PS3 General Discussion
- Thread starter Solid Lifters
- 14,035 comments
- 814,609 views
- 6,009
- Austin, Texas
- D-Nitrate / GTP_DNitrate
As Toronado pointed out, those are stock shots from Wikipedia's listing for Bleemcast.
The reason the images look better are because the bleemcast emulator applies anti-aliasing and bilinear filtering to the original 320x240 graphics and then scales them to 640x480. Once again, while it is certainly true that programmed models can be scaled up more effectively then video, it is still scaling. Unless the developers, graphic designers, and programers added additional detail and models to create higher resolution images, then rendering them at higher resolutions is simply another form of scaling.
For instance, if you rendered that game in 1920x1080 resolution would it have the same amount of detail as a game programmed for 1920x1080? NO! Rendering can not create additional detail that was not originally programmed into the game. It will do its best at "filling in the gaps", but there is a big diference between that and a game that is programmed for that specific resolution.
Wikipedia: Bleemcast
Take a close look at the hood of both those cars. Clearly the red and white squares were meant to be sponsor logos, and yet because of the low resolution of the original graphics, the bleemcast emulator was not able to figure out what it was supposed to look like. On the other hand, as text is easy to improve, notice how much better the numbers and letters are. These are scaling attributes.
BTW: I assume you have faith that Todd Holmdahl, the Corporate Vice President of the Xbox Product Group probably knows a little more than you and I on how their Xbox consoles work.
BTW: Seeing more pixels means nothing... but you should already know that due to your vast understanding of these video technologies. That's what scaling does. It takes the original source resolution, say 720x480 which has 345,600 pixels and using very complex algorithms determines the best way to blow up the image to match the native resolution of the display, say 1920x1080 - which is 2.1 megapixels. Thus the display has 2.1 megapixels whether it came from a native source or scaled. They have the same pixel count, only that a native source will look much better than the scaled one.
Processors can improve PQ with MDDF (Multi-Direction Diagonal Filter), Anti-aliasing, Noise Reduction, Detail Enhancement, Cadence Processing, and of course, Adaptive Scaling. The better the processor, the better it will be at cleaning up the image... although it will never equal that of the same images captured in a higher defintion then those captured in a lower resolution and then scaled up. For example, with that bleemcast image, had the original game been programmed for 640x480 it would have more detail and less graphical imperfections as the bleemcast version.
PS: I'll appologize in advance for my harsh tone in this post, but I have a bad habit of responding to posts in a similar tone for which they were written.
For the sake of serenity, I'll not continue this conversation, but if you want to continue to discuss it in private, feel free to PM me.
The reason the images look better are because the bleemcast emulator applies anti-aliasing and bilinear filtering to the original 320x240 graphics and then scales them to 640x480. Once again, while it is certainly true that programmed models can be scaled up more effectively then video, it is still scaling. Unless the developers, graphic designers, and programers added additional detail and models to create higher resolution images, then rendering them at higher resolutions is simply another form of scaling.
For instance, if you rendered that game in 1920x1080 resolution would it have the same amount of detail as a game programmed for 1920x1080? NO! Rendering can not create additional detail that was not originally programmed into the game. It will do its best at "filling in the gaps", but there is a big diference between that and a game that is programmed for that specific resolution.
Wikipedia: Bleemcast
Brought out because it blew up the original resolution of the graphics by 400%. If the original game was designed to be rendered at 640x480 resolution, it would have looked MUCH better that the Bleemcast version for the simple reason that the graphics would have been created at that resolution, not "guessed" as they are when images are scaled.
Take a close look at the hood of both those cars. Clearly the red and white squares were meant to be sponsor logos, and yet because of the low resolution of the original graphics, the bleemcast emulator was not able to figure out what it was supposed to look like. On the other hand, as text is easy to improve, notice how much better the numbers and letters are. These are scaling attributes.
No, and done properly, it would be deinterlaced before scaling.
And where exactly did you gain your vast knowledge of all things having to do with film and video? Articles? Wikipedia? Posts on AVS? I could be wrong, but you did post about a month ago on how you just replaced your 15-year old Sanyo 27" 480i TV with a Westinghouse HDTV. I can't imagine anyone with a vast first hand knowledge and many years of experience designing or working on video technology whos best display, up until a month or so ago was a 15-year old Sanyo 27" 480i TV. No offense, but if you are going to paint your self as some kind of expert and that most everyone else doesn't have a clue, you better have some really impressive credentials to back that up.
BTW: I assume you have faith that Todd Holmdahl, the Corporate Vice President of the Xbox Product Group probably knows a little more than you and I on how their Xbox consoles work.
I think it's great that you have such a strong interest in video technology, but suggesting that most authors writing about video technology do not even know what upscalling actually is and that most people on this forum do not either is not only very presumptuous, but I believe many here would disagree with you wholeheartedly.Todd Holmdahl
Your eyes are not what is deceiving you, it is your understanding of why it looks better and your inability to accept that maybe you are mistaken is what is deceiving you.
BTW: Seeing more pixels means nothing... but you should already know that due to your vast understanding of these video technologies. That's what scaling does. It takes the original source resolution, say 720x480 which has 345,600 pixels and using very complex algorithms determines the best way to blow up the image to match the native resolution of the display, say 1920x1080 - which is 2.1 megapixels. Thus the display has 2.1 megapixels whether it came from a native source or scaled. They have the same pixel count, only that a native source will look much better than the scaled one.
Processors can improve PQ with MDDF (Multi-Direction Diagonal Filter), Anti-aliasing, Noise Reduction, Detail Enhancement, Cadence Processing, and of course, Adaptive Scaling. The better the processor, the better it will be at cleaning up the image... although it will never equal that of the same images captured in a higher defintion then those captured in a lower resolution and then scaled up. For example, with that bleemcast image, had the original game been programmed for 640x480 it would have more detail and less graphical imperfections as the bleemcast version.
I can live with that. We will agree to not agree and move on.
PS: I'll appologize in advance for my harsh tone in this post, but I have a bad habit of responding to posts in a similar tone for which they were written.
For the sake of serenity, I'll not continue this conversation, but if you want to continue to discuss it in private, feel free to PM me.
- 3,704
- 6,009
- Austin, Texas
- D-Nitrate / GTP_DNitrate
I just want to clear the air in the event it may appear from this thread that Jedi and I are needlessly butting heads, and that it may appear unresolved.
He sent me a remarkable PM after the dust settled, and from that I do believe we have a better understanding of why things escalated, for which we both accept some personal responsibility for. I deeply appreciate his efforts in a desire to find common ground to work on, and again, I apologize for escalating the situation, and unnecessarily making it personal.
I look forward to learning, sharing, and discussing various topics with Jedi as I do with so many other members on GTP, including those that I may disagree with from time to time.
PS: If I could give +REP to a PM I would give it to Jedi for being the better man and helping us find our common ground in an honest and mature manor. 👍
He sent me a remarkable PM after the dust settled, and from that I do believe we have a better understanding of why things escalated, for which we both accept some personal responsibility for. I deeply appreciate his efforts in a desire to find common ground to work on, and again, I apologize for escalating the situation, and unnecessarily making it personal.
I look forward to learning, sharing, and discussing various topics with Jedi as I do with so many other members on GTP, including those that I may disagree with from time to time.
PS: If I could give +REP to a PM I would give it to Jedi for being the better man and helping us find our common ground in an honest and mature manor. 👍
It's all good, D-N. 
I've been around the internet plenty long enough to know the difference between an a**hole and a simple difference of opinion. I have few "enemies" on the 'net, and I prefer to keep it that way. Especially over something silly.
To get back on-topic..
While a 300GB hard drive is certainly tempting, and would be quite useful for my PC, I seriously doubt I'll need it for a game console. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even need a full 20GB.
Speaking of which.. how much actual available space is there on the PS3's hard drive? The 360's hard drive, for example, has various system files and such that take up a fair bit of space (not to mention worthless pre-installed content), and you never actually get 20GB worth of use out of it. Is it the same way with PS3, or is the 20GB drive actually 20GB (and yes, I know the whole 1024-byte thing, but that doesn't account for the "missing" space on the 360's drive.. nowhere close).
And.. crap. There was something else I wanted to ask, but damned if I can remember what it was now. I'm getting too old for this.
Anyhoo.. I've been doing some "shopping around" a little for my upcoming purchase. Best Buy has no PS3s at the moment, said they get 'em every couple of weeks. There's about a ten-to-one ratio of 60s to 20s, which is going to make snatching a 20 somewhat difficult. Target says they haven't gotten any 20s at all in their last couple shipments, although they were the only ones I've seen who actually had any PS3s in stock, they had at least four 60s (I say "at least" because the little rack they had for them only held four systems, they could have had more in the back). I admit this is the first time I've seen an actual PS3 box in the flesh.
Rumors still abound that Sony is "phasing out" the 20GB system. While I don't believe it, I do know that they're harder to find, but I think it's just a matter of smaller quantity, and the lower price helps them disappear quickly whenever they come in stock. Sony can do whatever they want with the 20GB system... after I buy one.
I've been around the internet plenty long enough to know the difference between an a**hole and a simple difference of opinion. I have few "enemies" on the 'net, and I prefer to keep it that way. Especially over something silly.
To get back on-topic..
While a 300GB hard drive is certainly tempting, and would be quite useful for my PC, I seriously doubt I'll need it for a game console. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even need a full 20GB.
Speaking of which.. how much actual available space is there on the PS3's hard drive? The 360's hard drive, for example, has various system files and such that take up a fair bit of space (not to mention worthless pre-installed content), and you never actually get 20GB worth of use out of it. Is it the same way with PS3, or is the 20GB drive actually 20GB (and yes, I know the whole 1024-byte thing, but that doesn't account for the "missing" space on the 360's drive.. nowhere close).
And.. crap. There was something else I wanted to ask, but damned if I can remember what it was now. I'm getting too old for this.
Anyhoo.. I've been doing some "shopping around" a little for my upcoming purchase. Best Buy has no PS3s at the moment, said they get 'em every couple of weeks. There's about a ten-to-one ratio of 60s to 20s, which is going to make snatching a 20 somewhat difficult. Target says they haven't gotten any 20s at all in their last couple shipments, although they were the only ones I've seen who actually had any PS3s in stock, they had at least four 60s (I say "at least" because the little rack they had for them only held four systems, they could have had more in the back). I admit this is the first time I've seen an actual PS3 box in the flesh.
Rumors still abound that Sony is "phasing out" the 20GB system. While I don't believe it, I do know that they're harder to find, but I think it's just a matter of smaller quantity, and the lower price helps them disappear quickly whenever they come in stock. Sony can do whatever they want with the 20GB system... after I buy one.
- 3,704
I got my 20GB one @ wally world. I called around and asked BB, target and compUSA and all they had was 60's. I you know how to use ebay. I would do it there. Just think, you could get on for less than retail AND not pay any taxes. But, you would have to pay shipping.
If you need any help with it, fee free to PM me any time
If you need any help with it, fee free to PM me any time
- 2,706
- Dead_Poetic
- Jamal is Legend
Target must be a pretty good store to get PS3's from because our local one has had at least four in stock everytime Ive been there since early this month. And i go there fairly often because my girlfriend works there, and i pick her up a lot. Also, our bestbuy, which is right next to our target also has PS3's fairly often as well. I got to thinking about it, and i guess its because there are four stores in the same shoping center that all sell video games. (EB games, Target, BB, and a Play n Trade).
Also, I do agree that i have seen only a few 20 gb systems, while i have seen at least fifteen 60 gb ones. But, i have seen them. Still cant find any Wii's though...
Also, I do agree that i have seen only a few 20 gb systems, while i have seen at least fifteen 60 gb ones. But, i have seen them. Still cant find any Wii's though...
Yeah, I noticed that at Target.. the shelf where the systems go was empty. They had a fair few games, but no controllers, either.
I think I'll have better luck with the 20GB PS3 than trying to find a Wii.. hehe.
- 2,061
I honestly think that you should get a 60GB Jedi. The extra $100 isn't going to miss you, and I doubt you'll miss it. You'll get the added benefit of extended functionality via Wi-Fi and card readers. What you may not use today, you may use tomorrow, who knows.
But, if rumors hold true, the 20GB could disappear within 6 months...so who knows. If you wait it out, you may see a $50 drop in the PS3's price by December, provided Sony drops the 20GB (which is hurting them more than the 60GB).
Plus, you can't go wrong with space...it makes for a very entertaining and versatile experience. I have everything available on the PS Store, and I'm no where near full..I think the 20GB comes close if you get it all, from what I've heard.
But, if rumors hold true, the 20GB could disappear within 6 months...so who knows. If you wait it out, you may see a $50 drop in the PS3's price by December, provided Sony drops the 20GB (which is hurting them more than the 60GB).
Plus, you can't go wrong with space...it makes for a very entertaining and versatile experience. I have everything available on the PS Store, and I'm no where near full..I think the 20GB comes close if you get it all, from what I've heard.
- 2,706
- Dead_Poetic
- Jamal is Legend
- 1,579
In my opinion, no. Provided "on top of something else" means "on a flat wooden surface".
Jedi2016
Yes, this is true. Some receivers have a longer timeout than others, but I've never had a problem in-game. My Primare pre-amp likes to keep things quiet (apparently) and cuts out almost immediately when using the dashboard. A friend's Denon receiver is much more tolerant, and only cuts out after ~10 seconds of dead time. It seems that instead of digital silence, the PS3 cuts the signal altogether, leaving the (Denon/Primare/etc.) processor thinking you've disconnected the PS3.
Jedi2016
Yes:
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1111/ps3.htm
While that certainly is one of the better video processors on the market, the stand-alone processors leave much to be desired in terms of functionality. They all require audio connections (digital or analog) to sync the video correctly. In the absence of an audio connection, the processor tries to search for one, and you will observe the audio falling in & out of sync. Sometimes it's ahead, then it's on track, then it's behind...it wavers back and forth constantly.
The solution (according to Silicon Optix et. al.) is to use the stand-alone Realta-based processor as your pre-pre-amp, doing all the video & audio switching for you, then sending one video line to the TV and one audio line to the sound system. That works fine so long as you only have a few sources. The limited number of inputs (both video & audio) severely restrict a proper set up for anything more than 4 sources (or in the NEC's case, 2).
Great technology, horrible execution. While there is always some delay between the audio & video when using an outboard video (or audio) processor, that delay is almost always fixed. You only need to set it once, and be done with it. There's no need to constantly seek time correction. Just ask Faroudja.
- 3,704
Right now, I have all of the demos from the PS store, 3 music albums and about 5 movie on my 20. I have about 2.1 left on it, so im going to need a new one soon
Is there a listing anywhere of what's in the Store? Because I don't really see myself using the drive to store much of anything. A demo or two here and there, some movie trailers (all of which will be deleted once the game/movie comes out), GTHD.. that's about it. And the drive itself is upgradable on it's own. If I need one "down the road", I can just go buy one.
Memory cards? I'd just as soon use USB for that. That doesn't even require an extra purchase for my PC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you read music/pictures/video from a USB drive?
Wi-fi.. I see no reason to change to wireless. It offers no benefit, especially since I already have ethernet run from my PC to my entertainment center.
Memory cards? I'd just as soon use USB for that. That doesn't even require an extra purchase for my PC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you read music/pictures/video from a USB drive?
Wi-fi.. I see no reason to change to wireless. It offers no benefit, especially since I already have ethernet run from my PC to my entertainment center.
- 6,009
- Austin, Texas
- D-Nitrate / GTP_DNitrate
I think once you get it, you are going to realize how much more space than 20GB you are going to want. The upgrade route does looks very promising though.
That is all well and good if you have your ethernet cable running through the walls and with outlets in every spot in the house where you might move the PS3 to.
However, a lot of people move their consoles around to different displays, even to other homes. Also, a lot of people (especially spouses) do not like having cables running around the house... and then there is the added cost of ethernet cables and installing them in the walls if they are not there already.
I can tell you that the day I got rid of all the ethernet cables in my house and went wireless was one of the best days ever! I can use the PS3 in the theater, gameroom, and family room while connected to the network without ever having to need multiple 50' ethernet cables to my cable modem. Having a wireless connection to the PS3 would also come in handy if you took it to a friends house who uses WiFi.
WiFi was the primary reason I went with the 60GB version, but having a HDD 3x larger and a built-in card reader was a nice bonus. 👍
I'm not saying that the 60GB edition is the best choice for all consumers, only that there are some significant advanatges that are worth considering, especially when they only cost $100 more than the 20GB version.
I also agree though that by this time next year, 20GB PS3 owners could probably get an even bigger HDD, external card reader & external WiFi for $100... but in the end you'd still be spending the same amount as you would today if you bought the 60GB version.. and have the opportunity to enjoy the extras now, instead of waiting for next your to possibly add them on.
- 2,706
- Dead_Poetic
- Jamal is Legend
Personally, I have to agree. The $100 you'd save by getting the 60GB would require much more effort, and eventually you may need the features.
SD cards, Memory Sticks, and CF cards.
- 2,061
I'm not trying to say the 20GB model is a waste, Jedi, but I am saying you never know. It's very awesome for me to have my friends come over with their Digicams during parties or even just casual times and put hteir stuff up on my PS3 via the card readers. The WiFi is just as awesome, if only for the ability to remote connect via PSP. I don't have a PSP, but my buddie does, and it's really cool to be able to watch the vids I have on my PS3 while the rest of us do other things (like play other games on other consoles or watch TV). For instance, I have a ton of converted anime and TV Shows on my PS3, and he just streams them if he wants to check em out, we don't have to stop watching.
Then there's the Demo's, downloadable content, etc. I just think it's definately easier to use. And if you toss in the x-factor, being Sony eventually offering a Movie download service like MS, and IPTV, the PS3 has plenty of ways to use space. I just see it as a wise investment, since it's only $100.
Then there's the Demo's, downloadable content, etc. I just think it's definately easier to use. And if you toss in the x-factor, being Sony eventually offering a Movie download service like MS, and IPTV, the PS3 has plenty of ways to use space. I just see it as a wise investment, since it's only $100.
Ugh.
- 903
- Knguyen
I also thought the 20G version was the way to go before, but I end up getting 60GB version. The HDD space is like the kitchen cabinets, you always need more than you anticipate. The cards reader is great if you have a digital camera, looking at photos on the ps3 is better and faster than on a PC (at least on MY PC). I am also planing to transfer photos that I took during Photography I class and some of my cool videos to my PS3
- 2,706
- Dead_Poetic
- Jamal is Legend
Ultimately, its Jedi's choice, and i think that we have wasted enough time trying to convince him. Get whichever system you think better suites you.
- 16,736
- Southampton, UK
- Pebb--
- Pebb
Please use the real word, chrome trim around the Blu-Ray drive.
- 201
- Mount Pleasant, SC, USA
- Fnord
Not that anyone asked me ( ), but I bought a 20GB model and here's why. First, I didn't have any need for the card reader. Got a USB card reader already and it works just dandy on the PS3. Didn't have any need for the WiFi as I have Gigabit Ethernet wired down to my entertainment center and I don't have a PSP (if, at some point in the future I end up getting one, I'll cross that bridge, but right now it's not an issue). Finally, I can get a substantially larger 2.5" hard drive for substantially less than $100 and the PS3 will be perfectly happy with it. So that's my plan. Spend a little less than the $100 difference and get a much bigger hard drive.
Oh, and I prefer the black trim to the chrome trim.
), but I bought a 20GB model and here's why. First, I didn't have any need for the card reader. Got a USB card reader already and it works just dandy on the PS3. Didn't have any need for the WiFi as I have Gigabit Ethernet wired down to my entertainment center and I don't have a PSP (if, at some point in the future I end up getting one, I'll cross that bridge, but right now it's not an issue). Finally, I can get a substantially larger 2.5" hard drive for substantially less than $100 and the PS3 will be perfectly happy with it. So that's my plan. Spend a little less than the $100 difference and get a much bigger hard drive.Oh, and I prefer the black trim to the chrome trim.
- 6,009
- Austin, Texas
- D-Nitrate / GTP_DNitrate
Congrats on the new PS3!
It might be helpful if you clarified a few things in your post, for those that might be interested:
If you do know of some compatible PS3 HDD's, that are available now, that really are substantially larger than 60GB, and cost substantially less than $100 - please tell us about them, as I'm sure many might be interested. I know I would jump at the chance of adding a 180GB or larger HDD for under $35!
Even if they are not out yet, but announced, that would be just as helpful. Thanks!
It might be helpful if you clarified a few things in your post, for those that might be interested:
- By "can", do you mean now?
- By "substantially larger", how much larger?
- By "substantially less", how much less?
If you do know of some compatible PS3 HDD's, that are available now, that really are substantially larger than 60GB, and cost substantially less than $100 - please tell us about them, as I'm sure many might be interested. I know I would jump at the chance of adding a 180GB or larger HDD for under $35!
Even if they are not out yet, but announced, that would be just as helpful. Thanks!
- 201
- Mount Pleasant, SC, USA
- Fnord
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822116018
Well, I'd consider a 100GB drive "substantially larger" than a 60GB drive. And $80, while not being multiple times less than $100... $20 is still $20. There are probably better prices out there, but NewEgg is just a great place to buy stuff and they're usually not too far off on pricing from the shadier places on the 'Net.
Well, I'd consider a 100GB drive "substantially larger" than a 60GB drive. And $80, while not being multiple times less than $100... $20 is still $20. There are probably better prices out there, but NewEgg is just a great place to buy stuff and they're usually not too far off on pricing from the shadier places on the 'Net.
- 6,009
- Austin, Texas
- D-Nitrate / GTP_DNitrate
NewEgg is great, and thanks for the link. If you hear of any larger, less expensive drives, be sure to keep us posted. 👍
Similar threads
