Living in the future! PlayStation 3, Xbox 2 and Revolution images emerge

This looks pretty but as it says in the slides they are taking advantage of HDTV resolution, undetectable on regular TV the yellow RCA plug.

Not enough people have HDTVs. Hell some dumbasses play Halo 2 on old RF connectors. I think this is the same mistake as bringing in broadband too early. Dreamcast had it but could not implement it. PS2 and GC launched 56k because they were scared of broadband.

Well broadband is affordable now, but HDTV's are not. Sucks if you don't have a big HDTV.

I want to know which platforms these render tests were on. I can't see the Revolution generating the same graphics as next gen M$/Sony along with the overly optimistic 100x physics improvement.

The speculation mounts. Prehaps Mr Iwata will shed some light on the future in his GDC keynote.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that photo-realism? Has the gaming holy grail been achieved..?

I personally don't know if I like the idea, but of course it doesn't mean every developer actually has to have graphics that look like that.

A)HDTV's are availablke at walmart... 200-300$ will get you a 20-30 crt hdtv. compare that to a 30 inch tv like ten years ago... and its not bad at all... sure a 60 inch plasma is still 10,000 , but you dont need one to enjoy the higher resolution.

B)HDTV has nothing to do with why that looks so good. i have my cube hooked up to an hdtv, i have played the ocarina of time in progressive scan... its looks better but it isn't photo real just cause its in HD. That image looks awsome because it has:
1. high poly count model
2. high resolution textures
3. multiple textures to create a more natural surface
4. shadder effects. I.E. specular highlights for glistening sweat and transparency to see veins below the skin
5. real time lighting

infact if you check... those screen shots are all 640x480... which means they are 480p at best, which technically isnt a true hd resolution... its just normal tv resolution minus the flicker of interlacing.

(note: the images may have neen in HD and then been photographed in 640x480, but it still illustrates my point that the resoltuion is not at all what determines the "realism" of the image)

I may be wrong in saying this, but I believe acidviper is referring to the situation here in the UK, where HDTV is not common nor particularly affordable.

DOHITH!
i keep forgetting how many of you on here are brits (or brit neighbors)

mia culpa! (spelling?)

No what you'll actually get is a CRT monitor. Tube Monitors were capable of "hdtv" resolutions 10 years ago. Simply add a cheap TV tuner, paint the case gray/black and voila... that cheap unwanted CRT monitor is a highly desirable HDTV.

In fact, several of the HDTV CRTs that Walmart is selling don't even have a tuner. And they only handle 480 resolution in progressive mode.



On the contrary, you DO! The thing about "enjoying the resolution" ignores acceptable viewing distance. You watch a monitor from 18-36" away, you watch a TV from 6-20ft away. Watching a 26" screen from 12ft away, you would barely motice ANY difference between NTSC and 1080i. You NEED a huge screen to take advantage of HDTV. And they are expensive.

my room mate recently purchased a 28 inch HDTV for 300$ and i can assure you wether sitting acorss the room or two feet away there is a noticable difference(if there isn't you need glasses). Try playing halo2 split 4 ways on a non hdtv and then try switching back to standard RCA. you miss those extra scan lines reeeaaal bad. between the added crawling on the edges of objects and the fact that you only have half the resolution to aim at, it becomes nearly unplayable for me after playing it for so long in HD.

I also have a 32" HDTV in the living room and often have large groups of peopel of to entertain and again it is noticably better in progressive scan. Now imagine playing that in 1080i, even more detail... better sniping... and every time someone else dies and the text comes up on my screen it could be a muuuch smaller font and not have to cover half my screen just to keep me up to date. Also if you do really want to big screen you can get some gorgeous DLP projection tv's (samsung is the new god of tv manufacturing in my opinion) for 1500-3000$. MY manager just bought a 56" for like 2Grand (but he haggled it down in person at some private retailer) and it is just amazing.

The problem here is that you're comparing the two when one (HDTV) is being delivered over a low-loss connection (DVI?) and the regular TV is being fed back a mega-high-loss method (RCA)

With RCA/composite, you might as well smear the screen with Vaseline or give it a rub down with 40 grit wet 'n' dry.

Try Halo2 over a decent qaulity connection, RGB or even S-Video, and you'll see it's much better than RCA.

i am using RGB-LR (component cables) for the hdtv and s-video for non hdtv. THe plus for the svideo is actually on the side so, out of curiosity, i have switched between standard RCA and s-video whiel the game was running and the differenc is barely noticable when compared to the progressive scan. This isnt just a loss of clarity or mild artifacting, this is double the resolution (number of scan lines) on screen at a given time. playing in just one corner of an hdtv is the same as playing on a non HD set full screen. now switch that to 1080i which is almost 6 times the number of pixels as progressive scan and you get a huge difference.

also, does anyoen here really sit 6-8 feet away from their tv when playign games... if i am playing somethign sigle player i am still almost always sitting on a chair in the middle of my lving room instead of on the couch. (FPS's on a 32' screen at about 3-4' with suround on is just fantastic, those weird Golem looking things in Riddick scared the s**te outa me on a few ocasions)

I guess it sucks to be poor because you can't compare what you can't afford.

i am far from rolling in dough. I drive a 91 cavalier with 120 thousand miles and a leaking head gasket that will blow any day, i have all second hand furniture, bed included, and my wardrobe consists of t-shirts and jeans from old navy (get panst for 10$ if you catch a sale)

But my favorite thing in the worls is playign video games, so i saved up and splurged on myself a bit... the 32" and the 750watt surroudn was a grand total of about 1000$. The tv was a floor model at best buy and the surround was a refurb. the whole set up woudl have cost at least $1800 if they where all brand new components.

or if you have a pc... which i assume you do as you are posting here... you could get the XVGA+ thingy for liek 60$ and play your xbox in 480P on your pc monitor. Thats what i did with my dreamcast... damn soul calibur looked good on that!

I sit about 24" from my TV when playing games.

The TV however, is an hdtv projector, and the screen image is 12ft away, and 100" size.

Touché!

i debated gettign a projector instead of the HDTV but in order to get one with a decent amount of lummes (or whatever), i have a huge window on one side of my living room(the sunny side), it would have been way to expensive... i figure in a nother year or two i may move the 32" to being my bedroom tv and go for a projector as im sure they will keep gettign better and cheaper.

(the question then would be... is a standard 19" to much to put in the bathroom?)

Nice try liar. If you sat that close the image would be shining right back at your face. If you sat 24" away from a 100" image it would be like the morons who are late for movies and have to sit in the front row and come out with neck cramps.

In case you didn't get it: he sits two feet from the projector, and twelve feet from the projected image. He doesn't sit two feet from the projected image, that would hurt.

Don't call me a liar. It's not nice, and it's not accurate.

NiktheGreek is correct. I sit two feet from the projector. 12" from the screen. Just like my post said.

im just being a pain in the ass but...

12" = 12 inches... i believe you where going for 12' which woudl mean feet.

either way you did get it right in your first post and the viper is indeed rude! :)

Far from it, I'm an idiot.

I always get it wrong, I was brought up in that bizarre period when the UK couldn't decide if it wanted to go metric or stay imperial - we still haven't decided!

I try to use 'ft', stops me ending up with a Spinal Tap style Stonehenge moment.