I have seen the PS2 light!

[Guest]

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]

pure fucking genius

 

[wazoo]

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.

 

[Guest]

pure fucking genius

Cool that you agree with me. Motion blurring does wonders for the PS2. [/img]

 

[Guest]

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!

 

[Lazy8s]

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

 

[Goldni]

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]

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...

 

[Lazy8s]

You know, some of the picture instability you might be perceiving could come from most games' limited use of mip-mapping.

 

[Fafalada]

"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?

 

[Squeak]

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 lookâ€￾ 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]

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...).

 

[Glonk]

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!]

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 lookâ€￾ 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]

Actually, quite a few multi-platform games look worse on GC than they do on PS2

...and vice versa

 

[marconelly!]

...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.

 

[Squeak]

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.

 

[Lazy8s]

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.

 

[Guest]

I agree with Lazy8, even to the point of DC superior image!
I can live with sharp output but not sharp and messy images!

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!
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.

 

[marconelly!]

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.