Why are handhelds so.......weak?

[Fafalada]

I'd never mistake those two resolutions modes - it's like night and day to me.

Uh...
Our game (and afaik many, probably most other PS2 titles) runs FMV in 720x480 and frankly, I might as well never know about it if I didn't write the playback code and known about resolution of the movies.

And I seriously doubt most of you here realized this until just now either - about FMV in PS2 games in general (people that ripped PSS movies before don't apply).

I suppose one might be able to tell difference between 720 and 640 on close observation having them run side by side...
but...
night and day...?

 

[zurich]

I'd never mistake those two resolutions modes - it's like night and day to me.

Uh...
Our game (and afaik many, probably most other PS2 titles) runs FMV in 720x480 and frankly, I might as well never know about it if I didn't write the playback code and known about resolution of the movies.

And I seriously doubt most of you here realized this until just now either - about FMV in PS2 games in general (people that ripped PSS movies before don't apply).

I suppose one might be able to tell difference between 720 and 640 on close observation having them run side by side...
but...
night and day...?

Kinda OT, but aren't most PS2 FMVs 60fps, while Xbox ones are 30fps? IIRC, this was brought up in the SH2 Xbox/PS2 comparison.

 

[archie4oz]

Those are awful. Try Bloody Roar 1&2, if you want graphics.

Granted I may be a bit biased due to personal involvment, but "awful" my a$$! Bloody Roar? Not even close... Bloody Roar 2, sure I'd say it's better in some areas. It definately had better texturing on the characters and the backrounds were done a little better. However Tobal 2 ran at a higher resolution (640x480 vs. 512x480), and ran completely at 60fps (vs. bouncing between 60 and 30fps). Also the character models are hand over fist more complex in Tobal 2. And with all due respect to Hudson (after all I used to moonlight for them in school), Tobal 2 was also released 2 years earlier as well ('97 vs. '99)...

 

[V3]

Granted I may be a bit biased due to personal involvment, but "awful" my a$$!

Didn't mean to offend you.

 

[Lazy8s]

Fafalada:

Uh...
Our game (and afaik many, probably most other PS2 titles) runs FMV in 720x480 and frankly, I might as well never know about it if I didn't write the playback code and known about resolution of the movies.

And I seriously doubt most of you here realized this until just now either - about FMV in PS2 games in general (people that ripped PSS movies before don't apply).

I suppose one might be able to tell difference between 720 and 640 on close observation having them run side by side...
but...
night and day...?

For one, I'm referring to the difference in clarity between Saturn VF2 game res and any of the system's other resolution modes I've seen... not FMV on another platform. As rough as last-gen game graphics are, a bump in definition makes a noticeable improvement for that gen comparatively. And two, I can't comment on PS2 FMV because I don't think I've ever seen any. I only play the system when someone else has it set up, and it's already into the gameplay sections by then. Also, I intentionally stay away from games that might have too much FMV, and I try to skip through superfluous intros.

The first time I saw Virtua Fighter 2 Saturn, I could tell it was boasting extraordinary crispness. The magazines all picked up on it too, passing along the technical details of its higher-than-high res. That res mode was held in lofty regard by gamers as we anxiously awaited a new wave of Saturn software with VF2-level visuals. And SEGA told us many games coming did have high-res; we immediately saw upon playing them though, that while being high-res, they weren't VF2 res... we could see the difference quite unmistakably. We gave the other graphic styles a chance, but we ultimately felt they didn't look nearly as good. It was apparent and obvious to us that VF2 was the only game using that ultra-crisp look at the time.

Then, Decathlete and later DOA came out and we could immediately tell that they used it too. Our wish had been granted - new games were now using that elusive resolution, and it was visually obvious.

The pessimist might say that we can distinguish Saturn's VF2-res mode so easily because of its other hallmark's - the limited, high-contrast color palette, and the sharp textures with stark lighting. But we know the mode by its unusually distinct detail.

So... yes - on Saturn, the difference between the super-res mode and a high-res mode is like Night and Day. Like Freshly-Squeezed Lemonade and Powdered Concentrate. Like An Invigorating Hike Up Pikes Peak and A Picture Post Card Of Someone Else Who Did It.

 

[marconelly!]

I'm betting Saturn simply had better composite output compared to PSX, and that's why high-res mode looked better on Saturn, rather than actual difference in resolution, which really is negligible, especially being displayed on a TV screen.

I'd love to see DOA1 run on PS2 using the component cable.

 

[notAFanB]

Strangly enoiugh thats kinda true. here in the UK we use RGB leads and on a good telly it's pretty difficult to tell betweeen them (booted it up last night for a gander).

 

[Almasy]

LOL @ Lazy´s "we" talk. What, are you Sega fans a hive?

 

[Lazy8s]

marconelly!:

I'm betting Saturn simply had better composite output compared to PSX, and that's why high-res mode looked better on Saturn, rather than actual difference in resolution, which really is negligible, especially being displayed on a TV screen.

It's not a system thing - like I said, games at Saturn's 704x576 resolution have a markedly visible edge of sharpness even over other high-res same-system (Saturn) games at 640x480, such as Fighting Vipers. No system difference; no connection difference... just a resolution difference.

There's really no argument to be had... if there was no significant gain from bumping Saturn's 640x480 display to 704x576, why would SEGA AM2 bother to do it considering they'd be limiting their potential and flexibility in color range, lighting capabilities, and processing resources as specifically mentioned? It's not like it helped the conversion be a better match in resolution to the sub-640x480 arcade version. They evidently felt the new look created by the trade-off was significantly prettier.

But this is all obvious - switch the display settings for your desktop/monitor between 640x480 and 800x600. Can you tell the difference quite unmistakably? Now realize that 704x576 is not some minor upgrade over 640x480 - it's more than half the difference to 800x600. Of course you'd be able to tell. And it's certainly not an issue of whether my NTSC TV could be capable of showing the difference for Saturn super-res, since I always noticed the extra sharpness in those games clear as day.

 

[chaphack]

Lazy, i think we are wasting our time with the Pshordes infesting this place. Whatever we said will just be considered "mindless trolling" and laugh off(nevermind they are so much guilty of it too).

Resolution does not matter, textures does not matter, IQ does not matter, anything that Playstation cannot do well does not matter. I cannot wait for the godly CELL!

 

[notAFanB]

I don't know about the rest of you but you do notice (in the case of VF4) the cleaner output.

however this is usually only noticable through better cables (RGB/Component)


chap:

tone it down pls

 

[chaphack]

chap:

tone it down pls

Tell that to ALmaSY. He is the one who started the irrational outburst.

 

[Crazyace]

Ah - I understand your problem Lazy8s

I understand what your mistake is now - and why you keep on going on about super high res and 640x480 - 704x576 rubbish...

VF2 used a screen display mode that was 704x576 fully overscanned, compared to the PS2 draw mode of 640x480 underscanned If you switch between games using a RGB switcher you will not notice a difference in the dot size...

FV and FMMX used a lores interlaced mode - 360x576 fully overscanned. On the Saturn the difference in resolution between this and VF2 was obvious...

Dont get confused by analogies with VGA modes either - thats a fallacy..
NTSC is 525 lines interlaced, PAL is 625 lines interlaced, about 24 non-interlaced lines are reserved for vertical retrace, leaving just over 480 displayable lines for NTSC or 580 for PAL ( which is where the 576 number comes from - Most PS1 PAL games were 512 line with borders, 480 with bigger borders for a lot of NTSC conversions )

 

[rabidrabbit]

Lazy, i think we are wasting our time with the Pshordes infesting this place. Whatever we said will just be considered "mindless trolling" and laugh off(nevermind they are so much guilty of it too).

Resolution does not matter, textures does not matter, IQ does not matter, anything that Playstation cannot do well does not matter. I cannot wait for the godly CELL!

chap, no one is saying those things do not matter. They do.
It's just that you bring those subjects to threads, that had nothing to do with them.

That itself wouldn't be so bad, it's ok for discussions to derail a little.
But you exaggarate things way out of proportions.
There is no doubt, from reading your posts, that your sole intention is to bring down everything PS2 related, and better the xbox.

Worst is that you say the same things over and over again.
It is a known and recognized fact that xbox is more powerful than a console that was launched a lot earlier.
But it is not the subject of most of these discussions.

We are not responsible for the traumas Sony has caused you, because of their alleged overhyping, and 'not delivering'.
Please, why don't you sue Sony if that is so taking over your life.

There are threads discussing xbox and it's games, why don't you partake in them, and bring something constructive in these threads.
People here are trying to share opinions about things that they find interesting and fascinating.

Don't you realise that people here are trying to enjoy good discussions, and you are constantly interrupting and coming in to spoil their fun.
Imagine if you were doing that in real life, do you think you'd be accepted?

 

[notAFanB]

Re: Ah - I understand your problem Lazy8s

VF2 used a screen display mode that was 704x576 fully overscanned, compared to the PS2 draw mode of 640x480 underscanned If you switch between games using a RGB switcher you will not notice a difference in the dot size...

while that explains the lowersish look of FV/FMMX why overscanning? is there any specific advantage to this technique?

 

[Lazy8s]

Almasy:

LOL @ Lazy´s "we" talk. What, are you Sega fans a hive?

"We" as in "those who feel the 32% upgrade in resolution, which is what 704x576 is over 640x480, is noticeably significant".

So... no, not a hive. Just the collection of people with good enough vision to be able to notice a one-third increase.

chaphack:

Whatever we said will just be considered "mindless trolling" and laugh off

I know what you mean Chap. And luckily, any opinions we have don't need anyone else's validation. It's easy enough to go by what our eyes see.

 

[notAFanB]

Almasy:

So... no, not a hive. Just the collection of people with good enough vision to be able to notice a one-third increase.

...this superiority thing isn't really helping you know.

 

[marconelly!]

"We" as in "those who feel the 32% upgrade in resolution, which is what 704x576 is over 640x480, is noticeably significant".

From what I understand, that 32% is being rendered on the invisible part of the screen, though (overscan)... There would be an obvious difference between that resolution, and that used by Fighting Vipers, but I'm not sure dot size would be any different if 640x480 is used, it's just that Saturn's high res mode was locked to 704x576 and they couldn't use 640x480 even if they wanted.

 

[Lazy8s]

Crazyace:

VF2 used a screen display mode that was 704x576 fully overscanned, compared to the PS2 draw mode of 640x480 underscanned If you switch between games using a RGB switcher you will not notice a difference in the dot size...

No, I understand this. My point was that there is still more resolution, a more detailed image. And that's how it'll show up in screen space if the TV screen isn't too curved or infringed upon. It's TV dependant, and maybe my Mitsubishi is a freak device. But, it has no trouble showing close to the limits of the overscanned picture while regular hi-res NTSC Sat/PS games appear bordered.

FV and FMMX used a lores interlaced mode - 360x576 fully overscanned. On the Saturn the difference in resolution between this and VF2 was obvious...

Quite; even against higher-res games on PS, like Tekken 3 which looked 640x480.

notAFanB:

...this superiority thing isn't really helping you know.

I wasn't trying to come across that way. I was just presenting the opposing view on his attempt to trivialize the issue.

 

[Crazyace]

What kind of borders?

Are you talking about borders at the top and bottom, or also on the left and right...
Also are you comparing PAL VF2 against PAL Tekken, or NTSC VF2 against NTSC Tekken?

The resolution is higher for PAL ( 576 lines against 512 or 480 with big borders - an annoying trait in PAL conversions ) but I would argue that there is little difference in NTSC..

The first tekken ( If I remember correctly ) was 640x240, and the sequels went to interlaced resolutions..

Historically the reason that Sega promised full screen PAL conversions actually had more to do with the limitations of the VDP1 chip than anything else... On the PS1 the frame buffer positions were fully programmable, so they were often packed as close to eachover as possible, with textures and CLUTs filling the rest of the vram. On the saturn VDP1 the 1MB was segmented, with 512k for textures and polylists, and 2 seperate 256k video buffers which were switched by hardware, and inaccessable for other uses. So Japanese games often wasted memory which was then available to increase the frame buffer sizes for PAL conversions. If games companies had spent the effort full frame PAL versions were technically possible for PS1 - but PAL was considered a smaller market, so quick ports were made.