PS3 Graphics indistinguishable from movies?

[suhim]

hello guys ,
any one read a new article on cell and wht abt comments by various developers on next gen systems.


The BBC has news about the next-generation game consoles, with comments from various third parties. According to Rory Armes, studio general manager of EA in Europe, they have already received the development kits from Microsoft, but not yet from Sony and Nintendo. He assumes Sony's PlayStation 3 will have a little more under the hood and be more cost-efficient than Microsoft's Xbox 2. Gerhard Florin, head of EA in Europe, remarks 'PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from movies.'

wht do u think ps3 has already destroyed the competition?

 

[London Geezer]

Yes Let's all listen to the BBC, i mean, they're like the TOP when it comes to news in this field, they have the top of the top of the journalists who know what every transistor in every microchip does!!!

The BBC knows less than we at B3D do.

 

[Cryect]

He assumes Sony's PlayStation 3 will have a little more under the hood and be more cost-efficient than Microsoft's Xbox 2.

Not sure how its going to be more cost-efficient besides a likely larger market to sell your games to. Looks to be still more complex to program for (but good to hear Nvidia is providing the graphics chip so shouldn't be as bad as it could be).

 

[persiannight]

I specifically remember the PS2 being able to achieve "Toy Story" graphics.....

Could get some Nutella to go with that Fluff please???

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

you will never have photo realistic images on a console as long as the resolution of the display used is far inferior than your typical 35mm film used to make photos. Also the geometry processing power would need to be greatly increased. Current GFX chips can render enough colors to make things photo realistic but lack the resolution and geometry processing power to do so.

 

[Acert93]

PS3 Graphics indistinguishable from movies?

No.

But the games, especually 3rd and 4th generation games, will look very very good.

 

[Farid]

you will never have photo realistic images on a console as long as the resolution of the display used is far inferior than your typical 35mm film used to make photos.

You can render your backbuffer at any size you want, as long as you have enough VRAM to do so, and then downsample it to create the frontbuffer.
Also, the so called photorealism is little to non dependent of the scene resolution. For instance you can take a picture with a shitty digital camera, such as a webcam, at 320x240 and still get a, logically, "photo realistic" result.

 

[megateto]

The only good thing that we can consider from that article is that now we have someone to point our finger to when in 2008 people start saying that Sony didn't deliver when they promised movie like graphics.

And that brings me to, who, and I need a proper quote, said that Toy Story thing about PS2?

 

[eDoshin]

I specifically remember the PS2 being able to achieve "Toy Story" graphics.....

Could get some Nutella to go with that Fluff please???

U can do a simple google search to find multiple "Toy Story" claims by MS, but noone has ever come up with a link to the Sony claim.

 

[jvd]

actually sonys deal was allways final fantsy in real time .


And then the lucas crap about using the ps2 to render his next movie . Haven't seen that happen though.


Its allways the same hype and it will allways fall short , its a moving target and every leap real time graphics make of line rendering makes the same leaps .

 

[RichardCypher101]

Yes Let's all listen to the BBC, i mean, they're like the TOP when it comes to news in this field, they have the top of the top of the journalists who know what every transistor in every microchip does!!!

The BBC knows less than we at B3D do.

But it wasnt the BBC that made the statement, it was EA. It might be going on a limb to make such claims, but its doesnt rule out that it is infact EA (Industry Heads) making this statement. The BBC simply quoted EA, nothing more.

-Rich

 

[persiannight]

I specifically remember the PS2 being able to achieve "Toy Story" graphics.....

Could get some Nutella to go with that Fluff please???

U can do a simple google search to find multiple "Toy Story" claims by MS, but noone has ever come up with a link to the Sony claim.

I specifically remember reading the article while I was taking a dump. I believe it may have been in Next Generation Magazine (when that mag was out)

 

[Acert93]

Next Generation magazine, R.I.P.

 

[Spaceman-Spiff]

PS3 Graphics indistinguishable from movies <- sounds like marketing talk. Just like before they released PS2, they call it the emotion machine or something like that...

 

[Phil]

Guys.... quotes like these can mean many things. "indistinguishable" can mean many things and in the end, is a mear subjective word. There are many casuals or even people that rarely play games and every now and then look into something and think the graphics are so incredible, they're actually close to being "indistinguishable" from the real thing.

I remember upon seeing the very first screens of Gran Turismo on the PlayStation when I thought, "wow, looks just like from a real race footage". Even the people from the mag I read this had comments like these to say. It really looked amazing for its time. Then with Gran Turismo 3 some replays are just up to this date some of the best and most "indistinguishable" things you'll find (check the wet tracks for instance). Certainly, I can picture games that will have these moments next generation that will be even more impressive than what GT3 did on last generation... there's really not much missing already. Heck, Half Life 2 has its moments that look bloody damn good.

Having said that, all games next generation will have a game that has its moment that are trully indistinguishable - unless of course you're into nitpicking or simply are prone to artefacts or whatever that would give away its realism on some level - but it will have more to do with art-direction than the sheer performance of a console.

In the end, you can have the most technical advanced game on the planet, but if the art-direction sucks, no one would give it a second glance. For example there's a FPS on PC that came out a while ago that shows this quite nicely... incredible draw distance and texture pushing combined with the most ugly art (just forgot the name) - or you have HALO and you can compare it to an inferiour KillZone but between the two, it's pretty obvious which looks more realistic (at least in screens). Other examples would also include Konami's efforts in which the characters have stunning life-like animations (soldiers in MGS2/3) which look shockingly real already. Imagine what talented teams will be able to pull off next generation, regardless of the hardware its running on?

In the end, these comments can be applied even today and have little bearing on the hardwares performance.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

you will never have photo realistic images on a console as long as the resolution of the display used is far inferior than your typical 35mm film used to make photos.

You can render your backbuffer at any size you want, as long as you have enough VRAM to do so, and then downsample it to create the frontbuffer.
Also, the so called photorealism is little to non dependent of the scene resolution. For instance you can take a picture with a shitty digital camera, such as a webcam, at 320x240 and still get a, logically, "photo realistic" result.

Photo realistic is just that it looks like a photograph. an image at 320*240 could not be the same as a 8*10 or even a 4*6 photo

 

[Phil]

YeuEmMaiMai,

There's no difference in photo realism between a 1 Mpixel camera and 10 Mpixel one. Even if the photo is resized to 320x180 or *any* resolution for that matter, it still has no bearing on "photo realism". Of course an image at 10x8 pixels will loose all its details, but no console is outputting such a resolution nor will they. Even a 35mm has a physical limit - no different than any picture made up of pixels.

 

[nelg]

IMHO the hype is becomming indistinguishable from BS.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

YeuEmMaiMai,

There's no difference in photo realism between a 1 Mpixel camera and 10 Mpixel one. Even if the photo is resized to 320x180 or *any* resolution for that matter, it still has no bearing on "photo realism". Of course an image at 10x8 pixels will loose all its details, but no console is outputting such a resolution nor will they. Even a 35mm has a physical limit - no different than any picture made up of pixels.

yes that is true, but a photorealistic image is just that it looks like a photograph. you can take a 1Mpix camera and try to turn it into an 8*10 but it definately will look like crap. this is the reason that digital camera keep getting better and better so that they can compete with the 35mm ones in terms of IQ

 

[Phil]

yes that is true, but a photorealistic image is just that it looks like a photograph. you can take a 1Mpix camera and try to turn it into an 8*10 but it definately will look like crap.

No one is saying that a 8*10 is sufficient to look "photorealistic" - but how is this relevant to consoles that have a much higer one? Certainly, resolution isn't the issue. If you say the console can't reach photorealism because of its resolution, then no 'moving pictures' medium today effectively has photorealism since they're all bound to the resolution of tv's or monitors which are worlds away from a 35mm film.

this is the reason that digital camera keep getting better and better so that they can compete with the 35mm ones in terms of IQ

Even a 35mm is bound to the limits of the printer that eventually prints it onto a paper. Having said that, given a sufficient resolution from a digital camera (i.e. 2Mpixels) and you won't see any difference on paper to a photo that originated from a 35mm film.