JaggedSac said: Bitmap Frogs said: JaggedSac said: Yes, having a 585p image is not as good as a 720p one. So we're back to square one, upscaling and it's associated mathmagics are a croc of shit and NG2 visuals suffer because of them. Now that you wasted a whole thread on your interpolation pet peeve, it's time to raise my voice to how 585p is a misleading and wrong term.  Nope, your initial statement was that interpolation was "a croc of shit" I do believe.  I just proved your statement was a fallacy.  Interpolation helps to increase what would otherwise look crappy, look good on a large screen.  If you don't have a large screen, it does not affect you in any manner.

You just stated that NG2 rendered in a way that would make innecesary post-processing to bump up the pixel count would look better, which was my point to begin with. Interpolated images look fuzzy and muddy that's why 1:1 is always the best. 

"Interpolated images look fuzzy and muddy"

Really? Have you ever seen a dvd not interpolated, compared with one interpolated?

JaggedSac said: "Interpolated images look fuzzy and muddy" Really? Have you ever seen a dvd not interpolated, compared with one interpolated?

 I've seen plenty DVD's at their native resolution and they look infinitely better than blown out to 720p. 

I find interesting how you compare interpolation to its worst alternative, instead than comparing it to the best alternative. Grasping at straws to prove a point, arent we? 

Actually you always have scaling operations because the LCD screen normally has 1376*768 not 720p. While computer monitors really loose quality when upscaling TVs are very good at it.

If you do it well you do not loose any image information and the picture doesn't reduce quality at all. Its an interesting section of computer science visualization classes.
Of course an upscaled 640p image doesn't look as good as an native 720p image. But if the upscaling is good enough it will look just as good as a TV of the same size which had a native 640p resolution.

In this case you should invest in a good TV and player. I can attest to the fact that a DVD upscaled by my PS3 on a 32" LCD looks awesome. Not as good as a BluRay disc but significantly better than the similar sized SD CRT of my parents.
A cheap player and/or TV will result in exactly what you described a loss of quality.

Bitmap Frogs said: JaggedSac said: "Interpolated images look fuzzy and muddy" Really? Have you ever seen a dvd not interpolated, compared with one interpolated? I've seen plenty DVD's at their native resolution and they look infinitely better than blown out to 720p. I find interesting how you compare interpolation to its worst alternative, instead than comparing it to the best alternative. Grasping at straws to prove a point, arent we?

Actually when dvds are upconverted they are usually converted to 1080i not 720p and I guess you could watch it in native mode, which would cause the image to be small and introduce black bars on both the horizontal and vertical, but then what would be the point in getting a big friggin screen. I guess you should just watch movies on a PSP.

But what you fail to realize is that the developers obviously thought this through. They could either lose something in the game that needed processing power in order to bump up the res, or they thought that the upconversion was more than sufficient for the visuals they were looking for, and the gameplay elements they wanted. But either way it isn't the interpolation that is to blame. It would be the developers.

 

And thanks for more guys coming out to help me explain to him. 

So far all your explanations are just different ways of saying that upscaling processes reduce overall IQ but are an acceptable compromise in exchange for a big displaying surface. Which harkens back to my point, that interpolation is a croc of shit - you are just now trying to sugar-coat the turd. 

As far as the compromises the developers made everyone is aware - it's just that it isn't what we've been arguing about. Now that you mention it, it isn't making anything so awesome, it rather feels that their tools were outdated but since no one here has knowledge of their internal tools and engine, we will never know.  

And kyros, neither all TV's are 768 nor all force image resizing. I've also seen the upscaled output produced after hours of rendering in final cut/compressor and the artifacts are there. You shouldn't be assuming that different opinions come from lack of knowledge/experience but rather different criteria.

The problem is you have been saying that upscaling makes the picture look worse and you have compared it to zooming in on pictures. The problem is that is not the correct analogy you have to use the Resample function of image editing programs. Set the algorithm for example to bicubic and you will see that you do not loose any quality by upsampling. Its of course worse than rendering in the real resolution but its NOT worse than a lower resolution screen running in lower resolution.



99.999% of all 720p LCDs are 1376*768 WXGA. (Thats almost exactly one megapixel.)



??? You do not need hours of rendering just use photoshop or any freeware tool (Photofiltre) and use the Resample function and you will see that this doesn't make the picture worse. (/Than the lower res original again Upsampling cannot create details that do not exist of course)

Kyros said: So far all your explanations are just different ways of saying that upscaling processes reduce overall IQ but are an acceptable compromise in exchange for a big displaying surface. The problem is you have been saying that upscaling makes the picture look worse and you have compared it to zooming in on pictures. The problem is that is not the correct analogy you have to use the Resample function of image editing programs. Set the algorithm for example to bicubic and you will see that you do not loose any quality by upsampling. Its of course worse than rendering in the real resolution but its NOT worse than a lower resolution screen running in lower resolution. And kyros, neither all TV's are 768 nor all force image resizing. 99.999% of all 720p LCDs are 1376*768 WXGA. (Thats almost exactly one megapixel.) . I've also seen the upscaled output produced after hours of rendering in final cut/compressor and the artifacts are there. ??? You do not need hours of rendering just use photoshop or any freeware tool (Photofiltre) and use the Resample function and you will see that this doesn't make the picture worse. (/Than the lower res original again Upsampling cannot create details that do not exist of course)

 You should stop being a patronizing jerk and start reading the posts. I have *never* compared upscaling to zooming in, it's been the other poster who did. And as far as the effects of upsampling, what makes you think my FCS settings aren't properly set? now that's an arrogant stance. If you can't notice the fuzziness that comes with upsampling, the more power to you - but it's there. And about your teachers, I had teachers too in psycho acoustics claiming the human ear can't hear past what a CD contains and that's a bull load as well.

About the screen size, you've claimed that I am watching content upscaled to 768, which is something you don't know. Just because 99% of screens are, you assume I do? isn't there any other way to consume content? That's a buttload of assuming and inferring on your part. It's even more jarring that you assume that my opinion comes from poor experience/knowledge - guess college students are the peak of our society, huh?

Finally, you do need hours of rendering when working with video - but hey, if you didn't bother to understand the posts, why would you bother to check out what final cut or compressor are. Again, if you don't notice the effects of upsampling on image quality the more power to you - I have a lot of friends to whom the effects of chroma sampling, mosquito noise and other digital artifacts are invisible as well. 

disolitude said: Meh...I am getting it in less then an hour when my roommate comes home from work. Unless my eyes are sore from the horrible visuals...I don't see the point of this thread as game play is the meat and bones of Ninja Gaiden. None of the reviews I've read were complaining about the visuals so I doubt this will be the case...

hav;nt played the demo i honestly dont understand these comparisons gameplay aside this game looks awesome