Gt4 pic art, wth

  • Thread starter Thread starter cobragt
  • 122 comments
  • 4,565 views
020_GT4P_XanaviSky_1080173353.jpg

18853_7.jpg

Case closed.
 
Edited: The argument is over Cobra.
 
You both are, if you were any better you'd not have posted that last one. ;)
 
I know, but I was annoyed at his last post, and the fact that he waited until I was offline for the night to post it.
 
Don't let him wind you up, cobra's allready been mocked and shot down by just about everyone in the forum. His eye sight and common sense problems are famous now.
 
Waited till you got off? :lol: You would see it anyway so why would it matter to me? Dont kid yourself live, I'm done now, I just saw that pic of the skyline and I had to post and compare it to the new pic, I had to! :P I agree, the 5 turbo pic looks better, due to the motion blur and the upgraded quality, but the gt4p pis is very close, very.
 
Originally posted by code_kev
Don't let him wind you up, cobra's allready been mocked and shot down by just about everyone in the forum. His eye sight and common sense problems are famous now.
Click to expand...
Your right, I should just ignor him.
 
Word of advise, dont ever base a game by screen shots, to me screen shots are very very deceiving, Most shots are low quality and some shots are high quality, To me depending on what type of tv you have they will always be diffrent, If you have a HDTV I bet it'll look 100 times better than and older tv.

I really really hate to say this and I know its all about opinions but havent you two been talking about screen shots for so long now? I mean I could choose not to read this but just thought id ask...

But all I gotta say is that everyone has there opinion, if you belive a certain shot is ingame then belive it, its great to give your opinion but its stupid to fight over it, You two could be here all day bashing eachother over something so small but yet not come to a conclusion. But let me ask you all, what do you think of this pic?
GT4_2.jpg
 
That pic looks in game to me, if it's not then it's been enlarged. But we really shouldn't keep this going over screenshots. And we haven't argued for some time now but we did argue over screens that turned out to be shots from GT4:P's opening movie before GT4:P came out. People must be thinking were married we argue on and off so much lol.
 
Yea im not on very often but yes it does look like you two are married lol, :D But for that picture thank you for your opinion but let me see what other people think about this picture... I totally agree with you, argueing over pictures are very pointless but seeing how what you said, "And we haven't argued for some time now" I wont bring up old news...
 
That's a nice gtc pic and yes, arguing over pics is stupid but if I think something is wrong, I wont sit down and let it flow.
 
Well thats all I wanted to know, is see if someone could see that it was a GTC picture...
 
Arwin, I hope you're not forgetting that most HDTVs, like mine, have de-interlacers, or "scalers", that convert all in coming video images to 480p, or better. Therefore, GT4 will not look better on my HDTV if it will have, or will not have, progressive output. Having progressive output within GT4, and having a HDTV with progressive scale conversion, is redundant. That's why Kaz said he wont have GT4 support 480p. There's really no need for it.

Then only people who can gain from GT4 supporting 480p output are those that have a TV set with regular-band, or high-band, component inputs, and no scaler.
 
I have a capture card in my old computer that for some reason can do great hi-res captures. So here are a few you've seen earlier but now hi-res. I didn't need to adjust contrast on this one either.

cittahi3.jpg


cittahi5.jpg
 
That's very similar in quality to what I have with GT3.
 
It is, Solid, I agree. But do notice the details. The brake lights are much more detailed now, the car is properly shadowed (previously only the whole car would become lighter or darker, now the shadows on the car are rendered properly), and the body surface and shine as well as reflection have become more realistic and detailed. You can see this particularly in the first image. But yesterday I was driving on Rome in GT3 and yes that looked great also.
 
Originally posted by Solid Lifters
Arwin, I hope you're not forgetting that most HDTVs, like mine, have de-interlacers, or "scalers", that convert all in coming video images to 480p, or better. Therefore, GT4 will not look better on my HDTV if it will have, or will not have, progressive output. Having progressive output within GT4, and having a HDTV with progressive scale conversion, is redundant. That's why Kaz said he wont have GT4 support 480p. There's really no need for it.

Then only people who can gain from GT4 supporting 480p output are those that have a TV set with regular-band, or high-band, component inputs, and no scaler.
Click to expand...

I don't believe this is correct. I have Digital Scan on my TV, which is a very similar thing - the TV has 480 lines and leaves the half-frame scanlines standing. However that still means every frame only half a screen is drawn, where with full 480p support it would draw a full 480 frame each frame. That is twice as much data being drawn resulting in a much more fluent and much sharper hi-res image on the TV (with very fast moving images the lines will pull away form each other).

I never read that Kaz said he wouldn't support it, but I can imagine he wouldn't, simply because I doubt the game engine has enough oomph to spare on the PS2 - it's already pushing it to its very limits.
 
I'm always amazed how people mistake those hi-res rendered images (concept art) for in-game captures and yet the difference in quality is like day and night.. ok maybe not that big difference :lol:
 
I must say Speed Drifter that I used to be really good at keeping them apart, but with GT4 it's becoming harder. But PD seem to be helping out - all the concept art seems to be in wallpaper format and all the screenshots have regular sizes. :lol:
 
Like me I wont belive it til I see it ;) but who cares great pics either way
 
Originally posted by Arwin
I don't believe this is correct. I have Digital Scan on my TV, which is a very similar thing - the TV has 480 lines and leaves the half-frame scanlines standing.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is correct. This has been answered several times in a home enterainment magazine I receive. It was also talked about at a HDTV web site, the address escapes me right now, so I know it is correct. I have no idea what Digital Scan is, beside what you have just described.


I never read that Kaz said he wouldn't support it, but I can imagine he wouldn't, simply because I doubt the game engine has enough oomph to spare on the PS2 - it's already pushing it to its very limits.
Click to expand...

I read an article, from PSM magazine, slash interview with Kaz, and they asked him directly. "Will GT4 support 480p?" His simple answer was, "No. But the 16x9 aspect ratio setting will return."

Remember, video games with 480p output benefits very, very few people. So, he wouldn't waste his time with it.
 
Originally posted by Solid Lifters
Yes, it is correct. This has been answered several times in a home enterainment magazine I receive.

I read an article, from PSM magazine, slash interview with Kaz, and they asked him directly. "Will GT4 support 480p?" His simple answer was, "No. But the 16x9 aspect ratio setting will return."

Remember, video games with 480p output benefits very, very few people. So, he wouldn't waste his time with it.
Click to expand...

There are two points here that don't fly. The first isn't your fault, but Kazunoris. See, at the time GT3 was released, very few people had Widescreen, but three years later this is a different story. I myself bought Widescreen partly because GT3 supported it so well. Who is to say the same couldn't happen with HDTV?

However, many games on the Xbox support progressive scan, where the PS2 versions of those same games frequently (not always) don't. I say it all comes down to performance, simple as that. I think Sony is happy though with the explanation given. ;)

And about how it works - you better read those articles again. I hope for the sake of those mags that you misread the articles. None of which are likely to have anything on the technical implications of progressive vs interlaced on video data rates in computer games by the way. :lol:

Mind you, I can wait for progressive scan support until GT5. PD did a great job with GT4 Prologue at optimising the interlacing so that it looks decent enough, and Digital Scan makes it look even better. But let there be no mistake about it, Progressive Scan would have been another step up.

I found a few links, this one explains it perfectly however:

http://www.panasonic.com/consumer_electronics/dvd_players/progscan.asp
 
Originally posted by Arwin
I have a capture card in my old computer that for some reason can do great hi-res captures. So here are a few you've seen earlier but now hi-res. I didn't need to adjust contrast on this one either.
Click to expand...
What capture card is?

Best home shots that I have seen. You use dscaler?
 
An old pinnacle. The output is in a 640x480 window, and it doesn't use the overlay the way other cards do. This means that although the pinnacle soft doesn't actually support snapshots, the graphics can just be captured with any regular screen capture method. I use PaintShop Pro, but the Printscreen button works too.

The important thing is not to capture a moving image, as the de-interlaced picture then starts looking like one of those images for modern 3d glasses. :lol:
 
Yes, a moving capture from a 60fps interlaced source is a hell, but anyway your static captures come very close to devs captures. Impressive quality for an old card.

At this quality you can make a good comparison between GT3/GT4 Pro. :p
 
While I had them lying around I thought I'd put these up as well. They're not as crisp as the other two, but not bad ... particularly in the second picture you can see the car started moving again. This causes the tiny out of synch lines that you can see most clearly at the curbstones.

cittahi7.jpg


cittahi8.jpg
 
Arwin, I read the link you provided, and laughed. Did you read the three big reasons why they feel having a progressive output DVD player is better than allowing a HDTV sets de-interlacer handle the job? Notice the key words. "We feel..." and "...might..." or "may..."? They are streaching the truth about DVD player 480p conversion to the limit, and have not at all stated it IS better. Do you know why they're trying to sell you something you don't need, if you have a HDTV set with a decent scaler? Money.

Ask yourself this. How much does a regular DVD player cost? How much does a DVD player with 480p output cost? How much does it cost a electronics manufacturer to add 480p image conversion into a DVD player?

Do you follow me? :sly:

I will end the following debate with this. DVDs from my PS2 look as good as digital TV shows that were aired in 480p. This would include HDTV shows that are repeated, and reaired in standard-definition (480p).
 
Originally posted by Solid Lifters
I will end the following debate with this. DVDs from my PS2 look as good as digital TV shows that were aired in 480p. This would include HDTV shows that are repeated, and reaired in standard-definition (480p). [/B]
Click to expand...

You only think the debate has ended with that. ;) Because standard movies are shot at 24 frames per second, a corrected HDTV rendering looks almost indistinguishable from a 480p image. If you have a PAL TV, your image is drawn 50 times per second. To render an interlaced picture with a resolution of 480 lines, that's more than enough as you can render 25 frames per second. For a 60hz NTSC TV, you are slightly more out of sync so you may get a few artifacts (which will be hardly noticeable unless your TV is extremely good and you pay very very close attention).

So, this far repeating the anti-hype is correct - the benefits of spending piles of dollars on TV and DVD players that handle progressive scan is not really worth the tiny percentage of hardly noticeable improvement.

This has however nothing to do with videogames. At this point in time, only videogames can and do fully exploit the advantages of Progressive Scan. A game like Tekken 4 or Soul Calibur 2 will produce 60 frames of full resolution images per second. If you watch this on a non Progressive Scan capable TV, it will display 60 times half images. Your TV may make them look good by deinterlacing that again, but because your TV now only gets 240 lines per frame instead of 480 lines per frame, your same hi-res image is refreshed basically at only 30fps. Additionally, the lines in a fast moving image aren't nearly as sharp as they would be with progressive scan mode, because lines that belong to say frame 29 and frame 30 are shown at the same time, and they will be slightly out of sync at hi speeds.

Since you have such a TV, why don't you grab a platinum game (like Tekken 4) from the shelves or rent one and give it a shot? It will be interesting to see if you notice a difference.
 
Back