The Neverending Upscale Discussion Thread * Summary=#457

I'm not saying your capture card is producing dodgy results, but that the captures aren't at the moment proven to be an accurate representation of the rendering. If TVs can screw up the image, as Insomniac are suggesting, could a capture also get messed about somehow? I don't know, and wouldn't have thought so, but your findings are very different to others reports, and if there isn't a consensus I'd rather have more information.

As I mentioned elsewhere, the artefacts look far more like a blur than an upscale, which doesn't make any sense. If Insomniac are upscaling, why is it such a mess? Thus IMO before setting people to count pixels, we ought to nail down exactly what is nature of the image is, and why there's such a discrepancy in reports.

 

They're not upscaling, even Resistance was rendering at 1280x704 IIRC

 

That's what we're hearing, and it makes sense. But then what explains Dot50Cal's grabs? Why is the rendering being output, or captured, or displayed, so poorly?

How do they handle SDTV res? Do they render at normal res and downscale, or render small? Could this be a setting fault, with the rendering at SD resolution and being stretched up to 720p? It's also worth noting that at least one of the Gamespot images has this blurry look.

 

They look resampled, probaby by the capture card.

 

Based on the linked image, I was able to determine 20 defined steps at 20 pixels high which brings the vertical res in at 720.

You can trust me on this as I was the first one to determine that Halo 3 was coming in at 640. (One had been off by just a few pixels. )

-aldo

 

Well, you've determined is 1:1 pixel:step. They can render 704 viewable/game pixels and add 8 pixel-high black bars to the top and bottom with the output still being 720p.

It is just like HD movies that are "1080p" but have massive black bars - the visible frame has fewer than 1080 pixels vertically, but you're still getting the 1:1 pixel:step i.e. no scaling to get 1080 pixels in height.

 

But why are they doing that? To simply render less pixels because the machine can't do it smoothly at 720p?

 

Many TVs overscan incoming signals, in effect, a zooming in, so the space that they aren't rendering isn't seen.

 

I didn't think that was the case for HD - that's why 1:1 pixel mapping is a desired feature. And if so.. why not chop 16 pixels off of the sides, too?

Interesting stuff.

Edit: possibly I'm assuming "HD" means LCD and plasma tech - I appreciate this would be the case for CRT tubes which have trouble outputting a square image.

 

_phil_ mentioned 1280x704 fits perfectly tiles of 64x64. I don't recall what these tiles were used for, rendering or post processing or what, but it's a sound explanation.

 

Polygons rejection?

 

I personally don't find 704p issue interesting at all.
The game is not upscaled but I'm curious about how they implemented the fog such that parts of background buildings inside the fog are so jagged.

Also at the right camera angle foreground geometry outline edges start to have gray (fog color) lines prematurely as if it's a postprocessing effect (but not blur) or foreground and background rendered separate. Same thing doesn't happen to flying cars (which have great edge quality).

ps: Dot50Cal's capture card seems to be working fine, as all those jagged buildings are also visible in game if you know how to look.

 

Maybe the far away buildings are part of a small skybox built below the level and projected like Source engine games are doing? Perhaps it conflicts with their AA a bit?

 

I haven't seen the game but for what you guys are saying I wonder if they're doing some clever composition trick..

 

yes.

 

And you have 8 pixels of black bars on both ends.

The screenshots show a slightly lower resolution horizontally (maybe 1024?), but it could be the capture card not sampling at a high enough frequency.

Dot50Cal, can you show us a screenshot of a known 720p game w/o AA, like Gears, and find a near-vertical edge? That XBox screenshot you posted doesn't really tell us how good the capture quality is. Antialiased text scales pretty well.

In any case, I don't think it's a big deal. Lack of AA is affecting the edges more than upscaling.

Heh, well we all remember Halo and the released screen grabs, right?

 

My 360 red ringed a few days ago, so I cant provide any 360 shots But Ill see what PSN demo's I can get that have no AA.

Gears does have AA though, and it seems Heavenly Sword does too, this might be hard without the 360.

Though I do have some shots from Halo 3, if you are trying to determine the cards vertical scaling capabilities then it would probably work.

http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/b3d/halo3/
Open Dir. Though I believe these might have slight artifacts due to capturing them rather than direct screenshots of raw gameplay, so ignore them if you find them.

Edit: Is the Sigma demo 720p? Heres a shot from that:
http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/b3d/071019-2125480921-1280x720.png

 

Gran Turismo 5 Prologue Demo is out. 1440*1080 still, no AA, sigh...

 

Most assumed it was this, based on GTHD

 

Is this confirmed, anyone done the necessary testing?