Hey

I just bought FF12 yesterday like everyone else, and it does seem to be a good game so far...

...but all the reviews are going wild over the graphics, with IGN giving it a perfect 10 on graphics saying they are super mega amazing and all that...

...and I'm sure they are nice in a sense... But come on guys! This is 2006, and there is no anti-aliasing! The edges are a blocky, pixelated, jaggy mess! When there is a lot of simultaneous movement of polygons, it looks like there is water running down the screen because of all the jaggy updating.

So while IGN gives it a 10 on graphics, I give a 5. Anti aliasing, even at the software level, is needed for my respect.

First of all, the quality of the image depends upon your TV. If you are using a good CRT or plasma, it should look pretty nice...but an LCD or DLP will pretty much ruin the image.

Anti-aliasing isn't as common as you seem to think either. Very few games used any sort of AA last generation. XBOX tends to offer improved image quality (due to the use of mipmapping, among other things) but never used anti-aliasing. Heck, there are loads of 360 games out there without AA as well.

True That

come on Sega Dreamcast used Full scene anti-aliasing back in 1999 !

come on Sega Dreamcast used Full scene anti-aliasing back in 1999 !
In about 2 games. Really, it wasn't common.

Actually all DC games used it, that is why the DC versions of games like Grandia 2, Space Channel 5, DOA2, F355, etc are considered superior to the PS2 versions.

wrong again.

Also the only way you can make PS2 look better is to use a TV from 1980s. Every type of HDTV, either CRT, LCD, DLP or Plasma will make PS2 look terrible. I connected PS2 to my Sony 34xbr960 and all games looked terrible. Had to go back to my 20"TV.

In about 2 games. Really, it wasn't common.

You are so right.

Actually all DC games used it, that is why the DC versions of games like Grandia 2, Space Channel 5, DOA2, F355, etc are considered superior to the PS2 versions.
Ha ha, no, they absolutely did not.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that DC games used anti-aliasing, but that idea is quite wrong. There were other reasons as to why the PS2 versions of those games were inferior and it has nothing to do with overall system power.

We see the same stuff today.

dark1x - The point of the whole thread is that everyone is saying how great the graphics are in FF12 (2006), yet they are horrible! They are a blocky, jagged mess. Whether it is AA that is the problem, better texture mapping, or something else, the point is that a very necessary component is missing for PS2 graphics to be taken seriously.

Xbox, Gamecube, Dreamcast... each of these systems look WAY better than PS2 graphically because they don't have the horrible jagged edges ruining the picture

Yeah, but this has been the case forever, so... Nothing new here.

Jaggiestation!

The art is stunning in this game. I wonder if the PS2 will be able to clean it up a bit.

dark1x - The point of the whole thread is that everyone is saying how great the graphics are in FF12 (2006), yet they are horrible! They are a blocky, jagged mess. Whether it is AA that is the problem, better texture mapping, or something else, the point is that a very necessary component is missing for PS2 graphics to be taken seriously.

Xbox, Gamecube, Dreamcast... each of these systems look WAY better than PS2 graphically because they don't have the horrible jagged edges ruining the picture
I flat out disagree then.

I posted these in another thread, but they are snapshots taken from a plasma I was using earlier this year (now I'm using a Pioneer, which does an even better job).

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a29/dark1x/ffxii1.jpg
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a29/dark1x/ffxii2.jpg

A CRT or plasma with a good scaler can work wonders on PS2 games and create some truly incredible imagery. Quite frankly, many 480i PS2 titles look sharper as a result of the TV processing than 480p XBOX games.

Now, if you are using an LCD, PS2 games are going to look flat out terrible. I can't deny that...

dark1x - look at the edge's along his left arm on the bottom picture. That doesn't look bad to you?

dark1x - look at the edge's along his left arm on the bottom picture. That doesn't look bad to you?
*ALL* 480i/p 3D rendering will suffer from this. The PS2, in general, does produce a lower quality image (though it varies heavily from game to game as there are no real standards enforced on the machine) but the difference is not all that large. XBOX, GC, and Wii all suffer from the same issues to varying degrees.

Regarding that arm, no, it does not look bad to me in the face of everything else. For a lower resolution game, I think that looks fantastic. I realize the limitations of the resolution and also know from experience that other last generation consoles produce very similar results. I'm not expecting HD quality here. With that in mind, do you really find that image to be of low quality? The overall look is fantastic. Rich colors, great textures, and solid modeling throughout.

I can attest to the game looking awful on my DLP.

However I'd like to see some screenshots of the first gameplay sequence after the opening cutscene on a plasma. That looked REALLY bad on the DLP but the images in the screenshots above (mostly flat art backdrops) look fine on any TV. It's when the whole environment is actually rendered that things look really bad.

dark1x - I'm been playing games on my computer at 1600 x 1200 for the past 5 years. Yeah, I think that image looks like crap

Those images above are not using flat art backdrops. Outside of the actual skybox, the rest is fully 3D.

The introduction area looked excellent as well and I really quite liked the complex castle modeling. I have no complaints there.

dark1x - I'm been playing games on my computer at 1600 x 1200 for the past 5 years. Yeah, I think that image looks like crap
*shrug*

I can look beyond resolution and see artistic beauty. A high resolution turd is still a turd. I've spent plenty of time enjoying PC games on my 1680x1050 display, but I am able to enjoy lower resolution 640x480 visuals without issue. There are MANY things I would take over resolution anyways. Framerate, animation, and art direction all stand out regardless of resolution. 640x480 is certainly on the low end, but that doesn't mean it has to look UGLY. If you truly feel that those images are UGLY, well, I don't know what to say.

wrong again.
Also the only way you can make PS2 look better is to use a TV from 1980s. Every type of HDTV, either CRT, LCD, DLP or Plasma will make PS2 look terrible. I connected PS2 to my Sony 34xbr960 and all games looked terrible. Had to go back to my 20"TV.

Something must be wrong because I had my PS2 connected to the same TV and I thought the games looked great.

You need to set the XBR960 out of torch mode and set the DRC to Cinemotion. Interlaced or Progressive modes will indeed make things look terrible.

In any event, some games will certainly look better than others, regardless of anything else.



I flat out disagree then.

I posted these in another thread, but they are snapshots taken from a plasma I was using earlier this year (now I'm using a Pioneer, which does an even better job).

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a29/dark1x/ffxii1.jpg
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a29/dark1x/ffxii2.jpg

A CRT or plasma with a good scaler can work wonders on PS2 games and create some truly incredible imagery.

Quite frankly, many 480i PS2 titles look sharper as a result of the TV processing than 480p XBOX games.

Now, if you are using an LCD, PS2 games are going to look flat out terrible. I can't deny that...

Exactly right.


I find the XBR960's scaler to be pretty excellent, but you just have to know how to set the thing right and I can't recommend an ISF calibration enough for it or any TV like it.

"A high resolution turd is still a turd. I've spent plenty of time enjoying PC games on my 1680x1050 display, but I am able to enjoy lower resolution 640x480 visuals without issue. There are MANY things I would take over resolution anyways."

It's not about the resolution. It's about the edges. Even 1600 x 1200 on a 19" pc monitor is annoying with no AA. If FF12 had AA or some other way of dealing with the horrible jaggy edges, then I would agree with you that FF12 has good graphics. This thread is about image processing, not artwork.

Also the only way you can make PS2 look better is to use a TV from 1980s. Every type of HDTV, either CRT, LCD, DLP or Plasma will make PS2 look terrible. I connected PS2 to my Sony 34xbr960 and all games looked terrible. Had to go back to my 20"TV.

I have a CRT and I think the games look great on it. Especially the ones that can output in 16:9 mode. I would guess that you're not using component cables with your PS2. I had mine hooked up with the cable that came with it at first and it did look like crap, but I bought some component and *bam*, twice the picture quality. Or, maybe you just expect more than I do.

snookaol - all 16:9 mode on PS2 does is zoom the 4:3 image, making the jaggy edges look even worse.

snookaol - all 16:9 mode on PS2 does is zoom the 4:3 image, making the jaggy edges look even worse.

So what are you saying?

If I'm playing FFXII on my XBR960, a 16:9 TV, I shouldn't set the game to 16:9 to match it? :confused:

Q of Banditz - Do you use the ZOOM aspect ratio on your TV for 4:3 content? This is all that the game 16:9 setting does.

This has got to be one of the dumbest topics I've seen here. Yes, the PS2 has some jaggies. No, it does not ruin the game.
dark1x - The point of the whole thread is that everyone is saying how great the graphics are in FF12 (2006), yet they are horrible! They are a blocky, jagged mess. Whether it is AA that is the problem, better texture mapping, or something else, the point is that a very necessary component is missing for PS2 graphics to be taken seriously.

Xbox, Gamecube, Dreamcast... each of these systems look WAY better than PS2 graphically because they don't have the horrible jagged edges ruining the picture

Here's some horrible FF12 screenshots:
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/final-fantasy-xii-20061027032956112.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/final-fantasy-xii-20061027031440817.jpg
Blocky, jagged mess? Either you're exaggerating or there's something seriously wrong with your TV.






OK let's see some amazing Dreamcast games. These should all be jaggie-free and "look WAY better than PS2" right?


http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/dc-fig_doa2b.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/dc-bg37.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/dc-fig_soulcalb.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/dc-airstrike2b.jpg





Now how about the Gamecube:

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/gc-tom-clancys-rainbow-six-lockdown.jpg
EDIT:Oops. Nevermind this one. Looks like this is a PS2 screenie. It game from the Gamecube section at IGN though.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/gc-super-monkey-ball-adventure.jpg

slacker - those FF12 screenshots are from IGN. I wouldn't be surprised if they came straight from the producer with edge effects not found in the game turned on.

Take some screenshots on a REAL TV and post them here for comparison, not "official" screens from a website

slacker - those FF12 screenshots are from IGN. I wouldn't be surprised if they came straight from the producer with edge effects not found in the game turned on.

Take some screenshots on a REAL TV and post them here for comparison, not "official" screens from a websiteThat really is what the game looks like. Different in-game camera angles may show more jaggies though. It's hard to get a good picture straight off a TV screen but I'll try to take some tonight for fun.

"A high resolution turd is still a turd. I've spent plenty of time enjoying PC games on my 1680x1050 display, but I am able to enjoy lower resolution 640x480 visuals without issue. There are MANY things I would take over resolution anyways."

It's not about the resolution. It's about the edges. Even 1600 x 1200 on a 19" pc monitor is annoying with no AA. If FF12 had AA or some other way of dealing with the horrible jaggy edges, then I would agree with you that FF12 has good graphics. This thread is about image processing, not artwork.
Well, my point was that each of the other systems apart of the same generation as PS2 *ALSO* lack AA. Not ONE of them used AA on any sort of a regular basis. Just a select few games, and we are talking less than 10 across all systems.

Thankfully, my current TV allows me to eliminate those jaggies pretty easily with sort of an "anti-sharpness" filter that I can adjust. It creates smooth edges at the expense of clarity, yet still manages to look great. PSX games look fantastic on my Pioneer (especially those with pre-rendered backgrounds). So, you're right, it IS about image processing...and that processing can originate from the display rather than the content in some cases.

You are taking things to the extreme. Most people can stomach a few rough edges and your opinion is by no means the ONLY opinion out there. You should have known going in that the game would lack AA just like virtually every other PS2, XBOX, GC, and DC title out there.

Q of Banditz - Do you use the ZOOM aspect ratio on your TV for 4:3 content?

When gaming, yes.


This is all that the game 16:9 setting does.

D'oh!

Honestly, you guys will argue anything. Oh no, a game on a 6-year old gaming console has some jaggies.

krimson - the point of the thread is not that the ps2 has jaggies. It's that IGN (and other mags pro reviews) are giving FF12 a PERFECT 10/10 on graphics, despite the graphically deal-breaking pixelated and blocky edges.

Honestly, you guys will argue anything. Oh no, a game on a 6-year old gaming console has some jaggies.

Welcome to AVS! :)

krimson - the point of the thread is not that the ps2 has jaggies. It's that IGN (and other mags pro reviews) are giving FF12 a PERFECT 10/10 on graphics, despite the graphically deal-breaking pixelated and blocky edges.
I believe you are simply confused by their review system...

A score is awarded based upon how favorably it compares with other games available on a target system. FFXII is a PlayStation 2 title and that score reflects its superiority over other games on the platform.

Without such a limitation placed upon the review system, the basis on which graphical judgements are made would end up as a "moving target", so to speak.

I've also noted that a lack of anti-aliasing is certainly not a deal breaker for most. Their review is not tailored specifically for your tastes, afterall.

krimson - the point of the thread is not that the ps2 has jaggies. It's that IGN (and other mags pro reviews) are giving FF12 a PERFECT 10/10 on graphics, despite the graphically deal-breaking pixelated and blocky edges.
Scores are relative. it's not like FFXII is being rated graphically vs what a PC can do, or what the 360/PS3 can do. The score is relative to other games on the PS2 (or even compared to xbox/gamecube). Relative to other PS2 games, FFXII is breathtaking and deserving of a 10/10 graphically. I don't recall a single xbox/ps2 game that didn't have jaggies, so rambling on about how it doesn't deserve a 10/10 for jaggies is retarded.

The DC did use anti-aliasing. Such a shame that system was before its time.

Those screenshots are awful. Anyone with nice flat panel running Soul Calibur could do better with a digital camera. Sonic, SC, Crazy Taxi... Post some nice pics of those and look for jaggies against their ps2 counterparts. Not even close...

The DC did use anti-aliasing. Such a shame that system was before its time.
It absolutely did not and I am completely baffled as to where you got that idea stuck in your head. The PowerVR chipset did support a form of super sampling, but it was far too slow and was avoided.

The Dreamcast had fantastic output for its time and rendered to a full 640x480 framebuffer 95% of the time. Of course, unlike PS2, the majority of games ran in 16-bit color (PS2 games are typically 24-bit) and display fairly severe dithering when viewed through VGA.

One of the largest issues with PS2 output is the lack of a standard. Developers are free to handle video output as they please and often at the expense of image quality. There were plenty of games that used oddball resolutions or interlacing in order to achieve whatever they were aiming for. The bright side was a staggering number of 60 fps titles on the machine (more than any other 3D game machine ever released). Early on, many PS2 titles were used field rendering in order to save on memory and also run at a higher framerate. This method takes advantage of interlacing and alternates between odd and even scan line each second. The actual frame buffer was 640x224.

THIS was the cause of "jaggies" back in the day and the number of titles using this method dropped off significantly over time. Very few PS2 titles use this rendering method these days. Most image quality problems today stem from the lack of mipmapping, which creates shimmering on distant objects. I generally prefer this to harsh, low quality mipmapping, however, as it gives the appearance of a sharper scene. Anisotropic filtering slaughters both of those options, however, but is very demanding on hardware (and is missing in the vast majority of XBOX360 titles even). There was exactly ONE Dreamcast title which used a very rough aniso effect on distance textures, however (LeMans). The guys are Melbourne are pretty incredible, though. They also did some fantastic PS2 work.

So if PS2 looks ok on CRT and Plasma, but bad on LCD and DLP, How does it look on LCos based displays?

Specs for Dreamcast:

NEC/Videologic CLX1 graphics chip (AKA PowerVR Second Generation)
3 million polygons/second peak rendering rate
Perspective-Correct Texture Mapping
Point, Bilinear, Trilinear and Anisotropic Mip-map filtering
Gouraud shading
Z-buffer
Colored light sourcing
Full scene anti-aliasing
16.7 million colors
Hardware based, fog, bump mapping, and texture compression
Shadow and light volumes
Super sampling

The DC did use anti-aliasing. Such a shame that system was before its time.

Those screenshots are awful. Anyone with nice flat panel running Soul Calibur could do better with a digital camera. Sonic, SC, Crazy Taxi... Post some nice pics of those and look for jaggies against their ps2 counterparts. Not even close...Honestly I'm having a hard time finding a great picture from the Dreamcast. If you can find some picture that shows how it blows away the PS2 feel free to post it, or a link to it. I've never owned a DC so I'm not sure what it's supposed to look like.

Soul Caliber - I don't think this was ever released on DC and PS2 both so I had to compare SC1 to SC2. Not fair overall but if you're just looking for anti-aliasing it should do.

Dreamcast
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/dc-bg05.jpg

Dreamcast
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/dc-bg11b.jpg



PS2
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/ps2-SoulCalibur2_051403_05.jpg

PS2
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/ps2-sc2_082503_08.jpg

I see jaggies in both sets of pictures.



Crazy Taxi

Dreamcast
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/dc-bg28.jpg


PS2
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/ps2-crazy_1.jpg

The DC looks a hell of a lot better here but I still see plenty of jaggies that would ruin the game according to goatwuss. Not sure what's wrong with the PS2 version. Even for back then that's awful.





NBA2K2

Dreamcast
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/dc-bg50.jpg

Dreamcast
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/dc-bg42.jpg


PS2
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/ps2-nba_2k2_008.jpg

PS2
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/ps2-nba_2k2_020.jpg

Again plenty of jaggies to go around for DC and PS2 both.

krimson - the point of the thread is not that the ps2 has jaggies. It's that IGN (and other mags pro reviews) are giving FF12 a PERFECT 10/10 on graphics.

The point is that they're grading it with consideration to the PS2's capabilities. For a PS2 game this looks amazing. You're just expecting too much from the old PS2, jaggy free gaming is what the new consoles are for.

Why are you taking images from ign? Those images are probably jaggy because of compression. I've owned a DC since 9/9/99, and the games look nothing like the screens you posted. Crazy Taxi gets sort of jaggy around the edges occasionally, but only when your car is moving fast. As for the PS2, it is notorious for jaggies.

Also, don't mistake promotional screenshots with gameplay. An example would be PSP screenshots in PSM or something, which look nothing like the finished product.

Why are you taking images from ign? Those images are probably jaggy because of compression. I've owned a DC since 9/9/99, and the games look nothing like the screens you posted. Crazy Taxi gets sort of jaggy around the edges occasionally, but only when your car is moving fast.
Like I said I can't find any great Dreamcast screenshots. If you've got any I'd like to see them, really. And compression should not add jaggies. If anything it would smooth them out a little. The crappy screenshots may be due to the way they were captured.


Also, don't mistake promotional screenshots with gameplay. An example would be PSP screenshots in PSM or something, which look nothing like the finished product.That second Dreamcast screen from Soul Caliber might be a promo shot. It's missing the onscreen info. The PS2 screens I'm pretty sure are all real. They look like typical PS2 graphics, nothing special.

Well the FFXII screens turned out about like I thought. It's hard to get a good picture from a rear projection CRT, at least with my dinky camera. I'll post them anyway though. Poor quality as they are I think you can tell it's not a horrible blocky mess.


http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/ff-007.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/ff-006.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/ff-005.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/ff-004.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/ff-003.jpg

This is probably the one where the jaggies stand out the most.
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/oddbodyAS2/ps2/ff-008.jpg

These are all from a 57" CRT set.

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/081/081661p1.html

Honestly Slacker, you're starting to look ridiculous. The Dreamcast had anti-aliasing. It's a fact. The PS2 had huge problems with anti-aliasing but was more powerful overall. Eventually the developers worked it out using alternative methods.

The fact that you can say something as arrogant as

"It absolutely did not and I am completely baffled as to where you got that idea stuck in your head."

and then not admit that you're wrong when dozens of articles, writeups, and comparisons prove you wrong, is amazing.

http://glowystarman.tripod.com/locopollo/id12.html

There are the console specs. Just search on aliasing to see which console didn't have it.

Are games meant for TV's from 8 years ago are going to show some edges? Of course. Are many ps2 games plagued with jaggies? Obviously. Just google "jaggies dreamcast ps2" and read all the complaining about the ps2 leaving hardware anti-aliasing out...

DCDeac, you are both correct and incorrect.

Technically speaking, anti-aliasing was a feature of the PowerVR chipset used within the Sega Dreamcast. It's a published specification. The fact of the matter is, however, that developers chose not to use this feature for performance reasons. 99% of the software available for Sega Dreamcast does not use anti-aliasing. This isn't an opinion here.

Published specs mean nothing and do not dictate techniques used by developers. XBOX was capable of 8x AA and 16x AF, but once again, next to no games used these features (actually, NO games used those features at that level). XBOX360 is capable of the same and only some games use AA while very few use AF. It does not mean the system is not capable of using those features, but it does mean that developers are not using them in all applications. 360 is also capable of outputting at 1080p, but games using this resolution are not going to be common.

There are logical reasons as to why Dreamcast typically sports better image quality in comparison to PS2. It has nothing to do with a simple toggle feature. 95% of the games on Dreamcast use a full height 640x480 frame buffer along with mipmapping. PS2 games have no standard and can range all over the place. A lot of games use field rendering (as I said), others render slightly lower than 640x448, and then you have others using the full buffer. Couple odd resolutions with a lack of mipmapping (good in some cases, bad in others) and you have some very dirty looking games. That's it. Anti-aliasing, as a term, was grossly over-used last gen. It wasn't until 2003 that AA on the PC even started to become usable (despite the fact that cards had supported it for years). AA has only been a factor for consoles during this generation (X360 and beyond). Even there, you don't have every game using AA and many that do only use 2x AA along with NO AF.

Do you see what I'm saying now? DC supported AA (super sampling), but the software did not take advantage of it as it was too slow. Using specification sheets to support your argument simply doesn't work here.

Woah, easy there DCDeac. I never said the Dreamcast couldn't do anti-alising. You've got the wrong poster.

I don't know anything about the Dreamcast. The only thing I'm trying to do is counter the ridiculous exaggerations posted by goatwuss:
The point of the whole thread is that everyone is saying how great the graphics are in FF12 (2006), yet they are horrible! They are a blocky, jagged mess.
Xbox, Gamecube, Dreamcast... each of these systems look WAY better than PS2 graphically because they don't have the horrible jagged edges ruining the picture

slacker george - take a look at the first link that DCDeac posted:
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/081/081661p1.html

Look at the first graphic, the one from ridge racer.

That "stair stepping" is happening all over the place in FFXII during motion. The "blocky jagged mess" that I am referring to is mostly regarding the aliasing that is taking place during motion on the screen. It looks horrible. If you feel that this is a "ridiculous exaggeration," that's your choice.

There is a quote on the article "Fourth and fifth generation PS games should look better than this" (this referring to the poor handling of aliasing)

FFXII and its "stair stepping" that is rampant throughout the game illustrates that unfortunately, late generation PS2 games did not address this problem, and the games still look like crap.

Sorry Slack, was confused on the poster.

I don't understand the argument that "it was a feature but nobody used it" stuff. There are hundreds of articles about how much easier it was to perform anti-aliasing on the DC than the PS2. If that means that they techinically achieved it through mip-mapping, or better texture handling, or pixie dust, the simple fact is that you didn't have to do anything special on the Dreamcast to achieve anti-aliased material. On the PS2, however, you had to make up for the system design, and eventually SOME developers figured out how.

There was no toggle on or off, it was just better. That's how specs get into those lists. You think any ps2 list ever would tout it's anti-aliasing features?

Sorry Slack, was confused on the poster.

I don't understand the argument that "it was a feature but nobody used it" stuff. There are hundreds of articles about how much easier it was to perform anti-aliasing on the DC than the PS2. If that means that they techinically achieved it through mip-mapping, or better texture handling, or pixie dust, the simple fact is that you didn't have to do anything special on the Dreamcast to achieve anti-aliased material. On the PS2, however, you had to make up for the system design, and eventually SOME developers figured out how.

There was no toggle on or off, it was just better. That's how specs get into those lists. You think any ps2 list ever would tout it's anti-aliasing features?
You really don't understand how spec sheets work, do you? Do you even really understand what anti-aliasing actually is?

Anti-aliasing is a technique which aims to eliminate rough edges associated with pixel drawing. Supersampling is one many techniques capable of doing this. The Dreamcast is capable of this operation at the expense of fillrate. The enabling of supersampling had a negative impact on performance and, as a result, was avoided by developers.

You seem to be confusing anti-aliasing with general image quality. The generally higher image quality exhibited by the Sega Dreamcast was not the result of anti-aliasing. That is what I'm telling you.

Specification sheets simply list what the hardware is capable of. Specs do not imply that every piece of software is using every feature listed. In the case of Dreamcast, the fact that supersampling AA was listed does NOT imply that developers were using this with their software (they weren't). Did you also notice the listing of bilinear, trilinear, and anisotropic mipmapping? 98% of the games on Dreamcast use bilinear mipmap filtering (which is actually fairly ugly on Dreamcast as there was a rather severe line between each mipmap layer). A few Sega titles did not use any form of mipmapping (Shenmue and Virtua Fighter 3tb spring to mind) while Test Drive LeMans used a form of anisotropic filtering (low quality AF, but still AF).

You cannot assume that listed specifications apply to all (or even ANY) software. Anti-aliasing has been a feature available to computer users for years, yet it was virtually worthless until the GeForce3 series of video cards (and even then, you were still sacrificing performance). XBOX used a variant of the GF3, actually, and was more capable of anti-aliasing than the Dreamcast was...yet 99% of the games never even attempted to use it. XBOX games also stuck with trilinear filtering, despite AF capabilities (same deal for XBOX360, unfortunately).

Do you understand now?

FFXII and its "stair stepping" that is rampant throughout the game illustrates that unfortunately, late generation PS2 games did not address this problem, and the games still look like crap.
They did address it, however (many did, anyways).

Ridge Racer V used field rendering (alternating 640x224 fields every second in order to create the illusion of one 640x448 image). It is virtually impossible to capture a still shot of RRV without destroying the image. The reason those shots look so very awful is simply the result of the single frame capture containing only the odd or even field. The images you see are 640x224 and line doubled by the capture card (creating a chunky mess). The only way to accurately capture the game would be to capture the odd and even fields and combine the two.

The benfit of field rendering is the fact that you save frame buffer memory AND can more easily reach 60 fps.

FFXII uses a full 640x448 frame buffer, however. Double the vertical resolution without any motion artifacts. The jagged edges are the result of the low resolution and remain an issue for all machines from that generation. The later PS2 titles offered image quality that more closely matched that of XBOX and Gamecube. The lack of mipmapping was the only thing that really held the machine back (as that creates distance shimmering).

If you display Ridge V and FFXII on a progressive display, FFXII is going to look significantly cleaner. On an interlaced display, FFXII (with flicker filter) will actually look just as clean as any XBOX, GC, or DC title while RRV will continue to appear jaggy (along with a case of heavy interlace flicker).

Your complaints relate to the low resolution in general, not the PS2 specifically. Early PS2 issues are unrelated to current complaints.

This is 2007 and you guys are fighting over jaggies?? Just play the game and have fun. If you don't feel like playing a game because of jaggies. Then don't.. It is all based on the resolution I might add... 3d vector based games like the original Star Wars had no jaggies..Go play that...You guiys would be complaining of how blocky characters are in old Atari games next compared to the 360...Give me a break...

Should I get S-video or component cable for this game -- maybe using S-video can blur some jaggies? I use composite video now. My projector doesn't have component but I can use a component-VGA adaptor.

"Why does that game look so bad? The edges are all messed up and the texture artwork is blurry and shimmery" -My Girlfriend

"The ps2's graphics pretty much suck. It doesn't anti alias. You'd be surprised with how many random forum people think this looks great." -Me

Regarding Final Fantasy XII, do note that how one has one's HDTV setup to deinterlace the game can make a substantial difference in the picture quality. Many of the settings which aren't used for 480p, 720p and 1080i suddenly come into play. For example, an HDTV might have a "mode" setting for deinterlacing, which specifies options such as "CineMotion", "High Density", etc. It also can have "Reality vs. Clarity" settings that determine other parameters about how the deinterlacing is performed. Tweaking these can make a huge difference.

I thought I read that the Flicker Filter setting is basically an anti-aliasing function for this game.

"Why does that game look so bad? The edges are all messed up and the texture artwork is blurry and shimmery" -My Girlfriend

"The ps2's graphics pretty much suck. It doesn't anti alias. You'd be surprised with how many random forum people think this looks great." -Me
What exactly is the point of this post?

It has been determined that the perfect 10 score awarded to visuals was done so in comparison only to other PlayStation 2 titles (all of which suffer from similar image quality issues).

We also know that all 480p game consoles have similar output issues and, based on this common knowledge, it should never be a suprise.

Therefore, I am unable to find purpose in your continued ranting. You've already expressed your distaste for the resolution, afterall.

I flat out disagree then.

I posted these in another thread, but they are snapshots taken from a plasma I was using earlier this year (now I'm using a Pioneer, which does an even better job).


A CRT or plasma with a good scaler can work wonders on PS2 games and create some truly incredible imagery. Quite frankly, many 480i PS2 titles look sharper as a result of the TV processing than 480p XBOX games.

Now, if you are using an LCD, PS2 games are going to look flat out terrible. I can't deny that...

Wrong. A bad scaler in any type of HD technology set will render a bad picture. LCD's aren't the only type of HD resolution sets that have bad scalers.

If you are referring to the fact that LCD's are digital, so are plasmas, LCOS, and DLP's. But a scaler can only do so much with a bad picture.

Now let's all get real. The PS2 isn't a HD gaming console. How well did FFX look? Did you guys complain about the jaggies in that game too? So it's still the same optical format with the same processing power from the machine. What we should expect is improvement in gameplay, not a phenomal leap in graphics just because there is a HD gaming console available right now.

My wife complains about the graphics on each and every single PS2 game, including Final Fantasy XII. In all fairness, the PS2 did have the worst graphics of the previous generation, but nonetheless, I believe that she's gotten pretty spoiled after having seen the Xbox 360 in operation. That and the fact that a number of PS2 titles focus on gameplay rather than graphics (e.g. Disgaea and other games from Nippon Ichi).

I'm not sure it's the jaggies that really bother her, I think it's the way the textures look blurry and things in the foreground tend to shimmer against the background. These "it looks messy" visual effects seem to be more disruptive than jagged edges.

Wrong. A bad scaler in any type of HD technology set will render a bad picture. LCD's aren't the only type of HD resolution sets that have bad scalers.

That's why I said...

A CRT or plasma with a good scaler

I've found, though comprehensive testing, that LCDs of all make and model are unable to handle low resolution 480i material anywhere near as well as a high end plasma or CRT. Obviously, as with any display, the results vary per set, but even the highest quality processing will still deliver results inferior to other displays when dealing with 480i sources.

Processing is vital, but the panel used in a display has an impact as well.

Does anyone know whether FFXII will appear on another gaming console like the PS3 or XBOX 360?

Does anyone know whether FFXII will appear on another gaming console like the PS3 or XBOX 360?
It will remain exclusive to PlayStation 2. Square-Enix has NO plans to port the game to another machine.

krimson - the point of the thread is not that the ps2 has jaggies. It's that IGN (and other mags pro reviews) are giving FF12 a PERFECT 10/10 on graphics, despite the graphically deal-breaking pixelated and blocky edges.
The score is relative to other PS2 games. It might look terrible compared to games on the Xbox, Xbox 360 , GameCub etc. but the graphics is still better then at least 95% of all PS2 games out there. The graphics are still very impressive for a 6 year old console.

The score is relative to other PS2 games. It might look terrible compared to games on the Xbox, Xbox 360 , GameCub etc. but the graphics is still better then at least 95% of all PS2 games out there. The graphics are still very impressive for a 6 year old console.
I've already said this...

...but terrible in comparison to XBOX and Gamecube games? I think not. Those systems suffer from many of the same image quality limitations, for one thing. FFXII compares very favorably with software available for XBOX and GC. I'm not certain how you could think otherwise.

"FFXII compares very favorably with software available for XBOX"

Well, there goes what's left of the credibility of this thread. If FFXII is best-of-breed graphics wise for ps2, then it most certainly does NOT compare favorably to the best the xbox has to offer if you're talking jaggies.

Clearly you're a ps2 apologist on any and all levels. You battle common sense by muddying the waters with overly technical explanations for why the ps2 has awful jaggies. When proven wrong you condescend. I just jumped on the thread to call you on kicking a very good console after it's death in excusing a ps2 design defect.

But keep telling people that everything looks fantastic because it's actually anisotropic mipmapping, or huge frame buffers, or it's just the reality of resolution. It's all just empty argument. If FFXII was reviewed as an xbox or Gamecube game, it would be marked down significantly for blocky, aliased graphics. But for the ps2, it's great.

all ps2 games have jaggies, some more then others. Its a 6 year old system. But the graphics are pretty much incredible as the designers put alot of work and effort in to every little detail of the game. Just look at the huge citites you go though, its not just lame cookie cutter graphics. Every store, room and area are all intricately detailed.

You seem to have very limited knowledge on both the workings of these machines as well as how various displays available on the market handle them.

Do you really think I'm simply making these things up? I've spent an obscene amount of time testing all of these machines across a wide variety of televisions and understand how it all works. You can't even be bothered to use the correct terminology. You resort to insults rather than logic.

I have never denied that image quality is an issue when dealing with the PlayStation 2. In general, the image quality produced is inferior to that produced by other machines of that generation. The difference is nowhere near as large as you seem to believe, however. There are also additional factors to consider (the type of television being used has an incredible impact on the image quality, for example).

None of the 480p machines produce "jaggy free" visuals. I believe that visuals are not defined by image qualtiy alone, however...

That's why I said...



I've found, though comprehensive testing, that LCDs of all make and model are unable to handle low resolution 480i material anywhere near as well as a high end plasma or CRT. Obviously, as with any display, the results vary per set, but even the highest quality processing will still deliver results inferior to other displays when dealing with 480i sources.

Processing is vital, but the panel used in a display has an impact as well.


Brand new to the forums here, but this thread seems to address the specific issue I've been trying to resolve. I recently purchased a Samsung 40" LCD (1080p) and was loving everything about it until I picked up FFXII. The image quality (not the artwork) is truely horrendous on this game, but it sounds like this is specifically an issue with LCD screens and the way they convert/display 480i and not the game itself if I'm understanding correctly.

I'll see if I can track down a digital cam to post some screens, but the visuals don't look anywhere near as good as the pics that have been posted here. In fact, they look just as bad as goatwuss and eawil (from a similar thread -- can't post urls yet) suggest, so I'm guessing we have similar setups. I get some sort of vertical banding that almost looks like a kaleidescope effect, completely destroying the image quality (even the cinematics, though to a much lesser degree). Is there nothing that can be done for an LCD to improve the quality when displaying 480i (like a stand alone converter or something)? Dark1x, you seem to have a pretty good understanding of this, can you shed any light on the details behind why LCDs have this problem vs. other displays?

Since I just got the TV, I'm starting to consider returning it for a plasma...

Thanks for any input you might have.



As a side note, I found that if I sit back far enough from the screen the visuals soften up just enough so that I can at least tell what's on screen and I'm enjoying the game very much. I just wish it looked like the screens that others have posted here. heheh

Final Fantasy XII is pretty aliased. Of course I'm used to PC games at 1920x1200 and 360 so YMMV. Aliasing is not a widespread PS2 problem anymore, sad to see this ugly topic rear its head all these years later. Even early on in the PS2's life the Baldur's Gate: DA engine was rendering double? vertical height framebuffer to add some antialiasing, taking it one step further past what was done on the DC.

It absolutely did not and I am completely baffled as to where you got that idea stuck in your head. The PowerVR chipset did support a form of super sampling, but it was far too slow and was avoided.

The Dreamcast had fantastic output for its time and rendered to a full 640x480 framebuffer 95% of the time. Of course, unlike PS2, the majority of games ran in 16-bit color (PS2 games are typically 24-bit) and display fairly severe dithering when viewed through VGA.

I want to correct you on something. I had a PowerVR Neon 250, based off of the Dreamcast's graphics chip. At 640x480 you could run any PC game of the time well enough with AA. Why didn't Dreamcast games use it? Well, most were locked at 60 frames per second I think was the main reason.

Also, most of the dithering on the DC probably came from texture compression. TBH I'm not sure what color depth most DC games ran in but the tile-based rendering made the cost for 32 bit color pretty cheap compared to other chips of the time.

It wasn't until 2003 that AA on the PC even started to become usable (despite the fact that cards had supported it for years). AA has only been a factor for consoles during this generation (X360 and beyond). Even there, you don't have every game using AA and many that do only use 2x AA along with NO AF.

Do you see what I'm saying now? DC supported AA (super sampling), but the software did not take advantage of it as it was too slow. Using specification sheets to support your argument simply doesn't work here.

Kind of funny but the DC (and its PC cousin, the PowerVr Neon 250) were the first consumer graphics chips that supported a hardware FSAA solution. Back in '99.

Dalz - I have a plasma display, and I have tried FFXII on a CRT monitor as well. Unfortunately, there isn't anything we can do to fix the image quality, it really just is really poor with all the aliasing and the shimmering. This is not TV type dependent as others would suggest - the problem is the game.

Dalz - I have a plasma display, and I have tried FFXII on a CRT monitor as well. Unfortunately, there isn't anything we can do to fix the image quality, it really just is really poor with all the aliasing and the shimmering. This is not TV type dependent as others would suggest - the problem is the game.


Thanks for your response goatwuss. I did some further testing (actually took a PS2 to Best Buy and they let me plug it into a few different displays), and I found a couple of things out. First, the Samsung model I bought does have issues with the scaler -- the whole series, not just a defect in my TV. Even the CG movies show terrible banding, which is odd. Plugging the PS2 into a Sony LCD got rid of most of the banding in the CG scenes, but, as you suggest, made little difference to the in-game aliasing issues. It's pretty painful to look at up close, but somewhat bearable from a distance.

Unfortunately, I ran out of time before I got a chance to try a plasma display, but it sounds like that doesn't make a difference either, from your experience.

Would it be possible for you to post a screen shot in-game as well as a CG scene? I'd like to see if you're getting the same thing as me. I'm still trying to track down a digital cam so I can do the same.

As a side note, has anyone tried playing FFXII on the PS3? I'm wondering if it upconverts at all...

Thanks!

The game is straight up ugly. I dont understand why this has bloomed into a large discussion. FF12 was graded against its peers and the ps2 is not an hd console like the xbox or 360 is/was. The game looks hideous on anything larger than 36 inches imo. Its why i stopped playing my ps2 a long time ago. The reason you buy this game is the gameplay and it does have great graphics for a ps2 title. PS2 is some OLD hardware.

This is really scaring me. I still want to play this game and God of War II.

Do they really look that bad? Or are we just spoiled now with HD gaming?

Honestly, it looks just fine for a Playstation 2 game.

This is really scaring me. I still want to play this game and God of War II.

Do they really look that bad? Or are we just spoiled now with HD gaming?

We're spoiled. ;)

i've been playing it on my sony KDFE50A10 and i have to say that it does look pretty bad. the cut scenes aren't smooth at all, but i'm enjoying the game a lot.

I have somewhat of a difficult time taking pictures of a TV screen, but here is my attempt. There are some PS3 pictures on the bottom for comparison. If you want my opinion, I think FFXII looks fine, even on an HDTV.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/IeraseU/Games/DSC_3928.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/IeraseU/Games/DSC_3940.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/IeraseU/Games/DSC_3905.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/IeraseU/Games/DSC_3907.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/IeraseU/Games/DSC_3923.jpg

Thanks to all for the input so far. I took a few screens just to demonstrate what I'm running into on my TV for comparison with others' posts and experience with their own HDTVs. One thing I found in doing so is that the vertical banding I'm getting (well beyond just bad aliasing) is far worse when the graphics are in motion. The still shots dramatically reduce the noticeable effects, but if you can imagine extrapolating what banding you do see here all the way to the top and bottom of the screen and then shimmer it almost like a kaleidescope, you get an idea of what I'm trying to resolve.

I know the pics aren't the greatest quality. Hopefully it gets the point across, though. One thing that strikes me as odd is that the cinematics in other games, like FFX2, are perfectly clean, no aliasing, no vertical banding, but the brand new FFXII is horrible.

Anyway, I'm not expecting 360 or PS3 quality here, just trying to figure out why it's as terrible as it is.

Erm, ok, where'd the images go? I uploaded them -- thought they would insert where my cursor was. What did I do wrong?

Ok, I guess I need to host them somehwere? I thought AVS hosted them after you uploaded. Sorry, I'm kind of a noob when it comes to posting with images, but it looks like I figured it out...

Cinematics:

http://img01.picoodle.com/img/img01/6/11/30/f_1000430i_8f18m_a8bc48cd.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?srv=img01&img=/6/11/30/f_1000430i_8f18m_a8bc48cd.jpg)

http://img01.picoodle.com/img/img01/6/11/30/f_1000432i_8f18m_c8322afb.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?srv=img01&img=/6/11/30/f_1000432i_8f18m_c8322afb.jpg)

http://img01.picoodle.com/img/img01/6/11/30/f_1000442i_8f18m_3091065f.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?srv=img01&img=/6/11/30/f_1000442i_8f18m_3091065f.jpg)

In-game:

http://img01.picoodle.com/img/img01/6/11/30/f_1000457i_8f18m_d13d59b6.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?srv=img01&img=/6/11/30/f_1000457i_8f18m_d13d59b6.jpg)

http://img01.picoodle.com/img/img01/6/11/30/f_1000465i_8f18m_0cf7d5c6.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?srv=img01&img=/6/11/30/f_1000465i_8f18m_0cf7d5c6.jpg)

This is not like the 1st day of school. You do need a good LCD tv to have good graphic!! LOL, Samsung is just another overpriced brand with ok quality of everything. Compare it with Sharp, u'll see the difference. And all those Sony 1366x768 panels are from Samsung too, so don't expect much!

U may want to say PS2, GC & XBox are the same generation consoles, but they are not!! PS2 & DC are, and GC & XBox are like a half step more! And when people do reviews for a PS2-only game, it's for the comparsions on games of PS2. So FFXII does deserve a 10 for graphic.

And why the heck would u start a thread for the ps2 well-known function "no-aa"!?

Good lord, Dalz, those are terrible.

Unfortunately, I ran out of time before I got a chance to try a plasma display, but it sounds like that doesn't make a difference either, from your experience.

You heard wrong. While the jagged edges will continue to exist, a good plasma will produce an image (with 480i PS2 titles) vastly superior to any LCD. There is no comparison.

As a side note, has anyone tried playing FFXII on the PS3? I'm wondering if it upconverts at all...

Absolutely not! I have a PS3 and FFXII looked precisely the same as the pictures you just posted. It looks terrible. There are some threads this in the forum about how bad PS2 titles look on the PS3. Common wisdom was that this had something to do with the PS3 having a terrible deinterlacing alogorithm when playing 480i games. However, your images were taken on a PS2, correct? Are you using component, s-video, or composite?

IeraseU, are your images on a PS2 or PS3? Because you clearly are not having any of the problems we are having with butt-ass ugly picture. I have not heard of anyone with a PS3 without such problems, so I'd be interested in your setup.

I recent plugged my ps1(Dino Crisis) into my pioneer plasma and it didnt look as bad as those pictures above.

I would suggest its your screen but even then I wouldnt expect miracles. I've not seen that vertical banding before.

However, your images were taken on a PS2, correct? Are you using component, s-video, or composite?

While I believe his images were taken on a PS2, I believe they demonstrate poor internal scaling of the TV in use. The PS3 does a terrible job with non-standard resolutions, and it seems that this TV does as well. There are plenty of displays that do a *MUCH* better job with it.

Really, PS3 scaling issues are related entirely to non-standard resolutions. Games that actually use 640x448 or 640x480 (even if field rendered) actually look perfectly fine on the PS3 (though still worse than when a good TV scales it). Many games use resolutions like 512x512 or something equally bizarre. Vertical resolution makes a larger difference than horizontal resolution and some developers chose to use a higher vertical resolution at the expensive of horizontal resolution (and the results were pretty decent), but low quality scaling routines simply can't deal with it.

Dalz - Your screenshots of how bad FFX12 look mirror my experiences on both Plasma and CRT. It is just trying to render graphics that it clearly shouldn't be attempting. My advice is to do what I'm doing - and try and enjoy the game and not pay attention to the graphics.

For good graphics on a PS2 - try games like:
* god of war
* Baldur's Gate: Dark alliance
* Tekken 5
* Katamari Damaci

There are plenty of others too

Dalz - Your screenshots of how bad FFX12 look mirror my experiences on both Plasma and CRT.
They certainly do not mirror mine, though, so I have to question which TVs you are using and how you adjusted them. FFXII does not suffer from those artifacts on my television.

They certainly do not mirror mine, though, so I have to question which TVs you are using and how you adjusted them. FFXII does not suffer from those artifacts on my television.

Mine either.

For a game that was made to be played on what? 7 year old hardware? I think FFXII is about as good as you can do.

Those pictures are on PS2. I tried FFXII on PS3 via HDMI and it did not look as nice as it does playing on PS2.

I also tried the following games on PS3 (with results):

Street Fighter Collection: Looks the same as on PS2, no problems
Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistance: Looks the same as PS2 but some screen tearing (like you would get with v-sync turned off on a PC)
Resident Evil 4: Looks the same as on PS2
Shadow of the Colossus: Some texture shimmering on the main character, other then that looks fine. I should mention that there is very little difference between choosing progressive and interlaced mode in this game (there is a menu option to enable progressive mode).





IeraseU, are your images on a PS2 or PS3? Because you clearly are not having any of the problems we are having with butt-ass ugly picture. I have not heard of anyone with a PS3 without such problems, so I'd be interested in your setup.

I really appreciate all the input.

Yes, I'm playing on a PS2 with Monster component cables (though I get the same results with standard component as well). I've tried swapping cables, setting the PS2 and TV to 16:9, 4:3 and Fit, swapped PS2s, and tested this on another identical display (Samsung LN-S4095D) in the store as well as on the Sony KDL-40XBR3. The results were identical on the other Samsung, but somewhat better on the Sony, at least with the cinematics (in-game still looked pretty bad).

I've been through all of the options for my TV, however, I didn't get into all of the menu options for the Sony. I think I read somewhere that vertical stretch can help resolve these types of issues but that not all TVs can do this?

I'm not expecting miracles from the PS2 or obviously anything near 360 or PS3 levels of quality, and I'm still enjoying the game very much, but it's such a shame that the visual quality is worse than anything I've played since, oh, the CGA/EGA graphics era? heheh

But since there are some people actually getting decent visuals on an HDTV, I think I may make one more trip to Best Buy and test a few more displays before deciding on a return/exchange. Are there particular functions or settings that I should look for on a TV that would indicate how well they'll scale and output to 480i (like the vertical stretch)?

Have you all tried setting the output to 480i for ps2 games?

They certainly do not mirror mine, though, so I have to question which TVs you are using and how you adjusted them. FFXII does not suffer from those artifacts on my television.

I was going to go back to playing it on the PS2, but briefly played through to the same place I was on the PS3 save. Nothing stood out to me as looking different, other than text may have been a tad blockier on the PS3, but nothing that would keep me from unhooking the PS2 and moving it out of my HT. I'm outputting it to a Sony Pearl on an 88" screen.

cdhender: yep, I've tried that with no difference in results.

For anyone that's experiencing the same banding issue as me, I went back to Best Buy once more and plugged in the PS2 to several more LCD displays (as much as I wanted to try the plasmas as well, I ran out of time... again). On all of the Samsung and Sharp models, the banding is pretty much identical, text is drastically aliased, and it affects the CG scenes as well as the in-game engine. However, on the Sony models the banding is completely non-existent and the CG scenes and text look great. The in-game engine still looks fairly bad, but purely due to the 480i outputing to such a large screen size instead of getting the banding on *top* of the upsizing that I'm currently getting.

Looks like I'm exchanging my TV this weekend...

Just an update to my last:

For anyone interested, here are a couple of things I've run into. I did end up exchanging my Samsung for a Sony KDL-40XBR3. The TV is great, but something I didn't know is that the Sony doesn't output 1080p via component -- strictly HDMI. The Samsung does do 1080p over component. Of course, the big deal here is that the 360 doesn't yet do HDMI and most of my other devices are component only, so I'm relegated to 1080i or using VGA. (On a side note, the Sammy also had a great swivel base that let you rotate the TV -- the Sony doesn't.)

So, having said all this, it brings up a new question for me (which may be best for a different part of the forums). If I pick up a receiver, something along the lines of a Denon 4306, for example, do they truely upconvert all inputs to 1080p or do they simply convert any source to HDMI at the original resolution?

Is there any round-about way to get 1080p on the Sony via component at all? I'm not crazy about dropping the extra wad of cash on the TV and then having to purchase a receiver to boot (though I know there are much cheaper receivers than the 4306...). It just kinda bites when the Sammy worked great in every other way except for the PS2 issue.

Any thoughts/opinions?

Thanks!

Check this out. Count yourself lucky you have the PS2 :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoCD9TwLrVs

Check this out. Count yourself lucky you have the PS2 :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoCD9TwLrVs


Ineresting -- I'm not sure about the loss of color, but the vertical banding is almost identical to what I was getting on my Samsung with the PS2 (as you can see in the images above).

Just an update to my last:

For anyone interested, here are a couple of things I've run into. I did end up exchanging my Samsung for a Sony KDL-40XBR3. The TV is great, but something I didn't know is that the Sony doesn't output 1080p via component -- strictly HDMI. The Samsung does do 1080p over component. Of course, the big deal here is that the 360 doesn't yet do HDMI and most of my other devices are component only, so I'm relegated to 1080i or using VGA. (On a side note, the Sammy also had a great swivel base that let you rotate the TV -- the Sony doesn't.)

So, having said all this, it brings up a new question for me (which may be best for a different part of the forums). If I pick up a receiver, something along the lines of a Denon 4306, for example, do they truely upconvert all inputs to 1080p or do they simply convert any source to HDMI at the original resolution?

Is there any round-about way to get 1080p on the Sony via component at all? I'm not crazy about dropping the extra wad of cash on the TV and then having to purchase a receiver to boot (though I know there are much cheaper receivers than the 4306...). It just kinda bites when the Sammy worked great in every other way except for the PS2 issue.

Any thoughts/opinions?

Thanks!
hmph, i thought 360 can only do 1080p via VGA? It can not do it via component????

Depending on receiver, yes, it will upconvert. I suggest that you check reviews before buying. Also, you might want to wait for new line of 1.3 HDMI receivers which can do 1080p+5.1 audio (1.2 could not).

Ineresting -- I'm not sure about the loss of color, but the vertical banding is almost identical to what I was getting on my Samsung with the PS2 (as you can see in the images above).

Now that I look, that is exactly what it is. You are the first person I have seen this happen to on a PS2.

Now that I look, that is exactly what it is. You are the first person I have seen this happen to on a PS2.

Sounds like there may be different versions of the PS2 out there (which we already know, of course). Apparently the PS3 got the bad version of the chip?

That YouTube video is horrible!

spwolf: The 360 does do 1080p via component for games only. For the HD DVD drive, however, you have to go VGA.

So you're saying the upconvert actually means it will output everything at 1080p regardless of the original resolution? Just making sure I understand...


aeon/Shape: Actually, it was happening on two different PS2s (one original, one new slimline). I swapped cables, everything -- the problem is with the Samsung TV itself in this case.

I appreciate the comments!

The PS2 has to make greater trade-offs between texture and image quality than the other systems of its generation, including Dreamcast.

Many PS2 games render at a resolution lower than what they display and just scale up to output. Sometimes they even output at the slightly sub-VGA 640x448.

A few titles, including some of the highest profile games like Gran Turismo 3, Jak and Daxter, and Killzone, render half resolution fields in alternation to produce a full res image that's only half as solid as normal. As long as the framerate doesn't drop, this won't really be noticeable on standard TVs since they update only half of the image at a time anyway, but it does preclude the game from supporting proscan. If the frame rate does drop while field rendering, half the detail in the image will drop out along with it.

Most PS2 titles render color at 24-bits and output at 16-bits, so dithering is minimal.

The PS2's mipmapping accounts only for a texture's distance and not for its incline, so its not effective at removing shimmer on the most troublesome textures.

The Dreamcast always renders color at 24-bits and typically outputs it at 16-bits, so dithering once again is minimal and can never be compounded worse like all of the other systems sometimes do.

Both the DC and PS2 use mostly bilinear filtering, with the difference being that DC's mipmapping works properly. The Xbox is the best in this aspect because it commonly uses trilinear texture filtering.

For 3D, Z buffer depth, the DC ranks above all of the other systems, including the new consoles and high end PCs with its unconditional, near 32-bit, floating point precision. 24-bit, interger value depth buffering is what's practical for most systems.

Guys, you're aware that there's an issue with many PS2 interlaced games on PS3, right? It appears as if there is some "pixel flipping" occuring, leading to horrible jaggies, which look like vertical barbs on diagonal lines. These jaggies are NOT your "normal" jaggies, but actually a consequence of pixels for adjacent lines getting flipped. There's a HUGE thread at ps underground forums (official playstation forums) about this issue, with tons of screenshots and even videos of the problem. The latest info is that this happens with games that are rendered on 512 pixels instead of 640 and don't provide progressive mode. Supposedly this causes the problem when upconverting to 640 and then filtering. Some people claim that even some new PS2's do this, but I have both a slimline I bought in August and a few year old fatline PS2 and they look the same.

I can personally attest that FF12 and many other games (e.g. Okami) look HORRIBLE - essentially unplayable - on my 1080p 46" Sharp if played on PS3. The difference between PS2 and PS3 picture is stunning.

The FF12 picture on PS2 looks jaggied, for sure. But PS3 picture is flawed and looks much worse and is frankly not playable. Older games do seem to work ok (e.g. Jak II) as do all the games that support progressive scan (if you switch to progressive).

This CAN be fixed via firmware update (as was proven by some 3rd party software that you insert before you start the game and which forces PS2 (PS3 in this case) to render output in progressive mode (not all games work though). But Sony is not acknowledging the issue publicly so no one is certain if this is being worked on at the moment.

I was playing FF12 up until the last 2 hours of the game via standard PS2 composite cables on a 20" Trinitron Flat Screen. Picture looked AMAZING, without a doubt the best visuals I've seen from any RPG on the PS2 that graced my WEGA. I did not see ANY jaggies..and the movies looked breathtaking, especially the airship sequences and the beautiful dark vibrant blue skies and clear white clouds! FFXII has the best skies I have ever seen!

On my new 40" LCD TV, I finished the last 2 hours of FFXII and it looks kinda worse (I'm still using composite and PS2)...there's noticeable pixelating on the TV I haven't bothered tweaking things yet so this is hardly optimum settings...but it's playable and I'm not complaining at all...I haven't bothered to try this on my PS3 as I have heard too many complaints about PS2 games on PS3 looking worse...I'm currently going through Kingdom Hearts 2 now that I finished FF12 (yeah I'm kinda behind on the times). It's playable, and the movies looked pretty good...so no complaints here...

This CAN be fixed via firmware update (as was proven by some 3rd party software that you insert before you start the game and which forces PS2 (PS3 in this case) to render output in progressive mode (not all games work though). But Sony is not acknowledging the issue publicly so no one is certain if this is being worked on at the moment.

aos007 - I hadn't seen anything about that 3rd party software (the only one I've seen has been reviewed to have little to no effect, though I don't recall the name of it). Do you know where I can get the one you mentioned? I'd like to give it a shot. I've read a few places that you can hit a key combo (something like triangle + x at bootup) haven't worked on my original or slimline PS2.

I've been considering getting a video processor to resolve the problems, but the good ones seem to run $3k and up, so I haven't picked one up yet...

so i'm curious, if you played FF12 on the PS3, will that console do a better job with the game on a HDTV plasma? i got a panny plasma and FF12 can't be stretched all the way to the sides even in 16:9 mode within the game. :(

PS2 Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance had to trade away full height rendering and the potential for native proscan to afford its supersampled AA.

The PS3's jagged display of certain PS2 games is a scaling issue with PS2 games that didn't use a standard horizontal output resolution. On PS2, the CRT controller would stretch the games to fit properly, and proscan mode, which bypasses the CRT, required a standard resolution to be used anyway.

DANG IT! MY 2600 Basketball game has jaggies... WTF!

http://www.atariage.com/2600/screenshots/s_Basketball_1.png

Peace,
Dreamaster

aos007 - I hadn't seen anything about that 3rd party software (the only one I've seen has been reviewed to have little to no effect, though I don't recall the name of it). Do you know where I can get the one you mentioned? I'd like to give it a shot. I've read a few places that you can hit a key combo (something like triangle + x at bootup) haven't worked on my original or slimline PS2.

It'd be best to read this thread (http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=ps3&thread.id=808212). It's a very long thread though. But most relevant info is already in the first post, including pictures. The software is called Xploder HD. Most people are not keen on shelling extra $ on that though, and it only works with a handful of games, but it's an option.

Look, If we want results or even a response from Sony about the scaling issues with 720p and PS2 games, posting here does little.
Want results??
Go over to Videogame press sites (Like IGN)
Navigate to their PS3 section.
Find the place where you can write to them (For IGN go to MailBag)
bonbard them with comments on this issue and demand that they cover it.

The lack of press coverage on these issues is shady. Why would IGN not be warning people about the crappy handling of PS2 games or the conversion issue. They should be all over it. Is Sony influencing the media to keep quite, or are we not making enough noise?

go to those sites and send messages. Easier than writing a letter (only takes a minute)

letse get results fellow PS3 owners

LOL )))))))))))))
WBR,
Alex

holy batman! Talk about thread ressurection luckylucker! :eek:... now i need to finish FFX to play FFXII after seeing this thread! :D

holy batman! Talk about thread ressurection luckylucker! :eek:... now i need to finish FFX to play FFXII after seeing this thread! :DDon't bother finishing FFX. There's no story continuity to worry about between the two games. Skip ahead to FFXII. It's a much better game.

And in light of the resurrected thread's topic, I prefer the crispness of the jaggies to the dullness of the smoothness processing.

@confidenceman

Hey i take offense to that! FFX was more wicked than FFXII!!!

I spent more hours on it than any other game until Oblivion came out 5 years later...

Don't bother finishing FFX. There's no story continuity to worry about between the two games. Skip ahead to FFXII. It's a much better game.

And in light of the resurrected thread's topic, I prefer the crispness of the jaggies to the dullness of the smoothness processing.

FFX > FFXII

I just didnt get into the whole auto-battle system of FFXII....they just put in too much RTS-type control into battle. To each his own though.

Dont waste your money, or time, on FFX-2 though....unless you want to jump into the role of the Spice Girls or P*ssycat Dolls. It's a role playing game made for 12 year old girls based on the exact same gameplay and environment of FFX.

Don't bother finishing FFX. There's no story continuity to worry about between the two games. Skip ahead to FFXII. It's a much better game.

And in light of the resurrected thread's topic, I prefer the crispness of the jaggies to the dullness of the smoothness processing.

yea i'm gonna have to disagree on that one. IMO X is MUCH better that XII. It's XII's battle system that spoiled it for me.

Just my .02

The only good thing about X was the battle system. It's the most perfect iteration of the turn-based JRPG combat ever. Everything else about the game sucks. Distractingly bad voice-acting (other than the work of John DiMaggio). Tidus wins for worst voice acting in a video game ever. Even worse storyline. Uninteresting art design. Etc. Etc.

So long as you could get behind the MMO-style combat of XII, everything else falls into place. The voice acting is worlds better. And the storyline is light years beyond X's in terms of its complexity and logic. It falls apart a bit in the last couple of hours, but otherwise, it's among the best written JRPGs ever. Unlike other genres, story is hugely important in RPGs, so a bad story can kill the game like it do for me with FFX.

The only good thing about X was the battle system. It's the most perfect iteration of the turn-based JRPG combat ever. Everything else about the game sucks. Distractingly bad voice-acting (other than the work of John DiMaggio). Tidus wins for worst voice acting in a video game ever. Even worse storyline. Uninteresting art design. Etc. Etc.

So long as you could get behind the MMO-style combat of XII, everything else falls into place. The voice acting is worlds better. And the storyline is light years beyond X's in terms of its complexity and logic. It falls apart a bit in the last couple of hours, but otherwise, it's among the best written JRPGs ever. Unlike other genres, story is hugely important in RPGs, so a bad story can kill the game like it do for me with FFX.

Ha...the game went like this....10 minutes of battle....45 minutes of unavoidable cutscenes....20 minutes of battle.......30 minutes of cutscenes.....45 minutes of cutscenes.

Actually, i already fully cleared FFX (with ultimate weapon and all) a long time ago... so i just wanted to replay this fantastic game!

I haven't tried FFXII yet but i heard alot of critics about it. and IMO. FFX is one of the best FF... i think i like it even more than FFVII.. /flamesuit on! :p

This just in!!! Reader disagrees with Review! Film at 11!!!!

krimson - the point of the thread is not that the ps2 has jaggies. It's that IGN (and other mags pro reviews) are giving FF12 a PERFECT 10/10 on graphics, despite the graphically deal-breaking pixelated and blocky edges.

Don't bother finishing FFX. There's no story continuity to worry about between the two games. Skip ahead to FFXII. It's a much better game.

Blasphemy. There's never been continuity between the FF series games, that's not the issue here - definitely finish it. X is an epic game, most consider it among the best RPGs of all time. Was also a major evolution for Square Enix from the I - IX games in the series to the current gen.

The only good thing about X was the battle system. It's the most perfect iteration of the turn-based JRPG combat ever. Everything else about the game sucks. Distractingly bad voice-acting (other than the work of John DiMaggio). Tidus wins for worst voice acting in a video game ever. Even worse storyline. Uninteresting art design. Etc. Etc.

So long as you could get behind the MMO-style combat of XII, everything else falls into place. The voice acting is worlds better. And the storyline is light years beyond X's in terms of its complexity and logic. It falls apart a bit in the last couple of hours, but otherwise, it's among the best written JRPGs ever. Unlike other genres, story is hugely important in RPGs, so a bad story can kill the game like it do for me with FFX.
I completely disagree. The storyline falls on confusing and difficult to follow if you can't play it all the way through. The enjoyment factor for X was much higher for me than XII. I haven't gotten through the second half of XII.