Neverending Upscaling/Resolutions/AA etc Thread #2 *Rules: post: #616 *

No, it doesn't prove your point, because Halo was the other way around. Screenshots are never rendered at lower resolution. Ever. Even downscaling a 720p image to any size and upscaling it again won't lead you to a 630p conclusion, because the pattern would different.

He is not getting his shots just from websites:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1153685&postcount=501
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1153657&postcount=497

For you to bitch at Quaz after all the work he's done for us is utterly classless, especially when he did wait a day or two after he first figured out the 630p before posting here, probably so that he'd be more sure. If you don't like it, get out of the thread and off B3D.

 

You're really, really way off base here to criticize Quaz's methodology. The guy has no agenda, and is the most reliable pixel counter there is. He's smart enough to be able to tell what screenshots are legitimate in-game ones and which ones aren't. You are in absolutely no position to question him.

 

Just wonderying then why he couldn't wait one more do, to get his own copy before releasing "definite" proof is all I'm wondering.

 

I didn't know that, but do you think there is some conspiracy where vertigogaming and IGN are both managed to elaborately crop out the HUD, fill in the holes, crop, upscale, put back the HUD, and do all this despite claiming the PS3 looks better in their review?

Just wondering? You don't say "shame on you" if you were just wondering.

This is a forum. Someone gave Quaz a screenshot, asked what res it was rendered at, and he kindly answered. What's wrong with that? He's not publishing a friggin scientific paper. Where's your outrage at all these retard gaming sites informing millions of viewers that a blurred, lower-resolution image is "cleaner" and superior in IQ?

 

We've got like 5 pages of ppl begging him to analyze a PS3 shot and you want him to wait even longer? Why? If you suspect an agenda, it's not enough that he says he both prefers the PS3 version's look and hesitated to post the res he calculated precisely b/c ppl would focus on the raw #s rather than the end result?

I particularly enjoy you calling Quaz stupid. How about shame on you for not showing the maturity in discussing his "guesses" (as you yourself called them, as opposed to definitive conclusion) that he expects? I'm sure he's just gutted that you didn't get your money's worth from his work.

And he wouldn't have "guessed" wrongly about the Halo 3 PR shots, he would've assessed them accurately. That they were bullshots and so not representative of the shipping game wouldn't have been his fault, and your implication that his first stab at it would be his final and that he wouldn't have reassessed actual screengrabs is farce, given his efforts on these last few pages alone. This forum is meant to be mature enough to discuss the unexpected intelligently, without resorting to running in circles waving our arms over our heads.

There's no need for Quaz to spoon-feed us surprising results, nor for him to quintuple-check and source anything he posts for the good of the internets. Most of us would much prefer a forum that assumes intelligence on the part of its participants, and that's the environment we're in. Really, it's amazing that you would call him stupid and irresponsible for not assuming all of us are stupid.

Feel free to voice reasoned skepticism, but impugning Quaz's motives given his history is a bit much (and the only reason I bothered to elaborate on Mint's reply). Asking him to think of the children before he posts anything is unnecessary and insulting. We're (most of us) big kids here.

 

You mean the depth of field?

Why don't you look at the whole gallery?
http://www.gamersyde.com/gallery_8316_en.html
There are plenty of sharp lines on the object of focus.

Also, "blurred more" compared to what? Show me the PS3 shots of similar scenes with less blur.

 

"Based on these screenshots the game looks like it runs at 630P" is all it would have taken. To definitively state that the game runs definitely at 630P without having concret pictures is what bugged me. Who knows, those pics could have been from beta version of the game that the companies got months ago. R* did say they were taking extra time to work on the PS3 version.

I have a lot of respect for him for his skills, which are greater than mine, yet all he did by posting early (by 12 hours, maybe less) is incite flame bate all over the web, with multiple websites pointing to this forum as a definitive source that the game does indeed run at 630P.

Maybe it's the way he worded it that just bugged me. Yes it's most likely true (though I counted 620P on those screenshots, but I'll admit my estimations aren't as good as his) but doesn't mean he should post it as truth without seeing a final pic of the final release of the game.

I've been a long time reader of these forums, and for some reason nothing seemed to warant me posting till this.

 

I'm a long time lurker as well... and your opinion on the matter is quite alright... even to the ones criticizing you. I think what really triggered them was your abrasive attitude on the matter directed towards quaz.

I think what we all want is just a small apology to quaz so we can continue to discuss this maturely as you did in this last post. Afterall, we are all entitled to disagree but making personal attacks aren't warranted.

 

I totally agree, and only Sony could have pulled it off. I'm glad they did even though they probably could have wiped XBox off the map if they skipped BR and launched a year earlier.

Nonetheless, it's amusing to see people - even professional, supposedly neutral reviewers - trying so hard to see "proof" that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360. Here we have a game that's so "obviously" built to take advantage of PS3's strengths.

Calling 1024x576 SD-esque is a bit of a stretch. It's almost twice the resolution of 640x480, and many games ran at even lower resolution last gen.

I do agree, however, that 4xAA and 16xAF at SD res is nothing to sneeze at for image quality, particularly when compared to 720p w/o AA or AF at reduced framerate (not that this is the case for GTA, of course). I've long been a proponent of rendering at lower res - say 30% fewer pixels - to have those two enabled. AF adds so much detail, and on top of reducing aliasing AA also makes scaling better.

Anyway, it looks like reviewers could indeed see a difference between 720p and 630p. Some just thought that because this was the game that would make the PS3 shine, that version must have been the better, cleaner, intended look.

Personally, I don't think that 630p is clearly worse than 720p. Suggesting that 630p has cleaner lines and holds the visual edge, though, is laughable. Hilary Goldstein is such a tool.

 

Curious is, when the gaming sites including IGN which has previously claimed the PS3 version had a better resolution start to call it as the 'lesser' one. Of course Quaz still may need more screen shots, but...

 

I'm sorry if I'm reading this wrong but... suggesting that 630p has cleaner lines and holds the visual edge [over 720p] is only laughable with all things being equal right?

We still don't know all the details at work in the PS3 build though, even quaz wants to see certain lighting conditions from the same scene compared on the two systems to see where that "better" (or more favorable to many) look comes from. Personally I don't buy the blurring from upscaling to be the source of this bias... but maybe I'm giving the reviewers/masses too much credit.

I'm 3 hours away from picking up either copy (both pre-ordered) and I STILL can't make up my mind.

 

Maybe kill all the posts here that doesn´t have anything to do with Native Resolution?

There is a "what gta4 will you buy" thread and a "technical blabla GTA4 engine" thread that is usefull. For insults and cheap shots go read the neogaf thread of doom.

I hope i can provide some photos/screenshots in a few hours of the GTA4 PS3 version so that Quaz and squash any doubts about his work.

 

there are already good quality screens posted by dot50cal on neogaf:

 

Yeah my bad. How do you guys usually do the screen shots? I have an 8mp canon quickshot type camera and just got my ps3 version. Anyone have any tips?

 

This thread is being temporarily closed until I or some other mod can sort it out. There's a lot of OT banter that's taking away from this thread as a reference point for upscaling etc. It's needs to be managed better, and the beginnings of that is to stop it growing more unwieldy especially with interested new visitors!

 

Ok, I did my best to clean up the mess left behind by some posters and I am reopening the thread with the following terms and rules:

RULES:

A.) To the persons who think they can roam around calling people idiots and liars etc.: We won't tolerate this behaviour and we will very gladly accomodate your wishes for a break from this forums, if you continue asking for it.

Let's me make one thing very clear: This is now a zero tolerance thread and we, mods, will act accordingly.


B) This is a thread about the visual IQ of games, like resolution, AA, texture filtering.
it's not the appropriate place
* to discuss reviews
* to ask for advice on which version to get, etc.
* to voice emotional appeals

Such posts will be removed. Continued derailing or derailing attempts will also result in stricter mod actions.




That said: I'd like to take the opportunity to make a personal statement here:

I find it very disturbing and fairly ungrateful, how some posters - a few of them even being long time posters - have behaved in this thread here. Quaz51 is providing this service here for free and has done so over a considerable amount of time. He has been absolutely reliable and has never shown anything that portrays a bias. In fact, he has been addressing the issues of his analysis regarding the PS3 version of GTAIV in his first posts.
Some people definitely owe him an apology for trying to misconstrue his posts as biased.

 

Quaz51 thanz a lot for patience,excelent and precision information.

(at ps3 version maybe post processing filters and method AA can determinate a sensation of better graphics despite little less resolution and this is most important at all)

 

I think it would be nice if someone would just add all the info into one post because the thing gets kind of confusing.

well, I have both versions at home - its GTA so I would like to have the best version anyway.

I don't need to count pixels to tell you that neither of the versions is native 720p - 360 is NOT 720p and has almost as much aliasing as halo3 did. just compare a real 720p game to the 360 version of GTA4 side by side and you could end all the speculation within a second.

if you ask me, the differences are very minor - I will look into it tonight again. one thing is for sure: the PS3 has not better AA like IGN and other reviews were implying and the framerate in general is horrible in both versions. after the dithering debate I will mostly look into that, the HDR thing and of course a deep comparison of framerates.

PS: this thread is up on eurogamer and n4g
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=134736

 

From those pics and the video comparison on Gamersyde, it looks as though the only real difference is in resolution. The 360 version looks a little sharper.

 

imo there's no difference in resolution at all between the too. these are both no 720p games - look at the aliasing (even if there's 2x) the jaggies are so big that it's impossible that any of the two is real 720p. again ppl may think the 360 has more resolution because of the absence of overscan in a scaled 1080p image on there FullHD's but if you have an "underscan" function on your set like me - its the same.