PC-Engine said:I'll let you know when I see the need to release the bomb....
Haven't you been warned already for trolling?
PC-Engine said:I'll let you know when I see the need to release the bomb....
PC-Engine said:Do you have a source that confirms this regarding how GT4's 1080i output is rendered?
It's seems what you're attempting to describe can easily be used to describe 480i upscaled to 960i.
- Native 1080i (or 960i) rendered from spatially distinct 540-line (or 480-line) fields has twice the vertical resolution of 480i/p scan converted to 1080i (or 960i)
- GT4's 1080i is rendered from spatially distinct 540-line or 480-line fields
PC-Engine said:- Native 1080i (or 960i) rendered from spatially distinct 540-line (or 480-line) fields has twice the vertical resolution of 480i/p scan converted to 1080i (or 960i)
- GT4's 1080i is rendered from spatially distinct 540-line or 480-line fields
So you're claiming that GT4 1080i is actually true 1080i? You got a source to back that up?
phat said:PC-Engine said:- Native 1080i (or 960i) rendered from spatially distinct 540-line (or 480-line) fields has twice the vertical resolution of 480i/p scan converted to 1080i (or 960i)
- GT4's 1080i is rendered from spatially distinct 540-line or 480-line fields
So you're claiming that GT4 1080i is actually true 1080i? You got a source to back that up?
Sigh. Yes. It's called an XBR. But a thinking man's brain would also suffice. My condolences.
phat said:Sigh. Yes. It's called an XBR. But a thinking man's brain would also suffice. My condolences.
london-boy said:"A picture speaks a thousands words. Especially PC-Engine's words".
PC-Engine said:
-tkf- said:PC-Engine said:
The guy that posted those shots is from gtplanet, and unlike others he didn't have any reason/motive/agenda other than to show what it looked like, at least none that was evident.
london-boy said:What are you talking about?
That 1080 pic looks like the jaggies (which are still there) are much smaller than the ones on the 480p pictures.
The lines are sharper. The pictures are not blurrier. Stop trying to make excuses.
PC-Engine said:london-boy said:What are you talking about?
That 1080 pic looks like the jaggies (which are still there) are much smaller than the ones on the 480p pictures.
The lines are sharper. The pictures are not blurrier. Stop trying to make excuses.
You don't get it do you? Arguing about picture quality is pointless when you don't know how those pictures were taken. Read the link I posted. Some people who've seen the actual modes in action on their own display have differing opionions that contradict what you're gleening from these out of nowhere *cough PS* pics. Yes the jaggies have more increments(higher resolution), but everything also looks more blurry/soft. Just look at the asphalt.
PC-Engine said:
Lets focus on the rear window sill of the civic's hatch.
Lets count the jaggies on the horizontal plain.
480P = 10
1080i = 19
Considering that each one of these jaggies represents a line of verticle image data, it would be safe to assume that the verticle rendered resolution of the 1080i shot, is roughly double that of the 480P shot. Which could be easily acheived in the interlacing process. Obviously that comes out to aprox. 960, which then has some aliasing applied, and is output at 1080i.
If you look at the horizontal jaggies on the side of the car (by looking at the verticle plane), you will notice that the pixel information in the jaggies is virtually identicle between the two shots. Which would indicate to me that there is virtually little, to no line doubling going on horizontally. Just verticly. Which, in a racing game, is where most help is needed.