Quantcast

Page 117 of 120 FirstFirst ... 1767107113114115116117118119120 LastLast
Results 1,741 to 1,755 of 1793

Thread: PS2 vs Dreamcast Graphics

  1. #1741
    Japanese Sonic CD FTW!!! Master of Shinobi Ecco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,103
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    ^You know what, different stages have different lighting effects on Dreamcast. I didn't even think of mentioning it before.

    I think what you're responding to, is that one particular light effect, for that one stage. It's kind of a simpler example of the game's lighting, but I just thought it showed up well. The lighting effect looks more complex on other stages.

    ...



    Also, some people are just going to arbitrarily prefer the different animations on PS2, just for personal preference, because they look more dramatic with a darker, heavier contrast (or for whatever other reason someone may arbitrarily prefer it).

    But I think in a more objective sense, the graphics are much better on DC. You sound like u might not be familiar with seeing the game in person? The bright graphics are not a cover-up of anything lol, the bright graphics are actually ingenious. Everything is basically always glowing with sunlight. It seems very real and natural, and it has to be seen in person to understand. It does not show up in videos, in which it's more likely to just look like it's overly bright.

    Hmm it might be worth attempting to show the (more complex) light effects on other stages on DC.


    ...



    Also please keep in mind that the video set-up is not optimal, even though it's legit for being real DC hardware, the camera set-up is nothing but filming a TV screen, which is never going to show up, very well.

    Whereas the second video is presumably a proper set-up of actually recording the video output plugged into his computer, I'd imagine. So that is a huge difference in video quality, in how the games are being recorded, in those 2 videos.

    Also the 1st vid is using composite AV cables, which I like, but many people consider AV cables as a bad version of the DC graphics, too. (I have no idea about the 2nd guy's set-up, but it might be better than the quality of AV cables.)

    ...


    What I can definitely agree with you about is that the DC framerate can drop at times. If that bothers someone's eyes then that's a personal preference thing. I legit do not mind its drop in framerate, and the PS2's better framerate is barely a side-note to its darker, blurrier graphics. They don't shine, literally, whereas the sunlight effects, and crisp detail, are a huge part of the DC game.

    ...

    If you don't see why the PS2 version is blurrier then it must not be showing up well in videos. In person, there is no question that there's a slight blur over the PS2 graphics. I can't decide if the blur is applied over the graphics, or if the PS2 graphics themselves are just slightly blurry.

    The DC game has so much clear, crisp detail that a lot of the seabed etc. look almost photorealistic.

    PS2 definitely has a drop in the sharpness of the graphics, in person, anyway...

  2. #1742
    Raging in the Streets Blades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,889
    Rep Power
    70

    Default

    You sound like u might not be familiar with seeing the game in person? The bright graphics are not a cover-up of anything lol, the bright graphics are actually ingenious. Everything is basically always glowing with sunlight. It seems very real and natural, and it has to be seen in person to understand. It does not show up in videos, in which it's more likely to just look like it's overly bright.
    I own both copies of the game (not sure why) with a launch model PS2 and DC connected to a period 1994 20" CRT. I also have a backwards compatible PS3 connected to an HDTV through HDMI for closer observation.

    I see what you mean about being 'very real and natural,' but I think that is a preference for the simpler lighting model, and that the lighting engine was updated and objectively improved for the PS2. This can especially be seen on the HDTV, because some of the nuances of the new engine are lost on CRTs of the time.

    PS2 definitely has a drop in the sharpness of the graphics, in person, anyway...
    Nope. Even on a PS3 outputting 1080p which should expose every flaw in a PS2 game, it looks as sharp as can be. Both versions are equally sharp from my perspective.

    I could be wrong about the PS2 version objectively being more graphically complex, but these are my observations.

  3. #1743
    Japanese Sonic CD FTW!!! Master of Shinobi Ecco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,103
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Hmm why are we getting such differences impressions lol. I have both versions too.

    Now youíre making me wonder if thereís something wrong with my PS2 output lol.

    Iím just using AV cables for both consoles so I didnít think of whether maybe one has bad cables?

    Does the ps2 have inferior AV output? Is your ps2 hooked up better than AV cables?

    I have both consoles on the same lcd tv, with very obvious blurrier graphics in the ps2 version...

  4. #1744
    Raging in the Streets Blades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,889
    Rep Power
    70

    Default

    We gonna settle this! The contenders:



    The following was captured directly off the TVs. There can be no excuse of 'in-person,' because this is what I was seeing. All display devices are calibrated.

    First up, the prologue on PS3 running at 1080p.





    The same (PS2) scene on a July 1994 20" Panasonic CRT. The composite artifacts can be seen, but are pretty minor in motion. If you zoom in, you can see the individual phosphors. This is the way most people would've been seeing the game back then.



    If anything it's too sharp. There is no blur filter of any kind. The low resolution of the PS2 era stands out like a sore thumb without any anti-aliasing (that the DC version has) at 1080p. The textures might look a little worse, but I can't really tell. Just look at this:



    As for lighting, here is the rock with the fast fish scene on both systems.





    At first glance, we can see that the engines are different. The PS2 is using a pattern to simulate light refractions, and the DC is using a simplified pattern. It is not dynamic (I think).

    The PS2 looks like it's using an upgraded lighting engine that expands on the DC's lighting with more detailed patterns.

    Do you know of a level that particularly showcases the differences in lighting?

  5. #1745
    Japanese Sonic CD FTW!!! Master of Shinobi Ecco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,103
    Rep Power
    34

    Question

    ^OK I will have to look into this more. At this point, you've almost convinced me that my ps2 AV output is giving a blurred picture (while my DC has crystal-clear AV output).

    I didn't mention my TV size before; it's a 32" lcd flatscreen, in case that means anything. (Like, maybe the bigger size screen is bringing out the blur more than a smaller screen would. You mentioned that your ps2 goes into a 20" CRT, so different screen size might be a factor here. Also your ps3 on flatscreen seems to be making a better picture than your ps2 on 20" CRT. And I think your pic of ps2 on CRT does show how dark it looks on ps2.)

    Your 2 comparison vids do look more similar than my experience between DC and PS2, regarding brightness and sharpness.

    Re: the light effects: It's definitely true that the patterns are more complex on ps2. I would have thought it uses an entirely different engine for light effects.

    So yeah, part of it is whether someone prefers the simpler patterns on DC, or the more complex patterns on ps2.

    However, the MORE important differences of brightness and sharpness, are not really showing up in your videos.

    So I'm not sure what to think of that lol. I'm not a huge ps2 guy so I'm wondering now if it just gives out bad AV composite, and I never thought of it (while the DC gives out great AV out).

    What do you guys think of AV out quality of ps2 and DC? Is it markedly worse quality AV out from PS2?

    Or what if my TV somehow plays the input better from the DC over the ps2?


  6. #1746
    Death Bringer Raging in the Streets Black_Tiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Vancouver
    Age
    41
    Posts
    4,251
    Rep Power
    99

    Default

    Most PS2 games don't support progressive scan, which is a big deal when it comes to clarity in 3D games.
    Quote Originally Posted by year2kill06
    everyone knows nintendo is far way cooler than sega just face it nintendo has more better games and originals

  7. #1747
    Raging in the Streets bultje112's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Noviomagum, The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,500
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecco View Post
    ^OK I will have to look into this more. At this point, you've almost convinced me that my ps2 AV output is giving a blurred picture (while my DC has crystal-clear AV output).

    I didn't mention my TV size before; it's a 32" lcd flatscreen, in case that means anything. (Like, maybe the bigger size screen is bringing out the blur more than a smaller screen would. You mentioned that your ps2 goes into a 20" CRT, so different screen size might be a factor here. Also your ps3 on flatscreen seems to be making a better picture than your ps2 on 20" CRT. And I think your pic of ps2 on CRT does show how dark it looks on ps2.)

    Your 2 comparison vids do look more similar than my experience between DC and PS2, regarding brightness and sharpness.

    Re: the light effects: It's definitely true that the patterns are more complex on ps2. I would have thought it uses an entirely different engine for light effects.

    So yeah, part of it is whether someone prefers the simpler patterns on DC, or the more complex patterns on ps2.

    However, the MORE important differences of brightness and sharpness, are not really showing up in your videos.

    So I'm not sure what to think of that lol. I'm not a huge ps2 guy so I'm wondering now if it just gives out bad AV composite, and I never thought of it (while the DC gives out great AV out).

    What do you guys think of AV out quality of ps2 and DC? Is it markedly worse quality AV out from PS2?

    Or what if my TV somehow plays the input better from the DC over the ps2?

    you should play both systems on their best video output and tv's. so you need a good vga box on a good scaling hdtv (preferably with a marseille mcable connecting between the hdmi to vga box into the tv) and ps2 through component, or rgb to a good crt screen, preferably a pvm since ps2's 480p look's pretty shit imo.

    when you have that set up rest assured the dreamcast eats any ps2 game in terms of graphics.

  8. #1748
    Hero of Algol
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    7,544
    Rep Power
    167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bultje112 View Post
    when you have that set up rest assured the dreamcast eats any ps2 game in terms of graphics.
    The level of nonsense in this thread is getting higher and higher.

    So better output quality now means superior graphics? Lmao.
    People complaining about the smallest details and then saying they're running consoles over composite in this day and age.

    Seriously, this is the kind of nonsense which shows how poor this forum has become.

  9. #1749
    Raging in the Streets bultje112's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Noviomagum, The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,500
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    The level of nonsense in this thread is getting higher and higher.

    So better output quality now means superior graphics? Lmao.
    People complaining about the smallest details and then saying they're running consoles over composite in this day and age.

    Seriously, this is the kind of nonsense which shows how poor this forum has become.
    it might not be technically better but to anyone with 2 good working eyes it does look better. jaggies have aged terribly and they are all over ps2 and not with the dreamcast and especially not through vga.

  10. #1750
    Raging in the Streets Blades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,889
    Rep Power
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    People complaining about the smallest details and then saying they're running consoles over composite in this day and age.
    Composite was the way 99% of people saw games back then and what the developers focused on. Playing games of this era at 4K over HDMI is the WORST way to do so. Might as well just play on an emulator.

    My PS3 is hooked up by HDMI and produces the cleanest PS2 output compared to any actual PS2. Do I prefer it? Of course not, because thatís not how the games were supposed to look.

  11. #1751
    Hero of Algol
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    7,544
    Rep Power
    167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades View Post
    Composite was the way 99% of people saw games back then and what the developers focused on.
    For 6th Gen? Not true, simply not true.

  12. #1752
    Raging in the Streets Blades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,889
    Rep Power
    70

    Default

    1999-2001? Idk it was for me and all my friends. Some people had bigger TVs with s-video but they didnít bother getting the cables anyway.

    If you look at TV catalogs, 99% of TVs in the 20Ē sector in 1998 only had composite. One model from Sony (KV-20V80) had s-video, the highest-end model, which was dropped in 2000 and replaced with a WEGA with composite only. Panasonic had only composite. Thatís good enough evidence for me.
    Last edited by Blades; 06-13-2018 at 12:26 PM.

  13. #1753
    Japanese Sonic CD FTW!!! Master of Shinobi Ecco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,103
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    The level of nonsense in this thread is getting higher and higher.

    So better output quality now means superior graphics? Lmao.
    People complaining about the smallest details and then saying they're running consoles over composite in this day and age.

    Seriously, this is the kind of nonsense which shows how poor this forum has become.
    Well I apologize for my lack of knowing the PS2's AV-out being garbage apparently, dark and blurry, compared to DC AV-out being crystal-clear and bright.

    I'm really not a PS2 guy, and I never would have thought that it might have horrible AV-out, compared to the older DC with beautiful AV-out. Is this common knowledge to some folks?

    Anyway if that's what it boils down to, then it's a learning experience, and the thread is educational for anyone else who never thought of whether PS2 just happens to have crappy AV-out, as a console/DVD-player that's newer than the DC (with its great AV-out).

    Hardly nonsense, and there must be other people who are not really PS2 fans, and who wouldn't have thought about whether it gives bad quality AV-out.

    And when I'm comparing the graphics (of Ecco) on each console on my TV, I'm not agonizing small details; there is a huge difference in picture quality, with the PS2's picture being much darker and blurrier. It's definitely true on my particular set-up. I might try to grab photos or something.

    Re: composite: Actually I would have thought that most people use that for PS2. My PS2 Slim came with AV cables, after all, just like my DC, my Saturn, and my 32x lol. I think maybe some of you guys with elaborate set-ups are overly expecting others to have elaborate entertainment centers. AV-out seems the default for all those consoles, and it's how these consoles would have been used during their lifetimes.
    Last edited by Ecco; 06-13-2018 at 01:40 PM.

  14. #1754
    Master of Shinobi Soulis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,344
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    Still. That's just picture/output quality. But when someone talks about "graphics" it usually means geometry, lighting, textures, particles, art direction, etc. Picture quality and IQ (antialiasing, anisotropic filtering, etc) are also a piece of the puzzle but these usually come last, kinda like the tip of the iceberg. But the real "power" of a 3D capable machine is measured by it's polygon pushing capabilities, the complexity/quality of lighting/shadows and size/quantity/quality of textures. At least on the first two aspects the PS2 has the upper hand.

  15. #1755
    Japanese Sonic CD FTW!!! Master of Shinobi Ecco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,103
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soulis View Post
    Still. That's just picture/output quality. But when someone talks about "graphics" it usually means geometry, lighting, textures, particles, art direction, etc. Picture quality and IQ (antialiasing, anisotropic filtering, etc) are also a piece of the puzzle but these usually come last, kinda like the tip of the iceberg. But the real "power" of a 3D capable machine is measured by it's polygon pushing capabilities, the complexity/quality of lighting/shadows and size/quantity/quality of textures. At least on the first two aspects the PS2 has the upper hand.
    ^Alright, the thing is, I thought it was the graphics themselves which were blurrier and darker, which (if true) would be a huge problem with the graphics.

    However, if what I'm really seeing is just lame AV-out, then of course, it is not the actual graphics.

    I just had never thought of the PS2 having bad AV-out. It's a newer console than the DC (with nice AV-out), not to mention PS2 is a bit more capable in some ways, and it's a DVD player. I wouldn't have thought Sony would ruin the whole package with bad AV-out.

    Also I have been legit only talking about one game lol, on both consoles. I wasn't comparing both actual consoles.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •