MrWibble said:
I thought that on PS2, field rendering was the same as saying 640x240 (or 224) which is then interlaced and comes out as a very ugly 640x480 (or 448)
No normal map, stencil shadow, reflection, or HD, etc = Best graphics
- Thread starter ihamoitc2005
- Start date
I thought that on PS2, field rendering was the same as saying 640x240 (or 224) which is then interlaced and comes out as a very ugly 640x480 (or 448)
london-boy said:
Nope - two very different things.
As a side effect of doing field rendering you'll be rendering to a 640x240 buffer, but it also implies that you have interlace turned on, and you'll be rendering at 60 and you'll nudge each alternate field by half a line - in other words, field rendering will give the same result as outputting an interlaced frame, provided you don't drop frames (and it makes a whole bunch of other stuff, like free antialiasing, hard).
But some games actually just render 640x240 - no pretence at field rendering, just lower resolution. In that mode it's actually sensible to turn interlacing off to at least get a flicker-free display (and it actually looks less blocky because of the fine black lines on a CRT). ICO does this - if you play it, you'll see no flicker, but the whole display is noticeably lower resolution than other games.
(obviously you can substitute other resolutoins/framerates in the above, I've assumed 640x480@60Hz for brevity)
Some day, when 2890p or something similarly outrageous (yes, I made it up) is the image standard, people will be saying "You can't even do subtlety in 720p."
In motion that game looks amazing. Really, I don't know how they do it. And the small "stubble" effects really make it look like a painting has come to life.
All this talk of aliasing and HD, I'm sure people won't care when they play it. I notice aliasing in RE4 (PS2) but it doesn't bother me one bit.
All this talk of aliasing and HD, I'm sure people won't care when they play it. I notice aliasing in RE4 (PS2) but it doesn't bother me one bit.
Branduil said:
I assume you mean 640x480 and 640x240
Yes, this is true in terms of the internals - My meaning is that the output from the rendering process will be a 640x240 buffer, not necessarily that every stage of the process uses that size of back-buffer. It's not a "kind of" super-sampling, it *is* super-sampling. It seems generally accepted to consider something that is using SSAA or MSAA to speak about the target resolution rather than the rendering resolution - so we might say that ICO is 640x240, with 2x SSAA.
drpepper said:
No kidding. Viewing screen caps is redundant for this game. Watch this trailer...
http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=7651&pl=game&type=mov
...and tell me you're worrying about the lack of AA or resolution. (hint: if you are you may want to rent a soul
)Ihamoitc2005's post was sort of confrontational (art vs tech etc.) and naturally thats where the conversation went in this thread, but Okami deserves recognition on its own rights for what its bringing visually, technically and conceptually. There's some wonderfully vivid imaginations driving this title from Clover so I really hope it turns out well.
cloudscapes
Regular
Ingenu said:
Agreed!
About this game, I really love the style! I'm a fan of cel-based animation though so that might have a factor. But I agree that emphasis on art direction *should* be more than graphics and technical eye candy.
There seems to be a lot of obscure cultural references in the one trailer I watched. Probably won't appeal to the market outside.
