Quantum Tarantino - I'm gonna continue this where you left off quoteing me. YOU have yet to say anything agianst what I am saying... other than insulting me, calling me a idiot and saying for me to go and do some research. YOU go buy a 1000$ camera, a 800$ lens, and get a job taking pictures.

Film = greater than digital EVERY time $800 lens is chump change, $1000 camera is beginner/amatuer level. I HAVE said things against you. YOU dont know what you are talking about, in the LEAST. your vaunted 1080P display has 2million pixels. THe cheapest ugliest 35mm print has over 3 million, and good quality *read* HOLLYWOOD, over 13 million 1080P is nothing resolution for film, and HDTV doesnt compare to film in the least. You are posting OBSERVATIONS of OUTPUTTED QUALITY. You SHOULD be discussing SOURCE. the SAME scene filmed on 35mm FILM, will ALWAYS look better, than if it were fiolmed on 1080P Digital HD equipment

Source... film = better End product. Digital = better. When I pay 10$ to watch a movie... I want what looks best. Not what the best source is. 800$ lens is cheap? would you be happy if I list you a link to a 40,000$ camera? (this is not a motion camera guys. This is a photograph camera)

So, if you take a 4096x2400 picture, and downres it to 1080P it gets better?

your not understanding my point. The film used in a theater projector is NOT the film they use in cameras. It is NOT the ultra high quality stuff. Source = ultra high Film in regular movie theater... is low quality. I'm not saying the film they use in their 3million dollar cameras sucks. I'm saying the film... that the theater uses... is NOT 'ultra high quality'. It is actually. LOW... Lower quality than 1080p.

I think he does since he said 35mm reel is the film they use to project onto the screen

Wow, guys. I think we need to take a deep breath before posting here.

I think this would qualify as an example of flaming. Even if you're right (and I think you are), this kind of personal attack is uncalled for. Anyway, back on topic... Kwaad, from your reply, it sounds like you mean to say that porting a 360 game to the PS3 is less expensive than porting it to the Wii. That makes more sense than what I quoted when I said your logic was screwed up, so I can now retract that remark. I don't know if I necessarily agree, but it makes sense where you're coming from now. I think there are two ways to bring a game to the Wii: 1) Drop the more complex shaders, reduce texture resolution/quality, etc. Shoehorn in a control scheme. Easy, cheap, and makes the Wii version of the game inferior (but the only choice if you don't own a 360/PS3). 2) Rewrite the graphics engine, optimizing it for the Wii (still won't look as good as 360/PS3 version, but will look much better than option 1). Spend some time testing ideas for a control scheme, perhaps find something that works really well, and refine it. Now the Wii version might be worth considering OVER the 360/PS3 version, if you value control over graphics. Option 2 obviously takes more effort, but produces a much better result. I think it depends a lot on what kind of game it is as to whether or not option 2 is worth considering. Publishers will look at it as a simple investment vs. reward equation. Will they sell more copies by going with option 2? Will it cannibalize sales of the 360/PS3 versions? (Probably not much, if at all.)

There is a third option which developers may choose if the Wii is popular enough ... 3) Design game around the Wii's technical requirements, produce higher quality assets (more detailed models, higher resolution textures, advanced shaders) for use on the PS3/XBox 360 version

Option2 is what they will choose. That is why I say it would cost 2million to make the Wii port. Take Doom3 for example... and turn off bump-mapping. The game looks DAMN near similar to Quake3. If you build the game around the Wii, you would have to build a NEW engine. As the Wii's generic 'power' is in no way compatible with PS3/360. (both are multi-core/threaded, with Monster graphics chips) The Wii would come 2nd (afte PS3/360) and would be the cheapest way to make the game, and get good sales.

With your Doom 3 example ... There was an interview with Jon Carmack where he said the Gamecube should be able to run Doom 3 as well (and in some ways better) than the XBox was ... Oh yea, and the Gamecube supported Bump Mapping in hardware ...