Neverending Upscaling/Resolutions/AA etc Thread #3 (Rules Post #1!)

Sure about that bullshot thingy? Despite the lack of aliasing, the screenshots don't look good enough to warrant not being realtime to be honest. Maybe it's a shitload of filters applied and the actual gameplay will look less polished, but still, those are kinda believable to me.

Besides, this game was last demoed in 2005 I think, and has been in development for PS3 before then. If any game will rock the boat, that one will, with its development cycle of 4+ years.

 

I think the main issue he/I have with the blur is that it's INCREDIBLY much. I mean, literally. You can barely make out anything in the background.

Hence why I also think those are "in-game"...

 

Ahhh perfect it's all AlStrong's fault it wasn't on the list

 

What resolution would Soul Calibur IV 360 (1365x960) run at if you used a VGA cable and set it to 1366X768 on a display with a native resolution of1366x768?
Would you get the extra resolution that way?

 

probably not, when you play in 1360X768, everything is upscaled from 720p I believe.

 

What is the resolution of bioshock ?(ps3 version)

 

Just the blur doesn't look that good. Games like Mass Effect, LBP (background) have better blur than that.


Maybe I'm over-reacting, though. Could be compression.

 

I doubt they'd leave in the abrubt motion blur extent as evidenced in this shot, if it were a bullshot:

http://i37.tinypic.com/2zp82t0.jpg

They are AA-tacular though:



Strange combination.

 

Those are clearly bullshots guys. There's basically no aliasing and the image is perfectly clear in the distance.
I'm guessing at least 8 x AA and 16 X AF.

 

Facebreaker is 2xAA, i don't remember for others

 

Quaz, did you get a chance to check Braid on XBLA?

 

sometime 1280x720 will be the best, sometime 960x1080 will be the best. let the devs make the choice for default setting resolution, it's simple

advantage of 960x1080:
- little more shading pixels
- better ground quality
- more sharped upscale on Full HDTV

disadvantage of 960x1080:
- sometime can add slowdown framerate
- can give the feeling of more edge aliasing because low resolution vertical edge attract attention

 

i wish more developers would go 2d, so damn beautiful.

 

The blur is excessive because it's excessive on purpose. NOTHING to do with whether it's "in-game" or not. More blur or less blur does not increase performance or make games run faster. In fact, it's arguably slower and more performance-costly to use MORE blur.

Besides, you see that amount of blur in movies all the time. It's a cinematic effect. That's what the excessive blur is there for, to make the game look more cinematic. And it's not a constant blur, at least not at that amount. It's probably only that blurry because for that particular scene, because it's a close-up shot, which normally causes a film camera to blur the background (wiki "depth of field").

 

He didn't say that that's not an in-game screenshot. He just says that there's no aliasing whatsoever, and that the edges are way too jaggy-free to be rendered in realtime. Chances are, this is an in-game screenshot, but rendered at 0 fps at an extremely high resolution (for publicity purposes).

Hmm, wonder why the Beyond3D forum doesn't automerge double-posts (as in other message boards I've used).

 

I was under the impression that by blurring the image you would compensate for lack of anti aliasing and improve performance, see GTA IV. Isn't that the case?