Image Quality and Framebuffer Speculations for WIP/alpha/beta/E3 games *Read the first post*

[Betanumerical]

How are they grabbed though ? Are they direct output or frame buffer pics ?

For exmaple this one

http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/res_analysis_StarOcean4.jpg

This is not the output picture, since it is not 720p, is it the frame buffer picture ?

Star Ocean 4 has black bars around it.

That is output.

 

[labwarrior]

Star Ocean 4 has black bars around it.

That is output.

It would be the first 360 game ever to do so then ?

I smell something fishy in those pics, black bars around the picture ? Why did they not upscale to 720p for the output ?

Is this the retail final version BTW ? Seems very strange

And i doubt this picture below is fake too, does not look that good, the grabbed pics are awfull though, those look like grabbed with some terrible system

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/873/new1jg9.jpg

 

[Betanumerical]

It would be the first 360 game ever to do so then ?

I smell something fishy in those pics, black bars around the picture ? Why did they not upscale to 720p for the output ?

Is this the retail final version BTW ? Seems very strange

Overscan is one of the reasons being thrown around for the bars.

Considering its out today in Japan, and in around a week for the rest of the world I dare say its the retail version.

And i doubt this picture below is fake too, does not look that good, the grabbed pics are awfull though, those look like grabbed with some terrible system

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/873/new1jg9.jpg

They were not grabbed with a 'terrible system'. Thats what the game looks like, that is a bullshot.

 

[labwarrior]

Overscan is one of the reasons being thrown around for the bars.

Considering its out today in Japan, and in around a week for the rest of the world I dare say its the retail version.



They were not grabbed with a 'terrible system'. Thats what the game looks like, that is a bullshot.

Somehow i am not convinced, those pics look horrible, those visuals would be 1/10 if they looked like that, frankly they are so blurry that you can hardly see a thing

I have to question the grabbing equipment used, any links for that ?

 

[Gitaroo]

so SC4 battle is the new low record now? I notice that there is a black boarder around the shot, wonder if the game is shrink down like AO2 PS3 or MLB. Pretty sure its very sub HD just by looking at it already. What was the resolution for IU anyone remember?

 

[Betanumerical]

Somehow i am not convinced, those pics look horrible, those visuals would be 1/10 if they looked like that, frankly they are so blurry that you can hardly see a thing

I have to question the grabbing equipment used, any links for that ?

Ask the person capturing that question, not the person telling you your wrong.

Its what the game looks like, get over it.

 

[labwarrior]

Star Ocean 4 - 1248 x 702 No AA (field) 882 x 496 No AA (battle)

http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/res_analysis_StarOcean4.jpg


Ryu Ga Gotoku 3 - 1024 x 768 No AA

http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/res_analysis_Yakuza4.jpg

Are those pics from the retail version and how are they grabbed ?

 

[Brad Grenz]

so SC4 battle is the new low record now? I notice that there is a black boarder around the shot, wonder if the game is shrink down like AO2 PS3 or MLB. Pretty sure its very sub HD just by looking at it already. What was the resolution for IU anyone remember?

IU runs on Unreal 3 tech; SO4 is Tri-Ace's in house engine. I wonder if the catastrophic battle resolution is the result of a really quick and really dirty port from the PS3 after MS secured the (timed?) exclusive?

I'm really stunned by the terrible quality, though. I thought some of the early shots looked ugly, but I'm still surprised.

 

[Betanumerical]

Are those pics from the retail version and how are they grabbed ? They sure look horrible

Most likely yes.

If im not mistaken MaziginerDUDE runs the digital foundry blog, and his equipment seems to be capturing every other game on the planet fine.

http://www.digitalfoundry.org/blog/

 

[GKchikan]

If this alleged resolution is true, it's so bad it's technically impressive.

What I've looked so far (screen shots or peer cast stream) doesn't really look like 882 x 496. An incredible software upscaling method, instead of Xbox360's hardware one would be behind?

 

[Gitaroo]

IU runs on Unreal 3 tech; SO4 is Tri-Ace's in house engine. I wonder if the catastrophic battle resolution is the result of a really quick and really dirty port from the PS3 after MS secured the (timed?) exclusive?

I'm really stunned by the terrible quality, though. I thought some of the early shots looked ugly, but I'm still surprised.

no IU use the same engine

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20763

Last Remnant use Unreal Engine 3.

I am also surprise by the kind of quality Tri Ace has been putting out this gen, compare to Valkyrie Profiles and others on the PS2 its very embarrassing.

 

[MazingerDUDE]

The SO4 shot's not mine, it's from some Japanese gaming forum. Here's one more shot from another forum, this one's much easier to count pixels

http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/starocean4.jpg

Here's another one for fun

http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/staroceanbullshot.jpg

http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/staroceanreality.jpg

 

[Quaz51]

now the record for the lowest resolution is SO4

 

[Betanumerical]

Star Ocean 4 - 1248 x 702 No AA (field) 882 x 496 No AA (battle)

http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/res_analysis_StarOcean4.jpg


Ryu Ga Gotoku 3 - 1024 x 768 No AA

http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/res_analysis_Yakuza4.jpg

now the record for the lowest resolution is SO4

Here's another one for fun

http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/staroceanbullshot.jpg

http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/staroceanreality.jpg

So its been triple confirmed with redundancy that its 882 x 496 in battles.

If so, why did they do this? the difference between battling and walking around would be hugely jarring they would be better of lowering the quailty during battles and keeping a consistent reso across the game imo.

 

[MazingerDUDE]

So its been triple confirmed with redundancy that its 882 x 496 in battles.

If so, why did they do this? the difference between battling and walking around would be hugely jarring they would be better of lowering the quailty during battles and keeping a consistent reso across the game imo.

In case you didn't know, the battle part runs at 60 fps whiles others are just 30. They just cut down the res to increase the frame rate, more interestingly 882 x 496 is just about half the pixel count of its field res of 1248 x 702

 

[Quaz51]

and no AA, low poly, bad texture filtering... ugly game

 

[Betanumerical]

In case you didn't know, the battle part runs at 60 fps whiles others are just 30. They just cut down the res to increase the frame rate, more interestingly 882 x 496 is just about half the pixel count of its field res of 1248 x 702

Ah, that makes sense.

But if that is so, why no AA? its pretty much free and you could get nearly 4xMSAA at 882 x 496 with only minimal (1) tile?.

 

[GKchikan]

Even with 2xAA, it's less than 7MB.So I can't really fathom why it even lacks 2xAA.


Perhaps Deffered rendering?

 

[catisfit]

It looked very low to me. I didn't have time to measure properly but the numbers I got at first glance were so low that I didn't want to post them without taking a proper look. We're talking "new record" kind of low, and I didn't want to make that call without being totally sure.

If I get chance later I'll take a proper look.

...

now the record for the lowest resolution is SO4

Damn - I should have just posted the numbers in the first place...

 

[Betanumerical]

Even with 2xAA, it's less than 7MB.So I can't really fathom why it even lacks 2xAA.


Perhaps Deffered rendering?

I was thinking exactly that.

But haven't been able to find any evidence to backup my guessing.