PGR 3 - Pictures and Framebuffer Discussion

kyleb said:
The size of the pixels, most evedent on the jaggies.
Click to expand...

I dont see how you know if its the 360 scaling internally or the samsung scaling causing that. You would need some sort of comparison in the native output display (1280x720) to ever really tell.
 
Can you not tell the difference between 800x600 and 1024x768 on a 1600x1200 LCD? It always seemed pretty obvious to me.
 
kyleb said:
Can you not tell the difference between 800x600 and 1024x768 on a 1600x1200 LCD? It always seemed pretty obvious to me.
Click to expand...

Yes, because it is being displayed at either 800X600 or 1024X768 resolution.

Now, the question is if you upconverted both of those to a 1600X1200 output would you still be able to tell the difference?
 
kyleb said:
Can you not tell the difference between 800x600 and 1024x768 on a 1600x1200 LCD? It always seemed pretty obvious to me.
Click to expand...

That is not a valid comparison. A valid comparison would be:

My video card natively rendering my desktop at 800x600, then INTERNALLY SCALING the image to 1280x1024 and sending that via its DVI connector to a 1600x1200 monitor, which is scaling the 1280 image to 1600x1200.

Then do the same thing but start with a 1024x768 desktop.

In your example you are leaving out a whole scaling step and thats exactly my point on why you cant tell whos scaling is causing the artifacts you are seeing.
 
expletive said:
How are these framebuffer grabs captured and spit out?
Click to expand...

Take the framebuffer and make a jpeg/bmp/whatever out of it! You can be sure this is the rendering resolution. Capture software that took a native framebuffer res and changed it would be very poor software indeed.

BlimBlim also said that you could notice the impact of scaling with some of the text, so..
 
Titanio said:
Take the framebuffer and make a jpeg/bmp/whatever out of it! You can be sure this is the rendering resolution. Capture software that took a native framebuffer res and changed it would be very poor software indeed.

BlimBlim also said that you could notice the impact of scaling with some of the text, so..
Click to expand...

Sorry Titanio, can you post a link to blims comments? I cant seem to find them on his website.
 
expletive said:
That is not a valid comparison...
Click to expand...
It's a similar situation reguardless of where the scaling is happening, it is stil geting scaled from a lower resolution. If I scale a shot from 1064x600 to 1280x720 in PhotoShop and then scaled that up to 1600x900 in IrfanView or whatever, the image is still going to look like it was rendered at a lower resolution than a shot from another game that actually is rendered at 720p. I don't see why there is any argument on this, are you honestly trying to contest the fact that there is a visual difference from running at a higher resolution?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kyleb said:
It's a similar situation reguardless of where the scaling is happening, it is stil geting scaled from a lower resolution. If I scale a shot from 1064x600 to 1280x720 in PhotoShop and then scaled that up to 1600x900 in IrfanView or whatever, the image is still going to look like it was rendered at a lower resolution than a shot from another game that actually is rendered at 720p. I don't see why there is any argument on this.
Click to expand...

Its not really. Because you dont have a basis for comparison, you dont know what its supposed to look like natively, you can only see the finished product.

If the display was a native 1280x720 and you claimed that it seemed as it it was rendered at 1024x600 becuase of some scaling artifacts then i'd say thats possible, because then it can ONLY be the internal scaling causing that.

But for all we know, it could be rendered at 720p natively and still look like ass after the samsung gets through with it. :)

EDIT: To respond to your edit, all i am contesting is that anyone could tell a 360 game is being rendered internally at 720p or 1024x600 by watching it being played on a display that is scaling the output image from 720p to 1366 X 768.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
expletive said:
EDIT: To respond to your edit, all i am contesting is that anyone could tell a 360 game is being rendered internally at 720p or 1024x600 by watching it being played on a display that is scaling the output image from 720p to 1366 X 768.
Click to expand...
It is a 1440x900 display actually, but all the same the jaggies look notably thicker than they do in the Kameo demo and notably thicker than what I am accustomed to seeing other games on the orignal Xbox and PC rendered at 720p.
 
expletive said:
How are these framebuffer grabs captured and spit out?
Click to expand...

I think he has a special Xbox 360 for the press, the one that can play non final game and take direct screenshot from the game (so screen grab can look great, instead of looking like crap done through video capture equipment.)

So what he grabs is the internal resolution that Xbox 360 is rendering that game in, before the scaler.
 
I'm really curious what the press is using for screenshots right now as stuff like IGN's shots. The shots from the showroom look belevably like they are straight from the game but then some of the other shots look far too clean to even be the game running at 1280x720 with x4aa. So I can't help but wonder if MS is handing out many of the shots.
 
kyleb said:
I'm really curious what the press is using for screenshots right now as stuff like IGN's shots. The shots from the showroom look belevably like they are straight from the game but then some of the other shots look far too clean to even be the game running at 1280x720 with x4aa. So I can't help but wonder if MS is handing out many of the shots.
Click to expand...

Respected members of the press get dev kits, same as the developers are using to make the games. That's what they are using to take the screenshots from.
 
kyleb said:
I'm really curious what the press is using for screenshots right now as stuff like IGN's shots. The shots from the showroom look belevably like they are straight from the game but then some of the other shots look far too clean to even be the game running at 1280x720 with x4aa. So I can't help but wonder if MS is handing out many of the shots.
Click to expand...


thats because your looking at shots from the photo mode that IS available in the game to everyone, no one ever claimed anything else.
 
kyleb said:
It is a 1440x900 display actually, but all the same the jaggies look notably thicker than they do in the Kameo demo and notably thicker than what I am accustomed to seeing other games on the orignal Xbox and PC rendered at 720p.
Click to expand...

You sure its not this one?

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7135771&type=product&id=1110265593688

Anyway we'll just agree to disagree, as i still dont understand how you can attribute 'thicker jaggies' to internal or display scaling...
 
It is interesting that 1280 x 720 is exactly 50 percent more pixels than 1024 x 600.

Given their short time frame to finish this before launch I can definitely see them reducing it just to get the framerate up and shove the game out the door. No big deal to me though. I'll still buy it- the kudo system makes this the only race game my wife will play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
Some PS5Pro and Resident Evil 9 thoughts
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
Zombietoid
Z
N
Review scores versus game quality *spawn
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Deleted member 11852
D
Rys
Reopening Architecture and Products + rules and guidelines changes
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
16K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
E
  • Locked
Need help with QA amid COVID-19 crisis
Replies
0
Views
5K
Edward N Johnston III
E
A
Research at NVIDIA: The First Interactive AI Rendered Virtual World
Replies
7
Views
7K
Alucardx23
A
Back
Top