weeks on hols and I've still got 30 pages of "view posts sine last visit" to go... I'll not get through it b4 the new year at this rate!!

 

[cybamerc]

Simon F:

> I don't know what the Gamecube does, but many of the DC games
> were rendered at 640x480 per field and then each field was
> downfiltered to 640x240.

GameCube does the same. So does Xbox. And PS2 when it's programmed for it.

 

[darkblu]

Simon F:

> I don't know what the Gamecube does, but many of the DC games
> were rendered at 640x480 per field and then each field was
> downfiltered to 640x240.

GameCube does the same. So does Xbox. And PS2 when it's programmed for it.

dunno about the xbox but not all gc games use progressive. of course those that output in progressive could just as well be supersampled when interlaced.

 

[Guden Oden]

dunno about the xbox but not all gc games use progressive. of course those that output in progressive could just as well be supersampled when interlaced.

Wtf are you talking about? What Simon is describing has nothing to do with progressive scan, so just get those ideas out of your head, alrighty?

All current consoles can do what he describes, and most of them ALWAYS do it. There's nothing magic about DC's video out, it's just good old-fashioned nostalgia and rose-colored graphics that makes people believe it has "much sharper video" than even modern PC hardware. That's nothing but silly-talk!

 

[darkblu]

dunno about the xbox but not all gc games use progressive. of course those that output in progressive could just as well be supersampled when interlaced.

Wtf are you talking about? What Simon is describing has nothing to do with progressive scan, so just get those ideas out of your head, alrighty?

All current consoles can do what he describes, and most of them ALWAYS do it. There's nothing magic about DC's video out, it's just good old-fashioned nostalgia and rose-colored graphics that makes people believe it has "much sharper video" than even modern PC hardware. That's nothing but silly-talk!

i see. maybe then you'd care to explain what is that that simon described?

 

[cybamerc]

i see. maybe then you'd care to explain what is that that simon described?

What he described is the way DC does flicker filtering. Cube and Xbox use similar methods.

 

[darkblu]

i see. maybe then you'd care to explain what is that that simon described?

What he described is the way DC does flicker filtering. Cube and Xbox use similar methods.

what i've been saying is that for this technique to work you need a full-size (as in progressive) framebuffer in the first place. which is not the case with "all games of this generation" as some titles (on the GC at lest) do not output in fill-height framebuffer. did you read at all my first post in this thread?

 

[cybamerc]

darkblu:

> which is not the case with "all games of this generation" as some titles
> (on the GC at lest) do not output in fill-height framebuffer.

The output isn't relevant. The framebuffer that the system renders to is called a backbuffer. The backbuffer is usually "full height". Only a small percentage of all PS2 games use field rendering and I would think the number is close to zero, if not zero, on Cube and Xbox. It simply goes against how those systems are designed.

When the backbuffer is copied to the frontbuffer it may be downsampled to save memory and then you lose the ability to output a progressive signal.

 

[Guden Oden]

what i've been saying is that for this technique to work you need a full-size (as in progressive) framebuffer in the first place.

Would you mind terribly much not using the word "progressive" in this context? You see, it has no relevance here. The height of the back buffer has no bearing on wether the game is displaying in a progressive or interlaced fashion. Thank you.

 

[darkblu]

darkblu:

> which is not the case with "all games of this generation" as some titles
> (on the GC at lest) do not output in fill-height framebuffer.

The output isn't relevant. The framebuffer that the system renders to is called a backbuffer.

1) the output is very relevant. if you don't intend to produce progressive then you do not need a full-height framebuffer.

2) the system renders to a backbuffer iff there is need for a back-buffer. if the game can output at a stable 60Hz it may trace-sync and output directly into the front buffer just as well. that's why i said "framebuffer" w/o specifying front or back.

The backbuffer is usually "full height". Only a small percentage of all PS2 games use field rendering and I would think the number is close to zero, if not zero, on Cube and Xbox. It simply goes against how those systems are designed.

errrm, what exactly are you trying to say with the above? that there do not exist progressive-incapable titles on present gen consoles? -- yes, there are such titles. or are you saying that such titles "go against how those systems are designed"? if so, how?

When the backbuffer is copied to the frontbuffer it may be downsampled to save memory and then you lose the ability to output a progressive signal.

and what would it be downsampled from if the game originally produced field-height output?