Image Quality and Framebuffer Analysis for Available/release build Games *Read the first post*

[Ruskie]

The 360 shot is cleary a better capture, so i think better shots of the PS3 version needed. I did however count 5 more stars in the sky on 360.

Hmm i would not exactly say that...360 shoot is frame buffer capture,and ps3 shoot is off screen shoot.That should improve AA quite a lot on ps3 version but from here it looks to me that it also has no aa,maybe its taken from SDTV.Will wait for official DF article to pop out.
Anyway,played 360 version of the game for about an hour or so and game is simply an visual achievement...you will have to look hard to find better looking game on consoles(couple of exclusives),and other open world games dont even compare...Texture quality is almost mindblowing for open world game and the detail they put in it is very impressive...

I also havent notice jaggies or significant frame drops,its very smooth.

 

[Trejser]

So PS3 version is 540p confirmed? Huge step back from 640p...

 

[Antan]

So PS3 version is 540p confirmed? Huge step back from 640p...

Nothings confirmed. I`d say it still runs at 640P but with improvements in other areas.

 

[NRP]

So PS3 version is 540p confirmed? Huge step back from 640p...

How can you say it's a "huge step back" without seeing the final game? Perhaps the game looks better overall at 540p with added visual effects than it would at 640p without some (or all) of those effects? Why do some of you seem to oversimplify things, when any sensible person should know it's a complicated balancing act?

 

[assurdum]

http://www.abload.de/img/red_dead_redemption_ren9bz.jpg
http://miladesn.webs.com/Red_Dead_Redemption_Review_Xbox_360_5.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/red_dead_redemption_rek764.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/red_dead_redemption_rec5el.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/red_dead_redemption_rey5dd.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/red_dead_redemption_recu59.jpg
Fixed: very hard to me to understand the real resolution...it seems there is an improvement...but QAA complicated the impressions.

 

[KKRT]

X0
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5109/img20100516183425.jpg
PS3
http://i41.tinypic.com/2q1yu1j.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/imv3o7.jpg

Second one shows exacly that its not 720p.

 

[assurdum]

X0
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5109/img20100516183425.jpg
PS3
http://i41.tinypic.com/2q1yu1j.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/imv3o7.jpg

Second one shows exacly that its not 720p.

It could be 960x720p or more...be carefull when you talking of real resolution...not 720p not means anything.

 

[AlNom]

640 vertical

 

[deepbrown]

640 vertical

And horizantal?

Could you describe it as "640p" or is it not the right full resolution for that?

 

[AlNom]

And horizantal?

Could you describe it as "640p" or is it not the right full resolution for that?

Haven't found any good edges to examine the horizontal res. Anyways, if by "#p" you mean a 16:9 pixel resolution, you'll not get a whole number horizontal with 640 vertical.

 

[deepbrown]

Haven't found any good edges to examine the horizontal res. Anyways, if by "#p" you mean a 16:9 pixel resolution, you'll not get a whole number horizontal with 640 vertical.

OK, but the total number of pixels in GTA4 is equivalent to 640p? Or no? What would you expect the horizontal to be if the vertical is 640? Same as GTA4? PS. You're certain on the 640 vertical?

 

[Quaz51]

yes 640p like GTA4
horizontal seem the same than GTA4 too

 

[Quaz51]

OK, but the total number of pixels in GTA4 is equivalent to 640p? Or no? What would you expect the horizontal to be if the vertical is 640? Same as GTA4?

GTA4 (and probably RDR) is little more than 640p, it's 1152x640 (644p equivalent )

 

[deepbrown]

GTA4 (and probably RDR) is little more than 640p, it's 1152x640 (644p equivalent )

Interesting - gets a little confusing doesn't it! Which screenshot did you use to come up with 640 vertical?

 

[Arwin]

Interesting - gets a little confusing doesn't it! Which screenshot did you use to come up with 640 vertical?

Actually so totally not confusing! It's exactly like GTA IV, as expected.

 

[Quaz51]

Interesting - gets a little confusing doesn't it! Which screenshot did you use to come up with 640 vertical?

no confusing, it's 640 vertical

 

[deepbrown]

Actually so totally not confusing! It's exactly like GTA IV, as expected.

I know I know. Just when you say 640, you expect 640p, but it's 644p =) It makes perfect sense when you understand what's being talked about.

 

[xgen]

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5109/img20100516183425.jpg
WOW, the 360 version screenshot of RDR looks rather sharp, is it 4xAA?

 

[Neb]

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5109/img20100516183425.jpg
WOW, the 360 version screenshot of RDR looks rather sharp, is it 4xAA?

Looks more like 2x and also sharpening applied by image editor or as a filter ingame.

 

[nightshade]

We are not in neogaf here...based on what you said that? Because you have the game are you more reliable? The screens in the net not showing texture so massive incredible in RDR in terms of resolution. I am talking only of technic, I am not judging the overall graphic.

I'll agree in that FC2 has considerably more detailed textures, RDR has the liberty of being a TPS. And anything from bad to avg looks great for a TPS while for an FPS it needs to have above avg textures to even get noticed as good.

With that said, RDR doesn't has a very aggressive LOD system, its quite efficient in masking pop ups & the view distance is phenomenal/insanse ! But on the other hand most of the area are almost empty with nothing but cactus & small shrubs everywhere. If someone asked me then I'd put both of them at the same level, both have their pros & cons (why must we always have to choose ? )