Sega says the Saturn is maxxed out. (was Re: Psygnosis says PSX is maxxed out.)
Slam
Nobody's, Perfect wrote:
>
> In article <5g4dbk$r...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>, shok...@ix.netcom.com says...
> >
> >If you also remember Psygnosis and Sony aren't the best of friends,
> >either though.
>
> Doesn't Sony own Psygnosis? So essentially, Sony's in-house coders
> admitted PSX was maxxed out.
>
> > However, Psygnosis will still produce for Sony. The
> >PSX can't be maxed out now...look at the S-NES it took about 2-3 years
> >for that to be maxed out...i.e-Donkey Kong Country.
>
> Namco says Soul Edge is using 95+% of System11's power.
> (Translation: PSX is maxxed out)
>
> Psygnosis says WipeOutXL is pushing PSX to its limits.
> (Translation: PSX is maxxed out)
>
> Sony won the support of 3rd party developers by making PSX
> am easy machine to code for. The downside of PSX's ease of
> development was that it would max out quickly.
Is the PSX maxxed out? Doesn't seem like it to the game programmers.
The graphics in PSX games have been steadily improving, from Ridge
Racer, Tekken 1, and Wipeout to Wipeout XL, Crash Bandicoot, Soul Edge
and Rage Racer, there has been a steady improvement in the graphics in
PSX games over the last 2 years.
The Saturn, on the other hand, seems as though it has been maxxed out
for a year or so now. Compare Sega Rally, Virtua Cop 1 and VF2 of last
year to Daytonna CCE, Virtua Cop 2 and FMM. Not much difference,
really. In fact, many people believe the graphics of FMM are worse than
those of VF2. And compare third party games on the Saturn last year to
this year....again, I can't see any difference. Saturn games have had
the same look to them as everything released after VF1 and Daytonna.
Hardly any improvement in Saturn games over the last couple years. And
here's why:
The Saturn is supposed to have more processing power than the PSX.
Unfortunately, no one has been able to figure out how to use all of this
mysterious power. Something as basic as true light sourcing, a staple
of even third party PSX games, is only present in about 4 Sega produced
Saturn games. All of these wonderful DSP chips, hidden processors, etc
that are supposed to be in the Saturn...all for nothing. Wasted.
Sitting there unused. You say the Saturn has more power than the PSX?
Who cares, if it's never used?
I've seen claims that the the best Saturn game has only used 60% of the
Saturn's power. Too bad we'll never see a game that uses 100%. If AM2
can't figure out how to program the thing, no one will. Even VF3, the
game that could have finally shown the true 'power' of the Saturn,
requires the 64X upgrade. If the Saturn isn't maxxed out, then why is
Sega going to the 64X?
Sega should hurry up and release the 'Black Belt' hardware sooner than
late 1998 if they want to remain a force in the hardware business. If
they hurry, they can make a early to mid 1998 release practical and give
the third parties enough time to start making games. Hopefully they
will since for all practical purposes, the Saturn is maxxed out.
Ed Giangrande
>The Saturn, on the other hand, seems as though it has been maxxed out
>for a year or so now. Compare Sega Rally, Virtua Cop 1 and VF2 of
last
>year to Daytonna CCE, Virtua Cop 2 and FMM. Not much difference,
>really. In fact, many people believe the graphics of FMM are worse
than
>those of VF2.
Wow... you really must be blind if you think that...
something tells me you should actually try playing VC2... CCE has been
in question but in reality I don't think it is totally fair to compare
an AM3 game to AM2's original.. it would be IMOP like Sony trying to
make Wipeout XL instead of Psynostics... FMM has a lot that Vf2
doesn't, namely a ton more characters. And since we havben't seen the
'cleaned up' US version of the game, it is hard to judge (seeing as how
it appears you are going strictly on heresay info of 'people')...
And compare third party games on the Saturn last year to
>this year....again, I can't see any difference. Saturn games have
had
>the same look to them as everything released after VF1 and Daytonna.
>Hardly any improvement in Saturn games over the last couple years.
And
>here's why:
hmm... No, I don't see a difference.. oh wait.. I guess the fact that
companies are actually starting to make games is helping... geez...
Most companies it appears didn't even want to have to make games for
Saturn, let alone take their time to do them right. However, Capcom has
clearly improved over the months, as hav many other companies... But
since I highly doubt you even have played Saturn games, or even new
ones, you wouldn't know this. Does WWS2 look like WWS1?? Nope... Does
VF look like Vf2? Panzer 2 look like Panzer? nope... There are a lot of
games that have greatly improved since their first release.
>The Saturn is supposed to have more processing power than the PSX.
>Unfortunately, no one has been able to figure out how to use all of
this
>mysterious power. Something as basic as true light sourcing, a staple
>of even third party PSX games, is only present in about 4 Sega
produced
>Saturn games. All of these wonderful DSP chips, hidden processors,
etc
>that are supposed to be in the Saturn...all for nothing. Wasted.
>Sitting there unused. You say the Saturn has more power than the PSX?
>Who cares, if it's never used?
I agree with you... This is where I fault sega. They basically made
Saturn unfriendly to program. then again, People like David Perry have
promised some pretty good things... In addition, You notice that when
Sega makes the games, They usually have good results. I only need to
say that as long as Sega takes their time, I think the difference
between PSX's best efforts and Saturn's best efforts are minimal. In
reality I think it comes more down to the style and subject/genre of
each game more than the graphics. Which is exactly why a game like FMM,
WWS2, Nights, etc can shine when compared to any PSX title.
>
>I've seen claims that the the best Saturn game has only used 60% of
the
>Saturn's power. Too bad we'll never see a game that uses 100%. If AM2
>can't figure out how to program the thing, no one will. Even VF3, the
>game that could have finally shown the true 'power' of the Saturn,
>requires the 64X upgrade. If the Saturn isn't maxxed out, then why is
>Sega going to the 64X?
Well Vf2 was only supposed to use 60%.. no one knows what that means..
however, Sega has always been known for a few surprises in the past.. I
wouldn't be totally surprisd at E3... I think the Vf3 upgrade is more
in response to the N64's graphical edge... Somehow I don't think it
will be called a 64X by the way...You make a rather ignorant comment,
though. Even IF Sega could get 100% out of the Saturn, Something tells
me that wouldn't do VF3 justice... even if it was the best fighter out
there.. FMM is basically VF3 already just with Saturn graphics.
>Sega should hurry up and release the 'Black Belt' hardware sooner than
>late 1998 if they want to remain a force in the hardware business. If
>they hurry, they can make a early to mid 1998 release practical and
give
>the third parties enough time to start making games. Hopefully they
>will since for all practical purposes, the Saturn is maxxed out.
I was under the impression that the 'black belt' was teh codename for
the upgrade unit, despite what NGO seems to think. My guess is that
they just want a story. Sega CAN't release this new system, or they'll
lose all credibility as a system maker. Once they start running their
system making business like their arcade business (ie newer and better
asap), they'll never be able to hold owners. I mean who would ever buy
this new system (if it is really in existance) if they knew the PSX2
was only going to be a year or so off (if that)...
The Chojin
On 15 Mar 1997 20:30:54 GMT, tig...@ix.netcom.com(Ed Giangrande)
wrote:
>Wow... you really must be blind if you think that...
>something tells me you should actually try playing VC2... CCE has been
>in question but in reality I don't think it is totally fair to compare
>an AM3 game to AM2's original.. it would be IMOP like Sony trying to
>make Wipeout XL instead of Psynostics... FMM has a lot that Vf2
>doesn't, namely a ton more characters. And since we havben't seen the
>'cleaned up' US version of the game, it is hard to judge (seeing as how
>it appears you are going strictly on heresay info of 'people')...
No he's not blind he's just telling it like it is. Have you seen FMM?
I own the game and IMO the graphix are horrible. VF2 looks
considerably better than FMM. When you say that FMM has more char
than VF2 that still doesn't make the game graphically better.
>I agree with you... This is where I fault sega. They basically made
>Saturn unfriendly to program. then again, People like David Perry have
>promised some pretty good things... In addition, You notice that when
>Sega makes the games, They usually have good results. I only need to
>say that as long as Sega takes their time, I think the difference
>between PSX's best efforts and Saturn's best efforts are minimal. In
>reality I think it comes more down to the style and subject/genre of
>each game more than the graphics. Which is exactly why a game like FMM,
>WWS2, Nights, etc can shine when compared to any PSX title.
>
Nights is a good game. FMM is garbage. IMO the best game for the the
Saturn is Samurai Shodown III.
Slam
> >for a year or so now. Compare Sega Rally, Virtua Cop 1 and VF2 of
> last
> >year to Daytonna CCE, Virtua Cop 2 and FMM. Not much difference,
> >really. In fact, many people believe the graphics of FMM are worse
> than
> >those of VF2.
>
> something tells me you should actually try playing VC2...
I have. Sorry, but the graphics weren't that much better. There was
not a big leap from VC1 to VC2. A few more textures, same detail, about
the same polygon count.
> CCE has been
> in question but in reality I don't think it is totally fair to compare
> an AM3 game to AM2's original.. it would be IMOP like Sony trying to
> make Wipeout XL instead of Psynostics... FMM has a lot that Vf2
> doesn't, namely a ton more characters.
I was referring to the graphics. Mainly, the high-res graphics of VF2
compared to the low-res of FMM. FMM, even with the light sourcing and
gourad shading, just looks pixelly compared to most other fighting
games.
> And since we havben't seen the
> 'cleaned up' US version of the game, it is hard to judge (seeing as how
> it appears you are going strictly on heresay info of 'people')...
And when was the last time Sega actually improved the graphics on one of
the many Japanese imports that they said they would? Like the cleaned
up version of Toshinden Re-Mix?
> And compare third party games on the Saturn last year to
> >this year....again, I can't see any difference. Saturn games have
> had
> >the same look to them as everything released after VF1 and Daytonna.
> >Hardly any improvement in Saturn games over the last couple years.
> And
> >here's why:
>
> hmm... No, I don't see a difference.. oh wait.. I guess the fact that
> companies are actually starting to make games is helping... geez...
> Most companies it appears didn't even want to have to make games for
> Saturn, let alone take their time to do them right. However, Capcom has
> clearly improved over the months, as hav many other companies... But
> since I highly doubt you even have played Saturn games, or even new
> ones, you wouldn't know this.
Since I own a Saturn, and had it since the day it came out in May of
1995? I still have my original receipt and Demo CD. I've played all
the major Saturn games. No matter whether you agree with my comments or
not, they come from experience.
> Does WWS2 look like WWS1?? Nope...
Big upgrade. One of the few times that actually happened.
> Does
> VF look like Vf2?
I should hope not.
> Panzer 2 look like Panzer? nope...
Again, there is not a huge graphical difference between the two. More
textures and 2D flat sprites moving by, but not a big increase in
anything else.
> There are a lot of
> games that have greatly improved since their first release.
Slight improvements over the last year. That's it.
>
> >The Saturn is supposed to have more processing power than the PSX.
> >Unfortunately, no one has been able to figure out how to use all of
> this
> >mysterious power. Something as basic as true light sourcing, a staple
> >of even third party PSX games, is only present in about 4 Sega
> produced
> >Saturn games. All of these wonderful DSP chips, hidden processors,
> etc
> >that are supposed to be in the Saturn...all for nothing. Wasted.
> >Sitting there unused. You say the Saturn has more power than the PSX?
>
> >Who cares, if it's never used?
>
> I agree with you... This is where I fault sega. They basically made
> Saturn unfriendly to program. then again, People like David Perry have
> promised some pretty good things... In addition, You notice that when
> Sega makes the games, They usually have good results. I only need to
> say that as long as Sega takes their time, I think the difference
> between PSX's best efforts and Saturn's best efforts are minimal. In
> reality I think it comes more down to the style and subject/genre of
> each game more than the graphics. Which is exactly why a game like FMM,
> WWS2, Nights, etc can shine when compared to any PSX title.
I'm not talking about game styles or playability in this topic. The
Saturn can hold it's own against the PSX just fine when it comes to the
kinds of games available for the system, except maybe in sports and
traditional type (not strategy or action style) RPGs.
The purpose of this message was basically to bring up a conflicting
argument to Nobody's posts on the PSX being maxxed out graphically.
> >
> >I've seen claims that the the best Saturn game has only used 60% of
> the
> >Saturn's power. Too bad we'll never see a game that uses 100%. If AM2
> >can't figure out how to program the thing, no one will. Even VF3, the
> >game that could have finally shown the true 'power' of the Saturn,
> >requires the 64X upgrade. If the Saturn isn't maxxed out, then why is
> >Sega going to the 64X?
>
> Well Vf2 was only supposed to use 60%.. no one knows what that means..
> however, Sega has always been known for a few surprises in the past.. I
> wouldn't be totally surprisd at E3... I think the Vf3 upgrade is more
> in response to the N64's graphical edge... Somehow I don't think it
> will be called a 64X by the way...You make a rather ignorant comment,
> though. Even IF Sega could get 100% out of the Saturn, Something tells
> me that wouldn't do VF3 justice... even if it was the best fighter out
> there.. FMM is basically VF3 already just with Saturn graphics.
My point is....if the Saturn has so much untapped power, why not use
it? Even if it's not a 100% perfect port, Sega might finally have a
killer app that would eclipse any PSX game. Instead, Sega seems to be
bailing on the basic Saturn hardware and relying on an upgrade. Saturn
advocates like to claim how the PSX is maxxed out, but it seems to me
that the Saturn is against a brick wall when it comes to graphical
development, no matter how many processors it has.
>
> >Sega should hurry up and release the 'Black Belt' hardware sooner than
> >late 1998 if they want to remain a force in the hardware business. If
> >they hurry, they can make a early to mid 1998 release practical and
> give
> >the third parties enough time to start making games. Hopefully they
> >will since for all practical purposes, the Saturn is maxxed out.
>
> I was under the impression that the 'black belt' was teh codename for
> the upgrade unit, despite what NGO seems to think. My guess is that
> they just want a story. Sega CAN't release this new system, or they'll
> lose all credibility as a system maker. Once they start running their
> system making business like their arcade business (ie newer and better
> asap), they'll never be able to hold owners. I mean who would ever buy
> this new system (if it is really in existance) if they knew the PSX2
> was only going to be a year or so off (if that)...
Well, even 'Nobody' is hoping that Sega brings out their hardware sooner
rather than later.....I believe he even went so far as to say they
should bring out new hardware as early as X-Mas this year. Of course,
this was right after Enix announced DQ7 for the PSX and not the Saturn,
so he may not have been thinking too clearly...
Nobody's Perfect
Slam wrote:
>
> Is the PSX maxxed out?
Yes.
> Doesn't seem like it to the game programmers.
Funny, since it is Namco and Psygnosis who are saying
their games are pushing PSX to its limits
> The graphics in PSX games have been steadily improving,
Not to me.
> I've seen claims that the the best Saturn game has only used 60% of the
> Saturn's power. Too bad we'll never see a game that uses 100%. If AM2
> can't figure out how to program the thing, no one will.
AM2 is exactly not a full time Saturn developer; it spends most of
its time on developing arcade games. Beside, I get the impression
that Am3 is better than Am2 when it comes to coding for Saturn.
> Even VF3, the
> game that could have finally shown the true 'power' of the Saturn,
> requires the 64X upgrade.
No it doesn't
> If the Saturn isn't maxxed out, then why is
> Sega going to the 64X?
That is a false rumor. VF3 doesn't use an upgrade cart.
> Sega should hurry up and release the 'Black Belt' hardware sooner than
> late 1998 if they want to remain a force in the hardware business. If
> they hurry, they can make a early to mid 1998 release practical and give
> the third parties enough time to start making games. Hopefully they
> will since for all practical purposes, the Saturn is maxxed out.
Usual Sony Generation crap. Didn't Sony Generation say VF3
was coming to DVD for PC? As it turns out, VF3 DVD was a
promotional video demo disc done for arcade owners, not a game.
Same thing with "Black Belt". Sega does not support PowerVR
(demonstrated by rebet cancellation of PowerVR titles for PC);
it supports Real3D. I suspect VideoLogic is behind all this;
they need every attention they can get to promote tis failing
PowerVR chipset, and spreading rumor that Sega might use its
chipset certainly gets your attention, similar to what failing
3DO did when it spread false rumor that Sega was about to
license M2 couple years ago.
Namco and Psygnosis has admitted PSX was maxxed out.
Not one third party developer to date has said Saturn was
maxxed out to this date.
ERICLOB
The Chojin <cho...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Wow... you really must be blind if you think that... [no graohics
>>improvements on Saturn]
>No he's not blind he's just telling it like it is. Have you seen FMM?
>I own the game and IMO the graphix are horrible.
I hate to get drawn into such an obvious fanboy-fest, but here it is. This
has got to be one of the stupidest things I've seen. Putting aside FMM for
the moment, there have been great strides in Saturn graphics, from both
1st and 3rd parties. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest and name
every piece of software that I think has improved.
Now FMM. I think we'd have all liked to see high resolution but there is
only so much RAM and a more complex 3d engine is going to take it's toll.
In some areas there is slowdown, but we're still talking about a 60 fps
game with interactive 3d backgrounds. I'm still waiting for that on the 3d
powerhouse that is PSX.
>VF2 looks considerably better than FMM.
And better than anything on PSX, IMHO.
R.Talon
Actually, IMHO, Soul Edge for the PSX is the second best looking game on
any platform (Turok being #1). It looks alot better than FMM and VF2.
~~RT~~
ERICLOB <Eri...@cris.com> wrote in article
<5gfe2b$3...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
Ed Giangrande
>> Wow... you really must be blind if you think that...
>> something tells me you should actually try playing VC2...
>
>I have. Sorry, but the graphics weren't that much better. There was
>not a big leap from VC1 to VC2. A few more textures, same detail,
about
>the same polygon count.
I don't know.. I think just teh textures threw me a bit.. I felt the
game was just smoother, the chase scenes were rather well done (i might
say better than and Saturn racer then again it is on rails).
>I was referring to the graphics. Mainly, the high-res graphics of VF2
>compared to the low-res of FMM. FMM, even with the light sourcing and
>gourad shading, just looks pixelly compared to most other fighting
>games.
Well I generally think then it would be the same with the FV to VF2
comparison too... Somehow I wonder about Last Bronx. Then again I don't
mind FV's or FMM's graphics. I content that just because Sega hasn't
tried to make any of these other games to VF2 high-res quality, doesn't
mean that they can't (which is what I think you are implying). I'd
wager more that Sega is lazy and AM2 just didn't want to and basically
figured they could milk another VF game.
>And when was the last time Sega actually improved the graphics on one
of
>the many Japanese imports that they said they would? Like the cleaned
>up version of Toshinden Re-Mix?
Which is normally the stance I take is exactly what you are saying.
Normally by cleaning up a game, ie Fighting Vipers, it means taking out
G-string honey and Pepsiman... however I did remember reading that Sega
was working on fixing the slowdown in the game.
>I should hope not.
>
>> Panzer 2 look like Panzer? nope...
>
>Again, there is not a huge graphical difference between the two. More
>textures and 2D flat sprites moving by, but not a big increase in
>anything else.
I felt there was a substancial difference in the backgrounds, the
bosses, the onscreen enemies, and the colors (went from dull to sorta
dull).
>> There are a lot of
>> games that have greatly improved since their first release.
>
>Slight improvements over the last year. That's it.
hmm.. I'd argue that to the extent that I think the overall quality of
3rd party games have improved substancially. In 1995 argueable the best
3D party example would have been Thunderstrike 2... and didn't that
come out in december after X-mas?... I find it funny that you soo
quickly forget how few good 3rd party games were out at that time. If
Sega had 40 games, I'd wager at least 15 were by Sega and a good 5-8
were by Acclaim... Kinda easy to improve on nothing... but even early
to late 1996 games changed... Would anyone have thought TR was possible
on Saturn (albeit a inferior version) back in May of 1995?
>I'm not talking about game styles or playability in this topic. The
>Saturn can hold it's own against the PSX just fine when it comes to
the
>kinds of games available for the system, except maybe in sports and
>traditional type (not strategy or action style) RPGs.
>The purpose of this message was basically to bring up a conflicting
>argument to Nobody's posts on the PSX being maxxed out graphically.
Sure, but hard to trust Nobody. ... I just think Saturn has a lot more
unused potential by 3rd party publishers... then again I don't think
many are even willing... Which is partially why I think a new system is
a BAD idea at this time... I think in general you are not going to see
HUGE strides on ANY system.. only reason I argue that Saturn has
improved soo much is because of how much it sucked to begin with
graphically when matched against the PSX. It really wasn't until Rally
in November, a full 6-7 months later, that Saturn owners finally had a
game they could compare, and still can compare, to any PSX racer.
>My point is....if the Saturn has so much untapped power, why not use
>it? Even if it's not a 100% perfect port, Sega might finally have a
>killer app that would eclipse any PSX game. Instead, Sega seems to be
>bailing on the basic Saturn hardware and relying on an upgrade.
Saturn
>advocates like to claim how the PSX is maxxed out, but it seems to me
>that the Saturn is against a brick wall when it comes to graphical
>development, no matter how many processors it has.
Well I think it is a double edged sword.. for a while PSX had build its
rep on graphics... frankly I think it can't merely rely on pretty
images to sell anymore. That is what N64 is doing to it. Face it, the
US market likes graphics, and graphics sell... I think part of the
reason many claim the PSX is maxxed is because they realize that no
longer can anyone hold the 'psx is better graphically' arguement
against them that they would frequently use back in September of 1995
through 1996... Why? well frankly there really isn't that big of a
difference, and people I think in general like to think that they have
the 'best' thing out there.... It seems people are more willing to
write for 15 hours about how good their system is than play it for 15
hours.
I think this whole upgrade thing is a result of the VF3 Model 3 craze..
frankly VF3 is in a class by itself... It is nothing more than its
graphics in some respects... You can't simply make a 3D linear fighter
with a few frills and call it VF3... Doesn't work like that. Vf3 is the
sand, the splashing water, the incredible backgrounds, the big detailed
charactere that almost show no polygons whatsoever. You can't simply
take VF2 high-res and add a few more characters and call it VF3...
killer app or not.
I think the downright fact is that nothing short of a new system could
do VF3 justice. and that says nothing to the fact that after VF3 comes
Super GT (Scud Racer) which would likely be an even bigger test of
pop-up mania...
I almost liken the move to the VR Genesis cart that had that chip in it
(supposivly) or a Super FX chip... If it truly is just an upgrade thing
for VF3 and possibly Scud Racer, it should hurt the system. maybe sorta
like a Ram cart... nothing that hits the wallet for $150, though... I
mean $89 for VR Genesis was kinda stiff, though.. but i think the same
for VF3 is possible... and mind you VR didn't keep Sega from improving
normal Genesis games to standards such as Sonic and Knuckles,
Vectorman, or 3rd party games like EWJ.
>Well, even 'Nobody' is hoping that Sega brings out their hardware
sooner
>rather than later.....I believe he even went so far as to say they
>should bring out new hardware as early as X-Mas this year. Of course,
>this was right after Enix announced DQ7 for the PSX and not the
Saturn,
>so he may not have been thinking too clearly...
I always liked DQ... might have to buy a NES again from Funco and buy
all of the nes incarnations... I think Nobody is dead wrong.. the
sooner Sega brings out the system, the sooner 3rd party programmers
abandon the Saturn (yeah, I'm cap't obvious here)... What i mean is,
even if it is slated for 1998 or 1999, the mere idea that it is comming
out is a bad idea. For starters, you lose possibly a good chunk of the
1.7 million Saturn owners IMOP to companies like Nintendo or Sony,
except the few people who always get all of the systems and maybe a few
diehard VF3 fans... In my mind, Sony would get most of the former
owners considering how bad Nintendo appears to be doing at the
moment... and if a 64DD comes out I highly doubt that will help
things... I figure Sega might be better off not making the system and
releasing it until after the PSX2 is out on the market... Clearly what
Hurts sega the most is their desire to always be first... However, you
get owners of systems based of of games.... and I think any new system
Sega makes needs to have at least 15-20 quality titles at launch.. and
I really don't think that is possible. I personally don't think any new
system, even with VF3,Scud, maybe a 3D Sonic, a Hockey game, etc. at
launch perhaps, will not nearly have the same response Nintendo had...
Winning system stratedgy IMOP:
1) 15 quality games at launch, perhaps a few mediocre titles (which a
mediocre title on a new 64 bit Sega system may still be damn good
looking).... Games should include: A 3D Fighter
A Racer
A Hockey Game
A 3D Platform
At least 3 shooters (any kind)
2) Cost under $300 : a must...
3) Demo Units everywhere (preferably)
4) Cannot be the first system on the market... I think only the NES and
the GameBoy were 'first', though I'm not sure on the NES... either
way, I always thought the SMS had better graphics, and I know that
GameGear wiped the floor graphically with Gameboy.. Then again that
went more down to cost than anything else ala Turbo Express and
Lynx.
5) Pray that someone doesn't release something better within the next
year.
terrell gibbs
In article <332AF5...@ix.netcom.com>, WDR...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
:The Saturn, on the other hand, seems as though it has been maxxed out
:for a year or so now. Compare Sega Rally, Virtua Cop 1 and VF2 of last
:year to Daytonna CCE, Virtua Cop 2 and FMM. Not much difference,
:really. In fact, many people believe the graphics of FMM are worse than
:those of VF2.
I think the graphics of FMM are a dramatic improvement over VF2, even
though the vertical resolution has been dropped to Tekken-quality. But it's
a worthwhile trade for 3D walls and light-sourced Gouraud shading (which a
year ago, people were claiming to be impossible on the Saturn), it seems a
near-perfect port, and clearly an advance over VC1, with much improved use
of texture mapping. Daytona CCE adds light source shading to the excellent
Rally engine. Other impressive games displaying advances in graphics
include Nights, Tomb Raider, Powerslave, and Scorcher.
terrell gibbs
In article <332B58...@nowhere.com>, Nobody's Perfect
<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
:> If the Saturn isn't maxxed out, then why is
:> Sega going to the 64X?
:
: That is a false rumor. VF3 doesn't use an upgrade cart.
Core recently mentioned in an interview that Tomb Raider 3 may take
advantage of the VF3 upgrade cart. So I believe that we can regard the
rumor as cofirmed.
Slam
Nobody's Perfect wrote:
>
> > Even VF3, the
> > game that could have finally shown the true 'power' of the Saturn,
> > requires the 64X upgrade.
>
> No it doesn't
Yes, it does. Sega is not even trying...they will be using the 64X.
Even they think the Saturn won't be able to do the game justice.
> > If the Saturn isn't maxxed out, then why is
> > Sega going to the 64X?
>
> That is a false rumor. VF3 doesn't use an upgrade cart.
Then why is every magazine, every web site and even third party
companies talking about the 64X?
Who should we believe...every credible journalistic source in print and
on the web, or a known liar and rumor spreading fellow who turns out to
be wrong 95% of the time? Hmmm....let me think on that for a while...
> > Sega should hurry up and release the 'Black Belt' hardware sooner than
> > late 1998 if they want to remain a force in the hardware business. If
> > they hurry, they can make a early to mid 1998 release practical and give
> > the third parties enough time to start making games. Hopefully they
> > will since for all practical purposes, the Saturn is maxxed out.
>
> Usual Sony Generation crap. Didn't Sony Generation say VF3
> was coming to DVD for PC? As it turns out, VF3 DVD was a
> promotional video demo disc done for arcade owners, not a game.
>
> Same thing with "Black Belt". Sega does not support PowerVR
> (demonstrated by rebet cancellation of PowerVR titles for PC);
> it supports Real3D. I suspect VideoLogic is behind all this;
> they need every attention they can get to promote tis failing
> PowerVR chipset, and spreading rumor that Sega might use its
> chipset certainly gets your attention, similar to what failing
> 3DO did when it spread false rumor that Sega was about to
> license M2 couple years ago.
>
> Namco and Psygnosis has admitted PSX was maxxed out.
> Not one third party developer to date has said Saturn was
> maxxed out to this date.
But Sega does, by going to the 64X for VF3.
Third parties admit they can't program the Saturn from the quality of
games they've released compared to their PSX counterparts. Third party
companies will never fully utilize the Saturn and we will never see any
great improvements in Saturn games from now on. For all practical
purposes the Saturn is maxxed out.
Nobody's Perfect
Slam wrote:
>
> Yes, it does.
Not according to Mr Yu Suzuki.
> Sega is not even trying...they will be using the 64X.
God damn it!!!! There is no such thing as 64X!!!!!!!!.
> Even they think the Saturn won't be able to do the game justice.
Oviously, 100% conversion of VF3 is impossible on any
platform, even if you have a dual Pentium Pro machine
with 3Dfx card. The question is, how much can Yu keep?
> Then why is every magazine, every web site and even third party
> companies talking about the 64X?
They are All confused
> > Namco and Psygnosis has admitted PSX was maxxed out.
> > Not one third party developer to date has said Saturn was
> > maxxed out to this date.
>
> But Sega does, by going to the 64X for VF3.
God!!! There si no such thing as 64X!!!!!!!!
> Third parties admit they can't program the Saturn from the quality of
> games they've released compared to their PSX counterparts. Third party
> companies will never fully utilize the Saturn and we will never see any
> great improvements in Saturn games from now on. For all practical
> purposes the Saturn is maxxed out.
Not to truely capable coders.
terrell gibbs
In article <01bc31bf$aca154e0$4e625ecf@default>, "R.Talon"
<r.t...@ix.netocm.com> wrote:
:Actually, IMHO, Soul Edge for the PSX is the second best looking game on
:any platform (Turok being #1). It looks alot better than FMM and VF2.
Pretty graphics, if somewhat low-resolution. I especially like the use of
light source shading. But it seems to suffer from a low frame rate.
terrell gibbs
In article <332b25ea...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>,
cho...@sprintmail.com (The Chojin) wrote:
:No he's not blind he's just telling it like it is. Have you seen FMM?
:I own the game and IMO the graphix are horrible. VF2 looks
:considerably better than FMM. When you say that FMM has more char
:than VF2 that still doesn't make the game graphically better.
Personally, I think FMM looks much better than VF2. The light source
shading gives the characters a "solidity" lacking since the first version
of Saturn VF. For that, I'm willing to accept the decrease in resolution to
Tekken quality.
George Chance
Nobody's Perfect wrote:
>
> Slam wrote:
> >
> > Is the PSX maxxed out?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Doesn't seem like it to the game programmers.
>
> Funny, since it is Namco and Psygnosis who are saying
> their games are pushing PSX to its limits
>
> > The graphics in PSX games have been steadily improving,
>
> Not to me.
>
> > I've seen claims that the the best Saturn game has only used 60% of the
> > Saturn's power. Too bad we'll never see a game that uses 100%. If AM2
> > can't figure out how to program the thing, no one will.
>
> AM2 is exactly not a full time Saturn developer; it spends most of
> its time on developing arcade games. Beside, I get the impression
> that Am3 is better than Am2 when it comes to coding for Saturn.
>
> > game that could have finally shown the true 'power' of the Saturn,
> > requires the 64X upgrade.
>
> No it doesn't
>
> > Sega going to the 64X?
>
> That is a false rumor. VF3 doesn't use an upgrade cart.
>
> > late 1998 if they want to remain a force in the hardware business. If
> > they hurry, they can make a early to mid 1998 release practical and give
> > the third parties enough time to start making games. Hopefully they
> > will since for all practical purposes, the Saturn is maxxed out.
>
> Usual Sony Generation crap. Didn't Sony Generation say VF3
> was coming to DVD for PC? As it turns out, VF3 DVD was a
> promotional video demo disc done for arcade owners, not a game.
>
> Same thing with "Black Belt". Sega does not support PowerVR
> (demonstrated by rebet cancellation of PowerVR titles for PC);
> it supports Real3D. I suspect VideoLogic is behind all this;
> they need every attention they can get to promote tis failing
> PowerVR chipset, and spreading rumor that Sega might use its
> chipset certainly gets your attention, similar to what failing
> 3DO did when it spread false rumor that Sega was about to
> license M2 couple years ago.
>
> Not one third party developer to date has said Saturn was
Look at VF2 for the Saturn! Every now and then some savy programmers dig
their heals into the Saturn and make it shine. Then again every now and
then some not so savy programmers wuss out on the Playstation.
The real problem with the Saturn is user base and not programming.
Companies put their best talents on Playstations projects cause they know
they will sell the most copies. Why wast a talented programmer on a
simple conversion?
Nobody's Perfect
R.Talon wrote:
>
> 30 fps isn't good enough?
For fighters, it is too choppy. 60FPS
is minimum, and this is the reason why
AM2 would cut down the detail of FMM in
order to maintain 60FPS.
Nobody's Perfect
Eric Souza wrote:
>
> Depends on what limits they're referring to - Namco and Psygnosis make
> great games, but they haven't made anything like Tomb Raider. TR is much
> more technically impressive to me than a straightforward fighting or
> driving game ever will be.
For fighters, Tekken2 is PSX's limits.
For racers, WipeOut XL is PSX's limits.
> > Same thing with "Black Belt". Sega does not support PowerVR
> > (demonstrated by rebet cancellation of PowerVR titles for PC);
> > it supports Real3D. I suspect VideoLogic is behind all this;
> > they need every attention they can get to promote tis failing
> > PowerVR chipset, and spreading rumor that Sega might use its
> > chipset certainly gets your attention, similar to what failing
> > 3DO did when it spread false rumor that Sega was about to
> > license M2 couple years ago.
>
> Then why hasn't sega come out and denied this "rumor"?
Sega can't. If Sega gives out details of its Lockheed Martin
machine now, then Saturn's sales would suffer. Look what happened
to 16 bit machines in 1995; heavy hype of upcoming Saturn and
N64 killed 16 bit console sales.
> >
> > Namco and Psygnosis has admitted PSX was maxxed out.
> > Not one third party developer to date has said Saturn was
> > maxxed out to this date.
> >
> You don't find many mags actually talking to 3rd party Saturn game makers.
> Most like to talk to the PSX developers :P
Most PSX "developers" are also Saturn developers.
John Hokanson Jr.
On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 14:16:26 -0500, Slam <WDR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>The Saturn, on the other hand, seems as though it has been maxxed out
>for a year or so now. Compare Sega Rally, Virtua Cop 1 and VF2 of last
>year to Daytonna CCE, Virtua Cop 2 and FMM. Not much difference,
>really.
Uhhh....excuse me, this is crap. Daytona CCE has a MUCH higher
resolution and frame-rate then it's USA counterpart.
------------------------------
John Hokanson Jr.
gam...@alphainfo.com
R.Talon
30 fps isn't good enough?
~~RT~~
Please remove hello from my e-mail to send me something.
terrell gibbs <tgi...@bu.edu> wrote in article
<tgibbs-ya02408000...@128.197.252.149>...
Eric Souza
Nobody's Perfect <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in article
<332B58...@nowhere.com>...
> Slam wrote:
> >
> > Is the PSX maxxed out?
>
> Yes.
>
Does well for a maxxed out machine...I think this is called getting the
most "bang for the buck"
I wouldn't want to be shelling out $50 a game if they only use say 50% of
the PSX power.
> > Doesn't seem like it to the game programmers.
>
> Funny, since it is Namco and Psygnosis who are saying
> their games are pushing PSX to its limits
>
Depends on what limits they're referring to - Namco and Psygnosis make
great games, but they haven't made anything like Tomb Raider. TR is much
more technically impressive to me than a straightforward fighting or
driving game ever will be.
> > The graphics in PSX games have been steadily improving,
>
> Not to me.
Get glasses then.
> Usual Sony Generation crap. Didn't Sony Generation say VF3
> was coming to DVD for PC? As it turns out, VF3 DVD was a
> promotional video demo disc done for arcade owners, not a game.
>
> Same thing with "Black Belt". Sega does not support PowerVR
> (demonstrated by rebet cancellation of PowerVR titles for PC);
> it supports Real3D. I suspect VideoLogic is behind all this;
> they need every attention they can get to promote tis failing
> PowerVR chipset, and spreading rumor that Sega might use its
> chipset certainly gets your attention, similar to what failing
> 3DO did when it spread false rumor that Sega was about to
> license M2 couple years ago.
Then why hasn't sega come out and denied this "rumor"?
>
Larry Scott Ii
: R.Talon wrote:
: >
: > 30 fps isn't good enough?
: For fighters, it is too choppy. 60FPS
: is minimum, and this is the reason why
: AM2 would cut down the detail of FMM in
: order to maintain 60FPS.
30fps too choppy? 60 minimum? Dumbshit.. A NTSC TV only updates 30
times a second in interlaced mode, and 60 in non-interlaced mode. Games
running at these speeds are smooth as regular programming.
Darien Allen
>
> Most PSX "developers" are also Saturn developers.
Actually most developers are PSX developers 1st, then there games are
PORTED to the Saturn. Generally that's a fact.
***rectum (v)***
I had two Cadillacs....but my b*tches rectum!
Ebonics - My Hard Earned African-American Tax Dollars At Work!
[>arien Allen
darie...@crazysexycool.com
Keith E. Young
Nobody's Perfect (nob...@nowhere.com) wrote:
: Slam wrote:
: >
: > Sega is not even trying...they will be using the 64X.
: God damn it!!!! There is no such thing as 64X!!!!!!!!.
Yes there is....I have information from sources as reliable as yours
that the 64X system/upgrade will be released so that the Saturn will
be able to do Pong correctly.
: > Even they think the Saturn won't be able to do the game justice.
: Oviously, 100% conversion of VF3 is impossible on any
: platform, even if you have a dual Pentium Pro machine
: with 3Dfx card. The question is, how much can Yu keep?
The question is, who really cares? It's just another damn fighting game.
: > Then why is every magazine, every web site and even third party
: > companies talking about the 64X?
: They are All confused
Much like yourself.
: > But Sega does, by going to the 64X for VF3.
: God!!! There si no such thing as 64X!!!!!!!!
Glad to see someone can annoy Nobody the way he annoys some people on
this newsgroup. Personally I find him a good laugh.....
: > Third parties admit they can't program the Saturn from the quality of
: > games they've released compared to their PSX counterparts. Third party
: > companies will never fully utilize the Saturn and we will never see any
: > great improvements in Saturn games from now on. For all practical
: > purposes the Saturn is maxxed out.
: Not to truely capable coders.
Of which none want to program for the Saturn cuz it's a complete bitch.
-Keith
Charles Miller Jr.
30 full updates per second and 60 half scans.
There is not Non-interlaced mode for the TV.
--
- UNIX ate my homework!
Larry Scott Ii <meta...@iglou.com> wrote in article
<E76ou...@iglou.com>...
Joe Ottoson
Slam wrote:
> I have. Sorry, but the graphics weren't that much better. There was
> not a big leap from VC1 to VC2. A few more textures, same detail, about
> the same polygon count.
>
Just a warning to anyone who doesn't realize this yet. "Slam" is just
parroting Nobody's attitude in an attempt to bother Nobody. What he says
is generally not relevant to any facts or his personal experience. he's
simply Nobody trolling.
terrell gibbs
In article <01bc327c$1371f460$47625ecf@default>, "R.Talon"
<hellor...@ix.netocm.com> wrote:
:30 fps isn't good enough?
:
For a fighting game, no, although it seems to be adequate for driving
games. But in fighting games, you have limbs close to the "camera," and
moving very fast. So even 30 fps looks a bit jerky. In fact, even 60 fps
isn't really good enough; you also need motion blur (which Sega has added
to VF3 and Fighters Megamix).
:
:
:Please remove hello from my e-mail to send me something.
:>
terrell gibbs
> times a second in interlaced mode, and 60 in non-interlaced mode. Games
> running at these speeds are smooth as regular programming.
Sigh. Not this silly misunderstanding again...
OK, once again: Around here, when we talk about fps, we are talking about
*animation* frames--i.e., how often the *game* updates the position of
objects. It is important not to confuse animation frames with video
"frames," because a video frame is comprised of *two* top-to-bottom screen
updates (offset by one scan line), called "fields." So each video field can
display a different animation frame. In other words, it is possible for a
game to display two animation frames per video frame, for a maximum total
rate of 60 animation frames per second.
Dude
On Sun, 16 Mar 1997, Nobody's Perfect wrote:
> Slam wrote:
> >
> > Yes, it does.
>
> Not according to Mr Yu Suzuki.
>
Quote your source. Why don't you list the URL or magazine of where you
found this info. I've asked this of you many times and I've never ever
seen you quote your source when you are making some type of bullshit up.
> > Sega is not even trying...they will be using the 64X.
>
> God damn it!!!! There is no such thing as 64X!!!!!!!!.
>
See the above comment.
> > Even they think the Saturn won't be able to do the game justice.
>
> Oviously, 100% conversion of VF3 is impossible on any
> platform, even if you have a dual Pentium Pro machine
> with 3Dfx card. The question is, how much can Yu keep?
>
They don't just want a version of VF3 on the Saturn. They want one that
is as close as possible to VF3 Arcade. While I do think VF3 is possible
on a plain Saturn, it would look like VF2 but play like VF3. If they
programmed it this way, fans of VF3 would complain.
> > Then why is every magazine, every web site and even third party
> > companies talking about the 64X?
>
> They are All confused
>
Wow. Real smart there, even the companies developing for the Saturn don't
know what is going on with the Saturn? You expect us to believe you
know more about the Saturn than the guys making games for the Saturn?
> > > Namco and Psygnosis has admitted PSX was maxxed out.
> > > Not one third party developer to date has said Saturn was
> > > maxxed out to this date.
> >
> > But Sega does, by going to the 64X for VF3.
>
> God!!! There si no such thing as 64X!!!!!!!!
>
See above comments.
> > Third parties admit they can't program the Saturn from the quality of
> > games they've released compared to their PSX counterparts. Third party
> > companies will never fully utilize the Saturn and we will never see any
Larry Scott Ii
: 30 full updates per second and 60 half scans.
: There is not Non-interlaced mode for the TV.
uhh, yes there is. Every videogame system since up to the 3DO uses a
"non-interlaced" mode. Instead of having every other scan offset by half
a scanline (interlaced .. regular programming) they tweak the signal so
that the scans are on top of each other. The result is a picture with
half the vertical resolution, but also with no annoying edge-flicker.
3DO uses interlaced mode exclusively AFAIK from the games I have.. PSX
uses int and non-int depending on the game.
Quick proof: Fire up Tobal #1, then fire up Tekken 2. Look closely at the
display. If you can't see any difference, consider seeing an eye doctor.
(btw this has already been discussed in this group a few months ago)
Nobody's Perfect
Larry Scott Ii wrote:
> 30fps too choppy? 60 minimum? Dumbshit.. A NTSC TV only updates 30
> times a second in interlaced mode, and 60 in non-interlaced mode. Games
> running at these speeds are smooth as regular programming.
for 60FPS fighters like VF2 and Tekken2, each field represents each
frame.
Dr. Cossack
>> 30 fps isn't good enough?
>
> is minimum, and this is the reason why
> AM2 would cut down the detail of FMM in
> order to maintain 60FPS.
NTSC Televisions can't display higher than 30 FPS so no game hardware made
for them can do 60 FPS. AM2's complaints are about NTSC, not Saturn.
terrell gibbs
In article <E79Jt...@iglou.com>, meta...@iglou.com (Larry Scott Ii) wrote:
:3DO uses interlaced mode exclusively AFAIK from the games I have.. PSX
:uses int and non-int depending on the game.
I believe that the 3DO used a sort of pseudo-interlaced mode, in which
alternate fields were interpolated from the preceding field by scanline
averaging.
Hanson
meta...@iglou.com (Larry Scott Ii) wrote:
>: 30 full updates per second and 60 half scans.
>: There is not Non-interlaced mode for the TV.
>
>uhh, yes there is. Every videogame system since up to the 3DO uses a
>"non-interlaced" mode. Instead of having every other scan offset by half
>a scanline (interlaced .. regular programming) they tweak the signal so
>that the scans are on top of each other. The result is a picture with
>half the vertical resolution, but also with no annoying edge-flicker.
What? There is no non-interlaced mode on your TV set. You can have 60
interlaced fields per second, but in no way can the signal be tweaked to show
anything other than interlaced mode. That's hardwired in your TV.
>Quick proof: Fire up Tobal #1, then fire up Tekken 2. Look closely at the
>display. If you can't see any difference, consider seeing an eye doctor.
It's all in your head. What's smoother -- any sporting event on TV running at
30 fps or any game running at 60 fps? Obviously the sporting event. Why?
Motion blur. The only way you can show true fluid motion is through motion blur
-- upping the fps from 30 to 60 results in a negligible difference on your TV
because of the interlacing and the phophor decay (ie the previous field is still
viewable when the current field is being displayed). Because of it, each frame
is a combination of two different fields, and there is never a clear frame
shown.
The importance of 60 fps is developer bravado and hype. They love talking about
how they got the game running at 60 fps -- it's a badge of honor. But it makes
little difference on a TV set.
Hanson
"Why, when I find out who you are, I'm gonna shove a sausage
down your throat and stick starving dogs in your butt!"
- Moe the Bartender
Charles Miller Jr.
You really think that the 3DO had the power to go inside you TV set and
redesign the hardware to make your TV run in NON-Interlaced mode? Man, you
are tripping off something hard... Also, NO this HASN'T been discussed.
No one EVER brought up the possibility of a game system manually changing
the internal circuitry of your TV.
--
- UNIX ate my homework!
Larry Scott Ii <meta...@iglou.com> wrote in article
<E79Jt...@iglou.com>...
> : 30 full updates per second and 60 half scans.
> : There is not Non-interlaced mode for the TV.
>
> uhh, yes there is. Every videogame system since up to the 3DO uses a
> "non-interlaced" mode. Instead of having every other scan offset by half
> a scanline (interlaced .. regular programming) they tweak the signal so
> that the scans are on top of each other. The result is a picture with
> half the vertical resolution, but also with no annoying edge-flicker.
>
> 3DO uses interlaced mode exclusively AFAIK from the games I have.. PSX
> uses int and non-int depending on the game.
>
> Quick proof: Fire up Tobal #1, then fire up Tekken 2. Look closely at
the
> display. If you can't see any difference, consider seeing an eye doctor.
>
terrell gibbs
In article <5gn8l1$s...@news.atlantic.net>, sir...@iu.net (Dr. Cossack) wrote:
:>> 30 fps isn't good enough?
This misunderstanding comes up about once a month. Once again, here is the
explanation of how a game can display 60 fps on a TV:
Phat Hong Tran
In article <tgibbs-ya02408000...@128.197.252.149>,
terrell gibbs <tgi...@bu.edu> wrote:
>In article <01bc31bf$aca154e0$4e625ecf@default>, "R.Talon"
><r.t...@ix.netocm.com> wrote:
>
>:Actually, IMHO, Soul Edge for the PSX is the second best looking game on
>:any platform (Turok being #1). It looks alot better than FMM and VF2.
>
>Pretty graphics, if somewhat low-resolution. I especially like the use of
>light source shading. But it seems to suffer from a low frame rate.
I disagree about the "low resolution". Virtually all PSX games, Soul
Edge included, use a horizontal resolution of at least 640. I think
most Saturn games, such as FMM, use a horizontal resolution of half
that, but I could be wrong. Vertical resolution is typically 240
on both machines.
Phat.
Phat Hong Tran
In article <332B58...@nowhere.com>,
Nobody's Perfect <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> Namco and Psygnosis has admitted PSX was maxxed out.
> Not one third party developer to date has said Saturn was
> maxxed out to this date.
Actually, a few Japanese developers have stated that the Saturn just
"can't handle the polygons" when asked about Saturn conversions of
their PSX games. Unit is one, and I think Capcom is another. Why
don't you believe these guys? Instead, you take hype-ridden remarks
of "we've pushed the PSX to its limits in our new game" as meaning
the PSX is maxxed out. Get a clue, and some self-esteem, Nobody.
Phat.
Isaac
On Wed, 19 Mar 1997, terrell gibbs wrote:
> :NTSC Televisions can't display higher than 30 FPS so no game hardware made
> :for them can do 60 FPS. AM2's complaints are about NTSC, not Saturn.
>
> This misunderstanding comes up about once a month. Once again, here is the
> explanation of how a game can display 60 fps on a TV:
>
> Around here, when we talk about fps, we are talking about
> *animation* frames--i.e., how often the *game* updates the position of
> objects. It is important not to confuse animation frames with video
> "frames," because a video frame is comprised of *two* top-to-bottom screen
> updates (offset by one scan line), called "fields." So each video field can
> display a different animation frame. In other words, it is possible for a
> game to display two animation frames per video frame, for a maximum total
> rate of 60 animation frames per second.
Just to be pedantic, but broadcast NTSC runs at 29.97 frames/second
(59.94 fields/sec), not at 30. It's no big deal until you actually have to
worry about SMPTE time code, and then it throws a big ol' wrench in the
works. :)
-Isaac
Larry Scott Ii
: You really think that the 3DO had the power to go inside you TV set and
: redesign the hardware to make your TV run in NON-Interlaced mode? Man, you
: are tripping off something hard... Also, NO this HASN'T been discussed.
: No one EVER brought up the possibility of a game system manually changing
: the internal circuitry of your TV.
This WAS discussed about 3 months ago in r.g.v.sony. There is no
circuitry-changing going on. The electron beam still scans the same
number of lines per refresh, and it makes the same number of refreshes per
second (60). The only difference is that in REGULAR PROGRAMMING every
other refresh is offset by half a scanline vertically to provide twice the
resolution. This is interlaced mode. Most videogame systems don't need
this high of vertical resolution, so they output a signal without the
vertical offset every other frame.. this results in a cleaner picture with
half the vertical resolution, since the beam is drawing the lines in the
same place all 60 refreshes/second. Like I said, compare Tobal#1 (or the
Sony white and black boot screens) to other games, like Tekken,
Streetfighter, Raiden, etc. The difference is more noticeable on larger
sets, but trust me, it's there.
?Don't Know, Don't Ask?
I have a Sega Saturn console 1 month old that I want to sell. I need some
extra cash so I'm selling this system. This is what it comes with:
The Saturn unit w/ 1 controller(even docs and manuals and demo cd)
Virtual Cop w/ Stunner
Night Warriors (Darkstalkers' Revenge)
Clockwork Knight
Galactic Attack
These are all original games. I'm asking for $225.
Umair Yousufi
In article <E7Av3...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
Phat Hong Tran <pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <332B58...@nowhere.com>,
>Nobody's Perfect <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> Namco and Psygnosis has admitted PSX was maxxed out.
>> Not one third party developer to date has said Saturn was
>> maxxed out to this date.
>
>Actually, a few Japanese developers have stated that the Saturn just
>"can't handle the polygons" when asked about Saturn conversions of
>their PSX games. Unit is one, and I think Capcom is another. Why
>don't you believe these guys?
Because Tomb Raider for the Saturn is about as good as it is for the PS.
The Saturn version is better in some places, worse in others, with the
overall edge going to the PS version, but not by any significant margin.
How about Powerslave/Exhumed? Scorcher? Certainly these games can
"handle" quite a few polygons.
>Instead, you take hype-ridden remarks
>of "we've pushed the PSX to its limits in our new game" as meaning
>the PSX is maxxed out. Get a clue, and some self-esteem, Nobody.
Here's a tip: If Nobody irritates you so very much, ignore him. He
obviously took those quotes out of context, and that should be apparent to
any intelligent reader. Kill file him if necessary, or if you don't have
kill-file ability, just junk the thread. Anyone spending much time
responding to an idiot like Nobody can't be too bright either.
--
Umair Yousufi
Dr. Cossack
>:>> 30 fps isn't good enough?
>:>
>:> For fighters, it is too choppy. 60FPS
>:> is minimum, and this is the reason why
>:> AM2 would cut down the detail of FMM in
>:> order to maintain 60FPS.
>:
>:for them can do 60 FPS. AM2's complaints are about NTSC, not Saturn.
>
>This misunderstanding comes up about once a month. Once again, here is the
>explanation of how a game can display 60 fps on a TV:
>
>Around here, when we talk about fps, we are talking about
>*animation* frames--i.e., how often the *game* updates the position of
>objects. It is important not to confuse animation frames with video
>"frames," because a video frame is comprised of *two* top-to-bottom screen
>updates (offset by one scan line), called "fields." So each video field can
>display a different animation frame. In other words, it is possible for a
>game to display two animation frames per video frame, for a maximum total
>rate of 60 animation frames per second.
However, those frames would only be at half of the normal resolution and
they would look strange since they would alternating lines. The system
would only be faking 60 FPS and it would cut detail in half. Overall, I
think 30 FPS would look the best.
Phat Hong Tran
In article <33316937....@news.ntr.net>, Hanson <han...@ntr.net> wrote:
>
>What? There is no non-interlaced mode on your TV set. You can have 60
>interlaced fields per second, but in no way can the signal be tweaked to show
>anything other than interlaced mode. That's hardwired in your TV.
>
No, interlacing is not hardwired in any TV. The interlacing is in the
signal. Odd and even fields have different delays in their sync pulses.
Many, many game consoles output signals with no alternating delays and
as a result, produce a non-interlaced image at half the vertical
resolution.
This topic is very tired, but I thought I should at least restate
some facts.
Phat.
dbender
No the frames are the full NTSC Hi-res(two fields interlaced together) This
is the same way all brodcast TV is displayed. Only consoles or computers that
are NTSC compatible(like an Amiga) will display a non-interlaced picture on a
TV. On current TV systems either type of display is a trade off, you can have
a solid(non-interlaced) image but at a lower(30fps) frame rate and lower
resolution or you can have a hi-res smoothly animated 60fps but the picture
will flicker and not seem as bright.
Why can't people keep this stuff straight? I probably have some of the details
wrong too.
Doug Bender on Fido or EMail dbe...@pa.net
R.Talon
Actually, the PSX version of Tomb Raider has slightly higher resolution,
frame rate and smoother textures and better light sourcing. After all this
is a 3D game, Sony's forte. Neither versions can compare to the 3Dfx
enhanced version.
~~RT~~
Umair Yousufi <you...@ucsub.Colorado.EDU> wrote in article
<5grvft$a...@lace.colorado.edu>...
Ched Chorture
Horizontal is left to right. Soul Edge, definitely only has 240
Horizontal lines (probably around 242 with overscan). Vertical is
320-352. Tekken 2 has higher horizontal res, because it's in
interlace for it's 60 fps animation: 320 x 480 (though the argument
persists every time I bring it up, I still say interlace is the ONLY
way of producing 60 FIELDS per second on a standard NTSC TV). I
haven't seen or heard of a PSX (or N64) game yet that actually has a
704 x 480 screen res. I'm not saying it can't do it, I'm just saying
it hasn't. The Saturn has done it with VF2 and Decathelete, although,
since it works in fields, it's actually producing 60 704x240 "fields"
per second, and interlacing 2 images on each other on one frame. This
is how standard NTSC television works.
BTW, FMM is the same as Tekken 2: 352x480.
CC.
Joseph Lee
Phat Hong Tran (pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: I disagree about the "low resolution". Virtually all PSX games, Soul
: Edge included, use a horizontal resolution of at least 640. I think
: most Saturn games, such as FMM, use a horizontal resolution of half
: that, but I could be wrong. Vertical resolution is typically 240
: on both machines.
If you guys read the PSX specs, and I've done PSX programming at work,
there's this free (low cpu time) graphics mode at 512x240. It makes polys
look much better without absorbing too much vidram or cpu time. Only
problem is aspect ratio where sprites have to be draw for that display
mode, otherwise, square sprites (say 40x40 pixels) would look like a
tall rectangle.
Of course, then there's the 320x240 mode, and the 640x400 modes also, but
512x240 is a good compromise.
As to this frame rate thing, your eyes see at above 60 fps. Watch a
spinning spoked wheel and measure how fast the wheel has to spin before any
forward/backward rolling "images" stops moving. That's how fast your eyes
can see while it's blending images.
Motion blur only tricks your eyes into thinking something is moving faster
than it really is, but it's easy to tell a motion blurred image from a real
image flashing by if you compared it side-by-side.
NTSC does 30 frames per second, 60 fields per second. Graphic animation
is animated at 30/60/whatever frames per second and then either fitted into
30 frames per second or 60 fields per second for display.
This topic is getting tired.
--
Joseph /================+========+=============+============================\
nugu...@netcom.com | Kronos | Anime Expo | Cal-Animage Epsilon (Anime) >
-------------------------+--------+ '97 | Engineering Tower TEC #201 >
II(> Creative 'Ware <)II | IIGS | Los Angeles | Thursdays, 7pm - 10pm /
Marlon L. Chen
In article <33332256...@news.sojourn.com>, leng...@sojourn.com
says...
>
> way of producing 60 FIELDS per second on a standard NTSC TV). I
> haven't seen or heard of a PSX (or N64) game yet that actually has a
> 704 x 480 screen res. I'm not saying it can't do it, I'm just saying
AFAIK, the Saturn is the only system that has a res higher than 640x480.
Not that anyone ever uses a resolution near that. =P
(If you don't believe that this is possible because of "how the games
look", keep in mind back in the 16 bit days that nearly every SNES game
was running at lower than the Genesis's standard resolution. =P)
> it hasn't. The Saturn has done it with VF2 and Decathelete, although,
> since it works in fields, it's actually producing 60 704x240 "fields"
> per second, and interlacing 2 images on each other on one frame. This
> is how standard NTSC television works.
Um... A system's resolution capabilities are hard-wired. It has nothing
to do with the display you're using. Interlacing doesn't affect the
resolution that the system outputs, and certainly doesn't double it.
Also, the Saturn isn't sending out "fields." It's sending out a signal
of the entire picture. It is up to the TV to dissect it into two fields
and display it as such. (Or, as the 60fps games suggest, alternate
between which field to extract for each image that comes in.) If the
Saturn were sending out fields, it would not display on a non-interlaced
monitor.
Phat Hong Tran
In article <33332256...@news.sojourn.com>,
Ched Chorture <leng...@sojourn.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 16:46:28 GMT, pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
>(Phat Hong Tran) wrote:
>>In article <tgibbs-ya02408000...@128.197.252.149>,
>>terrell gibbs <tgi...@bu.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <01bc31bf$aca154e0$4e625ecf@default>, "R.Talon"
>>><r.t...@ix.netocm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>:Actually, IMHO, Soul Edge for the PSX is the second best looking game on
>>>:any platform (Turok being #1). It looks alot better than FMM and VF2.
>>>
>>>Pretty graphics, if somewhat low-resolution. I especially like the use of
>>>light source shading. But it seems to suffer from a low frame rate.
>>
>>Edge included, use a horizontal resolution of at least 640. I think
>>most Saturn games, such as FMM, use a horizontal resolution of half
>>that, but I could be wrong. Vertical resolution is typically 240
>>on both machines.
>>
>
>Horizontal is left to right. Soul Edge, definitely only has 240
>Horizontal lines (probably around 242 with overscan). Vertical is
>320-352. Tekken 2 has higher horizontal res, because it's in
You have things backwards. Horizontal resolution is the number of
pixels across the screen. The number of horizontal lines is the
vertical resolution.
>interlace for it's 60 fps animation: 320 x 480 (though the argument
>persists every time I bring it up, I still say interlace is the ONLY
>way of producing 60 FIELDS per second on a standard NTSC TV). I
Both Tekken 2 and Soul Edge have a vertical resolution of 240.
They also have horizontal resolutions of at least 512, if not 640.
You should also note that Tekken is 60 fps, non-interlaced. It does
not have alternating odd/even fields.
>BTW, FMM is the same as Tekken 2: 352x480.
FMM is probably 352x240 while Tekken 2 is more like 640x240.
Phat.
Ched Chorture
On Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:10:43 -0800, mo...@server.berkeley.edu (Marlon
L. Chen) wrote:
>In article <33332256...@news.sojourn.com>, leng...@sojourn.com
>says...
>>
>> 704 x 480 screen res. I'm not saying it can't do it, I'm just saying
>
>AFAIK, the Saturn is the only system that has a res higher than 640x480.
>Not that anyone ever uses a resolution near that. =P
>
>(If you don't believe that this is possible because of "how the games
>look", keep in mind back in the 16 bit days that nearly every SNES game
>was running at lower than the Genesis's standard resolution. =P)
>
>> it hasn't. The Saturn has done it with VF2 and Decathelete, although,
>> since it works in fields, it's actually producing 60 704x240 "fields"
>> per second, and interlacing 2 images on each other on one frame. This
>> is how standard NTSC television works.
>
>Um... A system's resolution capabilities are hard-wired. It has nothing
>to do with the display you're using. Interlacing doesn't affect the
>resolution that the system outputs, and certainly doesn't double it.
Uhhh....who's confused here? two 240 fields on one frame make for a
480 picture. I never said that it could do anything beyond that,
though it can (and usually does) do under....
>Also, the Saturn isn't sending out "fields." It's sending out a signal
>of the entire picture. It is up to the TV to dissect it into two fields
>and display it as such. (Or, as the 60fps games suggest, alternate
>between which field to extract for each image that comes in.) If the
>Saturn were sending out fields, it would not display on a non-interlaced
>monitor.
Of COURSE it's sending out fields, for games that actually utilize
them for 60 fps games. What's there for a TV is "Dissect", if nothing
is sent out? If it wasn't sending fields, it would be impossible to
make a 60 FIELD per second game, and all games would be 30 FRAME per
second games (IE not utilizing the fields for two different pictures
in one frame, but only one). We obviously have two different versions
of terminology going on here.
>
>
>M.
>http://server.berkeley.edu/~moomc/
CC.
Ched Chorture
On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 00:01:40 GMT, pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
(Phat Hong Tran) wrote:
>In article <33332256...@news.sojourn.com>,
>>On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 16:46:28 GMT, pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
>>(Phat Hong Tran) wrote:
>>>In article <tgibbs-ya02408000...@128.197.252.149>,
>>>terrell gibbs <tgi...@bu.edu> wrote:
>>>>In article <01bc31bf$aca154e0$4e625ecf@default>, "R.Talon"
>>>><r.t...@ix.netocm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>:Actually, IMHO, Soul Edge for the PSX is the second best looking game on
>>>>:any platform (Turok being #1). It looks alot better than FMM and VF2.
>>>>
>>>>Pretty graphics, if somewhat low-resolution. I especially like the use of
>>>>light source shading. But it seems to suffer from a low frame rate.
>>>
>>>I disagree about the "low resolution". Virtually all PSX games, Soul
>>>Edge included, use a horizontal resolution of at least 640. I think
>>>most Saturn games, such as FMM, use a horizontal resolution of half
>>>that, but I could be wrong. Vertical resolution is typically 240
>>>on both machines.
>>>
>>>Phat.
>>
>>Horizontal is left to right. Soul Edge, definitely only has 240
>>Horizontal lines (probably around 242 with overscan). Vertical is
>>320-352. Tekken 2 has higher horizontal res, because it's in
>
>You have things backwards. Horizontal resolution is the number of
>pixels across the screen. The number of horizontal lines is the
>vertical resolution.
Hmmm....either you're getting hung up on teminology, or I am....
vertical: a straight line going on and down, STACKED left to right.
Horizontal: a straight line going left to right, STACKED up and down.
>>interlace for it's 60 fps animation: 320 x 480 (though the argument
>>persists every time I bring it up, I still say interlace is the ONLY
>>way of producing 60 FIELDS per second on a standard NTSC TV). I
>
>Both Tekken 2 and Soul Edge have a vertical resolution of 240.
>They also have horizontal resolutions of at least 512, if not 640.
Tekken 2's 480. I'm not sure what the "other res" is, but it isn't
512 or 640.
>You should also note that Tekken is 60 fps, non-interlaced. It does
>not have alternating odd/even fields.
I've proven someone else wrong with this statement. Do you want me to
send you the two de-interlaced frames I grabbed of Tekken 2, proving
without a doubt that it is an interlaced game? (The two pics show the
separated results of field A and field B).
>>BTW, FMM is the same as Tekken 2: 352x480.
>
>FMM is probably 352x240 while Tekken 2 is more like 640x240.
"snicker" now THAT's Bias talking. I'm apologize for taking you
seriously.
CC.
Marlon L. Chen
In article <333aed5a...@207.126.101.77>, ch...@nothere.com says...> L. Chen) wrote:
> >In article <33332256...@news.sojourn.com>, leng...@sojourn.com
> >says...
> >>
> >> way of producing 60 FIELDS per second on a standard NTSC TV). I
> >> 704 x 480 screen res. I'm not saying it can't do it, I'm just saying
> >
> >AFAIK, the Saturn is the only system that has a res higher than 640x480.
> >Not that anyone ever uses a resolution near that. =P
> >
> >(If you don't believe that this is possible because of "how the games
> >look", keep in mind back in the 16 bit days that nearly every SNES game
> >was running at lower than the Genesis's standard resolution. =P)
> >
> >> it hasn't. The Saturn has done it with VF2 and Decathelete, although,
> >> since it works in fields, it's actually producing 60 704x240 "fields"
> >> per second, and interlacing 2 images on each other on one frame. This
> >> is how standard NTSC television works.
> >
> >Um... A system's resolution capabilities are hard-wired. It has nothing
> >to do with the display you're using. Interlacing doesn't affect the
> >resolution that the system outputs, and certainly doesn't double it.
>
> Uhhh....who's confused here? two 240 fields on one frame make for a
> 480 picture. I never said that it could do anything beyond that,
> though it can (and usually does) do under....
So you're telling me that a 1024x768 interlaced monitor is really running
at a resolution of 1024x1536? Whoah, better throw out my non-interlaced
monitor and pick up one of those cheapies that I passed up, thinking it
was inferior...
> >Also, the Saturn isn't sending out "fields." It's sending out a signal
> >of the entire picture. It is up to the TV to dissect it into two fields
> >and display it as such. (Or, as the 60fps games suggest, alternate
> >between which field to extract for each image that comes in.) If the
> >Saturn were sending out fields, it would not display on a non-interlaced
> >monitor.
>
> Of COURSE it's sending out fields, for games that actually utilize
> them for 60 fps games. What's there for a TV is "Dissect", if nothing
> is sent out? If it wasn't sending fields, it would be impossible to
> make a 60 FIELD per second game, and all games would be 30 FRAME per
> second games (IE not utilizing the fields for two different pictures
> in one frame, but only one). We obviously have two different versions
> of terminology going on here.
> >
> >
> >M.
> >http://server.berkeley.edu/~moomc/
Okay, the big argument here is that we disagree about WHAT the Saturn is
sending out.
You assert that, for an example image of 704x480, it sends one 704x240
field followed by a second 704x240 field.
I assert that the Saturn sends out the 704x480 image BOTH TIMES, and the
TV alternates which field to display.
Here are some reasons why I believe so:
1. If you take that little yellow plug and stick it into a NON INTERLACED
composite monitor, the image will BE WRONG. The vertical resolution will
have gotten halved.
2. A more abstracted sense of #1, which I already iterated in my original
post. IF you hardwire into your machine an implementation such that it
sends out two separate fields, you have made your machine COMPLETELY
INCOMPATIBLE with any NON interlacing display. The Japanese are pretty
high-tech. So I suspect HDTV would be non-interlaced. That means from
the Japanese to American Saturn they have to REPLACE the display hardware
with one that reads every other line of the display buffer. And all of
this hardware would be COMPLETELY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE unless TVs MUST
accept fields as opposed to images, because otherwise the field you send
in would get split in half again internally. It's all about abstraction
and compatibility. U.S. TVs are the only ones that NEED to display two
fields. The bottleneck in U.S. TVs is the speed at which the electron
gun can move, not how much information it can process. Why force the
other end to support a quirk only you need if you can build a converter
from the popular format to yours and contain it within yourself?
3. The previous two have mainly been conjecture, one of those "thought
experiments" they teach you in college physics =P. This last one is
cold, hard fact. The same port on the Genesis used to output RF and A/V
signals can also send out an RGB signal, given a custom cable, so that
you can hook it up to a computer monitor. Computer monitors are by and
large NON INTERLACED, ESPECIALLY at 320x224. The RGB signal sent out HAS
to be non interlaced for it to work with the computer monitor (unless you
expect to convince me that every computer graphics card in existence
dissects every image into two fields just so that all the monitors in
existence can put them back together into one image to display it non
interlaced =P). Since we are using the same port, the RGB signal's "non
interlaced"ness must be shared by the other two formats taking the same
input, namely the RF and A/V signals. Therefore the Genesis sends out
entire non interlaced images. Therefore TVs must accept entire non
interlaced images.
terrell gibbs
In article <MPG.da217727...@news.lanminds.com>,
mo...@server.berkeley.edu (Marlon L. Chen) wrote:
:Um... A system's resolution capabilities are hard-wired. It has nothing
:to do with the display you're using. Interlacing doesn't affect the
:resolution that the system outputs, and certainly doesn't double it.
No, interlacing doubles the apparent vertical resolution, because there are
twice as many lines of image from top to bottom. This only really applies
to static (or slowly moving) images, however. When something is moving
rapidly, the vertical resolution is effectively halved (because the eye
interprets each field separately, instead of merging them into a single
hi-res image), but that tends not to be noticeable because they eye is not
sensitive to fine detail of fast-moving objects.
:
:Also, the Saturn isn't sending out "fields." It's sending out a signal
:of the entire picture. It is up to the TV to dissect it into two fields
:and display it as such. (Or, as the 60fps games suggest, alternate
:between which field to extract for each image that comes in.) If the
:Saturn were sending out fields, it would not display on a non-interlaced
:monitor.
No, the entire picture is not sent out simultaneously to the screen, which
would require a very high bandwidth connection between system and monitor.
The two fields are sent sequentially. The term "field" simply refers to two
different parts of the signal, which the TV simply displays in the order
they're sent. Whether or not the result is interlaced depends upon the
timing of the signal.
terrell gibbs
In article <3339eb26...@207.126.101.77>, ch...@nothere.com (Ched
Chorture) wrote:
:On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 00:01:40 GMT, pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
:(Phat Hong Tran) wrote:
:>>
:>>Horizontal is left to right. Soul Edge, definitely only has 240
:>>Horizontal lines (probably around 242 with overscan). Vertical is
:>>320-352. Tekken 2 has higher horizontal res, because it's in
:>
:>You have things backwards. Horizontal resolution is the number of
:>pixels across the screen. The number of horizontal lines is the
:>vertical resolution.
:
:Hmmm....either you're getting hung up on teminology, or I am....
:vertical: a straight line going on and down, STACKED left to right.
:Horizontal: a straight line going left to right, STACKED up and down.
Right. So "vertical resolution" is determined by how *many* distinct
horizontal lines can be displayed on the screen, stacked *vertically*.
:
:I've proven someone else wrong with this statement. Do you want me to
:send you the two de-interlaced frames I grabbed of Tekken 2, proving
:without a doubt that it is an interlaced game? (The two pics show the
:separated results of field A and field B).
As I understand it, games like Tekken output a signal with modified timing
such that the lines of the second field overwrites the lines of the first
field instead of interlacing between them. As this differs from a standard
broadcast signal, I wouldn't be surprised if your frame-grabbing software
is mistakenly assuming that the two fields are intended to be interlaced,
and is displaying them that way.
Ched Chorture
On Thu, 27 Mar 1997 12:48:05 -0500, tgi...@bu.edu (terrell gibbs)
wrote:
>In article <3339eb26...@207.126.101.77>, ch...@nothere.com (Ched
>Chorture) wrote:
>
>:On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 00:01:40 GMT, pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
>:(Phat Hong Tran) wrote:
>:>>
>:>>Horizontal is left to right. Soul Edge, definitely only has 240
>:>>Horizontal lines (probably around 242 with overscan). Vertical is
>:>>320-352. Tekken 2 has higher horizontal res, because it's in
>:>
>:>You have things backwards. Horizontal resolution is the number of
>:>pixels across the screen. The number of horizontal lines is the
>:>vertical resolution.
>:
>:Hmmm....either you're getting hung up on teminology, or I am....
>:vertical: a straight line going on and down, STACKED left to right.
>:Horizontal: a straight line going left to right, STACKED up and down.
>
>Right. So "vertical resolution" is determined by how *many* distinct
>horizontal lines can be displayed on the screen, stacked *vertically*.
Okay, you got me. But you have to admit Phat's grasp of video is a
little bit lacking as well (640 for all PSX games? I own one now, and
all I have to say is...."where"?).
>:I've proven someone else wrong with this statement. Do you want me to
>:send you the two de-interlaced frames I grabbed of Tekken 2, proving
>:without a doubt that it is an interlaced game? (The two pics show the
>:separated results of field A and field B).
>
>As I understand it, games like Tekken output a signal with modified timing
>such that the lines of the second field overwrites the lines of the first
>field instead of interlacing between them. As this differs from a standard
>broadcast signal, I wouldn't be surprised if your frame-grabbing software
>is mistakenly assuming that the two fields are intended to be interlaced,
>and is displaying them that way.
Yeah, I heard that before from someone else too. I actually didn't
use frame grabbing "software", I used a Video Toaster, and also a
video Time Base corrector at a local TV station. Tekken 2 is using a
form of interlace, but not a standard one, as while the 2 fields of
movement are different, they can't be totally stilled, as parts of
both frames are still slightly intermixed. Still, this IS a form of
interlace, as both fields can still be split apart most of the way.
CC.
Ched Chorture
On Thu, 27 Mar 1997 04:42:12 -0800, mo...@server.berkeley.edu (Marlon
L. Chen) wrote:
>In article <333aed5a...@207.126.101.77>, ch...@nothere.com says...
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:10:43 -0800, mo...@server.berkeley.edu (Marlon
>> L. Chen) wrote:
>> >In article <33332256...@news.sojourn.com>, leng...@sojourn.com
>> >says...
>> >
>> >Um... A system's resolution capabilities are hard-wired. It has nothing
>> >to do with the display you're using. Interlacing doesn't affect the
>> >resolution that the system outputs, and certainly doesn't double it.
>>
>> Uhhh....who's confused here? two 240 fields on one frame make for a
>> 480 picture. I never said that it could do anything beyond that,
>> though it can (and usually does) do under....
>
>So you're telling me that a 1024x768 interlaced monitor is really running
>at a resolution of 1024x1536? Whoah, better throw out my non-interlaced
>monitor and pick up one of those cheapies that I passed up, thinking it
>was inferior...
Not unless you're telling ME that your 1024 by 768 monitor is running
at strict NTSC mode. You really ought to raise your refresh rate.....
>> >Also, the Saturn isn't sending out "fields." It's sending out a signal
>> >of the entire picture. It is up to the TV to dissect it into two fields
>> >and display it as such. (Or, as the 60fps games suggest, alternate
>> >between which field to extract for each image that comes in.) If the
>> >Saturn were sending out fields, it would not display on a non-interlaced
>> >monitor.
>>
>> Of COURSE it's sending out fields, for games that actually utilize
>> them for 60 fps games. What's there for a TV is "Dissect", if nothing
>> is sent out? If it wasn't sending fields, it would be impossible to
>> make a 60 FIELD per second game, and all games would be 30 FRAME per
>> second games (IE not utilizing the fields for two different pictures
>> in one frame, but only one). We obviously have two different versions
>> of terminology going on here.
>> >
>> >
>> >M.
>> >http://server.berkeley.edu/~moomc/
>
>Okay, the big argument here is that we disagree about WHAT the Saturn is
>sending out.
>
>You assert that, for an example image of 704x480, it sends one 704x240
>field followed by a second 704x240 field.
Welll...that's the resolution of a standard NTSC field, which VF2 and
FMM happen to use.
>I assert that the Saturn sends out the 704x480 image BOTH TIMES, and the
>TV alternates which field to display.
>
>Here are some reasons why I believe so:
>
>1. If you take that little yellow plug and stick it into a NON INTERLACED
>composite monitor, the image will BE WRONG. The vertical resolution will
>have gotten halved.
Uh...yeah. A NON INTERLACED monitor can NOT show NTSC Video!
>2. A more abstracted sense of #1, which I already iterated in my original
>post. IF you hardwire into your machine an implementation such that it
>sends out two separate fields, you have made your machine COMPLETELY
>INCOMPATIBLE with any NON interlacing display. The Japanese are pretty
>high-tech. So I suspect HDTV would be non-interlaced. That means from
>the Japanese to American Saturn they have to REPLACE the display hardware
>with one that reads every other line of the display buffer. And all of
>this hardware would be COMPLETELY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE unless TVs MUST
>accept fields as opposed to images, because otherwise the field you send
>in would get split in half again internally. It's all about abstraction
>and compatibility. U.S. TVs are the only ones that NEED to display two
>fields. The bottleneck in U.S. TVs is the speed at which the electron
>gun can move, not how much information it can process. Why force the
>other end to support a quirk only you need if you can build a converter
>from the popular format to yours and contain it within yourself?
HDTV isn't a mainstream format just yet. The Japanese also use
standard NTSC. Until they switch formats, they're stuck with the same
"bottleneck" we are.
>3. The previous two have mainly been conjecture, one of those "thought
>experiments" they teach you in college physics =P. This last one is
>cold, hard fact. The same port on the Genesis used to output RF and A/V
>signals can also send out an RGB signal, given a custom cable, so that
>you can hook it up to a computer monitor. Computer monitors are by and
>large NON INTERLACED, ESPECIALLY at 320x224. The RGB signal sent out HAS
>to be non interlaced for it to work with the computer monitor (unless you
>expect to convince me that every computer graphics card in existence
>dissects every image into two fields just so that all the monitors in
>existence can put them back together into one image to display it non
>interlaced =P). Since we are using the same port, the RGB signal's "non
>interlaced"ness must be shared by the other two formats taking the same
>input, namely the RF and A/V signals. Therefore the Genesis sends out
>entire non interlaced images. Therefore TVs must accept entire non
>interlaced images.
>
>
>M.
>http://server.berkeley.edu/~moomc/
They DO. I KNOW this. They've been accepting "non interlaced" images
for YEARS from the likes of the Atari 2600, on up. BUT those games
are only running at a straight 30 fps (usually slower than that). To
run 60 fields per second on NTSC format, the only way a TV can do this
is to interlace two fields on one frame.
As for your RGB argument, you are aware that most RGB monitors (and
multisync SVGA monitors) CAN interlace, aren't you? They will if
that's what the refresh rates require. I'd have to actually see the
Saturn VF2 running 60 frames a second on a computer monitor to be
convinced otherwise. A computer version of it can, sure (whenever
they get the framerate that high), but the Saturn version is limited
by what it's made for: NTSC.
CC.
Phat Hong Tran
In article <3339eb26...@207.126.101.77>,
Ched Chorture <ch...@nothere.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 00:01:40 GMT, pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
>(Phat Hong Tran) wrote:
>>
>>You have things backwards. Horizontal resolution is the number of
>>pixels across the screen. The number of horizontal lines is the
>>vertical resolution.
>
>Hmmm....either you're getting hung up on teminology, or I am....
>vertical: a straight line going on and down, STACKED left to right.
>Horizontal: a straight line going left to right, STACKED up and down.
Your claims of horizontal resolutions of 480 demonstrate to me that
you must view the world lying on your side. Let me educate you on
some conventions:
Resolution, in the area of computer graphics, refers to the number of
pixels along the two orthogonal dimensions of the screen. The number
of pixels along the vertical dimension is the vertical resolution.
Similarly, the number of pixels along the horizontal dimension is the
horizontal resolution. For example, a vertical resolution of 1000
implies that a vertical line touching the top and bottom of the screen
would be comprised of 1000 pixels.
Two-dimensional resolution is, by convention, given as H x V, where
H is the horizontal resolution, and V is the vertical.
>>Both Tekken 2 and Soul Edge have a vertical resolution of 240.
>>They also have horizontal resolutions of at least 512, if not 640.
>
>Tekken 2's 480. I'm not sure what the "other res" is, but it isn't
>512 or 640.
"480" is a vertical resolution, hardly ever a horizontal resolution.
This is because NTSC TV has 480 rasters (interlaced).
However, even rotating your assertion by 90 degrees does not make it
right as Tekken 2 has a vertical resolution of 240.
>>You should also note that Tekken is 60 fps, non-interlaced. It does
>>not have alternating odd/even fields.
>
>I've proven someone else wrong with this statement. Do you want me to
>send you the two de-interlaced frames I grabbed of Tekken 2, proving
>without a doubt that it is an interlaced game? (The two pics show the
>separated results of field A and field B).
I'm afraid your frame grabber is introducing artifacts into your
captures.
It's very easy to determine whether a game is interlaced or not: just
look at the screen. Looking at Tekken 2 on my XBR^2, I count roughly
240 visible rasters. That's pretty concrete evidence for me.
A non-interlaced game also has a very noticeable increase in the spacing
between the rasters, so you don't even need to count if you have a TV
with a well-focused electron beam. (Non-interlaced images on high scan
rate monitors are another matter.)
Computers have been displaying non-interlaced, 240-raster screens on
NTSC televisions ever since the dawn of home computing, and yet you
still claim it can't be done. The non-interlacing should be obvious
to anybody who has stared at a C64, early Amiga, or TI-99/4A screen.
The non-interlacing was also why all these home computers had vertical
resolutions of 240 (including borders - typically 200 addressable).
>>>BTW, FMM is the same as Tekken 2: 352x480.
>>
>>FMM is probably 352x240 while Tekken 2 is more like 640x240.
>
>"snicker" now THAT's Bias talking. I'm apologize for taking you
>seriously.
Few things are more annoying that arrogant, clueless posters. I
wouldn't have minded if you were arrogant and knowledgeable.
I repositioned the yoke on my XBR^2 to improve its colour purity. I
redistributed button magnets on its tube to improve its geometry, and
stuck ferrous strips under the yoke to improve its corner convergence.
I own two SVHS VCRs, and an LD player. I program DSPs at work. My
peers subtitle anime and design 3D comb filters in their spare time.
Due to my vocation and hobbies, I do know a thing or two about video,
so take me seriously when I tell you that everything you've said about
resolution and interlacing is BUNK.
Phat.
jai...@aros.net
> >> >Um... A system's resolution capabilities are hard-wired. It has nothing
> >> >to do with the display you're using. Interlacing doesn't affect the
> >> >resolution that the system outputs, and certainly doesn't double it.
> >>
> >> Uhhh....who's confused here? two 240 fields on one frame make for a
> >> 480 picture. I never said that it could do anything beyond that,
> >> though it can (and usually does) do under....
The video frame buffer is displayed in two parts when using an
interlaced display. The odd numbered scanlines are sent during the odd
numbered fields, then the even numbered scanlines are sent durning the
even numbered fields. Some monitors will adjust the electrom beam to
appear inbetween vertical scanlines during the even numbered fields,
vitually creating a 480 pixel high display at 30 hz.. If you've played
Sonic 2 on the Genesis in 2 player mode, you know what interlacing looks
like.
> >So you're telling me that a 1024x768 interlaced monitor is really running
> >at a resolution of 1024x1536? Whoah, better throw out my non-interlaced
> >monitor and pick up one of those cheapies that I passed up, thinking it
> >was inferior...
>
> Not unless you're telling ME that your 1024 by 768 monitor is running
> at strict NTSC mode. You really ought to raise your refresh rate.....
I'm currently running a Princton Ultra 14ni at 1600*1200 (the mouse
pointer is tiny!!), even though the user guide states that it's maximum
non-interlaced resolution is 1024*768. First one to guess how I get
1200 scanlines get a cookie.
>
> >> >Also, the Saturn isn't sending out "fields." It's sending out a signal
> >> >of the entire picture. It is up to the TV to dissect it into two fields
> >> >and display it as such. (Or, as the 60fps games suggest, alternate
> >> >between which field to extract for each image that comes in.) If the
> >> >Saturn were sending out fields, it would not display on a non-interlaced
> >> >monitor.
> >>
> >> Of COURSE it's sending out fields, for games that actually utilize
> >> them for 60 fps games. What's there for a TV is "Dissect", if nothing
> >> is sent out? If it wasn't sending fields, it would be impossible to
> >> make a 60 FIELD per second game, and all games would be 30 FRAME per
> >> second games (IE not utilizing the fields for two different pictures
> >> in one frame, but only one). We obviously have two different versions
> >> of terminology going on here.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >M.
> >> >http://server.berkeley.edu/~moomc/
> >
> >Okay, the big argument here is that we disagree about WHAT the Saturn is
> >sending out.
> >
> >You assert that, for an example image of 704x480, it sends one 704x240
> >field followed by a second 704x240 field.
He asserted correctly.
> >I assert that the Saturn sends out the 704x480 image BOTH TIMES, and the
> >TV alternates which field to display.
> >
You asserted incorrectly.
<sensless bits of ignorance snipped>
The NTSC television displays 262 lines of vertical resolution. Scanline
data is featched from the frame buffer by the RAMDAC, then sent to the
monitor, on scanline at a time. The monitor sweaps the screen left to
right, top to bottom, very much the same way you read a book. If the
RAMDAC wants, it can send the odd number scanlines, or the even number
scanlines, or scanlines 1,2,5,9,33,124 and 125. It doesn't matter. It
can fetch them in any order, ascending or descending, but the monitor
always displays them in the order they were fetched. Paralax scrolling
takes advantage of this feature. Using the odd/even scheme is known as
interlacing. Most monitor's can slightly adjust the vertical position
of the electron beam during interlacing, so that the physical area in
between the odd numbered scanlines are used by the even numbered
scanlines. Interlacing is a cleaver way to reduce flickering of images
displayed at 30hz..
Marlon L. Chen
In article <333b3bf4...@207.126.101.77>, ch...@nothere.com says...
> They DO. I KNOW this. They've been accepting "non interlaced" images
> for YEARS from the likes of the Atari 2600, on up. BUT those games
> are only running at a straight 30 fps (usually slower than that). To
> run 60 fields per second on NTSC format, the only way a TV can do this
> is to interlace two fields on one frame.
*sigh*
It doesn't matter what "fps" a game is claiming to run at. A display
must have CONSTANT information. Do you really think that a game running
at "2 fps" only sends out its image twice a second? If it did, the
screen would show black, snow, or whatever the ray gun defaults to, the
other 28 frames per second.
> As for your RGB argument, you are aware that most RGB monitors (and
> multisync SVGA monitors) CAN interlace, aren't you? They will if
> that's what the refresh rates require. I'd have to actually see the
> Saturn VF2 running 60 frames a second on a computer monitor to be
> convinced otherwise. A computer version of it can, sure (whenever
> they get the framerate that high), but the Saturn version is limited
> by what it's made for: NTSC.
Okay, I am NOT going to repeat my arguments, because they are PERFECTLY
outlined in my previous post. I have nothing more to add to them.
Instead, I will ask you one single question about YOUR point of view.
If the Saturn is indeed hardwired to display alternating fields at 60fps
in 704x480, HOW in the WORLD do the Europeans using PAL manage to play
VF2?
Phat Hong Tran
In article <MPG.da40b02b...@news.lanminds.com>,
Marlon L. Chen <mo...@server.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
[In response to Ched C.]
>Okay, the big argument here is that we disagree about WHAT the Saturn is
>sending out.
>
>You assert that, for an example image of 704x480, it sends one 704x240
>field followed by a second 704x240 field.
>
>I assert that the Saturn sends out the 704x480 image BOTH TIMES, and the
>TV alternates which field to display.
This is wrong, Marlon. NTSC does not have enough bandwidth to send 480
rasters in 1/60 of a second. NTSC only has enough bandwidth for 240
rasters every 1/60 of a second. (Actually, the number is closer to ~250,
but some of those rasters do not hold picture information.)
The NTSC signal is punctuated by vertical sync pulses every 250 or so
rasters. An NTSC TV mindlessly "homes" the electron beam to the top
left corner at each vertical sync pulse, and continues to draw the
240 rasters down the (entire) screen as they arrive over the cable or
over the air. There is no buffering (except in comb filters), no selective
demultiplexing.
Usually, the timing of consecutive sync pulses alternates so that
consecutive sets of 240 rasters are drawn slightly offset vertically.
This is what everybody knows as interlacing, and provides broadcast images
with an effect 480 lines of vertical resolution. However, not everybody
knows that interlacing is signal-dependent, not TV dependent. If the
sync pulse timings don't alternate, then the consecutive sets of 240
rasters would be drawn non-interlaced.
An interesting side effect of interlacing is that a game running at
704x480 at 60 fps need not push any more pixels than a game running at
704x240 at 60 fps. Each game needs to only draw 240 rasters each 1/60
of a second, since that's all that NTSC is capable of. The only additional
complication for the 704x480 game is vertically offsetting the origin of
the rasterizer by 0.5 pixels vertically after each frame, but this is a
negligible increase in CPU load.
>Here are some reasons why I believe so:
>
>1. If you take that little yellow plug and stick it into a NON INTERLACED
>composite monitor, the image will BE WRONG. The vertical resolution will
>have gotten halved.
Not so. There is no such thing as an "interlaced" or "non-interlaced"
monitor, at a technical level. A "non-interlaced" monitor will display
an interlaced image if the signal contains interlacing sync pulses.
Computer monitors are advertised as "non-interlaced" simply to indicate
that they have high enough scan rates to display 1024x768 at 70 Hz
non-interlaced, but they can interlace 1024x384 fields into 1024x768 as
well.
>2. A more abstracted sense of #1, which I already iterated in my original
>post. IF you hardwire into your machine an implementation such that it
>sends out two separate fields, you have made your machine COMPLETELY
>INCOMPATIBLE with any NON interlacing display. The Japanese are pretty
>high-tech. So I suspect HDTV would be non-interlaced. That means from
>the Japanese to American Saturn they have to REPLACE the display hardware
>with one that reads every other line of the display buffer. And all of
>this hardware would be COMPLETELY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE unless TVs MUST
>accept fields as opposed to images, because otherwise the field you send
>in would get split in half again internally. It's all about abstraction
HDTV is still very rare in Japan. And any TV set in Japan will have to
cope with standard interlaced NTSC because that's the system they use
for most of their broadcasts. So conjecture 2 goes out the window...
>and compatibility. U.S. TVs are the only ones that NEED to display two
>fields. The bottleneck in U.S. TVs is the speed at which the electron
>gun can move, not how much information it can process. Why force the
>other end to support a quirk only you need if you can build a converter
>from the popular format to yours and contain it within yourself?
If only the TV is the bottleneck... then broadcasters can emit ultra-
high resolution signals and leave it up to the consumers to buy good
enough TVs to recover as much of that resolution as they want.
Unfortunately, that's not the case... NTSC (and available spectrum)
is the bottleneck.
>3. The previous two have mainly been conjecture, one of those "thought
>experiments" they teach you in college physics =P. This last one is
>cold, hard fact. The same port on the Genesis used to output RF and A/V
>signals can also send out an RGB signal, given a custom cable, so that
>you can hook it up to a computer monitor. Computer monitors are by and
>large NON INTERLACED, ESPECIALLY at 320x224. The RGB signal sent out HAS
>to be non interlaced for it to work with the computer monitor (unless you
>expect to convince me that every computer graphics card in existence
Again, interlacing is dependent on the timing of the sync pulses in
the video signal, and not the monitor. Besides, the Genesis does not
interlace its screens...
Phat.
Ched Chorture
On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 00:52:00 GMT, pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
(Phat Hong Tran) wrote:
>In article <3339eb26...@207.126.101.77>,
>Ched Chorture <ch...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 00:01:40 GMT, pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
>>(Phat Hong Tran) wrote:
>>>
>>>You have things backwards. Horizontal resolution is the number of
>>>pixels across the screen. The number of horizontal lines is the
>>>vertical resolution.
>>
>>Hmmm....either you're getting hung up on teminology, or I am....
>>vertical: a straight line going on and down, STACKED left to right.
>>Horizontal: a straight line going left to right, STACKED up and down.
>
>Your claims of horizontal resolutions of 480 demonstrate to me that
>you must view the world lying on your side. Let me educate you on
>some conventions:
Actually, if you read some of the other answers to this post, you
would know I'm right about this, only I confused one term with the
other. I apologize for that.
>Resolution, in the area of computer graphics, refers to the number of
>pixels along the two orthogonal dimensions of the screen. The number
>of pixels along the vertical dimension is the vertical resolution.
>Similarly, the number of pixels along the horizontal dimension is the
>horizontal resolution. For example, a vertical resolution of 1000
>implies that a vertical line touching the top and bottom of the screen
>would be comprised of 1000 pixels.
>
>Two-dimensional resolution is, by convention, given as H x V, where
>H is the horizontal resolution, and V is the vertical.
Yeah, that's what I was going by. Horizontal: left and right:
Vertical: up and down.
Wellll....uh....actually it's X...(left and right) and Y....(Up and
down), when you deal with computer graphics.
>>>Both Tekken 2 and Soul Edge have a vertical resolution of 240.
>>>They also have horizontal resolutions of at least 512, if not 640.
>>
>>Tekken 2's 480. I'm not sure what the "other res" is, but it isn't
>>512 or 640.
>
>"480" is a vertical resolution, hardly ever a horizontal resolution.
>This is because NTSC TV has 480 rasters (interlaced).
Heh. I know. The vertical res is what I meant. The "other"
(horizontal) res however, isn't 512 or 640.
>However, even rotating your assertion by 90 degrees does not make it
>right as Tekken 2 has a vertical resolution of 240.
>
>>>You should also note that Tekken is 60 fps, non-interlaced. It does
>>>not have alternating odd/even fields.
>>
>>I've proven someone else wrong with this statement. Do you want me to
>>send you the two de-interlaced frames I grabbed of Tekken 2, proving
>>without a doubt that it is an interlaced game? (The two pics show the
>>separated results of field A and field B).
>
>I'm afraid your frame grabber is introducing artifacts into your
>captures.
Okay, then explain to me why I can split it in two. If it was truly
non-interlaced, All I'd get would be garbage.
I've tried this on both a Video Toaster with a personal TBC, and a
Time Base corrector at a local TV station. The results were the same.
>It's very easy to determine whether a game is interlaced or not: just
>look at the screen. Looking at Tekken 2 on my XBR^2, I count roughly
>240 visible rasters. That's pretty concrete evidence for me.
It is using a technique where it sort of overwrites the previous
field, but it still can be split, just like interlace can.
>A non-interlaced game also has a very noticeable increase in the spacing
>between the rasters, so you don't even need to count if you have a TV
>with a well-focused electron beam. (Non-interlaced images on high scan
>rate monitors are another matter.)
>
>Computers have been displaying non-interlaced, 240-raster screens on
>NTSC televisions ever since the dawn of home computing, and yet you
>still claim it can't be done. The non-interlacing should be obvious
>to anybody who has stared at a C64, early Amiga, or TI-99/4A screen.
>The non-interlacing was also why all these home computers had vertical
>resolutions of 240 (including borders - typically 200 addressable).
I never said it couldn't be done, it just can't be done using all 60
fields a second for animation frames.
>>>>BTW, FMM is the same as Tekken 2: 352x480.
>>>
>>>FMM is probably 352x240 while Tekken 2 is more like 640x240.
>>
>>"snicker" now THAT's Bias talking. I'm apologize for taking you
>>seriously.
>
>Few things are more annoying that arrogant, clueless posters. I
>wouldn't have minded if you were arrogant and knowledgeable.
Sorry to make you angry, but your assumptions for both game
resolutions is absolutely wrong. I just feel it's funny that the PSX
game, your advocated system, just happens to have a "better"
resolution, when in truth, they both have the same res, or, if you're
actually correct about Tekken 2 being a non-interlaced game, then
Megamix actually has a higher resolution, because it IS in interlace
for sure. Also, if Tekken 2 truly has a resolution as high as you
say, then why is Namco making such a big deal about Tekken 3's 640 x
480 resolution?
>I repositioned the yoke on my XBR^2 to improve its colour purity. I
>redistributed button magnets on its tube to improve its geometry, and
>stuck ferrous strips under the yoke to improve its corner convergence.
>I own two SVHS VCRs, and an LD player. I program DSPs at work. My
>peers subtitle anime and design 3D comb filters in their spare time.
>Due to my vocation and hobbies, I do know a thing or two about video,
>so take me seriously when I tell you that everything you've said about
>resolution and interlacing is BUNK.
Sorry, I can't. I've worked in the 3D animation field for about 4
years, with Amigas and PCs, and a Mac-based Avid system, so I know a
bit about video myself. You have not given me any proof whatsoever
that you know what you speak of with the PSX's resolution. You just
"feel" the system's games have a higher resolution than they actually
do.
>Phat.
CC.
Ched Chorture
On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 04:45:43 -0800, mo...@server.berkeley.edu (Marlon
L. Chen) wrote:
>In article <333b3bf4...@207.126.101.77>, ch...@nothere.com says...
>> They DO. I KNOW this. They've been accepting "non interlaced" images
>> for YEARS from the likes of the Atari 2600, on up. BUT those games
>> are only running at a straight 30 fps (usually slower than that). To
>> run 60 fields per second on NTSC format, the only way a TV can do this
>> is to interlace two fields on one frame.
>
>
>It doesn't matter what "fps" a game is claiming to run at. A display
>must have CONSTANT information. Do you really think that a game running
>at "2 fps" only sends out its image twice a second? If it did, the
>screen would show black, snow, or whatever the ray gun defaults to, the
>other 28 frames per second.
*double sigh*
I'm sorry, I really should clarify when I'm talking about "frames per
second" and "fields per second". Any game that runs at 30 frames per
second or less has no trouble being non-interlaced. However, if you
want to go faster than that with the NTSC standard, you have to
alternate the fields. The way to do that is interlacing.
>
>> As for your RGB argument, you are aware that most RGB monitors (and
>> multisync SVGA monitors) CAN interlace, aren't you? They will if
>> that's what the refresh rates require. I'd have to actually see the
>> Saturn VF2 running 60 frames a second on a computer monitor to be
>> convinced otherwise. A computer version of it can, sure (whenever
>> they get the framerate that high), but the Saturn version is limited
>> by what it's made for: NTSC.
>
>Okay, I am NOT going to repeat my arguments, because they are PERFECTLY
>outlined in my previous post. I have nothing more to add to them.
They're not perfectly outlined. They're contradictory and go off the
subject. Do you remember what we're arguing about?
>Instead, I will ask you one single question about YOUR point of view.
>
>If the Saturn is indeed hardwired to display alternating fields at 60fps
>in 704x480, HOW in the WORLD do the Europeans using PAL manage to play
>VF2?
Try hooking up a PAL Saturn to an NTSC TV set or vice versa.....and
ask that again.
CC.
?
jai...@aros.net wrote:
a manual on television and monitor resolutions...
(which was thoughtfully snipped)
Thank you, and now please take your boring know-it-all arguement about
resolutions to comp.*
--
E-mail address has been removed from the header in a vain
attempt to loose spam.
E-mail me at:
sicko
@
castles.
com
Red Ronin
Phat Hong Tran wrote:
> "480" is a vertical resolution, hardly ever a horizontal resolution.
> This is because NTSC TV has 480 rasters (interlaced).
Actually no. NTSC Standard is 525 horizontal scan lines (525 vertical
pixels) in a display and has no maximum lateral resolution. Some high
end television sets allow for 600-800 horizontal scan lines, but they
simply split the same 525 signals among the greater number of lines for
better contrast. The reason for the 480 pixel screen height is due to
the screen aspect ratio of 12x9 (which factors down to 4x3) 640x480 can
be reduced to 120x90 which can yield 12x9. For this same reason, an
800x600 display can be numerically reduced to 400x300 which has the same
ratio as 4x3 and 12x9. Eventually HDTV standards will yield a
consistent 16x9 ratio or higher, we'll just have to wait.
I think the problem you guys are having is in regard to the neverending
SpecsWars that seem to pervade the internet regarding videogame systems
today. Just because the Nintendo64 and PlayStation have a maximum
resolution of 640x480 does not mean all games for the systems use that
resolution at all or all the time. Every system available has multiple
programmable display modes and developers have the freedom to assign
their own if they wish. Just because each of the systems is capable of
producing millions of colors or 60 frames of animation per second, does
not mean in the slightest that every game will do so. Benchmark
statistics essentially mean nothing in the real world.
All that said, NTSC television sets provide an interlaced display by
default, drawing odd, then even scan lines approximately 30 times per
second each, yielding about 60 fields per second. Games like Tekken 2,
Tobal No. 1, Virtua Fighter 2 and DecAthlete create 60 frames of
animation per second, but each frame of animation is sent to the monitor
or television in the best way available. Thus you end up with one
animation frame interlaced with another animation frame which through
persistence of vision yields a smoother display. As far as your eyes
are concerned it is high res and high frame rate. Yes, the Amiga had
hi-res NTSC displays generated the same way.
Fighting Vipers - 360x240 , 60 fps
Fighters MEGAMiX - 360x240 , 60 fps
Tekken 2 - approximately 520x380 , 60 fps
Tobal No. 1 - 640x480 , 60 fps
Virtua Fighter 2 - 704x480 , 60 fps
Virtua Fighter Kids - 704x480 , 60 fps
DecAthlete - 704x480 , 60 fps
Mario64 - approximately 340x220 , less than 30 fps
Unta Glebin Gloutin Globin,
Red Ronin, The Cybernetic Samurai
EMAIL: redr...@geocities.com
HOMEPAGE: http://www.primenet.com/~babamat/rr/rrmenu.htm
"My house, my opinion, behold - the door." - Peter Weller, 'Decoy'
Red Ronin
jai...@aros.net wrote:
> The NTSC television displays 262 lines of vertical resolution. Scanline
> data is featched from the frame buffer by the RAMDAC, then sent to the
> monitor, on scanline at a time. The monitor sweaps the screen left to
> right, top to bottom, very much the same way you read a book. If the
> RAMDAC wants, it can send the odd number scanlines, or the even number
> scanlines, or scanlines 1,2,5,9,33,124 and 125. It doesn't matter. It
> can fetch them in any order, ascending or descending, but the monitor
> always displays them in the order they were fetched. Paralax scrolling
> takes advantage of this feature. Using the odd/even scheme is known as
> interlacing. Most monitor's can slightly adjust the vertical position
> of the electron beam during interlacing, so that the physical area in
> between the odd numbered scanlines are used by the even numbered
> scanlines. Interlacing is a cleaver way to reduce flickering of images
> displayed at 30hz..
Hmmm... It seems to me that part of what you describe here is called
"nanosecond screen updating" which to my knowledge is only used with
high-end video equipment such as character generators. I believe that
the Video Toaster has this ability (along with the Amiga's built in Hold
and Modify mode) as well as several other digital video effects.
Nanosecond updates are what you see when the Fox Sports logos come up
during a football game or the intro graphics for things like NBA on NBC
or Monday Night Football on ABC. To my knowledge, nanosecond updates
are used to generate images, but once a recording or video signal
reaches your NTSC television set, you WILL see an interlaced display
every time.
Unta Glebin Gloutin Globin,
Red Ronin, The Cybernetic Samurai
EMAIL: redr...@geocities.com
HOMEPAGE: http://www.primenet.com/~babamat/rr/rrmenu.htm
"What's the point of being a grownup if you can't be childish from time
to time?" - Tom Baker, 'Doctor Who'
Nobody's Perfect
Red Ronin wrote:
> Fighting Vipers - 360x240 , 60 fps
> Fighters MEGAMiX - 360x240 , 60 fps
> Tekken 2 - approximately 520x380 , 60 fps
Nope. It is definately low resolution.
> Tobal No. 1 - 640x480 , 60 fps
Not texture mapped.
> Virtua Fighter 2 - 704x480 , 60 fps
> Virtua Fighter Kids - 704x480 , 60 fps
> DecAthlete - 704x480 , 60 fps
> Mario64 - approximately 340x220 , less than 30 fps
640X480.
Note that Saturn that VF2 is the only
texture mapped fighter running at 704*480, 60FPS.
None of PSX fighters can do this.
>
> Unta Glebin Gloutin Globin,
>
> Red Ronin, The Cybernetic Samurai
> EMAIL: redr...@geocities.com
> HOMEPAGE: http://www.primenet.com/~babamat/rr/rrmenu.htm
>
Phat Hong Tran
In article <333d928...@207.126.101.77>,
Ched Chorture <ch...@nothere.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 00:52:00 GMT, pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
>(Phat Hong Tran) wrote:
>
>>"480" is a vertical resolution, hardly ever a horizontal resolution.
>>This is because NTSC TV has 480 rasters (interlaced).
>
>Heh. I know. The vertical res is what I meant. The "other"
>(horizontal) res however, isn't 512 or 640.
Simply put your money where your mouth is and count the pixels on the
screen. Look for a polygon edge with vertical pixel runs (so that you
know that each "stair step" represents one horizontal pixel). Measure the
horizontal distance required for 10 or so pixels and extrapolate to the
horizontal dimension of your screen. Don't forget to add 10 to 20% to
your estimate to account for overscan. You'll see that Tekken 2 has a
horizontal resolution of at least 512.
You'll need a large TV with well-focused beam, plus an S-Video connection
to see the pixels clear enough to count them.
I know counting pixels is an extremely anal activity, but nothing is
more welcome in an argument than real, hard empirical data.
>Okay, then explain to me why I can split it in two. If it was truly
>non-interlaced, All I'd get would be garbage.
>
>I've tried this on both a Video Toaster with a personal TBC, and a
>Time Base corrector at a local TV station. The results were the same.
I hope you know that a TBC will regenerate a video signal's sync pulses.
So, regardless of whether the incoming signal is interlaced or not, most
TBCs will spit out a signal with interlacing sync pulses. That's the
purpose of a TBC -- to correct the timing in the signal to standard NTSC,
and as you should know by now, it's the timing of the sync pulses that
determines whether the fields will be interlaced or not.
>>Computers have been displaying non-interlaced, 240-raster screens on
>>NTSC televisions ever since the dawn of home computing, and yet you
>>still claim it can't be done. The non-interlacing should be obvious
>>to anybody who has stared at a C64, early Amiga, or TI-99/4A screen.
>>The non-interlacing was also why all these home computers had vertical
>>resolutions of 240 (including borders - typically 200 addressable).
>
>I never said it couldn't be done, it just can't be done using all 60
>fields a second for animation frames.
Again, there is nothing in the NTSC signal that forces consecutive fields
to be interlaced, or to come from the same "frame" in time. Tekken 2 is
doing 60 fps, using non-interlaced fields.
I think many of your assumptions have come from using a TBC to post-process
the signals coming out of your computers.
>Sorry to make you angry, but your assumptions for both game
>resolutions is absolutely wrong. I just feel it's funny that the PSX
>game, your advocated system, just happens to have a "better"
>resolution, when in truth, they both have the same res, or, if you're
>actually correct about Tekken 2 being a non-interlaced game, then
>Megamix actually has a higher resolution, because it IS in interlace
>for sure. Also, if Tekken 2 truly has a resolution as high as you
>say, then why is Namco making such a big deal about Tekken 3's 640 x
>480 resolution?
Tekken 3's resolution of 640x480 doubles the vertical resolution of
previous Tekkens. And I suggest you view Megamix without a TBC to
eyeball its true resolution.
Phat.
Larry Scott Ii
: resolution, when in truth, they both have the same res, or, if you're
: actually correct about Tekken 2 being a non-interlaced game, then
: Megamix actually has a higher resolution, because it IS in interlace
: for sure. Also, if Tekken 2 truly has a resolution as high as you
I've got Tekken 2, and I don't care what he says it's *programmed* to do,
but it definitly *displays* at 240 vertical resolution. Tobal no.1
displays at 480.
: >Due to my vocation and hobbies, I do know a thing or two about video,
: >so take me seriously when I tell you that everything you've said about
: >resolution and interlacing is BUNK.
blah blah blah.. maybe you work on video so much your eyes have crapped
out. Tekken 2 is 240 lines vertical NI. If you want to see a PSX in 480
lines interlaced, look at Tobal no. 1. The difference should be obvious
on your "tweaked-out" set.
Alex Chapman
In article <333F3A...@nowhere.com>, Nobody's Perfect
<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Red Ronin wrote:
>
> > Fighting Vipers - 360x240 , 60 fps
> > Fighters MEGAMiX - 360x240 , 60 fps
> > Tekken 2 - approximately 520x380 , 60 fps
>
> Nope. It is definately low resolution.
>
> > Tobal No. 1 - 640x480 , 60 fps
>
> Not texture mapped.
>
> > Virtua Fighter 2 - 704x480 , 60 fps
> > Virtua Fighter Kids - 704x480 , 60 fps
> > DecAthlete - 704x480 , 60 fps
> > Mario64 - approximately 340x220 , less than 30 fps
>
> 640X480.
>
>
> Note that Saturn that VF2 is the only
> texture mapped fighter running at 704*480, 60FPS.
> None of PSX fighters can do this.
Okay, now, I'm really, really confused. How can you have 640x480, 30 fps
or 360x240, 60 fps? If you're drawing 480 lines, then you're putting up
new information on every sweep; because of interlacing 240 of the lines
come every 30th of a second and the the other 240 lines come every 30th of
a second, a 60th of a second out of phase. So there are two options for
vertical resolution, 240 lines served up every 30th of a second, or 480
lines served up every 30th of a second in two sweeps, with each 240-some
potentially carrying a frame that happened a 60th of a second later.
In other words, no matter what if you're 60 fps or you're 480 lines tall,
you're drawing 240 new lines of image every 60th of a second. And the only
reason you'd have high-res/low-rate is because you didn't bother to put a
time offset on the second sweep,and the only reason you'd have
low-res/high-rate is because you didn't bother to put a spatial offset on
the second sweep. Why would you not do this, when it looks just that much
better otherwise? You're drawing a fresh frame regardless, how much more
processor load is it to move the rendering domain or move the polygons
before the next render? More than I can imagine?
Saturn vf2 does look pretty nice, btw. Too bad about those backgrounds,
though--the fact that that was a 3D great wall of china snaking off into
the background was what really blew me away about VF2 when I first saw it.
Phat Hong Tran
In article <333E28...@geocities.com>,
Red Ronin <redr...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Phat Hong Tran wrote:
>> "480" is a vertical resolution, hardly ever a horizontal resolution.
>> This is because NTSC TV has 480 rasters (interlaced).
>
>pixels) in a display and has no maximum lateral resolution. Some high
Although this is the case, I was referring to visible rasters, the number
of which floats around 480-500, depending on overscan. The off-screen
rasters usually encode things such as descrambling information or CC
text, but I'm sure you already know this.
>end television sets allow for 600-800 horizontal scan lines, but they
>simply split the same 525 signals among the greater number of lines for
>better contrast. The reason for the 480 pixel screen height is due to
The advertised resolution of a TV refers to the horizontal resolution.
Few TVs increase the number of rasters, and those that do typically
choose an integer multiple of 525.
>All that said, NTSC television sets provide an interlaced display by
>default, drawing odd, then even scan lines approximately 30 times per
>second each, yielding about 60 fields per second. Games like Tekken 2,
>Tobal No. 1, Virtua Fighter 2 and DecAthlete create 60 frames of
>animation per second, but each frame of animation is sent to the monitor
>or television in the best way available. Thus you end up with one
>animation frame interlaced with another animation frame which through
>persistence of vision yields a smoother display. As far as your eyes
>are concerned it is high res and high frame rate. Yes, the Amiga had
>hi-res NTSC displays generated the same way.
I agree with what you're saying, except that the image on an NTSC TV
does not have to be interlaced. All 60 fields per second can be
displayed non-interlaced, for an effective 60 frames per second, with
about 240 rasters per frame.
>Fighting Vipers - 360x240 , 60 fps
>Fighters MEGAMiX - 360x240 , 60 fps
>Tekken 2 - approximately 520x380 , 60 fps
>Tobal No. 1 - 640x480 , 60 fps
>Virtua Fighter 2 - 704x480 , 60 fps
>Virtua Fighter Kids - 704x480 , 60 fps
>DecAthlete - 704x480 , 60 fps
>Mario64 - approximately 340x220 , less than 30 fps
Another high-water mark is Sangoku Musou on the PSX, which is
512x480 60fps, with transparencies and Tekken2-ish lighting.
(But, technically, any 60fps console game at 480 rasters isn't more
graphically intensive than a comparable game at 240 rasters, due to
interlacing. Just a bit more ingenious.)
Anyway, my orignal statement was that PSX games are typically 640
pixels across. That was what my eyes were telling me without actually
counting the pixels. I could see that the horizontal resolution was
certainly higher than the 400's, and the next obvious mode was 640.
But given that another poster has stated that the PSX has a fast 512
horizontal resolution mode, I amend my statement to "most PSX games are
512 pixels across". Most Saturn games use a horizontal resolution of
352.
I, myself, was starting lose track of what point I was trying to make. :)
Phat.
Phat Hong Tran
In article <E7w5...@iglou.com>, Larry Scott Ii <meta...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
>: >Due to my vocation and hobbies, I do know a thing or two about video,
>: >so take me seriously when I tell you that everything you've said about
>: >resolution and interlacing is BUNK.
>
>out. Tekken 2 is 240 lines vertical NI. If you want to see a PSX in 480
>lines interlaced, look at Tobal no. 1. The difference should be obvious
>on your "tweaked-out" set.
You've quoted me out of context. I've always said that Tekken 2 has a
vertical resolution of 240, non-interlaced. And yes, the difference
between Tobal and Tekken 2 is very clear on my set. :)
Phat.
Phat Hong Tran
>> Fighters MEGAMiX - 360x240 , 60 fps
>> Tekken 2 - approximately 520x380 , 60 fps
>
At least 512x240. That's higher resolution than the large majority of
Saturn games.
>> Tobal No. 1 - 640x480 , 60 fps
>
> Not texture mapped.
But 3D backgrounds, high poly count characters, lighting and Gouraud
shading.
> Note that Saturn that VF2 is the only
> texture mapped fighter running at 704*480, 60FPS.
> None of PSX fighters can do this.
Sangoku Musou does at least 512x480, with transparencies, light sourcing,
and higher poly count than VF2.
Phat.
Gordon J. Stephenson
Nobody's Perfect wrote:
>
> Red Ronin wrote:
>
> > Fighting Vipers - 360x240 , 60 fps
> > Fighters MEGAMiX - 360x240 , 60 fps
> > Tekken 2 - approximately 520x380 , 60 fps
>
> Nope. It is definately low resolution.
Tekken is in high res actually, I think that is what you are talking
about. Isn't it?
>
> > Tobal No. 1 - 640x480 , 60 fps
>
> Not texture mapped.
But that is part of it's appeal.
>
> > Virtua Fighter 2 - 704x480 , 60 fps
> > Virtua Fighter Kids - 704x480 , 60 fps
> > DecAthlete - 704x480 , 60 fps
> > Mario64 - approximately 340x220 , less than 30 fps
>
> 640X480.
>
Mario 64 is actually running on the lowest resolution that the system
has, which is 340x220. And this is rather a true testamint to the power
of the hardware.
> Note that Saturn that VF2 is the only
> texture mapped fighter running at 704*480, 60FPS.
> None of PSX fighters can do this.
>
But all of the backgrounds are 2D and not done very well at that. And
PSX could run a game at 704x480 but the hardware simply doesn't have
that capabilitie {at least to my knowledge}. And the last statement
should not say that it can't do it, but
that the hardware simply isn't made to do it. Look at tohshinden 3 it
runs at 640x480 at 60FPS and has 3D backgrounds to boot. It is simply a
buetiful game. And plus I thought that Tekken 2 look good if not better
than VF2. Im not saying that VF2 isn't any good, I just like tekken a
little better {but still love VF2}.
terrell gibbs
In article <3340590...@207.126.101.77>, ch...@nothere.com (Ched
Chorture) wrote:
:
:What I'm saying here is, I'm not grabbing a frame, or two frames, I
:can grab and hold single fields in the buffer. The TBC does not have
:any time to "correct" the image or anything to calculate. On a lot of
:16-bit games with "off" frame rates for explosions and what-not, Field
:grabbing can screw up the image considerably, by taking away parts of
:the image. Tekken 2's all there, all intact, though not exactly
:right. So you're correct, it's not complete interlacing, but it's a
:modified system based on it, I would say.
Does this have any meaning? How can a screen be interlaced, but not
completely? Isn't that like being not completely pregnant? Seems like it
either is interlaced, or it is not...
Charles Miller Jr.
Wouldn't it also be pretty accurate to say that the phosphorus would be the
deciding factor in the whole thing? I mean, even if you could get full
draws at 60 fps it won't work because you are just pounding the same
phosphorus over and over? I mean they are designed to fade if hit every
30th of a second right? Hitting them more would just leave them on and not
have any visible effect in the fps. I'm most likely wrong about the whole
thing so... flame away. :(
--
- UNIX ate my homework!
Ched Chorture
On Mon, 31 Mar 1997 03:28:39 GMT, pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
(Phat Hong Tran) wrote:
>In article <333d928...@207.126.101.77>,
>Ched Chorture <ch...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 00:52:00 GMT, pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
>>(Phat Hong Tran) wrote:
>>
>>>"480" is a vertical resolution, hardly ever a horizontal resolution.
>>>This is because NTSC TV has 480 rasters (interlaced).
>>
>>Heh. I know. The vertical res is what I meant. The "other"
>>(horizontal) res however, isn't 512 or 640.
>
>screen. Look for a polygon edge with vertical pixel runs (so that you
>know that each "stair step" represents one horizontal pixel). Measure the
>horizontal distance required for 10 or so pixels and extrapolate to the
>horizontal dimension of your screen. Don't forget to add 10 to 20% to
>your estimate to account for overscan. You'll see that Tekken 2 has a
>horizontal resolution of at least 512.
I have an easier way. First, grab a frame of a 30 fps game like Soul
Edge, (2 fields are the same, so there isn't much of a chance of
"artifacting"), then, import it into a program like photoshop that can
scale images, and halve the size of the grab (make sure any
anti-aliasing options are turned off, so that the resulting image
isn't smeared). Now, using a program that will show you any image
full screen (if you have to, you can scale the image you scaled down,
back up to it's original size, since the "damage" has already been
done), compare the two images. Is any detail lost in the smaller
image? In my grabs it wasn't, because the "detail" wasn't there to
begin with. BTW, don't use title screens or low screens to compare,
since most of those are of a higher res.
>You'll need a large TV with well-focused beam, plus an S-Video connection
>to see the pixels clear enough to count them.
I have access to an Avid system with two .26mm dot pitch RGB monitors
running to a Beta tape machine, and an RGB cable for my PSX. Is that
good enough? :)
>I know counting pixels is an extremely anal activity, but nothing is
>more welcome in an argument than real, hard empirical data.
I think you can get the same results with my suggestion.
>>Okay, then explain to me why I can split it in two. If it was truly
>>non-interlaced, All I'd get would be garbage.
>>
>>I've tried this on both a Video Toaster with a personal TBC, and a
>>Time Base corrector at a local TV station. The results were the same.
>
>I hope you know that a TBC will regenerate a video signal's sync pulses.
>So, regardless of whether the incoming signal is interlaced or not, most
>TBCs will spit out a signal with interlacing sync pulses. That's the
>purpose of a TBC -- to correct the timing in the signal to standard NTSC,
>and as you should know by now, it's the timing of the sync pulses that
>determines whether the fields will be interlaced or not.
What I'm saying here is, I'm not grabbing a frame, or two frames, I
can grab and hold single fields in the buffer. The TBC does not have
any time to "correct" the image or anything to calculate. On a lot of
16-bit games with "off" frame rates for explosions and what-not, Field
grabbing can screw up the image considerably, by taking away parts of
the image. Tekken 2's all there, all intact, though not exactly
right. So you're correct, it's not complete interlacing, but it's a
modified system based on it, I would say.
>>>Computers have been displaying non-interlaced, 240-raster screens on
>>>NTSC televisions ever since the dawn of home computing, and yet you
>>>still claim it can't be done. The non-interlacing should be obvious
>>>to anybody who has stared at a C64, early Amiga, or TI-99/4A screen.
>>>The non-interlacing was also why all these home computers had vertical
>>>resolutions of 240 (including borders - typically 200 addressable).
>>
>>I never said it couldn't be done, it just can't be done using all 60
>>fields a second for animation frames.
>
>Again, there is nothing in the NTSC signal that forces consecutive fields
>to be interlaced, or to come from the same "frame" in time. Tekken 2 is
>doing 60 fps, using non-interlaced fields.
I'd be really interested in seeing a schematic for how this is done.
>I think many of your assumptions have come from using a TBC to post-process
>the signals coming out of your computers.
>
>>Sorry to make you angry, but your assumptions for both game
>>resolutions is absolutely wrong. I just feel it's funny that the PSX
>>game, your advocated system, just happens to have a "better"
>>resolution, when in truth, they both have the same res, or, if you're
>>actually correct about Tekken 2 being a non-interlaced game, then
>>Megamix actually has a higher resolution, because it IS in interlace
>>for sure. Also, if Tekken 2 truly has a resolution as high as you
>>say, then why is Namco making such a big deal about Tekken 3's 640 x
>>480 resolution?
>
>Tekken 3's resolution of 640x480 doubles the vertical resolution of
>previous Tekkens.
Hmm...I read somewhere it doubled both the horizontal and vertical
resolutions.
> And I suggest you view Megamix without a TBC to
>eyeball its true resolution.
I play FMM on a regular Sony TV all the time, and I can tell you, It's
interlace. On fast moves you can see it quite clearly. Besides, just
about any source for Saturn games on the 'net will tell you what res
it is. Not that you'd be looking in any Saturn sites, I'd imagine....
CC.
Virtua Man
na...@rice.edu (Alex Chapman) wrote:
>
>Okay, now, I'm really, really confused. How can you have 640x480, 30 fps
>or 360x240, 60 fps? If you're drawing 480 lines, then you're putting up
>new information on every sweep; because of interlacing 240 of the lines
>come every 30th of a second and the the other 240 lines come every 30th of
>a second, a 60th of a second out of phase. So there are two options for
>vertical resolution, 240 lines served up every 30th of a second, or 480
>lines served up every 30th of a second in two sweeps, with each 240-some
>potentially carrying a frame that happened a 60th of a second later.
>
>In other words, no matter what if you're 60 fps or you're 480 lines tall,
>you're drawing 240 new lines of image every 60th of a second. And the only
>reason you'd have high-res/low-rate is because you didn't bother to put a
>time offset on the second sweep,and the only reason you'd have
>low-res/high-rate is because you didn't bother to put a spatial offset on
>the second sweep. Why would you not do this, when it looks just that much
>better otherwise? You're drawing a fresh frame regardless, how much more
>processor load is it to move the rendering domain or move the polygons
>before the next render? More than I can imagine?
>
>Saturn vf2 does look pretty nice, btw. Too bad about those backgrounds,
>though--the fact that that was a 3D great wall of china snaking off into
>the background was what really blew me away about VF2 when I first saw >it.
Hehe...you just made more confusion! Eeee...my brain is about to explode
after reading that!!
Steve
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/hills/8290/
"Someone told me once
that there's a right and wrong,
and that punishment
would come to those
who dare to cross the line." -->"Jerk-Off" ->TooL
Phat Hong Tran
In article <3340590...@207.126.101.77>,
Ched Chorture <ch...@nothere.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Mar 1997 03:28:39 GMT, pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
>(Phat Hong Tran) wrote:
>>
>>Simply put your money where your mouth is and count the pixels on the
>>screen. Look for a polygon edge with vertical pixel runs (so that you
>>know that each "stair step" represents one horizontal pixel). Measure the
>>horizontal distance required for 10 or so pixels and extrapolate to the
>>horizontal dimension of your screen. Don't forget to add 10 to 20% to
>>your estimate to account for overscan. You'll see that Tekken 2 has a
>>horizontal resolution of at least 512.
>
>I have an easier way. First, grab a frame of a 30 fps game like Soul
>Edge, (2 fields are the same, so there isn't much of a chance of
>"artifacting"), then, import it into a program like photoshop that can
>scale images, and halve the size of the grab (make sure any
>anti-aliasing options are turned off, so that the resulting image
>isn't smeared). Now, using a program that will show you any image
>full screen (if you have to, you can scale the image you scaled down,
>back up to it's original size, since the "damage" has already been
>done), compare the two images. Is any detail lost in the smaller
>image? In my grabs it wasn't, because the "detail" wasn't there to
>begin with. BTW, don't use title screens or low screens to compare,
>since most of those are of a higher res.
Again, you're not examining the source, but a processed version of the
source. The framegrabber can be bandwidth limiting and discard the
higher frequency content in the signal (i.e. throwing away some resolution
to reduce noise). And I'm talking _horizontal_ resolution here, not
vertical, so bandwidth is important. Furthermore, your method is too
dependent on subjective judgement to yield any "hard" data.
>>You'll need a large TV with well-focused beam, plus an S-Video connection
>>to see the pixels clear enough to count them.
>
>I have access to an Avid system with two .26mm dot pitch RGB monitors
>running to a Beta tape machine, and an RGB cable for my PSX. Is that
>good enough? :)
Not bad, but .26mm dot pitch implies small-ish monitors. Use a
large-screen (32" or more) direct-view and you can see the pixels
much better.
>>I know counting pixels is an extremely anal activity, but nothing is
>>more welcome in an argument than real, hard empirical data.
>
>I think you can get the same results with my suggestion.
Your suggestion is prone to confounding effects. Just count the pixels
directly and convince yourself. Tekken 2 has at least 512 pixels across.
>>I hope you know that a TBC will regenerate a video signal's sync pulses.
>>So, regardless of whether the incoming signal is interlaced or not, most
>>TBCs will spit out a signal with interlacing sync pulses. That's the
>>purpose of a TBC -- to correct the timing in the signal to standard NTSC,
>>and as you should know by now, it's the timing of the sync pulses that
>>determines whether the fields will be interlaced or not.
>
>What I'm saying here is, I'm not grabbing a frame, or two frames, I
>can grab and hold single fields in the buffer. The TBC does not have
>any time to "correct" the image or anything to calculate. On a lot of
If you have a TBC between the PSX and the monitor/framegrabber/whatever,
then the TBC is continually correcting the signal. If your framegrabber
has a built-in TBC, then the framegrab occurs after time-base correction.
The framegrab process can itself be time-base correcting if it makes
certain assumptions about the signal and snaps signal timings to those
assumptions.
>16-bit games with "off" frame rates for explosions and what-not, Field
>grabbing can screw up the image considerably, by taking away parts of
>the image. Tekken 2's all there, all intact, though not exactly
>right. So you're correct, it's not complete interlacing, but it's a
>modified system based on it, I would say.
What you're saying doesn't make any sense. Either the game is interlaced,
or it isn't. There isn't anything in between.
>>Again, there is nothing in the NTSC signal that forces consecutive fields
>>to be interlaced, or to come from the same "frame" in time. Tekken 2 is
>>doing 60 fps, using non-interlaced fields.
>
>I'd be really interested in seeing a schematic for how this is done.
You only need a timing diagram, not a schematic. But I'll explain in
words. At time 0s, send a sync pulse and 240 rasters from frame 0.
At time 1/60s, send a sync pulse and 240 rasters (with timing identical
to the first set of sync pulse and rasters) from the next frame of
animation. At time 2/60, send another sync pulse and 240 rasters from
frame 3. And so on. The TV will display a different image composed
of 240 rasters every 1/60 of a second. Because the sync pulse timing
does not alternate between consecutive frames, the 240-raster images
are displayed one on top of the next, consecutively evenly-spaced in
time. Thus, non-interlaced 60fps animation.
Phat.
Phat Hong Tran
In article <01bc3e12$fd7d1de0$3dcaae80@granite>,
The phosphorus fades considerably faster than 1/60 of a second on
typical monitors.
Phat.
Charles Miller Jr.
On the TV? TVs are made to run at 60 interlaced FPS. They therefor must
have phosphorus that will sustain long enough for the next trace.
Phat Hong Tran
In article <01bc3f32$041793e0$3dcaae80@granite>,
>have phosphorus that will sustain long enough for the next trace.
No they don't. You don't need a duty cycle of 100% to convey a stable
image when the refresh rate is 60 Hz. Video tape a TV screen that's
not gen-locked with your camera and you'll see black scrolling bars
or a lot of flicker where the camera catches the phosphors in between
refreshes, proving that they do fade substantially before they are hit
again by the electron beam.
Phat.
Charles Miller Jr.
Well, no. That would prove that I caught them when they are faded. In
which way does this effect the fact that they are tuned to go at 30 fps?
--
- UNIX ate my homework!
Phat Hong Tran <pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in article
<E80ps...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>...
Ched Chorture
On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 23:53:19 GMT, pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
I knew you'd try this. Sorry, but a Chyron framegrabber is made for
broadcast, and has to grab the full screen resolution. VF2 grabs as
704 x 484 (still moving in this state: 704 x 242 when the fields are
split). Soul Edge (or Blade, whichever version you have), ends up
being about 350 x 241 as a frame. Here's some hard data: I took the
grabs into a paint program with a 752 x 480 screen res (never heard of
it? it's called a toaster). Four pixels fit into 1 of Soul Blade's
pixels. Two across, two down. Two pixels fit into a frozen
(de-interlaced) VF2 pic, just two down. What does that tell you?
>>>You'll need a large TV with well-focused beam, plus an S-Video connection
>>>to see the pixels clear enough to count them.
>>
>>I have access to an Avid system with two .26mm dot pitch RGB monitors
>>running to a Beta tape machine, and an RGB cable for my PSX. Is that
>>good enough? :)
>
>Not bad, but .26mm dot pitch implies small-ish monitors. Use a
>large-screen (32" or more) direct-view and you can see the pixels
>much better.
You'd be surprised how clear a 21" .26mm monitor is.
>>>I know counting pixels is an extremely anal activity, but nothing is
>>>more welcome in an argument than real, hard empirical data.
>>
>>I think you can get the same results with my suggestion.
>
>Your suggestion is prone to confounding effects. Just count the pixels
>directly and convince yourself. Tekken 2 has at least 512 pixels across.
Don't have to, because I tried that same test on Tekken 2. 4 pixels.
So you're right (and I'm wrong. That is what you want to hear, isn't
it?), it's not interlaced, but it's not that high across either.
>>>I hope you know that a TBC will regenerate a video signal's sync pulses.
>>>So, regardless of whether the incoming signal is interlaced or not, most
>>>TBCs will spit out a signal with interlacing sync pulses. That's the
>>>purpose of a TBC -- to correct the timing in the signal to standard NTSC,
>>>and as you should know by now, it's the timing of the sync pulses that
>>>determines whether the fields will be interlaced or not.
>>
>>What I'm saying here is, I'm not grabbing a frame, or two frames, I
>>can grab and hold single fields in the buffer. The TBC does not have
>>any time to "correct" the image or anything to calculate. On a lot of
>
>If you have a TBC between the PSX and the monitor/framegrabber/whatever,
>then the TBC is continually correcting the signal. If your framegrabber
>has a built-in TBC, then the framegrab occurs after time-base correction.
>The framegrab process can itself be time-base correcting if it makes
>certain assumptions about the signal and snaps signal timings to those
>assumptions.
>
>>16-bit games with "off" frame rates for explosions and what-not, Field
>>grabbing can screw up the image considerably, by taking away parts of
>>the image. Tekken 2's all there, all intact, though not exactly
>>right. So you're correct, it's not complete interlacing, but it's a
>>modified system based on it, I would say.
>
>What you're saying doesn't make any sense. Either the game is interlaced,
>or it isn't. There isn't anything in between.
I guess I need a name for what it's doing then.
>>>Again, there is nothing in the NTSC signal that forces consecutive fields
>>>to be interlaced, or to come from the same "frame" in time. Tekken 2 is
>>>doing 60 fps, using non-interlaced fields.
>>
>>I'd be really interested in seeing a schematic for how this is done.
>
>You only need a timing diagram, not a schematic. But I'll explain in
>words. At time 0s, send a sync pulse and 240 rasters from frame 0.
>At time 1/60s, send a sync pulse and 240 rasters (with timing identical
>to the first set of sync pulse and rasters) from the next frame of
>animation. At time 2/60, send another sync pulse and 240 rasters from
>frame 3. And so on. The TV will display a different image composed
>of 240 rasters every 1/60 of a second. Because the sync pulse timing
>does not alternate between consecutive frames, the 240-raster images
>are displayed one on top of the next, consecutively evenly-spaced in
>time. Thus, non-interlaced 60fps animation.
So a TBC doesn't know what to grab, interesting.
CC.
Phat Hong Tran
In article <01bc3faa$63114e40$3dcaae80@granite>,
Charles Miller Jr. <cwmi...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Well, no. That would prove that I caught them when they are faded. In
>which way does this effect the fact that they are tuned to go at 30 fps?
Simple arithmetic, Charles. Let's assume you have a computer like the
C64 hooked up to your TV. Its video signal is non-interlaced, so we
have 240 rasters refreshed 60 times a second. I suppose you've seen
what a C64 screen looks like when video taped? Scrolling black bars. For
the camera to catch the phosphors in their faded state when they are
being refreshed at 60 Hz, they would have to fade in less time than 1/60
of a second.
Also, the meaning of "fading" of a phosphor is ill-defined since it is
exponential decay. What do you mean by faded? 25% below maximum, or
75% below? To reach 75% below max in 1/60 of a second, the phosphor
would have to be at 50% in 1/120 of a second. When do you consider it
faded?
And lastly, what was your original point again?
Phat Hong Tran
In article <3343074...@207.126.101.77>,
Ched Chorture <ch...@nothere.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 23:53:19 GMT, pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
>(Phat Hong Tran) wrote:
>>>
>>Again, you're not examining the source, but a processed version of the
>>source. The framegrabber can be bandwidth limiting and discard the
>>higher frequency content in the signal (i.e. throwing away some resolution
>>to reduce noise). And I'm talking _horizontal_ resolution here, not
>>vertical, so bandwidth is important. Furthermore, your method is too
>>dependent on subjective judgement to yield any "hard" data.
>
>I knew you'd try this. Sorry, but a Chyron framegrabber is made for
>broadcast, and has to grab the full screen resolution. VF2 grabs as
When someone claims that he can't see 512 pixels across in a high
res framegrab of Tekken 2, the logical deduction is either 1) his
framegrabber is bandwidth limiting, or 2) his observations are
inaccurate.
>704 x 484 (still moving in this state: 704 x 242 when the fields are
>split). Soul Edge (or Blade, whichever version you have), ends up
>being about 350 x 241 as a frame. Here's some hard data: I took the
>grabs into a paint program with a 752 x 480 screen res (never heard of
>it? it's called a toaster). Four pixels fit into 1 of Soul Blade's
>pixels. Two across, two down. Two pixels fit into a frozen
>(de-interlaced) VF2 pic, just two down. What does that tell you?
It tells me that you have a problem with fractions. If you only
take integral counts of pixels, you can only accurrately measure
horizontal resolutions of 752/1, 752/2, 752/3, etc. That's a very
coarse measuring stick you have, and none of its gradations match
the true horizontal resolution of either VF2 or Soul Blade. In the
case of VF2, you'd be rounding up to 752, and in the case of SB,
you'd be rounding down to 376, when in fact, the true resolutions lie
somewhere in between. 704 for VF2 and 512 for SB.
>>Your suggestion is prone to confounding effects. Just count the pixels
>>directly and convince yourself. Tekken 2 has at least 512 pixels across.
>
>Don't have to, because I tried that same test on Tekken 2. 4 pixels.
>So you're right (and I'm wrong. That is what you want to hear, isn't
>it?), it's not interlaced, but it's not that high across either.
To be accurrate, you should be saying 6 physical pixels to every 2
Tekken pixels. 752/512 = 1.5 (H) 480/240 = 2 (V)
Tekken 2 was, and is still (at least on my TV), at least 512 pixels
across.
>>What you're saying doesn't make any sense. Either the game is interlaced,
>>or it isn't. There isn't anything in between.
>
>I guess I need a name for what it's doing then.
"Non-interlaced"
>>You only need a timing diagram, not a schematic. But I'll explain in
>>words. At time 0s, send a sync pulse and 240 rasters from frame 0.
>>At time 1/60s, send a sync pulse and 240 rasters (with timing identical
>>to the first set of sync pulse and rasters) from the next frame of
>>animation. At time 2/60, send another sync pulse and 240 rasters from
>>frame 3. And so on. The TV will display a different image composed
>>of 240 rasters every 1/60 of a second. Because the sync pulse timing
>>does not alternate between consecutive frames, the 240-raster images
>>are displayed one on top of the next, consecutively evenly-spaced in
>>time. Thus, non-interlaced 60fps animation.
>
>So a TBC doesn't know what to grab, interesting.
A TBC makes assumptions, and "grabs" what it assumes it will be getting.
I tire of this... Let's talk about something more enlightening for me,
like why on earth Motorola chose a 4-level FSK for their two-way paging
protocols instead of coherent GMSK. :)
Phat.
Charles Miller Jr.
Ok, cool.
Larry Scott Ii
: You've quoted me out of context. I've always said that Tekken 2 has a
: vertical resolution of 240, non-interlaced. And yes, the difference
: between Tobal and Tekken 2 is very clear on my set. :)
Ahh.. okay. *Someone* here was saying T2 was 480vertical.
BTW Tekken 2 does indeed have some serious horizontal resolution.. just
look at the lettering.. it's only slightly slanted, and yet has no jagged
edges. They dithered the edge (anti-alias?) but I'd say the resolution is
at least 512..
Ched Chorture
On Thu, 3 Apr 1997 07:16:03 GMT, pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
(Phat Hong Tran) wrote:
>In article <3343074...@207.126.101.77>,
>Ched Chorture <ch...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 23:53:19 GMT, pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
>>(Phat Hong Tran) wrote:
>>
>>I knew you'd try this. Sorry, but a Chyron framegrabber is made for
>>broadcast, and has to grab the full screen resolution. VF2 grabs as
>
>res framegrab of Tekken 2, the logical deduction is either 1) his
>framegrabber is bandwidth limiting, or 2) his observations are
>inaccurate.
I notice you sidestepped the fact that a VF2 grab was 704 pixels
across, and a Tekken 2 grab was 352 across (Both minus black borders
on either side of the screen). Before we drop this, I'd like to hear
your explanation on why this is, besides the fact that Tekken 2 has
half the res.
>>704 x 484 (still moving in this state: 704 x 242 when the fields are
>>split). Soul Edge (or Blade, whichever version you have), ends up
>>being about 350 x 241 as a frame. Here's some hard data: I took the
>>grabs into a paint program with a 752 x 480 screen res (never heard of
>>it? it's called a toaster). Four pixels fit into 1 of Soul Blade's
>>pixels. Two across, two down. Two pixels fit into a frozen
>>(de-interlaced) VF2 pic, just two down. What does that tell you?
>
>It tells me that you have a problem with fractions. If you only
>take integral counts of pixels, you can only accurrately measure
>horizontal resolutions of 752/1, 752/2, 752/3, etc. That's a very
>coarse measuring stick you have, and none of its gradations match
>the true horizontal resolution of either VF2 or Soul Blade. In the
>case of VF2, you'd be rounding up to 752, and in the case of SB,
>you'd be rounding down to 376, when in fact, the true resolutions lie
>somewhere in between. 704 for VF2 and 512 for SB.
I'm not counting the BLACK borders on either side of the screen, since
I don't consider that to be "part of the game". BTW, I've had
experience in overscan over 752 (768).
(snip)
>
>To be accurrate, you should be saying 6 physical pixels to every 2
>Tekken pixels. 752/512 = 1.5 (H) 480/240 = 2 (V)
752/376= 2 (704=352).
>Tekken 2 was, and is still (at least on my TV), at least 512 pixels
>across.
Mus' be that S-veedeeo :p
How many times have you done this "counting" thing? I personally
can't find the time to do it.
(snip)
>>So a TBC doesn't know what to grab, interesting.
>
>A TBC makes assumptions, and "grabs" what it assumes it will be getting.
>I tire of this... Let's talk about something more enlightening for me,
>like why on earth Motorola chose a 4-level FSK for their two-way paging
>protocols instead of coherent GMSK. :)
>
>Phat.
I'm tired of it too, but what can I say...I'm a gutton for punishment.
At least you dropped your assumptions that FMM isn't interlace.
Ched.
Phat Hong Tran
In article <33483cec...@news.sojourn.com>,
Ched Chorture <leng...@sojourn.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Apr 1997 07:16:03 GMT, pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
>(Phat Hong Tran) wrote:
>>In article <3343074...@207.126.101.77>,
>>Ched Chorture <ch...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 23:53:19 GMT, pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
>>>(Phat Hong Tran) wrote:
>>>
>>>I knew you'd try this. Sorry, but a Chyron framegrabber is made for
>>>broadcast, and has to grab the full screen resolution. VF2 grabs as
>>
>>res framegrab of Tekken 2, the logical deduction is either 1) his
>>framegrabber is bandwidth limiting, or 2) his observations are
>>inaccurate.
>
>I notice you sidestepped the fact that a VF2 grab was 704 pixels
>across, and a Tekken 2 grab was 352 across (Both minus black borders
>on either side of the screen). Before we drop this, I'd like to hear
>your explanation on why this is, besides the fact that Tekken 2 has
>half the res.
_Your_ grab & scaling resulted in an image _you_ perceive to have 352
across. Tekken, the game, has at least 512 across. The PSX doesn't
have a stock 352 horizontal mode, but it does have a fast 512 mode that
the majority of its games run in. Stop handwaving the issue with your
half-baked framegrabs and paint shop scalings. Unless the black borders
reduce the working area to 512 across, you're not going to be able
to accurately measure Tekken's resolution if you stick to just integers.
If you don't see the flaw in your methods, then there's not much point
in discussing your reality versus the physical world.
>I'm tired of it too, but what can I say...I'm a gutton for punishment.
>At least you dropped your assumptions that FMM isn't interlace.
Other Saturn owners have stated that FMM is 352x240. You take it up
with them.
Phat.
Ched Chorture
>_Your_ grab & scaling resulted in an image _you_ perceive to have 352
>across. Tekken, the game, has at least 512 across. The PSX doesn't
>have a stock 352 horizontal mode, but it does have a fast 512 mode that
>the majority of its games run in. Stop handwaving the issue with your
>half-baked framegrabs and paint shop scalings. Unless the black borders
>reduce the working area to 512 across, you're not going to be able
>to accurately measure Tekken's resolution if you stick to just integers.
>If you don't see the flaw in your methods, then there's not much point
>in discussing your reality versus the physical world.
I WOULD be able to count past 376 though, which I could not. "Most
games run in 512", 'eh? at the beginning of this argument you stated
most run in 640. You seem to be making this up as you go along.
And another thing: For most monitors to actually be able to change
the physical size of the pixel, The refresh rate has to be changed.
I'm sure you'll come up with some mumbo-jumbo to explain all this, but
the only way I can figure you can actually get a 512 resolution across
on a standard NTSC TV is if some pixels took up "1" across while
others took up "2". This would be awfully noticeable, don't you
think? Or can a pixel actually take up "1 and a half" spaces on a
screen? I know the PSX has a non-standard video signal, but THAT
non-standard?
>Other Saturn owners have stated that FMM is 352x240. You take it up
>with them.
Ha ha ha,,,,,then they're wrong too. All you have to do is LOOK at
it. It has the flicker just like Vf2 does.
Also, we suddenly seem to be going with my original statements of
"352" and "704", which in your last post you claimed were totally
wrong. You DID realize Video games don't use the entire overscan
area, didn't you?
Ched.
Larry Scott Ii
: And another thing: For most monitors to actually be able to change
: the physical size of the pixel, The refresh rate has to be changed.
: I'm sure you'll come up with some mumbo-jumbo to explain all this, but
: the only way I can figure you can actually get a 512 resolution across
: on a standard NTSC TV is if some pixels took up "1" across while
I thought a TV could display any number of *horizontal* pixels, at least
up to it's specs. Horizontal rez is just the beam changing as it scans
across the screen, so there should be no "pre-set" number like there is
with vertical resolution. An Atari puts out 160 pixels across, an NES
does 240 (?), a C-64 does 320 in high-rez.. my VGA-to-TV adaptor spits
out 640.. what's to stop a Sony from doing 512? All that means is that
the beam is changing "colors" 512 times per scanline instead of
160/320/640/whatever.. With an analog signal, this should be entirely
possible. The conversion of this analog signal to a digital format is a
different story though..
Phat Hong Tran
In article <334c3ee...@news.sojourn.com>,
Ched Chorture <leng...@sojourn.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Apr 1997 16:22:53 GMT, pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
>(Phat Hong Tran) wrote:
>
>>_Your_ grab & scaling resulted in an image _you_ perceive to have 352
>>across. Tekken, the game, has at least 512 across. The PSX doesn't
>>have a stock 352 horizontal mode, but it does have a fast 512 mode that
>>the majority of its games run in. Stop handwaving the issue with your
>>half-baked framegrabs and paint shop scalings. Unless the black borders
>>reduce the working area to 512 across, you're not going to be able
>>to accurately measure Tekken's resolution if you stick to just integers.
>>If you don't see the flaw in your methods, then there's not much point
>>in discussing your reality versus the physical world.
>
>I WOULD be able to count past 376 though, which I could not. "Most
You _cannot_ if you stick to integer counts of pixels. Go back to
grade 6 and learn your fractions. Or better yet, stop wanking with
your framegrabs and paint programs and LOOK at the original screen
resolution on your 21".
>games run in 512", 'eh? at the beginning of this argument you stated
>most run in 640. You seem to be making this up as you go along.
If you had read any of the other posts in this thread, you'd have
read that 640 was my initial hunch before I counted the pixels. But
given that a PSX programmer (Joseph Lee, I believe) has stated that
the PSX has a 512 mode which is much faster than its 640 mode, and
that my own pixel count puts Tekken 2's resolution around 512, putting
two and two together, I revised my original statement to "most PSX
games run at a horizontal resolution of at least 512". Unlike you,
I have no problems adjusting my views to accomodate new information.
> And another thing: For most monitors to actually be able to change
>the physical size of the pixel, The refresh rate has to be changed.
God. Your ignorance knows no bounds. My XBR^2 has a horizontal
resolution of 800 pairs and displays NTSC broadcast at 330, VHS at
250, SVHS at 400, and LDs at 420 with no problems.
>I'm sure you'll come up with some mumbo-jumbo to explain all this, but
>the only way I can figure you can actually get a 512 resolution across
>on a standard NTSC TV is if some pixels took up "1" across while
>others took up "2". This would be awfully noticeable, don't you
>think? Or can a pixel actually take up "1 and a half" spaces on a
>screen? I know the PSX has a non-standard video signal, but THAT
>non-standard?
I suggest you learn a thing or two about how a TV works. Horizontal
resolution is analog and supports a continuum of resolutions up to
the frequency response limit of the video circuitry (and I'm not
talking about scan rates here) and the dot-pitch limit of the CRT.
Sorry... did I make your world implode with my "mumbo-jumbo"?
>Also, we suddenly seem to be going with my original statements of
>"352" and "704", which in your last post you claimed were totally
>wrong. You DID realize Video games don't use the entire overscan
>area, didn't you?
Where did I say "352" and "704" were wrong? I claimed that _your_
methods were wrong and would not conclusively measure resolutions of
704 or 512 as neither can evenly divide 752 and you are using only
integer counts of pixels. You have not only problems comprehending
fractions and electronics, but clear text as well it seems.
Phat.
Ched Chorture
On Thu, 10 Apr 1997 15:25:01 GMT, pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
(Phat Hong Tran) wrote:
>In article <334c3ee...@news.sojourn.com>,
>Ched Chorture <leng...@sojourn.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 7 Apr 1997 16:22:53 GMT, pht...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
>>(Phat Hong Tran) wrote:
>>
>>>_Your_ grab & scaling resulted in an image _you_ perceive to have 352
>>>across. Tekken, the game, has at least 512 across. The PSX doesn't
>>>have a stock 352 horizontal mode, but it does have a fast 512 mode that
>>>the majority of its games run in. Stop handwaving the issue with your
>>>half-baked framegrabs and paint shop scalings. Unless the black borders
>>>reduce the working area to 512 across, you're not going to be able
>>>to accurately measure Tekken's resolution if you stick to just integers.
>>>If you don't see the flaw in your methods, then there's not much point
>>>in discussing your reality versus the physical world.
>>
>>I WOULD be able to count past 376 though, which I could not. "Most
>
>You _cannot_ if you stick to integer counts of pixels. Go back to
>grade 6 and learn your fractions. Or better yet, stop wanking with
>your framegrabs and paint programs and LOOK at the original screen
>resolution on your 21".
Ok, THIS is how I got that count: Basically, I AM counting the pixels
just like you, except I can zoom in and out and use a pointer to do
it. Since I can't see the pixels making up the borders of the screen,
I can't count them, correct? No. There's a 12 pixel border on either
side, if you count in terms of 376. The rest of the 352 is inside the
screen, got it? It all adds up. Two pixels across for each one pixel
of the game worked out just fine. Why should I have to use fractions
if it all adds up in intergers?
>>games run in 512", 'eh? at the beginning of this argument you stated
>>most run in 640. You seem to be making this up as you go along.
>
>If you had read any of the other posts in this thread, you'd have
>read that 640 was my initial hunch before I counted the pixels. But
>given that a PSX programmer (Joseph Lee, I believe) has stated that
>the PSX has a 512 mode which is much faster than its 640 mode, and
>that my own pixel count puts Tekken 2's resolution around 512, putting
>two and two together, I revised my original statement to "most PSX
>games run at a horizontal resolution of at least 512". Unlike you,
>I have no problems adjusting my views to accomodate new information.
Hey, I accepted 60fps non-interlaced. And the info below is quite
interesting, though it was much more interesting from more polite
posters than from a pompous ass such as yourself.
>> And another thing: For most monitors to actually be able to change
>>the physical size of the pixel, The refresh rate has to be changed.
>
>God. Your ignorance knows no bounds. My XBR^2 has a horizontal
>resolution of 800 pairs and displays NTSC broadcast at 330, VHS at
>250, SVHS at 400, and LDs at 420 with no problems.
>
>I suggest you learn a thing or two about how a TV works. Horizontal
>resolution is analog and supports a continuum of resolutions up to
>the frequency response limit of the video circuitry (and I'm not
>talking about scan rates here) and the dot-pitch limit of the CRT.
>Sorry... did I make your world implode with my "mumbo-jumbo"?
No, like I said, I KNEW you'd explain it. I don't claim to know a lot
about Video, because animation already has the proper sizes for
whatever format you're going to.
>>Also, we suddenly seem to be going with my original statements of
>>"352" and "704", which in your last post you claimed were totally
>>wrong. You DID realize Video games don't use the entire overscan
>>area, didn't you?
>Where did I say "352" and "704" were wrong? I claimed that _your_
>methods were wrong and would not conclusively measure resolutions of
>704 or 512 as neither can evenly divide 752 and you are using only
>integer counts of pixels. You have not only problems comprehending
>fractions and electronics, but clear text as well it seems.
Well, when I said VF2 was 704 by 480, you said the gradiations didn't
add up: later in the same post you said it was 704. A little
contradictory. And 704 doesn't HAVE to divide 752. Remember that
those who came up with that res weren't counting the black borders on
the sides either....
I've had enough of this thread. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Since I
have a PSX and a Saturn, I think I'll play them, instead of wasting
any more time counting pixels on them.
CC.
Slick
They will never make a game as good as Mario 64, and Sonic X-treme and
Final Fantasy VII will be better than it, anyway. And, since there's
only about 20 N64 games, with most having release dates, frighteningly,
in 1998 rather than 1997, this system has peaked. CONSUMER: "Hey Chuck,
what's the N64 game being released this month?" CLERK: "Goldeneye,
based on the hit 007 movie released more than a year ago."
--
-----=================================-----
Slick -- jcur...@ix.netcom.com
http://pages.prodigy.com/slickweb
-----=================================-----
Troy Davis
Slick, what does that have to do with anything!? Shut up.