MGS4 vs. GoW

[Paul2]

Originally posted by Soul Reaver
720p screenshot

That\'s why it\'s so damn clear.

the resolution its actually higher than 720p.  right click on the image and go to property and it will tell you the resolution of the image which is 2400 x 1467.  Divide them together and you will get its aspect ratio of about 1.64:1 while Xbox High Def is 1280 x 720p and the aspect ratio is 1.78:1 to fit the size of 16:9 widescreen tv.

Originally posted by EviscerationX
No it doesn\'t.

Hmm...my first impression is that it looks like a pre-rendered.  But its possible that it could be in-game.  If its ingame, they output the pic in 2400 x 1467 resolution for screen capture...because most hdtv don\'t have a resolution higher than 1920 x 1080p...and the aspect ratio is off too.

That led me to believe its possible pre-rendered/CG...

[Paul2]

As a comparison, you can see this pic from that same website looks more ingame.



the resolution is in 1280 x 720 and you can notice a slight jaggies on the statue arm.  There are certain area where the texture looks a bit flat.  But again, the game is stil early in development. Graphic for next generation console evolve so much that its quite hard to tell a different between ingame real time and CG.  But I do believe we will see graphic that will looks just as good as CG for XBOX360 and PS3.  Its just a matter of time.

You do know that this game is in development and I gave you a new screenshot from TGS right?

pic in question

[Paul2]

I don\'t know if the screen comes from TGS or not.  But its posted today on their website...

But...I just check all the pics posted on September 19, 2005 and guess what.  Some pics have a resolution of 2400 x 1467, while a pic have 1600 x 900 and another different resolution than 1280 x 720p.

Its possible that it could be ingame, but they make the image cleaner for capture and possibly added AA to reduce jaggies and output a resolution higher than 720p.  Like how some games pictures were capture off the ps2.  800 x 600 or higher with little to no jaggies for still images.  But when you play it back on ps2, its actually running on 640 x 480 with some noticeable jaggies.

There is nothing wrong with making the real-time images cleaner for capturing them.  Like removing the jaggies, if anything, it will make the picture look good without the jaggies and better detail so we can see the quality of the graphic.

[Paul2]

Originally posted by Soul Reaver
pic in question

LOL Soul Reaver.  i didn\'t know you that well before, but now...i realize you are quite a tricky person.

Did you save that pic and edit it in adobe photoshop or something and resize it to 1280 x 720?  BTW, its not even 1280 x 720...thank goodness you didn\'t change its aspect ratio to 720p...because i check the property and its said 1280 x 782...which is the same aspect ratio of the previous pic of ~ 1.64:1.

thanks for hosting the pic anyway.

umm no

I know the difference from 1280x720 and 1280x782, if I were going to trick people, I wouldn\'t mess up this bad.

Imageshack doesn\'t let me upload pictures over 1mb and rescaled it.

More screenshots.

[Paul2]

Originally posted by Soul Reaver

Imageshack doesn\'t let me upload pictures over 1mb and rescaled it.

:rolleyes: Who said anything about uploading the original pic which have a size of over 1 MByte?

Why bother?  When all you need is edit the original pic say in Photoshop and resized it and compressed it again in JPEG which judging by its resolution, it should be under 1 MByte or use higher compression if its over 1 MByte.  the image that was hosted is only 118 Kbytes in size.

oh my fucking god, I love how you doubt me.

save those pics and upload them over imageshack. see for your goddamn self

[Paul2]

I never hosted pictures on the web before so I don\'t know how it works...but i try several web addresses such as http://www.imageshack.com and stuff but it doesn\'t direct me to their webpage.  So, link me then.

Anyway, i guess you never uses Photoshop before...you can save the pic to your computer as it was posted in the website.  Then resize them in photoshop or other pic editing software.  Then save it as jpeg.  Photoshop let you choose the amount of quality you wanted to save it.  higher bitrate or lower bitrate.  And in this case, the 1280 x 782 was save using no more than about 120 Kbyte which is under 1 MByte.

I guess that\'s how you did it...

Why would I do that if it does it automatically?

http://www.imageshack.us

[Paul2]

I just upload a pic about 1.58 mbyte and it resize the pic and file\'s size down to about 280 Kbytes.  I read the common question there and it said you can actually host pic up to 3 Mbytes which i believe will be either resize either in res or file\'s size...

I just save the pic of GoW and upload it.  You are right, it did resize the pic automatically...and the res is 1280 x 782 indeed.

here is the link to the pic...



BTW, why did you do that for?

I don\'t steal bandwith and imageshack is a picture pit.

[Paul2]

Originally posted by Soul Reaver
I don\'t steal bandwith and imageshack is a picture pit.

What do you mean?  Why did you save those pics on imageshack when you can link them directly from the website?  Unless you wanted to keep them, otherwise I am not sure of the reason for that?