Are there any pin-sharp screenies? Don't really feel like trawling this thread/the web looking.
Ryse: Son of Rome [XO]
- Thread starter dragonelite
- Start date
Love those movies
------------
Maybe try from those shots?
http://i3.minus.com/idwOrZ7HVttRU.png
http://i3.minus.com/ibzur1vwhBH0Kc.png
http://i6.minus.com/inrOr250h2mLc.png
http://i5.minus.com/iD17SIjOV2EzK.png
http://i2.minus.com/izMxxfTZUYlJQ.png
--
Here comparison of direct shots vs grab from trailer
http://i4.minus.com/ibmfmDfLVuefnH.png [direct shot]
http://i5.minus.com/if4tBiVX3au57.jpg [trailer]
--
For me there is just too much processing on those shots to really distinguish what is line breaking and what smooth transition, for pixel counting.
L. Scofield
Veteran
Wouldn't surprise me that Crytek would run the trailers at higher resolutions for promotional material. After all they've shown console versions of their games actually running on PC (to spec, they say).
From E3, the game has run on Xbox One dev kits (custom hardware), not PC.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
L. Scofield
Veteran
Yes, but they develop the game on PC.
Here's a big hint for you, everyone develops on a PC. Its where your IDE (compiler, linker, assembler, editor, etc) all run on. So what exactly are you trying to state other than the obvious?
I think the implication is that all the screen shots we have seen so far aren't representative of the final game.
Though with 7 years of development you'd think that wouldn't be the case...
Newest shots look native.
How are you concluding that? As I say, there's a thin blur over everything. It could be any of a number of resolutions and look the same. Some very capable pixel counter may get a good count, but there aren't any straight-forward reference points.
The very high AA and slight blur (blur may be caused by the AA effect ?) means a result that looks great - both sharp and realistic. I think the fact many people look at the images and see something sharp without noticing the blur (I only noticed it myself when investigating up close) goes to show resolution isn't the be all and end all. Indeed, 720p with realistic camera effects will no doubt be a lot better on the eyes than the coldness of 1080p pure computer rendering. This fascination with a number is typical of normal psychology where people would rather be told what's good or not by a metric rather than go with their own perception.
Cant be sure 100%, but earlier when they were releasing bullshots, they were releasing them in native resolution.
And You can see on those two
http://i3.minus.com/ibzur1vwhBH0Kc.png
http://images.gamersyde.com/image_ryse_son_of_rome-22646-2061_0003.jpg
That new one is much more blurrier, which could be from upscaling. Of course it could be different AA solution, but it definitely doesnt look downsampled.
Also they said that trailer was captured from Xbone and this shot and shot from trailer doesnt look different in terms of AA. And there were clear subpixel aliasing problems in video, way more than in should be in downsampled footage.
http://i5.minus.com/if4tBiVX3au57.jpg
http://i4.minus.com/ibmfmDfLVuefnH.png
This one demonstrates zero blur, yes. And applying a gaussian with a 0.75 radius, I get a similar result to the current crop of screenshots.
Perhaps they are using a quincunx based form of AA?
Doubtful. Seems more likely they'd use some kind of post-process AA like FXAA, and maybe put a slight blur on top of it. It would be interesting to see quincunx AA on a 1080p image. Maybe the blur wouldn't be so unappealing once you hit higher resolutions. 720p and sub-720p may have just been a bit too low for the blur to look ok.
L. Scofield
Veteran
Lets not kid ourselves. Crytek has in the past shown the PC version running at PC spec instead of properly showing the console versions (Crysis 2, Crysis 3). Also, the latest trailer is native 1080p (according to pixel counters) while we know that the game runs at 900p.
We dont know that and thats not latest video. It was about Combat Viddoc and was counted by a guy who was doing it for a first time from very compressed footage.
Also game was demoted on real Xbox One hardware on every show so far.
So if they demoed it on "real xbox one" hardware, why when they optimised the hell out of the game, did they have to reduce the resolution?
At E3 this game ran 1080p native, no where near as optimised (far more polygons etc.) and they managed to provide a stable framerate.
The argument it was running on xbox one hardware just doesn't wash. It may have been running on the CPU, but lets say, to be kind, the GPU had assistance.
At E3 this game ran 1080p native, no where near as optimised (far more polygons etc.) and they managed to provide a stable framerate.
The argument it was running on xbox one hardware just doesn't wash. It may have been running on the CPU, but lets say, to be kind, the GPU had assistance.
The game was 900p at e3, and not entirely smooth. It's seems to have had quite the visual upgrade if you compare that with the more recent stuff.
^ So says Cevat Yerli.
Similar threads
