1080i PROOF (PICS INCLUDED)

[tha_con]

jesus, do some research before you reply please. the storage device has absolutley no relation with HD or not HD, blu ray would only help to have LONGER (read, more storage) videos or more data, but that's about it, HD resolution has absolutley no dependency on the storage device, you could have a 3 second clip on a freaking floppy disc for god's sake.

How about you READ my post.

I'm not talking about STORAGE, I'm talking about DATA TRANSFER SPEED. HD signal requires faster speeds of data transfer from disc to hardware than DVD's are capable of.

All of the High Def DVD's you see, are not TRUE High Def.

 

[MadduckUK]

transfer rate is drive limited in this case, not media limted. but thats STILL not the point. your confusing vidoe playback with games.

kinigitt - no, absolutely not. im right here

 

[Solid Lifters]

and about the PS3 developers kits not being shipped yet... wrong again, there are reports that a few "key" developers have gotten kits allready, PD is allmost defenetly one of those because of sony. Konami and rockstar are also good candidates...

You forgot to include EA. They even released a few screenshots of PS3 games already. Look below.

 

[MadduckUK]

ps2 has a 4x speed dvd drive, i can buy a 16x speed drive for my pc, so why wouldnt a ps3 come with at least that? but this STILL isnt the point

 

[SaintKamus]

Well, the upscaling would be pretty easy to see on an HDTV. If that's all it is, the game would look no different at 1080 than it would at 480.. enlarged, maybe a tad pixelated, and a little fuzzy. Just like any DVD. It's easy enough to see if it's running at a higher resolution.. anyone who's seen HD broadcasts will tell you that.. it's like night and day. If 1080 wasn't really 1080, he would have said as much.

But I'm also thinking that some sort of sacrifice had to be made to get those higher resolutions. I'd be curious to see what those are. Of course, in the end, it makes little difference.. like many folks, I'm stuck using 480i, but I think because it's the "lowest" resolution of the bunch, that it will have the most features, and look better than the others.

wrong jedi, again, get this in your head people, the PS2 has no physical way of running GT4 at 1080i, PERIOD. it's upscaling, that's it nothing more.
KY mentioned that they opted not to include 480p because the features that had to be turned off to make it run at that resolution actually made the game look a lot worse, this is at 480p! at just twice the fillrate of 480i. now imagine what it would look like in 1080i? (wich by the way, there is no way to ever see on the PS2 on 3d due to the simple fact of framebuffer limits).
if it had enough memory to run 3d at those resolutions, the game would look even worse than GT1 for the PS1. no shaders, no shadows, no lights, NADA.

 

[kinigitt]

transfer rate is drive limited in this case, not media limted. but thats STILL not the point. your confusing vidoe playback with games.

kinigitt - no, absolutely not. im right here

okay. I'm trying to understand this. There's too much.........misinformation...............tiny brain...exploding!

I was talking about booze, to be blunt. holidays=booze. heh.

 

[SaintKamus]

You forgot to include EA. They even released a few screenshots of PS3 games already. Look below.

those aren't actually rendered on a PS3 or an xbox 2 developer kit, they made those to give people an idea of the level of quality they should expect from EA games on next gen consoles. (this was specified by EA themselves)

 

[GTXLR]

My 100 HZ widescreen digital TV.
Also has a Double lines mode, would that be the equivilant 1080i?

 

[code_kev]

1080i kicks the CRAP out of machines, the ps2 simply can't do it. What 1080i games there are tend to be xbox games, and even then theres only like 4-5 of them.

 

[MadduckUK]

if it had enough memory to run 3d at those resolutions, the game would look even worse than GT1 for the PS1. no shaders, no shadows, no lights, NADA.

increasing the resolution would make a game look WORSE? please enlighten us

 

[code_kev]

Because they would have to lower the detail a million fold for it to be able to run at over 1 fps.

 

[1twojay]

Someone host a pic for me, ill show u guys the difference between 1080i / 480p

 

[GTXLR]

Bring it on 1twojay settle this feud now.
Someone give the guy a pic host!

Im just keen to see what all the fuss is about.

 

[tha_con]

You forgot to include EA. They even released a few screenshots of PS3 games already. Look below.

http://www.ps3portal.com/?view=article&article=68
http://news.spong.com/detail/news.asp?prid=8070

I could find a doezen stories just like this. Fact is that EA, as well as more than a dozen other comapnies, do not have Dev-Kits, they ONLY HAVE TECH SPECS. They know what to EXPECT and they are releasing RENDERS of EXPECTED GRAPHICAL EXPECTATION. Meaning this is close to what they will look like.

christ almighty. Since you all are hell bent on believing that these companies have Dev kits, find proof. It's odd they ahve dev kits when the GPU hasn't been finished or even revealed. They just have projected specs. Period.

 

[Solid Lifters]

those aren't actually rendered on a PS3 or an xbox 2 developer kit, they made those to give people an idea of the level of quality they should expect from EA games on next gen consoles. (this was specified by EA themselves)

Yes, I understand. But, this is "simulating" via special computer what the images will be like. So, it's all good.

 

[code_kev]

I don't think anyone is saying there ISN'T a difference, it's just not true TRUE 1080i.

 

[MadduckUK]

1080i kicks the CRAP out of machines, the ps2 simply can't do it. What 1080i games there are tend to be xbox games, and even then theres only like 4-5 of them.

agreed, going from 640x480 to 1024x768 on a pc game, whilest not being TOTALLY the same thing, is a good indicationof the extra power needed. more than double in that case.

640x480 = 307200pixles
1024x768= 786423pixles

it would be easy enough to do the same thing for tv resolutions.

 

[SaintKamus]

How about you READ my post.

I'm not talking about STORAGE, I'm talking about DATA TRANSFER SPEED. HD signal requires faster speeds of data transfer from disc to hardware than DVD's are capable of.

All of the High Def DVD's you see, are not TRUE High Def.

oh, i read your post... the fact is that if we're talking about a high defenition MPEG2 stream then yes, you'd be right, DVD transfer rate on the PS2 wouldn't be enough...
but mpeg4 is a different story, since it uses less than half the bittrate MPEG2 does to obtain the same quality mpeg2 does, this also means half the transfer speed is required... i have lots of HD movies recorded in WM9 that play just fine from even an old, low speed DVD drive. so HD recorded at 3 MBPS could in theory be ran from even a crappy PS2 drive, but of course.. it wouln't be able to play it because of, again:
not enough framebuffer (not even the xbox has enough framebuffer for 1080i video).
and the fact that the PS2 CPU wouln't be fast enough to decode the bitstream.

 

[kinigitt]

Yes, I understand. But, this is "simulating" via special computer what the images will be like. So, it's all good.

xbox 2 dev kits are powermacs.

 

[cobragt]

try photobucket.com twojay

 

[LaBounti]

I see closure in the near future.

 

[MadduckUK]

Because they would have to lower the detail a million fold for it to be able to run at over 1 fps.

for JUST an increase in resolution? nah. if texture size and poly counts were reaised by the same percetage the yeah, but just for res. its isnt THAT hard to believe

 

[MadduckUK]

I see closure in the near future.

why? it may be a bit angry but its sure interesting

 

[code_kev]

Madduck, as said Before TRY THIS.

Run half life 2 on your pc at 800-600. Now stick that baby on a MASSIVE res, like 1600 by 1200 or whatever. SEE.

 

[SaintKamus]

increasing the resolution would make a game look WORSE? please enlighten us

sigh....

now i gotta stand up for Kaz here? wtf?

ok, progressive scan would make gran turismo look worse because to gain the extra fillrate required to render 480p they would have to turn down some nifty graphical effects, such as shaders, polygon count and lights.

PD squeezed evry last drop of the PS2's capabilities in 480i, so running 480p with the same graphical effects just isn't possible at 60 FPS, they probably COULD do it while mantaining all the graphics intact.. but at the cost of framerate.. now, who in the world would preffer to play 30 FPS gran turismo vs 60 FPS Gran turismo at lower res?
i know i wouln't.

 

[GTXLR]

Has any one given 1twojay a place to host pictures of 480p and 1080i modes, he has the pics waiting!

 

[MadduckUK]

Madduck, as said Before TRY THIS.

Run half life 2 on your pc at 800-600. Now stick that baby on a MASSIVE res, like 1600 by 1200 or whatever. SEE.

id get probably a 50% drop in framerate. maybe slightly higher but nowhere near a crawl

 

[code_kev]

Yeah but that's at the same detail settings etc. That proves that to get higher res takes ALOT more computing power.

 

[kinigitt]

id get probably a 50% drop in framerate. maybe slightly higher but nowhere near a crawl

picture doing it with very crappy hardware. like a game console.

 

[cobragt]

http://photobucket.com/ Here's a good host