@MikeB

Quote:

Virtua Fighter 5 for the PS3 (official release date 8th of February for Japan?), interesting to note the game supports "TrueHD", aka 1080p.

Probably not to hard since (with the exception of Dragonball Z:Budokai Tenkaichi 2) fighting game environments are very small and don't have to be streamed from disk...

@BrianK

If you don't like the HMV promotion, it just regards 5000 units of 220,000 PS3s which should be available for the UK Launch. So people are free to buy the PS3 somewhere else.

@ Lou

Quote:

environments are very small and don't have to be streamed from disk.

Yep, that's what I said in another thread. Some games are easier done in 1080p than others. Lair would be by far more difficult, with its incredible huge areas of gameplay and with so many things going on in the distance. IMO developers will gradually learn to get more and more power out of the PS3, middleware will improve and more and more games will render in 1080p natively.

Some more interesting Gof of War 2 - PS2 screenshots (1280 x 1024):

http://www.tothegame.com/screenshot.asp?id=5149&page=1

I think it's very likely 'God of War 3' for the PS3 will be running in 1080p.

@MikeB

Quote:

Some more interesting Gof of War 2 - PS2 screenshots (1280 x 1024):

I hate screenshots from developmental renders, because that's what they are, PC renders, and not what it will actually look like on the PS2. I saw lots of "screenshots" from Splinter Cell, Red Steel and LoZ:TP for the Wii done @ 1280x960 and that is not what was shipped.

This goes for all marketing: show me a game running on actual hardware or atleast state that it's a PC render.

@MikeB

Quote:

Yep, that's what I said in another thread. Some games are easier done in 1080p than others. Lair would be by far more difficult, with its incredible huge areas of gameplay and with so many things going on in the distance. IMO developers will gradually learn to get more and more power out of the PS3, middleware will improve and more and more games will render in 1080p natively.

Wow, so, three and a half threads later, you state what I was saying all along. Cheers!

_________________

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Tigger Quote: They'd have the same lawsuit against HD-DVD (and DVD for that matter), when DVDs first came out, they were all 1 layer, now you never find a single layer DVD for a Hollywood movie So are you argeeing the studioes published numbers, though they may be best case, that are accurate? I simply repeated those numbers, if my numbers are pretty far off in the real world it's because Blu-Ray's advertisements haven't reflected the real world. I'll find and use #s in the future that run around the false advertising and better reflect the actual.

Best case is relative Brian, I dont know how much math you want me to go into, so I'll try and make this simple and bring a little of the amiga into it. CD32 with the FMV will play VCDs, thats about 70 minutes per 600 meg CD. Take the same footage and compression and put it on a DVD (which is legal according to the DVD group) and you have have about 540 minutes, put the same video format on a Blue Ray and you have 2800 minutes or so. HOWEVER, in reality, most DVDs use D1 video with an Mpeg2 compression scheme and so we end up with about 1.5 hours per layer (4.7 GB) and when we get to the HD schemes we have both HD-DVD and Blu_Ray using 2 layers for there 2-3 hour movies (which is 30 GB or 50 GB depending on what format we are talking about).

Quote:

It is silly to not do backups, though no one said not to. It is annoying to have to split into 20 minute pieces but why not use an alternative method? How much raw video would 1.5TB of harddrive work for you? For the price of burner + first 25GB disc you could get that solution.

The burners are dropping $50 - $100 a month, my pricelist for this month has them at $600 including shipping and a couple of disks, the media price is expensive at $13 in quantity but thats going down as well. I'm not ready to jump into one right now, but its liable to be down to $5 a disk by mid summer at which point its as cheap or cheaper then a HD and much easier to store, etc. And the drive is liable to be $300 or so by then as well. There is a big discussion on most of the editing sites about HD vs DVD/Blu_Ray as backups for digital tape. The concensus is that if you have alot of room (at two different sites) then HD are great. I have a couple 1000 backup DVDs on the wall, eventually they will be Blu_Rays, I keep some of my big customer stuff on a couple of 250 GB HDs in external SATA cases and everything I'm currently working on (or likely to be workig on) on the internal 4 TB, but HD for me take up too much room (and are too bothered by temperature) for me to use them as my only source of backup for video, in addition coming up with a 2 locations for backup HDs is a much bigger issue then a DVD case for a 100 or 200 DVDs.

Quote:

There has already been over 300 HD-DVDs announced for release in 07. And if HD-DVD didn't push this at CES they need some better marketing.

But over 2/3 of those are being released on both, a dual release for Blu_Ray is a loss for HD-DVD, they need exclusive movies or its all over, and they dont have the studios they need to do that. Disney+Sony+Fox+Lions Gate is alot more exclusive movies the Universal, as I said earlier, 3 of the top ten on HD-DVD, 9 of the top 10 on Blu_Ray (everything except KK), if you are buying a format for movies, Blu-Ray has more titles available total, and has more exclusive titles as well.
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 05-Feb-2007 at 07:53 PM.

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Tigger

Quote:

The burners are dropping $50 - $100 a month, my pricelist for this month has them at $600 including shipping and a couple of disks, the media price is expensive at $13 in quantity but thats going down as well

Great! As I said things need to go down and will go down. Blu-Ray pricewise isn't the best option this second. NewEgg typically has decent prices their burners are $600-$830 depending on model. Best Buy is $750.

Quote:

I have a couple 1000 backup DVDs on the wall, eventually they will be Blu_Rays,

Of course one thing to consider is the seperation of data. Say 1 project is 4GB and fits on a DVD and now you have 6 projects on a 25GB Blu-Ray. You lose 1 disc does one want to chance losing 1 project or 6? Again it just simply depends on the end user's need. I'm not against anyone using what they believe works best for them so go for it. Considering Joe Average user and migrating to Blu-Ray today to burn backups appears to be the most costly answer. The story will be more compelling if the prices hit your predicted levels this summer. My thoughts are on your average user which clearly do not have 1000 backup DVDs.

Last edited by BrianK on 05-Feb-2007 at 08:46 PM.

@AMiGR

Quote:

Wow, so, three and a half threads later, you state what I was saying all along. Cheers!

Must be nice to have a selective memory, a recollection of our first 1080p discussions:

Quote:

AMiGR wrote: @MikeB Quote: Microsoft execs claimed: ""I think 1080p, just to address that directly, will be basically impossible. " and "64k ought to be good enough for anyone". Amazingly now there already is a game supporting 1080p,, while receiving some raving reviews. I understand your reservations though, 2,073,600 pixels, or 1920x1080 resolutions at 60 Frames per second, just sounds too amazing. Personally I didn't think they would have been able to pull it off with any of the launch titles, considering the short amount of time developers had access to the final specs of the hardware. Mike, if the XBox 360 GPU can't handle 1080p with all details, the PS3 one certainly can't. This has nothing to do with using weird SPEs or anything, it's about GPU technology that has been on the market for quite a while and has been exploited quite well in the PC world, it's not about unknown technology.

MikeB wrote on 14-Nov-2006:

Quote:

@AMiGR Sure it's possible. The difficulty of supporting 1080p really depends on the complexity of the game. Virtua Tennis, another game which will support 1080p is less complex than a top title FPS game, so I don't think that would be hard at all. Before thinking anything is impossible, people would probably not believed you during the mid eighties if you explained future A500 games, like the visuals and complexity presented in a game like Lion Heart (thousands of colors, many multiple scrolling layers running at full speed on a 7 Mhz CPU / ECS chipset). IMO nobody should underestimate developers.

@Lou

Quote:

I hate screenshots from developmental renders

I don't if pointed out these are dev renders, as this also shows what kind of resolutions they are working with while developing the game (the development environment's resolution seems have been higher than 720p - 1280 x 720). This game will look great @ 480p though. AFAIK the only PS2 game so far able to actually output 1080i (@ 640 x1080) graphics has been Gran Turismo 4, although technically the PS2 is able to output 720p as well.

Last edited by MikeB on 05-Feb-2007 at 09:43 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 05-Feb-2007 at 09:17 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 05-Feb-2007 at 09:15 PM.

@Thread


WHO GIVES A ####ING TOSS


Can this thread please be confined to an area where it does NOT appear on the front page of this website every day ?

We visit this site to see AMIGA news.

Moderators please take note. What does this have to do with anything Amiga at all ?

Please remove this thread from the frontpage.


Bill.

@BillE

Probably Amiga Inc and Hyperion:

"Hyperion Entertainment hoopt het nieuwe besturingssysteem ook aan te passen voor de PlayStation 3. De Cell-processor in de nieuwe console van Sony is gebaseerd op PowerPC-technologie, dus technisch is dat mogelijk. Voorlopig is het PS3-plan toekomstmuziek, geeft Carton toe: "Er moeten nog enkele technische en juridische obstakels uit de weg worden geruimd."

Totdat het OS mag draaien op de PlayStation 3, blijft het potentiële publiek van AmigaOS 4.0 dus beperkt. Carton denkt voornamelijk aan hobbyisten en nostalgische computergebruikers die wel eens een Amiga-emulator afstoffen. "Mensen die zich de tijd nog herinneren dat je een computer zoals een tv in een handomdraai kon uitzetten door gewoon op een knop te drukken." AmigaOS 4.0 moet in het voorjaar beschikbaar zijn, tegelijk met de nieuwe hardware."

Translation of the first paragraph listed above:

"Hyperion Entertainment hopes to adjust their operating system for the Playstation 3. The Cell processor in Sony's new console is based on PowerPC technology, so technically that's possible. For now this is future talk, acknowledges Carton: "There are a few technical and legal obstackles to be taken care of."

http://www.zdnet.nl/news.cfm?id=64015

Carton is the guy in charge of Hyperion, the company which leads the AmigaOS4 project.

Last edited by MikeB on 05-Feb-2007 at 09:32 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 05-Feb-2007 at 09:31 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Must be nice to have a selective memory, a recollection of our first 1080p discussions:

Must be nice to be able to selectively quote something out of a discussion lasting several pages. Maybe you should have copies and pasted one of the tens of posts in which I nicely and simply told you what I thought about this issue. Reread the posts: I said that rendering as many polygons with as many effects at a higher resolution is more demanding than at a lower one and as such, making an incredibly complex game that is running in 720p run in 1080p *without* trimming *any* details or resorting to still rendering some effects at a lower resolution, etc, might not be possible.

Quote:

ep, that's what I said in another thread. Some games are easier done in 1080p than others. Lair would be by far more difficult, with its incredible huge areas of gameplay and with so many things going on in the distance. IMO developers will gradually learn to get more and more power out of the PS3, middleware will improve and more and more games will render in 1080p natively.

This is your quote, which is exactly what I was saying all along. So, unless if you have miswritten the above quote, I would suggest you read what people tell you a bit more carefully next time and I would suggest you give me an apology for making me go red in the face rewording the same thing 40 times only for you to state it yourself 3 threads later. Thank you.

_________________

@AMiGR

Quote:

might not be possible

An improvement, so to make the glass half full instead of empthy, you may just as well state "might be possible".

Quote:

This is your quote, which is exactly what I was saying all along. So, unless if you have miswritten the above quote, I would suggest you read what people tell you a bit more carefully next time

This was at the very beginning of the whole 1080p debate and before you got all upset. What I stated above is a correct quotation you can look up for yourself. In theory 1080p can display more details, that's a given fact (you can try this with many games on the PC), provided the device is powerful enough. I said that I think future 1080p games may very well outshine, complex 720p games when developers got to work more with the PS3. I said as was the case with later Amiga games such as Lion Heart or Elfmania (or with regard to the c64 Turrican 2 would be a good example) we will not see the PS3 pushed this hard from the beginning.

In 2005 at AmigaWorld I predicted initial games will not be pushing the hardware and may even run slower (like initial Atari ports to Amiga), I also predicted some (especially PC ) developing companies will not like the fact that they will need to learn new ways of developing (SPEs) to really push the hardware.

Motorstorm will be amazing at 720p, but if this game would have been started now and delivered next year I believe an even more amazing 1080p version may well become possible.

Quote:

an apology for making me go red in the face rewording the same thing 40 times

I am sorry, but I think you may have overlooked or misread my statements (quoted here) at the very beginning of that whole debate months ago.

Last edited by MikeB on 05-Feb-2007 at 10:33 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

An improvement, so to make glass half full instead of empthy, you may just as well state "might be possible".

So you weren't reading indeed, in your attempt not to agree with anything I say on the matter.

Quote:

This was at the very beginning of the whole 1080p debate and before you got all upset. What I stated above is a correct quotation you can look up for yourself.

Oh, you mean before I clarified what I meant, like, 40 times? Or did you just read the first post and then disagreed with all consequent ones on principle? It would explain this whole mess.

Quote:

In theory 1080p can display more details, that's a fact, provided the device is powerful enough.

Er, yes, exactly what I've been saying, *BUT*: The device never has unlimited power, you can create a 720p game that is utilising the hardware to such an extent that there's no chance in hell you can scale it up (AND scale up all effects in it) to 1080p, which is also a fact. I could go on and paste links to every single post where I posted this but I leave this up to you. Theoretically, if you have a device with unlimited power, the amount of details you can display will scale up linearly (ignoring anti-aliasing) as the resolution gets higher. However, since you *never* have unlimited power, you find that you get an overlap: You may make the GPU render so much in a lower resolution that scaling up makes it go off the curve. I could plot a simplified graph to demonstrate my point but only if you yet again refuse to listen... At least it will show the rest of the AW.net population what I mean.

Quote:

I am sorry, but I think you may have overlooked or misread my statements (quoted here) at the very beginning of that whole debate months ago.

Or maybe you did misread mine, because you are not the only person to "receive PMs", not to talk about having chats on IRC about threads.

_________________

@AMiGR

Quote:

Er, yes, exactly what I've been saying, *BUT*: The device never has unlimited power

And I didn't claim this to be so and precisely stated this myself at the beginning of that debate, but like developing companies admit there's a lot of untapped potential.

On the PC games rarely max out the real potential of a system, this is mainly due to ever changing configurations and hardware combinations. With regard to consoles this is not the case, so with God of War 2, after almost 7 years after the PS2's release, we will see the console pushed unlike ever before.

You seem to believe that more effects will always result in ever better looking games. I think that's not actually the case, if your game looks amazingly realistic adding more unnecessary effects may actually result in a less realistically looking or an uglier game, just like women don't become increasingly pretty the more make-up they use.

At some point it may well be better to up the resolution rather than adding any more effects.

Last edited by MikeB on 05-Feb-2007 at 11:24 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 05-Feb-2007 at 11:22 PM.

Quote:

BrianK wrote: Of course one thing to consider is the seperation of data. Say 1 project is 4GB and fits on a DVD and now you have 6 projects on a 25GB Blu-Ray.

Yeah but that doesnt really happen to me or anyone in my business. DV footage is 12GB per hour, so if I'm backing up my raw footage from Tape (because tapes are slow and can go bad), I end up putting each 1 hr tape on 3 DVDs, or each 2 hr tape on 6 DVDs, I usually shoot 3 or 4 tapes for an event, so I end up making 24 DVDs for the backup, then duplicate them (usually twice) so I have 72 DVDs for a show, one set goes to storage on my wall, second set gets stored at the studio, third set usually goes to the customer.

Quote:

You lose 1 disc does one want to chance losing 1 project or 6? Again it just simply depends on the end user's need. I'm not against anyone using what they believe works best for them so go for it.

Blu-Ray Recorders now are being bought by videographers for the most part, they are using them for backups and for making Blu-Ray disks for sale. Two or three of the movies at Sundance this year were actually done on Blu-Ray and then put onto film.

Quote:

Considering Joe Average user and migrating to Blu-Ray today to burn backups appears to be the most costly answer. The story will be more compelling if the prices hit your predicted levels this summer. My thoughts are on your average user which clearly do not have 1000 backup DVDs.

First of all your above arguement was real popular in 2001 when the DVD-R started hitting the market, why would you use them for backup, CDs are cheaper and plenty big. They were cheaper, but they werent plenty big, and now they arent much cheaper. Even with Blu-Ray if I want to backup SD uncompressed D1 video, I only get 20 minutes of footage, if I use it for uncompressed 1080P, I get 2.5 minutes if I'm doing the math in my head right. Thats enough to deliver most FX loops, but barely. I like the though of putting a whole tape onto a Blu_ray and not having to put 3 or 6 pieces back together so I can reintegrate the project. DVD is better then what I had to do with CDs or Tape for the Flyer, DB32 or even the early Barney board, but not a perfect solution.
- Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@MikeB

Quote:

At some point it may well be better to up the resolution rather than adding any more effects.

We haven't been in disagreement about this.

However, consider that you rarely have fewer effects in games - just more subtle effects.

You're perfectly right that sometimes going to a higher resolution will be fine - and none of us have argued against that - but in most cases (such as Resistance: Fall of Man) you just need to stick to 720p to get all the effects you need.

@MikeB

Quote:

You seem to believe that more effects will always result in ever better looking games. I think that's not actually the case, if your game looks amazingly realistic adding more unnecessary effects may actually result in a less realistically looking or an uglier game, just like women don't become increasingly pretty the more make-up they use.

Depends on your definition of an effect. The advanced texturing (normal mapping etc) used in most recent engines is essentially an effect, most things used to make graphics look more realistic or cinematic are effects. The whole point of using effects correctly is to make polygons look like more than what they really are. The polygon count of the impressive monsters in any game using normal mapping, for instance, is in reality rather low.

_________________

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: I don't if pointed out these are dev renders, as this also shows what kind of resolutions they are working with while developing the game (the development environment's resolution seems have been higher than 720p - 1280 x 720). This game will look great @ 480p though. AFAIK the only PS2 game so far able to actually output 1080i (@ 640 x1080) graphics has been Gran Turismo 4, although technically the PS2 is able to output 720p as well.

PS2 and Gamecube games were done in CodeWarrior on PC's. Obviously the Xbox was programmed in Visual Studio...on a PC. They *almost* always use higher resolution screens and textures when developing games then scale them down to what the final hardware can actually render. Quality titles anyway. This is why it's a joke to me about "development costs" going up. As an artist, you don't draw on a 640x480 screen. You draw with pen and paper and then scan or on a touch tablet on a hires display.

It's a joke to me than now the downscaling isn't as large and games like Gears of War's single player mission is only 10 hours long and things like "multiplayer" and the associated maps, which have been free on the PC for years, are a "next-gen" titles key selling points. The same applies to PS3 titles and "next-gen" in general, so don't take this as just a 360 knock. $60-$70 for a 10 hour single player mission is a joke.

Now back to my regularly scheduled World of Warcraft questing FTW!!! :

@AMiGR

Forget trying to get some sense from MikeB's replies. I don´t know if it is because the fever of the money he expects to get selling his holy black bricks, or the rational problems he is showing so obviously thread after therad: He is unable to read properly and carefully NOTHING. Neither his posts, nor the other's ones.

@Lou

Quote:

$60-$70 for a 10 hour single player mission is a joke.

I like that games don't take ages to play through. And if they're as good as Gears of War I'll play them several times (most likely in co-op with different friends on- or off-line) - and then go online and play against others.

Quote:

Now back to my regularly scheduled World of Warcraft questing FTW!!!

Now see there´s something designed to waste your money. Not only do you pay for the game - you pay continually no matter how much you time you have to play the game. And everything in the game is designed to take a long time, so you keep playing the game and play the monthly fee.

Luckily I realized that fairly early before wasting any more of my money - too bad it wasn't till after I already paid for a 6 month subscription to a terribly boring game

Last edited by Trezzer on 06-Feb-2007 at 01:57 AM.