Pedigree Chum
Banned
I mean in-game? I remember GT3 beening really jaggy/shimmery when I played it. I hope GT4 won't have those problems, cause it's such a beautiful game that deserves to have a great, clean output.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Will GT4 have a cleaner output than GT3?
- Thread starter Pedigree Chum
- Start date
AtomicShroom
Member
Has there ever been a PS2 game with such a clean non-jaggy output? I don't think so. PS2 can't do Full-screen anti-aliasing, so you might as well forget about it.
Pedigree Chum
Banned
AtomicShroom said:
Well I know that PS2 can't for FSAA, but I mean PS2 games CAN looks relatively clean (look at BO3). I was just hoping GT4 can look as clean as that.
All I can say is that Prologue GT4 shimmers quite bad especially on the city tracks. The normal race courses are better but stuff such as fencing and crash barriers and stands do still shimmer. On prologue I'd say its very similar to GT3 however Solidsnake reckons the graphics engine has improved on since Prologue.
Pedigree Chum
Banned
Gek54 said:
I think BO3 has a respectable output, if GT4's is as good or better than I'm cool with that.
cybercrash
Member
AtomicShroom said:
Champions of Norrath and Dark Alliance do 4x FSAA on the PS2 as stated in several interviews, they're just about the smoothest looking console games out there probably.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
ourumov said:
PS2 games gain a great deal when connected via S-Video or Component, and the IQ ceases to be an annoyance to me in lots of titles.
Forsete
Member
AtomicShroom said:
Any more lies you wish to tell us?
Clean, non-jaggy games?
Jak II? Tekken Tag (Tekken 4?)? Ratchet? BGDA?
And yes, I too remember FSAA being mentioned while BGDA1 was new, and as Norrath has the same (and even better) image quality, I would suspect it would use the same technique.
cybercrash
Member
m0dus said:Um. Not to doubt you or anything, but a link first, please? Pulling that off in software would be incredibly taxing, to the point I'd doubt the veracity of your statement.
I did some digging for you and I'll have to apologise, it's 2x2 fsaa on Baldur's Gate DA and while I *think* I read something about 4x fsaa on champions, I can't seem to find anything on that, so I might be wrong (image quality in CoN is slightly higher in any case). Still an impressive feature on the PS2 though.
Link: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php(que)id=9518&domain=pn2
cybercrash
Member
DarienA said:
I don't think it is, it has good IQ but still quite jaggy.
Naked Snake
Member
In before dark10x!
Damn it, adelgary...I was at dinner!
Pop in Star Ocean 3 for some of the best IQ you'll see on any current system. Simply beautiful. Really, most progressive scan PS2 titles are extremely good looking. They have a sharpness to them that is lacking in XBOX titles, I've found. Obviously, though, they aren't exactly common.
In general, though, the PS2 has pretty low grade output. I don't expect GT4 to look particularly cleaner than GT3, to be quite honest.
AtomicShroom said:
Pop in Star Ocean 3 for some of the best IQ you'll see on any current system. Simply beautiful. Really, most progressive scan PS2 titles are extremely good looking. They have a sharpness to them that is lacking in XBOX titles, I've found. Obviously, though, they aren't exactly common.
In general, though, the PS2 has pretty low grade output. I don't expect GT4 to look particularly cleaner than GT3, to be quite honest.
BeOnEdge said:
Why is that?
Sony seems dead set on using various LCD panels for displaying their games and that is quite possibly the WORST type of display they could use. Surely you've witnessed the horror that is the PS2 kiosk? Those displays do little justice to the game they are displaying...
Pedigree Chum
Banned
dark10x said:
Yup, they make PS2 games looks like PS1 games with higher amont of polys. Makes every game (including awesome looking ones) look like jagged messes. But I've played the same games on my Projection TV at home and they look spiffy.
"I never noticed a single jaggy while playing GT3 though. There was texture shimmering on the roadside, but no jaggys as far as I can tell."
yeah, GT3 uses what seems to me like some kind of edge dithering thingy, but it doesn't seem really effective on textures... if they keep the same system to get rid of jaggies, wich it does awefully well, and perhaps get some fancy texture filtering in to smooth out that texture flicker, GT4 could have IQ on an epic level.
yeah, GT3 uses what seems to me like some kind of edge dithering thingy, but it doesn't seem really effective on textures... if they keep the same system to get rid of jaggies, wich it does awefully well, and perhaps get some fancy texture filtering in to smooth out that texture flicker, GT4 could have IQ on an epic level.
AlphaSnake
...and that, kids, was the first time I sucked a dick for crack
BeOnEdge said:
No they weren't, you ketchup fiending beotch. They were flat panel pieces of shit. I was the one who told you that it was the TVs that made GT4 look so frigin ugly. That and the fact that we were 4 inches away from the screen.
GT4 might output a better looking picture than GT3, but its field rendered approach simply starts it off at a disadvantage to a game like Burnout 3, which uses a full-height display buffer. The improvement from GT3 can therefore only be marginal considering it's still below standards.
The PS2 is comparatively lacking in power for IQ. Choosing to implement FSAA via supersampling like in Baldur's Gate and Champion's of Norrath just ends up trading off other areas of IQ like color depth and full-height buffers due to memory limitations.
The system does not employ mipmapping/filtering as well as other systems to clean up texture aliasing, so the clarity of its graphics are relatively compromised by messiness. Sharpness is entirely a function of resolution, so a use of FSAA in an Xbox game can mean that its graphics were sampled from a higher resolution and will then display with better definition than a PS2 game not using anti-aliasing.
The PS2 is comparatively lacking in power for IQ. Choosing to implement FSAA via supersampling like in Baldur's Gate and Champion's of Norrath just ends up trading off other areas of IQ like color depth and full-height buffers due to memory limitations.
The system does not employ mipmapping/filtering as well as other systems to clean up texture aliasing, so the clarity of its graphics are relatively compromised by messiness. Sharpness is entirely a function of resolution, so a use of FSAA in an Xbox game can mean that its graphics were sampled from a higher resolution and will then display with better definition than a PS2 game not using anti-aliasing.
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
DaCocoBrova said:
OK, so what if I were to use something like D-Scaler by inputting the PS2 into my PC and then use the DVI-Component adaptor (which you can buy from ATI) and output the image back to my TV in progressive scan? Have you tried this? I wonder what kind of results I could achieve...
I'm not interested in using my PC monitor at all, but outputting an improved, progressive image to my TV might be nice. It seems like it does a better job than my TV's built in line doubler and would produce a more colorful, vibrant picture...
dark10x said:
In terms of deinterlacing, DScaler is pretty good and comparable to some expensive (not those mighty expensive ones) standalone video scalers.
Set your component output at 480p and get the native deinterlaced output from DScaler, any higher resolution is scaled by the video card. And then try 720p (if your TV can accept it) and see which scaling is better.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
GT4 (at least the Prologue) is field rendering, much like GT3, but it's doing flicker fixing much better than GT3, I'm told. So in that way, yes, it does look better.
It doesn't stop it being one of the cleanest looking games ever made. At least on the interlaced TV, where the vast majority of people will play it anyways, it has better image quality than any full height buffer game I've seen. They did the right decision as far as choosing that rendering system, IMO.
dark10x said:
I would say LifeView FlyVideo Platinum, not sure if the TV tuner (Philips silicon tuner) works with DScaler (since I don't care about TV on my PC). Or any (decent) one with Philips SAA713x (x is a digit) chips, Conexant CX2388x (x is also a digit) will also do, but not as good quality as the Philips chip.
Do some video calibration on the video settings when you get the card, feed the output of the PS2 playing a DVD (your familiar one or something like Video essential or Avia) and calibrate it. The default on the capture settings may have the contrast too high that masks the low level details.
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
You won't find any w/ component/DVI-in.
Nothing cheap anyway.
Nothing cheap anyway.
There's only a megabyte or so of RAM on PS2 for the texture cache, so even the small quantity of memory saved by cutting corners in IQ with the use of slightly lower screen resolutions and half-height buffers can be considerable for PS2 development. It's not so surprsing that a top tier PS2 title would rely on field rendering given the relative size of the HDTV/monitor market, but it's probably one of the barriers that has kept it from seeing any kind of widespread adoption into an arcade platform for that more display-demanding market.
ArcadeStickMonk
Member
Lazy8s said:
Yeah, dark10x is in the car right now, but he says you're full of shit, as always
Prologue looks nothing like the current version of GT4. Just look at the new BMW Demo if you live in Europe. It is much cleaner and the colors are brighter, but there is still shimmering. GT4 will be a beautiful game, but it wont be nearly as clean as the official screenshots show except in Photo Mode.
PanopticBlue
Member
Gek54 said:
Whoa, not even close. Burnout 3 has way better image quality than Prologue. I've played both through hdtv, and prologue is really no better than GT3 image quality wise. We can only hope Gt4 gets improved over Prologue.
PanopticBlue
Member
Gek54 said:
Even interlaced, the image quality in Burnout 3 is superior to Prologue.