Can Someone post Vf4 ps2 vs Naomi 2 comparisons

You guys should both drop it. JE-sus. The horse is was turned into glue months ago. 640 x 480 interlaced doesn't = 640 x 240. It damned sure doesn't equal 640 x 480 either.

The game definitely does look worse on a TV than that screenshot, and the screenshot definitely looks worse than the naomi 2 test pic, which in turn probably looks worse than seeing the game on an arcade monitor. Whether it looks worse is the ONLY thing worth discussing on a VF board. Techy arguments can go to general or to another site.

 

Ummm...it's my first time,so take it easy aight?

Anyway,I skipped the second page,but as far as I can tell,you guys were complaining about the "massive" and "glaring" differences between the arcade and the PS2 version...I've only seen pics of the PS2 version,so I really have no way of comparing,but hasn't anyone noticed that Sega-AM2 has never been able to create a near-arcade perfect port of VF to a home system? They've never been able to do it with their own systems,so it doesn't surprise me that they couldn't do it now either (VF2 saturn v.s. VF2 Model 2? BIG diff). Honesltly, as long as the graphical "problems" (I don't see it that way...to me,I think it's more of Sega trying their best to patch up the differences between the Naomi2 architecture with the PS2's,all without sacrificing gameplay...that's quite a difficult feat y'know.) do not affect the gameplay,then there should be no problem,right? Just my 50 pence. =D

 

but hasn't anyone noticed that Sega-AM2 has never been able to create a near-arcade perfect port of VF to a home system?

Erm yeah, a few people here and there have noticed =)

as long as the graphical problems ...don't affect gameplay
Well, graphical problem or not, in previous versions the less complex polys or less complex math for collision detection or SOMEthing did end up affecting the gameplay... a lot. VF2 for saturn is famous for whiffed attacks.

Aside from one off-the-wall guy, nobody's complained about gameplay differences on VF4, and to that extent, I agree with you. Perfect gameplay is worth more than a lot of griping.

I think the frustration is around because while we all knew that the saturn was not a graphics powerhouse (for its day), people kind of expect sony's new system to be able to handle more than it does.

 

You guys should both drop it. JE-sus. The horse is was turned into glue months ago. 640 x 480 interlaced doesn't = 640 x 240. It damned sure doesn't equal 640 x 480 either.

Yes, it does equal 640 by 240.
You see the basic data sent to a TV at 60 hz is 240 horizontal lines.
In normal video at 30 FPS, the TV re-assembles the two parts of a whole frame by interlacing them together.
With games that run at 30 FPS, it's interlacing data from 2 different frames, which is why it is a jaggy mess.
Darknight's comments are based on his assumption that a 640 by 240 game at 30 frames is not the same as a 640 by 240 game at 60 frames. They are the same, except for the fact that the former has its two fields come from the SAME framebuffer. In VF4 the two fields come from different framebuffers.

The arcade version in VGA form sends 480 lines per field. The arcade version in RGB video sends 240 lines that have been sampled from 480 lines.
The PS2 version sends 240 lines full stop. It does no filtering, or anything of the sort because the game is 240 lines originally.
The fact is the game is low resolution. If you think it isn't because your TV has a line doubler, or you sit far away from it, or you have smeared vasaline over the tube - that's your opinion, but it doesn't change a fact.
Games like Ridge Racer 5 took a beating on launch because they were essentially low resolution games and had jaggies etc.
Interlacing is nothing new. PS1 did it with games like Tekken 3, saturn did it with games like fighting vipers (albeit both at lower resultions than Vf4).
As Obi-wan said, "your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them"

 

See Creed gets it. You're the only one who doesn't. Either that or you just refuse to ever admit you could be wrong.

640 x 240 != 640 x 480i != 640 x 480p

They are three completely different forms of image quality. You either continue to confuse what field rendering is or just refuse to be wrong.

If 640 x 240 was the same as 640 x 480i, then there wouldn't be sync issues. The reason some games like Ridge Racer 5, and at certain times with VF4 have more jaggies than other games running at 60 fps is because the frame buffer is out of sync with the NTSC display. That is why sometimes 60 fps games look more jagged than others even though both are using the same field rendering method. By default the fact that an out of sync display can make a game look more jagged proves there is a difference between 640 x 240 and a game running at 640 x 480i using field rendering.

Lack of CRTC filtering doesn't automatically make a game low resolution. It just lacks the filtering. When in sync, it's unlikely you would be able to tell if the game is using a full 640 x 480 frame buffer or 640 x 240 frame buffer. Field rendering does not mean a game is 640 x 240 resolution. It's essentially the same thing as 640 x 480i. Don't confuse the data in the frame buffer as making the game low resolution because the frame buffer is only holding every other line of the image. If you were to display just the frame buffer, you would have only half an image.

I so hope that nobody is actually listening to the false information you're spreading around. You can complain about the lack of sync, the lack of filtering, the result of when it goes out of sync for a bit that there is more aliasing, but to call it half resolution 640 x 240 is absolutely false no matter how you look at it.

 

640 x 240 != 640 x 480i != 640 x 480p

They are three completely different forms of image quality. You either continue to confuse what field rendering is or just refuse to be wrong
When did I say that 480i=240? Can you read at all???
I said that 480i at 60hz is low resolution. It is low resolution.
Darknight's comments are based on his assumption that a 640 by 240 game at 30 frames is not the same as a 640 by 240 game at 60 frames. They are the same, except for the fact that the former has its two fields come from the SAME framebuffer. In VF4 the two fields come from different framebuffers.
That's what I said.

If 640 x 240 was the same as 640 x 480i, then there wouldn't be sync issues
No joke. Did I say they were identical? You can't read can't you?

The reason some games like Ridge Racer 5, and at certain times with VF4 have more jaggies than other games running at 60 fps is because the frame buffer is out of sync with the NTSC display
Rubbish. The frame buffer is only out of sync when the game slowsdown. When this occurs the game draws the existing game in the framebuffer multiple times until the game can re-sync to the TV's refresh rate. Normal Aliasing and jaggies are caused by the fact that the single frame (30 of which are drawn per second) is made up of two fields from different images from the framebuffer. You can't sync 2 frames if they aren't from the same framebuffer.

By default the fact that an out of sync display can make a game look more jagged proves there is a difference between 640 x 240 and a game running at 640 x 480i using field rendering.
No joke. I already said this in my previous post. It doesn't mean that both the 480i image and the 240 line image aren't both low resolution though.

Lack of CRTC filtering doesn't automatically make a game low resolution. It just lacks the filtering.
Resolution by definition is the amount of data present in a given space, usually defined by lines, dots per inch etc. A filtered image has MORE data present than an unfiltered image. More data (especially with CG) means less aliasing and jaggies. It's very obvious when you look at a game like TTT, comparing the Japanese version (no filtering) to the US version (filtering). The US version looks much cleaner and more detailed as it has more data and an effective higher resolution.

If you were to display just the frame buffer, you would have only half an image.
Again, you contradict yourself. If you were to display the framebuffer in the arcade version you would have 480 lines. If you did the same for the PS2 version you would have 240 lines. Have a wild guess which one is low resolution???

I so hope that nobody is actually listening to the false information you're spreading around.
Well, you persist in posting it, so the least I can do is correct you /versus/images/icons/laugh.gif

 

For those who hate AA problems, DO NOT play VF4 using S-video.. it makes the picture clearer n all but the the jaggies will be 2 times more visible!!

 

Re: Can Someone post Vf4 ps2 vs Naomi 2 comparison

I think y'all need to start doing things like eating, drinking and sleeping. Breathing some fresh air wouldn't hurt either.

 

Hi CIN, you are close, I am V3 brother /versus/images/icons/smile.gif He doesn't hang around here, he hang around some Japanese VF board and Korean board.

 

blah blah blah yes. My comment is that it doesn't equal 'just' 640x220.
You can't argue that plain old 640 x 220 (half a typical VF screen, or an entire one stretched to ugly proportions) is EXACTLY AS BAD as two 640x220 fields alternately displaying faster than the human eye can detect. This seems to be the thrust of your argument all along, that two interlaced screens that are designed to make 'faked' 640 x 480 res. is every bit as bad as plain half res.
It's not. It's just not good enought to fool anyone, because as you said it's a jaggy mess.

Someone on IRC mentioned that sony just released info on how to do progressive scan in PS2 games, it's a shame it's come just a bit too late.

 

Sigh... no one listened to me...

Dente lupus,cornu taurus petit...
The wolf attacks with his fang,the bull with his horn

The Lion with his index finger... /versus/images/icons/wink.gif

 

OH!!

It was because of the pics m8 /versus/images/icons/wink.gif He posted them on B3D so... /versus/images/icons/smile.gif

Why don't you tell him to read this post. I am sure he can solve this with some article on the net because I am fed up of reading the same argument everyday. They will not stop until someone posts some link or something.

Not to mention that it would be great to have someone who can report what happens on the other boards. But I am sure you can do that. /versus/images/icons/smile.gif

 

Hehehe Yeah CIN, but he told me that its no use talking to people who are close minded. I just give screens let people made up their own mind. /versus/images/icons/smile.gif

I know what's the difference, We have put the arcade and PS2 version side by side, and it sure doesn't look the same. Its not just the jaggies either, there are lots of other stuff.

People also forgetting that the main cause of jaggies, is because of lack of high resolution. If you don't want to see jaggies get a 1" LCD screen and play your VF4 and all your games on that. /versus/images/icons/smile.gif

 

Hey,I tried right?

The lion with the index finger is you,not me. /versus/images/icons/laugh.gif

 

Agreed m8 LOL