guys im really proud of all the work you are doing here. just 150 posts to go, we can do it!!

guys im really proud of all the work you are doing here. just 150 posts to go, we can do it!!

archbrix said:
Are you serious!? It's plain as day that there's only one tree in the second picture. |
Zero trees actually, if you want to get technical.
So which console has the better balance Leadbetter?
Captain_Tom said:
|
False.
If the actual output was 720p and 1080p being compared, YES it would be easy to tell the difference.
But when the output is the same, both 1080p, it is much harder to tell the native resolution and differences between native 1080p or native 720p.
For example, the images you were comparing from that Dualshockers article, were captured at those resolution's outputs. If the 720p image was captured after being upscaled with a very powerful scaler like in the Xbox One to 1080p, the differences would be far less noticeable.
But again, for the thousandth time, without any direct comparison footage, these random people would NOT be able to tell the difference between 720p or 1080p unless they were told what resolution it was.
nightsurge said:
False. If the actual output was 720p and 1080p being compared, YES it would be easy to tell the difference. But when the output is the same, both 1080p, it is much harder to tell the native resolution and differences between native 1080p or native 720p. For example, the images you were comparing from that Dualshockers article, were captured at those resolution's outputs. If the 720p image was captured after being upscaled with a very powerful scaler like in the Xbox One to 1080p, the differences would be far less noticeable. But again, for the thousandth time, without any direct comparison footage, these random people would NOT be able to tell the difference between 720p or 1080p unless they were told what resolution it was. |
Either way, this is a sign of things to come. I didn't expect it to be so blunt and right out of the gates already in the lauch games. And let me repeat - why pay more for a clearly inferior product? If XO was cheaper, I could see an argument here with the "you won't see the difference unless you put them side by side". But the way it is... Can't see any logic in getting XO as the primary console. This looks like a typical "wait till the price drops to approx. $200 and buy to catch up with the exclusives" situation. In my book in this gen it's PS4>WiiU>XO. A slight change in comparison to the previous one, but this clearly looks this way.
Wii U is a GCN 2 - I called it months before the release!
My Vita to-buy list: The Walking Dead, Persona 4 Golden, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, TearAway, Ys: Memories of Celceta, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, History: Legends of War, FIFA 13, Final Fantasy HD X, X-2, Worms Revolution Extreme, The Amazing Spiderman, Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate - too many no-gaemz :/
My consoles: PS2 Slim, PS3 Slim 320 GB, PSV 32 GB, Wii, DSi.
JoeTheBro said:
|
Yeah but good luck identifying far away ennemies with that resolution. Anyone play PS2 SOCOM online? You had to snipe bushes in the distance every now and then to make sure they weren't people...
It's that camera thats boosting the price, not the actual box. I don't think that was a secret.
Captain_Tom said:
|
Kinda off topic but something I've really wanted to look into is adaptive resolutions. Not dynamic like with Wipeout HD, Killzone Vita, or Dead Rising 3, but with the pixel density not being constant for the whole image. So like with your Socom example it would render a depth map at 1080p and then use that to determine what resolution areas are rendered in. Far away is 1080p density while closer things get a lower pixel density. Basically like adaptive tessellation, but with pixels.
Would it take up more system resources than it saves? Probably but why not.