-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
PGR3 trailer in 720p
- Thread starter element
- Start date
Shogmaster said:
I hear that bro. Well, I am rooting for Bizarre. I hope this would give me the MSR feeling and way way more for I felt nothing for PGR1 & 2. I know as well as the next guy that 60fps in racing games is damn important, especially for high-tier racers such as this. Let's hope and pray that they, Bizarre, would deliver.
border said:
Yes, you rock Blimblim! Thank you so much!
It seems other racing games have had some trouble maintaining solid frame rates in replay mode so I hope thats the only place they are having any kind of problems. It just too damn sweet in the sections that were solid 60fps. *drool*
What the heck would you recommend then? I can't stand the image produced by LCDs, DLPs, or Plasmas when it comes to gaming. Even 720p games seem so blown up on even a moderately sized display. When you add in the respective flaws of each (which are huge in my eyes), it's even worse. I'd take a nice CRT over alternate display types any day. DLP would be my second choice, though, but I absolutely detest LCDs and plasmas for gaming.
AtomicShroom
Member
I have only read a few posts of this thread, I don't have time to read it all, but from what I've gathered people seem to be forgetting something here:
Why does it take such a powerful computer to playback this movie? The reason is the WMV compression. If the movie was uncompressed, just about any normal (1ghz and up) computer would run it. But WMV decompression, espcially at that high resolution and FPS is a total CPU hog.
Why does it take such a powerful computer to playback this movie? The reason is the WMV compression. If the movie was uncompressed, just about any normal (1ghz and up) computer would run it. But WMV decompression, espcially at that high resolution and FPS is a total CPU hog.
Not really. As much as I hate WMV, it works very well for HD stuff. My PC at home has a hard time playing 720p mpeg2 streams, but wmv9 720p files (23.97 fps for both of course) are perfect.AtomicShroom said:
And what do you mean by "uncompressed"? Do you realize this file in uncompressed form would use more than 4 GBytes?
dark10x said:
:lol
did you read the post you were responding to dark?
The only thing I don't really like about 1080i CRTs is that many lack the horizontal resolution to display true 1920x1080 images (most are around 1400 - 1440 pixels in horizontal resolution), but yet they advertise it as a "true" HD image.
AtomicShroom
Member
Blimblim said:
I know the filesize would be incredibly huge, but at least all the processing power would be allocated to playing back the movie and not uncompressing it.
MPEG2 is also a ressource hog. If compressed with something like, say, MPEG1 at a very high bitrate (and supposing MPEG1 supported 60fps), the it would run much fluider.
But still the point remains: Compression eats up most of the processing power required to play this movie.
Nerevar said:
Most are that way (as you say), but the Sony CRT I use actually does display the full 1920x1080 (interlaced, obviously).
Yeah, I was playing around with it today. Such a beautiful game. The usage of motion blur just struck me as something we'll see more often next gen, though, which is why I randomly posted them.
Doom_Bringer
Banned
Blimblim said:
nice! I love 60 FPS vids, looks awesome.
Well, the overhead of reading about 60 MBytes/s from the hard drive would be much worse than "just" the WMV uncompression. There is a very fine tradeoff between disk usage / cpu usage / animation smoothness when compressing a HDTV video. Not even mentioning download size.AtomicShroom said:
And whatever happens, you still need a video card that can accept display 1280x720 images 60 times a second in overlay/VMR/WM7 or WM9 mode. It should never be a problem, but usually it is.
Just so all you people who have problems playbacking 720p videos know, if you go to Tools -> Options -> Performance and in the Video Acceleration go to Advanced, check "use high quality mode" instead of "use overlays" and uncheck "drop frames to keep AV in sync". Should give a lot better performance! TRY IT NOW!
Edit: This is in Windows Media Player 10 (maybe previous versions aswell)
Edit: This is in Windows Media Player 10 (maybe previous versions aswell)
For all the people having playback problems and performance issues, I highly suggest NOT using windows media player. Media Player Classic is okay but I find zoomplayer to be the absolute best. I was able to play almost the entire trailer at full speed on my aging 3 year old rig. Not so with wmp. Hell, 1080p videos run pretty decently too.
Shogmaster said:Common now. Let's not compare external capture shot with frame buffer shot.
I say they are getting closer.
[/QUOTE]I just noticed that the cars in the E3 trailer, that was supposedly rendered, look alot better and more like this pic of the saleen but this latest vid the cars seem....different.
Beer Monkey
Member
Your Sony CRT must be a pro studio monitor ($$$$$) or a computer monitor, Sony doesn't make a consumer CRT that can resolve 1920 horizontal resolution.
Yeah, it does. I watch Lost every week converted from 720p to 1080i, and there are some artifacts that are usually (not always) pretty subtle. An $1100 IScan HD+ could probably eliminate them, but the lag of high-end scaling wouldn't be good for gaming.
I agree that the cheaper the set, the less you'll notice. On a good set, 60fps stuff like sports looks a lot better in 720p, especially fast moving stuff like basketball and hockey. I think golf looks better in 1080i.
Sometimes you want spatial resolution at the expense of a little bit of interlacing artifacts (1080i), sometimes you want temporal resolution at the expense of spatial (720p).
WHOAguitarninja
Member
Trojan X said:
Mind if I ask how exactly you know this?
I think the difference is the metalic color versus the regular color which make it look flat. The blue car (Tuscan?) looks very reflective. I remember liking the look of the metalic colors in PGR1 over the regular colors. Maybe the really reflective one is the "gold" color which was really reflective in PGR1. The yellow car is probably the worst looking of the bunch in terms of the colors.
Shogmaster
Sloppy seconds
dark10x said:
BS. No Direct view Sony CRTs over 24" have small enough grille pitch to display 1920x1080 natively. Even the almighty XBR960 can only do 1400x900.
dark10x said:Totally agree. The models are pretty much the same, but the lighting isn't the same...
Compared to...
Also, the original teaser shots (which were never said to be realtime) represent what I was actually hoping for in terms of car detail...
Those original shots were declaired to be realtime by Bizzare people repeatedly! And the new video is NOT a direct capture! That's why the yellow car's colors looks all blown out in detail. You are barking up the wrong fucking tree again.
Shogmaster said:
No he isn't grow a pair of glasses or better yet take those green ones off. I'm sick of your one-sided bullshit you're always the first to call Killzone or Gundam "TOO PERFECT" yet you can't see the same damn problem with Microsoft's PR, in this example - that red car in PGR3 shot.
Great find dark10x but you never know - maybe those earlier renders were from some kind of photo mode? The difference in detail is enormous.
-------------------------------------------------
Oh and that guy saying "My PC can't even play this movie at 30 fps, 360 must be 100 times more powerful!": grow a brain.
I could record a 2048x1536 QUAKE 1 AVI movie and while the game would run at something like 300 fps in that res (it's an old game after all) the avi would stutter even on NASA machines. What the hell were you even comparing? Polygons to pixels? WTF? Don't mix in-game 3D accelerated resolutions with movie playback resolutions. BRAINLES.
Same goes to the future. I think lots of people will have problems with those 1080 PS3 trailers but that doesn't really mean shit about your 3D PC capabilities.
A HD Quake 1 trailer would stutter the same way, does that mean Quake 1 requires a monster machine?
While I defintely agree this yellow car looks wrong especially in that particular shot, the other cars in the teaser look fine to me.
Dark10x, why did you not use this image in your comparison?
While it still has this fuzzy look due to the compression, it certainly looks *much* better than that yellow car, and not that different from the first image in your comparison.
But of course, let's spend 2-3 pages splitting hairs over one car that looks wrong, especially in that shot, and forget that everything else is fine.
Dark10x, why did you not use this image in your comparison?
While it still has this fuzzy look due to the compression, it certainly looks *much* better than that yellow car, and not that different from the first image in your comparison.
But of course, let's spend 2-3 pages splitting hairs over one car that looks wrong, especially in that shot, and forget that everything else is fine.
eso76
Member
btw, no one has asked yet, but what hardware do you think this video is running off ?
Alpha or Beta kits ?
And how powerful are Beta kits compared to final, again ?
I believe shaders and textures will look much better by the time PGR3 ships, i wouldn't worry about the lack of fresnel etc. yet
Alpha or Beta kits ?
And how powerful are Beta kits compared to final, again ?
I believe shaders and textures will look much better by the time PGR3 ships, i wouldn't worry about the lack of fresnel etc. yet
Blimblim said:While I defintely agree this yellow car looks wrong especially in that particular shot, the other cars in the teaser look fine to me.
Dark10x, why did you not use this image in your comparison?
While it still has this fuzzy look due to the compression, it certainly looks *much* better than that yellow car, and not that different from the first image in your comparison.
But of course, let's spend 2-3 pages splitting hairs over one car that looks wrong, especially in that shot, and forget that everything else is fine.
It's just bickering for the sake of bickering. If it wasn't that car, it would've been the hair from some spectator being too blocky.
It's always something... but do not despair, I'm sure the lovable 30 FPS will resurface many more times before release!
Shogmaster
Sloppy seconds
dark10x said:Yeah, you're right...I was thinking of something other than resolution.
I don't give a shit if the video is a direct capture or not. The video is of high enough resolution for me to CLEARLY SEE that the detail present in those cars is not on par with...
WTF?!?! Are you a fucking moron?!? This red car shot was NEVER declaired realtime by anyone official except for forum speculators!! This image was created for the cover of a magazine! Jeez you people are thick!
Take away this one obvious (for those with a brain) PR pre-render shot (absolutely no signs of polygon edge, perfect reflections and lighting, super subltle blur on the background, etc), all screenshots Bizzare has released fall in line perfectly with the video!
Watch the language...
If you were to read the post in which I first posted the shot...
As you can see, I am very much aware that the shot is not realtime and that it was never said to BE realtime. However, it (quite unrealistically, I suppose) represents my hopes and expectations for this gen. That's it. I KNEW the detail levels would never be on par with that CG shot, but at the same time, I was hoping that we would be approaching those detail levels.
Now that I look more closely, I suppose the actual shots released by Bizarre do indeed match up to the video. :\
If you were to read the post in which I first posted the shot...
As you can see, I am very much aware that the shot is not realtime and that it was never said to BE realtime. However, it (quite unrealistically, I suppose) represents my hopes and expectations for this gen. That's it. I KNEW the detail levels would never be on par with that CG shot, but at the same time, I was hoping that we would be approaching those detail levels.
Now that I look more closely, I suppose the actual shots released by Bizarre do indeed match up to the video. :\
Shogmaster
Sloppy seconds
dark10x said:
Fuck that man. I post on GAF instead of B3D because I don't have to watch the language. And before you start, I didn't call you a fucking moron. I was asking if you were one. If you're not, then you have other problems.
Unrealistic doesn't even begin to cover it. And I might add trolling to that too, since you are insinuating with the PR shot that somehow the new video represents IQ downgrade from previous realtime screens.
I am not insinuating such a thing. What I originally posted was simply based on memory of what was shown at E3. Upon looking closely at the video in comparison to those shots, I see that I was wrong. Was there a CG trailer shown at E3? I do not remember, to be honest, as it has been a while. It just seems as if I had seen a video of the game that was more impressive looking. I might be completely off base.
Shogmaster
Sloppy seconds
dark10x said:
Yes, there was a pre-rendered "target" trailer on the floor at E3 (and nothing else from PGR3 infact). The only redeeming thing about the trailer in my mind was that it was using ingame assets. I knew that the lighting and motion blur wasn't gonna be the same.
Shogmaster
Sloppy seconds
bishoptl said:
I know, I know.... Bish loves me so much. *wipes tears*
dark10x, why do you bother arguing with this fool? He is a hypocritical moron that has been proven a retard on more than one occasion by more than one poster. Here he is saying that the lighting is off because it is not a frame buffer shot yet in the ps3 Gundam thread, after being owned for the fool that he was, he bitched about the EXACT SAME ISSUE, the only difference being that the ps3 shots were not even direct captures, they were camcorder shots. He is a fool so high up MS's ass its not worth bothering with.
Shogmaster
Sloppy seconds
Doube D said:
Umm.... Bish?
Thinking of that, have you played Trackmania Sunrise? I'm playing it right now and I just can't get over how incredible the lighting and motion blur is. The dynamic color option is absolutely stunning (the game uses shader model 3.0, I wonder if this is a part of that?) and the motion blur...the motion blur is just incredible. It's the closet thing I've seen to realtime temporal motion blur (nowhere near THAT good, obviously, but it shares many of those qualities). Whatever technique they use for the motion blur is obviously VERY demanding. My older P4 3.2 could barely hit 20 fps at 640x480. My 3.6 + 6800 handles the game in lower resolutions at 60 fps with motion blur...but the high res modes start to slow down a bit too much. However, with the blur disabled, I can run at 1680x1050 with everything else maxed while the game never budges from 60 fps.
BTW, did you really play the double standard game?
Shogmaster
Sloppy seconds
dark10x said:
Dude, my "gaming" PC is a 2600+ Athy XP with 32MB GF2MX! I can only listen to guys like you and imagine how good it looks. :lol
I do understand that most guys with high end video cards on their PCs have much higher expectations from next gen immediately then those who are use to PS2 and XBox gaming. You are definitely one of those guys.
Having said that, there isn't any good PC racing games to compare PGR3 to, so I just imagine those static screen caps of PGR3 (which we know to be realtime now) moving with the intensity of the new video. And when I do that, I'm more than satisfied.
Double D really belongs at OA. I don't even know why likes of Bish even tolerate him here.
Ah, I see now. I suppose a GF2mx isn't going to be blowing anybody away at this point.
I'll have to take some better shots later on, but you can see what I mean in regards to the motion blur (at least you can picture it) in these shots. I'll try to snap some shots of the more colorful tracks...
I suppose a GF2mx isn't going to be blowing anybody away at this point. I'll have to take some better shots later on, but you can see what I mean in regards to the motion blur (at least you can picture it) in these shots. I'll try to snap some shots of the more colorful tracks...
Shogmaster
Sloppy seconds
dark10x said:Ah, I see now.
I'll have to take some better shots later on, but you can see what I mean in regards to the motion blur (at least you can picture it) in these shots. I'll try to snap some shots of the more colorful tracks...
Yeah, that game looks a million time more real with the blur engaged. Without blur, it looks more like a current low poly high texture high FX PC game we are all use to seeing.
If you think about it, for those jumping from 6800s, the new cards and consoles won't be doing any FXs you are not use to seeing already. For you guys, it's just faster version of current gen with higher poly count and more accurate/complex physics.
"Next gen" is all reletive to where you are coming from.
Shogmaster said:
LOL. Nicely dodging his question I see. Well dark, here is his EXACT quote in that topic:
Now, I will let others judge his reaction to people stating that the lighting looks off in PG3 versus his own statements regarding Gundam. Pathetic to say the least IMO.
btw, that game you posted looks incredible. What system/specs is it running on?