PS3 is hurting!

[Firestreak]

This is by the way, why we see movies that are in the uncanny valley not trying to portrait real humans anymore. Notice all the movies now are either about animals, toys or people not trying at all to look real, just very good looking 3-D cartoons.

 

[Bajaratt]

You're talking about the uncanny valley.

When things fall into a category of looking so close to human, but with a quality of it not being alive about it, it creates a feeling of strangeness. This is because it will remind people of a corpse. For this reason, when developers pass through the uncanny valley phase, they'll need to make the characters not resemble humans. (littlebigplanet)... This phase can be passed through, however. As you can see from the graph, once the image becomes better than the uncanny valley it continues to grow.

Wow, it only took you about 3 months to get the concept, I'm shocked. Now, connect the dots with what I've been saying for months now and you get the point. Come on, don't miss it for once.

 

[Marajade]

Wow, it only took you about 3 months to get the concept, I'm shocked. Now, connect the dots with what I've been saying for months now and you get the point. Come on, don't miss it for once.

So which side would you rather be on? Because only 2 of the 3 console out right now can make it across the uncanny valley. Can you connect the dots and figure out which?

 

[Bajaratt]

So which side would you rather be on? Because only 2 of the 3 console out right now can make it across the uncanny valley. Can you connect the dots and figure out which?

None of them are going to make it across, the difference is that Nintendo isn't even entering it.

 

[Firestreak]

You aren't going to get photorealistic people on any platform rendered in real time. The valley has been passed however in terms of pre-rendered visuals. If you look at 6 years ago, what was cutting edge, the FF movie Spirits Within, that was inside of the valley. Almost passing through, you've got the Animatrix: Flight of the Osiris. Today, prerendered images will pass off as real, breaking through. On PS3, you aren't going to get photorealism.

But I never claimed that, I said it's the direction that PS3 and 360 are taking us. the benefit we get today is that anything that's not alive... pretty much can look real. Anything that's a fictional creation can look real, like a dragon, a chimera, whatever. Environments look very real. The dolls in Littlebigplanet look real. I get enjoyment out of how well the PS3 can render the FF13 tech demo and the videos I see of FF13. Their characters aren't trying to look exactly, "real" and as a result they look as if they're real for their own proportion. Will the PS3 be able to one day render "real people" as if they're photorealistic? We'll have to see. Look at FFX and then look at God of War 2. that's PS2 at beginning against PS2 at the end. Now look at FF13... will it be able to pass the uncanny valley when developers tap into the cell fully? Probably pass the uncanny valley, but I doubt get to photorealism.

 

[Tagrineth]

I get enjoyment out of how well the PS3 can render the FF13 tech demo and the videos I see of FF13.

You mean the target renderings? =) Mmm, target renderings. Everyone <3's them, especially until the real product comes out and they feel like tards because it doesn't look as good as the target did.

Psst... those videos... are target renders... psst

 

[Firestreak]

If the machine can run it then the machine can run it. We're talking about the PS3's future not present. Back in 2005 we got a taste of the PS3's rendering power with a bathtub full of rubber duckies that looked absolutely real with a live demonstration that Harrison was actually controlling the duck. I'm confident that Square can make good on their ambitions to bust open the power of the cell and do some serious awesome with it.

Psstt.. Tagrineth... you're a... douchebag... with no useful information except PS3 trolling... pssst.

 

[Tagrineth]

No useful information? How about all those times I've corrected your uninformed gibberish about HDTV... for being so hopelessly enamored with it, you sure don't know a whole lot about it.

Among other things.

Besides, Baj seems to be doing fine in here for now.

 

[Marajade]

No useful information? How about all those times I've corrected your uninformed gibberish about HDTV... for being so hopelessly enamored with it, you sure don't know a whole lot about it.

Among other things.

Besides, Baj seems to be doing fine in here for now.

Such as your claim about 60 half frames being the same as 60 full frames?
60x.5=30

 

[Lanien]

Such as your claim about 60 half frames being the same as 60 full frames?
60x.5=30

You can't think of it in terms of an equation. Stop throwing out numbers that really have nothing to do with it. Learn how it works first.

 

[Skaw]

Such as your claim about 60 half frames being the same as 60 full frames?
60x.5=30

So if someones running one of those dual video card setups and they're getting 60 FPS, can we claim they're only getting 30 since only half a frame is displayed at a time in each half of the display screen?

 

[Lanien]

So if someones running one of those dual video card setups and they're getting 60 FPS, can we claim they're only getting 30 since only half a frame is displayed at a time in each half of the display screen?

I have a feeling that Mara will say 120, because ... ya know ... 60 x 2 = 120. :nono:

 

[Tagrineth]

Hi PS3 tards:

Quit jacking off to your progressive scan for a sec and learn some facts about TV standards, because neither of you knows a goddamn thing about them.

Thank you.

Interlaced does not look as good as progressive, but you're still seeing 60 discrete images per second, not 30.

 

[Firestreak]

If half the image changes then half the image changes. It doesn't matter particularly how they organize the change until it becomes so good to the point that the human eye cannot tell the difference, which we're nowhere near. The fact that we won't notice what it is that's wrong exactly with the image doesn't mean we won't notice that twice as much is being pumped into the frame changes making the transitions twice as smooth.

It's like saying that a 1080p signal is no better than a 460 because they don't take a corner piece of the image and just delete the rest. Sure, the 460 image is just the 1080 image downscaled, and i and still p downscaled. Either way, you're pumping in less information to the screen, be it less resolution, detail of the image or less lines... most importantly... HALF the lines of transitional information. Transitional information is important you know... it's what makes movies movies instead of photos.

What's funny is you thinking you're explaining to me how interlaced vs progressive works when I've been trying this whole time to dumb it down for you so you can understand the difference. HALF the information gets transfered. I know they don't skip every other frame. I know they don't switch off which halves they flip. I know they arrange it so it's discrete as possible, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because anyway you do it, it's still half as smooth because you're transfering half the information. All they're doing is arranging it in such a way that retarded people like you can defend its exclusion as more than half as good.

The fact is it's pretty dumb to go all the way to 1080 just to have an interlaced signal, of course it's easy to downplay the importance of what you don't have.

 

[Tagrineth]

"I'm trying to dumb it down" LOL, nice evasion.

"Interlaced is 30 frames per second.
Progressive is 60 frames per second." ~Firestreak

"You cannot do progressive in anything except PS3. This means all motions on a PS3 with HDMI are 2X smoother as oppose to on any other system where every other frame is skipped, including Xbox with HD DVD attachment for move watching." ~Firestreak

"PS3 offers 60 frames per second... nobody else does." ~Firestreak

"Progressive is also a question of the cable from which you're transferring through not just the video card of the machine, and who is the only machine with an HDMI out?" ~Firestreak

"You're really stretching logic to hate on the PS3 to say that half the screen changing is no different than the whole screen changing, it's just a trick on your eyes that the screen appears to be changing every 1/60th of a second if you look at the screen as a whole." ~Firestreak


So according to you, Interlaced is 30fps only, Progressive absolutely looks twice as smooth, PS3 is the only console that can display 60fps output, HDMI is required for progressive scan, and anything that downplays the perfection of progressive scan is a direct insult to the PS3.

Newsflash for Einstein: My Wii can display progressive scan with Component cables. WHERE'S YOUR GOD NOW

 

[Firestreak]

Interlaced is not actually 60 frames per second. It's 60 half frames per second. That's 30 frames per second. Just like if you take your Wii and take it from a 27 inch screen then stretch it on a 50 inch screen, you're not getting any more resolution, you're just stretching.

Also to point out, I don't know about Wii being able to output in progessive, but I do know it's not passing the 460 barrier.

 

[Bajaratt]

Interlaced is not actually 60 frames per second. It's 60 half frames per second. That's 30 frames per second. Just like if you take your Wii and take it from a 27 inch screen then stretch it on a 50 inch screen, you're not getting any more resolution, you're just stretching.

Also to point out, I don't know about Wii being able to output in progessive, but I do know it's not passing the 460 barrier.

Wii can do 480p, so yeah, it can do high def too for the 5% of people with HDtv's that actually care about that kind of thing.

 

[Firestreak]

Iz a typo.

 

[Tagrineth]

Wii can do 480p, so yeah, it can do high def too for the 5% of people with HDtv's that actually care about that kind of thing.

but u kno, w/out hdmi liek wii cant posibly do pro scanz! m i rite?

Interlaced is not actually 60 frames per second. It's 60 half frames per second. That's 30 frames per second. Just like if you take your Wii and take it from a 27 inch screen then stretch it on a 50 inch screen, you're not getting any more resolution, you're just stretching.

This is such a gross oversimplification it's ridiculous. I hope you realise that.

Yes, interlaced scanning is inferior to progressive scanning, but it isn't anywhere near as clear cut as "30 frames" vs "60 frames". You're still seeing 60 discrete images! Can you get that into your skull or will I have to say it four MORE times for it to click?

 

[Shyrra]

Holy shit has this thread degenerated into a less-than-intellectual discussion! You're all a bunch of douchebags! that's my solution.