Wii could support hd.

[Sqrl]

Renar said:

Sqrl said:

sc94597 said:

I think the wii could pull of alot of those but maybe not all at high res.

Like I said one or the other, but not both.

Honestly, they will get better results from putting in the time to develope the techniques properly...especially if they can re-use the engine in other projects. And as I said higher resolutions are overrated by graphics whores. Thats not to say they are useless but they are given far too much credit when its not deserved.

Here is a decent example:

Crysis Pic Low Res 1200x800

Crysis Pic High Res 2560x1600

 

Which one looks better? Which one looks more realistic?

To my eyes at least the first one looks more realistic but you can see more detail in the second one. Which is what I'm trying to illustrate. With a game like Crysis where the detail is being properly rendered you can get some gain out of stupid high resolutions like 2560x1600..but even on a modest resolution it still looks stunning. A sort of diminishing returns to be sure.

Now honestly I think if you showed the pictures to people on the street the higher res pic would more easily be identified as a rendered shot. Now why is that? The answer should be obvious that it is the high quality BM on the leaves (and to a lesser extent in this shot the trees) with amazing lighting and shading techniques that would ring true for most people.

 

To me, both shots look beautiful. You're right that the hi res has more detail, but is it worth it? The white guy with the bit of stubble on his face looks good, but the black guy seems to have the pox. Or at best, you are looking at his face with a 100x powered microscope.

Where the low res pic fails (as such) is the extreme blurry-ness in the upper left hand corner and the same with the tree trunk that has fallen. But the same is true in the hi rez shot as well, such as the face of the 3rd man. Seems to me that both shots have a problem with where 'detail' blurs in the distance. It doesn't at 10 feet, or even that much at 50 feet. But this is a developer's issue, not the machines.

And like I said to being with, overall, both look very nice.

The blurring you see is intentional motion blur and is just another one of the tricks developers use to help make a scene look more realistic. There are two fundamental uses for blur, the first idea is that when you are observing objects in 3D space the objects you aren't focusing on should appear a bit blurry.

The second instance is when in motion by blurring the objects that are moving rapidly you hide any jumpy movements created by lower framerates. For example: If you are playing a game at 30 FPS and you whip your characters view to the right to turn around...the edge of a wall say 20 feet away might appear to jump 400 pixels per frame all the way across the screen without motion blur. But with motion blurring that edge has a blurred trail behind it as it moves across the screen and the effect is that your brain understands that the blurring is to indicate that the object moved across your field of vision and didn't simply jump there...its a subtle difference but one that can make 30 FPS look as smooth as 60 FPS with good motion blurring in the same game.

In short, the blurring is not only intentional but a very good thing. Granted it doesn't really look that great in a stillframe shot but the game is meant to be played in motion right?