Internal rendering tricks vs external video tricks, the last meaning playing with exotic resolutions and leaving the tv to adress them and is not going to happen. The first is often used in GT games to break the theorically barriers of what is possible with the hardware. You still seems to confuse the difference between a normalized video signal and all the internal programming "hacks" used to render the graphics.
I like how you keep trying to beat this down even after I clarified what I meant, twice. I also like how artfully you tried to spin what your post that I quoted meant, since you said the same thing you so strongly objected to me saying. I would have saved myself so much time if I just quoted that post immediately.
Let me know Tornado, are you googling your responses every time and using posted in other forum "theories"? that would explain a lot of mistakes and the lack of knowdeledge about the subject. Here for example I see almost a copy-paste of your last replies.
http://www.avsforum.com/t/513041/master-gt4-thread/90#post_5251711
I'm sorry. I must have missed the part where I said 480i looks about the same as 1080i. Maybe you could point it out to me?
I would also be more hurt by this accusation if it didn't come from someone who fact checks so little of his evidence that he tried to pass off a fabricated interview to slam the Forza series (then pretend that it was real anyway and that people calling it fake was a conspiracy) and posts YouTube videos as if by themselves they are arguments; among other things (two different "real multichannel environment" SNAFUs for example, or the differences between Lexus LFA models, or the difference between a paid advertisement and an editorial, or the GT5 framerate in the rain, or etc.). You
really want to play the "who has credibility" game with me?
I will also once again commend the skill displayed to avoid actually
commenting on what is said in the links, though; even though they attempted to explain how the game was doing what it was in the actual software. On the other hand, I'm kind of insulted that you think I would have been so flustered by the stick you swung that I wouldn't notice. Yes, I read a forum link on a Playstation 2 emulation forum detailing how GT4's rendering is done on a software level, and stated some of the things said their. Yes, I linked those forum posts in direct response to statements that you made.
You know why? Because your objectivity is so nonexistent that I'm automatically going to go look for outside information whenever you decide that you must act on incorrect information and throw yourself into a debate. And to this point it's paid off pretty well. Are you telling me that I made an error by attempting to fact check? Because that would explain a
lot.
Yes, the resolution changes on the fly it's the only reason of trouble on those tvs, and happens not because the game but because their video support is bugged or lacking. Those tv will have problems even with the resolution changes in any console menu or pc graphic card.
I was unaware that Polyphony Digital programming their game in a way that causes TV incompatibilities, both with contemporary TVs and modern ones, because it does something with its signal on a constant basis that no other input signal that I can think of would do, was not their fault.
Youtube degrade the quality, does not increase it. So the best example in yt can be used to reference what is seen in a tv, understanding that is going to look even better than that.
Why, if "look even better" isn't just the most conveniently vague thing ever. Though, again, glossing over the point that different quality levels on YouTube have different compression methods for video and audio was clever.
We are not comparing two different photos from two different systems, the photos are from the same tvs, with enought quality, with the same angles and taken with the same cameras to tvs with no display problems.
Swing and a miss. No, you're not comparing two different photos from two different systems. You're comparing two different resolutions on the same TV, even though it's well known that the very act of displaying content lower than a screen's resolution
is going to cause "display problems" on probably 8 out of 10 televisions. And you're showing pictures of that after they occur to prove a point. That quote was also relevant for another reason, because it came from a response you made in a discussion about this exact topic.
The results match every time with different tvs and users using this method.
Tell that to HBR-Roadhog. Or LeMansAid. Hell, if you'd like, I can scroll around GTP circa-2005 and pull up more people who didn't see this major quality difference; then you can tell them too. I might even find more posts by you on the subject.
You forgot on purpose the other deinterlacing methods? That is the most simplistic method of deinterlacing, I never seen a tv that use it as would mean loosing half of the actual image resolution on any interlaced tv emission.
Me saying that I think they use a specific method, then quoting the relevant passages from a link you provided, means
that? You should be a politician.
Even regular SD channels would look extremely bad and pixelated.
Um. I don't know how to tell you this, but SD channels
do look extremely bad and pixelated on an HDTV.
I hope that you are no trying to justify your GT4 theory of the 480p internal scaling and line doubling at 1080i with what could happen externally on a tv screen using a very cheap deinterlacer solution. That would be surrealistic.
So you haven't read... any post I've made that said that a TV doing the same thing would make a mess of it because of the cheap equipment they use. Good to know.
Sorry but calling a better pixel density "pseudo-antialiasing" sounds like another excuse or more proof that you don't know what you are talking about.
I didn't say that either. You know, for all the moaning you do for how people take your posts out of context after you've spent half a dozen of them burying yourself, you sure seem to like jumping on the slightest perceived verbal miscue. I'll read the entire sentence back to you:
"The most it will do is give a quick and dirty psuedo anti-aliasing effect, as shown in the image."
What does that mean? It means there are less jagged lines. What did the image show beyond all else, because the issues with upscaling wouldn't affect it so much? Less jagged lines.
Yes is does. A ntsc PS2 outputs by default a 720x480 tv signal from a 640x448 actually rendered image. Is new to you also what is an overscan and its purpose? ntsc images also appear squashed in a pc monitor and need to be corrected to be seen with the correct aspect ratio, as ntsc pixels are not 1:1 squared.
Is this badly deinterlaced example widescreen to you?
raw video capture (720x480)
PS2 overscan removed (640x448)
pixel aspect ratio corrected
And I know that the PS2 aside of the dvd playback don't output a widescreen sd resolution.
You know, I admit that I'm not the most familiar with capture cards since I've only used a friend's once; but if they work anything like the Hitachi camcorder with a video-in function that I used to have if you set one to record at 480 most will record the entire 720x480 frame
regardless of what is being input into them.
There is a difference between a tv scaling any of its compatible video modes to fill all the pixels on the screen and between a tv accepting, displaying and properly scaling any random resolution signal. Obviously with my reply I was referring to the last option as was the context of my initial reply to you because your vague: "and a TV upscaling an image that is less than half that;"
Obviously. Just as I'm sure it's obviously the case every other time the same thing has happened.
Though I'm certainly curious what's so vague about an entire series of posts talking about two resolutions, then mentioning 1080i specifically and comparing another one in the same sentence.
+1 and the above Vs Wipeout WHOLE tech specs.
I like how your definition of "whole tech specs" so conveniently leaves out anything not in your favor (but only after it has been pointed out to not be). Framerate? Not important. Actual output resolution? Irrelevant. The functionality being a part of the official Playstation 3 development kit?
Who cares. Gran Turismo 5 looks pretty, and because of that what PD did was "theoretically impossible."
You serious?
