picture quality??

#1shadow410Posted 1/21/2011 5:37:50 PM
i know they just announced this and all but is there any info on the picture quality of the 360 version?
#2jrels0583Posted 1/21/2011 8:14:23 PM
Yeah it was kinda too bad that XIII on the 360 had to be slightly gimped. The graphics in game and cutscenes were actually 576p (upscaled by XBOX system settings). Also the compression of the cutscenes was not so great.

To top it off, many of the cutscenes on the XBOX version were recordings of what was actually rendered in realtime on the PS3. I am certain that this was done to save disc space because those scenes contained environments that were not actual locations that you get to explore in the game.

I was actually fine with the 576p, the in-game graphics still looked awesome on my 42" Plasma. The compression of the cutscene videos, however, was another story. I hope that if they improve anything, it will be the video compression.
#3LuckNotDoWithErPosted 1/22/2011 2:10:24 AM
That has more to do with surface scan technology and development algorithms. Its definitely nothing caused by the ps3 or 360 and its not a problem that is absent from PC for the most part.

Compression and video/audio recording has come light-years since that time, the lower the cost of translating higher bandwidth....the better performance you can get out of it. Some of the first efforts, in video, were originally so bad they had to scrap support for 3D Max & Creative. Would have made games like Diablo 2 loads better in the process.
#4Council_of_RagePosted 1/23/2011 11:21:40 AM

From: jrels0583 | #002
To top it off, many of the cutscenes on the XBOX version were recordings of what was actually rendered in realtime on the PS3. I am certain that this was done to save disc space


Man, people are so WRONG about things like this!

The PS3 and 360 version have the same amount of pre-rendered video. The PS3 never rendered in real time anything that the 360 didn't.

Video scenes take up MORE disc space than real time!

Square was originally making the game for PS3 only, and because of Bluray's higher storage they felt free to waste disc space by using lots of videos. By using videos, they were able to do 1080p native resolution (on PS3... only for the videos though, since real time was 720p), and have less loading times.

So on the PS3 version, the videos looked nicer than real time because Bluray allowed higher resolution video (1080p) compared to real time (720p).

However on the 360 version, the videos had to be compressed (although not as badly as Square chose to do, unfortunately) for DVD. This means that the Xbox 360 videos looked worse than Xbox 360 real time would have been! But since it was just quick port, they didn't bother to program the 360 version as real time, they simply converted all the PS3 videos over to 360.
---
CoR - Sentinel model 2.0
Wii60 for the win!
#5LuckNotDoWithErPosted 1/23/2011 7:57:46 PM
Council is correct.

The inequality had nothing to do with the storage on the devices at all. Most of it came from the PC, ultimately where you can compress, re-code and re-tool everything to get equal performance in nearly any 360/PS3 game out there.
#6jrels0583Posted 1/23/2011 8:34:08 PM
There WERE videos that were recordings of PS3 game engine cut scenes on the 360. One that I can think of right off hand is when they are in the plane that Sazh is piloting and they watch the "TV" screens in their seats. That is compressed video on the 360, but obviously done with the game engine. Just look at things like the fingers on the characters' hands. The low polygon count is a dead giveaway.

There are MANY of these types of videos on the 360.