Please rank the quality of the graphics between these three screenshots.
Is the difference greatest between Screen #1 and #2, #1 and #3 or #2 and #3?
Does making #3 widescreen increase its difference with #1?
Thanks for your input.
I’d rank these Pic3 > Pic1 > Pic2.
Does the difference between screenshot #1 and #3 increase in this shot? If so, is it substantial?
Thanks for your input.
The difference is reflected in the sharpness of the text present in Pic2. Without text to direct compare, Pic1 appears sharper and higher-res than Pic2.
The cars from #1 and #3 look pretty much the same to me. I’d have to agree that #3 is the sharpest, then #1, then #2.
The surrounding objects and road in #3 is very smooth.
The signs in the background and brighter colors makes #1 stand out well.
The signs and fence of #2 look flatter, as with the boxed buildings.
balut, try to ignore the text, just on the models/environment.
spooie, does the difference between #1 and #3 increase in the second screenshot?
For quality I’d also agree 3-1-2 .
pic 2 also shows the greatest difference…
Now can I ask … why are we doing this ?
To me, 3 looks the sharpest. You can make out much clearer details on the car. In screenshot 1, the outline of the spoiler is merging into the car, broken up, vague and indistinct. The street textures look chunkier, and the tail lights of shot 1 seem pixelated and lo-rez. Overall, screenshot 3 looks way better to me. I’d say that shot 1 looks like a ds game, shot 2 looks like a ps1 game, and shot 3 looks like a PSP game. Just my best guess, based on 30 seconds or so of examination.
Aside from the bizarre solid-color shadows in Pic #1, I find them roughly equivalent in static screen shots.
There’s sure a noticeable difference in motion, though! It’s mainly in the lighting. Kind of like how something can look very good in static shots but not as good in motion due to being able to draw highlights into the static textures and having no other cues as to whether the lighting is proper or not.
I don’t understand your second question, are you asking us if our perceived difference between shots 1 and 3 changes based on whether 3 is widescreen or not?
I don’t understand your second question, are you asking us if our perceived difference between shots 1 and 3 changes based on whether 3 is widescreen or not?
Yes, I’m asking if widescreen makes the difference between 1 and 3 greater.
I edited my first post for clarity.
Now can I ask … why are we doing this ?
I’m giving you something fun to do! You should be happy. :P
bizarre solid-color shadows in Pic #1
Supposed to be neon lights
Ridge racer comparison shots. Between DS, PS, and PSP, I think. Though I won’t spoil it by telling which is which.
Suprisingly, I think 2 is the DS. It’s the lack of cool graphic effects. DS doesn’t have all the bells and whistles.
That’s what I assumed, but they don’t attenuate properly like lights, they don’t highlight the under-car ground bits like light, etc…
I mean, I know there’s limits to what hardware can do, but I’d go for leaving them out entirely if you can’t do some type of decent alpha-blending so it doesn’t look like your cars have very bright drop shadows. ;)
Ridge racer comparison shots. Between DS, PS, and PSP, I think.
Need for Speed actually, though I don’t know where the middle shot is from. I was surprised that there’s not more noticeable difference in the screen shots, but as I already posted, looking at the actual videos made it much more apparent. (It’s harder, too, though, because they have direct feeds for the DS versions, and only shakycam for the PSP that I could find. :/ )
The middle one is certainly Ridge Racer, but the Namco logo gives it away. However, the shots on the edges ain’t Ridge Racer. Ridge Racer doesn’t race on any airport runway. It also doesn’t have any neon underlights. Next guess anyone? :)
-Tom
#1 > #3 > #2
The third scene is too confused and blurred, the second more irregular and blocky. In general there aren’t relevant apparent differences between all 3.
The widescreen obviously helps since it shows a bigger scene.
#3 > #1 > #2
Look at the shiny road in #3 compared to the blocky road in #1.
I don’t think I’ve ever driven on a shiny road, mind you.
The first one on the left is definitely NFSU for the DS- I saw it posted on Gaming-Age today.
EDIT- I’m assuming the rightmost one is NFSU: Rivals on the PSP due to the widescreen.
First set: 2, 3, 1 (mostly because I don’t like the oversaturated colours and the too-bright sodium lighting)
Second set: the widescreen shot does improve the perceived image quality, yes. To the point where with the widescreen shot, I would reorder the quality to: 3, 2, 1
3, 2, 1.
The biggest difference is between 3 and 2.
Widescreen makes 3 look even better.
Seeing the psp and the ds side by side really hammers home just badly the DS gets beaten in the graphics department. It’s bad enough when they’re artifically limited to the same size, but when you factor in that widescreen, it’s just not even close.
According to Gaming-Age, supposedly the DS version runs at 60 fps, while the PSP (and all other console versions of NFSU) are limited to 30 fps.
It doesn’t make up for the image quality difference but I actually think the NFSU screens are pretty impressive for the DS tech, particularly if its true that it runs at 60 fps.
I guess it’s nice that they’re impressive for the tech in the DS, but f-zero was impressive for the tech in the super nintendo, and way of the warrior was impressive for the 3d0. That doesn’t mean they still look impressive today, and to me, neither does the screen from the DS.