dabookerman Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 You do? The resolution is different, so it makes sense that the textures must be different too, otherwise they would be stretched. the field of vision is different, not the textures. you just view a lot more on screen.
Hellfire Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 I have been schooled :P Thank you pedro and bookerman for the explanation.
Dante Posted August 31, 2006 Author Posted August 31, 2006 Ubisoft have ask sites to removed the images.
Bluejay Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 Somethings wierd about them, the hands first of all, strange wrinkly old man hands. A bit rough around the edges but it'll smooth out by the time it ships. EDIT: I looked at them again and they are clearly fake. The hud and the hands are stuck on. The hands look like hands from heretic on PC.
McMad Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 Somethings wierd about them, the hands first of all, strange wrinkly old man hands. Nope that's just how badly bump mapping can be used sometimes.
Jamba Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 Thats after hes mutated. He's meant to look all freaky
BlueStar Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 The reasons being given for these images being fake are some of the most ridiculous I've ever heard.
Jamba Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 The reasons being given for these images being fake are some of the most ridiculous I've ever heard. So why so you think they're fake?
goku21 Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 did´nt you guys get it that the lighting on wii only works in motion!?!? The madden-screens look crappy but the video from jeux-france( pretty high-def) looks really nice, and everythkng because of shadows and lighting. BWii ..the same! Metroid ...the same! hammer... ... i bet it´s the same here...
BlueStar Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 So why so you think they're fake? I don't - it's possible, but not for the reasons people have been coming up with.
xernobyl Posted September 1, 2006 Posted September 1, 2006 You do? The resolution is different, so it makes sense that the textures must be different too, otherwise they would be stretched. I don't want to be picky but THE RESOLUTION IS THE SAME. The aspect ratio is diferent. I'll try to explain visualy. Above you can see 3 images. Each of the images has it's own aspect ratio (16/9, 16/10, 4/3=16/12). The resolution of each image is 320x200 (known by all as resolution 1337 ), which has an aspect ratio of 320/200 = 16/10. That means that the middle image has square pixels. The others would have exactly the same size, but different pixel aspects. I should have used 320x240 that has an aspect ratio of 4/3 (and would look more normal to you). There's also the font problem. If you notice the font has exactly the same size (pixels) in both 3 photos because your screens have square pixels. Wide screen CRT TVs do not have square pixels. Most LCDs have square pixels... blabla bla... Just try to find de differences Edit: I hope you like the photo. It's mine.
DCK Posted September 1, 2006 Posted September 1, 2006 I thought that DVDs output in 852x480 and the Wii would do too. The 480p standard only really says that you need 480 rows vertically, and horizontally you're free to do whatever you want. For square pixels that means 640x480 on 4:3 and 852x480 on 16:9.
xernobyl Posted September 1, 2006 Posted September 1, 2006 I thought that DVDs output in 852x480 and the Wii would do too. The 480p standard only really says that you need 480 rows vertically, and horizontally you're free to do whatever you want. For square pixels that means 640x480 on 4:3 and 852x480 on 16:9.No, that's not true. 480p is 720x480@30 (DV NTSC). 576p is 720x576@25 (DV PAL).
Blue_Ninja0 Posted September 1, 2006 Posted September 1, 2006 No, that's not true. 480p is 720x480@30 (DV NTSC). 576p is 720x576@25 (DV PAL). Those @30 and @25 are not FPS, right? I know that's the TV emission standards, but a videogame console can output way more than 30FPS, or am i missing something? 640x480 at least it's the maximum resolution a SDTV does, unlike 320x240, wii even goes the extra mile supporting real 16:9 at 853x480. And i still think Pedro is right. True that most of the times we see standard resolution but used in a different aspect ratio (16:9), but i think what Pedro said exists.
Bogbas Posted September 1, 2006 Posted September 1, 2006 Those @30 and @25 are not FPS, right? I know that's the TV emission standards, but a videogame console can output way more than 30FPS, or am i missing something? Yes it means the fps. The console can do more and probably does, but the tv won't show anything beyond it's refresh rate.
Blue_Ninja0 Posted September 1, 2006 Posted September 1, 2006 Yes it means the fps. The console can do more and probably does, but the tv won't show anything beyond it's refresh rate. You'r not telling me that i played Smash bros melee and Time splitters on my gamecube in 30fps, are you? Because that would be a lie. But probably i did not fully understand what you meant.
Cube Posted September 1, 2006 Posted September 1, 2006 Yes it means the fps. The console can do more and probably does, but the tv won't show anything beyond it's refresh rate. But, it refreshes itself 50 (or 60) times a second. Wouldn't that mean an fps of 50 (or 60)?
Bogbas Posted September 1, 2006 Posted September 1, 2006 But, it refreshes itself 50 (or 60) times a second. Wouldn't that mean an fps of 50 (or 60)? Precisely. That's why there's the 60Hz option. And to make myself clear, I meant that normal tv broadcasts are at 25fps and 30fps. Nothing to do with games. I guess I could've explained that better the first time, but I was busy playing css
pedrocasilva Posted September 1, 2006 Posted September 1, 2006 And i still think Pedro is right. True that most of the times we see standard resolution but used in a different aspect ratio (16:9), but i think what Pedro said exists.It exists, instead of scretching a SDTV image into a 16:9 ratio... the image can be rendered in 853x480 (square) pixels, that's not SDTV anymore though, but EDTV (enhanced definition). It's also true though, that PAL's standard resolution isn't 640x480... But 720x576, that represents a total of 20% pixel increase. The resolutions we always talked about are the NTSC native ones, because that's the only guidance info we have. I'm not even "that" informed about what resolution GC outputs in europe, I dunno even know if those "high resolution" N64 games w/ expansion pack ran at 720x576 in europe. Or if they were just upscaled or whatever. considering: NTSC SDTV 640x480 ~ EDTV 853x480 then: PAL SDTV 720x576 ~ EDTV 1024x576 I doubt Nintendo will stress the Wii further pushing more resolution like that, but I also doubt that europe is gonna be limited by a 16:9 non-anamorphic option, while Americans are getting square pixels options for their HDTV's, so my bet is that we are going to be using 853x480 as well. We are reaching a standard though, all the TV's sold in US today can display PAL and have been like that for years, same for TV's sold in europe, we're actually trading features, like now there's PAL @ 60Hz. When GC launched here we didn't get progressive scan because there wasn't a standard for europe, but... what we adopted is actually something with the same resolution as NTSC. that means... instead of our equal to a 1280x720 TV being 1536x864 we actually have the same resolution (hurray). EDTV should be a option for HDTV's anyway, as no CRT TV offers that resolution. and for HDTV's we have a standard 1280x720 and 1920x1080. Also 853x480 is a perfect -50% than 1280x720, thus... 50% scretching, pretty nice, heh? Nice old articles: -> http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Articles/PALvsNTSC/PALvsNTSC.asp Conclusions * PAL is a higher resolution format for DVD than NTSC. All else being equal, a PAL DVD of a movie should look significantly better than the equivalent NTSC DVD. * If a PAL version of a movie DVD is not 16x9 enhanced and the NTSC version is 16x9 enhanced, then the NTSC version will be the preferred version, all else being equal. * For video-based material, it is generally better for the DVD to remain in the same format as the source material. NTSC has less resolution, yet if NTSC is enhanced whereas the PAL isn't... then NTSC is simply better. -> http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Articles/16x9Enhancement/16x9Enhancement.asp -> http://www.projectorcentral.com/video_signals.htm (EDTV part is interesting)
Blue_Ninja0 Posted September 2, 2006 Posted September 2, 2006 I doubt Nintendo will stress the Wii further pushing more resolution like that, but I also doubt that europe is gonna be limited by a 16:9 non-anamorphic option, while Americans are getting square pixels options for their HDTV's, so my bet is that we are going to be using 853x480 as well. We are reaching a standard though, all the TV's sold in US today can display PAL and have been like that for years, same for TV's sold in europe, we're actually trading features, like now there's PAL @ 60Hz. Man, i hope they don't screw our PAL Wii's widescreen mode. If that means stressing too much of Wii, couldn't they just give us the NTSC true widescreen instead of the PAL true widescreen? The gamecube used our PAL resolution (reduced a bit in 60hz mode) wich is bigger than the NTSC and no problems were detected during cube gameplay. Can't they do the same with the square pixels 16:9 to the PAL version? Maybe the difference is not that big. I'm just pissed of that possibility because i'm getting an HDTV wich means widescreen. Also, i hope they really standardise everything. This adaptation work they have to make is just more to help PAL games getting delivered even later by NOE. And i thought that HDTV's were already standardised all over the world (1280x720 and 1920x1080) but it seems America and Europe are getting different resolutions again.
xernobyl Posted September 2, 2006 Posted September 2, 2006 Just rembember that there are standards, and it will work on your TVs the best the engineers can make it work. Don't try to understand how it works, unless you study electronic engeniering
pedrocasilva Posted September 2, 2006 Posted September 2, 2006 Man, i hope they don't screw our PAL Wii's widescreen mode. If that means stressing too much of Wii, couldn't they just give us the NTSC true widescreen instead of the PAL true widescreen? The gamecube used our PAL resolution (reduced a bit in 60hz mode) which is bigger than the NTSC and no problems were detected during cube gameplay. Can't they do the same with the square pixels 16:9 to the PAL version? Maybe the difference is not that big. I'm just pissed of that possibility because i'm getting an HDTV wich means widescreen. Also, i hope they really standardise everything. This adaptation work they have to make is just more to help PAL games getting delivered even later by NOE. And i thought that HDTV's were already standardised all over the world (1280x720 and 1920x1080) but it seems America and Europe are getting different resolutions again. I don't believe they'll support a unexisting (or unused) EDTV PAL mode, and considering EDTV is a middleterm between SD and HD they ought to keep the same ratio, so I believe that Wii will output 853x480 is most games. they won't leave it out of europe like last time because this time there's a standard for progressive scan and there's actually a standard for HDTV's. As for GC, that might be just upscaling, there's a lot of PS2 games that actually run internally at 576x432 (I believe) or less and are upscaled from the framebuffer to the TV at 640x480. Zelda Wind Waker actually uses supersampling 4x which means technically it's being rendered internally at 2560x1920, that's what gives out that pastel look without jagged edges, as the big image without anti aliasing is sampled into a much smaller one for output. About America and Europe getting diferent resolutions again... we are getting the same resolutions chill out I'm actually pretty satisfied with 853x480p as 1280x720p only has 50% more pixels, it's effectivelly a pretty nice middleterm between SD and HD. they spare a bunchload of graphics power and RAM doing this.
DCK Posted September 2, 2006 Posted September 2, 2006 If all 480p devices output 640x480 you should be able to see that when watching a dvd, but you don't - it looks as sharp as regular TV. All pixels are filled, and the Wii will do that too.
Blue_Ninja0 Posted September 2, 2006 Posted September 2, 2006 About America and Europe getting diferent resolutions again... we are getting the same resolutions chill out I'm actually pretty satisfied with 853x480p as 1280x720p only has 50% more pixels, it's effectivelly a pretty nice middleterm between SD and HD. they spare a bunchload of graphics power and RAM doing this. mmm, you sure? In that case weren't the PAL HDTV's supposed to have like 1280x720? Then why do they have 1366x768 around here? Or are the NTSC ones equal? Maybe this is a stupid question: Wii will probably look better in a 720p HDTV than in a 1080p HDTV, right? Because there's less upscaling work needed to display in a 720p TV.
Recommended Posts