Support NeoGAF

[dgrdsv]

EDIT: Also, load times are half of the issue when you have to consider bandwidth.

Have had unlimited bandwidth since 2004. Also - this isn't a thread for those who have to consider bandwidth. If that's the case - let's post thumbnails to a bigger images, shall we?

I think that point is moot. If you want to see how it looks when I play it, then you wouldn't look at the full size image. The image that I see when playing at 4K is downscaled to my 1080p TV, and there's Aliasing where my TV can't display the pixels and it's smoothened due to the Pixel density. I doubt too many people in this thread have 4K displays, so even then, they couldn't possibly see the image exactly how I play it. The closest they could get is to either re-size it themselves to the size of their screen, which introduces modifications. Or they could downsample it with a method that introduces the least amount of modification, to the size of my screen.

Well, that my opinion. When you do an offline downsampling you destroy information. When you provide an original screenshot - yes, not a lot of people will be able to look at it exactly the way you see it due to them having a lower res displays but at least you're leaving them an ability to see the original. After you've downsampled the screenshot - there is no original and that's not a screenshot anymore because you've edited it after making it.

Also, this is the screenshot thread, not the gameplay thread. If you all wanted to see how I played the game, why no outcry for a HUD?

I don't care for a HUD. You may leave it or take it off, that's up to your preference. It's basically the same as with mods. I don't like like 99% of mods that mess with the original graphics / styles of a game but that's up to your preference if you want to show us how a game look like with a mod or without a HUD. It's important that you're doing it in-game, you're actually playing with the HUD off. It's not the same as downscaling / editing a screenshot in some Photoshop.

This thread isn't about original screenshots in original resolutions, it's about high resolution screenshots. I don't believe those to be one and the same.

A screenshot should have a resolution in which it was taken. Otherwise it's not a screenshot - it's a crop from a screenshot or an edited screenshot (which we're calling bullshots, yeah).

Yes, those JPEGs will probably load quicker, but not everyone is going to upload as JPEGs, and in the act of converting a PNG to a JPEG, it's a simple step to just resize it for convenience of people. For both bandwidth, and to be most conveniently viewed. On top of that, it would be absolute hell to enforce a "Only full quality JPEGs rule" and people would just post PNGs anyway. When people do post full quality JPEGs it's a nice treat, but I don't expect it to ever become the norm.

As I've said, I don't care about loading times or bandwidth. I want to see a screenshot as it was taken, that's all. If I'd care for loading times and bandwidth I wouldn't go into this thread.

JS resize doesn't fix that problem, because it's a subpar method of resizing and when viewing the shrunk down version the quality isn't the same as if it were just properly resized.

It fixes the problem of breaking the page formatting - for those who consider this a problem. And it means that you may stop worrying about that.

If full sized images are what you're lusting for, then just ask the person for the original image if it's something you're really desperate for and those who do always want to share their full sized image can just post a link to it.

Asking every poster here for an original image after every post of his seems like a lot of wasted time.

Guys, that's my opinion. You're free to continue the way you seem fit. I'll post originals and originals only (99% JPEGs probably) - unless that gets prohibited by the thread rules.

 

[Lime]

This thread just became much, much better to view.

Original sizes are still possible to view for those complaining, just click on the damn images.

 

[derFeef]

Remember Me.
No fancy downsampling, sorry, just highest ingame settings.

 

[derFeef]

 

[TheTrain]

 

[ScRYeD]

I gotta start playing and get past Whiterun

 

[Lime]

Fatal Frame 3/Project Zero 3: The Tormented in PCSX2 @ 6x scaling

 

[Thorgal]

Fatal Frame 3/Project Zero 3: The Tormented in PCSX2 @ 6x scaling

Antitrop will be pleased.

also i noticed some jaggies . clearly apparent on the arms.

other then that. great game to scare the fertilizer out of you.

 

[midhras]

Maybe it's just the post processing you've got going on, but it seems like that image has got some bad JPEG compression artifacts on it. Anyone else seeing it?

Man you've got good eyes, thanks. I always upload my images as PNG's to Flickr. When I uploaded these two, I originally uploaded them as non-downsampled PNG's. When I exchanged them for the 1200p shots I normally do for Fallout, for some mysterious reason, Flickr decided to convert the originals to jpg's. Unwittingly, I shared those here. Great catch!

Considering the upload size: I'm new so take my opinion as you want to, but I think that uploading original screenshot size is beyond the point: I use offline downsampling as a way to anti-alias my images, which is a close resemblance to how the game looks on my screen. I would be perfectly okay with sharing my shots here as a flickr-compressed jpg, because EVERY shot I share I share as a link to the original page, where anyone can view the PNG. Thus it could help people with less than awesome bandwidths by reducing the loading time (or just put it in a background tab people!) and the aficionado's could view the original in two clicks.

With the new site design (great timing!) sharing a PNG here at >1920 width is a good option as well, because the image is scaled down to fit the page for easy viewing, and in one click people can see the original.

EDIT: On second thought, I'd best not share them as links right now, because the click to show the shot full size will send you off to flickr-land, and not everybody appreciates as much. Hmmm.

"BLADE OF GRASS"

"CHAT"

 

[midhras]

"MARKET TOWN"

"STAGING AREA"

 

[midhras]

"FEY"

"FOE"

 

[jim2point0]

 

[RadioactiveLobster]

Who is this suppose to be?

 

[One3rd]

Where's that shot of him looking up? Is one of my favorites.

 

[jim2point0]

Where's that shot of him looking up? Is one of my favorites.

This one? =)

Now that I'm playing through Borderlands 2, I'm thinking I should try and port over all the Cheat Engine tweaks to 1 and play that game. I like it's grittier style.

 

[midhras]

The shadow aliasing on those shots is atrocious where the rest is so damn good. Isn't there anything to be done about that?

And I agree on BL1. From what I've seen (not having played BL2) I feel the first game looked better.

"COAST"

 

[ScRYeD]

 

[Thorgal]

The doomed.

He's over there . SHOOT HIM !

 

[Thorgal]

its quiet now but it is not safe.

Its all falling apart...

 

[Thorgal]

Missery and death ... lots of dead.

 

[One3rd]

This one? =)

That's the one! The bandit seems so vulnerable somehow, it's almost like you caught him out of character.

Bloody Diorama

Don't pee on the electric fence.

 

[therealminime]

Mr. Lonely

 

[Thorgal]

Don't pee on the electric fence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csnCmsfimZA

 

[One3rd]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csnCmsfimZA

LOL! That's exactly what I was thinking about when I took that shot! An R&S classic.

 

[jim2point0]

Nice. All my bindings, sweetfx settings, and old cheat engine tweaks were still intact. Borderlands 2 has spoiled me though. Much harder to take screenshots in Borderlands 1.

 

[MrRoderick]

New GAF looks awesome! Love the resizing.
So here's some sls amg. *The rear is not as sexy as I thought it was*edit

 

[RoKKeR]

Hold up, you can get Xenoblade Chronicles on Dolphin? God damn, I need to look into that.

Blue rat:

Quit the game ASAP as things started getting weird. Nvidia really needs to put out those beta drivers so I can get off of 320.18. Otherwise, the 770 is awesome, and the 4GB of VRAM makes running at 2560x1600 a viable option for play.

 

[midhras]

Hold up, you can get Xenoblade Chronicles on Dolphin? God damn, I need to look into that.

You can, but finding a copy that isn't horribly overpriced is going to prove more difficult than getting it to run. I lucked out when a big chain of toy stores in The Netherlands had it on offer dirt cheap.

"NO SUSPENSION"

"HARD RAIN"

 

[Alo81]

Have had unlimited bandwidth since 2004. Also - this isn't a thread for those who have to consider bandwidth. If that's the case - let's post thumbnails to a bigger images, shall we?

Not everyone in the world has great bandwidth and this isn't the dr_rus screenshot power hour. I have good internet, but I don't think we should just say "fuck off everyone who doesn't - this threads gonna be a pain in the ass for you now!" That's shitty and selfish.

Well, that my opinion. When you do an offline downsampling you destroy information. When you provide an original screenshot - yes, not a lot of people will be able to look at it exactly the way you see it due to them having a lower res displays but at least you're leaving them an ability to see the original. After you've downsampled the screenshot - there is no original and that's not a screenshot anymore because you've edited it after making it.

It is very much a screenshot and you're arguing over really ridiculous semantics.

Here, tell me which of these images are screenshots and which aren't by your definition.

It's important that you're doing it in-game, you're actually playing with the HUD off. It's not the same as downscaling / editing a screenshot in some Photoshop.

Okay, and we're actually playing the game at 1920x1080(1200, 810, whatever) as well. When we're playing at higher resolutions we're not seeing 4k images on our screen. We're seeing 1080 images that were downsampled from 4k. By resizing we're doing what you're saying should be done, showing what we're doing in game. SSAA is awful too then.

As I've said, I don't care about loading times or bandwidth. I want to see a screenshot as it was taken, that's all. If I'd care for loading times and bandwidth I wouldn't go into this thread.

And like I've said, you're not the only one using this thread. If the general consensus from everyone is they'd prefer full resolution images then it's probably overall better for everyone if they share them that way. But saying "No guys we should all do it this way because I want it that way, even though I'm acknowledging it will be exclusionary to many others" is a thing a selfish dick would say, and people shouldn't be selfish dicks.

Asking every poster here for an original image after every post of his seems like a lot of wasted time.

You know what else is a waste of time? Waiting 15 minutes for a thread to load.

 

[Overdoziz]

 

[Overdoziz]

 

[Overdoziz]

 

[midhras]

Wake crossing fallen trees: I remember it fondly.

"A MURDER OF CROWS"

 

[Spazznid]

Who is this suppose to be?

Guess.

Spoiler

mossman

 

[MrRoderick]

Everything you said

Lol, yes.

And to add:

The loss of information argument is ridiculous unless you literally have a 4k display. If you've got a 2560x1600 display, and you're looking at an untouched .bmp, but at a zoom where you can see the whole thing at once, you've lost visual data. It's in the file, but not reaching your eyes. And worse, most programs introduce strange shit with their zoom algorithms. So honestly, all you can be saying is that you want to full size the image, so that you may scour it at 100% size and what.... physically ignore the composition while looking for jaggies? Sounds fun.

And if you want em' for wallpapers, which is cool, even still windows is gonna WRECK your image quality. (is there a way to change that btw?).

I'm not sure what you're championing, guy.

 

[Alo81]

And if you want em' for wallpapers, which is cool, even still windows is gonna WRECK your image quality. (is there a way to change that btw?).

C:\Windows\Web\Wallpaper

Create a folder for your own wallpapers. Place any wallpaper image you want into that folder.

Desktop > Right-click > Personalize > Desktop Background > *Your created folder* > Select your image > Save Changes

 

[Darkdeus]

Well, that my opinion. When you do an offline downsampling you destroy information. When you provide an original screenshot - yes, not a lot of people will be able to look at it exactly the way you see it due to them having a lower res displays but at least you're leaving them an ability to see the original. After you've downsampled the screenshot - there is no original and that's not a screenshot anymore because you've edited it after making it.

A screenshot should have a resolution in which it was taken. Otherwise it's not a screenshot - it's a crop from a screenshot or an edited screenshot (which we're calling bullshots, yeah).

Why would I post the a 4K image if I'm playing the game at 4K on a 1080p monitor? To me a screenshot is anything that looks exactly like it does on my monitor in game as I'm playing it. So many people do not seem to understand downsampling. What about games like the Arma series, Project Cars, and Metro: Last Light, that have downsampling built in as a graphics option. Are those shots not considered screenshots either?

Here's some downsampled Project Cars shots:

 

[Darkdeus]

 

[Wanny]

Alright

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

Thread is a joy to read with new GAF layout.

 

[Thorgal]

judging by the casings on the floor they put up a hell of a fight

some outdoor shots

 

[Thorgal]

Hold down the fort .

 

[Spazznid]

Are you sure that MaLDo is working?....hmmm

 

[Thorgal]

Are you sure that MaLDo is working?....hmmm

Yes. very sure i did

EDIT : ah crap i know what happened.

was playing with the global settings and forgot that tesselation and Parallax mapping are turned off automatically when you do that .

 

[iNvid02]

Thread is a joy to read with new GAF layout.

1600p images are finally tamed, excellent

 

[MrRoderick]

Why would I post the a 4K image if I'm playing the game at 4K on a 1080p monitor? To me a screenshot is anything that looks exactly like it does on my monitor in game as I'm playing it. So many people do not seem to understand downsampling. What about games like the Arma series, Project Cars, and Metro: Last Light, that have downsampling built in as a graphics option. Are those shots not considered screenshots either?

Here's some downsampled Project Cars shots:

Excellent set, these top two especially.

 

[Sethos]

Wait, am I reading this right or is there a guy up top gunning for us to post native resolution images, no matter the size?

Dafuq am I reading.

That's the silliest suggestion ever made in any of the screenshot threads.

 

[dgrdsv]

Why would I post the a 4K image if I'm playing the game at 4K on a 1080p monitor? To me a screenshot is anything that looks exactly like it does on my monitor in game as I'm playing it. So many people do not seem to understand downsampling. What about games like the Arma series, Project Cars, and Metro: Last Light, that have downsampling built in as a graphics option. Are those shots not considered screenshots either?

It seems that either I'm bad at explaining things or a lot of you can't read English. Do you know what "offline" and "some Photoshop software" means?
And to answer your first question - unless you downsample with exactly the same downsampling code that your videocard uses for this - no, it's not what you see on your screen.
Don't see any point in arguing further about this. Proceed with posting your bullshots.

 

[Spazznid]

Wait, am I reading this right or is there a guy up top gunning for us to post native resolution images, no matter the size?

Dafuq am I reading.

That's the silliest suggestion ever made in any of the screenshot threads.

Good lord, soon I'll be agreeing with you left and right!

It seems that either I'm bad at explaining things or a lot of you can't read English. Do you know what "offline" and "some Photoshop software" means?
And to answer your first question - unless you downsample with exactly the same downsampling code that your videocard uses for this - no, it's not what you see on your screen.
Don't see any point in arguing further about this. Proceed with posting your bullshots.

Ouch, salty. It's not that I don't understand what you mean, but the cost is too much to warrant what is mostly an unnecessary feature. I understand that you like to see the image in it's purest, raw form. And are you telling me that you can't just ask for the specific ones you want raws of? Are you implying that you want raws of every screenshot posted here? Even the ones you may think are meh?

Also, since we can't downsample it the exact same way as our monitor does, then there's no point in arguing that the reason you want raws is to see it how we do. It seems like you just wan't the highest possible quality version of the screenshots. Most people don't want that. And in all honesty, I'd rather people not start posting 2160p+ images here. That would lead to a situation where I can only view it in my browser shrunk down and badly compressed by the browser, or full size, and then I'd pretty much have to piece together the picture in my mind as I scrolled over it...

With "offline" downsampling, not only do we get to see an image as close as possible to how it looks on out monitors, but in a nicely compressed way.

I'm sorry, but really, you should just ask for raws when you see something you like. A few of us save our raw files, so as to keep the pure version, or archiving purposes, or whatever.












Anyways, I was bored, and wanted to see the difference between Tomb Raider at 4K with FXAA, and 4K with 2-4xSSAA. Found out some cool things, got bored and played with Photoshop, and am going to share my findings with you guys. Should this go in the compendium? I feel like I could use a guide sometimes to see how different things affect graphics in certain games.


Well, click the image to enlarge, or drag it into another tab to open separately. It's kind of big, but it's a JPEG. Around 4MB so not bad.

Here are each of the screenshots, so you can open each in a new tab and quickly switch between them to see a huge difference in how the Ambient Occlusion works.

4K FXAA
4K 2xSSAA
4K 4xSSAA

 

[MrRoderick]

And to answer your first question - unless you downsample with exactly the same downsampling code that your videocard uses for this - no, it's not what you see on your screen.

Then again, I ask, what do you do with that shot?

A. You have a 4k monitor. (you don't).
B. You plan to inspect the shots at 100%, in which case you at best are catching 50% of the image, and are thus ruining the intended, arguably much more important composition of the shot, in order to inspect what kind of AA the poster was able to run (wtf).
C. You plan to view it in a presentation fit to your screen, in which case you are likely degrading the shot rather than improving it. There is literally no way to get around positively or negatively effecting the aliasing of the image without having a 4k monitor. There is no neutrality of which you speak. Unless you're after option B, which seriously, why?

Anyways, I was bored, and wanted to see the difference between Tomb Raider at 4K with FXAA, and 4K with 2-4xSSAA. Found out some cool things, got bored and played with Photoshop, and am going to share my findings with you guys. Should this go in the compendium? I feel like I could use a guide sometimes to see how different things affect graphics in certain games.


Well, click the image to enlarge, or drag it into another tab to open separately. It's kind of big, but it's a JPEG. Around 4MB so not bad.

Here are each of the screenshots, so you can open each in a new tab and quickly switch between them to see a huge difference in how the Ambient Occlusion works.

4K FXAA
4K 2xSSAA
4K 4xSSAA

Interesting, and I like the graphics. Maybe do a more in depth thing on aliasing, including dx9 vs. dx11 differences, injectors etc, and post that up? If you're still bored
Just this would be cool too.

Ahh, new page and no image.
Uru:

It stretches in 2.35:1 unfortunately, but it really really suits this game.