KZ2 is a camera viewpoint though, as evidenced by the tasty looking internal lens reflections. I guess it's an Extreme Sport head-mounted camera we're seeing 
Image Quality and Framebuffer Speculations for WIP/alpha/beta/E3 games *Read the first post*
- Thread starter Farid
- Start date
flipswitch
Newcomer
The PS3 is noticeably more sharper though.Both are rendering at 720p?
According to post on the previous page, the ps3 version drops to 630p during close ups while the 360 remains at 720p.
user542745831
Veteran
Hi, don't want to bother anyone with asking again, but could someone take a look at those:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1267420&postcount=139
?
Their image size is 1920 x 1080. Are they upscaled or 1080p native?
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1267420&postcount=139
?
Their image size is 1920 x 1080. Are they upscaled or 1080p native?
Last edited by a moderator:
I checked the SS of Star Ocean: TLH.
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2009/034/reviews/946860_20090204_screen009.jpg
http://i39.tinypic.com/zkjrya.png
Vertical: 17 steps / 24 pixels
Horizontal: 19 steps / 27pixels
Native resolution is 900*510?
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2009/034/reviews/946860_20090204_screen009.jpg
http://i39.tinypic.com/zkjrya.png
Vertical: 17 steps / 24 pixels
Horizontal: 19 steps / 27pixels
Native resolution is 900*510?
according to the post on previous page they don´t know because of the video compression
You are talking about different posters. I was refeering to this post -> http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1262452&postcount=123, which does not mentioned any compression.
"However this is the case with the PS3 version only, the 360 version maintains its 720p resolution all time."
It isn't so clear. I'm refer to 360 version, it seems there aren't same 'zoom scenes' to establish exactly.
Last edited by a moderator:
grandmaster
Veteran
Mazinger owns the 360 version now and and I don't think he's changed his opinion.
Indeed... there are some more output grabs here:
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/yoda-dip-jp/20090213#1234513625
normal view
http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/StreetFighter4/StreetFighter4_03_360.png -> 2xAA, 720p
http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/StreetFighter4/StreetFighter4_03_PS3.png -> no AA 720p
close-up view
http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/StreetFighter4/StreetFighter4_13_360.png -> 2xAA, 720p
http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/StreetFighter4/StreetFighter4_13_PS3.png -> no AA, slight upscale (I'm getting about 630p too)
A strange choice considering it appears to just be a closer view. Then again, there are some omissions in the PS3 shots that are suggestive.
http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/StreetFighter4/StreetFighter4_01_PS3.png -> removed waterfall specular
http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/StreetFighter4/StreetFighter4_02_PS3.png -> lighting on shoulder is different, but could be bugged...
On another note, the 360 appears to be using a noise filter on the self-shadow penumbras.
Wipeout HD reduces horizontal resolution, on a frame-by-frame basis depending on load, but it's running at 1920x1080x60 to start with.
There is something wrong on the ps3 version
capcom said to have encountered more problems to insert same shaders on ps3 version and so those are the compromises... really bads...
Last edited by a moderator:
There are two guesses that can be made as to why they did what they did.
It's looking like SF4 has very little vertex load, meaning the 360's unified shaders will be mostly working as pixel shaders. RSX can't do this, so it will have a hard time keeping pace. This may be why they had to use slightly stripped down pixel shaders on the PS3 version, such as yanking specular from that waterfall. Or perhaps the PS3's shaders are the original ones, and they added more to the 360s pixel shaders since in this case xenos would have lots of pixel grunt.
Regarding the lower resolution, maybe they did that to deal with overdraw. Normally we render transparent stuff in 1/4 or 1/16 buffers on PS3 to deal with it's lack of edram. In this case though that might not have been possible, because the large transparencies in this game linger on screen and need to maintain their detail. Rendering the transparent pass into a reduced buffer kills details, so they may have instead opted to stick with a full size transparency pass and drop down the main resolution to compensate, to maintain 60fps in those zoom in shots where the transparencies could become a huge overdraw burden.
Just a guess though...
Meh, XBOX 360 version is clearly superior: look at the match point difference.
On a serious note, any reason why the lighting seems to different between the two? Is there a light rotating around Ryu or something?
Meh, XBOX 360 version is clearly superior: look at the match point difference.
Were it so easy!
I think it might be the location of Ryu. In the PS3 shot, you can see in the background that he is further left compared to the 360 spot and is in a darker area.
And oddly enough, the black character outlines disappear in the close up shot.
grandmaster
Veteran
What is curious about SF4 of course is that the arcade version is using a 7900GS nVidia board, which isn't a million miles away from the RSX specs. RSX has more grunt, but lower bandwidth.
that is what Im thinking too, the no AA etc makes sense if the game uses FP HDR, the missing bloom may or may not be like the arcade version. What Im interested to know is does the arcade version down scale too? Though just through screen shots, the game doesnt really look that much difference atleast........
At this point I think so, probably the arcade version it's the same and 360 is an 'optimized' version, because I can't explain, it isn't exactly a 'monster' engine...however is out gametrailers review based on ps3 version. Everyone can verify if there is any difference.
Last edited by a moderator:
