Ethan_Hunt said:
This would have been so much easier, if you could have given us one proof of the game running @720 on your "friends capture card". You may have a mobile phone with a camera, YES? Of course you would. Just record a small video or capture a pic displaying the resolution and frame rates, as you claim, then come back here. It's a small thing to ask, as I don't have any friend who has a HD capture card and since yours does, this would be a much easier task. Till then, I'll just sit back and enjoy; no offense.
its not a card,its more of a recorder device.what the hell do you mean by card?
i would try to get it when i visit him.
and it is as difficult for you as you haven't proved anything either
it was just that your last post just supported another user without any reasoning like just being blind
--- Updated Post - Automerged ---
xXx said:
yeah EUROGAMER is pretty good but they still don't provide the full analysis
--- Updated Post - Automerged ---
xXx said:
yeah,EUROGAMER is good but they still don't provide full analysis
--- Updated Post - Automerged ---
Lord Nemesis said:
That's a pretty blanket statement to make. At high resolutions, with 2x AA you will not see much of an improvement since the pixels are so small that the Aliasing artifacts are not easily visible.
it depends upon your screen size whether you see the difference or not.
also if the game is jagged,being on higher resolution won't make it disapear.and Anti-aliasing will help alot there.you can see a big difference between a bad designed 720p and the same game with 2xAA
If you render a image at a lower resolution, apply AA and scale it to a higher resolution then also it will not look good.
yes but what if the game looks bad even on a 720p resolution,AA will help it improve there.
Some defects can become even more glaring after AA.
they can but mostly it helps and if it is applied correctly
AA in general addresses a particular kind of artifact called Aliasing that is noticeable is mainly at the edges of objects. It does not magically remove or minimize all sorts of defects nor is there any guarantee that you would like the result of AA.
yeah professor,now give a lecture as the other person doesn't know anything
i know what Anti-Aliaing does.but you are talking as if it wouldn't make any difference even if it wasn't applied then what the hell do you think so many games apply it.
and just because a game is 720p doesn't mean it will not need AA,it needs it many times.
i have a 40'TV,i can tell the difference
Applying AA can improve and worsen the image quality depending on the conditions and how the AA is applied.
but what does it do here,it only helps
For your info, both GTA4 and RDR do have AA on PS3. Its a different sort of AA called Quincunx AA that is only available in nVidia GPU's. This AA basically works like a smoothing filter.
and for you info just AA for nvidia won't work as CELL on PS3 too does graphic processing
so just RSX AA won't alone do the work
While MSAA also adds extra pixels to the edges to make the jaggies less apparent, it still retains the sharp boundaries of the object. Quincunx brings a somewhat different sort of smoothing.
again just doing AA on RSX alone doesn't work as CELL takes the load too so it doesn't pan out very well
and the AA doesn't work on PS3 that well,everybody knows that
MSAA does alot.
its better to make high res games for PS3 than making low res and then using AA which works well with 360
Upscaling + Quincunx AA leads to the blurry washed out look that you get in the PS3 version of GTA4 and the same is evident in RDR PS3 version as well.
PS3 has always had that a bit light contolled dark and blur feel on all its games.you are just balming the upscaling for it
Its not essentially a bad thing either as there are people who like the PS3 look compared to the 360 one.
it is not the point whether its bad or good.you are yourself confused why we are debating this.it not because its good or bad but because the fact that everybody assumes once the rumour spreads
Care to point out where I said I deduced the exact resolution just by looking at comparisons? I only remember saying that It was evident to me that both games are not running at the same resolution and there is some upscaling and blurring happening in PS3 version.
why are you directly blaming the res for the blurr.i have followed the CELL and the RSX since its unvieling.PS3 games are always light controlled and a bit blurred.
man GT5 with 1080p has blurr,doesn't mean that its 640p or any low res.it was the effect added from the start to control the light effects and emphasis on the beauty
GTA4 comes into the picture because it uses the same engine and had the same kind of implementation.
same engine doesn't always mean it will have the same properties all the time.many games are built with same engine but evolve as the generation evolves
a perfect example the upgradation made from Uncharted to Uncharted 2.i am not talking resolution but the overall beauty and effects improved on in the 2nd game.
same for GT5 PROLOGUE,it was 1280x1080 in game & 1440x1080 in replays
now GT5 with same engine will do 1080p and 3D
Even without looking at a comparison video, the effect of scaling and blurring was evident in GTA4. So what do you deduce when you see the same kind of effect in RDR?
alot of things can be thought of
and anyways 360 was the lead platform so even if they were at same resolution,360 would win
You cannot deduce the exact resolution but, but its quite possible to understand what was caused by lack of AA and what was caused by some other reason if you understand what AA does to the image. I did not know from the video that the game was running at 640p, but its definitely evident to me that its not exactly running at the same resolution as the 360 version.
you can also understand that being the lead platform has alot of benefits
[/QUOTE]Here is an unscientific analysis (as he calls it) made by another guy
Analysis: Red Dead Redemption on PS3 vs. Xbox 360 - PCWorld[/QUOTE]
are you ****ing kidding???????????????????????????????
from what side was that an analysis,that was just a simple article,and in the article itself they mention that "Some believe its 640"...............................lmao
that is no proof
Alright then where is your proof/ credible web links?
i don't think your link was credible enough though
News: Red Dead Redemption sub-HD on PS3 - ComputerAndVideoGames.com
The above link mentions two people who used their own means to arrive at their the rendering resolution of 640 pixels. They could not determine the horizontal resolution which basically means that finding the rendering resolution is not as simple as buying a sub $200 capture device and checking the resolution reported by the device. Unlike them I am sure you have the horizontal resolution as well on your finger tips.
yeah those two people didn't provide any proof,things like these keep happening.
last year there was one site which was reviewing all games 50-60range out of 100 just to get hits to gain from ad revenue.
Agreed that they have not provided any solid proof along with their posts, but given by own observations from the comparison (which was enough to convince me PS3 version is not running at same resolution as 360 version)
how the hell can just by your observations say that its a lower res as 360 2xAA could fool you into thinking it is with the smoother things
and the previous credibility of these people (as mentioned in the link),
previous credibility.....................lol
don't even discuss this topic.there is not much credibility when you are running a site and want hits
for example the biggest gaming site IGN and Gamespot gave GTA4 a 100/100 when it wasn't anywhere near that score.it was because of the money feeding.
you know when Kane & Lynch released,they had done a major ad campaign on Gamespot and spent loads of money on the site.near the games release the publisher wanted gamespot to give the game a good score because of their money spending and gamespot agreed to do so and told their reviewer to do so too.now the game wasn't good so the reviewer didn't want to cheat the gamers so he gave a low score and was fired as Gamespot had gotten money for it and still gave it a low score.
there are many many other stories,
I am more inclined to believe them than some one who apparently does not seem to have has any idea of what AA does to an image or what kind of artifacts it fixes, does not provide any supporting proof or credible web link for this claims (that when even people like Galileo and Newton had to prove their points when they proposed something against general opinion and even when what they said was true)
you talk of Newton,its very funny when you yourself haven't provided any proof than just some speculating articles which every site posts on their site one the rumour spreads.
and how you believed them just shows how a big Newton and Galileo you are that you believe anything
and about the AA,you might want to understand it first then questioning other.
and argues on with a tinge of fanboyish fervor.
i don't know how the hell was it fanboyish fervour.
actually you might be fanboyish yourself as you yourself above was trying to be goody goody above so that people don't find out who you really are................hehe
"Its not essentially a bad thing either as there are people who like the PS3 look compared to the 360 one."----being goody goody