By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
TheRealMafoo on 02 May 2008
Edit Thread
FJ-Warez said:
TheRealMafoo said:
FJ-Warez said:
TheRealMafoo said:
@FJ-Warez
In reference to your upscaling comment, the 360 does not upscale. It's native 720. I think native always look better then the best upscaling (I would think anyway), so while that might be true, it probably has no relevance in this case.

 Yeap, 360 does not uptscale, but the PS3 upscales and the final output ends up looking better, even with the AA in the 360 the PS3 version is more smooth, like I posted before the most reasonable explanation to this is the use of a real good upscale technique...(probably they are using a small amout of blur...)... If not, why most of the reviews are pointing to the softness of the PS3 version???


I would think explicitly telling each pixel what color you should be would always yield a better result then guessing. I would think the "softer" look is because of some other effect being applied. 


Did you read my post or are you just talking with yourself??

The softness of the image comes from "the upscale and most likely a blur filter",  this is why the image looks smoother and with better AA, is a nice trick to hide the jaggies and hide some lack of detail...


No, I am not talking to myself, I am talking to you :)

I think that if the image was native 720p, and then they applied whatever post processing techniques they are currently using to soften the image, it would look better then upscaling it and applying the exact same techniques.

I don't think upscaling (regardless of how good you do it), can alone produce a better image then starting there in the first place.

So if your saying that after it's upscaled, they use some blur process, and that's making it look better, then great, it's the blur process. I am just saying the upscale has nothing to do with it.