Silent hill 3 WTF!!!

Teasy, they are realtime. Developer said so in an interview. The engine is also used in game but camerawork in the cut scenes is always more revealing than in-game cameras. That is why it looks better.

Btw, Silent Hill and Silent Hill 2 don't have pre-rendered backgrounds. Everything is realtime.
 
Mech, about MGS2 you're wrooong very wrooong :p :D you can move the camer and zoom in adn out in any cut-scene ( beat the game and play again )
 
Here are some hi-res pictures (ingame and cutscenes) This should prove not only that everything is realtime, but that in-game graphics are not much different than cut scenes (soft self shadowing, etc...)

vortal_pic_67343.jpg


vortal_pic_67346.jpg


vortal_pic_67328.jpg


vortal_pic_67327.jpg
 
At 640 x 480 it will start to look a lot a lot more ordinary, rather than more impressive. "Jaggies" will look proportionally larger, and texture aliasing will become noticeable closer into the camera.

I must admit, I've never heard of games looking more impressive as you slash the resolution.

Those 1024 x 780 images seem to have been scaled down using some form of filter, meaning they're benefitting from AA too.

Looks great, but I think it's possible to get carried away looking at development kit sourced PR shots (similar to some of the early DoA3 images).
 
Ratty said:
At 640 x 480 it will start to look a lot a lot more ordinary, rather than more impressive. "Jaggies" will look proportionally larger, and texture aliasing will become noticeable closer into the camera.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you got that backwards. I've never seen an image that looked worse when scaled down. ...But when scaled up, the problems you cite are definitely likely. If these are 1024x780 looking like they do, and you scale it down to 640x480, they will look flawless (though quite a bit smaller). Expand it back up to fit a big TV screen, you might see some problems again.
Though 1024x780 is a lot of video info, so it will probably look just fine on TV.
 
SH2 looks ver clean and smooth on a TV. There is no reason to believe they will downgrade image quality for the sequel.


At 640 x 480 it will start to look a lot a lot more ordinary, rather than more impressive. "Jaggies" will look proportionally larger, and texture aliasing will become noticeable closer into the camera.
Click to expand...

Not if you antialias it at least vertically (like the TV does anyways if the game outputs full frame buffer). TV also blurs pixels a little bit so that also helps.


Looks great, but I think it's possible to get carried away looking at development kit sourced PR shots (similar to some of the early DoA3 images)
Click to expand...

Well, I think DOA3 on a TV looks really close to PR shots they've released. SH2 also looks very pristine and smooth on a TV, much like these shots do on a monitor. I think this game will be a sight to behold when it comes out :)
 
I'm pretty sure you got that backwards. I've never seen an image that looked worse when scaled down. ...But when scaled up, the problems you cite are definitely likely. If these are 1024x780 looking like they do, and you scale it down to 640x480, they will look flawless (though quite a bit smaller). Expand it back up to fit a big TV screen, you might see some problems again.
Though 1024x780 is a lot of video info, so it will probably look just fine on TV.
Click to expand...

I think the point Ratty was making is that those screenshots are rendered on a devkit in high resolution at who knows what framerate. You can't simply scale these down to 640x480 using PS and say they'll look better. The PS2 isn't going to be doing FSAA with supersampling anytime soon. This game will be rendered at 640x480 on a tv so it won't look anywhere near what these screenshots show let alone better. Taking a high res image and scaling it down to 640x480 isn't the same as rendering straight to 640x480 ;)

Not if you antialias it at least vertically (like the TV does anyways if the game outputs full frame buffer). TV also blurs pixels a little bit so that also helps.
Click to expand...

Playing ANY game at 640x480 on a 13" tv and not seeing aliasing is kinda expected. Most people wouldn't see PSX aliasing on a 13" neither :LOL:
 
As opposed to looking at a terrible screen capture of a PS2 screen on a relatively high resolution monitor (the one you are using to view this site), looking at a high res shot isn't such a bad compensation for what you finally get on your TV set. It is fairly certain that the TV image won't be as crystal clear as the hi-res shot on a monitor, but it will be reasonably close when it comes to smoothness of textures and antialiasing. The grainy screen capture method certainly isn't representative and only results in comments such as "Gawd that looks horrid, this game suks!", so what can you do? (rhetorical)
 
randycat99 said:
As opposed to looking at a terrible screen capture of a PS2 screen on a relatively high resolution monitor (the one you are using to view this site), looking at a high res shot isn't such a bad compensation for what you finally get on your TV set. It is fairly certain that the TV image won't be as crystal clear as the hi-res shot on a monitor, but it will be reasonably close when it comes to smoothness of textures and antialiasing. The grainy screen capture method certainly isn't representative and only results in comments such as "Gawd that looks horrid, this game suks!", so what can you do? (rhetorical)
Click to expand...

These are obviously PR screens. If this game is progressive, a 640x480 framebuffer grab is all it takes. If it's field rendered then a deinterlacer is all it takes.
 
PC-Engine said:
Taking a high res image and scaling it down to 640x480 isn't the same as rendering straight to 640x480
Click to expand...

And that's exactly the point. Using some kind of resize filter to blend all the information from a 1500 x 1100 image into a 640 x 480 image is NOT the same thing as rendering natively at 640 x 480.

I think people are confusing "zooming in" the image and "scaling up" the resolution.

And an interlaced flicker filter and TV blurring don't make up in terms of image quality for rendering at above 1.5k x 1k pixels. When the DC ran through a monitor it lost all the TV blurring / flicker filter, and still "only" ran at 640 x 480, but it usually looked a lot better than on a TV. Xbox owners who use 480p also tend to swear it looks better too.

Render these images at a lower res and they'll look worse.

And it isn't a case of this or poor quality video grabs; they could use the same process just to take ordinary sized screen buffer grabs from the development kit. It's a bout trying to show their latest game in the best possible light - there's probably lots of detail you'd miss in a low res shot that you'd notice in motion.

It looks great, and it'll still look great on a TV, just somewhat less so.
 
there's probably lots of detail you'd miss in a low res shot that you'd notice in motion.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that's the whole point.

If you absolutely must see how approximately normal resolution framegrab would look, you can always scale these shots down using 'nearest neighbour' in the photoshop. You would loose the precision that you would get from rendering to the buffer and the picture would look worse than what you'd see on a TV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Halo 3 Forge: A Summary and Game Ideas
2
Replies
22
Views
13K
Tap In
T
B
  • Locked
Is Dvd9 Enough Space For The Next Generation
Replies
15
Views
3K
Farid
F
Back
Top